The Instigator
Brendan_Liam
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Christianity is no moral benchmark, it is rather the most immoral philosophy in history

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...
Brendan_Liam
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 491 times Debate No: 54382
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

Brendan_Liam

Pro

It bothers me to no end that even irreligious atheists reinforce this fallacious and obnoxious claim that Christians, by that quality are moral. I'll leave the obvious facts alone (body count higher than every other religion, etc.) and move toward one of my own arguments: The entire religion boils down to how to avoid all responsiblity in this world, and worse-get everlasting bliss for it, and as if that's not bad enough-then they try to defile every other mind with their pass the buck to jesus philosophy all while stomping on the liberty of anyone who isn't looking for this dead apocalyptic rabbi that is now over 1900 years late in his return.
Christians will try to babble about the "golden rule" as though any of them practice it.... sorry, very amusing that thought, fell out of my chair. As I was saying - they don't, and even on the verbal level, even when they think they are being 'good' really they're being nasty. Ever had one say "I'll pray for you!" with the venom flying, no points for sincerity and negative points for violating Matt 6:6. Back to the Golden Rule-let's break that down shall we? First of all, it offers no REASON to do it, no motivation, which stands in contrast to the conceptual ideas of punishment and reward, one of the few areas it was original as it is the first religion to make punishment eternal!

So in 3 of the gospels, all but John i think (ignoring the more valuable texts that the Romans didn't include) make it clear there are only 2 commandments. And between them and all 3 say this-only ONE is unforgiveable. So if jesus came, you know after screwing around for 4000 years, and then screwing around some more for 18 as he disappeared, despite having only 'one purpose' arriving, and upon finally coming back around age 30, screws around some more dodging the Romans like a common cowarrd when he's all powerful, yes you got all that right-doesn't sound as good when you take the fear of god out of the story does it. Anyway just make sure to let every christian know, that its only thanks to judas, that is, it's only thanks to MAN that he or she is saved ( I assume no self respecting peson of an interesting gender would join such a religion, of strict and baffling gender roles, but if so, no disrespect intended).

So if jesus only came to absolve all believers of their sins, with only one of them unforgiveable, clearly this is the reason there is no outcome no change in your eternal destiny for applying (not talking) applying the golden rule-because it's fluff. You only have to believe in jesus... that's the real rule, and the ONLY RULE in this detestable religion that is self hating, and teaches division and could only benefit tyrants who like the bible, love slaves and wish to keep them -thus the eternal bliss that allows them to accept a lowly station in life more easily thereby reducing the chances of peasant uprisings, etc.

So what is moral about passing the buck to jesus, thinking as long as you believe in this guy that talks in bumper stickers, yet reveals nothing new, nothing interesting and offers zero, ZERO answers despite omniscience....

Further jesus IS jehovah to these guys and therefore is a murderer beyond the likes man could produce, even with a-bombs and no conscience. in the bible, the god kills over 3,000,000 people, despite his creation being perfect, it is flawed (do any of them know what perfect means? and that it cannot change and stay perfect-thereby makingg it a STATIC STATE ie in heaven nothing ever happens...) This, this murderer jesus is who they revere-so no wonder they value hate and stealing the rights of others, and always with the lies. Meanwhile, they hate the antagonist who is by all rights in any other story the protagonist, and one who tries to help them. This guy, only killed 10 and even then, not really as he only does so by the order of the all powerful god-so really 0 as the god gets credit due to his intent ( a concept xianity will never get, thus the absolutes,, thus why they're always wrong about social issues, or anythign dealing with reality), those deaths are on the gods head too.....

so lets recap-the philosophy teaches to dodge your responsibility
to get others to sit down and dodge with you all while heckling the good people
and the believers have reversed good and evil and revere the evil one in the book-what's more evil than murdering babies? and hating the one that tried to help them and told them the truth. And when you tell a christian this-they ignore the murders, and usually respond "he didn't lie" which rests my case-the most immoral philosophy in history and one not fit for rabid dogs.
Truth_seeker

Con

I object to Pro's claim that Christianity is the most immoral philosophy in history.

Pro claims "Ever had one say "I'll pray for you!" with the venom flying, no points for sincerity and negative points for violating Matt 6:6. Back to the Golden Rule-let's break that down shall we? First of all, it offers no REASON to do it, no motivation, which stands in contrast to the conceptual ideas of punishment and reward, one of the few areas it was original as it is the first religion to make punishment eternal!"

Not sure what Pro is claiming, but there is a motivation to pray for another person as James 5:16, Hebrews 13:18-19, 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Luke 6:28, and more verses command us to do.

You point out that Judas caused Jesus to die, but it is by Jesus' own life and death we are saved according to John 10:18.
There is 1 unforgivable sin which i presume you mean in Matt. 12:31, however based on context and other passages, blasphemy against the Spirit isn't an instant sin done, but a continual rejection of God's grace. The Bible never says that his creation is perfect. Slaves in the ancient world were treated far more civilized than in later years.
Debate Round No. 1
Brendan_Liam

Pro

Thank you for engaging me and joining to argue the con of this argument.

Con stated: "Not sure what Pro is claiming, but there is a motivation to pray for another person as James 5:16, Hebrews 13:18-19, 1 Timothy 2:1-2, Luke 6:28, and more verses command us to do."

Again, because only one sin must be adhered to, and by doing so gives evverlasting life & happiness, the quotes you mention are irrelevant. Because failing to do any of those things is precisely how jesus saves you-from your failure to do those things, and by having faith in him alone you get grace and salvation. That much is clear, so again that other stuff is a suggestion at best, but NOT necessary for the greatest gift of salvation offered by the religion. Command you? It says not to mix your fibers as well-do you follow that command? How bout the ones about stoning your wife or child? How bout the ones that tell you to take slaves? Do you follow these commands?

No, because there is only one that counts and only one that determines your eternal fate in the end. I thought this was clear as far as reasoning and feel I'm repeating what I already said and explained. You must show the benefit or the punishment for failing to do those 'commands', otherwise you only demonstrate what I said-they are fluff.

Allow me to use your citations to prove it:

Hebrews 13:18

Says be honorable in all things, and doing so will bring back Jesus sooner, this is assumably your claim of a reward or benefit that motivates thus hypothetically showing I'm wrong. But, that's not really a benefit that you weren't getting anyway-you'll go to heaven regardless, by faith in Jesus alone and if it's 20 years sooner than later, it hardly means a thing when what we're talking about is ETERNITY! When the reward for the One commandment is eternal bliss, again, ETERNAL bliss, can we even add 20 years to eternity which means infinity? No, mathematically it fails as W34; + 20 = W34; which is the same thing as W34; + 0 which also equals W34;, no this cannot be claimed a benefit in the context of the thing at stake-the eternal soul according to this religion. So Hebrews gets a door prize, but must be moving along.

1 TIM 2:1 This one is not about action, but about prayer, thanksgivings and other interactions with your god such to include everyone and most especially kings and those in power. The last part should already arouse suspicion, but regardless this is about good behavior, good acts toward others, and I specifically said "not talk", For you to claim these prayers are more than just talk, and actual action that benefits others, thus fulfilling the requirement, would require you to prove your god thus proving your prayer has any effect and thu qualiifies. You cannot so you cannot offer 1 Tim 2:1 as evidence of doing anything for someone else, much less everyone and kings.... Prayer also cannot be proven or measured, that is you can say you are praying for me-but you can't prove it even if you kneel and say the words aloud, you could be picturingg my torture in hateful vengeance in your mind-so if you wish to use prayer as evidence, I'd like to introduce a few unicorns as surprise witnesses, and since they're in the bible, I assume they'd be allowed. So again we have the same bogus benefit-if you do this thing that isn't doing anythign and thus already failed as no positivity for others can be proven therefore is precluded from being claimed, but what is the claimed benefit if we pretend the first part was satisfied? A tranquil life. Well first, I can get that without praying for kings or anyone. Second, again we have the infinity + X still yields infinity and is equal to what you get if X=0 so even a benefit/reward is not true here either by the bible's own promise of eternal bliss.
Paul as always fails on both accounts and will not be asked back next year.

Luke 6:28
You forgot the argument on this one as sure, Luke says turn the cheek-but where is our reward for doing so or punishment for failure? Nowhere in the passage, again as I said-it's a suggestion, nothing more. Commands have teeth-like "Get out of the car with your hands up!" is a command because there is a consequence if you don't do what is ordered. There is no authority or threat of power, therefore there is no command and assumptions or claims of implicity don't count as they are inconstent, that is, it would require ALL biblical commands be commands by nature of some implicit threat which means none would be explicit yet they are. Luke gets a free popcorn, but failed to produce what was needed.

So let's get back to what I'm claiming-that because of what you just helped me show-that no real benefit and therefore no real motivation and no real reason exists in the bible to do good things for others, it cannot be claimed to motivate people to do so. IF there is no good, that gets me halfway. But feel free to throw more passages as you now see how they fail and know what to look for;

1/ something that benefits others, not just the self
2/ something that offers a reward or punishment that is real (ie not 20 years next to W34; which is a joke)

Con said: "You point out that Judas caused Jesus to die, but it is by Jesus' own life and death we are saved according to John 10:18."

No, you misunderstand me, I didn't say Judas caused Jesus to die. If asked, I would say the bible says WOMAN caused Jesus to die, and the Jews, not Judas. I said you are SAVED because of Judas as without him tattletailing on Jesus, Jesus would have kept hiding as he was and not been crucified which is the sacrifice claimed necessary for your absolution and salvation. So to dispell that you must address what i said, you have to show what Jesus did to save you that he had a choice in, dying without a choice doesn't fit the bill. Further, from his behavior until captured-he would have chose NOT to save you, or show me otherwise. Who's efforts led to Jesus being killed and therefore 'dying for your sins'?? Jesus? or Judas? Clearly Judas. What did Jesus do? He was gracious enough to die once they had a hold of him and he had no choice but to do so? He hardly gets credit for that.

Con said: "There is 1 unforgivable sin which i presume you mean in Matt. 12:31, however based on context and other passages, blasphemy against the Spirit isn't an instant sin done, but a continual rejection of God's grace.""

First, it's again in 3 gospels: Matt 12:31, Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10

What this is or isn't is irrelevant as the point is whatever it is - it's clearly a command as it has authority of the nature required-a real punishment or benefit, and it is a punishment -eternal suffering, by being barred from salvation. But it has nothing to do with other people, just the god. So nobody benefits except YOU by doing it. So it cannot be said that this one command offers anything to anyone else in this world. And really it does nothing for you except offer a reason to be afraid of not cowering and coveting before your god. Meanwhile, we see no other commands are real as the offenses are all forigiveable elswhere. That is the argument in a nutshell, now with 3 examples based on the gospels.

Lastly, the bible does say his creation is perfect as it says GOD IS PERFECT. A perfect being cannot do imperfect things, including create poorly. Those omnis will get you into trouble every time when it comes to logic and consistence. And I don't think you supporting slavery and arguing it compassionate or just helps your argument, it helps mine-as you demonstrate the thinking one may have based on the bible's "morality". In reality, slavery is NEVER okay, it is NEVER moral unless a ruse (ie for the sake of a benefit to the slave somehow in a real way.

Nothing for others, just the self, and offers you to avoid taking responsibility for yourself much less others. Most immoral teaching ever, and further, motivates with fear!
Truth_seeker

Con

Truth_seeker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Brendan_Liam

Pro

In closing, I would point out that the desire collectively of Christians is the end of the world, there is nothing good about that from any measurable point of view, that is from this world, the real one. If there is free will, ignoring that it cannot exist with an all powerful god, this collective desire to end the world could only lead to fatalism in difficult times and complacence in good ones, all the while thinking the real world is yet to come. Little do they realize, there is no pure land as a land has no value by its own accord but rather can only reflect the lives of the people in it. In other words, there are not 2 lands, but only 1 and if the mind is pure the land is pure and the if the mind is impure, so will impure be reflected by the land. This is clealry obvious from observance of random groups of people in the same area-they all have different life conditions or can and therefore are likely to (experience the land differently).

And what they really do is sit around in life, waiting for death... so that in death they may live.

Theres not only something immoral about that but what kind of logic would allow for such a backward view of life and death. The religion teaches self hate and begins dividing on page 2, where the god acknowledges the value of the man, gives him a soul via magic god breath, names him, 'Adam" gives him a great job of naming all the animals, and all the real estate in the world, declaring Adam's or man's dominion (clearly the god didn't know about micro-organisms who are clearly not included there and rather the antithesis is true. So the god chats it up with Adam and then also makes him a wife out of the leftover scraps, beginning the sexual inequality that is inescapable through the whole book, but the point is driven home with clarity: No magic god breath which implies only man has a soul which is what they believed as only man was in his image (in Genesis 2, not 1 which is a different creation) further doesn't even say hello to the woman and leaves her in line with the animals to be named, clearly by namingg her she is classified as an animal and that is the case in reality in early chrisitanity that women had the status of livestock. Adam names her, 'Eve' and she gets zero real estate, no real job being a dumb woman and instead is Adam's gopher. That's clear as it gets but it goes on to blame women for the fall of man - note again her suffering is not worth mentioning but it is said that childbirth pains are her own fault for what she did and all women will suffer them as well. And notice, in this tradition and it was that a son would pay the debt of a father, a daughter of a mother and on-quite an immoral sense of justice and a complete lack of comprehension of individualism to a degree of madness. Next Blacks are targeted via Cain rising up to murder his brother that the omniscient god knows nothing about, checking under tables and rugs "what have you done with your brother", real all knowing..... And Cain is marked which historically was clearly indicated as his black skin. And slavery is a favored topic and said to be a "divine institution" until so unpopular god changed his mind or will, soon! Thus it clearly intentionally pits groups against each other, through these endless lists of who is inferior to the Christian, adult male (white comes later).

The god condones rape, murder and again is himself fond of murdering little babies and blaming them for it no less. But does he help? no. Just screws with people like some sadistic kid burning ants on a hot day with a magnifying glass. And we see even today that due to the lack of practice (faith in jesus? bam youre done!) and boredom waiting for the apocalypse they greedily show no selflessness whatsoever as they attack the rights of somebody at all times. And always in order to deny them a right, they themselves enjoy and wish to continue enjoying yet depriving others of based on lies and arbitrary appearance or other traits.

Using a Hitchens argument as well, he pointed out how the god does absolutely nothing for 'man" (chrisitanity's sexism,, not mine) for a long time, 96,000 to 246,000 years, including allowing our (his chosen ones) population to dip below 10,000 when we almost went extinct, and the god did nothing. And when he finally appears it's not to the Chinese (love this part) who have already invented paper and thus would be the obviouss choice for accurately and infintiely more efficieinttly tahn any ohter culture to take down the details of his "word" . Instead he gives his goods to the most backward, uncivilized, illiterate group available.

But to want someone ELSE to pay or your misdeeds, ie pay your bill is already incredibly immoral if not the core of immorality, but worse-to claim it's true and an ongoing benefit one can achieve by quick repentence of nathing one might due, and to top it off, still not satisfied with how immoral they are, they insist others sit down and pass buck in grandiose laziness as well. They even try to steal our parental rights, that is Substantive Due Process Rights that parents have, they do this by defiling the US Constitution with lies and loopholes of faith...like adding god to the pledge so that the govt CAN take a side and tell little innocent children, 1/5 of them that the aren't Americans and tell the others to hate them if they are not christians.

The original, rather previous version which was the 2nd and changed from "My Flag" to what ou see below, it was pure and true and American:

Skipping ot the important part: "One Nation Indivisible, with LIberty and Justice for All" That's beautiful and consistent with itself and nowhere do we see a contradiction or fallacy. Furhter and most important-it is the thing that united Americans-that nobody WAS special, and all were equal in all ways simply by being CITIZENS!!!!!! And what it has become is quite outrageous considering this whole liberty gig was designed with Christain Monarchies in mind as examples of what NOT TO BE, NOT, thus it was the first Constitution in history that EXCLUDED the mention of a god. Thus 'we the people' and man's law is the 'highest law of the land' well hell the christians cant hae that! they gotta be highest, and they pulled it off in 1954. They cleverly a smoothly through drunken singing men's clubs slipped the god into the most clever hiding place of all-in the pledge, and thereby directly tying and thus equating "god" and "America" or "God" equated with patriotism. And at this point, the christians reached into the atheist pocket, and stole their recognition rights right out of their pockets. And the christian has been holdingg double, or 'special rights' ever sincee and attempted many mroe coup's on others rights, most recently the GLBT community but they didn't take any guff. Jus tlike I saidd at the beginning, it [Christiainity] is the antithesis of Liberty, nothing but chains and lies and false claims to inlienable rights of others as always.. They are slowly infiltrating govenrmnet to lie their way back to theocracy, the ringleader Scalia and his zombie Constitution. Anyway it's nothign but chains, nothing but intentionial contrived lies, it has a purpoase and the first part is to divide, it does what it does very well. And in the end, one must surmise based on the data of the doctrine even more than history itself, that this philsophy was by design evil in nature crippling the human mind to pass the buck and feel okay abouut it until you saw somone not hiding behind a jesus, and well, that's just not allowed...becaause all it takes is one thinker to ruin the bunch-that's christianity

Beware... the Frankenstein of Religions - it's got YOUR favorite flavor too! God knows what it is!
Truth_seeker

Con

" what they really do is sit around in life, waiting for death... so that in death they may live."

False, Christians are called to change the world in the present and do God's will on earth.

in early chrisitanity that women had the status of livestock Adam names her, 'Eve' and she gets zero real estate, no real job being a dumb woman and instead is Adam's gopher. That's clear as it gets but it goes on to blame women for the fall of man - note again her suffering is not worth mentioning but it is said that childbirth pains are her own fault for what she did and all women will suffer them as well."

Wrong, the woman was taken from the man, therefore making her equal to the man. No one is blaming the woman for the fall of man.

"..in this tradition and it was that a son would pay the debt of a father, a daughter of a mother and on-quite an immoral sense of justice and a complete lack of comprehension of individualism to a degree of madness"

That's in this tradition...

God's definition of good and plan to end evil isn't the same as yours, so the "problem of evil" argument is futile.

It seems as if your going on a rant than actually debating me and providing textual evidence to support your claims.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Brendan_Liam 3 years ago
Brendan_Liam
W34 means the infinity symbol. It showed the symbol as I was typing but came out as "W34" upon submission. I'll try again here, pasting the symbol: W34;
Posted by Brendan_Liam 3 years ago
Brendan_Liam
Actually, iI meant what i said literally and believe I can argue it, but maybe you're right. however, if you are i still win, as i learn something.
Posted by sengejuri 3 years ago
sengejuri
The way you phrased your topic sets you up for defeat. Your opponent only needs to show that Christianity is a moral benchmark (even if it's a bad one) and that one can possibly find examples of less moral philosophies in history. Your opponent does not have to argue that Christianity is good or perfect, which I assume is what you're hoping for. Just giving my input....
Posted by Brendan_Liam 3 years ago
Brendan_Liam
insightful, i cannot argue with that. except that it only has the perception of moral benchmark and upon examination the antithesis. its like saying "but the dollar IS valuable! America IS strong!' At which point if youd like me to bring you a blanket for your butt in the air as your head is underground.

And yes, to judge by behavior-again opposite of their thinking, which is faith alone determines. Easiest religion in history to practice as well... revolutionary in that regard and the eternal punishment/bliss. Why? most likely to attract jews who had hundreds of pain in the butt rules and well just difficulties-this guy would be pretty appealingg and get enough of them and it would solve the Roman problem of controlling that particular group that they never could... how better to do it than to usurp their god, that which gave them the power to resist.
Posted by jzfredricks 3 years ago
jzfredricks
You have two absolutes in your topic; "no moral benchmark" and "most immoral philosophy in history". It certainly IS a moral benchmark, just not a very good one. Pretty sure it won't be hard to find a more immoral philosophy, too. Still... best of luck.
One of my biggest beefs with Christianity is "how do you define it?". Is it the literal teachings, or is it the way its followers behave? They are two very different things. Personally, I think a religion should be judged on the latter.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by WhizKid 3 years ago
WhizKid
Brendan_LiamTruth_seekerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: eh, an interesting debate. Pro had a better handle on the concepts and spent more time making a case.