The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
Calvincambridge
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Devout Christian absent fathers should not pay child maintenance

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 5 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,617 times Debate No: 17647
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (5)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Jesus' father, God, impregnated Jesus' mother, Mrs Mary Christ, and then did a runner leaving her and her husband, Mr Joseph Christ, to bring up the parental duty-dodging deity's son on a lowly carpenter's wage.

You may think God was a cad and a bounder for putting a married woman up the duff and then legging it back to Heaven, and that such behaviour would be more befitting a chav on the Jeremy Kyle Show rather than that of a respectable god, but never mind that, pious Christians are supposed to have blind faith in their religion, and not to ask any awkward questions, so devout absent fathers should follow God's example and not pay any money to help bring their kids up.

This may mean they go to prison here on earth but that is better than going to hell in the afterlife for defying God's will.

Thank you.
Calvincambridge

Con

Sir your argument is very mixed up from christianity first of all Joseph or Yoseph whichever you prefer and Mary had no last names. He did not impreginate Mary she had a virgin birth miracously concieved by the Holy ghost. Leaving your children was not Gods example. God looked after Jesus from heaven all his life. YHWH is a good father to his son and all humankind.
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I am indebted to Calvin Cambridge for accepting this debate.

My opponent implies that God wants to shift the blame for Mary's pregnancy to another fellow: namely the Holy Ghost. Please don't be fooled by this sleight of hand though, because God and the Holy Ghost are part of the same triune [1]: it's a bit like one person having three different identities, including names, addresses and passports, in order to avoid being tracked down by child support agencies chasing child maintenance payments - whichever identity they use there is only one person.

My opponent also claims that God looked after Jesus when he was alive. Well, put it this way, if my father had the power to part the seas, send plagues and flood the entire planet but didn't lift a finger for me, not even when I was about to be put to death, I would hardly describe him as an "attentive father". Indeed, if God was looking after Jesus the very least he could have done was help him out with some miracle or other when he was on the cross – it needn't have been anything fancy, just a simple one to make him disappear in a puff of smoke - that's Chapter 1 in any conjuring book – simplicity itself for a deity with God's abilities, but he obviously couldn't be bothered.

That's why I assert that in order to please God, devout Christian absent fathers should not pay child maintenance.

Thank you.

[1] http://clclutheran.org...
Calvincambridge

Con

Sir in the bible YHWH made it very clear to Jesus what was going to happen and he accepted his fate
Hallejulah praise the lord he did so

1. YHWH made this clear
2.YHWH ressructed him
3.YHWH brought him into heaven now tell me would an absent father do that
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
The Jerry Springer show with english accents.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Brian, please post the second part of that video if you can find it! I'm so intrigued!
Posted by Meatros 6 years ago
Meatros
This is hysterical. I love the opening post. Good job.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Double_R 6 years ago
Double_R
brian_egglestonCalvincambridgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: I am no longer scared of having a child.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
brian_egglestonCalvincambridgeTied
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: Con didn't try at all while Brian's argument made sense and was amusing.
Vote Placed by Meatros 6 years ago
Meatros
brian_egglestonCalvincambridgeTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had no sources, bad spelling, and a confusing argument. Pro had a thoroughly amusing argument and made his case with the inattentive father bit.
Vote Placed by CGBSpender 6 years ago
CGBSpender
brian_egglestonCalvincambridgeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Isn't Jesus supposed to be god too? Aren't there special rules with incest when it comes to child aid?
Vote Placed by TheNerd 6 years ago
TheNerd
brian_egglestonCalvincambridgeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I am so glad my baby's father is an atheist.