Law should be wrote based on the Bible
Debate Rounds (4)
My opponent can start and I expect him/her to give reasons for their view. You can use plain logic, verses, studies, examples from history etc.
This is my first official debate. I have no previous experience in debating, other than replying to comments on the web. My grammar may be incorrect at times and I don't want that to get in the way of the debate, so please, try not to ridicule me on my grammar, but rather, my ideas. Good luck and God bless.
"Two cities have been formed by 2 loves. The earthly by the love of self, and the heavenly by the love of God."
If we love God and respect him, we will be rewarded. If a community upholds his laws, then that community will be blessed.
Biblical law is common sense. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life" is a common-sense solution to our crime problem. Few people would commit violent crimes if that was the penalty. God knows that these harsh penalties are deterrents. That is why we should have law based off of the Bible.
Now I will state my argument. God's main purpose for man was to give him free will. He expects us to do the right things without being forced to. I believe if law was based on the Bible, many people would only follow the law because there are immediate consequences here on earth. Man should follow God's words regardless of consequences on earth, be it good or bad.
My next point is that the Christian faith is divided on a number of issues in the Bible. Think of the differing interpretations of the 6 page constitution. Now multiply that by 200 pages or better. The law would, in no way, be clear enough to justify its means.
It appears that you would be in favor of using Mosaic Law. I believe that "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is unbiblical based on the New testament and the fulfillment of prophecy. I believe Jesus taught against this type of vengfull thinking. As is clear in our differing views on biblical law, society would be very divided. It would be similar to our current partisan separation, except that when faith is involved, people will be much less passive. I believe we would be in constant civil war. This would eventually lead to the corruption of God's word,and that is nothing neither of us want. This is a verse that I believe supports my side of the debate; "When the wicked surround the righteous, the law becomes ignored, justice is never upheld, and wrong judgment is rendered." Hab. 1
Corruption is inevitable in government, therefore the bible will become corrupted based on its alignment with law.
It's true that Jesus was against revenge and was in favor of compassion for the poor and needy. However, he also advocated that people owned swords(self-defense). While ceremonial and ritual laws(like prohibition of pork) are cancelled under the new Testament, I think that Jesus still supported basic moral laws. Justice doesn't need to be vengeful: we shouldn't feel happy or satisfied because a killer has been put away. However, it should be our responsibility as society to promote morality: we are not animals, we are human beings. (I am strongly opposed to Darwinism) It's not vengeful to demand justice for those who deprive another person of their right to life.
Corruption is a result of us becoming astray from the Bible. Corruption and immorality has increased rapidly since the theory of Evolution was introduced. The evil pagan Charles Darwin has turned countless people away from religion on completely unsettled science. Moral relativism and feminism did even worse harm to society. God knows our tendency to go astray and that is why he had harsh rules in the Bible. I think that restoring some of them would restore respect for the law and improve morality. Corruption is a possibility, but I would put my faith in the citizens of America to hold their leaders accountable.
I don't agree that people would follow the law "in love of God". There are many people that now that know the law of God and still choose not to follow them. Forcing these people into abiding by laws would, in no way, make them love or respect God any more than they already do.
You also contradict yourself in saying the Bible(prohibits people from hurting each other) and then go on to promote "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". You also say only ceremonial laws are cancelled under the NT, and that Jesus supported basic moral laws. I would assume you to believe "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is a basic moral law. Jesus did not support this, in fact, taught against it. Mathew 5:38-39 "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'[f] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."
You say society should promote morality. Simply promoting morality is not the same as legislating it. Morality can not be forced upon someone. Here is quote from a theologian, Mark Lower, "Further, Law is ordained to the common good...But some behave well in things regarding the community, who behave ill in things regarding themselves. Therefore it is not the business of the law to make men good."
Since I have limited space, I can't add much more in terms of refuting your arguments, but I would like to make the point that man has no power to enforce God's law. "the eternal law is not subject to the judgment of man". St. Augustine also supports my side.
I kind of just chose this topic because it was the only available one to challenge.
wisdomseeker forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by curious18 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave up.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.