The Instigator
vardas0antras
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
Ren
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points

Is Ren or Vardas0Antras correct ?

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: 11/20/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,152 times Debate No: 13727
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

vardas0antras

Con

Ren has posted this:

"To approach Marauder: according to Mosaic Law, sinning resulted in execution, often through stoning or conquest, or even by God's hand through burning, drowning, or plagues. The Gospel is literally a detraction of that approach--it was God saying that we should no longer judge one another and instead, love one another. Furthermore, consistent with many decisions He made throughout the Bible, such as the Covenant, that He will no longer be vengeful. Perhaps man finally reached a level of maturity so that God felt as though He could speak to us like adults rather than spank us like children."

Then I said:

" "Perhaps man finally reached a level of maturity so that God felt as though He could speak to us like adults rather than spank us" I'll debate you on this !! The resolution would be something like "This is probably not the case" "

He agreed though he had one condition:
" that science is not assumed contradictory to religion."

I agree to this condition.

My stance is that its unlikely that some parts of the old testament like the stoning were abolished because man matured. In other words Ill argue that there are other more probable reasons for this.
Ren

Pro

Cheers; I've been in two thoroughly uninteresting debates until now, so I appreciate the opportunity for another structured, formal debate that has the potential of being engaging.

The Validity of my Opponent's Argument:

I would like to first assert that although my opponent has presented a stance, he has not presented any support for that stance, rendering it conjectural.

My Argument:

Some parts of the Old Testament were not abolished. In terms of Christianity, the Old Testament exists purely for context, but does not actually apply what we should perceive as the current tenets for behavior presented by God.

The Bible states that only by trusting in Jesus, can one enter the Kingdom of God.

Jesus's message was that man is to love one another as each individual loves him or herself and that the only way to reach God is through Him and His message.

Neither aspect of Jesus's message accommodates Mosaic Law.

Thus, the only logical conclusion is that a.) God changed His mind and is thus, fallible, or b.) God planned this and made this determination as a logical decision.

If God made this decision logically, it was because He decided that He no longer needed to be vengeful and render punishment to those who are disobedient. The only reason why an authoritative entity would decide that speaking would be more effect than punishment is because that authority believes that a subordinate is mature enough to understand right and wrong as well as accept accountability.

This is consistent with the tenets of good parenting, which asserts that, rather than hitting a child, it is far more effective to teach a child right and wrong, then foster in that child, a sense of accountability.

In order for this premise to be true, then man would have needed to undergo a long process of intellectual and emotional improvement until the time arrived that God decided it was more effective to speak than to punish. It is indeed the case that the physical sciences have proven, accompanied with overwhelming empirical evidence, that most organisms, including man, have generally improved over time. This is both physically as well as intellectually. Man was, at first, atavistic and primitive, then eventually became more intellectually sophisticated until we had the integrative global system and complex competencies that exists today, rather than a collection of nomadic sub-societies with competencies limited to the attainment of food and the maintenance of a family.

I submit that this is the most logical argument to support why God would present a new doctrine that supercedes Mosaic Law while retaining God's infallibility.
Debate Round No. 1
vardas0antras

Con

My Stance:

I think it is well established that the Old Testament law isn't used anymore:
Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25, Ephesians 2:15

This is because the old testament laws were give to Israel and not Christians:
The Sabbath, the Sacrificial system, The clothing rules.

All these were given to the nation of Israel, obviously God also gave them laws which apply everywhere:
The ten commandments which can be encapsulated into love God, love your neighbor and follow the sabbath.

So what is the purpose of the law ?:
The purpose of the Old Testament law is to convict people of our inability to keep the law and point us to our need for Jesus Christ as Savior (Romans 7:7-9, Galatians 3:24). The rest naturally follows.

http://www.christianbook.com...;

"vengeful and render punishment to those who are disobedient"
Please read this:
Exodus 34:6, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 4:31, Nehemiah 9:17, Psalm 86:5, 15, 108:4, 145:8, Joel 2:13
Now please read this:
http://www.religioustolerance.org...

Has man developed ?:
No he has not. Have you forgotten about 2012 and how some people believe that its the end of the word and others think that its the begining of the new world. What if go back ten years to 2000 ? Same stupidity. I don't think that the people working these jobs in this video were very smart too (this video is really good, watch it) :

However lets say that we did evolve. How does this change the heart of man. I ask for my opponent how does physical and intellectual development have anything to do with mans heart.
Ren

Pro

Ren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
vardas0antras

Con

Pro has forfeited so please

Vote Con
Ren

Pro

Ren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
vardas0antras

Con

My arguments are the same

Vote Con
Ren

Pro

Ren forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Ren

Pro

~ Rebuttals ~

"The purpose of the Old Testament law is to convict people of our inability to keep the law and point us to our need for Jesus Christ as Savior (Romans 7:7-9, Galatians 3:24). The rest naturally follows."

This is a reasonable explanation for why the Old Testament is included in the Christian Bible, but it does not provide a purpose for the Old Testament outside the scope of Christianity. In any case, it does not necessarily suggest that man has not evolved or improved since then. It does give hope to man, but it still establishes limitations by which a person must abide while on Earth in order to make it into Heaven. Therefore, for a condemned humanity that God all but wiped out completely in the past, God began to soften a little. If man had not improved in order to earn such consideration from God, then this means that God, an eternal upon which time has no bearing, has Himself changed over time and decided that He was wrong regarding how He perceived humanity, and how He would handle them moving forward. Based on the definition and description of God in this context, that would be paradoxical--changing your mind is admitting that you were once wrong and now disagree with a former incarnation of yourself.

"No he has not. Have you forgotten about 2012 and how some people believe that its the end of the word and others think that its the begining of the new world. What if go back ten years to 2000 ? Same stupidity."

Not only is this a ridiculously disproportionate example (you compared the perceptible change in humanity's overall conception of reality within a nine year time span to the same changes that may have occurred since the inception of man), but it also suggests that you could out-think the whole of humanity with your superior logic and intellect. The fact that a fear of some sort of random and spontaneous apocalypse spurring from some a spiritual, supernatural war is quite culturally specific, notwithstanding.

"However lets say that we did evolve. How does this change the heart of man. I ask for my opponent how does physical and intellectual development have anything to do with mans heart."

You don't even go into detail as to what a heart is. If you mean the composite of emotions that originate in the limbic system, then yes; given that our brain has evolved considerably, this does mean that points in the brain that comprise the limbic system, like the hippocampus, amygdala, and whatever else, have evolved as well.

If you mean our physical hearts, then once again, the answer is yes; as our overall median body size has changed, our cardiovascular and circulatory systems have changed, as well.

"Pro has forfeited so please

Vote Con"

You could not possibly have expected me to argue this asinine point for five rounds straight. You state your peace, I'll give you mine, and we'll let the votes decide.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"You could not possibly have expected me to argue this asinine point for five rounds straight. You state your peace, I'll give you mine, and we'll let the votes decide."
My arguments were vague because of these 5 rounds not that you managed to refute my vague arguments anyway. Also have you forgotten that this is a debate? I should have a chance to refute your points but now I can't!
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"How can you be Con or Pro to this debate? I mean, vardas0antras, you're basically saying that you're CON to either you or Ren being correct... lolwut?"
I am Con: I think I am correct
He is Pro: He thinks Ren is correct
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"I guess I'm just not meant to have enjoyable debates on this site."

Fun Fact:
I tend to enjoy misery Boouhahahahaahaha
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
"I guess I'm just not meant to have enjoyable debates on this site."

No need for melodrama. I'd recommend challenging someone you know, based upon previous interactions, is a solid debater. Also, pick something you actually have interest in... Not that hard. :)
Posted by Ren 6 years ago
Ren
Indeed, the voting period is indefinite, so no one can win, either.

Ah, well.

I guess I'm just not meant to have enjoyable debates on this site.
Posted by annhasle 6 years ago
annhasle
How can you be Con or Pro to this debate? I mean, vardas0antras, you're basically saying that you're CON to either you or Ren being correct... lolwut?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
vardas0antrasRenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
vardas0antrasRenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
vardas0antrasRenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
vardas0antrasRenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13