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


Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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: 10/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 548 times Debate No: 62660
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




The religious laws governing in each countries, nations and territories should be govern by God and Jesus Christ, the devil and/or the people. The governments in each countries, nations and territories should be govern by God and Jesus Christ, the devil and/or the people.


I accept this challenge.
First, I want to question Pro's definition of religious laws. What exactly do you mean by a religious law? A law based on a religious belief? What evidence do you have to claim that the apparent religious laws dominant in other countries are inferior to the ones within christianity?
Second, I want to question Pro's source material for said religious laws. Is the christian bible the source of these laws you wish us all to follow? Should we follow ALL of them, most of them, or pick and choose what would work and what wouldn't?
Third, I want to question Pro's want of fallible humans to speak for an omnipotent creator. If the people have a say in how things should be run, what if they make a decision that is against the wants of God? If we assume the bible is the ultimate source of the creators wants, then the people would have no choice but to follow the bible, thus eliminating their possible judgments. Also, if you are a christian, which I'll take a wild swing and assume that you are, then surely you realize that the devil is the adversary of god and this would mean Lucifer would do everything within his power to destroy this Utopian society based on the wants of god.

I want to close this section by clarifying that I am an Atheist with a Fundamental Christian past. So I will be playing devils advocate against my atheistic beliefs, but I will not be ignorant towards the christian beliefs.
Debate Round No. 1


To Atmas, my challenger, it is likely that even though you said you are an atheist, yet your body for sure is the temple of God and Jesus Christ. My texts, refers to the books that record the writing of God and Jesus and are govern by historical governments and government that exist today. So I write, that the people are of God and that some rebel from God. Now, the revelations and messages of the trinity, the holy spirit are God's and Jesus. Therefore, let the people be prepared for the defeat of the revolution of the devil as prophesied by Jesus Christ. Long live the king of kings and may his world and governments exist forever.


It seems you have yet to answer my questions and are using this round to essentially preach your beliefs rather than provide valid reasoning. You have confirmed that the laws you were referring to would come from the bible, but haven't provided any further information, so I must assume the rest.

Because the only source of information for this world comes from the bible, I will be taking passages from it to show why this would not work.

1. "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)
By this verse, every child would not make it past the age of 16 before being sentenced to death. While over time they would become more obedient for fear of imminent death, this forced subjugation would be a disastrous defeat of a child's creativity, imagination, intellectual growth, and self-enlightenment. Over time, with each generation being beaten down into submission, they would raise their children to be the same since this law would continue to hold true and the overall intelligence of mankind would continue to decrease.

2. "But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you." (Deuteronomy 22: 20-21)
Do you know how many women have had sex before they were married? If this law were upheld, we wouldn't have enough women to survive as a species. Why doesn't this law apply to men as well?

3. "For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken. No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God." (Leviticus 21:18-21)
Do you really believe this law could be upheld? That these people are not allowed to worship god and thus are doomed to hell is hatred to an extreme degree. A flat nose? So only a pointed nose is correct? Are you aware that this is a racist comment and is specifically against black people? ALL of these things occur at birth and is thus the fault of god who made them that way.

4. (1 Peter 2:18-20 King James Version)

18 Slaves, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

Here is the bible quite literally supporting slavery. I'm pretty sure I don't need to say much else about it.

5. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) 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.

So a man can just pay off his "crime" of raping a woman and gets to marry her so he can continue to rape her at will. Do you really think this is justifiable? It's in your holy book that you want the whole world to take as the law of god, so I have no choice but to assume so.

6. Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

It's one thing to punish someone for committing a crime, but to then slaughter their sons as well? Twisted intentions and hatred are NOT genetic, the children of criminals are not guaranteed to share their parents views. In fact, the progress and success of society RELIES on future generations being different and better than their parents.

7. Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him. (James 5:14-15 ASV)

Is this the new type of medical treatment of the world? Could you name one verifiable case of someone being healed by prayer alone?

I have named 7 different biblical verses that would make a world govern by the book a horrific place to live and would be a significant downgrade from the current one. I could pull hundreds more, but these alone are enough to show that this "word of god" you want the world to follow, is nothing more than a book written by racist, homophobic, hateful, ignorant, masochistic, and shameful human beings who were so weak and powerless that they resorted to deceit and manipulation to create a rule-book favoring their own views. They claimed to have god himself as their source of authority because they were too helpless to obtain it themselves.

Believe in your god as a loving, peaceful, and caring omnipotent creator, but realize that the bible is not and cannot be the word of god. The biblical god is hateful and mean, flawed and imperfect...
Debate Round No. 2


To make a long story short, The people should understand now, that God is God of religions and governments. One world government and religions or a division of governments, religions and people, we are all under God and Jesus rule. This includes the devil and non-belivers. Since the Trinity has powers over all the world and everything therein, no revolutions or critics can over rule their world government and religion. Therefore, you can be either a obedient person of our creator or a disobedient person of our creator. Now, wouldn't you agree that God is God over all mankinds and God over all laws?


Since this is my closing argument, I will make this dense.

There is just as much evidence of Zeus existing as there is for Jehovah. "The people" you refer to, non-christians, have no reason to understand or believe in the christian god because they either have their own, or just don't believe in any god. If you were to argue with a Muslim whether Jehovah or Allah is the one true god, there would be no end to the debate. Neither of you could provide sufficient evidence that either of your gods are greater than the other because you both believe your gods to be omnipotent. That would be like arguing which superhero could beat which, they're both fictional entities who do not exist in the real world, and are thus subject to only opinions and conjecture.

Once you can provide enough evidence of Jehovahs existence, then yes, his power set would dominate the universe and most of the gods humanity has created, but there has yet to be any. Even if you were to completely prove every single event in the bible, there still wouldn't be enough evidence that there is a god. Jehovah himself would have to cause an event so profound and godlike that all the people in the world would have no choice but to listen and believe, but he won't do that because he said, "Do not test me". Convenient that a god who requires his creations to worship him, gave them brains and the ability to question, and then went silent so that the brains he gave could refute his existence, followed by punishing those who used the very ability he gave them.
Now, I said in the beginning I would be playing devils advocate against myself, which meant that I would be talking as if the christian god did exist, but the previous paragraph needed to be said. Before we can come to any conclusion about which god is real and which isn't, we must first have sufficient proof, or we might make the wrong choice. I already pointed out why the bible would not be a good law-book for the world to follow, it contains egregious requirements dictated by a tyrannical deity that would make living in this world akin to hell itself. Any human who claims to speak for god would be considered either mad or a false prophet and so that leaves only god to speak for himself, which he obviously hasn't done. Never mind that what you suggest is equivalent to what the violent muslims across the world want to do (the violent ones, not the peaceful ones).

Since there are no foundational rules in which to build this world you suggest on, without literal divine intervention, it would be complete anarchy ... which would still be better than following that terrible and malicious book, the bible. When I was a christian, I used to read my bible every single day, looking for answers to life's big questions. Of course, there were none to be had. It all boiled down to, close your eyes, empty your brain, and hope that you don't screw up too bad when trying to live up to the impossible expectations set by a vicious creator. When the shackles of religion finally fell away, my eyes were opened, my brain was filled, and all I could see were the people around me bowing their heads and praying to a dead guy nailed to a wooden cross. Yelling out his name like it would save them from their hardships and reading from a bronze age book that told them they will all burn for being born. I have no intimate experience with other religions to claim one is better, but I do with christianity, and I think it is one of the worst ones to believe in, let alone, build a world government based on it.

Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Neoman 3 years ago
I would just join the god's party, take all the pope's money and rule the entire world. easy peasy. Why? cuz we r gods! (p.s you can get some jeovah's witness kids for your propaganda and... for other purposes)
Posted by mightbenihilism 3 years ago
If I read him right, I think he means that the ideal form of government would be a coalition of:

God, Jesus, the devil and the people. He adds "or" in reference to the people, so perhaps the people would replace the devil, or God, or Jesus, in that instance.

This is an interesting concept. I never thought of all four groups (or 3, if you count God and Jesus as one) as all having an active role in world politics, simultaneously. It would be fun to watch them at work on C-Span.

What a fascinating concept. I hope they don't ban pugs.
Posted by bookwyrm 3 years ago
I might take this if the resolution were clearer
Posted by Neoman 3 years ago
not sure what you wanna discuss. Do you want jesus to be elected as the next president or smthng?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to want to take up his rounds with rambling preaching that never really went to address the motion--which wasn't even particularly clear to begin with. Con, by contrast, pointed out the flaws in the sort of religion-based lawmaking that Pro proposed, and actually constructed a case. Clear win to Con, here. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.