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

Christianity is not real.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 11/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,305 times Debate No: 64410
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (0)




I am going to be arguing that Christianity is not real and merely a series of fabricated stories. There was no such person as Jesus Christ.
Con needs to provide substantial evidence to prove the existence of Jesus Christ.

First round is acceptance.

Please be aware that I mean no disrespect to anyone of any religion in this debate.
I wish the best of luck to my opponent.


Round 1 | Acceptance and Intro | by Eav | 3/11/14

I accept the debate.

I am going to argue that there is evidence to support an historical Jesus and also offer some arguments based on logical connections to show that Jesus was a living person that inspired a religion.

Currently the other part of the resolution "Christianity is not real" is a very vague statement, because even if the core idea of the Religion wasn't real, it's an existing religion with followers that exist. Or in other words: May Christianity even be wrong, it's still real. I'll offer Con to keep it or scratch that from the resolution, but not to rephrase.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Con for accepting the debate.

Now I shall state my point.

There are uncanny similarities of Jesus to other people in history who existed before he supposedly did.
Jesus Christ's life bears uncanny resemblances to many other people who also supposedly existed in history, some who may have even existed before him. This suggests that the life of Jesus Christ was fabricated.

(1) Horus, Egyptian God - c.3000 BCE
Political commentator Bill Maher confronted a Christian man about the parallels between the Egyptian God Horus' life and Jesus' life, and this is part of what he found.
"Written in 1280 B.C., the Book of the Dead describes a God, Horus. Horus is the son of the god Osiris, born to a virgin mother. He was baptised in a river by Anup the Baptiser who was later beheaded. Like Jesus, Horus was tempted while alone in the desert, healed the sick, the blind, cast out demons, and walked on water. He raised Asar from the dead. "Asar" translates to "Lazarus." Oh, yeah, he also had twelve disciples. Yes, Horus was crucified first, and after three days, two women announced Horus, the saviour of humanity, had been resurrected."
Summary of points
Both Jesus and Horus were born to a virgin mother
Both Jesus and Horus are the sons of God
Both Jesus and Horus were baptised
Both Jesus and Horus were tempted in the desert
Both Jesus and Horus cured the sick, helped people, etc.
Both Jesus and Horus died due to crucifying
Both Jesus and Horus were brought back to life three days after their deaths
Hmm, the similarities are uncanny, right? But that's not all.

(2) Krishna, Hindu God - 3227 BCE to 3102 BCE
Lord Krishna and Jesus Christ also have much in common. These are some of the similarities:
Both Krishna and Jesus were born in unusual places. Jesus was born in a lowly manger and Lord Krishna in a prison cell.
Both of them were divinely saved from death. Jesus came back to life after he died, while Krishna survived being brutally murdered by his uncle, Kamsa.
Both of them were pursued by evil forces which tried to bring them down, but they both escaped on numerous occasions.
Both died of wounds caused by sharp objects - Jesus died from being nailed to a cross and Lord Krishna was killed by an arrow.
Even their names are similar! Krishna means 'dark in complexion' while Christ means 'covered in dark.'
All of this is quite strange. It is almost as if someone copied the story of Krishna and invented a new story...

(3) Buddha, main figure of Buddhism -
Both Buddha and Christ preached many similar things, and Buddha lived many, many years before Christ ever claimed to.
Here are some quotes from both of them that show the similarities of their teachings:
Example #1
Buddha: "Lose self to gain nirvana and escape from suffering."
Christ: "Lose self to gain Christ and entrance into heaven, where there will be no suffering."
Example #2
Buddha: "Consider others as yourself."
Christ: "Treat others the same way you want them to treat you."5 "You shall love your neighbour as yourself."
Example #3
Buddha: "Hatred does not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love; this is an eternal truth. . . . Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good, overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth."
Christ: "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."

Now this is getting ridiculous. It is literally the teachings of Buddha copied and turned into a book that makes up the Bible.

The similarities between the stories of Christ and the stories of Buddha, Krishna and Horus are amazing. It is clear to see that the stories of Jesus have been based off these three people. Whether any of them are real or not is a different matter, but the stories of Horus, Krishna and Buddha existed long before Christ's story did, so it is only logical to say that whoever invented Christ's story copied these other stories.



Round 2 | Rebuttal and Argumentation | by Eav | 3/11/14

I thank my opponent for his thoughtful first round. If possible would it be more comfortable, if Con could actually make in-text-references for his sources, because after checking them I noticed a fair amount of copy&paste material; especially the first argument.

Round 2 Structure

[Rebuttal 1] General problems with comparing Jesus to other religious authorities
1a: The case Horus
1b: The case Krishna
1c: The case Buddha

[Argument 1] Evidence for Jesus the historical person
Note: I'll continue these arguments next round, when I don't run out of characters

[R1] General problems with comparing Jesus to other religious authorities
I respect my opponents concept of comparing Jesus to others but I see some grave problems in this technique, if the intention is to show, that Jesus is made up.

On first though, Jesus doesn't necessary need to be made up, just because there are stories about him that are. Jesus doesn't even loose his status as the messiah, just because some of his doings might or might not have happened. Mark for example never wrote about Jesus birth yet his gospel is included in the bible and he was obviously convinced that what he wrote was enough to show Jesus as the saviour.

We can't even be sure how much the gospel writers plagiarised from other religions to show that Jesus was the saviour. Some links can easily be meant as metaphors (such as the virgin birth) while others rather can't (such as the healing).

The bible is a complex piece of writing. Most of it's parts were written (long) after Jesus died, in many different languages that are not spoken any more (e.g. traditional Greek) and the whole thing has been edited by each subculture of Christianity many times (I am talking for example about the Vatican Councils), meaning that the bible is not even reliable in terms of representing their original sources properly.

My opponent yielded to the temptation of arguing that the bible is either true or false. And if it is false, it must be made up. And if it is made up, Jesus must be made up. But this logic has its problems. The real question is: do we have reason to believe that there was person (ideally named Jesus) that served as the role model that inspired the creation of Christianity? (see Argumentation below)

1a: The case Horus

Anyway, I'll take the time to show why the given comparisons are even weak if we ignore that they can't show what Pro is trying to.

With Horus we have a similar problem as we have with Jesus: that the stories about him developed and changed a lot and are only partly reliable. Different subcultures praised different forms and back stories of Horus, in one he, for example, is the son of Ra. Just as Osiris (another father) is a male god but still the father. AncientEgyptOnline already lists seven different types of Horus-cults of which the average Horus isn't much Jesus like {1b} but in case of Horus, the child of Osiris and Isis, his conception is most similar to what we find in Christianity, especially as Art later represented Jesus and Mary similar to Horus and Isis {1c}.

This tells us, that people have later tried a lot to create and show similarities as a method of communication. We have to understand that people could not always read or had a very limited knowledge. Links like this are methods just as rhetoric to underline a message; plagiarism used to be good style. We might even consider Jesus to underline the parallels. If we assume that the people at his time knew about Horus so did he. Similarities can be intentionally.

Just considering the number of disciples: twelve as it seems to be but the crowd around Jesus might have been bigger {2} meaning that the choice to mention mainly the twelve most trusted was also choice of those who told the stories.

A good example is the translation of Lazarus and Asar. I strongly believe neither one of them was actually named that way. These names are often assigned to serve the purpose of the story: Lazarus is the Hebrew version of Eleazar, meaning "God" and "support" or "help" {3}.

1b: The case Krishna

I don't want to say much on Krishna, especially because I don't want just repeat points from 1a. But the links to Krishna are really not substantial. A barn and a prison have nothing in common. To have children nice and smooth at the hospital is certainly a modern day thing.

The survived-death-thing and the temptation-thing is what we also find with Horus. Did Krishna plagiarised the Egypts, too?

And in terms of the sharp objects: Before guns were developed you only had three options to kill someone if you weren't willing to wait till they die of natural causes: hard objects, poison and sharp objects. And stabbing has a different poetry than hitting Krishna and Jesus with a stone. Anyway, to draw a line between being crucified (a punishment) and shot with an arrow (a war and anger act) is pretty far-fetched for everything before the 15th century.

1c: The case Buddha

Here we have a nice example that great ideas and morals can develop apart from each other and still focus on the same points. The given examples sound similar, but we have to consider, that they are both translations into English from two languages that have not the same origin as English. Which is by the way a nice example because written languages are a very similar form of communication yet developed partly unknowing about how other cultures communicated.

An interview with the sutta translator Bhikkhu Bodhi shows for example how translations sometimes sacrifice content to have a nice rhetoric construct; "This problem becomes all the more acute when one is translating from an ancient language utilizing a somewhat archaic set of conceptual metaphors into a modern language pertaining to a very different culture" (Bhikku Bodhi; Interview) {4}. This explains why Buddhas teaching and Jesus teaching sound so similar. The same morals have been translated by using similar words. Or to say it differently: Two authentic ideas can still be paraphrased similar.

[A1] Evidence for Jesus, the historical Person

There is documentary evidence for Jesus life, or at least his death, from different sources, that are not the bible such as Tacitus the Roman historian (55 - 115. A.D.) and Flavius Josephus (~ 37 - 101 A.D) a Jewish priest.

Josephus, in the Arabic version of his writing {5}: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Josephus)

And Tacitus, who hated both Jews and Christians and had therefore even less reason to foster any believe in Jesus reported: "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate [...]" (Tacitus) {6}

Even the Talmud mentions Jesus {6} and though this is another religious (yet not Christian) source, there seems to be no reason for Judaism to mention Jesus if there was not reason to believe that he, as a person, was real; as his whole existence challenges core points of Jewish believes.


Debate Round No. 2


I will have to be quick due to limited time, so I thank Con for his arguments. I will now state my rebuttals.

1. Flavius Josephus and his claim about Christ. [1]
Flavius Josephus was not born until 37 CE (AD), which is four years after Christ supposedly died. Therefore there is no way he could have witnessed any part of Christ's life at all.
Also, if this isn't convincing enough, Josephus' writings could have easily been forged, especially since it was such a long time ago. They were also kept by the Church, which could have made them say anything they wanted to.
2. Tacitus and his claim about Christ [2]
Tacitus made a claim about Christ as well and described him, but just like Josephus, there is no way he could have known what he was like if he didn't exist at the time Jesus was supposedly alive. Also, why is it that no one quoted Tacitus' passage as a source for their writing until the fifth century CE? If it was so amazing that he had somehow 'seen' Jesus, wouldn't he be more well known? Wouldn't his writings also be more well known?

Now I will move onto my point.

Jesus has said way too many contradictions and 'ungodly' things in the Bible to believe that it is true.

1. Love your enemies as you love yourself. [3]
In Luke 6:26, Jesus said: "But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you."
So here, he is preaching forgiveness, correct? And he is saying even if someone does something bad, he should be forgiven, right?
So why does he say this in Mark 16:15-16?
"He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned [to hell].""
This is how Jesus himself says he will treat his enemies. If he is telling other people to forgive and love their enemies, why doesn't he? Right here it says that he will send them all to hell. Obviously a loving and caring god would recognise that some people may not believe in him and that is not their faults because they grew up learning different things. If Jesus holds that against them, when it is absolutely not their fault, I cannot see how he is perceived as the 'saviour of the world.'

2. Racism from Jesus? [3]
If Jesus is god, then he should love all his people, no matter what, right? So why does Jesus say this, in Matthew 15:22-26?
"A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs.""
Right here in this passage, Jesus is discriminating against a 'Canaanite woman.' Jesus is supposed to cast out demons and save people, right? So why does he refuse this woman?

3. Ridiculous advice from Jesus. [3]
Okay, I am not quite sure if people nowadays think this is a good idea - I sure hope you don't - but here is what Jesus advised people to do in Matthew 18:7-9:
"Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell."
There's just one small problem with this. It is not at all possible for your hand to 'cause you to sin,' it is your brain telling you to sin. Nor is it the fault of your eye or foot. If Jesus was god he would have realised this, and if he did, he would probably tell everyone to cut out their brains, because that is definitely what an intelligent god would do.

If there are so many contradictions and ungodly things that occur in the Bible, how can it be a holy book? There is just too much evidence, even within the Bible itself, that points to the non-existence of Jesus Christ.



Round 3 | Rebuttal and Arguments | by Eav | 9/11

Thanks to my opponent again, it has been a pleasure so far.

Round 3 Structure

[Addressing Rebuttal 1] Lack of eyewitnesses
1a: Flavius Josephus
1b: Tacitus
[Rebuttal 2] Contradictions
[Argument 2] Logical Approach

[AR1] Lack of eyewitnesses

1a: Flavius Josephus

was born very close to Jesus death. At the time he heard the stories people who knew Jesus were still alive. His writing clearly indicates that he spoke to eyewitnesses and though all of them could have been lying, I don’t see a reason why all of them would, because not all of them can have been Christians. The time of FJ had no media and creating a person like Jesus would have taken much more time to spread and ensure. And we can see that FJ is not a blind believer; because he shows doubts concerning the rising of Jesus. If he was critical enough to doubt people there, he wouldn’t ignore if the majority of eyewitnesses or contemporary witnesses would report that certain events never took place.

1b: Tacitus

Nobody likes to quote a filthy Roman. Seriously, that Tacitus was ignored that long comes clearly from him being anit-Christian. Also for a long time, the gospels were considered a proper source {4b} for Jesus existence, scientific methods were still in development.
Tacitus relies on what he knows from Romans. That means he used Roman documentary and Roman witnesses. If he concluded that Jesus existed, than based on stories from Romans who put a lot of effort into making Jesus a myth (or at least profited highly from that). How many secretly christian-reborn-Romans could there have been to falsify Tacitus report?

[R2] Contradictions

I can only repeat what I said before, in Round 2: That the bible doesn’t necessarily needs to be right, holy or reasonable. It is no reliable source. But it indicates that it interesting to find out, on who it is based.
The bible is based on Jesus, therefore effect. Jesus existence is not bound to the bibles reliability, because that was the cause. I have tried for two rounds now to keep this scientific, but my opponent keeps attacking the bible without realising that this arguments base on the logic of fanatic Christians: that the bible is a reliable report and has fallen from heaven in the holy wholeness that it is. It isn’t, and I pointed out before why. If Jesus did not exist we could still have the Bible, but we would not have reports like those from Tacitus and Flavius Josephus.


The contradictions actually point out that Jesus did exist (see A2), also because, if Jesus was fully made up, someone would have made sure in the editing process, that nasty contradictions don’t occur. But for the sake of proper rebuttal, I’ll address the given contradictions shortly.

1: “Love yourself and your neighbour” pelages you to forgive. Doesn’t mean god will. The two statements don’t work together because that the sinning humans should forgive each other stands in no relationship with Gods final judgment of them. Not a contradiction.

2: Borderline. Jesus was raised in a society of racist people but to our modern views this sure sounds racist. But with Jesus being primarily the promised saviour for the Jews he did have his point there. Jesus was not perfect. Till his resurrection he was human.

3: Oh that’s lovely! Just as many, many things said by Jesus, this a metaphor, meaning that however necessary and loved and belonging one thing or person is, if it causes you to sin, it’s time to leave it behind, even if this feels violent. Who would be so mentally deluded to think that his foot can make him sin?

[A2] Logical Approach

It seems unlikely that Christians all over the world, even only a few years after Jesus supposed death doubtlessly fell into blind believing, especially because the bible wasn’t written yet, nor one of the gospels. They must have had other sources telling them about Jesus. And these sources reported mostly the same. Con has picked some contradictions to point out why the bible is not reliable: I say, that there are only so few contradictions is surprising. Actually unlikely if they were based only on the conspiracy of … twelve people?

With the gospel of Mark being the base narrative for Matthew and Luke, it’s clear why we have more similarities between them than to John {4a}. But that John who lived significantly after these three (~130 A.D.) and used none of them as source {4a}, still gathered information so much similar overall, is an indicator that there is some real cause that keeps the stories somewhat similar.

If Jesus had never existed, the bible would be a big conspiracy by a few people that managed to spread a story so effectively that even hundred years after it was developed, people still would gather extremely similar information about a person that nobody had a reason to believe in apart from being suicidal. Has anyone recently skimmed over all the contradictive material we have about people like Hitler and Stalin? And during their lifetime we had proper recording methods. I don’t see a way how people could have pulled that stunt to invent the person Jesus from scratch.


Debate Round No. 3


Again, I have limited time, so I will make my post short. I thank Con for his arguments and indeed it has been an enjoyable experience so far.

I will now rebut Con's argument.
Con stated that there "so few contradictions in the bible" and that this fact is "amazing". Obviously I could not list every single contradiction in the bible because there are just way too many to mention. If I did, I would be well over the word count.
I would also just like to ask Con for examples of his statement where he says "extremely similar information about a person that nobody had a reason to believe in apart from being suicidal". I think it would be possible to understand what you are talking about if you gave a source for your words.
Con also stated that my argument about cutting your limbs off if 'they sin' was not a contradiction, and stated that it could have been a metaphor. He also asked "who would be so mentally deluded to think that his foot can make him sin?" Well, Jesus did, in the case of the Bible. If, however, what you say is true and this was a metaphor, who's to say that the entire Bible isn't just one big metaphor, never meant to be followed word for word? There is no way to prove that or to prove that one passage about cutting off limbs was a metaphor either.

Now onto my own argument.
I will explain some more ungodly incidences in the bible, just to make sure Con knows there aren't only three instances in the entire Bible.

1. Human Sacrifice, and animal sacrifice too [1]
"Take your son, your only son " yes, Isaac, whom you love so much " and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you." - Genesis 22:1-18
Wow. God is actually telling someone to sacrifice their son. For what reason? Later it was revealed it was just to test his fate - but he was told that by 'god' after he had tricked his son, made his son help him build the altar, tied his son down to the altar and held a knife to his throat. Has anyone ever considered how Isaac must have been feeling then? Terrified, nonetheless.
Oh, and afterwards, god tells him to let Isaac go - and he asks him to sacrifice a ram instead. Animal cruelty!

2. General Immorality [1]
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT
This is where Jesus says that women, if they are raped, must marry the man who raped her because they had relations to each other. He is obviously not at all taking into consideration how dangerous this could be for the woman. This is also very evident in the next quote:
"If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife." - Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
So basically, here he is saying that if a man has relations with a woman who is already married, both of them should be stoned to death, even if it was in no way the woman's fault. How is this an act of a kind, just and fair God?

3. Slavery in the Bible [2]
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Nice. Well, this is what Jesus feels should be done to men's daughters. He is basically saying here that if a man sells his daughter as a slave, she cannot be freed after six years, like the men are 'allowed' to be; instead, if the man feels that he has not had her for long enough or feels he was not satisfied, he can keep her for even longer. Oh yeah, and also, he has not committed any sin as long as he has fed her, clothed her and satisfies her. Yep, that's definitely what a loving god would do!

Would you like some more examples? Well here's one more, because I need to keep this short. If you would like any more, just go to my sources.

4. God is a jealous god - but he is good! (Apparently) [3]
"The LORD is a jealous God, filled with vengeance and wrath. He takes revenge on all who oppose him and furiously destroys his enemies! The LORD is slow to get angry, but his power is great, and he never lets the guilty go unpunished. He displays his power in the whirlwind and the storm. The billowing clouds are the dust beneath his feet. At his command the oceans and rivers dry up, the lush pastures of Bashan and Carmel fade, and the green forests of Lebanon wilt. In his presence the mountains quake, and the hills melt away; the earth trembles, and its people are destroyed. Who can stand before his fierce anger? Who can survive his burning fury? His rage blazes forth like fire, and the mountains crumble to dust in his presence. The LORD is good. When trouble comes, he is a strong refuge. And he knows everyone who trusts in him. But he sweeps away his enemies in an overwhelming flood. He pursues his foes into the darkness of night."
Nahum 1:2-8 NLT
Here, this passage is suggesting that natural disasters are a result of god's wrath. The first line says that god is a jealous god, filled with vengeance and wrath. Then later, it says that the lord is good. How is this possible? First, let's think logically; if god is jealous and filled with vengeance and wrath, and creates huge thunderstorms and tsunamis and droughts to kill that a good God? Is that a God you would want?

So I end this debate on that note. Voters, I ask you - would you want a type of God that allows women, men and children to die? That allows people to die for absolutely no reason? That kills animals just because he feels like it? That kills people on purpose for no particular reason? That discriminates against different races? That discriminates against homosexuals?

Thank you Con for accepting my debate, and it has been a great experience.
Voters, now it is up to you.



Round 4 | Rebuttal and Closing | by Eav | 14/11/14

I respect that Pro has only limited time available (actually most of us), but in the light of his fourth round arguments I want to remind everyone to stay focused on the resolution.

[Rebuttal 3] Contradictions II
[Rebuttal 4] Method Critique
[Addressing Rebuttal 3]
[Closing Statement]

[R3] Contradictions II

There is not much add, to what I said previously about contradictions in Round 3: That they are no clear sign for Jesus not existing. Faults or Misunderstandings in the bible don’t offer the conclusion that Jesus is made up and Pro has not provided any reasoning why that would be so, yet fully relies on that (not established) connection. I refer the reader to Round 3 – Fig. 1 and Rebuttal 2.

But although they are meaningless for the resolution I will again spent some words on the given contradictions:

1. Animal cruelty; is not a contradiction but a point that can be morally questioned. How an unmoral Jesus is automatically a made up Jesus yet is never established and doesn’t make sense anyway: The existence of a person has nothing to do with their moral decisions.

2. Unfaithfulness and Rape, see upper explanation – this is not relevant. People who give questionable advice die and are born every day.

3. Slavery. Do I have to repeat myself? No contradiction and it’s also not ungodly. Because with the bible as religious text it’s probably not moral from our modern perspective but still in tune with gods will from the perspective of the bible. What is godly is defined by the religion that defines a god. If one doesn’t believe in god, one can’t say that something is ungodly, unholy or sin.

4. Good is jealous. Wordplay with our modern perspective of good and biblical understanding of this term. What is “good” is not automatically what the individual person considers good. From a religious perspective god is good to the extent that he always acts right and how is necessary. Or to quote the beginning of Footloose (1980): “He is testing us! He is testing us!”

[R4] Method Critique

4a: Focus Shift

Quote time: “Voters, I ask you - would you want a type of God that allows women, men and children to die? […] That discriminates against homosexuals?” (Pro, Round 4)

This rampage against Christianity addressing the voter has nothing to do with the resolution, it’s asking for a biased vote based on Anti-Christian-Perspective. But this is no debate on the moral value of Christianity. To accept that Jesus was a historical person you don’t need to accept that he raised from the death or actually healed people (effectively). You don’t need to like or believe in Jesus (as the son of god) to accept he existed.

4b: Rephrasing Method
My opponents Source Management shows lack of own thoughts, all his Sources are used in a paraphrasing matter meaning he extracts the whole argument from the website but uses his own words to repeat it. There is barely an independently developed thought in his arguments.

4c: Lack of Arguments
Maybe it’s time for another diagram:

(Fig 2)

Pro has only two arguments: that the bible is immoral and inconsistent and that Jesus shows similarities to core people of other religions. Yet for four rounds he never addressed the problem that I pointed out in detail that neither one of these arguments stand in a proper relationship to Jesus existence. Nor has he shown on his own why there would be such a connection. Ergo Pro has presented two half-backed-not-his-own-theories.

[AR 3] Contradictions

3a: “Extremely similar information”
All four gospels share a significant amount of core events that they all mention and describe {5}. This means all gospel authors found more or less reliable but at least indicators to believe that the events they mentioned occurred. To say it otherwise: It’s too random to be strategically made up and it’s too connected to be just a coincidence.

3b: Metaphors in the bible

“There is no way to prove that or to prove that one passage about cutting off limbs was a metaphor either.” (Pro, Round 3)

Indeed, there is no way to answer that 100% but we can observe the passage and decide what is more reasonable and what makes most sense.
We know that Metaphors are big part of the bible, in the old testament we have even problems using actions like "eating" or "drinking" consequently literal{6}. The word "eye" has been used before as a metaphore in the famous "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, [...]" (Exodus 21:24), so this is another indicator. I would not even outrule that the use of the whole idea of eyes and limbs (foot/ hand) is a clear indicator that this is used in the same metaphorically manner as the exodus statement.

And as the statement makes rather few practical sense if we not interpret it metaphorically (because sinning limbs rather a niche problem) the literal interpretation is less likely.


[Closing Statement]

Pro repeatedly leaves the resolution in favour of pure Christianity bashing. Which is off topic and unnecessary. His argumentation doesn’t take changes in account that happened between the Years 100 BC to 100 AC and today for language, writing and understanding nature and morals and shows weaknesses at several points (R4).

Around and shortly after the time of Jesus most likely existence people choose to be killed in his name, wrote about his doing mostly reporting about the same incidences and even those who had no reason to believe or foster believe in him choose to make a report of his existence that could have cost them their lives and their reliability as historians. All this indicates that a person was born, that was called Jesus or Christ (or probably something similar) that died and inspired a religion.

Was he a god? Was he gods’ son? I don’t know and don’t need to know to answer the resolution in question with: Yes, Jesus existed.

I thank my opponent as well for the debate and hand it over to the judges' will. Which might or might not be in my favour but hopefully not influenced by personal religious views.

P. S. I am honsetly sorry that I mixed up who is Con and Pro in my previous round, but I am just not used to being Con on something ^^. But considering that Pro half-way-through forgot that I am not a guy seems to even the scores.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Eav 2 years ago
@debate_power, yeah... if you read downwards, basically everyone got to that point as well. That's why the resolution was changed.
Posted by debate_power 2 years ago
Of course Christianity is real! It exists, doesn't it? I should have snatched up this debate while I had the chance. :)
Posted by Eav 2 years ago
Nahh seriously?!... Well that stuff happens.
Posted by WolfLover 2 years ago
Thanks for an awesome debate, Eav!
You mentioned that partway through the debate I didn't mention you as a female - but on your profile it does not say if you were male or not. And you mentioned me as a male, even though on my profile it said I am female!!
Anyways, thanks for accepting the debate, it's been a great experience!
Posted by Eav 2 years ago
@dhardage I am not sure if this pointed at me or Christianity, but you obviously did not properly read my writing.

Whether Jesus Christ existed has nothing to do with him existing as the Son of God. This is an unprovable extra. Its not unlikely that said wonders might be explained otherwise, but my point here is that Jesus (as a historical person) existed. To what extend he performed wonders is a different matter and has nothing to do with him not being real.
Posted by dhardage 2 years ago
The sources you cite talk about an itinerant Jewish rabbi that people were calling Christus or Chrestus. The comments are incidental and provide no background or other information. There no contemporary record of any of the miraculous thing that your mythological savior performed. It seems unlikely that the Roman Empire, obsessed as it was with record keeping, would ignore the dead coming to life and wandering about a town and simply choose not to record it. This is but one glaring piece of evidence that your religion is based on fabrications by people who espoused a religion and needed it to be miraculous.
Posted by Eav 2 years ago
@WolfLover I'd be careful on using the word "real". Real and True are not the same. Is the bible true? meh... Is it real? Oh yes.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
FYI, the voting on these types of debates tends to be pretty biased. Please don't view a few retards casting bad votes, as a reflection of the whole site...

To anyone highly emotionally invested in the topic: When voting comes, I suggest focusing on feedback, but not assigning points.
Posted by WolfLover 2 years ago
That is assuming the Bible is real, but I'm arguing that it isn't.
Posted by Emilrose 2 years ago

Not exactly. Jesus' disciples and the authors of the New Testament existed at the time so obviously the story and subsequent writings did.
No votes have been placed for this debate.