The Instigator
jat93
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

Christianity is "wrong" and therefore not divinely inspired.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,781 times Debate No: 11941
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (7)

 

jat93

Pro

Based on its many contradictions, one must conclude that Christianity is not divinely inspired; that is to say that it is a false religion and was not created by God.
The religion of Christianity holds that both the Old and New Testament are divinely inspired, and therefore that its religious beliefs are compatible with that of the Old Testament. Whether the Old Testament is divinely inspired of not, if it contradicts the New Testament, we are forced to concede that the New Testament is not divinely inspired.
The New Testament is teeming with trivial contradictions against the Old Testament that are simply irreconcilable. Though this is not what I intend to focus on, they are too numerous to ignore. For instance, John 3:13 says that nobody had ascended into heaven before Jesus, while Kings 2 2:11 states unequivocally that Elijah ascended into heaven. Genesis 11:12 says that Shelah was Arphaxad's son, and the genealogy listed in Luke 3:35-36 goes directly against it by saying that Shelah was his grandson. Leviticus 20:9 condemns those who curse their parents and sentences them to death. On the other hand, Jesus declares in Luke 14:26 that no man can become his disciple unless they hate their parents, along with their wives and children, and brothers and sisters.
Jesus' role as Messiah is a foundation of the Christian faith. One prerequisite for Messiah-ship is Davidic descent - the messiah must come from the lineage of King David. Based on information provided by the New Testament itself, Jesus cannot be of Davidic descent as he is described in Romans 1:1- 3. If Jesus was indeed virgin born, Joseph had nothing to do with the conception, and thus the only human genealogy must be through Mary. Luke 1:36 says Mary was related to Elizabeth who was of the Aaronic line (Luke 1:5).
Still on the subject of Messiah, it is evident throughout writings of the Old Testament that the Messiah's role is to gather the Jews of the world back into the Holy Land, reconstruct the Temple, bring world peace, bring universal awareness of God, and restore the laws and commandments of Judaism as they once were. (See Maimonidies laws of Kings Chapters 11 and 12. See also Isaiah 2:4, 11:9 and 35:5-6. See Micha 5:2 and Amos 9:11.) Ask yourself - Have any of those objectives been accomplished as of yet? The answer should be quite clear. No, they have not, and Jesus lived over two thousand years ago. Even if you misquote to me the seemingly endless amount of Old Testament verses that Christians think "foretell" of Jesus' life as Messiah, God, or whatever it may be, they are all irrelevant. Whether they even depict Jesus or not is a different story (they don't.) because Jesus does not qualify for the necessary jobs of the Messiah. Furthermore, Isaiah 42:4 says that the Messiah will accomplish these tasks during his lifetime. It says he will not "falter or be discouraged" until he accomplishes the justice that he is supposed to bring to the world. Christian theology has come up with the excuse of a "Second Coming" when Jesus will finally fulfill the Messianic prophecies. But there is no reference to such a delayed second coming of the same Messiah anywhere in the Old Testament. In fact, the Apostles believed that Jesus would come back to institute the "Kingdom of Heaven on Earth" during their lifetime.
Another staple Christian belief is that of the "Original Sin." If Jesus were alive today, he would be disgusted at how grossly misinterpreted his message has become. This proclamation is utter theological nonsense. The implication of the Original Sin doctrine is that we have excuses for anything we do wrong because it is our nature, therefore our "sins" are not our fault. It gives people permission to ignore all responsibility. I do hope you recognize just how bad that is. Opinion aside, this belief obviously contradicts the Old Testament. That is an objective fact. For example,
"House of Israel, I will judge each of you according to your own ways … Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit" (Ezek. 18:30-31).
But wait, there is more. "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."
— (Ezek. 18:19-20)
Can your own "god" more specifically reject the concept of Original Sin? I am not sure that he could, aside from saying "There is no such thing as the Original Sin."
Now, let's inspect this doctrine of Original Sin. What even was the sin that Jesus was sent to purge us of in the first place? I am no Christian theologian, (I'm only 15 years old), but I know that it is the sin of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge despite God telling them not to. The following may be a little subjective, but -
Firstly, in order to accept the concept of Original Sin, we must accept that Adam and Eve were set up in a situation destined to fail by an omniscient God (a god who knows everything, even before it happens).
Secondly, in order to accept the concept of Original Sin, we must accept that God damned the entire man kind for two people eating an apple.
Thirdly, in order to accept the concept of Original Sin, we must accept that God damned the entire man kind but decided to continue their species anyway only to end up destroying it in a fit of rage, and then re-start again it even though they were already damned.
I must say that if none of those three things bother any intellectually honest person even in the slightest, there is something wrong with them. If God knows exactly what is going to happen to his creations before it happens, and he doesn't want these things to happen, yet he still proceeds to create them and blames them for it - Then there are two possibilities. Either he cannot control the situation, in which case he is not powerful enough to stop suffering. Or, he won't, in which case he has the power to stop suffering but decides not to.
Being the fact that the previous paragraph is subject to opinion and not entirely objective truth, I'm sure you have the Christian theology prepared to answer it. It is precisely for this reason that I did not explore the topic of Biblical morality - and why I did not bother making the case that the God of the Old Testament is an evil, hypocritical, crazy, sadistic, genocidal maniac. Perhaps you would respond with something along the lines of me using my own personal judgment of morality and not having an objective moral standard to refer to. But, since I have a litte over 1000 characters that I can type, I figure that I might as well explore that a little, too.
Plato once wondered if actions are good because God commands them, or if God commands them because they are good. If the latter is true, actions are good regardless of whether God says so and therefore God is not needed for somethng to be moral. If the former is true, then in actuality everything is permitted because God creates morality and can make anything he wants moral. One theistic response is that since God is necessarily good, he would never command something morally incorrect and the previous argument is not a problem. But, in very very short, God is not necessarily good so the previous argument is a problem. I do not have time to explore that now, though.
I have clearly demonstrated that the New Testament is not compatible with the Old Testament and is therefore not divinely inspired. I think if you look from a purely unbiased point of view, that statement is obviously the truth.
Ore_Ele

Con

My opponent is making the claim that BECAUSE text in the bible have faults, that means that it is not divinely inspired. My opponent has not done anything to support that notion. While he has spent a good deal of arguments pointing out that the bible has logical errors in it, that is not the debate. The debate is how those logical mistakes prove that the bible is not "divinely inspired."

I will await for an argument that tries to make that connection.
Debate Round No. 1
jat93

Pro

My opponent accuses me of not supporting the notion that "because text in the bible have faults, that means it is not divinely inspired."

For specification, divine authorship is ascribed to something written physically by a human being supposedly through God's inspiration... With the exception of at least one set of Ten Commandments, which were actually written by God, according to Exodus 34:1. Though, ironically enough, some suggest that Exodus 34:27 contradicts 34:1.
I do not necessarily agree that they contradict. Regardless...

As I have said, my argument is based on the fact that Christianity believes both the Old and New Testament to be of divine origin, authored by the same God, and therefore that they are both infallible as they are both written by God. God, according to Christianity, is perfect. ("Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Matt 5:48). I contend that if I prove that there are certain undeniable internal discrepancies between the two "Testaments", and/or within them each individually as well, I then prove that they do not harmonize and were not inspired by the same God as Christianity would claim. Since the New Testament is supposedly based upon the Old Testament, we would then be forced to discredit the New Testament of its divine nature. If we are forced to discredit the Christian bible of its divine nature, we are forced to discredit the religion of Christianity of its divine nature.

Since you are defending Christianity, and since I have pointed out indisputable contradictions within its Bible (a tiny sample, more to come) the only way you can retain your argument is if you say that the seeming contradictions are either a) not contradictions and therefore make now effect on the New Testaments' divine status, or that b) they are contradictions, but the contradictions do not make a difference to the New Testaments' divine status. The New Testament can still come from God, and this God can still be the same one who "wrote" the Old Testament, even with these contradictions. I am interested to see what you decide.
Ore_Ele

Con

my argument is based on the fact that Christianity believes both the Old and New Testament to be of divine origin, authored by the same God, and therefore that they are both infallible as they are both written by God. God, according to Christianity, is perfect. ("Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." - Matt 5:48). I contend that if I prove that there are certain undeniable internal discrepancies between the two "Testaments", and/or within them each individually as well, I then prove that they do not harmonize and were not inspired by the same God as Christianity would claim."

He states that according to the bible, God is perfect (and shows a nice example of where it is written in the bible), and since God is perfect, he cannot be wrong, nor change his mind and if he cannot change his mind, then the bible should never disagree with itself.

This is based on 2 flawed assumptions.

1) That "perfect" means unable to change one's mind or tell an untruth (along with other things). However the definition of perfect is "without defect or blemish" [1] the ability to change one's mind is not a defect nor a blemish, as the inability to do so would actually be the ultimate case of stubbornness, which would be a major defect. The ability to tell untruths is actually very important as a way to protect others and their feelings (which is often viewed as an act of kindness). Being unable to tell anything but the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth (so help me God, lol) would be the ultimate case of brutal honesty, which can often hurt people's feelings, anger them, and cause them to do more negative things (like punch you in the face if you say "yes, that dress does make you look fat").

The other flaw is that God has to be perfect to write the bible (or, more accurately, "inspire it"). God can be imperfect and inspire the bible to say that he is perfect (I believe it is called "journalistic embellishment" and is quite common), or whatever he inspires it to say, so long as he inspired it.

My opponent is also slightly adjusting the topic when he added "...were not inspired by the same God as Christianity would claim."

The topic is "Christianity is "wrong" and therefore not divinely inspired" with no mention as to what divine entity may or may not have inspired it. Also, in the OP, he states "was not created by God." This could mean any number of Gods and there are many within different religious beliefs. We cannot simply confine the entire heart of this debate half way through.

I believe that leaves all points currently negated (Perfect =/= unable to lie or change and God does not have to be perfect to inspire a book) and addresses the attempt to adjust the topic.

[1] http://www.google.com...=
Debate Round No. 2
jat93

Pro

jat93 forfeited this round.
Ore_Ele

Con

I'm sorry that for whatever circumstances, my opponent was not able and willing to finish the debate.

To recap my position in this debate, the fact that the bible is inconsistent is NOT proof that it is not divinely inspired because consistency is the definition of divine, nor does a lack of consistency equate to a lack of divinity.

I'm not saying that the bible is right or that it is wrong, nor am I saying that it is divinely inspired or not. But we must all agree, whether we agree with the book or not, that the conclusion made by pro is not logically. There are plenty of other ways to argue that the bible may or may not be divine, or accurate, or true, but those were not the purpose of this debate or this resolution.

I wish my opponent the best of luck in all future debates, but here on DDO and wherever else he may find himself.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
OreEle's first argument was that you had done nothing to demonstrate that mistakes disproved divine inspiration. I was wondering why a divine being would have a messy, contradictory account as his divine handbook - perhaps he's simply an idiot?
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
Kinesis, could be, could be inspired by anything that is divine.
Posted by jat93 7 years ago
jat93
kinesis, i don't understand your comment...
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
So what, the Bible was divinely inspired by a blundering idiot?
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
"I didn't know it was possible to misunderstand the doctrine so much. The more you know, I guess..."

Even I know better than that one. ^^
Posted by jat93 7 years ago
jat93
i understand the doctrine quite well. what would lead you to think otherwise?
Posted by jat93 7 years ago
jat93
i understand the doctrine quite well. what would lead you to think otherwise?
Posted by popculturepooka 7 years ago
popculturepooka
"Another staple Christian belief is that of the "Original Sin." If Jesus were alive today, he would be disgusted at how grossly misinterpreted his message has become. This proclamation is utter theological nonsense. The implication of the Original Sin doctrine is that we have excuses for anything we do wrong because it is our nature, therefore our "sins" are not our fault."

I didn't know it was possible to misunderstand the doctrine so much. The more you know, I guess...
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
Ore_Ele
I typically won't do religious debates, but this one is worth it.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
jat93Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
jat93Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by taurus_fan 7 years ago
taurus_fan
jat93Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 7 years ago
Rockylightning
jat93Ore_EleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by curious18 7 years ago
curious18
jat93Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by jat93 7 years ago
jat93
jat93Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Taffyman 7 years ago
Taffyman
jat93Ore_EleTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:31