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

Christianity, their views on morality, gender equality and homophobic views.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 441 times Debate No: 86278
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




You are the reason the modern world can not move forward you illiterate, ignorant Fucward. The bible was written by man! therefore it was MANS morality that is in the bible not GOD'S because GOD might not even exist! It is perfectly acceptable if you believe in God, but christianity and what MAN says about god is a load of rubbish. The Crusades? You went and killed a bunch of people because they were in YOUR holy land not God's. Was that right or wrong? how about anti-gay? if God and Jesus really do want everyone to love each other as he does why does it matter who they love? that goes against the fundamental idea that your religion was founded upon! Is it possible to believe ing God but not religion? I certainly hope so. Your ideas and morales should not affect people who don't support them!


Prolegomena: When I saw the debate challenge, the name of the challenger, and the topic I couldn't resist. So I grabbed some scotch and here we are. In other words I'll bite.

Note: The mistakes of my opponent are vast and deep. And no small shovel can clear the absolute pile of horse manure that is my challenger's opening statement. I am truly sorry to any poor soul who finds himself reading it. Though again, I'll bite. Mainly because I see so many childish caricatures of a serious worldview.

Rebuttal: (Ignoring altogether the first sentence. I have no idea what a "Fucward" is. Maybe the kids are saying it..)
1. My opponent's view of Scripture is quite probably the worst attempt at debunking I've seen since.. well ever. Christian's believe that the Bible is the very words of God recorded by men. So the bit about it being written by man is a misunderstanding of what Christians actually believe. In short, I simply bare no burden of defending a view I, and all Christians ever, do not hold.

2. I'll be speaking from the presupposition that when the Bible speaks, God speaks. (maybe that could be a future debate)

3. The crusades are a blemish, to be sure. But I don't think my opponent would like a body count between our worldviews. (assuming him to be some form of agnostic.. Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot...)

4. To the anti-gay question: The Bible classifies homosexuality as a sin, unambiguously. But the Bible classifies lots of sins. Sin is anything that transgresses the law of God that is given to us in the Bible. Interestingly, most every time the Bible speaks of homosexuality, it does so in a list of other sins. And assigns to all sin the same punishment. Most Christian scholars and commentators agree that the lists of sins are more directly aimed at placing humanity in the same category(sinful), assigning to them the same punishment (hell) and offering to them the same solution (repent of sin and turn to Christ for salvation- reconciliation to God. ) The attack on Christians because of this view is certainly a result of the recent cultural shift. Gay is the new.. well gay. Christians have always spoken out against it. We've always had the same ancient footing.
Most of the abuse being leveled now is Christian businesses being shut down by an over-reaching state. Most Christians that I know are loving toward there homosexual "neighbor" and they want for them the same reconciliation that they themselves have received. All sin, not repented of, leads to hell. What would you call someone who stood by and watched as their neighbor walked straight into hell? You'd call them hateful.

5. You seem to believe that the idea of loving everyone is the fundamental tenant of the Christian faith. Maybe a lesson here is due... besides I've got over 5000 characters I can still use. (Not my fault you only used 12 words..this is a debate, man. get your head in the game or this could get ugly.)

Fundamental Christian Idea:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

That is the Apostle's Creed. Notice how there is nothing in there about being Mr. Nice Guy?
In brief, you do not understand the worldview you're trying to critique. Your opening statement has made that abundantly clear. You haven't begun to touch on the issues that actually divide people like us. I really hope you can do better than that.

Positive argument: I've touched on Christianity and on homosexuality in my rebuttal. Now I would like to present a positive argument concerning morality and gender equality.

Gender Equality: Though your opening statement said nothing about gender equality, I will assume the old community college caricature that I've heard 1000 times. Basically that the Bible teaches that women are to be subject to men.
Well... that's just not what the Bible teaches at all. It's really not even close. The Bible teaches that wives are to be subject to their husbands. Notice the difference? One person must ultimately be in charge and must bare the ultimate responsibility for the household before God. The Bible teaches that the husband is the head. G. K. Chesterton (a stout-hearted Christian from yesteryear) said it perfectly:

"If I set the sun beside the moon,
And if I set the land beside the sea,
And if I set the flower beside the fruit
And if I set the town beside the country
And if I set the man beside the woman
I suppose some fool would talk
About one being better."

The husband and wife have different roles. They are equal intrinsically.

And finally, Morality: I will not apologize for my views on morality. I have a standard that I get them from. And I believe that standard is God, himself. However I am interested in where you, my opponent get your moral standard. I would like an answer to that question. I find it helpful to understand where a person is coming from. I am a classic Christian (Calvinist) you know where I am getting my shoulds-n-shouldnts.. I would venture to guess that your stance is almost completely arbitrary and self-serving. Though that is beside the point.

Final Point: As someone who has no objective standard of value and ethics, I'd love to know what makes you think you can criticize me for treating people badly. What possible justification could you have to call foul or have some kind of beef with Christianity?

Hopefully your response is more thought out and accurate than your opening statement. I also pray that there is less words in ALL CAPS.

Good day. Sincerely, Your friendly neighborhood Calvinist.
Debate Round No. 1


NotStupid forfeited this round.


Jhessa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


NotStupid forfeited this round.


Jhessa forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Jhessa 2 years ago
Your represent the same error as my opponent. I've argued that Bible classifies all sin as worthy of death and hell. So your point about homosexuals falls short of the mark. You've simply ignored that point and restated the rather poor argument offered by my challenger.
Your gender role point is a little closer. Though again, you ignore what I've said. If you want to argue against the Bible's gender roles you must do so with a proper understanding of what they are and why. You have shown by your comment that you do not understand this aspect of Christianity either. It is risky business leading the people of God. And he himself calls for men to do it. The men bear a more responsibility than the women because of their assigned station. This by no means makes one sex superior to the other. (Refer to the creation account for a better understanding of what we actually believe.)

The assertion that the Bible's morality is stolen from previous sources is simply fallacious. That view represents what I like to call "Ye old community college argument".
The bible starts at the creation of the universe and man. Tell me again how the morality could have possibly been stolen?
Further I would suggest that you have absolutely no grounds for calling anything moral or immoral outside of a biblical worldview. I don't think you have those categories without it.

Here's why: to assume moral rights and wrongs means that you have a transcendent moral principle. Because all moral questions are raised by people and about people. So the standard must transcend them both to be binding.

The mere fact that you call something immoral means that you have a concept of right and wrong that I would say is intrinsic. It's because you're in the Imago Dei.
Posted by juanthebaptist 2 years ago
Note: the bible does not just classify homosexuality as a sin, but continues to say that it should be punishable by death. Also, in its old-fashioned view of gender roles, places women below men. It says that women should not speak unless spoken to and the man should have all authority over the women. Also, women are not allowed to become priests, and the church gives no other reason besides gender for this. The bibles moral views are merely ideas stolen from previous religions before it. Christianity is deceiving he people in coining the term morality to automatically be associated with the bible, for the bible is often immoral. The only reason why the bible takes authority on morality is because of its large following, and most people's ignorance of actual information and ideas. While it does contain an occasional "moral" passage, it should not be the principle basis for how to act. With the emergence of atheist philosophers, the debate of morality can continue, not limited to the celestial dictatorship that is Christianity. One should not act moral merely because they fear a divine power will punish them if they do not.
No votes have been placed for this debate.