The Instigator
Con (against)
14 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Christian Doctrine is correct

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,070 times Debate No: 59581
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (28)
Votes (2)




First Round is for acceptance only.

Christian Doctrine includes: a belief in the Trinity -- that Jesus, God, and the Holy Ghost are the same; the requirement that a belief in Jesus in a precondition to being admitted to Heaven; a belief that all non-believers go to Hell; a belief that the Bible is the true and inerrant word of God; a belief that premarital sex is morally impermissible; a belief that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent; a belief that abortion is morally impermissible; a belief that we have free will to determine our fates; a belief that evolution is wrong and Creationism is right; a belief the Earth is only thousands of years old.

Of course, Christian Doctrine is not consistent between sects of Christianity. GCL is free to say that she doesn't endorse any of the above beliefs. However, just so I know what to argue next round, I request that she say in Round 1 whether she does not endorse any of the above beliefs. Otherwise, the belief becomes part of the debate.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


== Definitions ==

"Correct" means "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." [1] Thus, "correct" means having zero errors or internal inconsistencies and being in accordance with fact, as opposed to fiction.

Truth coincides with the "best explanation" for something. [2] If the better explanation for anything is that Christian Doctrine is wrong, then I win.

== My Case in Chief ==

(1) The Trinity makes no sense

The basic Christian belief is that God created Adam and Eve and put them in paradise, but Adam sinned by eating an apple from the Tree of Knowledge when God specifically told him not to. God was really mad at Adam for a long time and blamed all of humanity for this. But he finally sent his son down to Earth -- which was really just him the whole time -- and let his son be murdered by a bunch of Romans. Because God"s son (i.e. God) died, God chose to forgive us all. We are supposed to be thankful to Jesus (i.e. God) for helping us to get God (i.e. Jesus) to forgive us.

This interpretation is internally inconsistent because Jesus preached love and forgiveness (implying that he, i.e. God had already forgiven humanity), but God was still mad until Jesus died. It does not make sense that one part of an entity needed to die in order for another part of the same entity to forgive us. A more plausible explanation for the Trinity is that one of the Ten Commandments forbids praying to idols, so to avoid being construed as a polytheistic religion, Christians said, "we pray to Jesus, but he is also God, so it"s okay."

"The Lord your God is One Lord [not three]." -- The Old Testament (Deuteronomy 6:4)

(2) A rigid belief that you must accept Christ as Lord to get into Heaven is absurd

Such a belief would mean that all people prior to Christ's birth automatically went to Hell because Christ did not exist yet for them to believe in. Even for people who lived after Christ"s birth, the Bible was not consolidated until hundreds of years later, so they would have had no way of learning about Christ. So they all went to Hell. Jews and Muslims all go to Hell for non-belief in Jesus' divinity, even though they believe in God (which seems impossible to square with the Trinity, which holds that "God" and "Jesus" are equivalencies). Infants go to Hell because they lack the cognitive ability to accept Jesus as Lord.

(3) The Bible cannot be the true and inerrant word of God

//A// Young Earth Creation is false

The Bible traces a genealogy from Genesis to 1 Kings that estimates the age of the Earth at about 6000 years. However, using various radioactive dating methods to test sedimentary Earth rocks and meteorites, scientists have estimated the age of our solar system at 4.5 billion years. [3] In addition, the Universe is 13.7 billion years old -- which is established by measuring how fast other galaxies are moving away from us and is confirmed by the redshifting of light from the Big Bang. [4]

Humans have existed more than 6,000 years. The oldest human fossil has been dated as being 195,000 years old. [5] Evolution is the most plausible explanation because we have found intermediate species (between us and our common ancestor with apes). We know these species were human-like because they walked upright on two feet (unlike modern chimps) and had bigger brains than chimps -- but we know they weren't Homo sapiens because their brow ridges were much bigger than ours and their brains were much smaller than ours.

//B// Conflicting genealogies

Both the gospel of Luke and that of Matthew claim to trace the ancestry of Jesus with absolute certainty, yet the Gospel of Luke says there were 54 generations of people between Abraham and Jesus and the Gospel of Matthew says there were only 39 generations of people between Abraham and Jesus. [6] Not only does Matthew contain more generations, but it also claims Jesus is descended from entirely different people. [6] The most plausible explanation is that Luke and Matthew were fabricating these genealogies (without consulting each other) to prove that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah (who would have needed to be descended from Abraham and King David).

//C// Mythical creatures

The people who wrote the Bible thought that mythical creatures existed. They said that there was a fire-breathing leviathan in the ocean and unicorns that came out of Egypt. [7] These creatures do not and have never existed, so the Bible is wrong.

//D// Non-adoption of canon

The King James Bible cannot be inerrant because Revelations was nearly not included in it. [8] Its inclusion was extremely controversial. [8] And Martin Luther essentially un-canonized Revelations because it "portrays God as inflicting horrendous punishments on humanity." [8] Therefore, the Bible cannot be inerrant because it is disputable which books should be included as canon.

//E// Archaeologists have disproved the Exodus

Hundreds of archaeological digs have proven that the Jews never were in Egypt and that 600,000 Jews never trekked through the Egyptian desert for 40 years. [10] Such a large event would have left telltale signs and would have been recorded in Egyptian history books, but it wasn't. [10] You would also think the Egyptians would have recorded evidence of the 10 Plagues of Egypt, especially all the first borns simultaneously dropping dead. But they didn't.

(3) The Contradiction of free will

If God is omniscient, then he has infallible foreknowledge of all things that will happen. That means all events that will occur are already fixed. All decisions you will ever make are already pre-ordained because God has seen them. You have no power to do something that God has not foreseen. Therefore, free will and God"s omniscience cannot co-exist.

(4) The problem of evil

God is omnibenevolent. -Psalm 145:17

An omnibenevolent being must always do the most benevolent act possible. It is possible for God to end all suffering because he is omnipotent. Yet suffering exists in the world. Therefore, either God is not omnibenevolent or he is not omnipotent.

In addition, the Holy Spirit (in Exodus) murdered the first son of every Egyptian. This cannot possible be construed as an omnibenevolent act.

(5) Abortion is morally permissible

Rule consequentialism holds that any rule that we establish that creates more good than harm is an ethical and good rule. A rule permitting abortion is morally preferable to a rule outlawing it. A comprehensive global study found that abortion rates were *identical* in countries that outlawed it and allowed it; the only difference was that in countries where it was illegal, the back-alley abortions performed were really unsafe. [9] When abortions were illegal in the U.S., 15,000 women died each year seeking illegal abortions. Since women won't stop seeking abortions regardless of whether it is permitted, a rule outlawing abortion is nothing but counterproductive.

In contrast, Christian Doctrine would mandate banning abortion. Such a rule is immoral under rule consequentialism because it would not actually prevent any abortions but *would* result in many deaths from unsafe abortions, thus proving how blind faith is counterproductive.

Additionally, the Christian belief that abortion is immoral is internally inconsistent. Christians believe that aborted fetuses go to Heaven, not Hell, because they were never given a chance at life. So the fetus should be happy -- it gets eternal bliss. The woman is happy because her bodily autonomy is upheld. Win-win. In contrast, forcing a woman (e.g. who has been raped) to take the baby to term is a lose-lose: the woman loses her bodily autonomy and the baby is given a chance to be tricked by Satan into non-belief, thus risking eternal damnation.

[1] Google's dictionary


Thank you con for this interesting topic and I look forward to seeing how it turns out.

I will keep the definitions for arguments sake just for clarity.


"Correct" means "free from error; in accordance with fact or truth." [1] Thus, "correct" means having zero errors or internal inconsistencies and being in accordance with fact, as opposed to fiction.

Truth coincides with the "best explanation" for something. [2] If the better explanation for anything is that Christian Doctrine is wrong, then I win.

My Position

I.The Trinity is concise

Yes, God did create Adam and Eve and placed them in the Garden of Eden which was considered paradise, but nowhere does it say that Adam and Eve ate an apple, it says that they ate a fruit (just wanted to point that out). Moreover, God was displeased with the disobedience to their rebellion of what He had commanded them not to do, therefore; He placed the curse of sin upon all humanity. It is not so much of whether God was angry with humanity, but that He needed to reveal the sin to them to realize how they fell into the trap of a lie rather than trusting in Him to believe what He had commanded them to do. This showed just how much God gave them the free will to decide for themselves what they considered right and wrong and they chose to disobey by their own free will, God had to do something about it. It wasn’t the idea of them just sinning it was because as this quote states, “We’re not sinners because we sin. We sin because we’re sinners.” meaning that it being sinners is not as much of an excuse as us sinning at all, so in Adam and Eve’s case, they knew what they were doing was rebellious and yet still did it despite what God had warned them. However as an act of love, grace, righteousness, mercy and automatic forgiveness; God sent Jesus to die on the Cross for all of mankind, but what is often negated is that without some form of atonement there would no way of being shown grace, forgiveness or mercy. There would only His wrath which is hell. In the days of the Old Testament, the way for people to be shown any of those attributes from God is through a sacrifice of some animal for atoning their sins, once Jesus came and died and rose from the dead, atonement was meant and fulfilled which hence-- no longer is there needed of doing things to atonement for oneself’s sin.

Jesus died to free bondage of sin and take God’s wrath upon Himself not because He was angry with the world. Without a sacrifice is nothing more than deserved punishment in hell due to one’s own sin, not God’s doing.

My opponent suggests that Jesus is not God when even in the New Testament of Scripture I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30). Jesus told this to the people who asked who He was because they too did not believe who He said He was, but His response being that He and God are One, which would ultimately indicate of Him suggesting that they are in fact Triune.

II.Repentance is the Key to Salvation ALONE

People did not automatically go to hell, but rather a place of Hades.
Hades: is a temporary place where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection.

In which, is to say that people did not go to hell or heaven, but rather had to wait on judgement and more or less still have to today. Although, just because Muslims or Jews believe differently than Christians does not mean that while they live on this earth are already going to hell because that is to suggest God is impatient, and if He is impatient than He is a liar, but since He is patient that is why He sent His Son Jesus to die on the Cross so that everyone has hope. Now it is up to all people to decide whether to obey God accept what Christ did or when they do die without Christ/God in their life then yes, they have already condemned themselves to hell. Without the Trinity is really no hope whatsoever. It would have been just justice and wrath upon mankind had it not been for God showing His grace, love, mercy and forgiveness through His Son’s death on the Cross. Had He not risen it would have been in vain.

III.The Bible IS the True and Inerrant Word of God

//A// Young Earth Creation is false

So why say evolution is plausible?

Conflicting genealogies

So you're suggesting that its possible that Jesus isn’t who He says He is just because of some differences? Just trying to understand.

Mythical creatures

I’m sorry, I don’t believe I’m familiar with this actually? But regardless, this is just wrong because I don't see how people would believe that? (just my opinion though)

Non-adoption of canon

It is true that Revelations seems harsh, but it is a prophecy that WILL be fulfilled and is slowly happening today even.

Archaeologists have disproved the Exodus

There is evidence of a place known as Nineveh that was destroyed do to the sexual immoral and idolatry that took place at that time.

“They lie as they fell more than 2,600 years ago, a writhing clump of humanity frozen in a moment of fearful combat. Pieces of armor, iron daggers, pikes, and other weapons litter the ground. Buried in the desiccated leg bone of one of the soldiers is another emblem of blood and pain: a triple-bladed bronze arrowhead, cunningly shaped to inflict maximum harm. This tableau of nine skeletons, recently uncovered in northern Iraq, represents the first clearly documented evidence of an epic story that has been shrouded by centuries of myth and speculation: the downfall of Nineveh, the capital of what was then the world's mightiest empire…”

(3) The Contradiction of free will

This is true, God does has pre-ordained all things to exist as it does, but that does not negate the fact that God is not all-knowing (Psalm 15:3) The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding, the good and the evil.

(4) The problem of evil

No, God did “murder” those children, He simply took their spirits to be with Him. How is this murder?

(5) Abortion is morally permissible

One of the Ten Commandments by God is, Thou shalt not murder. (exodus 20:13), so explain to me how it is permissible for unborn babies to have their lives ended? That in itself is immoral.

Well then she is blaming the child that did nothing wrong. She could easily out the child up for adoption if she does not wish to keep the baby.

[1] Google's dictionary

[2] []

[3] []

[4] []

Debate Round No. 2


(R1) The story of Adam

GCL explains the story of Adam in great detail. However, her description simply raises two aspects of Christian Doctrine that make no sense: (A) "free will" and (B) the concept of "original sin."

//A// Adam's free will

GCL says, "God gave [Adam and Eve] the free will to decide for themselves what they considered right and wrong and they chose to disobey [by eating the Forbidden Fruit]."

However, God has divine foreknowledge, so as soon as he created the Tree of Knowledge, he already knew that Adam would eat the Forbidden Fruit. God could have chosen not to create the Tree of Knowledge. He also could have chosen not to create the serpent that tempted Eve, who then convinced Adam to eat the Fruit. Yet, God chose to create both the serpent and the Tree of Knowledge knowing full well that doing so would get Adam kicked out of Eden.

Due to His omniscience, God already knows exactly what conditions He must create in order to cause us to make a particular decision. Thus, we have no free will. God is really pulling the strings the whole time.

The Butterfly Effect holds that all of our actions are determined by a number of small factors that all coincide to make us do a particular thing. God can manipulate us by simply changing one small factor in the string of causation. At the end of the day, God already knows how he can nudge us to make one decision or another. And the Bible says that God does intervene in the world, which proves that He knows that whenever He intervenes, He is changing many of the decisions we would have made. In many ways, it is the height of cruelty that God knows that whenever he intervenes in the world, He is causing a chain of events, which cause certain people to switch from Belief to Non-Belief, thereby damning them to Hell. Either God is cruel or there is no free will.

//B// Original Sin

GCL articulates the Christian Doctrine of Original Sin, which holds that God blamed all of humanity for the sins of Adam. However, this concept is incoherent. If humans have free will, subsequent generations were not "responsible" for Adam's choice. A loving God would not have punished an entire species for the sins of a single member.

(C1) The Trinity = Dumb

GCL responds to this argument merely by citing Scripture. She says, "My opponent suggests that Jesus is not God when even in the New Testament of Scripture "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)." However, this isn't a very good response to the argument that the parts of the Bible that assert Jesus' divinity are utter fabrications.

First, the Scriptures themselves are internally inconsistent. In passages other than John 10:30, Jesus suggested that he was *not* divine. John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I." Mark 13:32, "no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the . . . Son himself. Only the Father knows." [Suggesting that Jesus was not omniscient, unlike God].

Second, GCL never explains why one part of an entity had to die in order for another party of the entity to forgive humanity. GCL also has no response to the incoherence of saying that Jews and Muslims go to Hell for non-belief in Jesus' divinity, when the Trinity holds that "God" and "Jesus" are equivalencies.

Here's a logical proof:

J = Jesus
G = God
H = Holy Spirit

(1) J = G = H. ["The Trinity"]
(2) Jews and Muslims believe in G.
(3) A belief in J is necessary for entry into Heaven.
(4) Jews and Muslims believe in J. [This follows from (1) and (2).]
(5) Therefore, Jews and Muslims go to Heaven. [This follows from (3) and (4).]

If Jesus and God are the same entity, a belief in God is automatically a belief in "Jesus." The fact that Christian Doctrine acknowledges that it is possible to believe in God, but not Jesus, proves the Trinity false. You could not say, "I believe GCL exists, but I don't believe Marie exists." Such a statement is incoherent. "GCL" and "Mary" are the same entity. Thus, GCL's implicit concession that it is possible to believe in "God" but not "Jesus" disproves the Trinity.

(C2) Belief in Jesus as a pre-requisite to entry to Heaven

GCL says some people go to Hades, which is still not Heaven. GCL never answers the argument that people are denied access to Heaven, even if they never had a legitimate opportunity to learn about Jesus. Pre-Bible, the Christians were a small sect and their message was not spread very far or wide. It seems unfair to condemn people to Hell at a time when Christianity was just one or two followers who were just rambling incoherently about how some dude's body disappeared from some tomb. Yet, if God granted people a grace period because the evidence was weak, what is the brightline? Is the Bible really good enough evidence to condemn people to Hell for non-belief? A lot of people would say no. Leaving dinosaur fossils everywhere and redshifting light just to trick us into believing in evolution and the Big Bang seems really mean, when all the opposing evidence is contained in a book riddled with contradictory passages and that contains passages asserting the existence of unicorns (Numbers 23:22) and fire-breathing Leviathans in the ocean (Job 41:1-19).

(C3) The Bible = inerrant

//A// Young Earth Creation = wrong

GCL doesn't answer my argument here. Science proves the Earth is older than 6,000 years old and that the Creation story is wrong because humans evolved from a common ancestor with apes. More proof:

//B//Conflicting genealogies

GCL drops this argument and merely asks me a question. My answer is: yes, I am saying that both genealogies are fabricated. Matthew and Luke were just making up names to prove Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, in order to bolster the claim that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah. Matthew and Luke were trying to get people from the Jewish community to convert to Christianity.

//C// Mythical creatures & other dumb stuff

I provided the Biblical citations for this above. GCL simply says that people wouldn't be dumb enough to believe in a fire-breathing Leviathan, but the people who wrote the Bible were pretty "dumb" simply because they lived in an age that pre-dated modern science and biology. The people who wrote the Bible also lacked a basic understanding of physics, which is why they wrote that the Earth was flat (Job 38:13; Isaiah 11:12; Rev. 7:1), stationary (Eccles. 1:5; Psalms 93:1, 96:10, 104:5; Joshua 10:12; 1 Chron. 16:30) and resting on pillars (I Sam. 2:8; Job 9:6, 38:4). Obviously, the Bible is wrong because we now know the Earth is round, revolves around the Sun, and is held in place by the Sun's gravity (not pillars). If the Bible is the "inerrant" word of God, it wouldn't say things that are obviously wrong.

//D// Non-adoption of canon

My argument here was merely that the early Catholic Church was filled with humans, who exercised their "free will" to choose which books to include as part of "the Bible." The Bible therefore cannot be divinely inspired. Revelations was almost not included as part of the Bible.

//E//Archaeologists disproved the Exodus

GCL drops my argument here. She merely cites to the destruction of Nineveh, which is described somewhere in the Bible. I never claimed that every event described in the Bible was false. Some of them were real events, recorded in the Bible for antiquities' sake. But the Exodus from Egypt was not one of the real ones.

(C4) Contradiction of free will

GCL merely re-asserts that God is omniscient. I agree, but I proved in the previous round that his omniscience is inconsistent with the concept of free will. GCL never answers this argument.

(C5) Problem of evil

The problem of evil is a logical proof:
(1) God is omnibenevolent.
(2) God is omnipotent.
(3) A being that had both these traits would end all suffering.
(4) Suffering exists.
(5) God does not exist.

GCL never answers this argument. She only says that God did not murder the children in Egypt, he only took their souls to be with Him. However, (1) the Egyptians at the time were polytheistic, so these children actually went to Hell under Christian Doctrine, which is messed up, and (2) if sending a child to "be with God" cannot equate to "murder," then abortion isn't murder.

(C6) Abortion

GCL doesn't answer my rule utilitarianism argument, which proves why rigid rules like "Though shalt not kill" are stupid.

Also, if you define "murder" (as GCL does) as "killing another Homo sapien, regardless of the circumstances," then self-defense and killing a rival soldier during war are "murder." Like self-defense and war, abortion is simply another exception to the normal rule that killing is wrong. The extenuating circumstances in the abortion context are that a woman's interest in bodily autonomy outweighs the fetus' feeble claim to life since it is not self-aware nor can it feel pain. Self-defense and war have different extenuating circumstances, but all these exceptions prove that you cannot take "Though shalt not kill" too literally.


GodChoosesLife forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


GCL may continue arguing in the last round. But no *new* arguments because I can't respond. Since I already had parts of my final round typed out, here it is:

All the arguments in this debate actually boil down into three categories:

(1) The Bible is not inerrant; (2) The Bible is not the word of God; (3) The steps from a Biblical quote to a Christian belief are illogical.

I'll go through each of these three categories and sum up why I win. Remember, all I needed to do to win was prove that one aspect of Christian Doctrine was not "correct." And "correct" was defined as being completely "free from error." Thus, all I need to do in order to win is prove a single error. An error could be an internal inconsistency (e.g. the Bible contradicting itself) or an external inconsistency (e.g. the Bible contradicting something observable in the outside world). In addition, "correct" also means "true." And in accordance with my definition of "truth," if my explanation for something is better than GCL's, I win.

(1) The Bible is not inerrant

//A// The Trinity is not "correct"

The Bible says in John 10:30 (as GCL points out) that Jesus and God are one entity. This is where the belief in the Trinity comes from.

However, first, there is an internal inconsistency. John 14:28 says that Jesus is not God and Mark 13:32 says that Jesus is not omniscient (and therefore not God). I win on this alone. John 14:28 and John 10:30 cannot both be correct.

Second, the Trinity is "untrue" because my explanation is better than GCL's. GCL explains that we can conceive of Jesus and God as being two entities, but they are both really the same entity. Yet, they cannot really be equivalencies because belief in one (God) is deemed by Christian Doctrine not to be equivalent to belief in the other (Jesus). Christians somehow believe that if you're praying to Jesus, you're also praying to God, but if you're praying to God (like Jews and Muslims do), you're not actually praying to Jesus. A *better* explanation for this absurd belief is that the First Commandment prohibits polytheism, so to avoid being construed as a polytheistic religion, Christians conceived of the Trinity as an excuse for why praying to Jesus -- as if he were a god -- is not blasphemous. Because I have the better explanation, the Trinity is untrue.

//B// The Bible's views on geology are wrong

The Bible estimates the age of the Earth at about 6000 years (based on approximating when Creation happened). The Bible actually lists multiple generations of humans starting with Adam and how long each lived, which is where this estimate comes from. The problem is that radioactive dating of human fossils proves that our species alone is 195,000 years old. The time-scale needed for sand and the Grand Canyon to form (from erosion), for mountains to form (from shifting of tectonic plates), and for the continents to have all fit together at one time and have moved apart is all larger than 6000 years. The people who wrote the Bible simply did not know enough about geology to understand that 6000 years was an absurd geological time scale. Thus, the Bible's views on geological time are wrong.

//C// The Bible's views on physics are wrong

The Bible espouses the belief that God simply created the Universe over the course of 6 days. However, the evidence is more consistent with a single Big Bang occurring instantly. For example, the background radiation is all the same temperature!! If the radiation was created separately and put in different parts of the Universe, we would not expect particles from one part of the Universe to have the *exact* same temperature as particles from another part. Only if all the particles were once together would their temperatures all converge, proving that the Big Bang occurred (and not that God simply placed matter and energy wherever he felt like putting it).

The people who wrote the Bible also espoused the olden-day beliefs that the Earth was flat, was stationary in its orbit, and was held up by pillars. We now know that the Earth is a sphere, that the Earth revolves around the sun, and that the Earth is held in place by the Sun's gravity (not pillars). The Bible is thus "wrong" because it espouses scientific beliefs that are outdated and untrue.

//D// The Bible's views on biology are wrong

The Bible says that God created mankind on our own. Fossils of intermediate hominid species prove that humans evolved over millions of years from a common ancestor with apes. As we evolved, our brains got bigger, our brow ridges got smaller, and we started walking more and more upright (with less curvature in our backs). We can tell a lot from hominid skeletons. If closely related species like Australopithecus, Neanderthals, and Homo habilis once walked the Earth besides us (because God created all of them simultaneously), you'd think the Bible would mention these strange human-like creatures. The more likely explanation is that the people who wrote the Bible had not yet discovered the fossils of dinosaurs or hominid species, so these were not included in the Creation story.

However, unicorns and a fire-breathing Leviathan were included because the Bible is partly a fantasy novel about things that never happened (like the parting of the red sea and Jesus walking on water). Modern biology now establishes that there are no fire-breathing monsters in the ocean. Thus, the Bible is incorrect.

//E// Archaeology proves that Exodus is a lie

Extend through my evidence here. Egyptian historians would have recorded these events if they were true.

//F//Problem of evil

Extend this through. It proves God doesn't exist. Also, an "all-good" God would not have murdered innocent Egyptian children during the Exodus and then have sent them to Hell for being pagans.

(2) The Bible is not the word of God

Christians believe the Bible is God's word, but it cannot possibly be. It was adopted by a council of men who were part of the early Catholic Church. Assuming you grant that men have free will, this means that you *cannot* say that God influences our decisions to be different than they would otherwise be (because then God is using his omniscience to deprive us of free will). However, Christian Doctrine says that the Bible is the word of God because it is "divinely inspired." Christians believe that the Bible is "divinely inspired" because God influenced the early adopters of the Bible to choose certain gospels and not others (such as the gnostic writings). However, this a double bind. You cannot both believe in free will and believe that God was really picking the words in the Bible by influencing the choices of men. One or the other has to give. GCL asserts that free will exists and in fact, the entire Christian faith would crumble if there was no free will. Without free will, we are not really "responsible" for our decisions, so it's unfair to condemn us to Heaven or Hell for our decisions. Because Christian Doctrine requires free will to exist, the Bible cannot be divinely inspired. The men who chose what works to include as part of "the Bible" were exercising free will -- the free will of men -- and so the Bible is a work of man, not of God.

(3) Steps from the Bible to a Christian belief are illogical

Abortion. Commandment 6 says "Though shalt not kill." However, this quote would be illogical because self-defense is "killing." Christians therefore re-translate this Commandment as "Though shalt not murder." However, even murder is defined contextually by society's rules. Self-defense is not murder because when someone tries to kill you, your right to life outweighs their right to life since they are the aggressor. Abortion is a lesser example of self-defense, in the sense that two people's rights come into conflict: a woman's right to bodily autonomy and a fetus' right to life, and we as a society have to decide whose rights -- as a rule -- prevail. It's not as simple as "abortion is murder." The word "murder" is clearly a societally-defined rule. Self-defense is not defined as murder. Killing soldiers during war is not defined as murder (even if you were the aggressor-nation). Therefore, whether abortion constitutes "murder" is a societal choice. It is not dictated by the Bible. Like any situation where two people's rights comes into conflict, society must decide whose rights prevail. Thus, the steps from the Bible to the Christian Doctrine that "abortion is murder" are illogical because the Bible doesn't define "murder," and what constitutes "murder" is a societal choice. Thus, the Christian Doctrine on abortion is "incorrect."

Vote Con.


I'm going to semi- ff because I just woke up a few minutes ago and am not going to be able to get my argument on one he an I am going to be running errands.
(We could redo this debate though)
Best wishes to you!
Debate Round No. 4
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but the methods used to determine the age of objects are not accurate.
How do we know that the methods are accurate? Scientists don't.
Radiometric dating is inaccurate and false.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Creationism is not Christian Doctrine: it is only asserted by Idiotic Evangelical Cults.
Trinity is not a Christian Doctrine, as it only exists in some weird, semi-Pagan cults like Catholicism.
Yet, the false genealogy of Jesus in trying to paint him as the Messiah, makes ridicule of Christianity.
This is why Jews don't consider Jesus as a Messiah.
Because he was not of correct genealogy to ever be such.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
Your gonna use my puppy as leverage that's low -_-
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
good, now when i say something i really want you to remember i'll just mention ur puppy
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
-_- it's my puppy your talking about I'd remember.
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
i did, you just forgot
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
No you didn't!!! O.O
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago
it's cool; i warned you if i won, i got to keep your puppy. so i don't mind
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
Sorry Aaron :/ I had warned you I may have not been able to post last night. But I'll do my best to get to the final round. :)
Posted by bluesteel 2 years ago

2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by thett3 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: GCL forfeited and many of Bluesteels arguments stood unrefuted before that