The Instigator
Yraelz
Con (against)
Losing
70 Points
The Contender
Vi_Veri
Pro (for)
Winning
74 Points

If the Christian God and his army of angels exists then we should follow the teaching of 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
Con Tied Pro
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: 3/18/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,551 times Debate No: 3280
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (46)
Votes (38)

 

Yraelz

Con

I've been talking to some hardcore religious friends lately and I have come to the conclusion that even if God does exist, is responsible for creating the universe, has an army of angels, and fallen angels, occasionally tests mans faith, etc.(hopefully you get the point).. Then we still should not follow the bible.

My other motivation for creating this debate is based on the fact that I have won all my debates against the bible on the basis that god probably doesn't exist. So this time I'm going to concede to god existing and argue against the bible anyways. Can anyone take me? =)
Vi_Veri

Pro

The Atheist now takes a spin in the Theist world.... If The Bible were true:

Ok, let's establish some things first:

If we had proof in God's existence, and we didn't have to believe, we wouldn't need faith.

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: \ˈfāth\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date: 13th century
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

So, if god were to somehow be proven, like black and white, that he is real, could people still get to heaven since they wouldn't need faith but they would have knowledge of him instead? One of the main necessities to get into heaven is faith.

The all knowing, all capable god, because he, for this debate's sake, now "exists" must be able to make contradictions true. So, we will just disregard contradictions in the Bible...

So -- now that we've established that, I can continue on to my reasons why I, and the rest of the human race, would benefit more by following the bible than going against it.

1. We would survive through the brutal Apocalypse.

Jesus Christ descends to Earth and takes the Christians with him, leaving the sinners to rot on the planet with the four horsemen of the Apocalypse (surely not Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, and Dawkins, joke ;D ).

All those that did not follow the Bible are stuck in a world of war, famine and disease. Man will be covered with needless sores, fire, and bloody war. There will be lightening and thunder.

Those that follow the bible's teachings will be saved and taken to heaven to meet their creator.

2. We wont burn in hell for all of eternity.

Only a masochist would choose this, unless my opponent can give me other reasons.

3. You can not kill god.

There is no use rising up against god. Satan tried and was defeated. Even if someone would give it another go, it's impossible to kill a god that can do anything (even be unkillable.)

4. Morality would not be relative.

If god chooses to make his morals universal and absolute (as he has done in the bible) then we would be on the moral and virtuous side.

Anyway... This is all I have until I can see my opponent's angle on this situation.
Debate Round No. 1
Yraelz

Con

Nice, thank you very much for accepting this debate Vi Veri. The idea I am about to present came to mind 3 days ago when I had a 4 hour discussion with one of my very christian friends. I am very excited to see if you will be able to prove it false in some way.

First off let me point everyone to my resolution. If the Christian god and his army of angels exists.... This is the most important part of this debate. This means that god, as portrayed by christians, commonly through the bible, does exist. Keep in mind the word exists here as it is the most important word in the resolution. All I advocate is simple existence. Furthermore I go on in my actual opening statement to advocate a few more things, specifically that, "God does exist, is responsible for creating the universe, has an army of angels, and fallen angels, occasionally tests mans faith."

Obviously many christians at this point don't believe in a literal interpretation of his angels or Satan but that is beside the point. We'll be going with the christian literal interpretation here. I offer a logical progression of points.

1. Everything outside of the kingdom of god is within the kingdom of darkness, commonly belonging to Satan. (This point might prove to be irrelevant but I like it anyways.)

2. God occasionally tests man's faith. There are a great many ways that god tests man's faith. We have things ranging all the way from false idols to sin.

3. God allows Satan to act as a test of man's faith. For example look to all of the religions of the past and some in our current time. Satanism is a pretty sweet example, Hinduism, Judaism, Roman mythology, Greek mythology, Buddhism, Chinese universalism, Muslim, Taoism etc....

Many of these religions reportedly have had representations of their gods that descended to earth and walked among the people. Considering that, if the christian god's existence is true then none of these other religions would be true. Thus many of those false religions would have to have been representations from Satan. Many of those false idols of Satan or parts of his fallen angel army.

4. God allows false religions to exist on earth, they function as a test to man's faith.

5. Satan sends himself to earth more often than God does. Considering that most religions cannot co-exist without obvious contradictions this means that Satan is responsible for every religion not true. This also means that the divine beings in those religions were of Satan.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Observers, please post comments concerning my original 5 points if you feel they are wrong in someway. Obviously the bible is very open to interpretation, so I'm looking for blatantly wrong here.)

6. The best way for Satan to lead people away from God would be to send a representation of himself to the earth disguised as a representation of God. From their Satan could preform miracles in order to gain followers and convince people of his divine being. From their all Satan would have to do would be to preach an acceptable religion.

7. Satan acted on the idea in number 6, obviously he has in the past, why not again? Satan sent himself disguised as a man named Jesus to earth. In turn he, as Jesus, walked on water, healed wounds, and fed people with 2 fish and some bread. Jesus preached of the true god but instead of leading people toward him actually preached morals which the true god does not believe in. Many of these morals, not to say all, sound good to the average human thus the religion became popular.

8. Hereby Satan has managed to lead about 1/3 of the earth away from God. This has happened many times in the past, and it is empirically denied that God would be more likely than Satan of sending himself to this earth. Therefor it empirically more likely that Jesus was simply another portrayal of Satan in sheep's clothing. =)

I'm very interested to see what my opponent and anyone else have to say about this. Please offer constructive criticisms.
Vi_Veri

Pro

This is where reading scriptures comes in handy...

I can mute my opponent's whole argument by just proving that Jesus was not Satan.

Proof in the bible which is now "true":

Matthew 4:1-11 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright � 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

Matthew 4

The Temptation of Jesus

1Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. 2After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

4Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'[a]"

5Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'[b]"

7Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'[c]"

8Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

10Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'[d]"

11Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.
Debate Round No. 2
Yraelz

Con

Hehe, I find myself wishing I had time to read all the scriptures but I do not believe I will be needing them for this debate.

I would like my fellow debaters/voters to notice the part of my last round where I quite clearly state, "Keep in mind the word exists here as it is the most important word in the resolution. All I advocate is simple existence."

My opponent has conceded to this argument and thereby agreed with me. All I am advocating is God's existence existence. Nowhere throughout this do I say the bible is correct. Though to give my opponent credit I do agree that the bible is correct on the fact that god exists and is correct in its depictions of his character. This however does not mean anything else in the bible is correct, for instance my opponent even states in round 1,

"The all knowing, all capable god, because he, for this debate's sake, now "exists" must be able to make contradictions true. So, we will just disregard contradictions in the Bible..."

In essence my opponent emulates the slippery slope fallacy in thinking that because the Christian god exists therefor the bible is all true. She even admits she admits this line of thought is a fallacy through her statement in round 1.

Which brings me back to my rebuttal of her second round, she states,

"I can mute my opponent's whole argument by just proving that Jesus was not Satan."

My first response is quite simply, the bible does not have to be true on this issue as it has nothing to do with god existing. In fact, this point strengthens my case. If Satan wanted to convince people without a doubt that he was not Jesus he would physically put the idea in the bible that Jesus had encountered Satan and rejected Satan. However even this line of thought is rather flawed, considering Satan has super natural powers it is perfectly possible for him to split his consciousness in some way.

My second response is that Jesus fasting for forty days also gives strength to my case. It is simply another way for the Devil to prove himself superhuman.

My third point is also a turn on my opponents statement, "'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" This is simply another way for Satan to exercise excess power over his followers.

Fourth the line,

"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me.""

Once again only serves to give credence to Jesus as it appears that he is turning away from all that is evil. Little do people realize that Jesus is the same enemy. The easiest way to strike at your enemy is to become his friend. =)

So a brief a recap is in order. I am advocating the simple existence of the Christian god. The characteristic rendered to him in the bible is all that I advocate for him. As things that he says or does have no bearing on whether he exists or not they are not guaranteed true under this debate. This in turn means that the bible is not guaranteed true under this debate, simply the part of the bible that advocate God's existence.

Keep in mind that my opponent has also dropped the fact that it is empirically less likely that Jesus be of God rather than Satan. This in turn means my opponent concedes the argument to me.

And finally, I once again ask that people offer constructive criticism on my concept.
Vi_Veri

Pro

My first response is quite simply, the bible does not have to be true on this issue as it has nothing to do with god existing. We will build off of that now.

Because Satan could not possibly have created the Old Testament, and because my opponent declared that God and his army of angels exists, I will suspect that our definitions of God remain and he is the God of the OT because his angels and Satan exist (should add that if my opponent accepts that god exists, then he needs to accept how we define what god is and from where, with a non defined god, the premise is blank and he could make up anything about god's powers or satan's powers or anything else existing like a giant jellyfish who makes macaroni and cheese.)

Gods existence, includes his requirements; requirements are faith, rules of faith are handed down via prophets and into text. His argument of Satan corrupting and people worshipping him to this day are not valid. Examples in Cases:

First Case: The Jewish

Because God exists, so must have the Old Testament, because that is not Satan's work, as my opponent has claimed. In Isaiah God punishes Baal worshippers, he even curses the Jews who worshipped the golden calf with wandering in the desert for 40 years and cursed them to not reach the promised land alive.

Why wouldn't he do the same to the Satan/Jesus followers? Isn't he a jealous god?

The unnamed Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament is said by some to be the pre-incarnate Christ. So, even if Jesus was just a prophet as the Muslims claim, he was still known by Satan from the OT's statement.

Second Case: The Muslims

Because God exists, and his angels exist; Gabriel exists. Gabriel gave Muhammad God's word. Why didn't Gabriel tell him to slay the "Satan Worshippers?" And why was Muhammad told that Jesus was a prophet?

Third Case: Satan is still accountable to god.

Everything is in His domain. There is no hell before the bible. OT is helless (in other words, Satan has no domain in the OT). Satan has no domain to bring his "followers" to.

God still has power over satan; prayer can be used against him, God can cure "diseases" that Satan has created. God defeated Satan when he rebeled.

Fourth Case: Not all religions believe in a god.

All of the religions that go against contradict Christianity can not be of Satan's making. They are usually philosophies on life and or pre-OT. There are religions that worship men from world war II in remote islands who have had them crash land there, therefore Satan really couldn't have created all of the chaos (or for sure Islam and the Jewish faith since the angels brought down prophesies.)

Fifth Case: The Birth of Jesus

Gabriel came and told Mary of the birth of Jesus (and pretty much impregnated her if you think about it, right then with him.) Gabriel is god's angel, again. If you are saying the whole bible was just written by Satan (which it couldn't have been, in our case of everything's existence, because of the disciples. They wrote their individual Gospels.)

Sixth Case: Even if Satan really did it...

Jesus did good things in the bible, like preach love, charity, understanding (and some things still taught in the OT). So, even if Satan really did it, Satan was teaching some good values apparently, and people following this wouldn't be a bad thing. There is no hell if there is no bible truth, so even if the Christians follow the bible, it's not like they are going there. Satan is pretty much doing something pointless. And people have killed through the use of all religions (even the Jewish faith, we can see clearly, in the OT, and the Muslim faith, we can see clearly, today), but that doesn't mean that the MAJORITY of the Christians don't live out normal, productive, and sane lives. I only see the fanatics that take the word of the bible to a radical scale doing things like that (and they usually interpret many things differently, and do not notice the "Thou shall not murder" aspect of it all.)

Seventh Case: God's presence is only known via text.

Without the prophets (whom the angels informed) and the texts that he supplied the Jews, God wouldn't be known. He also came down constantly in the OT, his angel Loki mostly, to destroy and punish bad followers (again, which he should have done to the Satan followers). So, therefore, the OT stands in my former arguments.

Eighth Case: Satan is an angel.

Angels, yes, can cure people and send messages, but they can not "split their conscious." There is no evidence of an angel doing this or this being powers that were given to the angels.

Ninth Case: Jesus did not preach not believing in God.

How can god be letting Satan do this as a "test" if Satan/Jesus wasn't even preaching "don't believe in God." So, how could he have been letting Satan test the people's faith in his existence?

Therefore, because of my cases, if God existed with his army of Angels, I would follow the Bible.

Happy Easter, Jesus/Satan. How nice of you to purposefully let the Romans tear you to pieces and die for humanity. Unless you are a masochist, Satan/Jesus, you really love human kind. You really are a good guy, Jesus/Satan.

;)
Debate Round No. 3
46 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
lol... this is messed up. Oy
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
And now you're back up by 2. @.@
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
The one on facebook, Yraelz? Possibly :)
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Did you get that philosopher thing I sent, Yraelz? I'm still not sure if it works.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
Are you going to join the tournament Vi Veri?
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
As do I. It makes me rather curious, actually, how the tide could turn so quickly and there be no comments about it...

At least we had a proper debate, Yraelz, and I agree with you - I wish they would have left comments.
Posted by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
It seemed I was being owned in this debate last time I checked. I really wish people posted a comment on why they chose to vote the way they did....
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
If something can not be conceived, how can it be believed? How fallacious :)
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Well, I didn't read all of the debate so I didn't vote, but I just want to post a response to something that Yraelz said... He said that he's won every debate against God... well, I have come to find that MANY debaters are atheist (as I'm sure many people know)... it is easier to win a debate when the voters agree with you. I think the reason people don't believe in God is that they are (or think they are) too logical to believe in something so out there. "God" is something that (by all human capabilities) isn't conceivable, so when you have people that NEED to conceive something to believe it (such as debaters) you will result in a lot of non-believers. That is just a Christian rambling about what I think but I personally don't like debating religious things... too hard to change peoples minds so it takes out a lot of the meaning.
Posted by Evan_MacIan 8 years ago
Evan_MacIan
Britt, I daresay you're right. Fortunately for me, ignorance is a characteristic of society in general, and a little digging will come up with quite a few Christians who know far more than the contents of the Nicene Creed.
38 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by NewCreature 5 years ago
NewCreature
YraelzVi_VeriTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
YraelzVi_VeriTied
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 Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
YraelzVi_VeriTied
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 
Vote Placed by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
YraelzVi_VeriTied
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 pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
YraelzVi_VeriTied
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 
Vote Placed by harlequin 7 years ago
harlequin
YraelzVi_VeriTied
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 
Vote Placed by Vi_Veri 7 years ago
Vi_Veri
YraelzVi_VeriTied
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 
Vote Placed by LaSalle 7 years ago
LaSalle
YraelzVi_VeriTied
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 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
YraelzVi_VeriTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Crust89 8 years ago
Crust89
YraelzVi_VeriTied
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