The Instigator
atheistmaximus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thinkingaboutit
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Jesus commands to kill little children.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
thinkingaboutit
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,186 times Debate No: 19477
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

atheistmaximus

Pro

Jesus commands to kill little kids.

Mark 7:8-10 "8. You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions." 9. And he continued, "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,' and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.' "

This is what Jebus said. Kill disobedient children. Yes loving kind peaceful Jebus hates naughty girls and boys...to death.

Many Christians say that they don't follow the whole bible but just what Jesus said....do they really?

Can you do what Jesus said to do? Read the Holy Bible with care it is only fiction.
thinkingaboutit

Con

I see that contextomy* is the straw man of choice. Let me ask a couple of questions, 4 questions based on basic critical thinking and literacy skills.

See below:

1. Do you read newspapers, scientific articles, books, or for that matter, would you read the SATs questions in this way?

2. What does the entire chapter say (or at least verses to 20)?

I think anyone that is objectively attempting to present facts wouldn't proselytize their own meaning or interpretation by leaving information out, but the individual would allow the reader to make their own conclusion, or an informed one at best. So the question that logically follows is:

3. Was there a reason you decided to leave out the previous or following text?

Leave religion out (and yes even a god out), let us objectively qualify your effort.
It looks like you "read" the text for yourself or seem to imply the idea of having done so by your statement above "This is what Jebus said. Kill disobedient children..."

4. Let's say you did read the entire text. Can you honestly say you used critical reading skills or at least its concepts? (Allow me to highlight a couple)

- understanding the author's purpose in writing
- seeing ideas in a text as being interconnected
- looking for and understanding systems of meaning

* Contextomy - The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining," is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding.
Debate Round No. 1
atheistmaximus

Pro

This is not taken out of context. If you don't like what you didn't know was in there and/or don't have the capacity to comprehend that I'm sorry. There is no context in which I would say that. The bible is said to be inspired by perfection. Perfection does not say that s**t.

I have read all around the chapter and that fact is. Jesus was telling them that the old testament laws still apply. Including this one. Jesus said "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,' and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."

Jesus was a fictional character that was not half as good as Christians today want to portray him.

Jesus clearly said that that old testament laws still apply. That means he was against homosexuals, sex, mixed fabrics, stupid farming practices, shrimp etc...

- understanding the author's purpose in writing
- seeing ideas in a text as being interconnected
- looking for and understanding systems of meaning

These are things you have been taught to excuse away all the fucked up passages in the bible.
You have not read enough on your own bible to even know that all the gospels are different in such a way they all portray a different Jesus. There is a nice kind Jesus and an angry Jesus. They all tell conflicting stories and details. This is not a book of divine inspiration. It is ancient rubbish.

I fully comprehend just how bad and evil a text the bible is. Do you?

Stop listening to your priest and read the whole bible. It is not that complicated. Omg you theist crack me up to what lengths you will go to lie to yourselves.

Here are a few books to read.

Nailed by David Fitzgerald.
God's Problems by Bart Erhman
Misquoting Jesus by Bart Erhman
Jesus Interrupted by Bart Erhman

Yes read them along with your bible. It will actually help you fully understand what they are saying and how horribly you have been duped.
thinkingaboutit

Con

I asked 4 questions which you failed to properly address. I am not sure why since each one pertained to your original post. But you do throw in many red herrings in order to dismiss or have the readers overlook what is actually being asked. If each one is not a red herring please do enlighten me or at least engage on why you think each question is irrelevant to you.

A) I did not question or implied that the Old Testament or the New Testament is inerrant or even inspired by a god.
Red herring #1 – "The bible is said to be inspired by perfection. Perfection does not say that s**t."

The actual question is "Do you read newspapers, scientific articles, books, or for that matter would you read the SATs questions in this way?"
But from what you stated ("I have read all around the chapter and that fact is.") it seems that you would read any literature in this way (question #1) and regardless of what the text actually states (regardless of fiction, mythology, or otherwise) you would only pick and chose what is "necessary" to "support" your point of view.

B) I did not imply that Jesus is a historical person.
Red herring#2 "Jesus was a fictional character that was not half as good as Christians today want to portray him."

The actual question was "What does the entire chapter say (or at least from 1 to 20)?"
You still fail to list the rest of the text and by doing so; it conveniently supports your current point. Not sure why the rest of the information is not presented. If you are correct the preceding and proceeding text should still support what you are stating, right? For a person that is a skeptic about "interpretations" ("Stop listening to your priest and read the whole bible.") You sure like to impose your "interpretation" ("Jesus clearly said that that old testament laws still apply.") instead of allowing the reader to arrive at their own.

C) I have not suggested or addressing the authenticity or reliability of the gospel text, etc.
Here goes red herring # 3 "You have not read enough on your own bible to even know that all the gospels are different in such a way they all portray a different Jesus. There is a nice kind Jesus and an angry Jesus. They all tell conflicting stories and details. This is not a book of divine inspiration. It is ancient rubbish."
The actual question was "Was there any reason you decided to leave out the previous or following text?"
I am not clear why you decided to continue to leave the complete text out as part of the set.

D) You did answer question #4 (somewhat), but I am really surprised.
The actual question was "Let's say you did read the entire text. Can you honestly say you used critical reading skills or at least its concepts? ..."
You stated that "These are things you have been taught to excuse away all the fucked up passages in the bible."
By your statement it seems that you imply that general "Critical Reading Skills" (used on the SATs, college classes, on daily newspaper reading, etc.) are based on religion. Or, that "Critical Reading" is not really necessary.

I did clarify to leave religion and a god out, and to address the text as literature based on reading skills, but by your many red herrings, it looks like you are more in need of a religion, a god or a jesus to "excuse" your failure to present complete information. Again, we are not addressing "christianity", the validity of a jesus as a historic person, the gospel text as accurate, valid, or inerrant, or have I implied an interpretation of my own based on the full text. I think the questions are very clear and to divert from the actual point by throwing irrelevant information is plain injustice for me, any reader that is a serious thinker.

With this said I will be glad to engage in your other implied "facts," but allow us to address this one properly.

Thanks again for engaging in the conversation.
Debate Round No. 2
atheistmaximus

Pro

Don't say thanks when you are just being an ignorant d**k. It is not taken as polite. It is just showing what an ignorant a*s you really are. Look up ignorant please.

Do you think you are so special and the only f*ck*ng semi-retarded Christian to cry foul/context? I don't have to address your vapid gibberish. What part of what he said before or after changes the context of what he said?
thinkingaboutit

Con

Please observe the following in regards atheistmaximus response to each question:

Q 1. If anyone reads anything in this matter (out of context) how can they comprehend what is being read?

Q 2. Michael never posted the additional verses. That should leave any reader wondering why, or what is the fear of doing so?

Q 3. See observation on Q 2.

Q 4. Atheistmaximus claims that he has used basic critical thinking and literacy skills to "interpret" what he has read, but then continues to say the following, "What part of what he said before or after changes the context of what he said?"

Now hold on a second, did anyone pay attention to what Atheistmaximus sais?. It should leave the reader pondering. If in order to truly understand any article, text, etc. we should read the ENTIRE article not just a paragraph or a sentence, because OBIVIOUSLY it does make a difference what is said before and after, Is he really being honest, objective, or over all truthful in anything he is presenting?

I still have no idea what has made you upset over 4 simple questions. I think you are banking on insulting me instead of presenting reasonable information.
Debate Round No. 3
atheistmaximus

Pro

"I asked 4 questions which you failed to address."

I will quickly go through your bu*lsh*t.

Q 1. The answer is yes. If a person said and was quoted in the paper exactly what Jesus was quoted as saying. I would think what the f*ck! What a f*ck*ng douche! So yes I would. Can you comprehend that?

Q 2. I have read it. You can read it. If you want a link. Google it.

Q3. Yes. I am not a bible study class for the mentally challenged. I made a point with an actual quote from the supreme Christian douche.

If you don't like it.
1.)Tough sh*t. 2.) Post your own with all twenty verses. 3.) Go F*ck yourself :)

Q 4. Yes I did read the entire text. Yes I can say I used critical reading and comprehension skills.

The comprehension part is Jesus said that. What part don't you understand? What part of what he said before or after changes the context of what he said?
thinkingaboutit

Con

Let me address a one of your red herrings since it seems that you are not willing to engage in your original post.

"Jesus was a fictional character ..."

Atheistmaximus referenced 4 books, three of these belonging to Dr. Ehrman. 1st) Out of the 4 books Atheistmaximus referenced NONE were *peered reviewed, 2nd) Dr. Ehrman agrees that Jesus IS a historical person (Dr. Ehrman is a qualified biblical scholar), 3rd) Dr. Ehrman's main disagreement is that he does not classify the resurrection of Christ as a miracle, even though Dr. Ehrman himself admits that it is a highly plausible answer outside his Naturalistic approach of the subject, and 4th) Dr. Erhman presents things outside the scholarly consensus and that is not supported by actual evidence (but Dr. Ehrman is at least honest with his point off view).

The fourth book presented by Atheistmaximus written by David Fitzgerald is built with arguments that have been addressed by scholars and successfully refuted.

"The overwhelming majority of scholars, Christian, non-Christian, atheist, agnostic or Jewish, accept there was a Jewish preacher as the point of origin for the Jesus story simply because that makes the most sense of all the evidence. The contorted and contrived lengths that Fitzgerald and his ilk have to resort to shows exactly how hard it is to sustain the idea that no such historical preacher existed. Personally, as an atheist amateur historian myself, I would have no problem at all embracing the idea that no historical Jesus existed if someone could come up with an argument for this that did not depend at every turn on strained readings, ad hoc explanations, imagined textual interpolations and fanciful suppositions. While the Myther thesis is being sustained by junk pulp pseudo scholarship like Fitzgerald's worthless little book, it will remain a curiosity on the fringes of scholarship good for little more than amusement." - Tim O'Neill atheist amateur historian.

"The false dichotomy established in the first chapter is continued in the second, entitled "Myth No. 2: Jesus was wildly famous - but there was no reason for contemporary historians to notice him ... " Fitzgerald insists that there are elements in the story of Jesus which should have been noticed by historians of the time and insists that there is no shortage of writers then who should have recorded some mention of them:

There were plenty writers, both Roman and Jewish, who had great interest in and much to say about (Jesus') region and its happenings .... We still have many of their writings today: volumes and volumes from scores of writers detailing humdrum events and lesser exploits of much more mundane figures in Roman Palestine, including several failed Messiahs. (Fitzgerald, p. 22)

Now, potentially, that is a pretty solid argument. If we did indeed have "scores of writers" from Jesus' time with such an interest in Jesus' region and who wrote about "failed Messiahs" then it would certainly be very strange that we have no contemporary mentions of Jesus. Unfortunately, as we will see, this is one of several places where Fitzgerald lets his overblown rhetoric run well ahead of what he can then actually substantiate." - Tim O'Neill
atheist amateur historian.

*Peer Review - is a process where a book, journal, etc. is submitted to the editor, and the editor sends the manuscript to one or two scholars who are intimately acquainted with the sub-discipline to which the manuscript belongs. They are the author's peers. They have the power to reject a piece that is flawed in its methods, resources, attitude, format, use of secondary literature, coherence of argumentation, logic, analysis, use of ancient languages, etc.
Debate Round No. 4
atheistmaximus

Pro

What could possibly make the desire to have disobedient children killed any f*ck*ng better? You f*ck*ng moron! Really just how does a f*cktard Christian make the killing of children better? Please enlighten us?

I am done with you and your dumb questions. Someday this will be really then you and your ignorant mates can cry on Fox News about how you are persecuted and then later have the Christian thugs deface it.

I am so tired of f*cking Christians. The romans do not exist. The lions are in zoos. You are the actual persecutors!
thinkingaboutit

Con

To close:
For those who may read and further explore the subject.

1) The old testament reference implied by Atheistmaximus is part of a set of laws given to the ancient Hebrews. Please note it was a LAW, not a COMMANDMENT, just like any capital punishment law that states/countries have are a warning. Does this mean that governments are in expectation for someone to commit a crime in order to execute them? I think the logical answer (not the emotional one) would makes us see that laws (regardless of how harsh they may seem to us individually) are attempts to prevent a crime and have the potential offender consider the consequences.

2) What was the culture of the time like? 12/13 year olds were considered adults in the society of that day. At that time they were carrying spears and fighting wars, having children, etc. As emotional as we may get by comparing and contrasting their time to children of our time we need to follow this logically (not emotionally).

3) How was the law applied? The elders of the city were the judges who made the final judgments, they were the court.

So if a child rebelled against their parents, they were not IMMEDIATELY stoned, they were taken to court. Most likely to insure a fair reasonable trial.

I hope we could all see beyond emotional piece of this argument, althought it may seem difficult.
Thanks for the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
Pro used insults, not ani form of anything useful. Bad conduct. Swears were common and Con was the opposite of this. GJ Con.
Posted by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
Did you say the Romans didnt exist?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually refuted and (partially) addressed atheistmaximus' case while all atheist did was to insult Pro, make nonsensical comments, "The romans did not exist", all of which were subject to an amusing study by thinkingaboutit...
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arument is pretty lame... and the language issue was enough to lose him the other aspects of the debate.
Vote Placed by CAPLlock 5 years ago
CAPLlock
atheistmaximusthinkingaboutitTied
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: Con GMV comments