Instigator / Con
4
1641
rating
63
debates
65.08%
won
Topic
#718
Is Christianity Disadvantageous To An Individual?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Wrick-It-Ralph
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
7
1402
rating
44
debates
40.91%
won
Description
We will argue whether Christianity, based on the Bible, is disadvantageous to the person who believes. This is based on the New Covenant, not the Old Covenant.
Round 1
Con
#1
This is focusing mostly on my opponent, since he is making the positive claim, but I will present my evidence as to why I think it is advantageous. Please note that this debate is only concerned with the person who believes and not anybody else.
First, studies have shown that Christians tend to be happier. They were ranked second only to Hindus, and those with no religion were ranked the lowest.
Second, being a Christian gives hope. We are given eternal life, but also a promise for a relationship with God.
Third, there are no negative effects of Christianity.
There’s not much else to say, so I will give the mic to my opponent and then focus on rebuttals.
Pro
#2
While my opponent does not necessarily make a claim to counter me, I will note that any claim that "Christianity is advantageous" would require a BoP.
If my opponent's argument is that he simply doesn't believe my claim, then he only need provide evidence for counterclaims instead.
Either way, My opponent having a positive claim will not hurt his case, but rather serve as an additional hurdle for me to jump.
My reasons for adopting this claim are:
1. Christianity can waste you life.
While it is true that Christianity can give you hope, one must ask themselves what you have to give up for this hope. The answer is your life.
In order to get access to this hope, you have to dedicate yourself to a life of worship and adopt a set of tenants. Some of which are immoral.
This means that I spend my whole life condemning homosexuals and acting as if I have all the time in the world.
Since I believe in eternal life, that means I don't value the life I have right now, Who needs a bank account when I'm going to heaven anyway? Who needs to treat people with respect if I'll just make up for it in heaven?
Ultimately, the happiness that one receives from "hope" is nothing more than a front loaded proposition. I get a set of benefits in the beginning, but in the end, I waste my life and fall into depression when I finally realize that this life is all I had.
2. Christianity makes you adopt impractical and immoral ideas
Jesus said "slave obey your masters" This is immoral and impractical. Anybody who adopts Christianity runs the risk of falling prey to this idea.
Jesus told people not to wash their hands. This is impractical and just plain gross. This is definitely disadvantageous.
Jesus told people to turn the other cheek. This is impractical and doesn't actually solve any problems. Should I turn the other cheek if someone wants to kill me?
Jesus told people to love God before Their parents. This is impractical and immoral. No loving God would want such a thing and people who follow this idea are necessarily going to treat people like crap compared to their God. This is why worship is not healthy.
3. Christianity is divisive.
Christianity causes families to break up. Parents disown their children and kick them out of the house. Christians naturally segregate themselves from non believers and believers of other religions whether they want to or not. Their tenants naturally lead them to this disadvantageous behavior.
Now my opponent may attempt to say that not all Christians follow these tenants. My opponent might try to commit a no true scottsman fallacy and say that people who follow these tenants are "not true Christians". But this topic is about Christianity being disadvantageous, This means we have to see how The New Covenant affects ALL Christians on average.
We can't pick and choose the people who fit our narrative, so I will ask my opponent to explain how these tenants that I've named are not disadvantageous.
Your Floor.
Round 2
Con
#3
First of all, I apologize for the counterclaims I presented in round 1. I only did that because I did not want to have a completely blank first round, but I agree that a counterclaim is unnecessary.
Second, some of your claims operate off of an assumption that Christianity is false. I would prefer that we approach this from an agnostic point of view to avoid spiraling into a God debate. Is that ok?
“Now my opponent may attempt to say that not all Christians follow these tenants. My opponent might try to commit a no true scottsman fallacy and say that people who follow these tenants are "not true Christians". But this topic is about Christianity being disadvantageous, This means we have to see how The New Covenant affects ALL Christians on average.”
I’ll try to avoid doing this.
“We can't pick and choose the people who fit our narrative, so I will ask my opponent to explain how these tenants that I've named are not disadvantageous.”
I obviously can’t prove that those tenants aren’t disadvantageous, because they are, so I am rather going to prove that they are either untrue, outside of the bounds of Christianity, or inapplicable.
“In order to get access to this hope, you have to dedicate yourself to a life of worship and adopt a set of tenants. Some of which are immoral.”
Such as? I will respond to the ones you mentioned, but please let me know if you believe that there are more.
“This means that I spend my whole life condemning homosexuals and acting as if I have all the time in the world.”
Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct Christians to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community. In fact, it tells us to do the opposite:
Matthew 7:1: “Judge not, that he be not judged.”
This means that those who do what you said do it based on their own feelings and presuppositions.
As for living as if you have all the time in the world, there is nothing in the Bible commanding this and no reason to do so, because we still must work to live a good life on this earth. I’ve never heard of a Christian living in the manner that you describe, and as you said, we are discussing how Christianity affects people on average.
“Since I believe in eternal life, that means I don't value the life I have right now, Who needs a bank account when I'm going to heaven anyway? Who needs to treat people with respect if I'll just make up for it in heaven?”
Why wouldn’t you value your current life? You’ve given no reason for that. As to the bank account, you need one to live a good life today. As to respecting people, we must do that, one, because it is the right and nice thing to do, and two, because the Bible commands us to.
Matthew 7:12: “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
I could turn that logic around and say why have a bank account or respect others since we are all going to die anyway? It’s the same situation, and you really have given no reason for this situation to accurately apply to solely Christianity and all Christians.
“Ultimately, the happiness that one receives from "hope" is nothing more than a front loaded proposition. I get a set of benefits in the beginning, but in the end, I waste my life and fall into depression when I finally realize that this life is all I had.”
This works if you use the assumption that Christianity is wrong, but you have yet to prove that. This is why I suggested that we operate from an agnostic view so that we don’t end up arguing whether Christianity is true or not and deviate from the topic of the debate.
Also, in the future, could you cite all scriptures? It’s annoying to have to find them myself.
“Jesus said "slave obey your masters" This is immoral and impractical. Anybody who adopts Christianity runs the risk of falling prey to this idea.”
I'm assuming that you mean Colossians 3:22. The context shows us that this is concerned with Christians having integrity and being obedient, not slavery. This has to do with discipleship.
“Jesus told people not to wash their hands. This is impractical and just plain gross. This is definitely disadvantageous.”
I’m assuming you’re referring to Mark 7. In that case, nowhere in that chapter does Jesus tell us not to wash our hands, so I’m not sure where you got that from.
“Jesus told people to turn the other cheek. This is impractical and doesn't actually solve any problems. Should I turn the other cheek if someone wants to kill me?”
This solves quite a few problems. The scripture is talking about returning what other people give you. So if someone tries to kill me, I’d try to kill them in return. Jesus was not saying that we cannot defend ourselves, but rather that we must stop returning tit for tat. This stops people for killing people in return, and overall decreases violence. That solves quite a few problems, contrary to what you said.
“Jesus told people to love God before Their parents. This is impractical and immoral.”
Why is it impractical or immoral? We place our parents above everyone (for the most part) because they birthed us and raised us, so why then wouldn’t God be above them since he’s given us literally everything, including eternal life?
“No loving God would want such a thing and people who follow this idea are necessarily going to treat people like crap compared to their God. This is why worship is not healthy.”
First of all, who are you (or I) to dictate what God should want? I don’t mean to offend you, but you can’t simply dictate what God wants from your own opinion.
Second, Jesus said to esteem God more than our parents, not to love our parents less than God. Our love for God is going up, our love for our parents is not going down. The way we treat everyone else doesn’t change.
“Christianity causes families to break up. Parents disown their children and kick them out of the house.”
Where in the Bible does it say to do this? I will go ahead and say it doesn’t, so anyone who does this is operating out of their own will with no affiliation to Christianity.
“Christians naturally segregate themselves from non believers and believers of other religions whether they want to or not. Their tenants naturally lead them to this disadvantageous behavior.”
One, where’s your proof of this claim? Two, don’t atheists naturally segregate themselves from believers of any religion? How is that any different or better?
Pro
#4
Well, I wasn't necessarily saying that Christianity is false in the scope of this debate, but rather I was alluding to probabilities. So in this scenario, we must at least acknowledge that there are no guarantees for a believer to enter their holy place. I'm thinking of this slightly from the view of pascal's wager but the modern one, not the original that left out all the proper factors.
I’ll try to avoid doing this.
I concur.
Such as? I will respond to the ones you mentioned, but please let me know if you believe that there are more.
Actually, I would like to add that Some Christians, especially watchtower, likes to refuse medical treatment. That is HIGHLY disadvantageous. So thanks for giving me a chance to add that, sincerely.
Nowhere in the Bible does it instruct Christians to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community. In fact, it tells us to do the opposite:
I'll tackle this with a simple joint question.
A) Does The New Testament call homosexuals abominations by name? Yes.
B) How does the Bible hand abominations? With disgust.
Depending on the degree of the disgust, this might affect the immorality of a specific Christian. However, At no time is it ever beneficial and at the very least, this will give the average Christian quite a low opinion of the homosexual. Even Pro LGBT churches still think homosexuals are abominations, but simply choose to adhere to liberal standards (Which I'm cool with even if it is logically invalid to do so. Because at least they're being more human.)
As for living as if you have all the time in the world, there is nothing in the Bible commanding this and no reason to do so, because we still must work to live a good life on this earth. I’ve never heard of a Christian living in the manner that you describe, and as you said, we are discussing how Christianity affects people on average.
Really? Because I've accounts of Christians being robbed and then praying that this was their time to join the lord. The Bible clearly states at least three times to not want for this world. Even without a direct bible quote. It's quite clear that The New Covenant offers you eternal life and it necessarily follows that at least some of those people are going to take death more likely if they believe the story whole sale.
Why wouldn’t you value your current life? You’ve given no reason for that. As to the bank account, you need one to live a good life today. As to respecting people, we must do that, one, because it is the right and nice thing to do, and two, because the Bible commands us to.
Well I'm not quite spouting this off the top of my head. Do keep in mind that not every Christian shares your exact tenants. There are some sects that use the very same bible as you to justify giving away all of one's possessions.
Jesus said this directly during the sermon on the mount. Before you correct me, I am aware that Bible scholars don't agree that it was a direct commandment, but rather a lesson for that specific "type" of person
But nonetheless, people interpret it both of those ways and both of those ways leads to people emptying out there bank accounts.
I could turn that logic around and say why have a bank account or respect others since we are all going to die anyway? It’s the same situation, and you really have given no reason for this situation to accurately apply to solely Christianity and all Christians.
Well, that's not true because I don't have to go through life without tenants. I can create my own tenants or adopt the tenants developed through evolution, which is what most of us do anyway. Even without religious, I still get hungry and thirsty and other feelings as well and these give me motivation to live and have money. You might not like that answer, but it's true.
This works if you use the assumption that Christianity is wrong, but you have yet to prove that. This is why I suggested that we operate from an agnostic view so that we don’t end up arguing whether Christianity is true or not and deviate from the topic of the debate.
I could turn this around and say that it only works for you if Christianity was true. From a probability standpoint. There are countless religions and the chances of picking the correct one are slim to nil. So even becoming a Christian doesn't give one good odds of heaven because they might have picked the wrong sect. Maybe the Mormons or the jews or the muslims or the brama are correct. so yes, it's a frontloaded proposition. One is only guaranteed the "starting happiness" and the rest is just chunks from the flesh.
Also, in the future, could you cite all scriptures? It’s annoying to have to find them myself.
They were well known scriptures and half the voters read the bible regularly including the atheists. I think we can give the crowd some credit here.
I'm assuming that you mean Colossians 3:22. The context shows us that this is concerned with Christians having integrity and being obedient, not slavery. This has to do with discipleship.
Well here's the way I see it. Jesus says verbatim "Slaves obey your masters". There is really no context in which this is practical or moral unless the next words out of his mouth were something to the effect of "but not really" or "I was joking" or "unless they try to enslave you" The only moral thing for Jesus to say about a slave is "Free yourself and all adjacent slaves as soon as humanly possible using reasonable violence if necessary" But that is not remotely what he said.
Also, while we're on the jesus subject. Jesus specifically stated that he came to fulfill The Old Covenant, So that means that The Old Covenant is back on the table because I'm allowed to use The New Covenant as per the rules of this debate and that is contained within it.
Your floor.
Round 3
Con
#5
Actually, I would like to add that Some Christians, especially watchtower, likes to refuse medical treatment. That is HIGHLY disadvantageous. So thanks for giving me a chance to add that, sincerely.
That's a very good one! It makes me mad when people do this. However, this is not supported by the Bible, so this is from their own opinions and presuppositions, not the Bible.
I'll tackle this with a simple joint question.A) Does The New Testament call homosexuals abominations by name? Yes.B) How does the Bible hand abominations? With disgust.Depending on the degree of the disgust, this might affect the immorality of a specific Christian. However, At no time is it ever beneficial and at the very least, this will give the average Christian quite a low opinion of the homosexual. Even Pro LGBT churches still think homosexuals are abominations, but simply choose to adhere to liberal standards (Which I'm cool with even if it is logically invalid to do so. Because at least they're being more human.)
Allow me to turn that question around.
A) Does The New Testament call sinners abominations by name? Yes.
B) How does the Bible hand abominations? With disgust.
So, therefore, Christians by this logic must hate literally everyone, including themselves, because everyone is a sinner. God treats every sin equally, so if a Christian treats someone from the LGBTQ+ community any less than what a human should be treated like, they must treat themselves, their family, and everyone they know or meet the same way. However, that's obviously ludicrous.
Really? Because I've accounts of Christians being robbed and then praying that this was their time to join the lord. The Bible clearly states at least three times to not want for this world. Even without a direct bible quote. It's quite clear that The New Covenant offers you eternal life and it necessarily follows that at least some of those people are going to take death more likely if they believe the story whole sale.
Not wanting for this world is about not clinging on to worldly things. That isn't a command to be ready to let go of life. And about your last comment, it necessarily follows that some white people will use their skin color as justification to kill black people. Does that make being white disadvantageous? Of course not! Unless it is commanded, it does not make Christianity disadvantageous.
Well I'm not quite spouting this off the top of my head. Do keep in mind that not every Christian shares your exact tenants. There are some sects that use the very same bible as you to justify giving away all of one's possessions.Jesus said this directly during the sermon on the mount. Before you correct me, I am aware that Bible scholars don't agree that it was a direct commandment, but rather a lesson for that specific "type" of personBut nonetheless, people interpret it both of those ways and both of those ways leads to people emptying out there bank accounts.
Where did Jesus say this in the sermon on the mount? I looked at it and I didn't see this. And as to interpretations, as I gave above, anybody can interpret anything in anyway which they want. Does that make the thing being interpreted bad or disadvantageous? No.
Well, that's not true because I don't have to go through life without tenants. I can create my own tenants or adopt the tenants developed through evolution, which is what most of us do anyway. Even without religious, I still get hungry and thirsty and other feelings as well and these give me motivation to live and have money. You might not like that answer, but it's true.
The same is true for Christians, which is why we still have motivation to have bank accounts and to respect others.
I could turn this around and say that it only works for you if Christianity was true. From a probability standpoint. There are countless religions and the chances of picking the correct one are slim to nil. So even becoming a Christian doesn't give one good odds of heaven because they might have picked the wrong sect. Maybe the Mormons or the jews or the muslims or the brama are correct. so yes, it's a frontloaded proposition. One is only guaranteed the "starting happiness" and the rest is just chunks from the flesh.
You're operating from a standpoint that the truth is random. If you say that evolution is true, then I could make up three different alternatives and then say that I have a 75% chance of being right while you have a 25% chance of being right. The number of options available don't make the truth more or less likely. In fact, I could say that atheists have an X percent of being right that religion is wrong because it is outnumbered. This is obviously not true.
Also, even if Christianity is wrong, what have Christians lost?
They were well known scriptures and half the voters read the bible regularly including the atheists. I think we can give the crowd some credit here.
This was simply about convenience for me, not the voters. I don't want to get the scripture wrong and then have you say that the scripture I was interpreting was incorrect.
Well here's the way I see it. Jesus says verbatim "Slaves obey your masters". There is really no context in which this is practical or moral unless the next words out of his mouth were something to the effect of "but not really" or "I was joking" or "unless they try to enslave you" The only moral thing for Jesus to say about a slave is "Free yourself and all adjacent slaves as soon as humanly possible using reasonable violence if necessary" But that is not remotely what he said.
First of all, this was Peter speaking, not Jesus. Second, the Bible uses metaphors and figurative language all of the time. Jesus said that no one can follow him unless they hate their mother, father, and siblings. However, this is obviously not true literally, so context just shows us that we must esteem him more than our family. The same goes here. Context is everything.
In fact, like in Philemon, Peter has discussed freeing slaves.
Also, I would like to know why you didn't respond to the rest of my rebuttals. Did you agree with my responses there, or did you run out of time or something?
Also, while we're on the jesus subject. Jesus specifically stated that he came to fulfill The Old Covenant, So that means that The Old Covenant is back on the table because I'm allowed to use The New Covenant as per the rules of this debate and that is contained within it.
How does Jesus saying that he came to fulfill the Old Covenant mean that everyone else must fulfill it as well? If anything, it means he was fulfilling it so that we don't have to. Galatians 5:14 says:
"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Over to you. :)
Pro
#6
That's a very good one! It makes me mad when people do this. However, this is not supported by the Bible, so this is from their own opinions and presuppositions, not the Bible.
Well this would be a no true scottsman fallacy if you supported this idea. I agree that The Bible may not necessarily reflect this view per se (If it does I'd be happy to know in the comments for future debates), but they are using the same Bible as you to reach that conclusion. Like I said before, we can't judge this debate off of what we think a Christian SHOULD believe. We have to look at how all Christians behave. So anybody who uses the Christian bible as their basis for their tenants applies to this conversation. This includes many different sects with disadvantageous practices.
So, therefore, Christians by this logic must hate literally everyone, including themselves, because everyone is a sinner. God treats every sin equally, so if a Christian treats someone from the LGBTQ+ community any less than what a human should be treated like, they must treat themselves, their family, and everyone they know or meet the same way. However, that's obviously ludicrous.
First of all, I'm glad we can agree that The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. That's good faith debating. Thank you. However, The Bible does not call every person an abomination. So while The Bible might call everyone a sinner, it does not call everyone an abomination. In fact, The Bible tells you to love all sinners as if they were your neighbor. So going by your logic, this would be a contradiction because then they shouldn't be treating abominations with disgust and yet The Bible says to do that as well.
This helps to support my point that being a Christian is disadvantageous. It leads people to these confusing nonsensical beliefs. While you can assert that you don't interpret The Bible this way, The Westboro Church would disagree with you because they love sinners but not homosexuals and they're Christians.
Not wanting for this world is about not clinging on to worldly things. That isn't a command to be ready to let go of life. And about your last comment, it necessarily follows that some white people will use their skin color as justification to kill black people. Does that make being white disadvantageous? Of course not! Unless it is commanded, it does not make Christianity disadvantageous.
Ahh!! But what if there was a holy book that said White people were better than Black people? It would be disadvantageous then wouldn't it? The problem isn't merely that people do bad things. The problem is that The Bible makes it easier to justify doing bad things. Some people actually think that they are doing God's work when they commit moral acts and if they didn't believe in God, they wouldn't be able to say something like that. This might not be your beliefs, but it is the belief of many Christians.
Where did Jesus say this in the sermon on the mount? I looked at it and I didn't see this. And as to interpretations, as I gave above, anybody can interpret anything in anyway which they want. Does that make the thing being interpreted bad or disadvantageous? No.
Oh it's definitely in there. A man ask Jesus something to the effect of "how do I get salvation?" and Jesus answers to him directly that he should give away all of his possessions and wealth.
Christians tend to interpret it one of two ways. The "official" way if that word can even apply here is that Jesus was not speaking to all people but simply to what would help that specific man and I'm okay with that. The second view is that it was a lesson for everyone to take and I think this is justifiable but flimsy and that it would probably depend on the person.
Either way. People interpret this the second way in some cases and that is disadvantageous.
Even when they interpret it the first way, if they find themselves identifying with the character Jesus spoke with, they might still end up in the same bad scenario.
The same is true for Christians, which is why we still have motivation to have bank accounts and to respect others.
It's true for some Christians, I'll agree with that. But you realize that when a Christian does this, it's not their religion that is not advantageous here, but rather the fact they were smart enough to know their religion was potentially disadvantageous.
The very fact that Christians have to do this helps to prove my point.
As an Atheist, I don't have to "fight" my religious tenants, because I don't have any, so I'm free to find the absolute best values without holding me back, that puts Christians at a disadvantage to me because there tenants are set in stone and they can only evolve within the confines of their rigid systems.
You're operating from a standpoint that the truth is random. If you say that evolution is true, then I could make up three different alternatives and then say that I have a 75% chance of being right while you have a 25% chance of being right. The number of options available don't make the truth more or less likely. In fact, I could say that atheists have an X percent of being right that religion is wrong because it is outnumbered. This is obviously not true.
Never did I say the truth was random. That's false attribution of my position. I'll assume you misunderstood or you're wording it strangely. It's not that the number of options changes the truth, it changes our chances of being correct. The only way to know which is better is to weigh each option against the knowledge we have. We know that religious contradict each other, so they can't all be right. After that, we see how much evidence there is for each option.
Atheism has the most proof behind it because science disproves many religious claims by showing them physical and historically impossible.
Young Earth: Disproven by both evolution and distance of stars
Genesis Creation Account: Disproven because it's physically possible for things to be made in that order along with many many other scientific defeaters.
Omnipotence: Disproven logically scientifically
other Omnis: Disproven logically and scientifically
Global Flood: Disproven by science.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. If we're HONESTLY ranking these claims by probability, atheism beats all of the other claims combined.
Also, even if Christianity is wrong, what have Christians lost?
Their lives. The morality. If God doesn't exist, that means her never gave any moral edicts and things like slavery and homophobia and circumcision, etc ,etc.
All that would have been immoral and you spent your whole life living a lie. Since a person only gets a very limited time on this earth, I would say that's a pretty big lost.
Little math quiz.
If I wanted to live my in way X but I force my self to live way Y for the sake of eternal life and I do this for half my life, what have I lost?
The answer: Half of everything I wanted in my life.
You could get into semantics and say this isn't perfectly half
To which I would answer: Approximately 33% of the things I wanted in my life.
Still seems like a steep bet.
So to be religious, I give up about 33% of everything I'll ever want in exchange for a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001%(it's actually smaller but I got bored) chance of getting into heaven.
Why is this chance so low you ask?
BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT GOD ACTUALLY WANTS.
God is just as likely to want atheism as he does Christianity.
God might have religion as much as I do. God might think it's silly for people to worship him when they know nothing about him. Wouldn't you?
If you were God, would you send people to hell for not being Christians? I'm hoping the answer is no.
If the answer is no, then doesn't mean you're more moral than The Christian God?
If the answer is yes, then please explain how there can be any situation where it is moral to send someone to hell for not believing in something when you gave them no reason to believe in you.
First of all, this was Peter speaking, not Jesus. Second, the Bible uses metaphors and figurative language all of the time. Jesus said that no one can follow him unless they hate their mother, father, and siblings. However, this is obviously not true literally, so context just shows us that we must esteem him more than our family. The same goes here. Context is everything.
Okay, I'm all for treating metaphors like metaphors, but there is no good metaphor for this. It's not that I haven't considered the context. I can tell by reading this that it's not a parable. Also, while it might have been peter's account, it was peter's account OF Jesus. Furthermore, some Christians do actually view this as justification for indentured servitude which is just fancy slavery with more rules. It's still telling slaves not to rise up against their masters and we can even look at this historically and verify that the politics of the time endorsed slavery and it was advantageous for them to have this verse be interpreted literally.
I see no evidence of being a metaphor. A metaphor say "X is Y" or simile says "X is like Y" As a linguistics enthusiast, I can tell you that reading this plain off the page, this looks to me like the imperative mood which is a direct order. Now that might not be the case, but people will and have read it that way.
How does Jesus saying that he came to fulfill the Old Covenant mean that everyone else must fulfill it as well? If anything, it means he was fulfilling it so that we don't have to. Galatians 5:14 says:
Sure, that's a fair question I'll address it.
The fulfilling part is speaking to sacrifices, at least that's how I've seen most Christians interpret it, so this is all I can go off of. Jesus "fulfilling" the old covenant is about them not having to appease god by physical means (sacrifice) Some Christians use this as reasoning to not circumcise, which I'm cool with. Whatever keeps them off my son's penis.
However, Jesus made it clear that they still had to follow The original mosaic code, which is why people still follow the ten commandments. So at the very least, I can advocate for some of The Old Testament, So I will credit you by saying all sacrifices are off the table and a large chunk of deuterotomy. Sorry if I spelled that wrong.
Fair deal?
Honestly I'm not sure it matters, I'm just trying to find a good line, most of what I'm saying here is still reflected in The New Testament anyway and ultimately this goes of how The Bible affect Christians so some Christians are going to read The New Testament. There's all kinds of ways I can show how this is relevant to the argument.
That's why I don't believe in restricting the opponents arguments. Sometimes it's okay (Like Presupposing God existing to argue a theist topic) But in this case, limiting how people interpret The Bible just ends up Being Goal Tending.
"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
The Bible does not count abominations as "neighbors" Case a point, Westboro.
Your floor.
Round 4
Con
#7
First of all, I would like to make it clear that both I and my opponent are ignoring my first round because a counterclaim is unnecessary. I simply did not want to have a blank round. Please disregard that, voters.
Well this would be a no true scottsman fallacy if you supported this idea. I agree that The Bible may not necessarily reflect this view per se (If it does I'd be happy to know in the comments for future debates), but they are using the same Bible as you to reach that conclusion.
This would not be a no true scottsman fallacy, because I am not making the claim that they aren't Christians. However, this debate is about Christianity, which is grounded in the Bible, and as you just said, this concept is not supported by the Bible, meaning that it is irrelevant.
Like I said before, we can't judge this debate off of what we think a Christian SHOULD believe. We have to look at how all Christians behave. So anybody who uses the Christian bible as their basis for their tenants applies to this conversation. This includes many different sects with disadvantageous practices.
The debate isn't whether Christians can be disadvantageous to themselves through certain interpretations of the Bible, it is whether believing in Christianity is disadvantageous.
Your argument is that because some people may interpret the Bible wrongly, that makes Christianity disadvantageous. This is like saying being white is disadvantageous because you may interpret your skin color as making you superior to everyone else. The possibility of a misuse of Christian doctrines is not a disadvantage inherent to the faith, as that is brought on by the person interpreting it themselves, not Christianity.
First of all, I'm glad we can agree that The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. That's good faith debating. Thank you. However, The Bible does not call every person an abomination. So while The Bible might call everyone a sinner, it does not call everyone an abomination. In fact, The Bible tells you to love all sinners as if they were your neighbor. So going by your logic, this would be a contradiction because then they shouldn't be treating abominations with disgust and yet The Bible says to do that as well.
The Bible never says to treat abominations with disgust.
Excuse me, you're right that the Bible calls everyone a sinner, not an abomination. That's my bad.
By the way, some other abominations include lying, spreading mischief, and spreading strife, all of which are accomplished when one discriminates against the LGBTQ+ community. Do you see the hypocrisy? What I'm saying is that one cannot discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community without discriminating against themselves or being a hypocrite. This is clearly outlined in the Bible, and we are told not to discriminate or judge anyone. So again, this is caused by personal presuppositions and not the Bible.
This helps to support my point that being a Christian is disadvantageous. It leads people to these confusing nonsensical beliefs. While you can assert that you don't interpret The Bible this way, The Westboro Church would disagree with you because they love sinners but not homosexuals and they're Christians.
Again, these people lead themselves to become hypocrites. Someone doesn't become racist because they were born white, they become racist because they are egotistical and narcissistic (spelled right on the first try, finally :D). Christianity does not cause this behavior.
Ahh!! But what if there was a holy book that said White people were better than Black people? It would be disadvantageous then wouldn't it?
Yes, but the Bible doesn't say this.
The problem isn't merely that people do bad things. The problem is that The Bible makes it easier to justify doing bad things. Some people actually think that they are doing God's work when they commit moral acts and if they didn't believe in God, they wouldn't be able to say something like that. This might not be your beliefs, but it is the belief of many Christians.
So if the Republican party didn't exist, people wouldn't have to be subject to possibly justifying something bad? Christianity is not accountable for the bad choices that people make. If it's not supported by the Bible, then it is simply that person's personal belief.
Oh it's definitely in there. A man ask Jesus something to the effect of "how do I get salvation?" and Jesus answers to him directly that he should give away all of his possessions and wealth.Christians tend to interpret it one of two ways. The "official" way if that word can even apply here is that Jesus was not speaking to all people but simply to what would help that specific man and I'm okay with that. The second view is that it was a lesson for everyone to take and I think this is justifiable but flimsy and that it would probably depend on the person.Either way. People interpret this the second way in some cases and that is disadvantageous.Even when they interpret it the first way, if they find themselves identifying with the character Jesus spoke with, they might still end up in the same bad scenario.
I know what you're talking about, but that was not on the sermon on the mount. This is why I asked you to cite all of your scripture references so that there wouldn't be any confusion.
The scripture that you are referring to is Matthew 19:21. It says "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me." However, context matters. Firstly, this man had gone to Jesus claiming to have never sinned. This was Jesus showing the man his pride and that he was not perfect. Look at Matthew 19:24-26: "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
Jesus was showing the man that no one is perfect, and that everyone needs forgiveness in order to be saved. That was the lesson, and anything else is taken out of ignorance and is not the cause of Christianity.
It's true for some Christians, I'll agree with that. But you realize that when a Christian does this, it's not their religion that is not advantageous here, but rather the fact they were smart enough to know their religion was potentially disadvantageous.The very fact that Christians have to do this helps to prove my point.As an Atheist, I don't have to "fight" my religious tenants, because I don't have any, so I'm free to find the absolute best values without holding me back, that puts Christians at a disadvantage to me because there tenants are set in stone and they can only evolve within the confines of their rigid systems.
No, it doesn't help you. You are saying that they are ignoring Christianity when they do those things, but nowhere in the Bible does it say to be disrespectful or not to have a bank account. They are just doing what is common sense, just like you, it is never refuted by the Bible or Christianity. They are not fighting any religious tenants.
Never did I say the truth was random. That's false attribution of my position. I'll assume you misunderstood or you're wording it strangely. It's not that the number of options changes the truth, it changes our chances of being correct. The only way to know which is better is to weigh each option against the knowledge we have. We know that religious contradict each other, so they can't all be right. After that, we see how much evidence there is for each option.
You're essentially saying that every religion has an equal chance of being correct. That's not true. The evidence for Christianity completely overwhelms the others.
Atheism has the most proof behind it because science disproves many religious claims by showing them physical and historically impossible.Young Earth: Disproven by both evolution and distance of starsGenesis Creation Account: Disproven because it's physically possible for things to be made in that order along with many many other scientific defeaters.Omnipotence: Disproven logically scientificallyother Omnis: Disproven logically and scientificallyGlobal Flood: Disproven by science.I could go on, but I think you get the point. If we're HONESTLY ranking these claims by probability, atheism beats all of the other claims combined.
You're ASSUMING all of those to be true, when in fact, they are not. You can't simply say they are.
Their lives. The morality. If God doesn't exist, that means her never gave any moral edicts and things like slavery and homophobia and circumcision, etc ,etc.All that would have been immoral and you spent your whole life living a lie. Since a person only gets a very limited time on this earth, I would say that's a pretty big lost.
None of those things apply to Christians.
Little math quiz.If I wanted to live my in way X but I force my self to live way Y for the sake of eternal life and I do this for half my life, what have I lost?The answer: Half of everything I wanted in my life.You could get into semantics and say this isn't perfectly halfTo which I would answer: Approximately 33% of the things I wanted in my life.Still seems like a steep bet.So to be religious, I give up about 33% of everything I'll ever want in exchange for a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001%(it's actually smaller but I got bored) chance of getting into heaven.
What desires does one have to give up to be a Christian? If you're saying sinning, that's a GOOD thing. I don't see how someone would have to give up half of what they want, and you have not shown why.
Why is this chance so low you ask?BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT GOD ACTUALLY WANTS.God is just as likely to want atheism as he does Christianity.God might have religion as much as I do. God might think it's silly for people to worship him when they know nothing about him. Wouldn't you?
We do know what God wants because the Bible says so. And God is not just as likely to want atheism as he does Christianity, that is just your personal opinion. We know stuff about God through the Bible. Christians form a relationship with him.
If you were God, would you send people to hell for not being Christians? I'm hoping the answer is no.If the answer is no, then doesn't mean you're more moral than The Christian God?If the answer is yes, then please explain how there can be any situation where it is moral to send someone to hell for not believing in something when you gave them no reason to believe in you.
God sends people to hell for sinning, not for a lack of belief in him. However, this is not relevant to the topic of the debate anyway.
Okay, I'm all for treating metaphors like metaphors, but there is no good metaphor for this. It's not that I haven't considered the context. I can tell by reading this that it's not a parable.
What you "can tell" is not proof of anything. The context, such as Peter condemning slavery in his various letters, shows us that this must mean something other than slavery.
Also, while it might have been peter's account, it was peter's account OF Jesus.
No, it was not. This was a letter that Peter wrote to Colossians.
Furthermore, some Christians do actually view this as justification for indentured servitude which is just fancy slavery with more rules. It's still telling slaves not to rise up against their masters and we can even look at this historically and verify that the politics of the time endorsed slavery and it was advantageous for them to have this verse be interpreted literally.I see no evidence of being a metaphor. A metaphor say "X is Y" or simile says "X is like Y" As a linguistics enthusiast, I can tell you that reading this plain off the page, this looks to me like the imperative mood which is a direct order. Now that might not be the case, but people will and have read it that way.
It is not even remotely saying that. It is saying to have integrity when obeying the instructions of those in authority over us. I've shown this through context multiple times, and you've given no proof of your claim except "I read it as this." Context is everything, and context is what I used here.
However, Jesus made it clear that they still had to follow The original mosaic code, which is why people still follow the ten commandments. So at the very least, I can advocate for some of The Old Testament, So I will credit you by saying all sacrifices are off the table and a large chunk of deuterotomy. Sorry if I spelled that wrong.
All I said was that we were arguing about Christianity based in the New Covenant. I never said that you couldn't use the Old Testament. I also never said that the law was invalidated.
Honestly I'm not sure it matters, I'm just trying to find a good line, most of what I'm saying here is still reflected in The New Testament anyway and ultimately this goes of how The Bible affect Christians so some Christians are going to read The New Testament. There's all kinds of ways I can show how this is relevant to the argument.That's why I don't believe in restricting the opponents arguments. Sometimes it's okay (Like Presupposing God existing to argue a theist topic) But in this case, limiting how people interpret The Bible just ends up Being Goal Tending.
I didn't mean to restrict your argument, but I didn't want to consistently return to this thing about being liberated from the constraints of the law. It gets repetitive and takes away from the debate.
The Bible does not count abominations as "neighbors" Case a point, Westboro.
Where does the Bible say that abominations are not "neighbors?" Please point me to that scripture, because I've never read one saying so.
As to your Westboro example, Republicans never say that immigrants are equal to Americans. Case a point, Donald Trump. Do you see how ridiculous that is? You can't simply point to an outlier and say "This group believes this so the whole group of Christians must as well.
Pro
#8
First of all, I would like to make it clear that both I and my opponent are ignoring my first round because a counterclaim is unnecessary. I simply did not want to have a blank round. Please disregard that, voters.
Woah there. Slow down buddy!! First of all, I did not agree to disregard any rounds. Anything you say is part of your argument period. So claims you made in the first round stand as need a BoP if they were claims.
Furthermore, I think you misunderstand the nature of what a skeptics position is in debate. If I have the BoP, then I simply have to provide evidence for the claim. However, you job is to counter the evidence and the only way for you to do that is to make a counterclaim.
So if you make no claims, then while you might not have a BoP. You also have no counterclaims either, so that means all of my arguments slide by unchecked.
You can't have it both way, you either need counterclaims which come with their individual BoP, or you don't have anything at all.
I want to make it clear to the audience that the BoP that a debate has is only concerning the topic itself.
BoP applies to ALL positive claims. In order to even contest a claim formally, one has to take up their own BoP.
Now if the only thing you're going to say in this debate is "I don't believe your evidence" then fine, but that means you don't get to make any claims about god. You would just have to sit there and keep saying "I don't believe the evidence"
So you need to decide before the debate ends if you're going to make any point at all, because unless you're recanting literally every claim you've made in this debate, then you need BoP for those claims.
This would not be a no true scottsman fallacy, because I am not making the claim that they aren't Christians. However, this debate is about Christianity, which is grounded in the Bible, and as you just said, this concept is not supported by the Bible, meaning that it is irrelevant.
I already gave examples about how The Bible can lead to multiple interpretations. You're misunderstanding my argument. My point is that all of those people that you keep saying "aren't using The Bible" are actually using The Bible, just not in the way you agree with, so you have to count them. If you don't, it's a no true scottsman fallacy. There's not way around it. If the title of the debate was "All catholics" or "all JW's" then that would be a different story, but it's not. It's "
All Christians" so you don't get to pick and choose who you subjectively consider to be a Christian based on your arbitrary standards.
All Christians" so you don't get to pick and choose who you subjectively consider to be a Christian based on your arbitrary standards.
The debate isn't whether Christians can be disadvantageous to themselves through certain interpretations of the Bible, it is whether believing in Christianity is disadvantageous.
That's the same thing. You're just rewording it turning it into a red herring. If people believe in Christianity, then they're more likely to believe The Bible and then they're going to interpret it a certain way. This is bordering on bad faith arguing here. You don't get to keep redefining Christianity the way you like when it suits your argument.
The Bible never says to treat abominations with disgust.
This is false, there are multiple accounts of Jesus treating abominations with disgust and he is God in the flesh according to most interpretations besides The Mormons. The Bible is extremely clear about this. This is even worse for you now because Jesus treats most sinners like their neighbors, so this contrast shows the consistency of the message.
By the way, some other abominations include lying, spreading mischief, and spreading strife, all of which are accomplished when one discriminates against the LGBTQ+ community. Do you see the hypocrisy? What I'm saying is that one cannot discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community without discriminating against themselves or being a hypocrite. This is clearly outlined in the Bible, and we are told not to discriminate or judge anyone. So again, this is caused by personal presuppositions and not the Bible.
Decent rebuttal, but it doesn't work. Jesus says "if your right hand betrays you then cut it off" Now I know he's not literally saying to cut off your hand, although some Christians might think that but I won't count it because the number has to be extremely low on this one. The reason I bring it up is because Jesus is telling you that if your hand is an abomination, that you should treat it with prejudice and do whatever is needed to get to heaven. So he's not saying do it per se, but do what you got to do to get to heaven *wink wink*. Btw, I'm using the scholarly interpretation here because I didn't want to go literal, it just seemed wrong to do it.
Anyway, this clearly shows that even if your hand or your words are the abomination, that you should still hate them. Jesus has shown contempt for things like lies in The New Covenant.
Again, these people lead themselves to become hypocrites. Someone doesn't become racist because they were born white, they become racist because they are egotistical and narcissistic (spelled right on the first try, finally :D). Christianity does not cause this behavior.
You can't say that Christianity doesn't cause it because it's their sole justification for acting that way. People don't kill their kids and then say "I wanted to do it and I used the bible as an excuse" They say "I wanted my kids to go to heaven" and they believed it whole heartedly.
Yes, but the Bible doesn't say this.
Oops, you fell into the wrong rabbit hole my friend. It was analogy. So you basically just admitted that people will do what a book tells them to in some cases. The content of the book doesn't change the fact that people listen to it. By the way, racism is in the bible. The Bible makes multiple claims that the Israelites are god's chosen people and this has bred racism historically.
So if the Republican party didn't exist, people wouldn't have to be subject to possibly justifying something bad? Christianity is not accountable for the bad choices that people make. If it's not supported by the Bible, then it is simply that person's personal belief.
I think you're forgetting what the topic is about. It's is it disadvantageous. It doesn't matter if people do bad things on their own. What matters is that The Bible can amplify a person's ability to do bad things. Doing bad things is disadvantageous because you then face consequences.
Jesus was showing the man that no one is perfect, and that everyone needs forgiveness in order to be saved. That was the lesson, and anything else is taken out of ignorance and is not the cause of Christianity.
See, you're missing the point again. What makes you think that everybody has to interpret things the same way as you to be a Christian. You're just moving the goalpost.
You: "Not disadvantageous"
Me: "what about this Christian?"
You: "that's not a christian"
Me: "what about this Christian?"
You: "that's not a Christian either"
Me: "So which ones ARE christians"
You: "The one who get advantages"
You see the problem here. I'm not trying to pick on you. But this is not healthy debating.
No, it doesn't help you. You are saying that they are ignoring Christianity when they do those things, but nowhere in the Bible does it say to be disrespectful or not to have a bank account. They are just doing what is common sense, just like you, it is never refuted by the Bible or Christianity. They are not fighting any religious tenants.
I never said The Bible said those things. I'm just telling you how people interpret it. You can't deny that people interpret The Bible like this. You might not call them Christians, but everyone in their church does so your subjective opinion about if they're a "true scottsman" doesn't matter.
You're essentially saying that every religion has an equal chance of being correct. That's not true. The evidence for Christianity completely overwhelms the others.
Well, I didn't say they were equally correct. I just said they're all less likely than atheism. Honestly, If we're ranking them, I think Christianity gets stuck at the bottom with all abrahamic religions. Even Greek mythology is more likely to be correct than Christianity. The strongest God claim would be The Deist God by a wide margin.
But aren't we just comparing which turd is shinier at this point? We already know only one can be true, so why does it matter what it ranks. If it doesn't rank 1st, then who cares.
Atheism has the most proof behind it because science disproves many religious claims by showing them physical and historically impossible.Young Earth: Disproven by both evolution and distance of starsGenesis Creation Account: Disproven because it's physically possible for things to be made in that order along with many many other scientific defeaters.Omnipotence: Disproven logically scientificallyother Omnis: Disproven logically and scientificallyGlobal Flood: Disproven by science.I could go on, but I think you get the point. If we're HONESTLY ranking these claims by probability, atheism beats all of the other claims combined.You're ASSUMING all of those to be true, when in fact, they are not. You can't simply say they are.
I'm not assuming. I'm using scientific consensus as a metric. You could say I'm assuming science is true, but you'd be wrong again. I base my epistemology on self evidence so there are no assumptions in my worldview. You're confusing me with a traditional foundationalist.
None of those things apply to Christians.
Special Pleading. I'll make this easy.
If God was proven to be false, would you not have spent your life believing in things based on moral edicts that were not verified the way you think they were?
The answer is yes, but I'll allow you to answer anyway in case you want to elaborate.
What desires does one have to give up to be a Christian? If you're saying sinning, that's a GOOD thing. I don't see how someone would have to give up half of what they want, and you have not shown why.
Okay, this is bad faith arguing for sure. I never said anything about sinning. Sins are only sins because god says they're sins. If god doesn't exist then sins aren't sins anymore so you're using circular logic.
I would like you to answer the question honestly please.
I'll repost it for you
Little math quiz.If I wanted to live my in way X but I force my self to live way Y for the sake of eternal life and I do this for half my life, what have I lost?The answer: Half of everything I wanted in my life.You could get into semantics and say this isn't perfectly halfTo which I would answer: Approximately 33% of the things I wanted in my life.Still seems like a steep bet.So to be religious, I give up about 33% of everything I'll ever want in exchange for a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001%(it's actually smaller but I got bored) chance of getting into heaven.
You said;
We do know what God wants because the Bible says so. And God is not just as likely to want atheism as he does Christianity, that is just your personal opinion. We know stuff about God through the Bible. Christians form a relationship with him.
That's a presupposition. There are countless holy books saying what god wants.
How do you know your book is correct?
How do you know that God wrote your book?
How do you know God even likes your book?
Because The Bible said so isn't a good argument for anything and you know that.
Prove The Bible was written by God or it's nothing more than a bold assertion.
You: I know what God wants
Me: Why?
You: Because The Bible
Me: How do you know The Bible is correct.
You: Because God wrote it.
Me: How do you know That God wrote it.
You: Because The Bible.
Me: *Walking away*
If you were God, would you send people to hell for not being Christians? I'm hoping the answer is no.If the answer is no, then doesn't mean you're more moral than The Christian God?If the answer is yes, then please explain how there can be any situation where it is moral to send someone to hell for not believing in something when you gave them no reason to believe in you.God sends people to hell for sinning, not for a lack of belief in him. However, this is not relevant to the topic of the debate anyway.
Dodging more questions I see. Please answer properly.
I'm not asking what god does to sinners, I've already read his manifesto on that.
I'm asking what YOU Speedrace, would do if you were God.
Please answer the question properly.
What you "can tell" is not proof of anything. The context, such as Peter condemning slavery in his various letters, shows us that this must mean something other than slavery.
Okay, I guess we're playing the solipsism game now. Okay Mr. Smart Guy. Please explain to me how this is a metaphor because it's your claim and you have to provide proof for that claim.
Since metaphors use a very specific grammar structure, this should be easy to prove. Prove that Jesus's "Metaphor" uses this format "X is Y" or "X is like Y"
You can't because that's not what it says. It uses the imperative mood and that is how a laymen will see it and this debate is about ALL Christians, including the layman ones.
No, it was not. This was a letter that Peter wrote to Colossians
Okay Dodgy McDodgerson. It was a "letter that Peter wrote to the Colossians about his account of Jesus" How many times do you intend to kick this can down the street?
It is not even remotely saying that. It is saying to have integrity when obeying the instructions of those in authority over us. I've shown this through context multiple times, and you've given no proof of your claim except "I read it as this." Context is everything, and context is what I used here.
Okay, ignoring the fact that I've already told you that your subjective interpretation doesn't matter. I'm going to also show you that even your interpretation is disadvantageous here.
You're saying it's a lesson to listen to authority.
What if we lived in North Korea?
Or Nazi Germany?
Or were slaves?
Should we respect those authorities? No.
Thank you for demonstrating first hand why Christianity is disadvantageous.
All I said was that we were arguing about Christianity based in the New Covenant. I never said that you couldn't use the Old Testament. I also never said that the law was invalidated.
Cool beans.
Where does the Bible say that abominations are not "neighbors?" Please point me to that scripture, because I've never read one saying so.As to your Westboro example, Republicans never say that immigrants are equal to Americans. Case a point, Donald Trump. Do you see how ridiculous that is? You can't simply point to an outlier and say "This group believes this so the whole group of Christians must as well.
It doesn't say it outright like you just said. But it gives different rules for them. It tells you to be disgusted by abominations and to love all sinners as if they were your neighbors. You can't do both of those things at the same time. Disgust is not something you can do at the exact time as love is the subject of that thing is the same. I might love my spouse, but if I'm disgusted by my spouse, I'm not showing love in those moments, I'm showing disgust and my love only returns once I've eschewed that disgust. I guess that argument would only make sense to married people who also study logic, lol. Small demographic.
I wouldn't quite call Wesboro an outlier per se. But I see what you're getting at. Nonetheless, since this is an argument about norms, we have to look at all of the possible norms that may be established.
Your floor.
Round 5
Con
#9
To voters, me and my opponent talked in the comments and, essentially, we are not disregarding the first round but rather my counterclaim because it is unnecessary. My burden of proof is only in proving my opponent wrong. I apologize for the confusion.
I already gave examples about how The Bible can lead to multiple interpretations. You're misunderstanding my argument. My point is that all of those people that you keep saying "aren't using The Bible" are actually using The Bible, just not in the way you agree with, so you have to count them. If you don't, it's a no true scottsman fallacy. There's not way around it. If the title of the debate was "All catholics" or "all JW's" then that would be a different story, but it's not. It's "All Christians" so you don't get to pick and choose who you subjectively consider to be a Christian based on your arbitrary standards.
I never said that I was picking who is a Christian and who isn’t, and I definitely never said that these people aren’t Christians. What I did say is that their beliefs in that regard are based in their own opinion and presupposition, not the Bible. That means that they are being disadvantageous to themselves; Christianity is not being disadvantageous to them.
That's the same thing. You're just rewording it turning it into a red herring. If people believe in Christianity, then they're more likely to believe The Bible and then they're going to interpret it a certain way. This is bordering on bad faith arguing here. You don't get to keep redefining Christianity the way you like when it suits your argument.
I never tried to redefine Christianity. What I was trying to say was that the personal opinions that one weakly tries to justify with the Bible are not the fault of Christianity. If one wants to incorrectly take something out of the scriptures, that is their DESIRE to, and they will believe that thing whether they are a Christian or not because it is their own opinion.
This is false, there are multiple accounts of Jesus treating abominations with disgust and he is God in the flesh according to most interpretations besides The Mormons.
The Bible is extremely clear about this. This is even worse for you now because Jesus treats most sinners like their neighbors, so this contrast shows the consistency of the message.
No, there are not any examples of jesus reacting abominations as such. You’ve not given a single example of this, and I don’t know of any. Also, even if he did, I originally said that the Bible never commanded US treat abominations with disgust, not that Jesus never did. However, I seriously doubt that he did and you have yet to point to a scripture where he did. You cannot make that claim without proof.
Decent rebuttal, but it doesn't work. Jesus says "if your right hand betrays you then cut it off" Now I know he's not literally saying to cut off your hand, although some Christians might think that but I won't count it because the number has to be extremely low on this one. The reason I bring it up is because Jesus is telling you that if your hand is an abomination, that you should treat it with prejudice and do whatever is needed to get to heaven. So he's not saying do it per se, but do what you got to do to get to heaven *wink wink*. Btw, I'm using the scholarly interpretation here because I didn't want to go literal, it just seemed wrong to do it.
No, Jesus is saying that we need to remove all bad influences. How does “betray you” translate to abomination? It doesn’t. This is not about getting into heaven, it is about surrounding oneself with good influences and not bad ones.
Anyway, this clearly shows that even if your hand or your words are the abomination, that you should still hate them. Jesus has shown contempt for things like lies in The New Covenant.
That scripture never says “abomination,” and contempt and “cutting off” does not equate to hate.
You can't say that Christianity doesn't cause it because it's their sole justification for acting that way. People don't kill their kids and then say "I wanted to do it and I used the bible as an excuse" They say "I wanted my kids to go to heaven" and they believed it whole heartedly.
No, it is not. The Bible clearly says not to kill, so someone who does this is doing it out of their own desires and simply using the Bible as an excuse. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to kill one’s children so they can go to heaven, it says not to kill. This is clearly outlined in the Ten Commandments. Someone who does that is purposefully operating in ignorance.
Oops, you fell into the wrong rabbit hole my friend. It was analogy. So you basically just admitted that people will do what a book tells them to in some cases.
I’ve never denied that fact.
The content of the book doesn't change the fact that people listen to it. By the way, racism is in the bible. The Bible makes multiple claims that the Israelites are god's chosen people and this has bred racism historically.
The Israelites being God’s chosen people isn’t racism. God has shown multiple times in scripture that the Gentiles are entitled to salvation just as much as Israelites. The Israelites themselves were racist, yes, but God told them not to be, meaning that racism is not born out of the Bible.
Romans 9:24-26
“even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’" “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’"
Romans 9:24-26
“even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? As indeed he says in Hosea, "Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’" “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’"
I think you're forgetting what the topic is about. It's is it disadvantageous. It doesn't matter if people do bad things on their own. What matters is that The Bible can amplify a person's ability to do bad things. Doing bad things is disadvantageous because you then face consequences.
Christianity is not disadvantageous because it can be used as an excuse; literally anything can be used as an excuse. This that claim is non-unique. It is the person making the excuses’ fault, not the thing he is using as an excuse. If a child uses a dog eating their homework as an excuse for not having it done, do you take away that dog? No, you teach the child not to make excuses, because it was their fault, not the dog’s.
See, you're missing the point again. What makes you think that everybody has to interpret things the same way as you to be a Christian. You're just moving the goalpost.
I never said that everyone has to interpret it the same way as me. I clearly showed what the scripture said.
You: "Not disadvantageous"
Me: "what about this Christian?"
You: "that's not a christian"
Me: "what about this Christian?"
You: "that's not a Christian either"
Me: "So which ones ARE christians"
You: "The one who get advantages"You see the problem here. I'm not trying to pick on you. But this is not healthy debating.
I never said that these people are not Christians. You’re putting words into my mouth. I said that their beliefs in this regard are born out of their own prejudice and not the Bible. That has nothing to do with their status as a Christian.
I never said The Bible said those things. I'm just telling you how people interpret it. You can't deny that people interpret The Bible like this. You might not call them Christians, but everyone in their church does so your subjective opinion about if they're a "true scottsman" doesn't matter.
Again, you’re putting words into my mouth because I never said that they aren’t Christians. You don’t blame white skin and try to take away white skin when people use it as an excuse to kill black people. You blame the person for making that choice. Likewise, Christianity is not responsible for the ignorance of its followers. If the Bible never said those things, then it’s a closed matter.
Well, I didn't say they were equally correct. I just said they're all less likely than atheism. Honestly, If we're ranking them, I think Christianity gets stuck at the bottom with all abrahamic religions. Even Greek mythology is more likely to be correct than Christianity. The strongest God claim would be The Deist God by a wide margin.
You’ve given no proof for this claim except your personal opinion.
Atheism has the most proof behind it because science disproves many religious claims by showing them physical and historically impossible.
I'm not assuming. I'm using scientific consensus as a metric. You could say I'm assuming science is true, but you'd be wrong again. I base my epistemology on self evidence so there are no assumptions in my worldview. You're confusing me with a traditional foundationalist.
You are assuming. You have cited no evidence for any of those claims. I can and will cite papers that counter all of those.
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/living-evidence-global-catastrophe-microbial-biogeography/
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/six-evidences-of-young-earth/
https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/global/living-evidence-global-catastrophe-microbial-biogeography/
Special Pleading. I'll make this easy.
If God was proven to be false, would you not have spent your life believing in things based on moral edicts that were not verified the way you think they were?
The answer is yes, but I'll allow you to answer anyway in case you want to elaborate.
Yes, but what is wrong with those moral edicts? You yourself just said that they are MORAL. I’m being told not to lie or kill, etc, which is a good thing. That’s not a waste.
Okay, this is bad faith arguing for sure. I never said anything about sinning. Sins are only sins because god says they're sins. If god doesn't exist then sins aren't sins anymore so you're using circular logic.
You’re putting words into my mouth. I never claimed you said anything about sinning, I said “IF you mean sinning” because you were not clear about what you meant. I was simply responding to that in case it was what you meant.
I would like you to answer the question honestly please.
I'll repost it for you
Little math quiz.
If I wanted to live my in way X but I force my self to live way Y for the sake of eternal life and I do this for half my life, what have I lost?
The answer: Half of everything I wanted in my life.
You could get into semantics and say this isn't perfectly half
To which I would answer: Approximately 33% of the things I wanted in my life.
Still seems like a steep bet.
So to be religious, I give up about 33% of everything I'll ever want in exchange for a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001%(it's actually smaller but I got bored) chance of getting into heaven.
Your question is what you lose in that scenario. What you lose depends on what Y is. If it’s Christianity, then no, you wouldn’t have wasted your life. One does not have to give up “half of everything they’ve ever wanted” to be a Christian. Nowhere in the Bible doesn’t it say to give up half of everything you ever wanted in life, unless half of what you ever wanted was to kill a lot of people or something like like that. We give up sin, not our desires. Besides, most people give that up anyway.
That’s a presupposition. There are countless holy books saying what god wants.
We’re arguing about Christianity, not any other religions. Besides that, the validity of the Bible is irrelevant.
How do you know your book is correct?
How do you know that God wrote your book?
How do you know God even likes your book?
Because The Bible said so isn't a good argument for anything and you know that.
Prove The Bible was written by God or it's nothing more than a bold assertion.
Proving the Bible was written by God is completely irrelevant to this debate. It is about whether Christianity is disadvantageous, not whether Christianity is true. You’re deviating from the topic.
You: I know what God wants
Me: Why?
You: Because The Bible
Me: How do you know The Bible is correct.
You: Because God wrote it.
Me: How do you know That God wrote it.
You: Because The Bible.
Me: *Walking away*
Humorous, but it is still not relevant.
Dodging more questions I see. Please answer properly.I'm not asking what god does to sinners, I've already read his manifesto on that.I'm asking what YOU Speedrace, would do if you were God.Please answer the question properly.
I was not dodging the question. You want me to make a false claim, which I was pointing out. Here is my answer:
No, I would not send people to hell for not believing in me.
No, I would not be more moral than God, because he does not send people to hell for not believing in him either.
Actually, the very fact that you’re saying this means that you’re saying that morality is objective.
No, I would not send people to hell for not believing in me.
No, I would not be more moral than God, because he does not send people to hell for not believing in him either.
Actually, the very fact that you’re saying this means that you’re saying that morality is objective.
Okay, I guess we're playing the solipsism game now. Okay Mr. Smart Guy. Please explain to me how this is a metaphor because it's your claim and you have to provide proof for that claim.
Since metaphors use a very specific grammar structure, this should be easy to prove. Prove that Jesus's "Metaphor" uses this format "X is Y" or "X is like Y"
You can't because that's not what it says. It uses the imperative mood and that is how a laymen will see it and this debate is about ALL Christians, including the layman ones.
When Jesus said to hate your family in order to follow him, that was written in the imperative mood. However, it was still figurative language, so that is not a reason to say that this isn’t.
“Okay Dodgy McDodgerson. It was a "letter that Peter wrote to the Colossians about his account of Jesus" How many times do you intend to kick this can down the street?”
No, it is not. These were Peters words, not Jesus’. He was spreading the word of Jesus, but those were his own words that he personally said. I was not dodging anything.
Okay, ignoring the fact that I've already told you that your subjective interpretation doesn't matter. I'm going to also show you that even your interpretation is disadvantageous here.
You're saying it's a lesson to listen to authority.
What if we lived in North Korea?
Or Nazi Germany?
Or were slaves?
Should we respect those authorities? No.
Thank you for demonstrating first hand why Christianity is disadvantageous.
Your rebuttal to my interpretation works only if I said that the scripture means we must obey the orders of everyone. I never said that. I said that we must obey AUTHORITIES. In those cases, you don’t recognize those people as an authority over you because they go completely against what the Bible says, and therefore are not obligated to follow anything they say.
Second, the scripture also has another meaning. It refers to bondservants, people who sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. The word for slavery is ebed in Hebrew, which more accurately mean bondservant. The Bible specifically says to treat them fairly in Colossians 4:1:
“Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”
Second, the scripture also has another meaning. It refers to bondservants, people who sold themselves into slavery to pay off debts. The word for slavery is ebed in Hebrew, which more accurately mean bondservant. The Bible specifically says to treat them fairly in Colossians 4:1:
“Masters, give your bondservants what is just and fair, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”
It doesn't say it outright like you just said. But it gives different rules for them. It tells you to be disgusted by abominations and to love all sinners as if they were your neighbors. You can't do both of those things at the same time. Disgust is not something you can do at the exact time as love is the subject of that thing is the same. I might love my spouse, but if I'm disgusted by my spouse, I'm not showing love in those moments, I'm showing disgust and my love only returns once I've eschewed that disgust. I guess that argument would only make sense to married people who also study logic, lol. Small demographic.
Again, WHERE does the Bible say to be disgusted by abominations? You keep making this claim without showing where it is in the Bible, and it is not true. You’re interpolating that into the scripture because it is convenient for your claim, and that’s dishonest debating.
“I wouldn't quite call Wesboro an outlier per se. But I see what you're getting at. Nonetheless, since this is an argument about norms, we have to look at all of the possible norms that may be established.”
If it isn’t commanded by the Bible, it is completely irrelevant. They are taking their own opinion and following that, so it is not Christianity being disadvantageous because they are not following Christianity in that regard. Norms only matter if the norm is commanded by the Bible, and here it is not.
Pro
#10
I don't like watching debates go into a sea of rebuttals, So I'm just going to pick out the key ones because a lot of them will just be same anyway.
I never said that I was picking who is a Christian and who isn’t, and I definitely never said that these people aren’t Christians. What I did say is that their beliefs in that regard are based in their own opinion and presupposition, not the Bible. That means that they are being disadvantageous to themselves; Christianity is not being disadvantageous to them.
You could say this about anything. The nature of this topic assumes that the tenants have some effect on our life. You can't have it both ways. The fact is they're following the tenants the way they think they should and you don't get to decide that they're not doing it right. What if they think you're not doing it right? What if they think you're not the true scottsman? This is why arguing like this is no productive. We need to use norms.
I never tried to redefine Christianity. What I was trying to say was that the personal opinions that one weakly tries to justify with the Bible are not the fault of Christianity. If one wants to incorrectly take something out of the scriptures, that is their DESIRE to, and they will believe that thing whether they are a Christian or not because it is their own opinion.
This is a repackaging of your last statement. I will employ the same response. You don't get to pick how people read the bible.
No, there are not any examples of jesus reacting abominations as such. You’ve not given a single example of this, and I don’t know of any. Also, even if he did, I originally said that the Bible never commanded US treat abominations with disgust, not that Jesus never did. However, I seriously doubt that he did and you have yet to point to a scripture where he did. You cannot make that claim without proof.
He acts with anger during an exorcism towards the demon because it was an abomination. He does this with lepers as well. The bible makes it clear that abominations are object of hate. It's not even just what Jesus says.
No, Jesus is saying that we need to remove all bad influences. How does “betray you” translate to abomination? It doesn’t. This is not about getting into heaven, it is about surrounding oneself with good influences and not bad ones.
He says abomination in the verse. That's why it's betraying you, because it's keeping you from heaven.
That scripture never says “abomination,” and contempt and “cutting off” does not equate to hate.
Really? so you don't think I hate my hand if I cut it off because it's an abomination? I would think that's quite hateful to my beautiful hand.
No, it is not. The Bible clearly says not to kill, so someone who does this is doing it out of their own desires and simply using the Bible as an excuse. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to kill one’s children so they can go to heaven, it says not to kill. This is clearly outlined in the Ten Commandments. Someone who does that is purposefully operating in ignorance.
The bible does not say not to kill, it says not to murder. Big difference. Killing is totally on the table. also, once again, you don't get to say if they're following the bible or not. This is really sinking your argument and you should have jumped off this earlier. You said you didn't want to commit a no true scottsman fallacy and now you've built your argument on one.
Oops, you fell into the wrong rabbit hole my friend. It was analogy. So you basically just admitted that people will do what a book tells them to in some cases.I’ve never denied that fact.
Right, but you just don't think they're Christians. No true scotssman fallacy again.
The Israelites being God’s chosen people isn’t racism. God has shown multiple times in scripture that the Gentiles are entitled to salvation just as much as Israelites. The Israelites themselves were racist, yes, but God told them not to be, meaning that racism is not born out of the Bible.
Racism is defined as treating or attributing people in a certain way based solely on their race. so yes, this is racism. They even give special rules for how to enslave them.
Christianity is not disadvantageous because it can be used as an excuse; literally anything can be used as an excuse. This that claim is non-unique. It is the person making the excuses’ fault, not the thing he is using as an excuse. If a child uses a dog eating their homework as an excuse for not having it done, do you take away that dog? No, you teach the child not to make excuses, because it was their fault, not the dog’s
Ahh, but are shallow excuses not disadvantageous? If I have an excuses to be bad, it makes it a lot easier for me doesn't it? Indeed it does.
I never said that these people are not Christians. You’re putting words into my mouth. I said that their beliefs in this regard are born out of their own prejudice and not the Bible. That has nothing to do with their status as a Christian.
That betrays your topic. Christianity is in the title. So if you're saying that all the examples I gave are Christians, then you're conceding the debating. If you're not, then you're committing a no true scottsman fallacy.
You’ve given no proof for this claim except your personal opinion.
Pascals wager concerns gambling and I just presented gambling principles so it's not merely my opinion. The idea of years you have being with more is an economic principle, that's not my opinion. The fact that choosing the wrong religion sends you to hell is not my opinion, it's true. so nothing I said here was merely my opinion.
Yes, but what is wrong with those moral edicts? You yourself just said that they are MORAL. I’m being told not to lie or kill, etc, which is a good thing. That’s not a waste.
Because they're opinions. An edict is just an order from somebody. That doesn't make it moral. The term moral here is a misnomer. That's the problem. Christians think they have morals but really they just have somebody's opinion. The opinion of God is no more valuable than the opinion of Sam Harris, Or Ken Hamm. etc, etc.
You’re putting words into my mouth. I never claimed you said anything about sinning, I said “IF you mean sinning” because you were not clear about what you meant. I was simply responding to that in case it was what you meant.
False, you mentioned sin and you're just trying to deflect now. I didn't put anything in your mouth.
Your question is what you lose in that scenario. What you lose depends on what Y is. If it’s Christianity, then no, you wouldn’t have wasted your life. One does not have to give up “half of everything they’ve ever wanted” to be a Christian. Nowhere in the Bible doesn’t it say to give up half of everything you ever wanted in life, unless half of what you ever wanted was to kill a lot of people or something like like that. We give up sin, not our desires. Besides, most people give that up anyway.
Actually it does. It tells you to give your life over to Jesus. That means every time I pray, go to bible study, go to church, feel uncomfortable around a gay person, etc. etc. I'm giving up a little piece of myself for Christiantiy that I never get back. so yes, you are losing about a third of your life.
We’re arguing about Christianity, not any other religions. Besides that, the validity of the Bible is irrelevant.
It's called the outsider's test of faith, if it's relevant to Christianity, I can still use it.
Proving the Bible was written by God is completely irrelevant to this debate. It is about whether Christianity is disadvantageous, not whether Christianity is true. You’re deviating from the topic.
Wrong, The chances of god existing are highly relevant because if Christianity is a lie, then that goes toward making it disadvantageous.
No, I would not send people to hell for not believing in me.No, I would not be more moral than God, because he does not send people to hell for not believing in him either.Actually, the very fact that you’re saying this means that you’re saying that morality is objective.
So you wouldn't send people to hell. that makes you more moral than God. The Bible makes it very clear that hell is a thing so you're just fibbing now. Also, I agree that morality is objective, but that's a debate for another time. I just disagree on the source of morality, God's opinion is subjective.
When Jesus said to hate your family in order to follow him, that was written in the imperative mood. However, it was still figurative language, so that is not a reason to say that this isn’t.
It doesn't matter how you interpret it. It matters how people on average interpret it. People have and still continue to disown their family over religion. it's an indisputable fact.
No, it is not. These were Peters words, not Jesus’. He was spreading the word of Jesus, but those were his own words that he personally said. I was not dodging anything.
Keep kicking that can. Peter was giving an account of jesus, it doesn't matter if it wasn't jesus who said it directly.
The rest of your arguments are no true scottsman fallacies and we've beat that one to death so I think everybody gets it from here.
Good debate.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
To start off with, I’m going to start with general points. There’s lots of Christians, so I’m going to give pro a little leeway in the resolution. I will also aim for “on balance disadvantageous” the resolution wasn’t entirely clear - but was my interpretation of it. I’m also going to go for a little leeway in terms of “Christianity” and “Christians” If Christianity is advantageous but there is no one who technically follows it, it won’t count.
So with that in mind - let’s deal with arguments.
While there are a too many individual points raised to mention them all - the primary thrust from pro is that adherence to Christianity introduces negative impacts to individual individuals - this harm is entirely predicated on God not existing. This harm is only a harm if something neither side shows, or provides probability of is true.
If God exists - then none of these points appear valid. Midway through round 3: pro makes a probability argument - based on science and logic disproving key Christian claims, and that there are multiple other religions. This is touched upon a little bit, but not thrashed out to any meaningful degree. It feels almost like a throwaway point.
In cons opening round, he placed an objective counter claim, supported by evidence that objectively provides an advantage to Christianity whether or not it’s wrong. I would have accepted it as un-refuted had I not been told to disregard it.
Saying this, a small thread that ran through this entire debate was that it’s not clear what the right version of Christianity even is, and that in its own right is disadvantageous. Though it’s mostly teased as a side note: rather than thrashed out as its own point
Pro did do a bit better on these grounds, but this wasn’t tethered to a real harm or explained particularly well imo.
The argument here was lengthy, and really amounted to just back and forth arguments about the meaning and implications of Christianity. It was all mostly subjective arguments that glossed over this key disagreement of Gods existence.
While pro has burden of proof here, I feel con had a duty to hammer home the subjectivity of pros argument in this vein - but really only touched upon it as a request. As the debate went on, I felt that con really just began rejecting pros claims - and a little debate fatigue set in (or my own fatigue as a reader)
It boils down to his arguments about multiple disparate religions, and disproof of God making it more unlikely that “christianity” that an individual follows is objectively correct or will cause the negative effects listed above to be realized without redress.
In my view con does not do enough to address these points consistently, so I am almost forced to accept that there is at least a reasonable doubt about God’s existence and the validity of any individual christian claim. Con needed to either spend most of his time proving God, or muddying the water for this aspect to be refuted - as he didn’t, imo from this the harms introduced by pro follow.
Arguments to pro.
Conduct: round 4 nearly made me award this to con due to pros snarky comments:
“Dodging more questions I see.“
“Okay Mr. Smart Guy.”
“Okay Dodgy McDodgerson”
But there was not enough to award it otherwise.
All other points tied.
"If God doesn't exist, that means her never gave any moral edicts and things like slavery and homophobia and circumcision, etc ,etc."
Where God endorse those? And, don't cite Old testament passages.
You need studies which shows that Christianity is the cause of that.
sorry...those comments to SpeedRace were meant for Wrick-it Ralph
Seems you have Christianity all wrong. REAL Christianity is not about condemning the invididual (i.e. homosexuals) but rather condemning the ACT.
Believing in eternal life does not mean you don't value life. On the contrary, it means that what you do in THIS life DOES matter and has an impact on your eternal life.
What was the context in which Jesus told them not to wash their hands? HOw are YOU so sure your understanding of what Jesus said is the correct understanding?
same
Welp, gg dude nice :D
Someone hurry up and vote for me pls
“they are clearly recognized by God differently from others.”
Pretty much
They are clearly an isolated group of individuals that are segregated from others by God as his chosen people above all others (deut 7:6). They are also the oracles of God's word and many other things. Regardless of any additional roles or responsibilities, they are clearly recognized by God differently from others.
Well, again, they receive responsibility as well as rewards, and besides that, they frequently received many various punishments in the Bible as well, but God’s giving them Moreno responsibility and rewards isn’t evidence that he loves them more
deut 7:6 - KJV
For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath "chosen" thee to be a "special people" unto himself, "above all people" that are upon the face of the earth.
This is one example.. But there are numerous other inferences and suggestions that would imply that's the case. Romans 3 is one example stating Jews are the oracles of his knowledge, further suggesting nepotism.
Lol, to my knowledge God has never said that he loves the Jews more than the Gentiles, which is another factor
haha "I didn't say the color was red, but its not every other color"..
I did, I don’t say “favorite” because of the connotations that come with that, God never said that he would bless others LESS, but rather that the Jews would get blessed MORE, however they still have MORE responsibilities
Not favorite, but they are his chosen people (above others). That makes no sense haha
Read Deut 7:6
Not favorite. Yes, he appointed them as his chosen people to receive many things other people wouldn’t, but that comes with responsibility. They have the responsibility to do good to others. It’s not all sunshine and roses; in fact, the Jews rebelled against their calling many times. Why would they do that if it was only exceptionally good things? It’s almost as if they are an older sibling; they have to do more chores but they also get a car, their own TV, a phone, etc. God was showing that he would bless them I feel they fulfilled their duties
But Jews are God's favorite, above all other people. Would you agree? It's supported by Biblical verses (Romans 3, Deut 7:6, etc)
Seems nepotistic to me..
Gotcha, thanks
A key and common thread that runs through most of the serious debates I’ve seen are that:
1.) Debaters forget what the resolution is.
2.) Debaters get fixated and tied up with the arguments presented to them, and forget to spend the time challenging the assumptions of them. 90% of the time, the arguments made by both sides are absolutely correct: but their correctness depends on the implicit assumptions both sides are being made. I can’t see those assumptions, and they often get hidden or obfuscated - so often I end up having to judge based on which assumption is more compelling, and more justified.
3.) Debaters don’t show the weight of harms.
This is what happened imo - both sides sort of lost track of what each other’s arguments were predicated on - and as pro did a better job of outlining his assumptions and justifying them, it was difficult for me to go the other way.
Imo the debate would have been better served had you adopted the happiness counterpoint, and argued that better - and the remainder was either about Gods existence, or possibility - or simply arguing about how much of a real harm pros points really constitute. If you had argued that pros harms are either rare, or have minimal impact - you could have argued that the objective benefits (happiness, community, overall morality) outweighs them.
The Bible itself doesn’t prefer Jews, however they are God’s chosen people. This essentially means that they were the line through which God chose to birth Jesus. That said, he consistently shows that he loves the Gentiles (such as moi) just as much.
re: You said the Bible doesn't prefer whites to blacks, I agree. What about Jews?
I shant =p
Thanks. Now I know.
Refusing medical treatment usually comes from Jesus, post resurrection, in Mark 16:15-18.
Because you asked for a reference in the future. I didn't read all the comments, so perhaps someone already gave you this?
Don’t hold back on the snarky comments next time, I need something going for me :P
Welp, There’s goes my win ratio lol
Okay, but you literally said that in your debate so why do you need to keep repeating it. it's a voter appeal. This is why I blocked you on DDO because you take this too personally and let it spill out into the comments. Can you just let the debate resolve itself please? This makes arguing against you no fun.
I wasn’t trying to get votes, I was clarifying the position that you warped in the last round.
The debate is over. Please stop making voter appeals in the comments as it's bad conduct and also kind of a cheap move.
I’m not sure if voters will see this, but I never committed a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. When you do that, you say that someone isn’t a Christian, but I never said that. All I said was that those beliefs we were discussing were their opinion and not from the Bible. They’re still Christians. I just wanted to make that clear.
well to me and you, it would just be like therapy or something. But some people add the extra meaning behind that and maybe it acts as a placebo or something, I don't know. I was never a hardcore Christian. I was only soft indoctrinated.
Why couldn't you use prayer instead of using fancy words?
Does it mean more than just prayer?
agreed
Like if the act of prayer made someone happy, that would be a direct tie to religion that would not necessarily be a specific religion. Or if the act of being religious (i.e. having a list of practices that you always acknowledged) might make you happier.
What do you mean by " direct tie "?
Ok, I’m gonna our the following statement at the beginning of the round, check it for me please
To voters, me and my opponent talked in the comments and, essentially, we are not disregarding the first round but rather my counterclaim because it is unnecessary. My burden of proof is only in proving my opponent wrong. I apologize for the confusion.
That's fine, As long as you're still supporting BoP for any claims you make. Not a big deal either way. I have an aggressive tone in my debates, lol. It's the nature of competition
I’m super confused, I wasn’t trying to disregard the round but rather the counterclaim because we both said that the counterclaim was unnecessary, and that my burden of proof was in proving your claims wronga, not giving claims of Christianity actually being advantageous, is that not the case?
True, of course there could be a direct tie that is not named specifically. Are you certain that there is no connection at all?
I shouldn't be talking about this but his source is false. You are not even talking about it so it would not be a problem of the debate. If I was debating I would have said he hasn't filled his burden of proof but if it was shared then I will give my proof but I will acknowledge his source to be incorrect because 1) It is not even sourced properly 2) Even when you find the source it has no mention of Religion.
The height and width have to be the same. The resolution of my computer is 1366x768. In order for it to not show white bars if the actual image is 1366x768 it would require the image to be 768x768 which means a lot from the right and left have to be cropped out in order to do so which does reduce the quality of the picture on this site and might not even be usable.
I would also like to point out that sometimes not every statement needs a direct rebuttal. Some rebuttals will rebuttal whole concepts which ultimately leads to certain ideas being thrown off the table indirectly. If we had to rebuttal every single statement, debates would be too complex for anyone to read and then summarize in their heads.
I think the white bars mean that your photo isn't square.
Thanks for the verification. I only thought it was him because of his profile pic. Once I compared there debate styles, I suspected I may have been wrong, plus he made multiple references to himself on DDO which would be strange if he was incognito.
As for Speedrace's sources, I'm not sure I really need to address them at all and I don't want him to feel like he's being ganged up on by taking your tips, but I do appreciate it. Even if Christianity did make people happier on average, happiness is ultimately subjective and cannot be easily measured by science. The objective practical disadvantages far outweigh any mere happiness especially when we consider that atheists can easily be happy without taking on that baggage.
our_boat_is_right was our_boat_is_right on ddo as well
Thanks, but the white bars don't really bother me that much. I appreciate the offer.
Do you have a link to your picture? I am able to remove the white bars on the left and right. Just noticed it right now.
Okay. Should have kept it to myself. My mistake. The only thing the contender needs to do in order to not be influenced by what I said is simply miss out the only evidence Speedrace gave.
While not against site rules, it is considered bad form to assist someone on a debate (see your comment 32). Debaters should succeed or fail on their own merits, and those debaters who do not receive assistance have a legitimate gripe against those who do, because it provides an unfair and one-sided advantage to their opponents. Really, it's just not appropriate to try to help debaters win specific debates.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/measuringnationalwellbeing/2016
Even this one has nothing to do with Religion.