Does Christianity Actually Teach Hate and Bigotry?
To start this off, I am an Atheist from a Roman-Catholic family. I had stopped believing in religion when I was about 11-12 and I had no doubts that there was something wrong with the religion. When I started looking for things related to Athiesm I began to see the hateful messages in Christianity and the horrifying acts that religion in general has caused to this world. I would consider myself an anti-theist, but it isn't like I hate all religious people (mostly because they take up a majority of the world) however I do hate the religion.
Relgion has caused atrocities in our history and people find excuses for hatred and bigotry with it. If you believe contrary then go ahead and accept my challenge.
I will be arguing:
1) The Bible teaches hate and bigotry
2) People have used the Bible to further their hateful agendas
3) Religion is not necessary to have love and peace in the world
You shall make the first argument(s), then I will respond and give some of my own. It will be a simple back and forth like that and the last round (obviously) is your conclusion.
Time to argue: 72 hours
Max Argument: 10,000 characters
Thanks to anyone who responds.
I accept. Since Pro hasn’t provided any definitions, I will provide them.
Bigotry - Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself
Hate - Feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone)
Teach - Encourage someone to accept (something) as a fact or principle
For my first argument, I will go into detail about Pro’s three reasons as she stated in the first round:
3. This argument however I can go into detail. It is important to note that the number of wars caused by religion specifically Christianity pales in comparison to the non-religious wars in the history of man. Just to name a few the two World Wars, the American Revolution, the 100 Years War, the Vietnam War, Peloponnesian War, Russo-Japanese War. An entire book can be written listing nonreligious wars. The point being that wars will still be prominent regardless of whether or not religion exists. More evidence can be found that regimes that banish religion are often found to be the opposite of love and peace.
Example 1: Stalin’s Soviet Union actively sought to eliminate religion. His reign saw the deaths of 20,000,000 people. 
Example 2: Mao’s reign in China also sought to eliminate religion during the Cultural Revolution. The amount of deaths during his reign totaled to 40,000,000 people. 
Example 3: Pol Pot’s regime was also antireligious and millions of people died under him. 
Example 4: North Korea: anti-religious with millions dying 
Keep in note that this is in the last century alone trumping anything Christians have done in the history of religion. These huge numbers of innocent deaths at the hands of these men is consistent with their atheistic beliefs that there is no objective morality and no God to adhere to. Here I have proven that societies without religion under atheistic regimes are anything but that of love and peace.
I have made my opening remarks and await Pro’s response.
“Talking about the Bible’s message of love won’t have much meaning in this debate as it will focus on the verses that supposedly teach or promote hate or bigotry”
Well that’s sort of the point, isn’t it? The Bible is the holy book of Christianity, so if I claim that Christianity teaches bigotry then it must be in there (which it is.) You would either need to deny the fact that it is in the Bible, or admit that there are some bad messages within the Bible. I even stated what I'd be arguing for in the first round, so...
Please Check the Links in 'Soures' in order to see more examples of people using the Bible to commit atrocities.
Sexism in the Bible:
(1 Timothy 2:12) “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” (Corinthians 14:34-35) "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
(5) Killing Children for being unruly (not even including all the verses about "dicipline") (Also I am against any form of Corporal punishment if you couldn't feel the eternal rage I had from searching up these quotes.)
(Exodus 21:15) Whoever strikes his father or his mother is certainly to be put to death.
(Exodus 21:17) Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.
(Leviticus 20:9) Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.
(Matthew 15:4) For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’
This quote (below) says that a woman cannot dress like a man and a man cannot dress as a woman. Basically an anti-crossdressing and anti-transgender message.
(Deuteronomy 22:5) “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God”
Killing non-believers in the Bible:
(Deuteronomy 13: 5) “And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God.”
(2) Slavery is condoned in the bible
(Peter 2:18) “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”
(Ephesians 6:5) "slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling"
(Titus 2:9) "tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect"
Rape in the Bible:
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29) “If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.”
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24) If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
There are thousands of more passages that I could write here, not just about the topics listed, but by many others as well. Since the Bible is the Holy Book of Christians, and is used to justify their beliefs on other matters you can’t just ignore any verse you don’t personally believe.
Pro-life people reference the “thou shalt not kill” when speaking about abortion (even though God has killed babies before.)
(3) People against gay marriage always reference quotes from the bible such as “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.” (Leviticus 18:22) They also just use God as an excuse in general.
Don’t tell me that people don’t need to follow all parts of the Bible, because they love to bring up quotes from every part of the bible.
Also check these out before giving a select interpretation of the Bible:
(Matthew 5:17 NAB) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."
(2 Peter 20-21) “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
Unless it is stated directly in the Bible, then I won't believe your interpretation.
War and Religion:
Also your examples of “Atheistic” wars has one big hole in it. That is, those deaths and wars under Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao was due to corruption, and there is no direct connection with Atheistic beliefs (or should I say, lack of beliefs) and if they used those beliefs to cause such suffering. And no, just because we don’t believe in God it doesn’t mean we don’t have morals. If that were true then why don’t we see more Atheist murderers, of mass shooters, or anything of that sort?
Being an Atheist means that you do not believe in a God, period. There is nothing else attached to it. Many Atheists believe in evolution because they are skeptics (and evolution has plenty of evidence behind it.) Atheists have morals as well, but we believe morality to be subjective (based on emotions and changes depending on certain situations.)
(4) It is obvious when a religious person uses their doctrine as an excuse to do such horrible things. As soon as they say they’re doing God’s work it is undeniable.
Also I’m not trying to say that religion is the main cause of wars and violence, because it isn’t. So what if there are plenty of wars not fought over religion? That does not change the fact that religious beliefs are dangerous, and it clearly can’t be one of the religions of peace if they turn around and promote bigotry. The point is religion will cause some of the most normal people to say and do the craziest things. (Keep in mind that I could make just as powerful an argument about pretty much any other major religion, so its obvious that religion has been corrupted from the start.)
Next round I will go into how religion is not necessary to have love and peace in the world. Feel free to put in an argument against that now if you want.
I’m going to dive into Pro’s claims in each category:
These verses simply mean that men and women are to have different roles in worship for the sake of order in the church. Men teach and women learn in submission. Just because one gender submits to the other doesn’t necessarily mean that one is inferior to the other. In the New Testament Jesus submitted to his parents but would any Christian argue that he was inferior to his parents. In actuality, he is superior in every way.
“Killing children for being unruly”:
First, the context of such situations must be taken into consideration. Deuteronomy 21:18–21 does a great job of going into detail of such.
“If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear.”
There are many things to take note of. First off, this isn’t some one-time outburst like “I hate you!”, this applies to a child who goes out of his or her way to disobey his/her parents and despite countless attempts by the parents to discipline the child, he/she still persists. The next thing is that this isn’t some minor offense like forgetting chores or missing curfew. In the verse, it lists such hypothetical son as a glutton and a drunkard and knowing the effects of alcohol that person is a danger to society. And third, such punishments aren’t carried out at an impulse. The rebellious child is brought before elders in the city to be judged to determine whether or not such child will change his/her ways. If not then the city will have to resort to stoning. This is a worst case scenario and such laws serve as deterrent to rebellious children. The bible never records such a scenario occurring implying such law is invoked in very few if not zero instances.
With the first verse the punishment is directed towards the man as he is forced to support the victim for the rest of his life no matter what. Also take note that the father can refuse to give his daughter to marriage no matter the circumstances in Exodus 22:17, “If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.” So the woman doesn’t have to marry her rapist.
As with the second verse, it is a crowded city where people are no farther than a couple of feet, if the victim screamed, witnesses would easily be able to intervene and stop the act. If she did not scream, it would imply that the sexual act was done with consent and because the woman is betrothed, it is adultery which is punished by death. If there were any outlying circumstances that would have prevented the woman from screaming, then such details can be taken up with a judge to decide.
A misconception that a lot of people make when talking about slavery in the Bible is that they equate it to that which oppressed the African American people during colonial times. To prove that the two aren’t equal, you must first look at the types of people that are enslaved in the Bible.
The first types of people that the Israelites enslaved were the pagan nations that they conquered. The reason why the God commanded the Israelites to conquer them was because of their wickedness losing the right to their land. Just to illustrate, in Leviticus 18:21-24,
“And you shall not let any of your descendants pass through the fire to Molech.... Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.”
This means that they are literally burning children alive as offerings to a false god. If such nations are revolved around such actions taking the right to life and freedom from the children they burn, is it morally justifiable to take away their freedom. Such things happen in our modern society today where we take the freedom of those who murder and occasionally force them to do good things such as community service yet do people condemn such behavior. It seems more humane than to outright kill them.
The second type of people that were enslaved was those who were unable to pay debts. If a person owed a huge amount of money to someone, what should be done? Should he be thrown in jail or have the government wave it away in both instances unfair to the lender. Leviticus 25:47-49 gives an example of slavery due to debt:
“Now if a sojourner or stranger close to you becomes rich, and one of your brethren who dwells by him becomes poor, and sells himself to the stranger or sojourner close to you, or to a member of the stranger’s family, after he is sold he may be redeemed again. One of his brothers may redeem him; or his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him; or anyone who is near of kin to him in his family may redeem him; or if he is able he may redeem himself.”
What is also worth of note is that there are many laws and regulations in the Bible regarding the treatment of slaves. To begin with, if a slave owner is cruel, the slave has the right to run away and the law condemns him to be returned. Deuteronomy 23:15-16
“You shall not give back to his master the slave who has escaped from his master to you. He may dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him.”
I could go into more detail but I’m running low on characters.
“Pro-life people reference the “thou shalt not kill” when speaking about abortion (even though God has killed babies before.)” Be more specific on that last part.
War and Religion:
I’ve never stated that being an atheist makes you a dictator killing millions of people. What I’m stating is that these men are acting consistent with a belief that states there is no objective morality (ex. Killing innocent people) and that there is no God to be accountable to. I’m not saying atheists can’t be moral, I’m just stating that they have no rational reason to be moral under their beliefs. You are judging the Bible as an immoral book as if rape and murder are objectively wrong but you reject the notion of objective morality. If you lived in a world in which a majority of people accept rape as a normal thing on what basis can you say that rape is wrong beyond your personal opinion? Also since because you believe in evolution I will also ask you this question:
If our existence came about through hundreds of millions of murder, rape, and theft, why should we not adhere to the actions that created modern humans as we see today?
And on top of that:
If there is no God and our thoughts such as “rape is wrong” are nothing but accidents, the random collisions of atoms obeying the laws of chemistry, why should we trust or adhere to those thoughts?
“It is obvious when a religious person uses their doctrine as an excuse to do such horrible things. As soon as they say they’re doing God’s work it is undeniable.”
So if an atheist goes around shooting Christians (like in the recent Oregon shooting) and proclaims it in the name of atheism is it undeniable that atheism promotes bigotry?
I’ll stop right here as I’m out of space but I hoped to go through everything in detail so I might have to save it for next round.
Here is a super long response:
Do you honestly support traditional gender roles? We’re in the 21st century, and women should have just as much rights to say or to have authority as a man does. Submission means “
is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) Aka God rules over man and man rules over women. They are seen as superior to women.But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman
“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.”(Romans 7:2)
A woman is forced to live by the rules of her husband until he dies (unless she dies first, that is.)
Like I said before, submission to a gender because your Holy Book says so is not healthy, and it is poisonous to a relationship! The Bible is sexist, period.
Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.” (Exodus 21:15) A child punches his dad, gets killed. Is that really fair?
“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:17)
“First off, this isn’t some one-time outburst like “I hate you!”” No, but the quote above is. Children aren’t allowed to disobey in the slightest of ways, otherwise they’ll be killed.
“…he is forced to support the victim for the rest of his life no matter what. “ Yes, and the victim is forced to be married to him for the rest of her life! How is this just? At least we send them to jail for doing something like that, far away from the victim so they can feel more secure along with the rest of society.
“And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.” (Exodus 22:16-17) This isn’t addressing rape, so don’t try to mislead me because I will fact check. This is just if a guy seduces a virgin girl.
Also check out this fun little quote from Moses:
“And Moses said unto them, have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:15-18)
Gee, I wonder what he was implying…
“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.” (Exodus 21:20-21)
“If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out alone.” (Exodus 21:4) He can’t even take his children out of slavery, similarly to slavery in the South.
“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.” (Exodus 21:8)
Also, during Colonial to Civil War times they used the Bible as an excuse to keep slaves. These men were devout Christians, so I am sure that if we used Bible standards of slavery it would be similar to slavery in the South. At least when it comes to jobs people have legal rights, and decent ones too. Factory workers aren’t beaten for doing something wrong, and I think we’re better for it.
Pro-Lifers: Pro-Lifers always argue that a fetus is a life, therefore the “thou shalt not kill” rule applies to them. They don’t believe in a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body because that developing fetus could potentially be a human life, and apparently it is so very sacred that they have to stop people’s rights for it. I couldn’t disagree with their argument any more than I do now, but that is how they justify their political stance on the issue.
“They have no rational reason to be moral under their beliefs”
There are consequences to your actions. Most people have a conscience too. If I murder someone, I am sent to jail, hated by the public, and my life will never be the same. Not only that, but I would feel horrible about doing it. I live in a society like everyone else, and I create my own set of morals which I find reasonable, then apply them in day-to-day life.
Honestly, do you even understand that mental disease plays a huge role in creating monsters like Stalin? I doubt you do. If you fully understood that mental disease, abuse and bullying played a major role in people becoming evil then you would have never bothered to put this as an argument because it is of a low quality. Just because some people don’t believe in objective morality doesn’t mean they have none!
“…are nothing but accidents…” There is no such thing as accidents in nature. Nature does not have human characteristics, therefore it cannot “accidentally” make something. What is the problem with things happening by chance anyways? I never understood why theists had s to make such a big deal out of this. It sounds a lot more likely than a fully formed being with a personality and ultimate power creating the world in a week (now THAT sounds crazy.)
In regards to the shooting, please check this video out: https://youtu.be...
I am not going to bother arguing about this, mostly because it has nothing to do with the argument and I never denied that Atheists are capable of doing things wrong. (Even if you find this guy annoying, he has a point.)
Argument that Religion isn’t necessary for peace and love:
As I’ve said above, objective morality doesn’t mean people can just do whatever they please. Factors such as consequences, having a conscience, empathy, sympathy and much more cause people to restrain from things that are “morally wrong.” I use these factors as a guideline on how to organize my own morality, and I’d say it is better organized than the Bible. My morality is flexible because it is able to adjust to new changes in our society. For example, if being vegan becomes an easier and more popular option in the future, my morality is flexible enough to fit in with that (but I love eating meat so that might not happen soon.) I, like most people, value other people’s feelings and want to make sure not to cause any heavy damage to anyone else. That makes it easy not to have objective morality, but to still be a moral person.
If you want proof that a God doesn’t need to exist in our world, just look at it from the perspective of an Atheist. They walk around and live exactly like a normal person, but they don’t think a God started it. That is the only difference, and the more you treat it like such a drastic difference the more bias and stereotyping you will have for Atheists.
Also, just look at less religious countries such as Sweden. They have much lower percentages of religious people but they are successful countries. In fact, “It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in first tier.” (1) Also religion isn’t even something popularly talked about, as the article states.
Religion isn’t necessary to tell us right from wrong, and in a lot of ways, religion causes us to do wrong things. A lot of religious heavy countries have a lot of problems, which wouldn’t make sense if religion claims to guide people on to the right path.
As I said in my previous argument, one gender submitting to the other does not mean the gender is inferior. Like I said before, Jesus submitted to his parents yet he was infinitely superior in every way. There is no verse in the Bible that claims that women are an inherently weaker or inferior gender.
As per the resolution, you haven’t shown that these verses promote hatred towards women.
Let me first begin with by first stating that you use the term murder implying that the person being stoned to death is innocent. Another thing to point out is that you haven’t proven such actions immoral as your only basis for declaring such actions immoral is your personal opinion. Might I also add that these are the early days of civilization where the primitive societies are one step away from anarchy and a free-for-all.
Like I also said before, such punishments aren’t recorded in the Bible for being carried out so it can be assumed that such instances occur rarely if even at all likely serving as a deterrent to rebellious children. Have you ever thought that maybe children were more obedient during those days?
If you look at the wording of the law it is intended as a punishment for the male. Why throw him in jail funded by tax payer to keep him sheltered and fed? And looking at your stance on big issues you are also against the execution of such rapist. So what is to be done with him?
“This isn’t addressing rape, so don’t try to mislead me because I will fact check. This is just if a guy seduces a virgin girl.”
I just showed that the father can refuse to give his daughter in marriage.
As I stated in my last argument, slavery during Biblical times was not the equivalent of that during colonial times as the people enslaved were people under heavy debt or those who have committed atrocities such as burning children as human sacrifices. In addition, if slaves were mistreated, they have the right to run away and it is against the law to return him/her to their owner as I have stated before proving that the Bible does not condone the slavery seen during colonial times. You have not disputed any of my claims so I will assume that you accept it.
Exodus 21:16 clearly forbids the scenario of slavery the African Americans found themselves in.
“He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.”
In the Bible, slave and servant are used interchangeably in between translations.
I have also stated that there is substantial evidence that slaves were treated well. In Deuteronomy 15:12-17,
“And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day. And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant forever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.”
First off, it states that within seven years of ownership, a master is to set his slave free. The second thing noted from this is that there is also a law for a scenario where a slave doesn’t want to leave his master implying that the relationship between master and slave is mutually beneficial.
You state with your first verse that the Bible condones beating slaves yet in some circumstances it seems justifiable to beat slaves. For example, your slave is one of the captured pagan tribes guilty of human sacrifice. In exchange for not immediately being executed, the person is put in slavery. The slave refuses to abide by the conditions in which he/she gets to live but insists on rebelling against his/her master by destroying property, etc even though he/she could escape to a kinder master without consequence. Is it morally justifiable to use physical punishment?
You state that deeply devout Christians used the Bible to justify slavery in America but you also forget the deeply religious opposition such as that of William Wilberforce.
I don’t know why you bring the abortion debate into a debate about the Bible as it seems unrelated and something else all-together.
“My morality is flexible because it is able to adjust to new changes in our society.”
You still haven’t answered my hypothetical question about a society where rape is seen as normal by the majority. If you lived in such society, on what rational basis can you claim that such actions are wrong? By your own admission, the only basis you have for your morality is your personal opinion. The question is whose “personal opinion” should be the morality everyone has to go by?
You also claim that sympathy is a factor in determining what is right or wrong. For example, you steal something for someone and you feel bad because you hurt someone. The question still remains: Why should you feel bad for hurting someone?
--If there is no God and our thoughts such as “rape is wrong” are nothing but accidents, the random collisions of atoms obeying the laws of chemistry, why should we trust or adhere to those thoughts?
As to your answer, there are two things wrong. First off, you show ignorance in basic chemistry such as collision theory by stating the collisions aren’t random. And then you commit a red herring fallacy not answering the question.
I’m not stereotyping anything about atheists and never stated that they can’t be moral as Christians are. I’m just showing that “moral” atheists are acting inconsistently with their beliefs. This brings me to Dostoevsky’s argument from the consequences of positive Atheism:
1. If atheism is true then man is “the chief of the earth”
2. If man is “the chief of the earth” then he can abandon absolute standards (i.e., morality)
3. If man can abandon the absolute standards then “everything is permissible”
4. Therefore, if atheism is true, everything is permissible
As with Sweden and Denmark, their Christian past laid the foundation of their respective societies. As one person in the article you brought up, the societies still take much from Christianity.
“We are Lutherans in our souls — I’m an atheist, but still have the Lutheran perceptions of many: to help your neighbor. Yeah. It’s an old, good, moral thought.”
First of all, if you command an entire gender to not do certain things specifically because they are that gender, then that is sexism. Jesus is not a good comparison because the Bible says that children must obey their parents, which would be Mary and God. You don’t seem to understand what sexism actually is. It is sexist if you prevent a gender from doing something that they are just as capable of doing, only because of their gender. It is sexism when you tell a woman she has no authority over any man, but tell a man that he has more authority than any woman. It is sexism when a woman cannot have a say in anything. That is sexism.
This is supposedly from “God”, right? And if it was from God then it has to be true, right? If God was as progressive and loving as people claim he would have updated the book, or command that people back then change their ways. He is all-powerful, so of course he could tell them to be more progressive. If you really believed in this then that should have been the case!
An all-powerful God would have not just left his people with this, he would have been just as active as he was in the Bible.
“…it is intended as a punishment for the male…” Can’t you imagine how the girl would feel about it? She has been raped by that man, and now she will be forced to live with him for the rest of her life. That is probably the worst thing you could do to a victim of rape. I’d also say it is pretty sexist, since the girl can’t say anything or object.
“I just showed that the father can refuse to give his daughter in marriage.”
You said that it had to do with rape:
“If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.” So the woman doesn’t have to marry her rapist.”
But the original verse had nothing to do with rape. I already proved that. Also why couldn’t the verse say that the woman could refuse to marry him? She is the one that will be doing the marrying, not her father. Also it doesn’t even mention anything about her mother having a say either. A woman is not property for another man, but the Bible seems to think so.
No, I will not accept it. The quotes I gave showed that it is like Colonial slavery. If a slave master can beat his slave near death and not be punished for it, then that is similar to slavery in the Colonial times. If a woman can be forced to be someone’s wife since she is a slave then that is like slavery in Colonial times. If a child can be born into slavery and never be able to leave, then that is like slavery in the Bible. It’s like you didn’t read the quotes at all.
If I can make that many comparisons to how similar it was, not to mention that they used the Bible as guidelines for slavery in America, then it is similar.
Deuteronomy 15:12-17 doesn’t prove that slaves were treated well, it only shows that they don’t last forever. A master could still be horribly cruel to his slave and not break this rule, so it doesn’t prove anything. There are a lot of situations where a slave can be stuck in slavery forever.
Yeah you use the example of sacrifice, but didn’t you say that people who had a debt to pay were slaves too? “The second type of people that were enslaved was those who were unable to pay debts. If a person owed a huge amount of money to someone, what should be done?”
Don’t try to justify assault like that, because there is no logical reason to do it. These are just barbaric ways of thinking.
Did you not remember that I said I was going to prove that people used the Bible to condone their personal beliefs/actions? It was stated in the first round that I would. Also you even asked me to specify what I meant with the pro-lifers.
Rape is bad. Why? Rape hurts others. I don’t like to hurt others. I told you that we have things called empathy and sympathy that stop us from doing that. People who rape others usually have a mental disorder that messes with that. Do I really need to explain this to you?
Read my argument before you respond! I am getting really impatient with you because you just seem to never notice what I wrote, then write something I had already disputed.
You can’t just ask why you should feel bad. Why should you breathe? Why should you blink? Empathy and sympathy aren’t things you should just control, they’re an impulse. That is why I mentioned that rapists and murderers don’t have as much of either, because if they did then they wouldn’t be doing crime! There are also so many factors that contribute to this, such as desperation needs, wants and mental illness.
There are no accidents. Accidents are done by sentient people. Nature and the universe can’t because they aren’t sentient.
Randomness isn’t random when it is bound to happen eventually. That is inevitability. When it comes to the universe, probability and math are practically meaningless because of the infinite space, and we cannot test for the likely hood of it forming because of that!
““moral” atheists are acting inconsistently with their beliefs”
You don’t know what an Atheist is. An Atheist is someone who doesn’t believe in a god or gods. Period. There is nothing attached to that! There are no “acting inconsistent with their beliefs” because it doesn’t have any beliefs attached to it! You are stereotyping Atheists are assume that they all are like this.
No, man is not “chief of Earth.” What do you mean by that? Even if you mean it in an evolutionary way, that is a stereotype.
That was a huge assumption. That is also a straw man. That is also a stereotype to assume an Atheistic world would be like that.
I’m not sure if there is anything else to say other than I really didn’t expect this level of denial. The Bible clearly states that horrid acts will not be punished, yet you try to dance around that. When the Bible says to stone people to death you say it was just how they did things, but when a rapist is forced to marry his victim you say that is a better punishment than jail time (people get raped in jail so that would be a good punishment.) You give a strawman of Atheists and claim you don’t stereotype them, not to mention how awfully assuming you are of how the world would be without a God.
If the Bible was truly moral, and a good source for morality then the world probably wouldn’t be the way it is (and America would be a saint with its high percentage of Christians, which also make up a majority of prisoners.)
NothingSpecial99, you have proved nothing except for the faultiness of the Bible.
This debate is about whether the Bible teaches hate or bigotry and the commandment that women should be submissive to men whether in marriage or in worship is showing any hatred or bigotry towards women. You claim that Jesus submitting to his parents can’t be compared to the relationship between men and women yet the two relationships are very similar.
1. Both women and children are to submit to a person or entity as commanded by the Bible.
2. Both women and children are commanded to submit based on a part of their character that they can’t change such as age and gender.
3. The Bible never claims that women and children are inferior to the people they submit to.
By definition, sexism is stereotyping, prejudice, or discrimination against women. By your logic, God’s commandment that children submit to their parents is stereotyping and discriminating against children. You contradict yourself by accepting the relationship between children and parents and rejecting the relationship between man and wife even though such relationships are parallel to each other.
As I conducted further research on this topic, a very strong case can be made that the verse isn’t even talking about rape. To begin with, the verses right before it in Deuteronomy 22:25-26 states that
“25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death.”
This verse stated that the penalty of rape is death. It is highly unlikely that two verses right next to each other would contradict each other. However, there is strong indication that the word rape in that verse was an English translation error. The Jewish word used in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was tapas meaning to seize. The meaning of to seize doesn’t necessarily mean that it is rape.
“The Hebrew word tapas (“lay hold of her,” emphasized above) simply means to take hold of something, grasp it in hand, and (by application) to capture or seize something. It is the verb used for “handling” the harp and flute (Gen. 4:21), the sword (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), the oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). It is likewise used for “taking” God’s name (Prov. 30:9) or “dealing” with the law of God (Jer. 2:8). Joseph’s garment was “grasped” (Gen. 39:12; cf. 1 Kings 11:30), even as Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17)… [T]he Hebrew verb “to handle, grasp, capture” does not in itself indicate anything about the use of force (italics in orig.).”.
This law could primarily be referring to couples who have sex before marriage.
In the previous verse, the Jewish word used was chazaq meaning force her proving in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 was actually a case of rape. It is also worthy to note that many translations don’t use “rape” in 22:28-29.
I was unable to address this claim as I was very busy and in a rush to put out my arguments. Deuteronomy 22:5 simply deals with false prophets. A person claims to be a messenger from the Christian God when he is not, God would make sure such people don’t mislead the Israelites. This is actually a good thing so that false prophets can’t command the Israelites to do evil things.
“If a slave master can beat his slave near death and not be punished for it, then that is similar to slavery in the Colonial times.”
I’ve pointed out in my last argument that corporate punishment is sometimes necessary with slaves. If such slave masters are actually cruel, Deuteronomy 23:15-16 which I spell out in a previous argument, the slaves can run away to a kinder master without punishment.
“If a woman can be forced to be someone’s wife since she is a slave then that is like slavery in Colonial times.”
I assume you are referring to Exodus 21:8 stating that families can sell girls to be maidservants. You must look at the time period. In a world where you have to work countless hours to even survive and sometimes it isn’t enough and everyone is suffering, such actions can be seen as beneficial to everyone. The girl isn’t much good starving alongside her family. With such exchange, the girl is with someone who can protect her and keep her well fed while the family gets money to help them survive. If the slave master mistreats her, she can always run away like I said before.
“If a child can be born into slavery and never be able to leave, then that is like slavery in the Bible”
The child can always run away. And slavery isn’t a permanent condition as Deuteronomy 15:12-17 states that slaves are given freedom after seven years.
“It’s like you didn’t read the quotes at all.”
As do you as you also ignore my quotes such as Deut. 23:15-16 where slaves can run away.
“they used the Bible as guidelines for slavery”
I’ve proven quite clearly that the American South violated biblical guidelines for slavery.
Again, this is not an abortion debate. And what you actually stated was, “People have used the Bible to further their hateful agendas”. You haven’t proved that the Pro-Life cause is hateful.
As with other topics such as gay marriage, I’m going to save this. One teaching of the Bible is to love the sinner but hate the sin. However, it is difficult to distinguish one from the other as sometimes certain types of sin are a big part of who the sinner is.
“Rape hurts others. I don’t like to hurt others.”
Rape is wrong because you don’t like it? You are stating that rape is wrong based on your personal opinion.
“I told you that we have things called empathy and sympathy” Nothing but the result of brain chemistry, and you have not said anything that would give these things meaning.
Again, feeling bad is the result of a chemical reaction and there is nothing to give it any meaning at all.
“There are no accidents. Accidents are done by sentient people. Nature and the universe can’t because they aren’t sentient.”
Our thoughts are the result of chemical reactions in our brain. According to Collision Theory, a chemical reaction happens when atoms or molecules collide. By definition, an accident is an event that is not planned or intended: an event that occurs by chance. There is no planning or intention behind the atoms colliding left purely up to chance therefore by definition the chemical reactions in our brain are accidents and so are our thoughts.
Randomness is defined as, “proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern”. Are atoms sentient beings that try to steer their course to a specific atom? No.
“There are no “acting inconsistent with their beliefs” because it doesn’t have any beliefs attached to it!”
P1. If atheists don’t believe in God then they don’t believe in an objective moral standard such as “Murder is always wrong”.
P2. An atheist lives his life as if there are objective moral standards to adhere to.
P3. Objective moral standards implies God
C: The atheist is acting inconsistently with his disbelief in God.
“No, man is not “chief of Earth.” What do you mean by that?”
I meant that there is no authority or chief above man so man is chief or authority of Earth. We have the capabilities to wipe out nearly all life, we can make any species extinct if we set our minds to it, seems to fall under the term of chief.
“Not all Atheists believe in evolution.”
Yet evolution is necessary to be an Atheist. If things can’t self-arise, the alternative is that an intelligent designer created it falling under the definition of God. Even Richard Dawkins himself admits the evolution is necessary to Atheism.
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”
“Humans are not the "fittest" because we are not as fit for our environment as other animals.”
Yet with our advancements in technology we can live in many varied environments.
“and America would be a saint with its high percentage of Christians, which also make up a majority of prisoners.”
Here is an passage from a study that says the opposite:
“I previously referenced the number of atheists being held by the prison system of England and Wales, where it is customary to record the religion of the prison population as part of the Inmate Information System. In the year 2000, there were 38,531 Christians of twenty-one different varieties imprisoned for their crimes, compared to only 122 atheists and sixty-two agnostics. As Europe in general and the United Kingdom in particular have become increasingly post-Christian, this would appear to be ……….there also happened to be another 20,639 prisoners, 31.6 percent of the total prison population, who possessed ‘no religion’. And this was not simply a case of people ……….one compares the 31.6 percent of imprisoned no-religionists to the 15.1 percent of Britons who checked ‘none’ or wrote in Jedi Knight, agnostic, atheist, or heathen in the 2001 national survey, it becomes clear that their Low Church counterparts are nearly four times more likely to be convicted and jailed for committing a crime than a Christian.”
What I’ve proven is that Pro’s basis for condemning the Bible has no more meaning beyond her personal thoughts. As this debate dragged on, it is clear that Pro is putting more emotion into her arguments taking the place of logic. I’ve thoroughly refuted every one of Pro’s accusations. Not much else to say.
Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, Penguin Books, London, England, p. 6, 1991.
Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, Inc.), 2008
The Holy Bible