The Instigator
BBoySuperBeast
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Heineken
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

Christians ought to accept vegans as world moves forwards and even promote the belief

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 6 votes the winner is...
Heineken
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,947 times Debate No: 27995
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (6)

 

BBoySuperBeast

Pro

I have been trying to be a vegan many years while suffering from poverty. Its was difficult and i only ever lasted months at a time till i broken down and accepted vegetarianism or societies mainstream habits of fish and meat. Its only the past months that eating meat and fish completely left me. Yet i stand sure that the milk and the egg of this modern world hold the darker sinister and not told tell of sin and lack purity. Its alcohol and bread we share in the Lord Names not tea, biscuits or cake. Or any other recipes cooked using animal products. Anyone coming to church seeking to be vegan and changing of life ought to be not pressured, tempted into a number of treats and rebuked on not taking what is offered.
This too me is really something i love to see changed and changing in the fundamentals of church. To seeing milk in church is wrong we could be using soya, i feel fine with teas and coffee also the treat no time to support the vegan industries instead of cheap packaged supermarket additives that makes us all happy. I still in my diet may even eat meat. I am no an advocate of animal rights but simple happy emotions of eating well and no comfort foods of junk. It like i wasted 6 years of my life accepting my brothers and sisters ignorance of god intentions for us all and allowed it to slip into my habits over and over again.
The stigma of Vegan is too be a yoga practiser and squatting. believe any sexually promiscuity in my life was brought about by such evil of milk and egg. That any skin problems was meat related. I sure that sexual promiscuity appears all though the cloth and Christians need to wake up and stop linking vegans to sexually promiscuity thats demonising society.
Heineken

Con

My opponent stated:” Yet i stand sure that the milk and the egg of this modern world hold the darker sinister and not told tell of sin and lack purity.”

Rebuttal: I believe my opponent is attempting to explain that he considers animal products impure.

This premise fails on several levels:

  1. The USDA and FDA regulations are designed to quality check food to ensure that it's safe for human consumption. The majority of food-recalls have been linked to Salmonella infested vegetable matter. [1] Consider this list of FDA major-brand recalls. Four out of six recalls are related to vegetables. This makes a diet of meat, milk and eggs far more safe than the vegetable alternative.

  2. We are speaking on matters of Christian doctrine. The Biblical book of Titus clearly dictates that all things have been made pure. “To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.” [2] Clearly, my opponent condemns his position by claiming that any food is impure. The Bible would call him a defiled unbeliever. I would call his position non-christian.

  3. My opponent argues that material food could corrupt a person's moral behavior. He claimed that he “believe any sexually promiscuity in my life was brought about by such evil of milk and egg.” Yet, I would counter that sexual promiscuity is the result of his biology and lack of self-discipline.

I have noted that my opponent claims to have endured poverty and has thus been subjected to a vegan lifestyle. I sympathize with his position. I realize not everyone has the luxury of eating meat or dairy. However, I urge my opponent to research this matter to it's source. An egg cannot spiritually corrupt a man. We are material. The spirit is immaterial, if it exists at all. How could the material corrupt the immaterial?

If anything, the immaterial should be considered free of corruption and material influence. No matter how defiled a body is, a person's spirit should be pure.
The material corrupts the material.
The immaterial corrupts the immaterial.
The material cannot corrupt the immaterial.
The immaterial cannot corrupt the material.

This is purely speculative of course, since the argument assumes the existance of an immaterial spirit but I challenge my opponent to provide a reason for immaterial corruption through material food.

http://www.fda.gov... [1]

http://bible.cc... [2]

Debate Round No. 1
BBoySuperBeast

Pro

I rebuke that in that i am a believe. "To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled." I worry that method of milking cows and dark silo chicken farms where no quite the decreed. That things being milk of the DNA of animals is not pure yet the cow is in essence pure as the women who bread feeds her baby at birth. That the chicken is pure that she lays eggs who in a world of purity would grow to be another chicken. The diet is of that brought in revelations of being odd and smelling soiled. Its the Lord that wish well for all the planet yet we are give free will. Its only due to constant rotation of live stock that vegetable farming is cutting corners to maintain global needs. On a personal note is was not that could not afford meat or dairy its was the viable option in dieting and accepting giving.
Heineken

Con

My opponent stated he wishes to rebuke my arguments from the book of Titus. He insists that he is not defiled and unbelieving by calling animal-sourced food unclean. Instead, he argues that milking cows and raising chickens in dark silos are not a Biblical decree. I believe this is an appeal to context. My opponent believes the Biblical ordinance only applies to farming circa 30 AD. I believe my opponent is also arguing that contemporary farming methods have made an ancient "pure method" of farming impure.

I may not have understood the implications of my opponent's arguments perfectly, but we clearly have a language barrier. I believe I have interpreted the basic argument. The problem is, my opponent gives no source evidence for his belief. He argues as if his word is law. As if we are to trust his understanding of faith, diet and purity.

I would state with much confidence that my argument is extended since my opponent failed to muster any source evidence to counter it. Additionally, my opponent has failed to offer a rebuttal to my arguments concerning contemporary purity laws (FDA regulations). Finally, I challenged my opponent to answer a question. I asked him to provide reasoning for his premise that material food could defile an immaterial soul. (I did not burden him to prove the existance of the soul. I conceded this without challenge for the sake of discussion.)
Pro has found a reasonable and fair opponent for his debate. I doubt he would have found many people who would accomodate the language barrier or the lack of experience with such patience. I urge my opponent to research his responses and offer a stronger argument.

All arguments extended.
Debate Round No. 2
BBoySuperBeast

Pro

I still think that using this text is wrong from titus. That this scripture is nice to reel off and use but in argument over diet its wrong. The script is based in crete, an island. Do you really believe that cretan do not fish? Are islands not the place to be more lazy? Yes at some point its possible the island eat all the natural resources of meat possible yes. Also very possible it could over populate and no amount of work would fill the need for the people unless fishing.

I am not claiming to be scholar of the bible and yet am sure this connection of diet and sexually promiscuity exists. Whether i am stating diet leads to bad morals well this does exist obesity exist? certain foods cause gluttony with addictive properties causing us to desire more. Not only this but they hyproicrite in using this verse. If this were to make a stand for eggs and milk you are saying the than a vegan diet does effect you moral and than foods away from your belief is infact effect the morales and rationalities of my conscience.

The fact that a vegan diet is more a positive influence on myself and my rational thinking. That the diet is less or more safe for a person is not the debate nor I sorry to add that diet effect morales. Its the simple having of sexual promiscuity linked to milk and egg and that this is not intended too be the normal for all of us. Due to what ever instruments or persuades we care to take part in. Its not wrong to refuse animal produce it not wrong too. That was the purpose of this debate.

I accept my typing is not much to desire. But i am sure that in revelations the soiled are mentioned. Their are the unsoiled, whether the soiled were far in the decreed of the so well educated and literal as yourself. That it acceptable and no more that a nocturnal ommision brought about be the joys of over indulgence of animal produce is perhaps me pushing the boundaries.

Its very hard to see you lie on the ground you do with attacking the grounds of the safety of foods as this not debate saying all Christian ought to be vegan as animal produce is wrong for all individuals. Its clearly you have not really scripture that can used in its context to use.
Heineken

Con

My opponents final round was more of the same "difficult to decipher" anecdotal argumentation.

Concerning the burden, no evidence was cited. No sources where provided. No real resolution was established. Throughout this debate I have been forced to speak for my opponent. I asked my opponent to take his time, to research his rebuttals and to attempt clarity. Instead, he posted a rebuttal within 30 minutes of my last round.


My opponent insisted that eggs and milk result in sexual deviancy. He believes the Christians have a moral obligation to adopt vegan dietary laws in order to be more moral. Yet my opponent rejected the writings of the Christian scripture which directly authorize the consumption of any food. In fact, the scripture seems to indicate that anyone who claims that food defiles the flesh, is himself defiled by being an unbeliever.


The Christian deity is quoted as stating:" It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes
out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” (Matthew 15:11)


Clearly, the Christian scripture is teaching that food itself cannot corrupt (what goes into the mouth). Instead, it is the evil intentions of the heart (proceed out of the mouth), those corrupt the man.


Additionally, my opponent has failed yet again to address contemporary food purity laws (FDA) and he has also failed to provide a reasonable method to explain how material food can defile an immaterial soul.


The choice is very simple. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
What does Ecclesiastes have to do with diet?

This is about rejecting God and behaving like animals.....not eating animals.
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
I know the Edenic diet was vegetarian. The debate was over liberty.
My opponent stated that Christians should adopt a Vegetarian diet because meat, eggs and milk cause sexual impurity. I fail to see the connection between his spirituality and what the scripture teaches.
Nowhere in the Christian dietary laws does it teach that meat, eggs or milk cause spiritual contamination.

In fact, Christ pointed out the opposite, as I mentioned in the closing round.

My opponent is trying to mix eastern religion with Christianity and Christianity is radically incompatible with such an ideal.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Ecclesiastes 3

New International Version (NIV)

I said to myself,

"God will bring into judgment
both the righteous and the wicked,
for there will be a time for every activity,
a time to judge every deed."

18 I also said to myself, "As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[c]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Link Below.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Concerning Christian vegetarianism I did my research a few years ago,and have lost my memory for the highly regarded linguistic and authoritative Biblical Scholar I would like to refer you to.

But there are many arguments for it elsewhere also, not such a trusted source but found this in 2 minutes on wiki.

While vegetarianism is not a common practice in current western Christian thought and culture, the concept and practice has scriptural and historical support. According to the Bible, in the beginning, before the Fall, human and nonhuman animals, which are beings that have or are an ānima, Latin for soul,[6][7] were completely vegetarian, and "it was very good".[Genesis 1:29-31] According to some interpretations of the Bible, raw veganism was the original diet of humankind in the form given to Adam and Eve by God in Genesis 1:29, "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat" (see Edenic diet).

Immediately after the Flood, God allegedly permitted the eating of meat,[Genesis 9:3] but forbade consuming "blood, which is life".[Genesis 9:4] However, some maintain that God permitted the consumption of meat only temporarily because all plants had been destroyed as a result of the flood,[8] despite the lack of any reference to this in Genesis itself. Christian vegetarians interpret that passage not as a free pass to kill for eating if the blood is supposedly excluded from alimentation,[9] but as an invitation (rhetoric or not) to necrophagy. "The biological fact is: no matter what you do you can never remove all the blood from the flesh of a slaughtered animal."[10][11]

So It all boils down to interpretation.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
I guess you miss the part where I said I concede I inputted my own opinion, and that I am new here and still learning. Ok. I agree with you. I did not vote correctly base on my opinion. But it still never changed my view that teleportation is not achievable on a human scale, and Philochristos pointed that out. It was an interesting debate and most of it was way over my head, there were figures in incomprehensible scales that made it very hard for the computer energy to achieve such a feat, indeed it most probably why it isn't being achieved. to It had lots of interest and I swung the votes early by 2 points, it still had long way to go.

I may have played devils advocate a bit, But if you want my serious opinion.

I don't think it is achievable inherently and I also think Philochristos did a good job in his rebuttals, you laid it on him thick, but he came back just as hard as I said the disintegration and reassembly problem clinched it for me.. It is not achievable in any foreseeable future.

This is my opinon basd on the debate.

Geez am I not allowed to have any sort of opinion whasoever.
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
You will notice that the first two categories are the only "opinion" categories. Interestingly, they don't have a point value.

"The first two questions you see are opinion based questions. There are no points given for these questions and you can answer them however you want. The next four questions break down a debaters score by looking at the four most important aspects of the debate. These questions are where the points come from. Remember, voting on Debate.org is based on fact and NOT on Opinion."
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
"Geez give me a break."

No, you need to learn the rules. You're gonna run into problems with a lot of people if you don't start following the format.

Read the rules: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Heineken 4 years ago
Heineken
John...look at what you wrote: "....my opinion actually makes your point harder to prove."

I can only provide arguments against what my opponent argues.....not what YOU argue after the debate is already over and it's too late for me to respond.

That's why you MUST vote on content, not personal opinion. Your not here to support the guy you agree with. You're here to support the guy who did a better job.

Look at the RFD for chicken, when your vote was countered:

Johnlubba adds his own insight to the debate, which gives a clearly biased perspective. Adding information to aid a side is cheating in a sense, and I highly doubt Philochristos will be mad with me CVB'ing such an awful RFD. It seems as if Johnlubba didn't read con's arguments, rather he just read Pro's and chastised Pro using his own personal opinion even though he is not the opponent. He is essentially undermining both debaters abilities and adding himself as the third debater.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
,He outweighs me with improperly spelled words, but I shed almost three times as many syntax, grammar and sentence structure errors.

I am not that educated to notice errors of syntax and sentance structure.

I just noted that he spelled a lot of word incorrectly.

Geez give me a break.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
BBoySuperBeastHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Philocristos has stated my own thoughts on this contest perfectly. Con did not have much work to do here. "I rebuke that in that i am a believe," among other gems, cinched the S&G score. This failure to communicate snowballed the rest of Pro's efforts.
Vote Placed by philochristos 4 years ago
philochristos
BBoySuperBeastHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No contest. Pro's arguments were barely even coherent. Con's arguments were clear, compelling, and backed by good sources. Pro's spelling and grammar were terrible.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
BBoySuperBeastHeinekenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not clearly articulate or support any position of merit.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
BBoySuperBeastHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was largely incoherent, and where he wasn't incoherent he made unsupported assertions. Con actually constructed arguments and used sources. Pro's grammar is poor and he doesn't capitalize "I".
Vote Placed by jh1234l 4 years ago
jh1234l
BBoySuperBeastHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Arguments to Con because Pro used baseless assertions, S/G to Con because his spelling was better, Sources to Con because he used two sources and a Bible quote.
Vote Placed by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
BBoySuperBeastHeinekenTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to con because his was just plain better, sources to con because he was the only one to provide any, and arguments to con because, well, they were just better. Pro's arguments were not well thought out and lacked evidence of any kind. Con wins hands down.