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

Christianity Creates a Skewed Sense of Morality

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 420 times Debate No: 54430
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I will be taking the position that Christianity creates a skewed sense of morality.

I will be using the Bible and the most common Christian doctrines accepted by most Christian sects to create my arguments.

Good luck to my opponent!


I hold the opinion, that Christianity, does not create a skewed sense of morality.

However I will importantly like to highlight, that the verb used is 'create', and it is this that i am contending.

Also i would like to elaborate on what 'a skewed sense of morality' is understood by myself, and how i would assume it to be understood by other readers.

'skewed' indicates distorted.........distorted has the meaning of being twisted away from its true nature.

So this seems to indicate that a skewed sense of morality, is skewed or distorted away from a sense of morality, that is considered true, and correct.

Here lies the problem

Clearly differing opinions on morality, will all be skewed or distorted in relation to one another.

Hence my first contention on the statement, is that the proposition assumes that there exists a universally accepted sense of morality, to which Christianity's version can be compared.

Clearly each belief system of Morality is skewed in comparison to a differing belief system of morality.

So my first contention is that Christianity cannot create a skewed sense of morality, because a skewed sense of morality, is a subjective occurence.

What is the Christian Morality being compared to, and what if it is the proposers sense of morality, which is skewed. There exists no universally accepted Morality, that differing opinions can be compared to.

I think at this stage i will grant my fellow debatee the opportunity to rephrase the proposition statement with words that will allow this debate to enter the areas of discussion that it intends to.

returning back to the 'create' verb raises my further contention, in that christianity doesnt claim to have created a sense of morality.

it merely provides an illustration of what it believes is a pre-existing sense of morality.

it can be argued that this pre-existing morality that it provides support for is precisely the created morality in discussion.

if this is the case, then it would have to be demonstrated that christianity makes the attempt to proclaim the provision of a complete and total model of morality.

clearly christianity doesnt claim to provide an exhaustive rulebook on morality.

instead it merely provides vague and interpretable illustrations of situations where morality is spoken with favour, or with diss-aproval.

perhaps if the question was whether christianity (i will hereforth use the abbreviation cy) creates a skewed sense of logic, or reality, then clearly the proposer would have at least a basic standpoint from which to withstand the contentions made up until this stage.

To summarize i so far have contended on the following two grounds:

1) christianity's sense of morality cannot be established as skewed, on the fact that morality, is a subjective opinion.

2) christianity doesnt create a manifesto of morality. instead it provides support for various pre-existing moral behaviours.

I hope that my fellow debatee considers my points respectfully, and accepts my apology if i have been unclear, or become confused in any way in my method of communication.

I am a new user so please forgive any unintentionally ommitted pleasantries and introductions.
Debate Round No. 1


My argument will go as follows in this round:

A.) Define the argument
B.) Discuss how Christian morality is skewed

My goal is not to create a comparison between a Christian sense of morality and other systems of morality. Rather, I will compare Christian morality to itself and demonstrate how the Christian sense of morality is hypocritical in nature. Since it is hypocritical in nature, it is therefore distorted, or skewed.

Most Christians can read Deuteronomy 2:33-35 without batting an eye. It says "And the Lord our God delivered him before us... and we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones of every city, we left none to remain." Christians are able to gloss this over because the Israelites actions were apparently sanctioned by God. While Christians are not bothered by this genocide, they are rightly appalled at modern instances of genocide such as what took place in Rwanda.

The first instance of genocide is used as a faith builder, demonstrating that as long as one remains obedient to God, all promises will be fulfilled. Think about that. Genocide is used as an example of why it is important to have faith in God.

The second instance of genocide that I mentioned is perceived by most Christians, and people in general, as atrocious.

However, if we take a step back it is clear that there is very little difference between the two events. Both acts of genocide were caused because of an attempt to place ones own people in a dominant position within the geographical area.

However, Christians fail to see the Israelite actions for what they were: genocide. They fail to see this simply because they believe the Israelites were God's people. In fact, Christians are forced to stand by this act of genocide as a moral act because the Bible makes it clear that "the Lord our God delivered him unto us", so to claim that this genocide was immoral would be to claim that God is immoral, since he instigated it. This is made clear in verse 30 of the same chapter, where it is written that God purposely hardened the heart of King Sihon so that he would not allow the Israelites to pass, thus giving the Israelites reason to go to war against him and slaughter all of his people.

We are then left to assume that as long as God sanctions something, regardless of what it is, it is moral. God is therefore the one source for morality. Christians are forced to lay aside their own reason and logic and submit to whatever God tells them to do. Even if it is to go kill women and children.

Interestingly, Christians who have come to terms with the grit of the Old Testament have not come to terms with the lifestyle and laws of groups such as the Taliban, which are remarkably similar in many ways to ancient Israel.

One group and its laws are seen as righteous and good by Christians, and the other is seen as primitive and evil. The irony is that they are so similar. Both stone women caught committing adultery. The Israelites were arguably more violent and conducted far more human rights abuses than the Taliban.

Once again, Christians can't argue against the actions of ancient Israel because to do so would be to suggest that God is immoral, since he was the one making the commandments.

Christians are thus left condoning one act, while condemning another, even though the action is the same.

These examples demonstrate how the Christian moral mindset is skewed, distorted, and flawed.


iqpiblog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Praemon forfeited this round.


iqpiblog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Praemon forfeited this round.


iqpiblog forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.