The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Christianity

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  
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: 4/23/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,185 times Debate No: 3761
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (55)
Votes (10)

 

firemonkey6775

Pro

let me say this first i this debate is not here to talk about evolution vs. Christianity it is here to debate christianity. Not the church and its actions. this is for the relgious piece only refering to the bible and JESUS.

My view on christianity is that though it is an exclusive relgion in the fact that it asks you to dedicate your life to god. I believe christianity to be a great pro every lesson JESUS taught was positive and always had a good meaning. if everyone were to live by the ten commadments life would be a lot easier. Though some of the things when seperated out they may have negative effects but when used together the laws of the lord would be positive.
Tatarize

Con

Glad to see you're still around. In previous debates I was actually impressed with you even though your command of the subject wasn't good, you seemed to be actually trying and thinking about the subject matter which is a massive positive in my book.

I'll attempt to break the debate down into each claim you made and show how some or all of them are false.

* Christianity is an exclusive religion in that it asks you to dedicate your life to God.
-- This seems to be an apt understand as the gospels do suggest that you should sell all your belongings, give the money to the poor, and travel the world spreading the word. This is a very bad suggestion and thankfully nobody does this.

* Christianity is great in that every lesson Jesus taught is positive and has good meaning.
-- This I cannot agree with. I feel that a number of the lessons taught are very bad advice. Further, they aren't followed and should not be followed. The above noted passage where Jesus tells you to sell your stuff and travel around, that's *REALLY* bad advice. Cutting off ties to your family is similarly bad advice. A number of the parables sound good, until you think about them like the Parable of the Unjust Steward which gives absolutely horrific advice telling you to embezzle in order to make friends and go to heaven.

There's also random stuff like attacking the money changers with a scourge (that he made himself). People are doing their job, he goes home, makes a whip with shards of metal and glass and attacks them with it, he doesn't wow them with wisdom or use some Godly power... he attacks them like a crazy person.

In another part of the gospel he cursing a fig tree because it didn't have any fruit. I'm often at a loss to find nice parts of the gospel. People often talk about how Jesusy they should be, but honestly, if you read the gospel Jesus isn't anywhere near as Jesusy as he's made out to be.

"49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:49-53) -- And similar such statements were used to justify the Crusades.

"6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6) -- was used to justify the inquisition and burning of dissidents to the church.

* If everybody were to live by the ten commandments life would be a lot easier.
-- Most of the ten commandments are abhorrent. They do not make life easier, rather they undermine society and demand the death penalty for thought crimes. The only two non-objectionable commandments are "Do not steal" and "Do not kill", and those are universal to every law code known. A just society is a society for which everybody can play an equal part without objection. The need for religious tolerance and religious freedom lead the Founding Fathers to make the first amendment. This resounding principle, emerging from Enlightenment ideas is one of the greatest advances society has made... The first four commandments would be violations of the first amendment. These first four commandments make it an equal crime to murder your mother on a Monday or baking her a pie the day before. They condemn you for having your great grandfather draw a picture of a fish. Honoring your parents may be a good idea but stoning to death unruly children does not make for a just society. Adultery had more to do with the fact that the Bible treats women as property than with creating a just society. In fact, the coveting prohibitions mention not coveting male or female slaves... so treating people as property is a common theme. Elsewhere the Bible specifically allows slavery and tells you which slaves to buy and sell, how to keep them in service to you, and how hard to beat them.

* Though some may be negative following the Bible would be a net positive.
-- I know there are a number of moral Christians. They aren't, however, moral because they are Christian and because they follow the Bible, they are moral in spite of it. Most of modern society has moral people. These people aren't moral because they believe the Bible, but rather because they don't. The proclamations of the Bible are disturbing and wrong. They do not provide a moral framework for actions or just laws to fashion society after. Most of the progress of modern society has been progress specifically because they moved away from the more Biblical rules.

------------------------------

I do not believe that Biblical Christianity is a positive force in this world. The Bible is manifestly unjustified and advocates bronze aged logic and laws. Our modern society is far more peaceful and far more just and it got to be that way by rebelling against people who advocated the Bible as a moral compass. Aesop's fables are largely better lessons, Shakespeare is better written, and the weather channel gets predictions right more often.

How do you manage to stay moral when using a book that advocates death for thought crimes and homosexuality, and calls abomination shellfish to cotton-polyester blend?

There's a reason why there are so many cafeteria Christians... if you were to believe all or even most of the Bible... you'd be insufferable and immoral.
Debate Round No. 1
firemonkey6775

Pro

-- This seems to be an apt understand as the gospels do suggest that you should sell all your belongings, give the money to the poor, and travel the world spreading the word. This is a very bad suggestion and thankfully nobody does this.

several problems here one you say nobody does this beg to differ many missionaries have stood up left everything and gone to a country to help those less fortunate. second jesus dosnt demand this he says acknowledge that my father is god and that i died on the cross for your sins. thats all he asks for to save you from hell personally i think heaven would be a little better than hell but every one has got there choices.

--"49 I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:49-53) -- And similar such statements were used to justify the Crusades

you have devouged into what i asked you not to in the first piece as to not bring humanities flaws into this. same with the second verse. let me tell you what this one is talking about is the crusades as it says the houses will be divided this is because some will accept christ and others wont and that causes conflict hence the debate. Jesus says here he was sent to bring fire but instead of condeming us he is going to baptize us and save us from hell yahh sounds good to me.

--"6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. (John 15:6) -- was used to justify the inquisition and burning of dissidents to the church.

this verse is just saying those that dont live in jesus are going to hell hmm and unless you abide in him your going to burn in hell well that may seem bad but all he is asking you to do is commit to a life of doing good hmm seems like yet another positive. And for doing good you get rewarded by going to hevean.

-- Most of the ten commandments are abhorrent. They do not make life easier, rather they undermine society and demand the death penalty for thought crimes. The only two non-objectionable commandments are "Do not steal" and "Do not kill", and those are universal to every law code known. A just society is a society for which everybody can play an equal part without objection. The need for religious tolerance and religious freedom lead the Founding Fathers to make the first amendment. This resounding principle, emerging from Enlightenment ideas is one of the greatest advances society has made... The first four commandments would be violations of the first amendment. These first four commandments make it an equal crime to murder your mother on a Monday or baking her a pie the day before. They condemn you for having your great grandfather draw a picture of a fish. Honoring your parents may be a good idea but stoning to death unruly children does not make for a just society. Adultery had more to do with the fact that the Bible treats women as property than with creating a just society. In fact, the coveting prohibitions mention not coveting male or female slaves... so treating people as property is a common theme. Elsewhere the Bible specifically allows slavery and tells you which slaves to buy and sell, how to keep them in service to you, and how hard to beat them.

ok well this isnt hard we got ten commandments right

1.No other gods before me.

ok makes since he is all power full controlls every thing we should worship him

2. no idols

ok why not we already have an all power full god. since your an athiest this should be fine

3. you shall not miss use the name of god in vain.

well ok we shouldnt be vain any ways

4. rember the sabbath refer to #1 and its not dont work at all its work for the glory of god refer to the gospel
Tatarize

Con

>>several problems ... differ many missionaries have stood up left everything and gone to a country to help those less fortunate.

There is a rather massive difference between leaving everything and selling all your stuff and giving the money to the poor. Secondly, I wouldn't agree that they all do good. A number of missionaries are primarily focused on "saving souls" rather than helping people. One of the best examples of this in recent years has been Mother Teresa. She established a large number of "hospitals" where people would come, suffer, and die without aid. The suffering was thought to bring them closer to Christ. That's not a benefit to society, in fact, it's remarkably disturbing.

>>"you have devouged into what i asked you not to in the first piece as to not bring humanities flaws into this."

I categorically disagree. If I were saying that Hitler was Christian and therefore the evil things he did arose out of Christianity, that would be over the line. There's nothing about Hitler's Christianity which lead him to do the things he did (although a lot of the antisemitism does find their origins with Luther). I am arguing that the authorities who ran the crusades were justified by the Bible. If they do not bow before Christ, burn them. I come not to bring peace but a sword. Throw them into the fire as you would a branch. The strangers who exist around you will make for good slaves. It is an abomination, their death is upon them. There's a very direct line between what the Bible says, the believers who believed it, and the atrocities they committed. The only flaw of humanity here is that some feel the Bible is to be believed.

>>"Jesus says here he was sent to bring fire but instead of condeming us he is going to baptize us and save us from hell yahh sounds good to me."

Save us from hell? There's no such thing as hell and if there were then your creator God would have created it. Your god might as well be an abusive father who feel really bad that you forced him to use the baseball bat. However, if you love him and obey him... he won't have to.

>>this verse is just saying those that dont live in jesus are going to hell hmm and unless you abide in him your going to burn in hell

No. It specifically says "and men gather them, and cast them into the fire". It isn't talking about the heaven and hell con game. It's talking about people gathering up people, and burning them. If not, it's vague enough that believers did exactly that.

>>>>1.No other gods before me.
>>ok makes since he is all power full controlls every thing we should worship him

This is because the ten commandments were originally a henotheistic doctrine and demanded primacy among all the other gods. It doesn't say, 'I'm the only God, worship me'... it says 'worship me first and don't have other gods before me'.

>>2. no idols
>>>>ok why not we already have an all power full god. since your an athiest this should be fine

It doesn't say "no idols" it says anybody who draws a picture of anything on land sea or air is going to be condemned for four generations. Beyond the obvious problems of punishing children for the crimes of their parents. This makes a crime out of drawing a picture of a fish. We don't already have an all-powerful God. There's no reason to suppose there is a God.

>>>>3. you shall not miss use the name of god in vain.
>>well ok we shouldnt be vain any ways

No. No matter how you use the name of God it is always in vain; there is no God. No matter how you use it, it's in vain. Further, you're equivocating the idea of using a name in vain to personally being vain. And, this is a pretty bad translation to boot. It should be use the name of God in a vain oath or a false oath. It isn't just "don't say god", it means "don't swear to God that you'll do something and then not do it." It seems to be a contract system above all.

>>4. rember the sabbath refer to #1 and its not dont work at all its work for the glory of god refer to the gospel

Do you know which day of the week the Sabbath is? I'll give you a hint it clearly says in Exodus 20:11 that it's a parallel to God making the world in six days and resting the 7th. That would make the Sabbath the 7th day... or Saturday. I always find it funny that outside of the 7th day Adventists and Sabbathists most folks celebrate it on a different day. Way to keep it holy people!

-----

Most of those are asides and besides the point. The Ten Commandments aren't great, they aren't even good. They are largely religious rules which fit in well with the Laws of Hammerapi. They are guilty until proven innocent death for all crimes laws, not some noble Godly law set.

The Gospels portray a rather mean Jesus character who violently attacks people he disagrees with, dispenses really bad advice, and laid down the foundations for atrocities for hundreds of years.

------

As to avoid simply responding your comments let me point out a few objections I have to Christianity.

It doesn't make people more moral. In fact, it makes them less moral. The laws given in the Bible just bad, the advice given is worse, and to top it all off... it's false. It gives external laws, which unlike our progressing moral understanding, will always say that homosexuality is wrong and slavery is right.

The Gospel of Mark was probably written as fiction. Luke and Matthew made their own versions and tried to add in as much fulfilled prophecy stuff as they could. Later letters and additions to the faith borrowing here and there and making it conform with the latest doctrines. It became one of hundreds of dying and rising savior cults until it managed to take control of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. It promptly destroyed all the temples and libraries and cost us untold amounts of knowledge and advancement. Finally rising to supreme power during the dark ages (one of the many reasons it was dark). This remained until the enlightenment came around and the secular movements associated with it. Since then, it has been a struggle to determine the truth from the nagging of religious falsehoods, curing diseases, understanding the universe, and treating people like human beings.

The fight for morality and good has been a fight against religion, against the church, against the superior biblical arguments advocating atrocities. The worst insult of all, however, is that it's all a crock. There's not one shred of evidence or reason why anybody should believe in God. Religion is nothing more than a bronze age chain letter. Believe this or you are going to burn forever in eternal torture. Believe this and you'll go to eternal paradise to live forever. Tell other people to believe this. Accept that this is true even though it isn't; it's a sham.

You said the first commandment is good because God is all-powerful and should be worshiped and that the second is okay on the same grounds. How did you get there? How did you get to believe that there is something to this idea?

You are using this justify the unjustifiable with the unjustified. The religion is oppressive to women. It gave pointed arguments to slave traders. It gives pride to the pompous and power to the corrupt. Worst of all, it's bad reasoning. They are a scam of the highest order. Give me your time and money and I'll give you eternal joy. That people can't see through that baffles me.

The injustices of providing authority to tyrants or corrupting the minds of the youth against the wonders of science are pretty bad... I'm more annoyed by the fact that it's utterly ridiculous and people walk around talking about it like it's the cat's pajamas. God screws up and humans disobey him so he curses them forever. To lift his curse (even though he's all powerful) he takes human form and makes a blood sacrifice of himself to himself so that he can forgive his creation and they don't suffer his wrath; if you don't buy that you burn!
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Pro

sorry this is short but i have a question for you in your first round you stated

**There's also random stuff like attacking the money changers with a scourge (that he made himself). People are doing their job, he goes home, makes a whip with shards of metal and glass and attacks them with it, he doesn't wow them with wisdom or use some Godly power... he attacks them like a crazy person.**

could you please expound upon were you found this. This is really troubling me if this did happen please tell me were you found this.

sorry got nothing else.
Tatarize

Con

John 2, 13-17

13 And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.

He goes into the temple, sees the people, leaves and makes a scourge (kind of messed up whip, often with bits meant to tear flesh at the end), and attacks them with it, destroying their stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

He didn't just go out and buy one- he made the sucker himself. The other gospels have the story towards the end rather than John who puts it toward the start. I daresay after attacking people for their wares it makes more sense that he gets to be too much of a problem and needs to be dealt with by the authorities but it's the same story in either place. Although the version in Mark 11 is interestingly book ended with Jesus cursing a fig tree to death because it doesn't have a fig for him to eat, and after attacking the money changers going back and seeing that the fig tree is dead (although Matthew has the tree wither up and die on the spot).

-- I do like that you seem to actual try and process the information you are given. Although, there is something less satisfying about you simply taking the information and rather than trying to dismiss it as "work of the devil" or "answered by better scholars" or "mistakes on my part" or "taken out of context"... you seem to look at it and agree that you're stumped and ask a few more questions. I even started that second thread on the macroevolution topic so that you could respond to the argument before where each stage you gave up and asked some more questions. Although, asking question in my book is certainly a net positive.

------------------------------------

Rather than settle for having answered your question here and dropping it, ill post a bunch of information from Robert Ingersoll's About the Holy Bible:
http://www.infidels.org...

A few wandering families -- poor, wretched, without education, art or power; descendants of those who had been enslaved for four hundred years; ignorant as the inhabitants of Central Africa, had just escaped from their masters to the desert of Sinai. Their leader was Moses, a man who had been raised in the family of Pharaoh and had been taught the law and mythology of Egypt. For the purpose of controlling his followers he pretended that he was instructed and assisted by Jehovah, the God of these wanderers.

Everything that happened was attributed to the interference of this God. Moses declared that he met this God face to face; that on Sinai's top from the hands of this God he had received the tables of stone on which, by the finger of this God, the Ten Commandments had been written, and that, in addition to this, Jehovah had made known the sacrifices and ceremonies that were pleasing to him and the laws by which the people should be governed.

In this way the Jewish religion and the Mosaic Code were established.

It is now claimed that this religion and these laws were and are revealed and established for all mankind.

At that time these wanderers had no commerce with other nations, they had no written language, they could neither read nor write. They had no means by which they could make this revelation known to other nations, and so it remained buried in the jargon of a few ignorant, impoverished and unknown tribes for more than two thousand year's.

Many centuries after Moses, the leader, was dead many centuries after all his followers had passed away -- the Pentateuch was written, the work of many writers, and to give it force and authority it was claimed that Moses was the author.

We now know that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses.

Towns are mentioned that were not in existence when Moses lived.

Money, not coined until centuries after his death, is mentioned.

So, many of the laws were not applicable to wanderers on the desert -- laws about agriculture, about the sacrifice of oxen, sheep and doves, about the weaving of cloth, about ornaments of gold and silver, about the cultivation of land, about harvest, about the threshing of grain, about houses and temples, about cities of refuge, and about many other subjects of no possible application to a few starving wanderers over the sands and rocks.

It is now not only admitted by intelligent and honest theologians that Moses was not the author of the Pentateuch, but they all admit that no one knows who the authors were, or who wrote any one of these books, or a chapter or a line. We know that the books were not written in the same generation; that they were not all written by one person; that they are filled with mistakes and contradictions. It is also admitted that Joshua did not write the book that bears his name, because it refers to events that did not happen until long after his death.

No one knows, or pretends to know, the author of Judges; all we know is that it was written centuries after all the judges had ceased to exist. No one knows the author of Ruth, nor of First and Second Samuel; all we know is that Samuel did not write the books that bear his name. In the 25th chapter of First Samuel is an account of the raising of Samuel by the Witch of Endor.

No one knows the author of First and Second Kings or First and Second Chronicles; all we know is that these books are of no value.

We know that the Psalms were not written by David. In the Psalms the Captivity is spoken of, and that did not happen until about five hundred years after David slept with his fathers.

We know that Solomon did not write the Proverbs or the Song; that Isaiah was not the author of the book that bears his name; that no one knows the author of Job, Ecclesiastes, or Esther, or of any book in the Old Testament, with the exception of Ezra.

We know that God is not mentioned or in any way referred to in the book of Esther. We know, too, that the book is cruel, absurd and impossible.

God is not mentioned in the Song of Solomon, the best book in the Old Testament.

And we know that Ecclesiastes was written by an unbeliever.

We know, too, that the Jews themselves had not decided as to what books were inspired -- were authentic -- until the second century after Christ.

We know that the idea of inspiration was of slow growth, and that the inspiration was determined by those who had certain ends to accomplish.
Debate Round No. 3
firemonkey6775

Pro

ok sorry agian to reply to the first part about the whip well one those people in the temple were commiting a sin in defiling the house of god and since they were invaders in his house he kid there sorry butts out of there. ok to respond to your moses thing i have to say think whatever you want i think of the bible as pretty darn acurate so thats your choice

well im closing my accont now this whole thing is a bad addiction for me so got to go
Tatarize

Con

Ofcourse there's a crap justification for attacking people doing their job with a fricking scourge. There's a justification for damning people forever for not believing a crock of sh!t.

Nobody said there was no a justification. That's actually what it says... no wisdom, no wowing, just make a weapon and attack some people...

-----

II

IS THE OLD TESTAMENT INSPIRED?

If it is, it should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.

It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.

It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.

It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest.

It should be true.

Does the Old Testament satisfy this standard?

Is there anything in the Old Testament -- in history, in theory, in law, in government, in morality, in science -- above and beyond the ideas, the beliefs, the customs and prejudices of its authors and the people among whom they lived?

Is there one ray of light from any supernatural source?

The ancient Hebrews believed that this earth was the center of the universe, and that the sun, moon and stars were specks in the sky.

With this the Bible agrees.

They thought the earth was flat, with four corners; that the sky, the firmament, was solid -- the floor of Jehovah's house.

The Bible teaches the same.

They imagined that the sun journeyed about the earth, and that by stopping the sun the day could be lengthened.

The Bible agrees with this.

They believed that Adam and Eve were the first man and woman; that they had been created but a few years before, and that they, the Hebrews, were their direct descendants.

This the Bible teaches.

If anything is, or can be, certain, the writers of the Bible were mistaken about creation, astronomy, geology; about the causes of phenomena, the origin of evil and the cause of death.

Now, it must be admitted that if an infinite Being is the author of the Bible, he knew all sciences, all facts, and could not have made a mistake.

If, then, there are mistakes, misconceptions, false theories, ignorant myths and blunders in the Bible, it must have been written by finite beings; that is to say, by ignorant and mistaken men.

Nothing can be clearer than this.

For centuries the church insisted that the Bible was absolutely true; that it contained no mistakes; that the story of creation was true; that its astronomy and geology were in accord with the facts; that the scientists who differed with the Old Testament were infidels and atheists.

Now this has changed. The educated Christians admit that the writers of the Bible were not inspired as to any science. They now say that God, or Jehovah, did not inspire the writers of his book for the purpose of instructing the world about astronomy, geology, or any science. They now admit that the inspired men who wrote the Old Testament knew nothing about any science, and that they wrote about the earth and stars, the sun and moon, in accordance with the general ignorance of the time.

It required many centuries to force the theologians to this admission. Reluctantly, full of malice and hatred, the priests retired from the field, leaving the victory with science.

They took another position;

They declared that the authors, or rather the writers, of the Bible were inspired in spiritual and moral things; that Jehovah wanted to make known to his children his will and his infinite love for his children; that Jehovah, seeing his people wicked, ignorant and depraved, wished to make them merciful and just, wise and spiritual, and that the Bible is inspired in its laws, in the religion it teaches and in its ideas of government.

This is the issue now. Is the Bible any nearer right in its ideas of justice, of mercy, of morality or of religion than in its conception of the sciences? Is it moral?

It upholds slavery -- it sanctions polygamy.

Could a devil have done worse?

Is it merciful?

In war it raised the black flag; it commanded the destruction, the massacre, of all -- of the old, infirm. and helpless -- of wives and babes.

Were its laws inspired?

Hundreds of offenses were punished with death. To pick up sticks on Sunday, to murder your father on Monday, were equal crimes. There is in the literature of the world no bloodier code. The law of revenge -- of retaliation -- was the law of Jehovah. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a limb for a limb.

This is savagery -- not philosophy.

Is it just and reasonable?

The Bible is opposed to religious toleration -- to religious liberty. Whoever differed with the majority was stoned to death. Investigation was a crime. Husbands were ordered to denounce and to assist in killing their unbelieving wives.

It is the enemy of Art. "Thou shalt make no graven image." This was the death of Art.

Palestine never produced a painter or a sculptor.

Is the Bible civilized?

It upholds lying, larceny, robbery, murder, the selling of diseased meat to strangers, and even the sacrifice of human beings to Jehovah.

Is it philosophical?

It teaches that the sins of a people can be transferred to an animal -- to a goat. It makes maternity an offence for which a sin offering had to be made.

It was wicked to give birth to a boy, and twice as wicked to give birth to a girl.

To make hair-oil like that used by the priests was an offence punishable with death.

The blood of a bird killed over running water was regarded as medicine.

Would a civilized God daub his altars with the blood of oxen, lambs and doves? Would he make all his priests butchers? Would he delight in the smell of burning flesh?
Debate Round No. 4
firemonkey6775

Pro

firemonkey6775 forfeited this round.
Tatarize

Con

I not only defeated my opponent. I whooped him so bad he quit the site.

"well im closing my accont now..."

----

III

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

Some Christian lawyers -- some eminent and stupid judges -- have said and still say, that the Ten Commandments are the foundation of all law.

Nothing could be more absurd. Long before these commandments were given there were codes of laws in India and Egypt -- laws against murder, perjury, larceny, adultery and fraud. Such laws are as old as human society; as old as the love of life; as old as industry; as the idea of prosperity; as old as human love.

All of the Ten Commandments that are good were old; all that were new art foolish. If Jehovah had been civilized he would have left out the commandment about keeping the Sabbath, and in its place would have said: "Thou shalt not enslave thy fellow-men." He would have omitted the one about swearing, and said: "The man shall have but one wife, and the woman but one husband." He would have left out the one about graven images, and in its stead would have said: "Thou shalt not wage wars of extermination, and thou shalt not unsheathe the sword except in self-defence."

If Jehovah had been civilized, how much grander the Ten Commandments would have been.

All that we call progress -- the enfranchisement of man, of labor, the substitution of imprisonment for death, of fine for imprisonment, the destruction of polygamy, the establishing of free speech, of the rights of conscience; in short, all that has tended to the development and civilization of man; all the results of investigation, observation, experience and free thought; all that man has accomplished for the benefit of man since the close of the Dark Ages -- has been done in spite of the Old Testament.

Let me further illustrate the morality, the mercy, the philosophy and goodness of the Old Testament:

THE STORY OF ACHAN

Joshua took the City of Jericho. Before the fall of the city he declared that all the spoil taken should be given to the Lord.

In spite of this order Achan secreted a garment, some silver and gold.

Afterward Joshua tried to take the city of Ai. He failed and many of his soldiers were slain. Joshua sought for the cause of his defeat and he found that Achan had secreted a garment, two hundred shekels of silver and a wedge of gold. To this Achan confessed.

And thereupon Joshua took Achan, his sons and his daughters, his oxen and his sheep -- stoned them all to death and burned their bodies.

There is nothing to show that the sons and daughters had committed any crime. Certainly, the oxen and sheep should not have been stoned to death for the crime of their owner. This was the justice, the mercy, of Jehovah!

After Joshua had committed this crime, with the help of Jehovah he captured the city of Ai.

THE STORY OF ELISHA.

"And he went up thence unto Bethel, and as he was going up by the way there came forth little children out of the city and mocked him, and said unto him, 'Go up, thou baldhead.'

"And he turned back and looked at them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood and tore forty and two children of them."

This was the work of the good God -- the merciful Jehovah!

THE STORY OF DANIEL.

King Darius had honored and exalted Daniel, and the native princes were jealous. So they induced the king to sign a decree to the effect that any man who should make a petition to any god or man except to King Darius, for thirty days, should be cast into the den of lions.

Afterward these men found that Daniel, with his face toward Jerusalem, prayed three times a day to Jehovah.

Thereupon Daniel was cast into the den of lions; a stone was placed at the mouth of the den and sealed with the king's seal.

The king passed a bad night. The next morning he went to the den and cried out to Daniel. Daniel answered and told the king that God had sent his angel and shut the mouths of the lions.

Daniel was taken out alive and well, and the king was converted and believed in Daniel's God.

Darius, being then a believer in the true God, sent for the men who had accused Daniel, and for their wives and their children, and cast them all into the lions' den.

"And the lions had the mastery of them, and brake all their bones in pieces, or ever they came at the bottom of the pit."

What had the wives and little children done? How had they offended King Darius, the believer in Jehovah? Who protected Daniel? Jehovah! Who failed to protect the innocent wives and children? Jehovah!

THE STORY OF JOSEPH.

Pharaoh had a dream, and this dream was interpreted by Joseph.

According to this interpretation there was to be in Egypt seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of famine. Joseph advised Pharaoh to buy all the surplus of the seven plentiful years and store it up against the years of famine.

Pharaoh appointed Joseph as his minister or agent, and ordered him to buy the grain of the plentiful years.

Then came the famine. The people came to the king for help. He told them to go to Joseph and do as he said.

Joseph sold corn to the Egyptians until all their money was gone -- until he had it all.

When the money was gone the people said: "Give us corn and we will give you our cattle."

Joseph let them have corn until all their cattle, their horses and their flocks had been given to him.

Then the people said: "Give us corn and we will give you our lands."

So Joseph let them have corn until all their lands were gone.

But the famine continued, and so the poor wretches sold themselves, and they became the servants of Pharaoh.

Then Joseph gave them seed, and made an agreement with them that they should forever give one fifth of all they raised to Pharaoh.

Who enabled Joseph to interpret the dream of Pharaoh? Jehovah! Did he know at the time that Joseph would use the information thus given to rob and enslave the people of Egypt? Yes. Who produced the famine? Jehovah!

It is perfectly apparent that the Jews did not think of Jehovah as the God of Egypt -- the God of all the world. He was their God, and theirs alone. Other nations had gods, but Jehovah was the greatest of all. Be hated other nations and other gods, and abhorred all religions except the worship of himself.
Debate Round No. 5
55 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
>>Um, God's name is God.

Jehovah? Yahweh? God of the Israelites. It translates into God pretty clearly and an number of translations specifically use the word. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Jehovah (Yahweh)
The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name, though the precise meaning of this last expression is a matter of discussion (cf. Buxtorf, "Lexicon", Basle, 1639, col. 2432 sqq.).

http://www.newadvent.org...

Further, the Blue Letter Bible finds specific uses Yahweh 6519 times.

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

Typically the KJV translates it to God. Which is largely a description more than a name.

I am not Christian. I'm a pretty ardent atheist. But facts are facts and my understanding of your religion surpasses your understanding of your religion. I don't believe it is accurate or true, but I am pretty well grounded in the claims made by the book (how else could I truly know it was without merit?).

>>Accept your mistake, geez.

Take your own advice. Geez Cricky (euphemisms for Jesus and Christ, respectively)!

If you were traveling from Egypt to Israel you would not travel through the Red Sea. The story is just a story and even as a story it has rather remarkable plot holes.

I don't believe the parting of the Red Sea because one it's a story and a massive detour. And there's good reasons to suppose that the population didn't come from the Egypt and was never in bondage there. It looks like the Israelites were a rather minor group from the local population of the region they were in and the Torah was written largely as an etiology with a large amount of aggrandizement.
Posted by snicker_911 9 years ago
snicker_911
Um, God's name is God. I've read the Bible and there is no Yahehwnej or whoever! You're not even Christian, so shut up. If you don't believe nor care about my religion then leave it be and move on with your pathetic life. God=God. There is no other name!!! gosh... Accept your mistake, geez.

Oh God, my bad, it's 3400. sry, I haven't brushed up on the Bible...? Moses and the Red Sea is a true story that I believe in. If you don't believe in it, go fall off a cliff and leave me alone. It's great that your life consists of negative outlooks for your rotting future--just leave me out of it.

Bye! And I'm not responding to this any longer...you're ridiculously stubborn, tenacious, and annoying.

I LOVE GOD AND JESUS CHRIST, SON OF GOD!!!
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
If Moses were a historic figure he would have lived somewhere around 3400 years ago. I clearly was not there and moreover, I am fairly sketchy on the historicity of Moses. Many of the actions said and writings attributed have very strong contrary arguments. There's a lot to suggest that Jews were never slaves in Egypt making a daring escape through a series of miracles. The books attributed to Moses are now widely accepted to be the combined work of at least four different groups of authors.

Numbers 15:32-36 retell the story of somebody caught picking up sticks on the sabbath and commanded by God lock him up, take him outside of town and murder him.

My references to Yahweh were not meant to be disrespectful. That is an acceptable rendering of the Tetragrammaton for the name of the God of the old testament. It may escape you but the God of the Bible isn't called "God".

The first commandment says that Yahweh is the only God. God = Yahweh. I know you only do so out of ignorance but with respect to Christianity and Judaism I wouldn't mockingly call Yahweh, "yawheh" or "yahehe". I suppose next you'll be telling me you don't worship no Jesus or Jebus or Gesus.

My point about following the First Commandment is that I am not a worshiper of pagan gods or place any pagan god in primacy to the Jewish God, Yahweh. I don't think atheism was widespread outside of some parts of Greece at the time but moreover the gist is that you are to be part of "this" community first and foremost.

<clip obligatory rude death fantasy>
Posted by snicker_911 9 years ago
snicker_911
stoned to death lead by Moses....oh yes, because obviously you were there to see it 2000 yrs ago--so obviously you should know.

It's funny how you believe in some yawheh guy. it says to have no other gods before Me. And Me is referred to God and there is only one God and that is God--not yahehe or w.e. you called it. that means you didn't follow the First Commandment--stop acting like an idiot and grow up. haha, ur funny cuz you can bend the rules. if you want to follow the first Commandment so bad, then why do you insist on mocking my religion? dork.

I'd like to see you forgive your executers as they nail you on a cross. too bad you'll never know that pain...

Have you ever heard of 'shut up'? You should use it.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
>>You didn't follow the first Commandment either. The first Commandment says to have no other gods besides God--

No it doesn't. It says to put no Gods before Yahweh. One could easily have gods after Yahweh and there is considerable speculation that that is exactly what that commandment means.

>>and you said yah-whatever-its-name-is. you just keep on getting smarter everyday...

You really haven't heard the name Yahweh before? I assumed you hadn't done much religious reading but I never foresaw how little you must have done. YHVH... Yahweh... Jehovah...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I mock your religion on the grounds that it is completely stupid. I do not do so from a place of ignorance. I do not do so by making up names. Your religion firmly believes that if you telepathically communicate your love to a first-century wish-granting zombie Jew that you can live forever so long as you accept that he sacrificed Himself to Himself to give Himself permission to forgive His subjects for trespassing against Him.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
>>That's funny. It almost seems like you're suggesting that you actually READ the Bible... That makes me giggle. :)

I've read the Bible a number of time. I've been pretty clear in referencing the parts I am referring to. Reading the bible is one of the surest paths to atheists. You'd be amazed at the number of deconversion stories that start with "I finally decided to read the Bible".

>>The penalty for sinning against a Commandment is not death--in fact, we don't know exactly what.

Yes we are quite clear that violating the first commandment was punishable by death. If your spouse says to you to go worship foreign gods yours should be the first hands involved in the death penalty.

>>I have no idea where you got the sticks on Saturday idea...hmmm, maybe you are hallucinating??

That would be the 3rd commandment. Remember the sabbath and keep it holy. The sticks reference refers to a story where exactly that happened. Somebody was found to be picking up sticks on the sabbath and they were gathered up and stoned to death lead by Moses.

>>Obviously, what God meant by it [of course you wouldn't understand], was that you shall not BELIEVE in another god or gods above Him or at all. Read a little, moron.

I'm not convinced that atheism would not speak to the letter of the law. There is no commandment to worship Yahweh. The Torah and even all of the Tanakh doesn't prescribe any punishment for non-theism but condemns other-theism fairly consistently.

>>Great--I'm going to go sacrifice my uncle considering he's picked sticks on Saturdays...?!

One does not assume you would follow the commandments. Moses would have and did if one reads the Bible as accurate.

>>I don't care if it's wayheh, yahweh, google, whatever--you mocked my religion.

I said Yahweh. That was not a mocking. Have you never heard of the God of the Old Testament?
Posted by snicker_911 9 years ago
snicker_911
You didn't follow the first Commandment either. The first Commandment says to have no other gods besides God--and you said yah-whatever-its-name-is. you just keep on getting smarter everyday...
Posted by snicker_911 9 years ago
snicker_911
That's funny. It almost seems like you're suggesting that you actually READ the Bible... That makes me giggle. :)

The penalty for sinning against a Commandment is not death--in fact, we don't know exactly what. I have no idea where you got the sticks on Saturday idea...hmmm, maybe you are hallucinating?? That makes more sense then the idea of someone as immature as you existing. But don't take it as offense, according to you, you're "exceedingly smart".

Obviously, what God meant by it [of course you wouldn't understand], was that you shall not BELIEVE in another god or gods above Him or at all. Read a little, moron.

According to your exceedingly smart being, our religion is a bit death-oriented, stupid, makes little sense, a silly belief...shall I go on? Great--I'm going to go sacrifice my uncle considering he's picked sticks on Saturdays...?! You=pathetic excuse for a human being

I don't care if it's wayheh, yahweh, google, whatever--you mocked my religion...what gives you the right to do that? I have every right to do the same if you do, but I'm not going to. Get a life and move on, pathetic mortal.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
We will die. But this afterlife nonsense is a little unsupported. Certainly you've never been there... nobody's been there as there is no there there.

The first commandment says that I am the Lord your God and you shall have no other gods before me. Considering a monotheistic faith it makes little sense to have other gods before God if there is just the one God. However, I follow the first commandment. I don't have any gods before Yahweh... as I don't have any gods at all.

If God is all knowing, he'd know whether we would believe in some particular religion or not. I'm happily ready to believe anything so long as there's evidence. The punishment for disrespecting your parents (violating the 5th commandment) is death. The punishment for murdering somebody (6th commandment) is death. According to the Bible, picking up sticks on a Saturday and murdering your father on a Monday are equal crimes.

I'm not testing you. I'm just pointing out that there doesn't seem to be a good reason to believe anything you believe. The beliefs are silly and you're the one holding them. If you had invisible fairy friends and I pointed out some issues with that, would it be acceptable to suggest that I consult with them as to how you appear to be deluded?

>>Well, I think your an idiotic embicil...

I'm exceedingly smart. Though it's a moot point.

>>who's pathetic life consists of mocking people's religions

Mocking silly beliefs is actually a very small fragment of my life. I don't mock all religions. Some religions don't have any exceedingly odd bits. And, for the most part I simply pointed out that your religion is a bit on the death-oriented side.

I'm sometimes correct. But, what is more important than being right is the question how you believe what you believe. If you think the sun will rise tomorrow because you have made the needed sacrifices that isn't as good as understanding inertia.

>>Leave my religion be.

Get a less stupid religion.
Posted by snicker_911 9 years ago
snicker_911
We will die. Then, live in the afterlife. Second stage of 'life' in a sort of way. Hey don't ask me--I've never been there.

So, if you don't believe in God, it's ok to go to Heaven anyway? That's why the First Commandment is there. You have to truly believe and love God. Earth is sort of like a test--a test to see whether we are faithful to God or not. And you, my friend, are not. Disrespecting your parents is a sin. It is absolutely nothing like KILLING someone, but everyone makes mistakes. God will always forgive us. I don't know how God judges us whether we go to Heaven or Hell. Stop testing me--how should I know? Go ask Him yourself.

Well, I think your an idiotic embicil who's pathetic life consists of mocking people's religions because it's 'worth while' to let people know you're always 'correct' but I don't have to state the obvious, now do I? :)

Leave my religion be.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
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 Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
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 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 smartboy101 9 years ago
smartboy101
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by scorpionclone 9 years ago
scorpionclone
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by snicker_911 9 years ago
snicker_911
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by turtlecool2 9 years ago
turtlecool2
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by JonJon 9 years ago
JonJon
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by clemsongirl5353 9 years ago
clemsongirl5353
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by attrition 9 years ago
attrition
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
firemonkey6775TatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03