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

Do worshipers of major religions believe their texts to be historical facts or moral guidelines?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 507 times Debate No: 56569
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)




I admit i am no expert on religion, social sciences, or the inner workings of the human mind. I do believe myself to be a reasonable individual who chooses to look at all sides of a subject, if possible. With that being said, let's have some light shed on both sides of this thing.

Religion has had plenty of ups and downs throughout recorded history. The beliefs of either one man or a whole community have met with some form of opposition at one point or another. One part of a religion, its holy text of choice, has believers and nonbelievers in a near constant state of argument. As an example, the Holy Bible. A good read to many with plenty of lessons to learn about being a good person. However the lessons in the book seem to be overlooked and the view is instead switched from "moral guideline" to "historical record" and "proof of an omnipotent being".

I am neither for or against religion, unless it completely promotes all manner of blind ignorance and controlling the populace. So when it comes to the believers of a religion, do more believe in the "moral guideline" or in the "historical record" and "proof of a god"?

I guess for voting purposes, "Pro" will be for "moral guideline" and "Con" for "historical record/proof of god".


I accept under the moral guidelines clause

I would like to admit, that most people who subscribe to a religion believe in God

So this debate is actually bout whether or not people consider the bible (other religious texts) valid, accurate, and literal, or whether or not they use it is a just a guideline.
Debate Round No. 1


After putting some thought into it, doing a large nationwide research endeavor would be pointless unless this was moved to the Polls Section of this site. If we can't decide which side is more than the other, why not let as many people as possible cast a vote on it? It is a valid question after all.


I am not sure If my adversary is conceding or not, but I will show that most people use the bible for a moral guideline rather than follow it literally.

I am just going to state one contention to affirm my side

1) Change in beliefs ti fit science.

The catholic church use to believe the bible was flat, and then did not agree with evolution. Over the century most members of the catholic church including the pope agree that evolution is a fact[1]

This was even stated in a debate between richard dawkins and the archbishop of Canterbury where dawkins asked him if he believed in evolution himself. The bishop responded with "obviously". If most Christians were to believe the bible literally, the earth is 6k years old, and evolution is false. The fact that most Catholics and even modern protestants have came to accept this fact, shows that a great many people do not believe or use the bible for historical validity but rather as a moral guideline.

Debate Round No. 2


EngineerJakit forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Interesting debate: The morality of the Old Testament is deplorable, and the morality of the New Testament is almost Buddhist in nature, except for Revelations, which ruins it all and returns it to the O.T. Deplorable status.
Historically, Scientifically and Practicality wise, it is completely full of holes, like a sieve that has been chewed through by rats.
Though I won't go into details, I'll leave those up to the debaters to ponder.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
Definitely I agree that the New Testament can an should be used as a moral guideline. The same is true for much of the Old Testament. My point was when someone tries to put the exact wording of the Old Testament stories as an example of how God actually is then they are committing a grave error. The truth of the Scripture is not found in the words themselves but rather the meaning behind the words.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
Actually neither side of this debate is actually the "truth". Both have flaws. The Bible, nor any religious text, could be held up to be "proof" of God. No one believes the book was hand-delivered by Him. Likewise the Bible not being inspired literal truth is obvious by the numerous contradictions in the histories. But nor is it a strict moral guideline as God as He is portrayed in the Old Testament is not a being worthy of using as a moraby l guide. So then what is it?

It seems clear to me that it is the story of one people's GROWTH in faith and understanding of God. It begins with a very primitive understanding.... a God of power and might whose wrath is to be feared and who protects His "chosen people". But over time the people's concept develops into a Being who loves and is concerned about man. This concept of growth can be seen clearer if you read the books in the order in which they were written rather than the order which they are included in the Bible. The "accurate history" can be seen in the attitudes of the people at different times rather than the actual events recorded. Christ came just at the time when people were beginning to look on God as love and put a rocket pack on the idea. The Old Testament psalmist (perhaps David about 1,000 B.C) wrote "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". However John wrote "In love there can be no fear, rather fear is driven out by perfect love since to fear is to expect punishment, and love has not yet come to perfection in those who fear. We are to love then, because He loved us first."

Personally I see Christ's teaching of love and the brotherhood of man as being the fulfillment of the Old Testament, and the apex of the growth.
Posted by Hostile 2 years ago
Of course they do. Are you seriously implying that people MIGHT use it as a moral guideline book?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: A nice discussion but it appears that Con opted out, leaving Pro with the only argument. Had Con stuck around and presented an argument for the Historical facts it would likely be a tie, or if strong enough a win, but that may require research as Con stated. Many Christians Wrongly think of the bible as historically accurate so it could have gone either way.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I'm a little confused about Con's R2 submission, it seems like he is conceding the debate... and then that is more evident by his forfeit in R3. Regardless of the meaning behind his R2, a forfeit is a forfeit. This left Pro's argument standing unchallenged. Pro therefore wins this debate.