The Instigator
zeromeansnothing
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Rami
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

' Christianity, Islam, and Judaism abrogate their common religious responsibilities '

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 1 vote the winner is...
Rami
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/9/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,518 times Debate No: 81133
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (66)
Votes (1)

 

zeromeansnothing

Pro

abrogate: Abrogate means to abolish or avoid. common: shared byresponsibility: a particular burden of obligation upon one who is responsible Christianity, Islam and Judaism ie The Abrahamic FaithsJump in and 'hit the tiles running' as it will take more than 5 rounds to ' sort this out '. I will be shooting withall guns blazing when you are finished attempting to defend this indefensible.Good Luck
Rami

Con

I accept. This should be an interesting debate. I'd like to remind voters that Pro has the BoP to prove we should change the status qou. I'd also like to remind the crowd that this is a reasitically impossible thing to do, as it would require a religious authority to make decisions that followers will listen.
Debate Round No. 1
zeromeansnothing

Pro

Monotheism

Hi Rami, I will concentrate on one point at a time if that is ok. You said something very interesting in comments that caught my attention . You said(Rami), 'I could defend just Judaism.'

In many respects I feel the same way about Judaism so why include them in this 'blame game'. It is a valid consideration. What shared responsibility do they carry if any. Let me give you an example. I was in Rome during an organized student protest about college fees. Student organizations sent people to Rome to march in their thousands. The march descended into violence and chaos and some people were injured. In truth the event was sabotaged by a collusion between right wing hooligans and 'stiff' authoritarian sources. These possibilities existed before the march began so therefore we must consider the responsibilities and the culpability of the organizers in not protecting their members. Was it reckless endangerment and imprudence on their part. It probably was.

Now let us consider Monotheism and Judaism.

Just like the students right for fairness and opportunity, I feel that the Jews of the OT had a right to have and use a God (Yahweh) that suited their needs. They are credited with bringing about the first real example of 'structured' monotheism.
When you look up the word, you get this

monotheism: the doctrine or belief that there is only one God.

Judaic monotheism was never this. The Israelites were very aware of the existence of many Gods among the surrounding nations and tribes but they affirmed a pact with Yahweh to ignore all others. Therefore, monotheism as purported by Judaism should have read

monotheism: the assertion that there is one appropriate God for you to follow.

Just like the organizers of the student march they have now released upon the world, Judaism 0.1(Christianity) and Judaism0.2 ( Islam). Within these evolved versions the assertion is that there is in fact 'only one god'. This imposes the Christian God on all and within Islam it is again perceived that all people are under the jurisdiction of Allah regardless of their being Muslim or not.

What a mess. Sort it out.

You cannot have this advertising scam continue without consequence. We have not got room for these perceptions of a 'one God'. I must include the Jews in this unfortunately if only for being by default the parent host to this absurdity. What do you think Rami?

Imagine if Coke insisted that drinking Fanta was reprehensible in that Fanta wasn't really a soft drink. Imagine if they insisted that the people drinking Fanta were really wishing to drink Coke and that in a way they were unwittingly searching for Coke. Can Islam say that Yahweh is not a God. Can Christianity say that Yahweh is not their God? If they can and they do then they need to explain it.

Islam maintains that the one God changes 'peoples' depending on their worthiness and that a nation can loose this God thing. This explains to them how the defiled Jews lost their God who was Allah. They now hold on with real fervour to that God in case they in turn loose it to the Christians. The Christians believe that the Jews are still using an internet explorer god, and they wait for them to upgrade to their Chrome version. The Jews are sticking to what works for them and feign disinterest in the two other 'rogue' versions that are 'doing the rounds'

Is the manufacturer of fireworks responsible for the reliability of his product. Is an older brother responsible for the example his actions provide to his younger brother. Judaism wants to ignore this thing but I feel that that would be akin to Coke ignoring counterfeit versions of their drink. What would Coke become if such a lax attitude prevailed. These new versions of monotheistic Judaism need to be reigned in and Judaism has a part to play here. Jews looking after Jews has not worked and their own children are rebelling on their parents. What do you think, ,Rami?
Rami

Con

Okay, so you asked me what I think. Here's my two cents:

Claim 1:
"Judaic monotheism was never this. The Israelites were very aware of the existence of many Gods among the surrounding nations and tribes but they affirmed a pact with Yahweh to ignore all others. Therefore, monotheism as purported by Judaism should have read"

This is a twisted version of the truth. There are two mistakes my opponent made:
1. The Israelites knew pagans worshiped other gods, but not that they were real. It's as if the pagans had this propaganda of history, and the Jews don't believe in the propaganda. They acknowledge that the propaganda existed, but not that it was valid
2. The gods of the pagans were nature base, so they weren't gods to start with. Let me explain: Since all their gods were basically nature, it is such a removed idea of the Jewish version of what is 'God'. Their gods needed to eat and sleep, but this ran contrary to the doctrines of the Jews. On this basis, you might claim that a Jew could theoretically believe in two all-powerful gods, but that idea is rejected all throughout the Torah.

Claim 2:

"We have not got room for these perceptions of a 'one God'. I must include the Jews in this unfortunately if only for being by default the parent host to this absurdity"

"The march descended into violence and chaos and some people were injured. In truth the event was sabotaged by a collusion between right wing hooligans and 'stiff' authoritarian sources. These possibilities existed before the march began so therefore we must consider the responsibilities and the culpability of the organizers in not protecting their members"

There is problem with this analogy. Protests are all about expressing anger against something. There is inherent anger in protest. Although there are many protests that are peaceful, there is still a motive of anger. Anger can spill easily into violence. My opponent will have to prove that there is a proponent of Judaism that would spill into something extreme.

In the comments, my opponent said that I need to prove that a full abrogation is realistically impossible. I thought this was pretty simple. The only authority that ALL Christians would accept is God. The pope isn't accepted by all Christians. With some many factions of Christianity, there would be an impossibly low chance of them uniting under one type of pope. And get this: Jews wouldn't accept a change, even from God. One of the 13 principles of faith, recited every day in synagogue, is that God will never change the Torah. So even if it seems clear that God said to abrogate, Jews wouldn't.

I think I'm done for this round. I hand the debate mic back to Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
zeromeansnothing

Pro

Hi Rami, apologies in advance. It's a funny weekend all round but rather than forfeit this round I will post another argument. I will deal with your submission with more care later in the week.

Argument 2 With great power comes great responsibilities

We are not talking 'stamp collectors' here. We are not even talking Disney or Microsoft. Multiply them by ten and you might have an approximate of the scope of influence that these people hold and maintain. It they are not going to use it then simply get off the stage.

I feel for the people of Paris this weekend.. Be under no illusion that this is anything other than a religious 'phenomena' a purely religious phenomena. I was listening to an analyst on RT news and he stated that we have to stop simplifying these jihadists as hate filled terrorists. He mentioned that they are hooked into a doctrine of 'significance' which I thought was a very profound assessment of what is happening. On a Friday in Paris you can get on with your day to day existence or you can take the step to be part of a specific and well preached religious narrative. You can become a martyr and enter everlasting happiness in the space of one afternoon. This doctrine might seem absurd to you or I but it is in effect the 'espresso' version of a watered down Abrahamic expansion story that is repeated in Mosques, Churches and Synagogues throughout the world. Tell me that moderate Muslims do not carry any responsibilities here. If theie religion is so persuasive to be a form of hallucination then it need to be handled with the care that such a volatile substance warrants. What do you think. Again apologies, written in 5 mins.
Rami

Con

Rami forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
zeromeansnothing

Pro

zeromeansnothing forfeited this round.
Rami

Con

To start, I apologize for the forfeit, and I thank Pro for foreiting also to give us equal rounds to argue, even though I hoped Pro could use that round to put together a better argument.

So, to sum up, you are saying that religion should be held responsible for these attacks. I counterclaim by saying bigotry is responsible.

Bigotry is the refusal to tolerate other beliefs. The Muslim terrorists think the whole world should be Muslim. But bigotry is not exclusive to Islam. Rather, it is universal. There are countless examples of this. I do not think I need to provide eamples, but if Pro insists, I'll post them next round.

To conclude, should bigotry be completely eliminated, then these attacks would not occur.
Debate Round No. 4
zeromeansnothing

Pro

zeromeansnothing forfeited this round.
Rami

Con

I feel terrible. This debate had potential and nothing happened. Oh well.
Debate Round No. 5
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
zeromeansnothing
Yes please! How thoughtful!
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
Do you want me to wait for the last minute to post my argument? So you have more time?
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
"Crusades and times like that" You mean like 400 years ago?
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
zeromeansnothing
Unfortunately the Pope never said any of this and it was posted on a fraudulent site. What gives!
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
zeromeansnothing
http://nationalreport.net...

This is definitely a reason for optimism.

Pope Francis 'Together, we can bring about an unprecedented age of peace, all we need to achieve such a state is respect each others beliefs, for we are all children of God regardless of the name we choose to address him by. We can accomplish miraculous things in the world by merging our faiths, and the time for such a movement is now. No longer shall we slaughter our neighbors over differences in reference to their God."
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
zeromeansnothing
Hi palmertio0 , the doctrines of religions are essentially confrontational in their logic.These doctrines demand that they engage with each other. In the Crusades and times like that they went at it 'gung-ho'. Nowadays they just refer to the other with a smug non engaging indifference. The Mormons are the best at this, probably after the Jews. It is the attitude of an adult to a child when talking about Santa.
Posted by zeromeansnothing 1 year ago
zeromeansnothing
Rami states ' I'd also like to remind the crowd that this is a reasitically impossible thing to do, as it would require a religious authority to make decisions that followers will listen.'

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you could explain why we need to accept this as 'a given' Rami.
Therein lies the problem, IMHO.
Posted by palmertio0 1 year ago
palmertio0
"These new versions of monotheistic Judaism need to be reigned in and Judaism has a part to play here. Jews looking after Jews has not worked and their own children are rebelling on their parents."

Yaaaa... no.
One of the common religious responsibilities of religion is tolerance of other religions.
Posted by Rami 1 year ago
Rami
Oh, so I just have to write how responsibilities shouldn't be abrogated. Or should I rebut your case?
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
If there was no christianity, islam and judaism. You would have no "responsibilies" problems... ?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
zeromeansnothingRamiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff more rounds, so conduct to Con.