The Instigator
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
44 Points
The Contender
PublicForumG-d
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points

If a creator and an opposition force (example: Satan) existed then we should not follow the bible.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/8/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,201 times Debate No: 3963
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (23)

 

Yraelz

Pro

I'm going to condense my argument quickly because I do not have much time.

If we were to accept the premise that an opposition force to a creator exists and we are also the accept that the creator has created only one religion then it is apparent that it is more likely that Satan has created the bible.

Thus we should not follow the bible.

Have fun.

P.s, apparently I can only challenge you to one debate at a time so I am temporarily canceling the other one while I think about it.
PublicForumG-d

Con

Thank you for creating this debate.

For the purpose of bringing this debate out of the abstract, I'm going to call the Creator God and the anti-creator Evil.

I'm going to define several terms:

===
Creator: All powerful holy Creator of the world, who is the ultimate and perfect embodiment of love, and has such love for mankind. The Creator wants the absolute best for mankind.
===
Anti-Creator: The being(s) that currently work against the will of the Creator - for the purpose of this debate, Satan and fallen angels fall under the title Anti-Creator. The Anti-Creator(s) want to harm
===
It: I'd like to specify this as the moral code expounded in the Bible.

To begin, my opponent makes several critical assumptions:

False Assumption 1:

"the creator has created only one religion"

I reject this premise severely, as it takes a deliberately myopic view of the Creator. In an essay that I've partially authored called "Perennialism" I explain:

Perennialism

This term stems analogically from the "perennial flower". This flower blooms from the same root every year. In this fashion, we get the analogy for perennialism: the belief that the one God (the Divine source of all Truth) has "sprung forth" his revelations to the world at different times in different ways through the major religions of the world. In other words, it is the belief that the God of Judaism is the God of Islam and the God of Islam is the God of Christianity.

First off, the religions that fall under this category are the major religions of the world.
Hinduism
Buddhism
Judaism
Christianity
Islam
Primal Religions (Native American beliefs)

The Norse religions, paganism, Greek Mythology, Scientology, and all sects of these religions are seen by this view as man-made due to their short lifespan and hedonistic belief system contrary to a godly living, or for the sects, man-made extensions of the aforementioned religions.

Now it would seem that each of these religions are contradictory, and yes on the surface they do seem to be quite different and contradictory. But we first must distinguish that there is an exoteric way of looking at religion and an esoteric way. Exoteric is the manner of "looking at" the surface, or doctrinal and methodic principles of these religions. And looking at these exoteric differences, we see many differences in method and doctrine, such as differing views of God, differing views of the world, differing views of the afterlife. However, the esoteric approach is the manner of "looking along" the religions to see their beneath-the-surface meaning. In doing this, we see that each of these religions has a harmonious balance of four major points that connect these religions together. Truth, Virtue, Beauty, and Prayer. In these six major religions we see an enormous importance stressed on Truth, Virtue, Beauty, and Prayer.

And before I conclude my explanation there is another point to address. The idea of Christ. John 14:6 says "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Now this would seem to cancel out all other religions but look deeper. We see that Christ is the "way, the truth and the life" through which we get to God. In parallel, we see this in all the other religions. The idea of the "Son" or "the way the truth and the life" is exhibited in each religion. In Christianity: Christ, in Islam: The Koran, In Judaism: The Torah, or the Law, in Hinduism: the Krishna, and in Buddhism: Nirvana.

"Christ" can vary from literal meaning, depending on the manner in which He has chosen to reveal himself. He can still be "the way" without them literally knowing that it is Christ that is saving them - for example, if a native American worshipping "the Great Spirit" would in actuality be worshipping "Christ" without knowing it - he never gave it a name other than "The Great Spirit". But "a rose by any other name is just as sweet". Parallely, Christ - though under a different names - provides the same grace to all religions.

I only argue this because I know that my opponent will immediately argue the "Christ" point, and I wanted to pre-refute it.

===++

On to his argument about the Anti-Creator making the Bible.

My syllogism is thus:

Premise 1) The Creator wants the best for mankind.
Proof: Definition. This is inherent to the idea of the Creator.

Premise 2) The Anti-Creator wants bad for mankind.
Proof: See above: Its inherent to the idea of the Anti-Creator.

Premise 3) The main and critical messages the Bible preaches are positive and pacifistic.

Proof: My main justification is thus

Matthew 22:36-40.
36 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
37 Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Explanation: Because "All the Law and Prophets hang on these two commandments" all actions must be judged in context of these 5 verses and fulfill their criteria of loving God and loving each other to be considered "Justified" by the Bible. Since promoting love is a good idea, I stand in negation of the topic.

Note: Even if you reject the idea of a creator, this does not negate the idea of "love" being positive.

Note 2: More evidence for positive mentality is evidenced at the end. To be succinct, I move to my conclusion.

Conclusion: The mentality promoted by the Bible is one contrary to the purpose of the Anti-Creator, but is in line with the Creator's purpose. As famously stated "A house divided cannot stand." If the Bible promotes positive action, then it is impossible for an evil being to have created it.

==========
Other occurrences of positive moral codes taught by the Bible include:

Romans 12:14-21

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.
16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
20 On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

So...repay evil with good, and good with good. Be humble, kind and generous...

Matthew 5:3-11

# Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land.
# Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted.
# Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.
# Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
# Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.
# Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
# Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Be humble, mourn when necessary, powerfully seek justice, be merciful, be clean of heart, make peace, and serve justice even when it harms you.

I'd like to conclude this debate with a request to not judge it by your personal feelings, but by the undeniable logic I've presented.

In truth, irregardless of the truth of the Bible, or whoever it was created by, the Bible preaches a message of peace and love - all other things are not to be followed (Matthew 22:36-40). The peace and love of the Bible make its moral code worth following
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Pro

I can only smile.

First off I'm going to have to reject the idea that all 6 religions are of the same Perennial foundation, not such much because it is pertinent to this debate, but more so because I think it is wrong and have 8000 characters to play with.

Observation 1: There is quite literally no point. Let us examine the situation, the creator creates us and decides it would be a sweet idea to make a religion based on himself. So he makes 6 different religions that all contradict each other on various levels....? Logic dictates no, if he (she or it) was attempting to gain supporters on earth the best way would be to create one universal religion, creating 6 different religions only helps increase doubt.

Observation 2: Creating 6 different religions is against my opponents view of the creator. My opponent feels all the creator can do is good, if this were true then the creator would not under any circumstance make 6 different religions that contradict on my levels. If a creator were to do such a thing the very first thing it could expect would be arguments which would undoubtedly over time lead to wars. Lets look to our own world for empirical examples, how many wars have been fought over or about religion? If god = good then god != wars.

Observation 3: If god = good then god created one religion. The other religions would have had to have been created by the anti-creator. Thus the idea that the anti-creator creates more religions than the god would be true and thus it is statistically a higher probability that Jesus under the bibles framework of Creator and Anti-creator (God and Satan) was actually Satan in sheeps clothing.

However these points probably don't matter much, there are other problems in this debate.

=================

First things first. The idea of good. Unfortunately there is absolutely no way for us to determine what is good without a higher power to dictate or tell us such. Otherwise good is simply a human invention for what we see as pleasing, and as we have seen our lust for pleasure has not always lead to things we deem good in the long run.

Observation 1: For all we know, everything we believe is good could actually be bad. Hypothesizing that Satan actually wrote the bible and at least 4 of the 5 other contradictory religions that my opponent is grouping with it, we can see what we have been taught under it is actually bad. For instance, it is possible that God didn't want us to love each other, instead perhaps he wanted us to use our superior intelligence to gain the upper hand over others. At which point the anti-creator came along and taught the idea of "love" which went against gods ideas and lead many people away from him/her/it.

Observation 2: An opposition force to the creator would not necessarily have to be opposed on every single issue out there, it would simply have to be opposed on one definite issue. For instance if a friend and I both followed a similar philosophy but I felt he should help others and he felt others should help themselves we may have many similarities through our philosophy but we are still opposition forces.

Observation 3: Without knowing for sure whether the creator or anti-creator wrote the bible we cannot know for sure what is "good" and what is "bad". If the creator wrote the bible then we can possibly assume that the teaching are "good" however if the anti-creator wrote the bible we are decidedly unsure.

Next.

==================

My opponent assumes from the beginning that the creator must be good and that the anti-creator must be bad. This is not true. Lets examine some real world creators.

Adolf Hitler: Created many things, including an army and a war, he is considered by many not to be a great guy.

Benjamin Franklin: Created some interesting inventions, a lot of people like him .

Friedrich Nietzsche: Created a philosophy, some people love it, others are opposed.

My point is simple. Many people have created things, yet the fact that they have created does not suddenly make them "good". The same is true of any creator, simply because some divine force created the universe doesn't mandate that the divine force is "good". Meaning the flip side of this coin is the statement, "an opposition force to the creator is not necessarily bad."

=================

I'm going to argue the Jesus point considering I still have 3,500 characters left, then I will get on to my final contention.

Observation 1: Christ could be a teapot, Christ could be a dog, Christ could be a Llama, Christ could be the sun, Christ could be the Koran. Yeah Christ could literally be everything out there, this doesn't exactly explain why the creator would bother making 6 religions and then only have 1 of them actually worshiping the right guy knowingly while the other 5 are worshiping him without even realizing it, because in those instances he is a various books.

Observation 2: It wasn't the Koran, Torah, Krishna, or Nirvanna, that stated, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Why would we or anyone for that matter assume that when Jesus stated this he actually meant to be covering those 4 books as well? Jesus said that quite clearly about himself, indicated by the "I" inherent in the sentence, thus suddenly assuming that the same can be applied to anything is rather faulty.

Observation 3: If Christ can be anything here is literally no point to religion at all. Right now I am staring at my T.V, I hereby dub it Christ, thus I have made it to the father!!

===================
Finally a realistic counter example.

Observation 1: The creator created everything. Thus the creator created the earth. As we cannot see an afterlife or even know if one exists it is safe to assume that the creator meant for us to only see the earth while we are here.

Observation 2: It his possible and even plausible that the creator wanted his creation to stay intact, thus the creator would enjoy such activities as pacifism.

Observation 3: It is equally possible that the creator felt the earth was of a great importance and wanted people to realize the beauty that he had given to them on earth. In fact, he wouldn't mind if people worshiped the earth for it sustained them through him(or her or whatever) and was great in his/her eyes.

Observation 4: An opposition force comes along at some point, this could possibly be due to some kind of divine war, who knows?

Observation 5: The opposition force does not want people to see the earth as great, beautiful, and holy. Therefor the opposition force creates many religions all with a primary focus on achieving a good afterlife.

Observation 6: This not only makes the earth seems lesser than it is because now there is a hypothetical divine place of greater beauty afterwards but it also shifts the main focus of existence from living life on earth to reaching the afterlife.

Observation 7: This opposes the creator, and does so in a way that can still be peaceful.

Your move.
PublicForumG-d

Con

PublicForumG-d forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Pro

Well.... My opponent appears to have conceded his round to me. I'll ask that my arguments are extended. Also.... I don't have a chance to respond to anything after this point so I suppose I'll ask that no new arguments are added.
PublicForumG-d

Con

PublicForumG-d forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
@Snicker: It's a debate website d00de!
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
It's not that I'm particularly missing a point, I just feel that being your own purpose is rather well, pointless. =)

It would be like me saying the point of my existence is to exist. Something that could very well be true. It just seems to me that the fundamental problem that religion attempts to solve, the meaning of life, just brings the lacking to a different level.

We may have a point, but the creator doesn't have a point, and if the creator is creating points for us then we don't have a point.

Analogy: We are born into a shop where we are forced to make wool all day. This is our purpose as told by the overseer. The overseer however has no one over him and he does not actually do anything with the wool. Thus us making the wool is actually pointless.
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
@Snicker: lol

@Yraelz

G-d has no purpose. He is his own justification. I think you're missing this point :))
Posted by snicker_911 8 years ago
snicker_911
who cares?? its a free country--lets just mind our own business and get on with our lives. i believe in God. if you don't like it, go play in traffic.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Okay, but before god created anything he was the only thing existing. Meaning there was nothing higher or lower than him in a traditional power hierarchy sense. So at that point, would he still have purpose?
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
You're taking a decidedly mundane outlook on it. G-d has no purpose; He has no meaning.

His justification for being her is that He IS G-d.

This is unlike any other thing in the Universe, so I understand how the concept could stump you but if you study apologetics, I'm sure you'll eventually get it.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
I'm still not really understanding you. How can one's own existence be one's meaning?
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
I didn't mean to come off in a way you didn't understand: G-d is not alive in the sense that we are.

G-d doesn't need a purpose; doesn't have one. His own existence is his own justification.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Errr... okay how about this then.

What is the purpose and/or meaning of god's existence?
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
That's a little strange...Well, whatever your family does, its fair to say a large number of people do say Yes Ma'am/Sir to their parents.

@Third paragraph; yes. G-d knows what I am thinking and understands that I am showing respect. For some, writing G-d doesn't matter - and to them it wouldn't be an act of respect. I never said it was *inherant*. I said it was how I show respect.

@Question: G-d doesn't have a life, and doesn't need a purpose.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
YraelzPublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
YraelzPublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by i-only-want-to-vote-lol 8 years ago
i-only-want-to-vote-lol
YraelzPublicForumG-dTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by retributions-end 8 years ago
retributions-end
YraelzPublicForumG-dTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by righteous-reply 8 years ago
righteous-reply
YraelzPublicForumG-dTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
YraelzPublicForumG-dTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by JoshMagnum 8 years ago
JoshMagnum
YraelzPublicForumG-dTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
YraelzPublicForumG-dTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by HungryAssassin 8 years ago
HungryAssassin
YraelzPublicForumG-dTied
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 
Vote Placed by GleefulJoker 8 years ago
GleefulJoker
YraelzPublicForumG-dTied
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