The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
BrianCBiggs
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Christianity is a false Religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
kohai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,108 times Debate No: 17871
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)

 

kohai

Pro

Greetings,I will be arguing that Christianity is not the true religion. Throught this debate, I will be revealing:

Its contradictions;
Failed prayers;
Failed prophecies;
Division amongst Christians;
Scientific inaccuracies; and
Historical mistakes

to prove that christianity is a false religion.

The Bible: We will use the standard 66 books in the Bible that all Christians accept.
BrianCBiggs

Con

I thank Kohai for this debate. And I thank my Father in heaven for giving us his Word through the prophets and finally through Christ, and for giving his worshipers his Spirit to give us understanding. In this debate I will endeavor to show that:

"Failed prayers" do nothing to show the falsity of Christianity.

Division amongst Christians does not prove Christianity to be false, and, while lamentable, is to be expected if Christianity is correct.

I will endeavor to address the issues of so-called contradictions, failed prophecies, scientific inaccuracies, and historical mistakes.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

Hello, Brian! I thank you for accepting this debate. It is my burden of proof to show any contradictions, failed prophecies or any other thing that I feel would be a proof that the Bible is wrong.

C1: Contradictions prove the Bible is false.
  1. The Bible is supposedly inspired by God.
  2. The God of the Bible cannot lie.
  3. Therefore, there cannot be any contradictions (from p2).
  4. If there are any contradictions, the God of the Bible would be a liar or non-existant.
  5. There are contradictions in the Bible.
  6. Therefore, the Biblical God does not exist.


Premises 5 is where I wish to focus my attention. You may ask, "Where are the contradictions?" I am here to show you.

Contradiction 1: Who killed Saul?

A. Saul committed suicide.

“Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul died.” (1 Samuel 31:4-6)


“Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his amourrbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.” (1 Chronicles 10:4)

B. an Amalekite killed him

And he [Saul] said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. So I stood upon him, and slew him. (2 Samuel 1:8-10)

*Note: I have not been able to find where the Amalekite was lying. It is important to note that the Amalekite is talking to David in this verse.

C. The Philistines

“The Philistines had slain Saul.” (2 Samuel 21:12)

D. God did!

“So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquire of it; And enquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.” (1 Chronicles 10:14)

What we see is a case of 4 people killing Saul! Please tell me, who killed Saul?

Contradiction 2: Who was Joseph's father?

A. Jacob
"And Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, whom was born of Jesus, who is called Christ." (Matthew 1:16)
B. Heli
"Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about 30 years of age, being (as it was supposed), the son of Joseph, the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23)

I ask again, who was Joseph's father/Jesus' grandfather?

Contradiction 3: How did Judas die?

A. He hung himself

Matthew 27:3-5
When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.


B. He fell headlong and his bowles gushed out.

Acts 1:18
Now this man [Judas] bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.

Contention 2: Failed Prophecies prove the Bible is false and so is Christianity

Failed prophecy 1: Ezekial and Tyre

Ezekiel 26:7-14
For thus says the Lord: "Behold I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a hosts of many soldiers. He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a seige wall against you. He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers...With the hoofs os his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword and your mighty pillar will fall to the ground...they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses... I will make you a bare rock...you shall never be rebuilt, for I have spoken," says the Lord God.

The passage is clearly stating that Nebuchadrezzar will destroy Tyre. However, that never happened. As history tells us, after a sieg of 13 years, Nebuchadrezzar lifted his sieg on Tyre and had to arrive at a compramised agreement [1]. Also, Tyre was destroyed by Alexander the Great and, unlike the prophecy, Tyre was rebuilt. [2]

| Conclusion |

I have shown 3 contradictions and 1 failed prophecy. I can give more, but to be fair to my opponent I will end this here. Christianity is a false religion. Resolutuion affirmed.


| Sources |

1. Asimov, Guide to the Bible: p587-588
2. Howell-Smith, In Search of the Real Bible: p40-41


BrianCBiggs

Con

We can (and will) discuss the merits of specific texts that seem to contradict one another. But there is something more fundamental that needs to be addressed concerning my opponent's argument: Why should the Christian approach the nature of the Bible inductively rather than deductively? That is, why should the Christian understand the nature of Scripture by the appearance of errors, rather than by what Scripture says about itself?


CONTRADICTIONS



1. Who killed Saul?



1 Samuel 31:4-5 "...Saul took his own sword and fell upon it. And when his armor-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell upon his sword and died with him." (ESV)


1 Chronicles 10:4-5 says almost word-for-word the same thing.


Things we can glean from these texts:


A. Saul fell on his sword.


B. Once Saul was dead, his armor-bearer fell on his own sword an died.


And if we look at verse 3 of either text, we find that:


C. Saul was already wounded by Philistine archers.


2 Samuel 21:12 makes reference to “the day the Philistines killed Saul.” The word translated 'killed' (ESV) or 'slain' (KJV) can mean strike, slay, beat, or kill. It could easily be referring to when their archers “badly wounded” Saul. It may even mean that they wounded him, which indirectly resulted in his death. It seems to me that it could also mean that they beat him in battle, which resulted in his death.



Now, let's consider the Amalekite in 2 Samuel 1:8-10. Kohai says he cannot find where the Amalekite is lying and that it is important that he is talking to David. Is Kohai looking for a text that blatantly states that the Amalekite is lying? I would agree that there isn't that, but that is hardly a necessity in order to surmise that someone is lying. Often in stories, be it a written narrative or movie, you will come across a character who lies without anyone pointing it out explicitly. Why would he lie to David? The Amalekite seemed to have a pretty good idea of who David was and what it meant that Saul and Jonathan were dead. Why not embellish his story by claiming to have helped the King in his last hour? I don't imagine he was expecting David's response, or else he would have left that part of the story out.



Lastly, consider whether or not it is a contradiction to say that God killed Saul. Often the Bible speaks of God accomplishing his purpose by means of the actions of a person or persons. For example, we see examples throughout Scripture of God judging nations by other nations. This seems like a rather commonplace thing for Scripture to say and needs further argument in order to be shown to be a contradiction.




2. The Genealogies of Jesus



There are a number of possible answers (3) to this issue:



1. Both Matthew and Luke give true historical genealogies of Joseph (by levirate marriage or by legal adoption)

2. Matthew gives the true historical genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives the true historical genealogy of Mary (by bracketing Joseph in Luke's genealogy)



3. Matthew gives the true historical genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives the true historical genealogy of both Joseph and Mary (by Levirate marriage or legal adoption together with consanguinity)

4. Both Matthew and Luke give the true historical genealogies of both Joseph and Mary (by levirate marriage or legal adoption together with consanguinity)


5. Matthew gives the true historical genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives a non-historical genealogy of Joseph (by historical reservation)

6. Luke gives the true historical genealogy of Joseph and Matthew gives a non-historical genealogy of Joseph (by historical. Reservation)


7. Both Matthew and Luke give non-historical genealogies of Joseph (by historical reservation)





3. How did Judas die?



Matthew 27 says he hanged himself, but Acts 1 says he fell and he burst open, spilling his guts. It may be that both occurred. Judas may have hanged himself someplace high, the rope broke and he spilled his guts on the ground. I think its rather hard to say this couldn't have happened. On the other hand, that isn't the only possible explanation.



Another, I think likely, possibility is that Matthew is not saying that Judas actually hanged himself. Instead, he is comparing Judas to Ahithophel, who in 2 Samuel 17:23, after betraying David, went off and hanged himself. Rather than telling us the actual way in which Judas died, Matthew may be creatively calling Judas Ahithophel.




Prophecy: Ezekiel and Tyre



It seems rather significant that in the beginning of Chapter 26 of Ezekiel, you find the pronouns 'I' (God) and 'they' (many nations – see verse 3). However, when Nebuchadnezzar is introduced, it switches to 'he'. In verse 12, the pronoun switches back to 'they'. It seems that the larger context is God bringing many nations against Tyre, Babylon being one of those nations – a specific one being described.



It doesn't seem to be a problem for it to have been destroyed by Alexander. (4)




Sources:



1. See the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy


2. http://www.blueletterbible.org...


3. http://www.rtforum.org...


4. http://www.answers.com...


Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

Thank you, Brian, for your opening arguments. I am sorry to say that I am on vacation (should have planned my debates better, but no excuse) so this is a quick rebuttal of what I feel are my strongest points.

Prophecy: Ezekiel and Tyre



It seems rather significant that in the beginning of Chapter 26 of Ezekiel, you find the pronouns 'I' (God) and 'they' (many nations – see verse 3). However, when Nebuchadnezzar is introduced, it switches to 'he'. In verse 12, the pronoun switches back to 'they'. It seems that the larger context is God bringing many nations against Tyre, Babylon being one of those nations – a specific one being described.



It doesn't seem to be a problem for it to have been destroyed by Alexander. (4)


=======
REBUTTAL
=======

Ezekiel 26:7-14
For thus says the Lord: "Behold I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a hosts of many soldiers. He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a seige wall against you. He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers...With the hoofs os his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword and your mighty pillar will fall to the ground...they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses... I will make you a bare rock...you shall never be rebuilt, for I have spoken," says the Lord God.

I wish to disagree with my opponent that Alexander was no problem because it clearly state sthat it would be Nebuchadnezzar.

I wish to remind my opponent that the prophecy also states that Tyre will "[N]ever be rebuilt" However, we see that to be false.

"Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon." Matthew 15:21

How could Jesus had gone to Tyre if it was already destroyed "never to be rebuilt"?

I wish to direct your attention to the 19th verse of the same chapter:
"For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee; When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD."

| CONCLUSION |

Although it may not have been a problem as to who destroyed Tyre, it is still a dire problem as to the fact that Tyre was rebuilt, contarary to the propohecy. My opponent has not yet responded to that.

This is my strongest point in the debate and am sorry I could not get around to the rest. I am NOT droping any of my previous arguments but don't have time to respond. Again, I am sorry and wish to keep my strongest point in play.

BrianCBiggs

Con

BrianCBiggs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

Extend my arguments and vote pro!
BrianCBiggs

Con

BrianCBiggs forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
Ok, thanks very much. I am sorry I couldn't rebut everything. I just kept my strongest points in play. You are a great debater and wish to debate with you again. Thanks for being so understanding!
Posted by BrianCBiggs 5 years ago
BrianCBiggs
I apologize for not being very clear about number 2. And, no, I won't hold it against you if you forfeit a round... sometimes my internet connection isnt working and sometimes things happen that put a strain on me replying to people: I'm in the Army and currently deployed overseas.

Concerning the geneologies, I was presenting a breif summary of possible resolutions to the apparent contradictions. Looking back, I realize I could have made the list FAR more understandable and descriptive. I also realize that I put a citation for number 2 in a confusing spot: I'm presenting more than 3 possible answers!

Joseph's grandmother might have been widowed and remaried, bearing Jacob to Matthan and Heli to Matthat. Then, Jacob's mother might have had a remariage according to Deut 25:5-6, making it possible for both Heli and Jacob to be rightly described as Joseph's father.

Matthew could be giving Joseph's genealogy, whilst Luke brackets Joseph and gives Mary's.

Luke may give the genealogy of both Mary and Joseph, were Joseph a case of special adoption (1 Chron 2:34).

Matthew may give a non-historical genealogy by opening with a citation (v. 1), quoting a document that he may be acknowledging may not be entirely accurate, contrasting it with what follows, which he explicitely states is accurate (v. 18).

It may be that Luke gives a non-historical genealogy, with v. 23 "as was supposed" applying not only to Joseph, but to the entirely genealogy.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
I'm on vacation so I may accidently run out of time. Don't hold it against me if I do. I have limited access.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
I honestly do not understand your explanation of number 2. What are you arguing?
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
You have a deal. Or what I can do is leave this one open and challenge you privately.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
i am travelling this week and won't have reliable access to a computer. If you want to reissue it next Saturday I will be back from vacation and will be glad to debate you about this.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
kohai
RA, you have a deal.
Posted by Steve0Yea 5 years ago
Steve0Yea
This debate is clearly unwinnable for Pro, I'm very curious to see if anyone accepts it and what they will say...

"I would take it, except to try to prove a religion true in a debate is suicidal." That is a great quote haha
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
I don't accept the "standard 66."
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I would take it, except to try to prove a religion true in a debate is suicidal. If Kohai would be brave enough to be pro of the converse (where he has the burden of proof) I would be happy to take it, but bearing the burden of proof in a metaphysical, unprovable resolution is foolish.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lionheart 5 years ago
Lionheart
kohaiBrianCBiggsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Kohai had better conduct, as he respected his duty to provide arguments when they were needed. Con failed in this area. Pro pointed out contradictions that were never answered, therefor becoming the more convincing of the two. Pro gets the majority of my points awarded.