The Instigator
atheistmaximus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thinkingaboutit
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Angels raped people's daughters.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
thinkingaboutit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,210 times Debate No: 19320
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

atheistmaximus

Pro

I will show that the angel's raped peoples' daughters using the bible.

Genesis 19:8 "Look, I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do to them whatever you please."

If that doesn't imply an involuntary sexual exchange between angels and earthlings, get off the philosophical bandwagon and fall back in the ranks of the sheep. You are dishonest in your interpretations and more inclined to play a pretentious role than to arrive to any logical conclusion unless it sits well with your income generating theory.
thinkingaboutit

Con

Contextomy is not a cute thing to do when you are attempting to state your case. Your post shows ignorance in the matter. Now, I truly hope that you don't read the newspaper or any book this way and not posting the complete verse is a weakest tactic for someone who is trying to sustain a claim. The question I have is, Who is Lot speaking to? Please read and post the entire text within is context.
Debate Round No. 1
atheistmaximus

Pro

The validity of your contextomy accusation does not move the validity of my claim one inch back. It just buys you time.

Would you offer your virgin daughters as trade tools to ANYONE, in exchange of ANYTHING (especially the protection of men)? If the answer is NO, you disagree with this text. If the answer is YES, I rest my case regarding the extremes of delusion that the parties of god are willing to reach in order to not disrupt the sold script. I'm sure then you would kill your son for not offering the "right" sacrifice. Or ask a servant to kill his son as proof of loyalty. Bloodshed, money, violence, mass killings... is there NOT better language to sell love. Call me ignorant all you want, you represent a sect that diminishes in proportion of the general exposure to information. Coincidence? Nah.
thinkingaboutit

Con

Let me remind you,you did not post verse 8 on its entirety and also omitted the surrounding text, I think in order to support your claim. Also, please note that verses 1 through 7 are missing, the rest of verse 8 is missing, and 9 to 10 are missing. The ridiculous thing is that you have made accusations of "dishonest in your interpretations." As of yet I have not attempted to interpret the text. All I am askings is for you to post the ENTIRE text so the reader can at least read it and draw their own opinion regarding your claim.
Debate Round No. 2
atheistmaximus

Pro

Here's my interpretation, which differs from my original, yet my claim still stands: Lot offered his 2 daughter's virginity in exchange for safety of men of God, or somehow of holy value to him. Let me know where I'm wrong before I contineu, oh! authority of biblical interpretation.
thinkingaboutit

Con

How can you consider this statement to be true or even that it flow logically in regards your original claim? "Here's my interpretation, which differs from my original, yet my claim still stands…"

Reminders:

a) You opened by accusing whoever took you on of being "dishonest in … interpretations." Note there is still NO interpretation offered for the text by me.
b) I did ask for the entire text to be posted so the reader can come to their own conclusion. But, we do find you offering an "interpretation," without posting the entire text, excluding the reader from having a chance to see if your "interpretation" is accurate.

IF I was the reader, I would like to actually read the text before concluding that your claim is accurate.

c) Your original claim: "Angels rapped people's daughters." How can you state the following: "…my interpretation, which differs from my original..., yet my claim still stands"? How can your original claim "still stand" when in the same sentence you say that your "interpretation" "differs from the original.
Debate Round No. 3
atheistmaximus

Pro

They were MEN, not ANGELS. Ok. Are we good to continue? Anything else to cling on? ARE WE GOOD TO CONTINUE? HE IS OFFERING HIS DAUGHTERS..... SICK ENOUGH.
thinkingaboutit

Con

Genesis 19:4-10 "4.Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5.They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof. 9. "Get out of our way," they replied. "This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. 10. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door."

It looks like you are changing your original claim "Angels raped peoples daughters" and now have a new claim?
The issue was never about the wording "angels vs men." The actual questions that I raised to you was "Who is Lot speaking to?" in order to get a clear understanding about your claim. But now you raise a new claim. Your new claim is irrelevant to the current conversation and what I can see, is that you are practicing the "Moving the Goal Posts Fallacy."

Please note that what I mean by "irrelevant" is NOT that your new claim should NOT be addressed, but that it has nothing to do with the your current topic/original claim and has no place in this particular conversation, but, it could be addressed in a future one, separately.
Debate Round No. 4
atheistmaximus

Pro

None of this stuff does humanity any good, at any interpretation they're no more than children stories.

Indeed, I understand that certain contemporary cultural pillars, be it religious rhetoric and/or a colossally flawed judicial system, can sustain a lifetime of academic formation and entire careers of studies that focus more on the maintenance of a perspective than any openness to real possibilities (thus the constant clash of religion vs science, which has brought YOU and I this far, to name a few). Not to mention that your personal trajectory, for which you have personal vested interest in, plays no role in identifying truth for humanity. god-sent angels that find themselves in such atrocious scenarios amongst primitive minded humans are polarized concepts.
thinkingaboutit

Con

As far as I can read and any reader can see, I think you have failed to support your original claim. Remember that we are debating an idea, the use of Ad Hominems and other fallacies could have the reader deviate from the actual debate.
Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Boogerdoctor 5 years ago
Boogerdoctor
Pro trolling?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by phantom 5 years ago
phantom
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: phantom
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Imabench
Vote Placed by Kethen 5 years ago
Kethen
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Really Pro? I am not even going to say it.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Self-explanatory.