The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
DiablosChaosBroker
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points

Christians should not be afforded the protection of the law

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/21/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,035 times Debate No: 7504
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

brian_eggleston

Con

Christians believe "Deus est meus tectum" (God is my shelter) and "We ought to obey God rather than men" --Acts 5:29.

They believe in a "Higher Authority" than that of the state and that their deity will protect them, and that's all well and good - let them get on with it.

So, in view of this, surely it is an act of outright, unmitigated, unashamed, disgraceful, appalling, hypocritical audacity for Christians to call the police after they have been robbed or attacked? Why don't they appeal to their "Higher Authority" for justice?

Because, in their heart of hearts, they know that the whole religious malarchy is a total sham and that there's no such thing as a god or an afterlife - they're just too scared to admit it to themselves, that's all.

In light of this, surely the limited resources of the law enforcement community should be restricted to assist non-religious, law-abiding citizens who really appreciate their help and that cannot rely on the a "Higher Authority" for protection?

If Christians need the help of the police and the judiciary to fight their battles for them, then all I can say is that their god is pretty pathetic one.

Thank you.
DiablosChaosBroker

Pro

I thank my opponent for starting this debate and I admit that I enjoy his hilarious debate.

I would ask my opponent to provide evidence that Christians believe that God will protect them from all harm and danger.

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" -Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief.

Many Christians know that God doesn't protect them from dangers and harm because of so much evil in this world. Evil is so vast, so pervasive, and so starkly real that I don't think that many Christians believe that God can save them without any other assistance. However, Christians may pray because they think God will answer their prayers and perhaps save them from evil by making the police help them.

Now let us assume that my opponent is correct on saying that Christians believe that God will protect them - Psalm 121:7: http://bible.cc...: "The LORD guards you from every evil. He guards your life."

I argue that Christians pray because they think God will answer their prayers in line with his will.
For example, let's say that Christians pray for "something in line with God's will" for protection. Then they get robbed or attacked. They have to call the police because they realize 1) God ain't answering, 2) God will "fix" the situation when they call the police.

#1. If God ain't answering, Christians will still state excuses by claiming that the only prayers that are answered are those that are in line with the will of God. Of course, since no one can know what the will of God is, this gives them license to explain away any failed prayers. Therefore, they would not realize that the "whole religious malarchy is a total sham and that there's no such thing as a god or an afterlife."

#2. Christians do not realize that "whole religious malarchy is a total sham and that there's no such thing as a god or an afterlife" because they state the excuse that people have to work to deserve something and that if they pray and God answered, it would be "too easy." No Christian I know of would claim that they can accomplish literally anything, up to and including moving mountains, through prayer. So they build excuses that God will help their situation in "mysterious ways." This does not make them too scared to admit it to themselves because they don't realize that the true purpose of prayer is to make the people who pray feel better - it is a way of making believers feel they have exerted some degree of control over a situation that is beyond their control.

Now let us further assume that my opponent is correct that Christians are too scared to admit that God does not answer prayers and cannot prevent any evil, contrary to the verse I provided. That does not still give any justification to deny Christians the protection of the law. That's because there are several problems with this:

#1. This violates the fact that all humans are created equally and are treated equally and the is biased to Christians, promoting religious discrimination and violates separation of church and state. Why stop at Christians only? Why not Muslims? Jews? How about anyone who believe in a Higher Authority?

#2. How are people going to identify who's Christian and who's not? I bet that if the law "All Christians will not be afforded the protection of the law", everyone is going to identify themselves as non-Christian. This will also create a huge massive angry outrage from Christians.

#3. Is this law necessary? We're all human and therefore deserve equality regardless of religious beliefs. Are there any benefits with having this law? Can this law even have a chance to be approved depending on how many Christian in that country?

"If Christians need the help of the police and the judiciary to fight their battles for them, then all I can say is that their god is pretty pathetic one."

I agree. However, let's not turn to religious discrimination since "all men are created equal." Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Con

First of all, I should like to thank my opponent for posting such a comprehensivly well-informed and level-headed response. I hope my reply is a worthy one, but that will be for the voters to decide, of course!

To address the first comment my oppnent made, regarding the unlikelihood of God reconciling "His" existnce with "His" tolerance of evil practices - I have no choice but to agree - either "He" doesn't exist or, if "He" does exist then "He" either couldn't care less or is too weedy and pathetic to do anything about it. However, this acknowledgment of the realities on the ground does not negate my main argument. The point is, whether Christian beliefs in the power of "God" are right or wrong (they are wrong, by the way) they (the Christians) believe (erroneously) that their deity is the supreme power and has the ability to exhalt a man to eternal graciousness or condemn him to everlasting purgotory, according to that individual's behaviour whilst on Earth.

With reference to my opponent's second point, I am obliged to concede that he is correct in discerning that faith blinds Christians from distinguishing between fact and fiction. To use an ecumenical phrase, my opponent and I are both "singing from the same hymn sheet" on this one!

Indeed, I should like to take this opportunity to point out that there is, actually, very little I disagree with in my opponent's analysis of the Christian faith. It is, in my humble opinion, a very astute one and I have difficulty finding fault with it.

However, my opponent did write: "I don't think that many Christians believe that God can save them without any other assistance. However, Christians may pray because they think God will answer their prayers and perhaps save them from evil by making the police help them."

So, what my opponent is saying is that a Christian walks out of a Bible Sudies Class (possibly intoxicated as the reuslt of having imbibed too much Coca-Cola) and walks towards his bicycle when a bunch of Hell's Angels emerge from the darkness, corner him, bundle him to the ground and deprive him of with his wallet and phone, he gets on his hands and knees and prays to "God"? "Dear God, some thugs have turned me over, please phone the police and tell them where I am, Amen"? No, I don't think so.

Finally, as I am running out of time, I shall address my oppoenent's final point. How do we know who is Christian and who is not? It is true that many Christians are ashamed of their faith and even more are a bit like Manchester United fans, good-time supporters - they only follow "God" when "He" is on the winning side and when push comes to shove, they still rely on their fellow humans for protection. To sort this problem out, all church-goers should be rounded up and have their foreheads tatooed with "Bible-Basher" or "God-Botherer". Okay, I was just joking about that last bit, but you know what I mean!

Thank you.
DiablosChaosBroker

Pro

DiablosChaosBroker forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Cause he's full of 2 and he knows it :)
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Why are all the debates you start Brian, only two rounds? Particularly the ones that are funny
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 7 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
Oopsie. Well, I think we can ignore that >.>

Shhhhh <.< no one saw that.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Ya'll debaters know that "not" means you both arguing turned on yo heads.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 5 years ago
quarterexchange
brian_egglestonDiablosChaosBrokerTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 7 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
brian_egglestonDiablosChaosBrokerTied
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 rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
brian_egglestonDiablosChaosBrokerTied
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 Alex 7 years ago
Alex
brian_egglestonDiablosChaosBrokerTied
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 Xie-Xijivuli 7 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
brian_egglestonDiablosChaosBrokerTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41