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

Christians should take the whole bible literally

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,343 times Debate No: 25925
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I am not a Christian. (Just thought I'd clear that up now) All the time I see people on TV thank god you their accomplishments. I have friends who are Christians who say that they believe in god and the bible. But, whenever I try to tell them about the things in the bible that are completely impossible, (Jonah being eaten by a whale and living for example), they say that ether god made it possible, or that the entire bible shouldn't be taken literally, because the bible can't possibly be taken literally. The whole thing is a collection of stories that were written by a group of men that were probably drugged up at the time. I'm not saying the bible doesn't teach us things I'm just saying I think people are mocking their religion my picking and choosing what they believe about their holy book.

The bible is the foundation of Christianity. Without it, there wouldn't be the 2.2 billion people worth religion. When the bible first became popular it was actually taken literally then after many many years technology became better and things like dinosaurs and the age of the earth. After things that people can't deny, they morph the writings that they have dedicated their life to. I would be ok with people being Christians. People have a right to believe in whatever they want and they also have the right to tell me i'm wrong and here's why... I just don't like the idea of people trying to tell me that their belief is the right one when they don't really believe in it themselves


I accept the debate. Like you, I am an atheist, but I disagree with you on this subject. My opening arguments follow:

1. Versions
Which version of the bible should Christians be taking literally? On this list, 48 different versions are listed, and at the top there is a disclaimer saying "There are Bible versions not included on this chart" (1). How is it possible for a Christian to take the Bible literally, when there are so many different versions to choose from?

2. Contradictions
The Bible also has many contradictions within it. I have included a list of some of these. If one is to say they take the Bible literally, this is impossible even if they pick a specific version. For example, when discussing Noah's Ark, the Bible says that "one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones" (2) were taken on board. This can't be taken literally because it physically is impossible. There can never be one of something and seven of something. It has to be one of the two. Thus, the reader must choose between passages, and thus the Bible cannot be taken literally.

Debate Round No. 1


I see what you're getting at. There are many different versions of the bible so there is no way to know which one is right or even if any of them got it right. I'm not even saying that it's possible for the bible to be taken literally. I'm saying that believing is most of the bible shouldn't be good enough. "Real" Christian devote their entire life to this Jesus Christ guy. And, if someone makes that kind of commitment they need to really believe in the bible. And I don't think saying that some parts were just metaphors after they've been dis proven just to make their belief work better is the way to go.

I say believe in the whole darn bible, and if something in it contradicts logic, then maybe they need to think more about their religion. They need to think about what the bible is meant to be. A collection of stories that teach lessons to make you a better person. (at least at the time it did. I guess the whole men being dominate over women and killing your neighbor if he works on a Sunday thing hasn't really stuck with today's society.) I don't have a problem with Christians I just have a problem with liars. There are a LOT of different translations and versions of the bible, and they may not hold up to what's true, but if it doesn't, then what else do they have to believe in?

To sum up: The bible is the only collection of the word of God that exists that holds any ground. If people choose what parts of it to believe, they are choosing the parts of their God to believe in.


When my opponent says that he is "not even saying that it's possible for the bible to be taken literally" has just admitted that the very thing he is arguing for might just be impossible. He then proceeds to say that Christians should deny facts because they "devote their entire life to this Jesus Christ guy." Anybody who cares about reality needs to rethink their life if they disregard facts. But they don't have to abandon calling themselves Christians. Christians need to decide for themselves what being a Christian means to them. If the title becomes them, Christianity is a cult, not a philosophy. But Christians can and do view their religion on a philosophical level. This connects to what my opponent says in the next paragraph: "I say believe in the whole darn bible, and if something in it contradicts logic, then maybe they need to think more about their religion." Like I mentioned, they should rethink their religion. But the transition from a fundamentalist Christian to an atheist cannot happen overnight. The transition takes time. It can take years. For many, it is never completed. It is of course better to be 'slightly' Christian than to stay a fundamentalist. And if the change is too quick, the result is atheists with a Christian mindset. I speak of atheists who preach non-belief and shove it in people's faces, as well as atheists who protest anything remotely religious, such as a nativity scene or the 9/11 cross (1). My opponent believes that Christians should just accept the logical fallacies for God. This is not a good philosophy for anybody, even if they have some messed up beliefs in the first place.

Debate Round No. 2


When I say that it might be impossible for the bible to be taken literally I do mean that. People are very narrow minded and it would take time for someone to stop believing in their religion. I know it did for me, and I still feel a little uncomfortable people talk about religion with me. My argument for this debate isn't about the fact that it's very difficult for the bible to be seen as factual. I see the bible as something a Christian has to believe in completely in order to consider themself one. If they don't believe in everything in it they can become agnostic and or follow different religions like deism, theism, etc.
The thought that Christianity is a philosophy I don't think is true. Philosophy is the investigation of the truth (1). Christians I"m pretty sure think they have the truth mostly figured out, I"m not saying that they think they know everything, but that they know who created them and what their purpose in life is. A cult is a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies (2). That sound like Christianity to me.
What Christians believe isn't true, logical, or even possible, but they need to believe in their teachings. They cannot just be "slightly Christian" because someone cannot be slightly pregnant. Christians should believe in the bible or believe in something else.



While today, Christianity has become a cult, it really doesn't need to be that way. While Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, all religions began as a way for people to explain the world they lived in, and create a moral framework. This is philosophy. Over time, things were proven incorrect, and some aspects of the moral framework were abandoned due to their immorality, many people still can live a rational life with religion in the background guiding them. It is the Christians who live specifically for their religion, unquestioning, that are a part of the cult.

Perhaps the term 'slightly' was incorrect, but to extend my opponent's metaphor, people can have varying degrees of pregnancy. Some pregnancies are more pronounced than others. Some have varying symptoms. But just because somebody is not as visibly pregnant or has as many symptoms as somebody else, does not mean they are not pregnant. The same goes for Christianity. Just because one Christian does not share all the beliefs as another Christian does not make either one any less Christian.

I thank my opponent for an excellent debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
Pro holds some serious misconceptions about the Bible, if Round 1 is anything to go by.
Posted by Citrakayah 4 years ago
I thought it was seven pairs of the 'clean' ones and one pair of everything else...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: On the side of Pro prior, Con was able to convince me that I was mistaken. A rare feat. His logic: Christians should not believe the bible, is logic that I found myself powerless to contradict. The argument went to him. He also scored points for his command of the English language.