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

Do religious leaders have a fiduciary responsibility to those who follow them?

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: 7/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 395 times Debate No: 59213
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




My job as Con is to show that religious leaders are not what they appear and that their followers don't get what they are expecting out of the relationship.

In this debate we will not be addressing founders of a religion, Muhammad founded Islam so he would not be included in this debate. Moses on the other-hand could be included because Moses was not the founder of Judaism.

Of course I want to keep this debate in a Biblical framework but that is not mandatory. Stepping outside the boundaries of Christianity won't hurt me and staying in the boundaries of Christianity won't either.

For my part I am interested in the fall of the Temple by the Roman Titus. Did those Levites and priests locked inside Jerusalem have a fiduciary responsibility to see to it that the public/legal records held in the Temple depository survived? (Probably not to many people here are up to such a debate so we could waste it on the likes of a Jim Jones. It doesn't matter to me.)


Might I question your choice of wording? It is irrelevant to speak so broadly of religious leaders, when, it is apparent to all who have read your brief, that those of concern are those who choose to lay their faith in the Abrahamic religions. (i.e. Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

I again must make light of your arguments; you have entered this debate with not an ounce of evidence to support your position. You speak of having relationships with figureheads that have left a legacy- 'Moses', I quote from your speech. Yet, tell me, who on this earth have you met, or who on this earth have you heard speak directly to Moses? Hold a conversation?

Thus, your first point is laid to waste- you cannot include those who no longer live; especially in a debate primarily focused on the relationship between living religious figure-heads and their living congregation.

If you meant otherwise, please specify.

In terms of religious figure-heads being not being what they appear, I question your ability to think within reason. It states in the Bible that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23.
Yet, in the same breath- in the same chapter, " all are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" Romans 3:24

I'll interpret for you: We all sin, we all fall short of God's glory, but, we have been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb, all we need do is simply ask for forgiveness. This scripture does not exclude religious figure-heads from the ability to sin nor be redeemed.

I questioned your ability to think within reason for you have engaged in a war of words, with no apparent shield nor sword to screen or guard you. Where is you evidence that religious leaders are not what they appear?

I think, perhaps, I shall have to summarize for you in as little words as possible.
Of course they fall short, they are human. They sin, meaning they cannot always be the holy figure-heads you perceive them to be at all hours of the day. It is hard to be human, is it not? Yet, there is Scripture that talks of forgiveness.

This is no excuse for them to constantly sin , but rather, this is a plateau for you to understand that your elevation of religious figure-heads may differ from mine. God is "no respecter of man" Acts 10: 34-35

Where you may elevate these figures, though I treat everybody with respect, this is no reason as to why they deserve more than the good-natured individual who lies on the street-homeless.

Heed the advice of your own name...pivot.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all Pro, the Con of this debate is not a religious leader so Con cannot be the subject. If you want to discuss my fiduciary responsibilities to my followers you will first have to discover some followers. I don't think you will be able to do that in the short time we have for this debate. Moses is on the debate table because he was a religious leader with followers and he did not found Judaism. Pro, you were asked if you had any religious leader with followers who is not a founder of a religion whom you wish to debate with me on that particular leader's fiduciary responsibilities to his/her followers? Do you have anything like that? The debate was set up so that Pro could pick a leader to discuss and here you have pick me, someone who does not qualify as subject matter for this. So you have forfeited your opportunity to pick the subject matter. Since I am the only one left with a chance at picking the subject matter I will-

Pro you have entered a debate concerning the fiduciary responsibility the first century Levites had from the birth of Christ to the destruction of the Temple. The Con position is that the Levites had no fiduciary responsibility to the Jewish people whatsoever. Con will attempt to prove this by the actions of those same Levites. Thanks for accepting the challenge PauseAndThink.

First point:

The Levites were responsible at least indirectly for the destruction of the infant children in Bethlehem-Judah. The Levites were the ones who told King Herod the Great where the Christ Child was to be born. The Levites knew King Herod the Great. They had to have known that Herod was a unpredictable maniac. But if perchance the Levites did not understand the true nature of Herod before the Bethlehem incident then they certainly would have afterwards.

Second point:

The Levites turned over the responsibility of educating the Jewish people to the Pharisees. The Levites did this so that the Levites could spend their time in the building of the Temple of King Herod the Great. By their actions the Levites felt that the construction of the Temple of King Herod the Great was more important than the education of the children of that day.

Third point:

The Temple of Herod the Great was a very valuable piece of hardware. Probably one of the 'wonders of the ancient world'. The Levites knew the history of the Roman army. The army would not destroy Jerusalem if it would submit to Roman authority. But if Jerusalem would not submit to Roman authority then the army would destroy Jerusalem. The Levites under the leadership of the high priest at the time decided that destruction of Jerusalem was better than submission to Rome.


Con, this is my second debate; my first, of which is still ongoing, had no required structure for the outline of the debate. Might I add, nor did you specify any layout in the brief of your first round. Therefore, I would still like to believe I am entitled to choosing a topic stance, and that I have not'forfeited' any opportunity, but rather was cheated out of one.

As you have listed your arguments, so shall I refute them.

First Argument:
Please present the evidence which details that children were in fact killed as an indirect result of notifying where Christ would be born. As far as I'm aware, and as sure as I am, the Magi were the ones who told King Herod of the birth location of Christ- not the Levites. The magi (three kings), were foreigners to the regions of the Middle East, and, as a result would have had no prior knowledge of Herod's "unpredictable" nature.

Second Argument:
The pharisees in Biblical times, were in fact what one would liken to a council. They were responsible for the way things were run in the Jewish community, and this thus

It is listed in the Bible the duties of the Levites which at "that time the LORD separated the tribe of Levi to bear the ark of the covenant of the LORD, to stand before the LORD to minister to Him and to bless in His name, to this day. Therefore Levi has no portion nor inheritance with his brethren; the LORD is his inheritance, just as the LORD your God promised him" (Deuteronomy 10:8-9).

The Levites were essentially the mediators between God and the people. They were following the commandment given by God, therefore, they were doing exactly as God had told them to do. The people would have known this as well, thus, your argument of the question of their priorities is entirely void.

May I ask you a question; what is your problem with the pharisees giving lessons to the children and to those who saught education at the time? God allocated different tribes to do different things. Therefore, there was no expectation put on the Levites to provide means of education. That expectation was put upon the pharisees- which, might I add- they fulfilled.

Your argument is invalid.

Third argument:
You're very curtailed in your opinion. I hope you're aware. Submission to Rome would've also meant submission to their religion. Bearing in mind we are still in the times where Christianity had not come about, and Judaism was the prevalent religion, you must take into account the laws that governed this religion at the time. Let us pick at one. "Thou shalt have nor other god, beside Me". This is a time where fellowship with God is very common amongst the population, therefore, this commandment would've been strictly adhered to. Take into account, that what the Levite guards where protecting , was in fact the Ten Commandments. This commandment- the one I have just given you, is the second.

Now, why would Jerusalem want to submit to Rome?

Your opinions have come from a one-sided view, as expected. Yet, here I have presented you with evidence to dispel those views. I'm not sure if you're seeking clarification on this matter, or if you actually want to debate it.
Debate Round No. 2



1) Mostly I use Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, the one with the large print as it is easier on the eyes. But for the word 'Magi' just about any concordance will do. Look the word up and read the surrounding verses. If you get a chance then read Matthew chapter 2. In that chapter it tells the story of the Magi inquiring as to the location of the future Messiah.

2) Unlike the Magi, the Levites knew all about King Herod personally. The Levites knew that Herod was an Edomite, a foreigner.

3) All Pharisee power was derived from the Levites. The Levites were given their power from the Law of Moses. Pharisees were not even mentioned by Moses.

4) Pharisee was a Bureaucracy.

5) One of the first official acts of the Levites was to kill 20,000 Hebrews.

6) The position within the nation of Israel was privileged.

7) The Levitical system is in a complete shamble.

Con's final argument:

The reason for Levitical failure is two-fold-
1) Rome destroyed their power base by destroying the Temple and wiping out their ability to discern one tribe from another.
2) Jesus, a Jew and not a Levite has become High Priest, someone who does have a fiduciary responsibility for His followers.


PauseAndThink forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by pivot 2 years ago
Hey the audience here at needs to see something-

There is nothing personal on my part in my debates. In this here debate all I want to do is understand that religious leaders have an agenda. What is the agenda? For one thing the religious leaders want to remain the leaders. How is this accomplished? Well that is fairly easy to figure out. Just look at what they did/do. Look at as though you have nothing at stake. Look at like you don't even have winning one of these debates at stake. I'm not trying to influence anyone. That is the job of leaders. I'm not your leader. Do you dig it?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Max.Wallace 2 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 Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro quit, no one likes a quitter, and this is not about who I like, it is about the fact that this is the war of words, and why run away from an argument if you believe what comes out of your own mind?