The Instigator
Chase200mph
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Dann
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

I call BS on Christianity".

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...
Dann
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,944 times Debate No: 33118
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (99)
Votes (3)

 

Chase200mph

Con

I call BS on Christianity".Watcha got? It is my belief that the Christian argument is so weak that I can literally call BS on any part of it and effectively disarm the pro side of the belief. Rules, if it affects why or how you came to believe in the Christian religion then I can oppose it with sound reasoning. Second rule, voters may NOT vote on matters on conduct! While this is still a formal debate that will included only valid sources and citations and should/will remain respectful, I am calling BS on whatever you as a Christian have in the way of your religious beliefs! I figure it like this; you as a Christian belong to a group whose guild lines (the bible) instructs it"s believers to act out with violence, dehumanization and demeaning tactics when confronting non-believers, so you earn NOTHING in the way of politeness or conduct so it evens out. Third rule: final round closing arguments only, so no new material unless otherwise agreed upon by both parties.
So bring it". : )
Dann

Pro

I accept. I will uphold Christian values against your atheist onslaught, and supposed 'reasoning' power. Not because I'm a Christian (because I'm not), but because you militant atheists need brought down a peg or two.

So lets start with what you mean by Christianity. I propose we limit this debate to the Bible, and specifically to the New Testament where Christ appears. The systematic religion that arose in his name after the fact is not what we are discussing, but the man himself, the things he said and the representation of him in the bible is what we shall address. Agreed?
Debate Round No. 1
Chase200mph

Con

I accept. I will uphold Christian values against your atheist onslaught,

Answer: I see, so Christian values are important to Christian beliefs (okay seems like a great start here), even though you don"t believe Christians when they tell you these values are what caused them to believe. So it would follow that you do not put very much value in these Christian values because you claim that you still do not believe (are not a follower of Jesus). Therefore I can dismiss Christian values for the same reasons that you have without a fight here".so carry on.

and supposed 'reasoning' power. Not because I'm a Christian (because I'm not), but because you militant atheists need brought down a peg or two.

Answer: So our needs as atheists is your only concern? Sorry, non sequitur responses draws out non sequitur conclusions on my part.

So lets start with what you mean by Christianity. I propose we limit this debate to the Bible, and specifically to the New Testament where Christ appears.

Answer: The bible is not a historical relevant collation historically and cannot be used for claiming historical events. The books of the bible do not even appear in the order they were claimed to have been written. It is not nor has ever been an accredited source as it contains no contemporary accounts of Jesus. The bible as you know it appeared hundreds of years after the claim life of Jesus. So if you are trying to beg the question at the expense of history, please stop now and provide another source UNLESS it is your intent to provided NEW evidence to its (the bibles) validation. Remember, if you are going to use the bible you must validate it as a source and no-one has been able so in over 2000 years.

The systematic religion that arose in his name after the fact is not what we are discussing, but the man himself, the things he said and the representation of him in the bible is what we shall address. Agreed?

Answer: There is no evidence to suggest Jesus ever lived so I guess I disagree. The bible at its best, and using the bible as its own reference here is nothing more than a collection of texts written by (mainly) self-professed illiterate Hebrew slaves who are said to have written and narrated the bible in Greek generations (at least one) after an otherwise un-witnessed claim/event. So yes you can use the bible and NO the academic world does not recognize it as a source. The best example I can come up with at the moment is this".the academic world and public schools are allowed to study the bible at their leisure, they are NOT however allowed to study "from the bible" for reasons I just mentioned (but not limited to).
I have many sources to apply support here, but I didn"t feel it necessary as I am the one who needs to critique (call BS) on what you have to say in support of your belief as a Christian. Yes I know you claim not to be, but I"ve heard this from many Christians that do not want to end up sounding foolish by linking themselves to such an absurdity.
Please note that "you do not have to respond to this post" as it is I who has to undo (call BS on) your Christian beliefs"whether you are one or not.
Dann

Pro

"Answer: I see, so Christian values are important to Christian beliefs (okay seems like a great start here), even though you don"t believe Christians when they tell you these values are what caused them to believe. So it would follow that you do not put very much value in these Christian values because you claim that you still do not believe (are not a follower of Jesus). Therefore I can dismiss Christian values for the same reasons that you have without a fight here".so carry on."

Perhaps I'm dumb, but this response didnt make much sense to me at all. That is, I couldn't comprehend the point you were making. Could be you, could be me.

"Answer: So our needs as atheists is your only concern? Sorry, non sequitur responses draws out non sequitur conclusions on my part."

Aha! Right. Got you now - it wasn't SUPPOSED to make sense!

"Answer: The bible is not a historical relevant collation historically and cannot be used for claiming historical events."

Well, the historical historicity of history's historians isn't what is up for debate. (Did I use too many of the same word here? Please forgive me - forgive me like a Christian), what is up for debate is the values and guidance that Jesus taught.

" The bible as you know it appeared hundreds of years after the claim life of Jesus."

I appreciate that the biblical accounts of Jesus don't meet the exacting standards of modern day verification, nor even of their more advanced, more civilised contemporaries, but the passing down of history and of story's through the oral tradition - until such times as those storykeepers were ABLE to write them down - has been a feature in the recorded history of cultures the world over. I will grant you that these stories oftentimes are embellished and take on a life of their own, mythical, fantastic, grandiose. But, well, what do you want to do - write off entire cultures as fabled? The Picts existed, but they never wrote anything down. The early Celts didnt record anything until they were able, and when they did, they recounted the stories and legends of their people that had been passed to them orally. And both these people's lived AFTER Christ. Shall we write their existence out of history for lacking the foresight of the standard that was to come? Or shall we accept them for just what their capabilities were at the time?

"Answer: There is no evidence to suggest Jesus ever lived so I guess I disagree"

I would like my opponent to acknowledge the fact that he is out on a limb here. The existence of Jesus is not refuted by the majority of historians. His existence is generally accepted as historical fact, supported by the accounts of Josephus and Tacitus. I will provide a link if requested, however, you can peruse many alternative sources for yourself by typing "historical jesus roman records" into your search engine.

"The bible at its best, and using the bible as its own reference here is nothing more than a collection of texts written by (mainly) self-professed illiterate Hebrew slaves who are said to have written and narrated the bible in Greek generations (at least one) after an otherwise un-witnessed claim/event."

I would simply have to reiterate my point about utilising the oral tradition until such times as a people were ABLE to record it in text. Your assertion that they were illiterate, if true, certainly helps to prop up this argument. I don't think the ability, or lack thereof, to write should lead us to devalue the accounts whence they were written down. Of course, a measure of common sense and critical thinking should always temper our judgement, but I would harken back to the point I made about the Picts and early Celts as a warning against writing a people's history out of history.

". The best example I can come up with at the moment is this".the academic world and public schools are allowed to study the bible at their leisure, they are NOT however allowed to study "from the bible" for reasons I just mentioned (but not limited to)."

The inherently dubious nature of the bible as an accurate, historical, literal source. Yep. I get that. I agree with it.

"I have many sources to apply support here, but I didn"t feel it necessary as I am the one who needs to critique (call BS) on what you have to say in support of your belief as a Christian. Yes I know you claim not to be, but I"ve heard this from many Christians that do not want to end up sounding foolish by linking themselves to such an absurdity."

What Christian would, like Peter, deny Christ? I'm not all that convinced at what you say here, unless of course the Christians you were previously debating had to fold under the enormous pressure of your argument and eventually come clean that, yes, all this time, I've been a Christian in disguise. You'll allow me a little good-natured facetiousness here I'm sure? I can positively state, for the record, that I am NOT a Christian, nor a Christian in disguise. In this regard, I would ask that you simply have faith (;p), since I cannot prove the fact of the matter through text or words alone.

"Please note that "you do not have to respond to this post" as it is I who has to undo (call BS on) your Christian beliefs"whether you are one or not."

I must remind my opponent that in fact I DO have to respond to this post, lest I forfeit the round!

But onwards! Christian soldiers.

If we accept that Jesus was a historical figure, which goes unopposed by a significant majority of historical scholars, and if we use discerning towards the more questionable acts he supposedly performed and take everything that he did or said in the bible which meets with the laws of reality as we know it, and broadly concur that they did occur, then I posit that Jesus was a wonderful, wise and exceptional man.

Jesus Christ is of course the central figure in the religion that sprang up in the aftermath of his existence. To know Christianity, we only need read the words of Christ. All those who came after, and hung upon his every word, and systematised his words do not represent Christianity. They only represent themselves and their interpretation of Christianity. Might you agree? If I may use a simple analogy to hopefully better illustrate the point I seek to make, should my original point falter...

The Constitution of The United States I believe could be somewhat applicable here. The spirit of the Constitution as it was written has been used to form the societal and legal guidelines of the US since its inception. The Constitution - unarguably one of the worlds great manifestos - was written in a pure spirit. It's purpose was noble. It's guidelines clear. The constitution remains the backbone of the American way, yet it creates a schism amongst its adherents. Why is this? Interpretation is our culprit. Whilst hanging off of every word of the constitution (and its amendments), different schools of interpretation spring up around this one central manifesto. It divides opinion. Whoever has control of power can use their interpretation of the constitution to justify their acts. I posit that it is not the constitution itself that is to blame, nor the founding fathers who wrote it, but simply the interpretations which followed. How does one come to know the true meaning of the constitution? Should one defer their own judgements to the interpretations of others? I believe one should read the constitution, read the words of the founding fathers as they wrote them, for oneself and arrive at ones own conclusion.
Similarly with the teachings of Jesus Christ. But here the analogy ends. Why here? Because the constitution was written with the intent of organising a society, a civilisation, a country, whilst the words of Jesus were spoken with the intent of delivering salvation to the spirits of humanity, the intent was inward, the enlightenment of the individual and not the shaping and parameter bounding of the masses.

To be continued...
Debate Round No. 2
Chase200mph

Con

You state openly that you are not a Christian which means you personally do not place enough value on Christian values in order to cause you to believe. Since you are arguing proxy for Christendom and you deny this part of Christendom yourself, I now cite you as an example why Christianity values are nothing more than BS. IN short, if Christianity and its values aren"t good enough to make you accept them and believe, then the audience and myself need not consider them any further.
Resolution solved.

Answer: Your logic is so very circular here. I state Jesus is absent in history. You counter with Jesus does exist, so I have to accept it as a part of history and furthermore I have to accept the values that he taught in that history. Reads like complete nonsense".. Jesus has no history, Jesus therefore taught nothing. Resolution resolved. The bible is not a historical relevant collation historically and cannot be used for claiming historical events.

[" The bible as you know it appeared hundreds of years after the claim life of Jesus."

Dann posts: I appreciate that the biblical accounts of Jesus don't meet the exacting standards of modern day verification, nor even of their more advanced, more civilised contemporaries, but the passing down of history and of story's through the oral tradition "
Chase answers: If there are no first hand contemporary historical accounts of Jesus (like you just admitted) then YES, Jesus has no history and every rendering that claims to be a historical account should be erased for the falsehood it represents.

Chase answers: Your words Dann, "The existence of Jesus is not refuted by the majority of historians." Okay Dann, by your own admission some historians do indeed refute the existence of Jesus as you just stated. Then your burden of proof seems clear, please provide evidence/sources that prove the historians that do disagree with the existence of Jesus are wrong".until then all I have to do is call BS.
Then Dann states:" His existence is generally accepted as historical fact, supported by the accounts of Josephus and Tacitus"
Chase answers: Josephus and Tacitus are not contemporaries of Jesus, and therefore cannot render historical accounts.

Chase answer: If we momentarily indulge that Jesus was real idea let"s see what kind of god/man Jesus was.
Jesus as god".. the all-powerful and all-knowing god rapes a little 12 year old girl named Marry so that she can give birth to god (This doesn"t seem very nice now does it) so god can commit suicide (if he is god and cannot die then how does this work again?) and forgive the sins that he unjustly imposed on someone named Adam.
I got a question for this criminally inclined god, god why do you have to rape a little girl to be born? Sorry god, that"s two questions isn"t it. Why rape a little girl and why do you have to be born? If you are god then are you not powerful enough just to appear without rape and without needing to be born?
Sounds more like god needed an excuse for rape than anything else".

Evil god/Jesus and their values as written in scripture.
Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?" (Lamentations 3: 38-39)
This passage makes note that god isn"t being evil at this time, meaning god is at times evil. The bible seems clear in saying if god lays out evil for you, you as a believer must now endure this evil because it is from god.
"And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him." (I Samuel 16:23)
Here the evil that is gods" spirit is described, god professes murder and has created and evil to carry it out.
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)
So god boasts of his evil nature".
God rejoices your death

"And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it." (Deuteronomy 28:63)
God & Satan The Same?

"AND Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." (I Chronicles 21:1)

"AND again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." (II Samuel 24:1)
Now we read about Jesus commanding his followers to buy swords: "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (Luke 22:36)"
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37) Look out, Jesus is spoiling for a fight!

Jesus killing his enemies:

"So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 2:22-23)"
WOW!!!! Jesus is really concerned over sex outside of marriage".unless it"s god/Jesus doing the raping. Wait, false alarm, god is a sex pervert after all.
Moses' Commands for pedophilia against 3-year old slave girls do count against the Bible!

"....The Tanna"tic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in "157 comments on the above quoted commandment of MOSES to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children...."

"....According to the Tanna"te Rabbis, MOSES therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." [138]...."

"Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse....."

"A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old."....."
I know, I know what about Jesus, what would he do? Let"s look at evil bible dot com. This sight is admittedly a little over the top, but anyone that wishes to use the excuse that theses scriptures are not true because they are taken out of context better realize that there are 38000 Christian denominations all claiming the other 37999 denominations have taken the bible out of context making the previous statement about context both irrational and irrelevant.
Advocate child abuse and murder amongst many other cruelties.

Christians are always claiming, "he"s the lamb", "our savior", "the king of peace", "the embodiment of love", amongst the many other names they associate with a loving, merciful nature. Jesus a nice guy? Not in my book. Nor in any other person"s who is capable of compassion and rationality. Let"s examine who the hell the Jesus character really is. These verses will show not only is Jesus" "loving" nature a joke but so are the Christians who worship him. Jesus" real mission to come to earth:

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
Jesus says, "Don"t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. "The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family. I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him. Matthew 10:34

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn"t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

Jesus advocates murder and death:

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn"t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth. Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God. (The winepress is the actual press that humans shall be put into so that we may be ground up.) Revelations 19:13-15

The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest of us the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus. "An all the fowls were filled with their flesh." Revelations 19:20-21

Jesus says he is the only way to salvation yet he purposely disillusions us so that we will go to hell:

Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, "lest . . . they . . . should understand . . . and should be converted, and I should heal them." Matthew 13:10-15

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12

Jesus advocates child abuse:

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." Matthew 15:4-7

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he"ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it"s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

A few other things about Jesus:

Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come. Mark 4:25

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly. You"d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don"t bear fruit in dry season. Mark 11:13

Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.
Jesus says, "Don"t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. "The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family. I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him. Matthew 10:34

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21

Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn"t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

Jesus advocates murder and death:

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn"t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth. Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God. (The winepress is the actual press that humans shall be put into so that we may be ground up.) Revelations 19:13-15

The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest of us the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus. "An all the fowls were filled with their flesh." Revelations 19:20-21

Jesus says he is the only way to salvation yet he purposely disillusions us so that we will go to hell:

Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, "lest . . . they . . . should understand . . . and should be converted, and I should heal them." Matthew 13:10-15

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12

Jesus advocates child abuse:

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." Matthew 15:4-7

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he"ll give your a big reward. Jesus asks that his followers abandon their children to follow him. To leave your child is abuse, it"s called neglect, pure and simple. Matthew 19:29

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

A few other things about Jesus:

Jesus says that those who have been less fortunate in this life will have it even worse in the life to come. Mark 4:25

Jesus sends the devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. Clearly Jesus could have simply sent the devils out, yet he chose instead to place them into pigs and kill them. This is called animal abuse. Mark 5:12-13

Jesus kills a fig tree for not bearing figs, even though it was out of season. Jesus must not be as smart as Christians would have us believe, for he was retarded enough to do something this silly. You"d think the son of god (god incarnate) would know that trees don"t bear fruit in dry season. Mark 11:13

Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.
See the remainder of this evil list of values on the comments page"..
Dann

Pro

"You state openly that you are not a Christian which means you personally do not place enough value on Christian values in order to cause you to believe."

I am not black which means I personally do not place enough value on civil rights in order to cause me to believe in civil rights.

I am not homosexual which means I personally do not place enough value on homosexual equality in order to cause me to believe in it.

I am not a scientist which means I personally do not place enough value on science in order to cause me to believe in it.

I am not a (Insert absolutely ANYTHING)... Blah blah blah.
See what you did there?

"Since you are arguing proxy for Christendom and you deny this part of Christendom yourself, I now cite you as an example why Christianity values are nothing more than BS. IN short, if Christianity and its values aren"t good enough to make you accept them and believe, then the audience and myself need not consider them any further."

See above riposte. Will my opponent accept that there are no exclusive copyrights on values? That it is quite possible to hold similar values or be empathetic with the values of another group without being a part of that group?

"Resolution solved"

Will my opponent accept that they may have jumped the gun with this statement?

"Chase answers: If there are no first hand contemporary historical accounts of Jesus (like you just admitted) then YES, Jesus has no history and every rendering that claims to be a historical account should be erased for the falsehood it represents."

Just using that logic then, does that mean that Homer, author of the Iliad and Odyssey, did not exist? Should be stricken from history?
The burden of proof in this regard lies with the minority of scholarly opinion surely?

I am going to make an assumption here. Let me be clear beforehand that it IS an assumption about you on my part. My assumption is that as an atheist you have probably been influenced by, or at the very least, respect the contribution to science and to the atheist argument of Richard Dawkins. I attach a video clip to show you the certitude with which he claimed Jesus existed. Perhaps it will away you to relinquish the argument that Jesus never existed, or to be at least open-minded of the possibility.

"Chase answer: If we momentarily indulge that Jesus was real idea let"s see what kind of god/man Jesus was.
Jesus as god".. the all-powerful and all-knowing god rapes a little 12 year old girl named Marry so that she can give birth to god (This doesn"t seem very nice now does it) so god can commit suicide (if he is god and cannot die then how does this work again?) and forgive the sins that he unjustly imposed on someone named Adam
I got a question for this criminally inclined god, god why do you have to rape a little girl to be born? Sorry god, that"s two questions isn"t it. Why rape a little girl and why do you have to be born? If you are god then are you not powerful enough just to appear without rape and without needing to be born?
Sounds more like god needed an excuse for rape than anything else".

I don't think this tact is worthy of my opponent, and certainly not worthy of a serious debate. If you insist that I address it, I will, but I would like to present you with the opportunity to withdraw or rephrase your points in a better, less purposely provocative manner.

"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins?" (Lamentations 3: 38-39)
This passage makes note that god isn"t being evil at this time, meaning god is at times evil. The bible seems clear in saying if god lays out evil for you, you as a believer must now endure this evil because it is from god."
The passage is saying, in a nutshell, that you get what you give. If you sin, and suffer for it, what right have you to complain? If you murder someone in cold blood and have to suffer incarceration for the rest of your days, can you really complain? If you cheat on the one you love with another mans wife and he beats you and she leaves you, do you really have a right to complain about it?
""And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him." (I Samuel 16:23)"
Do you never play your guitar when you are feeling down, and does that guitar playing not then soothe whatever negative feelings you were experiencing? Or perhaps you go for a run, watch some TV, talk to a friend, write. For Saul, it was playing the harp that chased away his demons.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)"

In other words, everything is as one. Everything from the one source.

"And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it." (Deuteronomy 28:63)
God and Satan the same?"

Sounds like it. But these aren't Christian. These are from the Old Testament. Christ wasn't yet born to give his values, and it is Christian values that you are trying to refute - values from Christ.

"Now we read about Jesus commanding his followers to buy swords: "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. (Luke 22:36)"

In context:

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

""Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-37) Look out, Jesus is spoiling for a fight!"

What is the point here? Jesus knew that the truth hurts. That the truth is divisive. Yet he went to preach his message and send out his disciples to do it anyway. Would you have more respect for Jesus if he was a yes man? A people pleaser? Think about other great historical figures. They court controversy. They polarise opinion. They simply understand the weight that their words will carry, but it is the truth that they are only interested in. Martin Luther King Jr, Abe Lincoln, Ron Paul, Ahmedinejad, the modern atheist set and countless other examples.

""So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 2:22-23)"
WOW!!!! Jesus is really concerned over sex outside of marriage".unless it"s god/Jesus doing the raping. Wait, false alarm, god is a sex pervert after all.
Moses' Commands for pedophilia against 3-year old slave girls do count against the Bible!"

This isn't a quote from Jesus, but from John.

"....The Tanna"tic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in "157 comments on the above quoted commandment of MOSES to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children...."

No relevance to Jesus.

I've ran out of characters
Debate Round No. 3
Chase200mph

Con

I thank the opposition for providing enough material to get this debate back on course (its OP), of which I apologize for allowing the way to broad of definition to run amuck.
Summary to this point: Values (Christian values) has been offered for a reason to have NOT called BS on Christianity in general. Pro brought up Jesus teachings and the Christian history that he believes proves that Jesus taught these values. I"ve pointed out many historical discrepancies that exist within the bible, its gods", popular doctrine and the even within the mindset of Christians. Once I"ve addressed (Danns") responses, I will provide a restatement of evidence and valid sources that contradict ALL Christian historical as they apply. I will do this also because Dann uses completely undisclosed (example: most believe this, or that) and otherwise uncited sources.
Chases" OP: You state openly that you are not a Christian which means you personally do not place enough value on Christian values in order to cause you to believe."

Dann states: I am not black which means I personally do not place enough value on civil rights in order to cause me to believe in civil rights.

I am not homosexual which means I personally do not place enough value on homosexual equality in order to cause me to believe in it.

I am not a scientist which means I personally do not place enough value on science in order to cause me to believe in it.

Dann, good, now let"s look at Christian values concerning race, homosexuality and science, you know the things you DO NOT attest to or believe in and otherwise deny so we can dismiss them".see what I"ve done here? Blacks are salves, they are not really human. The servant of Noah, Ham is used to support the ownership of slaves in this Country. The value placed by Christians is very clear here"is it not? What"s that, it was oh so long ago? Well that really doesn"t make a difference because this Christian value still plays out here in the U.S. Still crying about how it was then and how it is now? Okay Dann, Adolf Hitler and his Christian final solution".what"s that Dann? Sorry dann but Adolf Hitler was a devote Christian, a member in good standing with the Church until the day he died. Still crying foul? Okay Dann what about the Catholic Church that agreed with and supported his final solution. http://youtu.be...
http://www.fantompowa.net...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
PS, the Nazi Church is still alive today as is the KKK. Conclusion, you as a non-believer do NOT hold to the values of Christianity. The rather long list of evil from the Old and New Testament was enough to give the green light to these Christians and god"s will. The teaching of Jesus supported their every move so your attempt at apologetics for the bible as it concerns their behavior fails you here as well.

Let"s look at some history further back concerning Jesus, Satan and even god.
Archeology finds nothing that remotely even suggests that Jesus ever lived. Archeology and valid historical accounts even show us that the city of Nazareth (the city were Jesus was supposedly born) never existed outside of the bible. Does popular doctrine also claim Jesus was born elsewhere, sure it does, but how does contradictions in the doctrine or the bible validate a historical record?
So let"s look at Bethlehem then, the city where Jesus lived. Bethlehem was indeed the city described in the bible, unfortunate for believers it wait only just became a city at the time the bible was written"and NOT during the lifetime of mythical Jesus. When Jesus was said to live, it was still a tent community with very few fixed building and just exiting a semi-sedentary existence. Ironically, the name Bethlehem means (breaking) bread, I wonder where the idea of breaking bread which is of my body came from? http://www.nazarethmyth.info... http://ancienthistory.about.com...
If multitudes saw Jesus, they never talked about it.

... There are even discrepancies about Jesus between the Gospels themselves making even less likely to have existed.

"Luke told a tale of angels and shepherds, bringing some of the humblest people in society to Bethlehem with news of Jesus" future. Instead of shepherds, Matthew brought Wise Men, following a star in the East and bringing gifts"In one version, there are simple shepherds, the other, learned Wise Men: the contrast sets our imaginations free, and perhaps like the Wise Men we too should return by "another way." [The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (Knopf, 1992), pp.35- 36].

Luke has Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth from where they traveled to Bethlehem for the Roman census (Luke 1:26; 2:4). After Jesus was born, Joseph took his family from Bethlehem to Jerusalem for up to 40 days (Luke 2:22), and from there straight back to Nazareth (Luke 2:39). But Matthew says Jesus was born in a "house" where Joseph"s family lived in Bethlehem. And after the birth of Jesus they lived there for up to two years (Matt 2:16)! After the Magi leave them, Joseph is warned in a dream to flee to Egypt and stay there until Herod died (Matt. 2:15). After Herod died, Joseph was told in a dream to return to the land of Israel, and he headed for his home in Bethlehem of Judea. But since he was afraid to go there, he settled in Nazareth (Matt. 2:21-23), for the first time!

Dann mentions Moses, Moses never exited and the Great Exodus never happened. Archeology says no, Science says no, and even other Christians and Jews in the citation below say no""and I agree. And as I already stated, the discrepancies in the bible offer no allowances here as well.

http://www.topix.com...
http://youtu.be...
http://globalfire.tv...

Dann states: See above riposte. Will my opponent accept that there are no exclusive copyrights on values? That it is quite possible to hold similar values or be empathetic with the values of another group without being a part of that group?

Chase answer: NO!!! Not when this group claims that their god alone holds title to these very same values. For a Christian to offer a lie to aid the comfort of a falsehood held, is not a proper moral value.

Will my opponent accept that they may have jumped the gun with this statement?}
Chase answers: Note that I see a smoking gun".

Dann: The burden of proof in this regard lies with the minority of scholarly opinion surely?

Chase answers: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, I am not arguing against that (many more) believers do not actually believe, I am arguing that what they believe is irrelevant to the facts concerning the assumptions that you just made.

["Chase answer: God rapes a little girl"..

Dann states: I don't think this tact is worthy of my opponent, and certainly not worthy of a serious debate.]
Chase answers: It isn"t a tact, it is a fact according to the bibles storyline, big difference, I didn"t create this filth, I am merely posting it, and the storyline sucks as does their god!

ONE MORE POST in the comments section.
Dann

Pro

"I thank the opposition for providing enough material to get this debate back on course (its OP), of which I apologize for allowing the way to broad of definition to run amuck."

??? I think, think, I get the gist...

" I"ve pointed out many historical discrepancies that exist within the bible, its gods", popular doctrine and the even within the mindset of Christians"

Historical discrepancies? No you never?

"I will do this also because Dann uses completely undisclosed (example: most believe this, or that) and otherwise uncited sources"

??? You've gone off track again. What are you even talking about?!?!

"Dann, good, now let"s look at Christian values concerning race, homosexuality and science, you know the things you DO NOT attest to or believe in and otherwise deny so we can dismiss them".see what I"ve done here? "

Yes, I see what you've done here. A political gimmick. You've tried to dodge acknowledging the point I made with a transparent attempt at deflection.

"Okay Dann, Adolf Hitler and his Christian final solution".what"s that Dann? Sorry dann but Adolf Hitler was a devote Christian, a member in good standing with the Church until the day he died. Still crying foul? Okay Dann what about the Catholic Church that agreed with and supported his final solution. http://youtu.be......

Ridiculous. This is the ludicrous lows that both atheists and Christians always feel the need to stoop to. "Adolf Hitler was yours ergo you guys are bad"

I'm afraid that not the whole world is polarised into the two camps of Christians and Atheists. You, and the Christians you debate with are at the extremities of a big ambivalent mass are a somewhat modern phenomenon. In the middle, not even caring, is where most people are. I'd wager that Hitler was there too. Certainly not a devout Christian. He was a soldier and a politician.

"Conclusion, you as a non-believer do NOT hold to the values of Christianity."

True, I don't. But that's because living them is difficult and I am just not up to the task. Though I can appreciate the values that Jesus taught and I can possess some of them.

http://www.patheos.com...

"Dann mentions Moses, Moses never exited and the Great Exodus never happened. Archeology says no, Science says no, and even other Christians and Jews in the citation below say no""and I agree. And as I already stated, the discrepancies in the bible offer no allowances here as well."

Audience, look. I've never mentioned Moses at all. This is farcical. I think my opponent had already decided what he was going to argue, regardless of who accepted his challenge, and in Spite of the fact that he issued the challenge stating that he would call BS on anything I said. I'm not saying a fraction of the things he is refuting!!!

Refute this:

No one can say to you 'here it is' or'there it is' , for the kingdom of heaven is within you.

That's what Jesus said when asked about the kingdom of heaven. That implies to me that the kingdom of heaven is a state of being, a feeling, and that it is within us. Now I can't speak for you, but I have known some truly beautiful feelings. I know that, if I am feeling down or bad, that the ability to cast away my demons is inside myself. All I need do is keep watch over my house. That is, I need to be careful of which thoughts and feelings I allow to wander into myself.

Refute that.

"Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, "

What's so extraordinary about the claim that a guy lived once? There nothing extraordinary about that at all. The more extraordinary claim is the one that posits that he didnt exist at all. Ergo, burden of proof is on those who claim that to be the case.

And what about Homer? Did he or didnt he exist? Should he be stricken from history?

Audience,

I am not a Christian. I don't believe Jesus would liked to have seen a church that was built in his name. Even though I'm not a Christian, I do believe that Jesus was a great, great man. What me and my opponent do have in common is that we both dislike the church. I would like you, as the audience, to separate in your own mind Christian values from the innumerable denominations of the 'system' of Christianity.When I say Christian values, I do not mean the values of the church or of anybody else except the man Jesus. Jesus's own values. Values which don't depend on the church that sprang up in his name, but the values that were extant throughout Jesus's own life. That he himself lived by and taught personally. Churches and religions and systems aside, those values stand on their own. Christianity in this regard is most definitely NOT BS.

Whenever I have faith, I always feel more engaged with life. Perhaps you do to. Even in the simplest regard. For example, I play pool. When I play pool with faith, I find my pool playing takes on an extra dimension that was hitherto inaccessible. A small matter perhaps, but a self contained Petri dish in which the principle of applied faith and its effect in the real world can be examined. To have faith in these small endeavours may be of a very limited and finite utility, but to have faith in life and existence as a whole? Well, unless you have it you can only imagine. And it is no walk in the park.

To be humble. How difficult it can be to be humble. Though with humility comes an inner quiet. And with an inner quiet comes the ability to listen and to see. To perceive, and thus to engage with your fellows and with life on a deeper, more meaningful level.

Now it is obviously possible that people would arrive independently at the same conclusions that Jesus arrived at. Does that devalue Jesus in any way? Does it lessen his own insights? I believe it doesn't. For better or worse, Jesus has been the foremost influence on the world since his death. No one person has had any greater influence on the world today. Did the people who, in Jesus name, go on to influence the world always influence it for the better? Of course not. That is demonstrably the case. Did they sometimes wilfully misinterpret the meaning of Jesus teachings? Yes. Again, that is demonstrably the case. Did they embellish and create unnecessary rituals and temples and organisation? Yes. Demonstrably so.

Does that alter the values that Jesus taught? No. Jesus taught them, but if certain people didnt learn them, then they had not the eyes to see nor the ears to hear. But that wouldn't stop them claiming Jesus name and acting as they did.

The churches et al are an extraneous matter to the values of Jesus. I state that those values are timeless. I state the Jesus was an excellent man. I concur that the churches and denominations and even the religion of Christianity is BS, but Christianity itself is not.
Debate Round No. 4
Chase200mph

Con

Dann, it"s late and I hope this post makes it in one piece, the spacing, commas and even spelling at times is bound to mess up". I don"t know why. When I cut and paste it is a little bit better, so here goes.

Dann, historical discrepancies, you never did".
Answer: Sure okay Dann, perhaps you should reread again. I posted discrepancies that happened in the bible, doctrine, anthropology wise, archeology wise and historically. The bible is a total contradiction because no-one that wrote the bible ever knew Jesus, and you already admitted to this. The place where Jesus was supposed to be born never existed, the place he lived was NOT a town or city at the time Jesus was said to have lived there".it isn"t rocket science Nazareth and the Bethlehem story are nonsense as was any life Jesus was supposed to have lived there.

Dann, replies: Ridiculous. This is the ludicrous lows that both atheists and Christians always feel the need to stoop to. "Adolf Hitler was yours ergo you guys are bad"}
Answer: I see, is this the deflection you were just whining about in your almost rebuttal? Never mind, Dann, I cite you as a source again, when angered it seems that you felt the need to Devalue both sides".I call BS sand accept that this resolution has once again been resolved. PS, Dann, Adolf Hitler was a Christian and you were expressing a Christian lie which is not a very good value now is it.

Chase to Dann, you brought up history as it relates to the bible, therefore you brought up anything and everything I choose from the bible, so quit your whining. Dann goes on here and makes a challenge for me that might be fun"let"s do this!

Dann{Refute this:

No one can say to you 'here it is' or'there it is' , for the kingdom of heaven is within you.

That's what Jesus said when asked about the kingdom of heaven. That implies to me that the kingdom of heaven is a state of being, a feeling: I am feeling: my demons is inside myself. All I need do is be careful of my thoughts and feelings and liss myself in the mirror".blaa blaaa bla. Refute that.}

Chase refutes: : ) No one can say, sure Dann, okay. The irony is this, anything the bible says it always unsays. The Scriptures tell us that heaven is an actual physical place and that God was the one who made it. The Scriptures also tell us that heaven is where God has His throne. According to the Scriptures, heaven is the destination for Christians when they die. But what even most Christians do not realize is that heaven is not the final destination for those who believe in Jesus Christ. In fact, the Bible tells us that God is going to build a new heaven and a new earth.
http://whatdoesthebiblesayabout.com...
This implies that heaven is way more than a feeling Dann, your theist is abstract according to Christian sources. If you would have followed the rules of this debate you would have been seeing a lot of contradiction to anything and everything you claim".all coming from other Christians. Dann, states "Christians do not realize" and not realizing is a flaw and not a value, so anything concerning this diatribe of yours is damned to the depths of BS.

{"Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, "

What's so extraordinary about the claim that a guy lived once? There nothing extraordinary about that at all. }
Answer: Jesus was said to be god, perform miracles, that thousands saw him teach, that he was crucified, that he arose from the dead, born of a virgin 12 year old girl, these are ALL extraordinary claims since not one contemporary encounter mentions him, not even the one they claimed killed him. There is no evidence of Jesus, you said so yourself.

Conclusions, The bible is not a historical document, Jesus is not a historical figure, and the bible professes more evil than good (three to one to be exact). To claim someone taught without evidence is completely unethical (or BS). The history of Christianity is the bloodiest of all religions so Danns descriptions of the values taught to Christians must have gone un-noticed. The bibles storyline is absurd and unreasonable and not to mention contradictive. Danns" response, well there are problems he admits"..end of story.
Tacitus as a Roman historian and finds this, "Tacitus is most famously known for the Annals, which covers the Roman Empire from 14-68 C.E. and includes information about the reign of Nero. He records Nero"s probable arson of Rome in order to implement his own architectural designs and how he passed the blame to Christians as a ready scapegoat. As a result of this blame, Nero heatedly persecuted Christians and Tacitus wrote the following about this, "But neither human effort nor the emperor"s generosity nor the placating of the gods ended the scandalous belief that the fire had been ordered. Therefore, to put down the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits and punished in the most unusual ways those hated for their shameful acts, whom the crowd called "Chrestians." The founder of this name, Christ, had been executed in the reign of Tiberius by the procurator Pontius Pilate."[xiii]

Indeed, emperor Nero used Christians as a scapegoat to explain the fire, which broke out in Rome (64 A.D.). Tacitus mentions that the Christians were likely not the cause of the fire, but used the fire as an excuse to persecute Christians. The Annals do not prove that Jesus Christ existed but merely that Christians existed in the First Century A.D., which no scholar has ever disputed. Since Tacitus recorded The Annals one hundred years after Jesus" proposed existence, this lacks historical reliability(Con NOTES that this is a depiction of a non-contemporary account). It is important to remember that the negative evidence cited above is not "absence of evidence," but rather "evidence of absence." In science, negative evidence is often as important as positive evidence.

Source: http://metrostateatheists.wordpress.com......

his"tor"i"cal [hi-stawr-i-kuhl, -stor-] Adjective of, pertaining to, treating, or characteristic of history or past events: historical records; historical research.
Having once existed or lived in the real world, as opposed to being part of legend or fiction or as distinguished from religious belief: to doubt that a historical Camelot ever existed; a theologian's study of the historical Jesus.
http://dictionary.reference.com......

Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ's crucifixion. The civilization of Rome was the highest in the world. The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found him innocent; that the mob shouted, "Crucify him, crucify him!" and that to please the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no wrong and whom he had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him to the executioners to be crucified! Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him? Is that a picture of civilized Rome? Is that the Rome to which the world owes its laws? In reading the story of the Crucifixion, are we reading history or religious fiction? Surely not history

http://www.infidels.org...
by Marshall J. Gauvin. Scientific inquiry into the origins of Christianity begins today with the question: "Did Jesus Christ really live?"
Dann

Pro

"Answer: Sure okay Dann, perhaps you should reread again. I posted discrepancies that happened in the bible, doctrine, anthropology wise, archeology wise and historically."

You never did. You only SAID as much, and, considering your stance I'm sure you wouldn't just want me to take you at your word.

Here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

" Never mind, Dann, I cite you as a source again, when angered it seems that you felt the need to Devalue both sides"

I'm not devaluing any side. I am devaluing the sloppy argument that atheists and Christians are both guilty of using - that Adolf Hitler, apparently the epitome of evil, was on the opposite team, therefore the whole team is evil and morally inferior. It's a very cheap argument, whoever employs it. And you employed it here...

Plus, there's no anger on my part. I would suggest the contrary to be the case - that it is YOU who are the angry one.

"Chase to Dann, you brought up history as it relates to the bible, therefore you brought up anything and everything I choose from the bible, so quit your whining"

Straw man, anyone?

"This implies that heaven is way more than a feeling Dann, your theist is abstract according to Christian sources. If you would have followed the rules of this debate you would have been seeing a lot of contradiction to anything and everything you claim".all coming from other Christians. Dann, states "Christians do not realize" and not realizing is a flaw and not a value, so anything concerning this diatribe of yours is damned to the depths of BS."

Only according to your links authors interpretation. Howdo you know that heaven isn't the ether? The unmanifest essence that permeates all existence? The nothingness that gives rise to everything? That would be consistent with Jesus stating that heaven is within you. Also that it is the father. And it's the words of Jesus that we are concerned with here, since it is Christianity that is in the dock. Just as Confucianism was named after Confucius, Maoism after Mao, Buddhism after Buddha and Marxism after Marx, Christianity is so called because of Christ. If you want to cal Christianity B.s, you'd better narrow down your scope to the words of Jesus.

Extraordinary is it? I'm afraid you are strictly in the minority when you claim Jesus didnt exist.

http://www.bethinking.org...

"Nothing could be more improbable than the story of Christ's crucifixion. The civilization of Rome was the highest in the world. The Romans were the greatest lawyers the world had ever known. Their courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found him innocent; that the mob shouted, "Crucify him, crucify him!" and that to please the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man who had done no wrong and whom he had found innocent, should be scourged, and then delivered him to the executioners to be crucified! Is it thinkable that the master of a Roman court in the days of Tiberius Caesar, having found a man innocent and declared him so, and having made efforts to save his life, tortured him of his own accord, and then handed him over to a howling mob to be nailed to a cross? A Roman court finding a man innocent and then crucifying him? Is that a picture of civilized Rome? Is that "

Yes it is. Don't forget, the Romans used to feed Christians to lions. Don't get some romantic notion that Rome was some morally and intellectually infallible civilisation. When has that EVER been the case in the whole history of the world? You think injustice like that isn't commonplace even today?

Audience, we have come to the end of our debate and it is now time for you to cast your vote. I hope, whether atheist or Christian, you will not be partisan and vote purely for your belief/unbelief, but will look at the debate impartially.

The topic was obviously that Christianity is BS. As stated, I am not a Christian. I believe the church is B.s alright. And lots of the things that had been built in Christs name in the wake of his life too. But those things are not what I am defending. What I am defending is the viewpoints of Jesus himself. Those are what truly constitute Christianity, and those are not BS. Love each other. Who could really argue? Love your neighbour as yourself. If you have faith, you can accomplish great things. Do what you do with all your heart and all your soul, even though a lot of the time you will be hated for it, do not hide your light under a bushel. Forgive those who sin against you. Do not worry what you look like - let your inner beauty shine through. Don't dwell on the past, keep your mind fixed on the present and that way you will be fit to feel the joie de vivre that is inside you. Keep guard over your own mind and spirit so that no evil can enter, no negative feeling, emotions, do not let demons enter.and if they do, cast them out with your faith. With your own Holy Spirit. Live your life by the spirit and not by the letter of the law.

The things that Jesus said, the insights that he gave into the human experience of existence, the antidotes to the ills that we all sometimes feel (it is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick), they are timeless and as true today as they were then and as they ever will be. What endures as long as all that? Truth. Truth is the only thing that endures for all that time and Jesus spoke truth. If you have ever turned the other cheek yourself, you will KNOW how powerful it is.

My opponent even wants to deny that Jesus existed. I feel he has probably fallen head over heels in love with the atheist dogma, ironically or poetically, at the expense of his rationale. He sought to be insulting and incendiary. It appears that he was spoiling for a fight with a Christian more than anything else. Probably been sharpening his tongue and wanted to battle test it. I never fought the fight he wanted me to fight though, since I am not a Christian which leads me to question whether it is Christianity he has a problem with, or just Christians. Just as a humorous dig, can you really vote for someone who refers to themself in the 3rd person...?!?!

Undoubtedly there is a lot of extraneous guff involved in all the Christian denominations, but I wager that Jesus would have ruined all their temples too.

When voting, please don't let the church and all that it has become, or crazy Christians and everything they preach, muddy the distinction between true Christianity and this systematised chicanery you see throughout history. Please also do not be fooled by the atheist deception of malevolence masquerading as witty rationale. There is undoubtedly a strong case for atheism, but these abusers of logic, such as my opponent, are unworthy to champion it. I feel that it is as plain as day that, taken on its own merits, the guidance offered by Jesus is simply very great.

Thank you

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
99 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
Dann
So what are your convictions then, and we'll see if they can withstand scrutiny.
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
Dann
You did rip a quote from this time?

I would say I was more pantheistic
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Courage is not having convictions, true courage is withstanding a challenge or questioning of those convictions :)

I know my courage is True, I dont know about yours, so lets see what you got besides nothing :)
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
Dann
Wow devient genie actually asks someone a real question
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
dann, You say youre NOt religious, then what are you? Are you agnostic? To which gods? All of them?
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Gullible Nation:

1) Believes all planets, stars and galaxies were created by a being that had a human sacrifice and resurrection in the middle east thousands of years ago.

2) Believes denying humans equal marriage rights is ok because the reason for gravity is concerned

3) Believes that the reason for the sub atomic world of particles and DNA was all created by a being that knows how to keep slaves and told us how in his holy book :)

4) Believes that the reason for the earths rotation, is a being that helps Ray Lewis win Superbowl but still allows birth defects :)

If thats thinking, we are in trouble :)
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
Dann
Chase, you are a retard and everybody (on this forum at least) agrees with that statement, less your fellow retards of course. You have never won anybody round to your way of thinking, that's why you've lost all of your debates - because nobody votes for dumb people in a contest of smarts.

You are the village idiot.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
Chase200mph
Yours is the god of ignorance, not one of his followers had an eduction and they had minds of children. In short, uneducated and retarded , of course they could write and narrate in Greek, that's because they were Hebrew. Not that this makes sense, but then again its your bible.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
Chase200mph
No Dann, he is not your god, but I understand your confusion.
Posted by Dann 3 years ago
Dann
Im the unthinking one hmm?

Then how come I am better at English than you?

How come I am better at logic than you?

How come I am better at argumentation than you?

I'd wager that I am better at Maths than you.

All of these pursuits require thinking. So on what grounds can you, YOU Devient.genie, say that I do not think?

I already know on what grounds you make that claim. You make that claim on the grounds that other atheists claim that religious people don't think. You are parroting things you've heard elsewhere. And you still don't understand the fact that I am not religious and not even a theist.

Oof.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by devient.genie 3 years ago
devient.genie
Chase200mphDannTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Treason.Pro committed treason by defending lunacy . Treason is the reason
Vote Placed by 4saken 3 years ago
4saken
Chase200mphDannTied
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: Con's arguments (are these considered arguments) make no sense.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
Chase200mphDannTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Let's begin with the breakdown! 1. Conduct: 5 words, "I call BS on Christianity." That sums up Con's attitude the whole time. Full of language, insults, and ego. Spelling/Grammar: Con had numerous grammatical issues and could have profited from using Spell-Check. Arguments: Con pretty much yelled and parroted what people had told him as his evidence. He made a lot of claims with little backup. He failed incredibly in the BoP. Plus he was on the wrong side. Sources: Pro used sources much better than Con and used them more. Yes, I am a Christian, but this was a TERRIBLE debate that went downhill the minute Con chose to be Con instead of Pro and ended with a wrap-up of Con's insults, attacks, and ignorant bouts of typing. Verdict: Con: Needs to work on logic, spelling, grammar, using sources, making sure he is on the correct side of the debate, and not using insults. Pro: He should never had brought himself down to Con's level by accepting this debate. He is an excellent