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

Modern Day Christians Oppose The Bible.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 4 votes the winner is...
Christopheratheist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,353 times Debate No: 14157
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (60)
Votes (4)

 

Christopheratheist

Pro

First I welcome whomever accepts this proposal and wish them well in this debate.

My argument will be based upon the Old Testament as well as the New Testament coupled with the actions of the modern day Church, I would ask my opponent to stay within these bounds and avoid side step the propositions put forward. I would like to take this moment to also say that this debate is not about the existence of the Christian Deity, in fact I want my opponent to act as if the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity are proved, for the sake of argument.

Pro Argument

By looking at the scripture it is fairly easy to see that many of the modern day Christians do not conform to the Biblical Christianity, and in fact many would reject various verses, I am yet to see a denomination of Christianity where they adhere to one hundred percent of the Biblical Passages.

I will highlight a few of the following issues to show examples.

1."Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death" – Proverbs 23:13 – 14 (See also 13:24, 22:15 and 20:30)

Under this verse it tells us that we should not hesitate to spank, and in some versions of the bible Spank is replaced with "Beat". This issue is made worse by the fact that Romans 13:1 – 7 tells Christians to Submit to the government, but that government should not contradict god's word, Biblical speaking we can find in many other placed in the Bible places where Physical Discipline is in the best interest of the child. Most modern day Christians Campaign against the very thing the Bible states is good for the child.

The most likely rebuttal by my opponent will be that either "The Old Testament is outdated" At which point I would point to Matthew 5:17 – 19 in which Jesus states he did not come to change the laws set by Moses and the Jews.

2.Slavery is believed by the majority of Christians to be wrong in the eyes of God. However all over the Old Testament and the New Testament we find evidence that slavery is generally accepted in the eyes of God, but disliked, God at no point states that it is a Sin to own a slave but in fact lays down the laws for them! Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2,

The bible even goes on to a place where Jesus clearly approves the beating of slaves. Luke 12:47-48

3.Many Christians will tell you that there is never a reason to Murder anyone and in fact will claim that any Murder is against god and a Sin. Again this is a statement where they destroy the fundamental beliefs of the bible, and oppose the very teachings put to them by god! Exodus 22:17 (Kill the Sorceress's) Leviticus 20:10 (Adultery) 2 Chronicles 15:12-13 (Kill Non-Believers) Leviticus 24:10-16 (Blasphemy) Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:24-32 (Kill the Homosexuals and Infidels) The list goes on and on.

This is but a small look at the way in which the Christians directly defy the teachings of the Bible and if my Opponent so wish's I will list more.
vardas0antras

Con

O Observations
The title cannot be true because its self contradictory "Modern Day Christians Oppose The Bible.". If you oppose the bible then you're not a Christian, naturally.

"I want my opponent to act as if the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity are proved, for the sake of argument." No problem.

My opponent has the burden of proof.

O Pro Argument

1."Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death" – Proverbs 23:13 – 14 [ (See also 13:24, 22:15 and 20:30) I will exclude those since I can make my point with one verse besides anyone can add thousands of erroneous verses]

o Meaning of this verse
Its better to have a good child then an imprisoned child. Now if the child is reasonable and not wild then we can use Paul's advice " Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. " Colossians 3:21

"Most modern day Christians Campaign against the very thing the Bible states is good for the child." Perhaps you mean child abuse ? Indeed, child abuse is frowned upon for good reasons but child abuse does not equal corporal punishment. Which is still practiced legally (in some places of the world):
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The most likely rebuttal by my opponent will be that either 'The Old Testament is outdated' "
You brought up a good point. The times are changing, the law and Jesus teachings remain, however, due to changing times the way we apply the teachings of the Bible may change. In the times of the old testament and many centuries after proverbs was written, one was not counted as successful if he had the best stable of horses or the most lavish house but if one had a full stomach. Many, many people struggled with survival hence corporal punishment was more of a necessary solution than a option unless you don't want to address the problem at all. Nowadays in first world countries we can use the alternative methods though as the proverb passage suggests we shouldn't become soft - that would be a terrible mistake.
http://arkh.files.wordpress.com...

2."However all over the Old Testament and the New Testament we find evidence that slavery is generally accepted in the eyes of God"

Hebrew slavery:
1.In extreme poverty, they might sell their liberty (Leviticus 25:39).
2.A father might sell his children into servitude (Exodus 21:7).
3.In the case of bankruptcy, a man might become servant to his creditors (2 Kings 4:1).
4.If a thief had nothing with which to pay proper restitution (Exodus 22:3-4).
In all of these cases slavery is not forced but is a mere solution. Number two is not technically an exception since what kind of father would do that ? Someone who would abuse their child or even murder them (considering the times he can give an adequate excuse to himself though its still immoral). Yes, Yahweh did provide laws such as ""He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)".

Indeed, the word "slave" is very broad word. Also the this poor child:
"2.A father might sell his children into servitude (Exodus 21:7)."
Will not suffer this:
"And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."Exodus 21:26-7

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Galatians 3:28
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3."Many Christians will tell you that there is never a reason to Murder anyone and in fact will claim that any Murder is against god and a Sin."
There's a difference between murder and kill:
http://www.godandscience.org...

I will address the first and the last example for the sake of space besides I don't have to answer every example to prove my point.

"Exodus 22:17 (Kill the Sorceress's)" =
Firstly its verse 18 and not 17. Secondly, "This was considered a severe enough threat that sorcery was considered a capital crime. The link between drugs and the occult was rightly seen as deadly." David Guzik

"Romans 1:24-32 (Kill the Homosexuals and Infidels)" =
Where does God command death. It does say that they deserve death, however, not as specifically as my opponent wants you to think:
"being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them."

A Bible commenter:

"This begins a passage where Paul describes the sin and corruption of the pagan world with an amazing directness - so direct that Spurgeon thought this passage unfit for public reading. "This first chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is a dreadful portion of the Word of God. I should hardly like to read it all through aloud; it is not intended to be so used. Read it at home, and be startled at the awful vices of the Gentile world." (Spurgeon)

Obviously, people who follow Christ or have not seen Christ but their heart loves the law of God won't die nor will their ways disappear which is why they are alive with God ; they are life. Sinners are not so, they are like chaff and their deception and obvious spreading of misinformation shall grant them eternal death. Amen. (Inspired by the first psalm).

Thank you all and please spread this.
Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 1
Christopheratheist

Pro

My opponent is yet to refute any of the claims successfully for reasons which I will point out to you now, before I begin I would like to address what a Modern Day Christian is, I would class this as anyone alive within the last fifty to a hundred years who claim to adhere to the word of Jesus, this being something which covers any denomination of the Christian Church and individuals.

That being said let me first comment on the observation given by my opponent which needs to be addressed.

Q-"The title cannot be true because its self contradictory "Modern Day Christians Oppose The Bible.". If you oppose the bible then you're not a Christian, naturally."

My Opponent has indirectly here asserted that: -

1)To be a Christian you must follow the bible.
2)Christians follow the Bible
3)If The Modern day Church's refute fundamental ideals which reside in the bible.
4)No modern day Church is Christian.

Now the result of this debate puts into question the entire premise of which my opponent is arguing and if Pro wins, will conclude that in fact as with every other Christian my opponent is indeed following something other than Jesus and the Bible.

Now let me move to the refutations my opponent has made on my claims, I will deal with each of the three points in order to avoid any confusion. He has also given me the authority to rule out many denominations … if not all.

Point 1 – Physical Discipline of the Child.

Refutation 1

Q-"[ (See also 13:24, 22:15 and 20:30) I will exclude those since I can make my point with one verse besides anyone can add thousands of erroneous verses]"

As my opponent refuses to deal with these verses, I will assume that my opponent accepts them to point that they are evidence that the Bible advocates Physical Discipline in any way shape or form. He however claims them to be erroneous and with no evidence does he back this statement up, Can the readers not see that my opponent has read these verses and finds himself doubting he can truly convince anyone it means otherwise.

Readers what my opponent is doing here, is seeing truth in my words but is scared to admit that truth and so is doing as many Christians, Islamists, Hindus ect do and closing his eyes to these and giving Assertions to keep his faith.

Refutation 2

Q1-"Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death"

Q2–"Its better to have a good child then an imprisoned child. Now if the child is reasonable and not wild then we can use Paul's advice "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. " Colossians 3:21"

My opponent has given me an explanation from this verse… stating that it means its better to have a good child than a imprisoned one. May I ask quite exactly where this verse says such? To me and I am sure readers who are paying careful attention, there is nowhere in this verse that what my opponent is describing as the meaning is showed, it is very clear cut about its intent, use Physical Discipline as it will better the child.

To the other Verse he has given me "Colossians 3:21", I would like to point out that we would not use physical discipline on the child if they behave and obey, My opponent merely points out the obvious that physical discipline will not be used when the child is in a state of good behaviour. I would like to point out that all his verse says is not to Abuse the right to physical discipline but does not counter the claim that physical discipline is wrong.

Refutation 3.

Q-"Most modern day Christians Campaign against the very thing the Bible states is good for the child." Perhaps you mean child abuse ? Indeed, child abuse is frowned upon for good reasons but child abuse does not equal corporal punishment."

My opponent here has clearly stated child abuse yet this is not the subject matter the subject matter is physical discipline, Now the resource he has given me shows and I do not know how he can see this as "Most of the World" In fact over half of the countries listed here do not advocate any physical discipline, and about a third is dominated by countries who have banned such in schools, there are only around three countries remaining where physical discipline is accepted in its entirety.

Refutation 4.

"The times are changing, the law and Jesus teachings remain, however, due to changing times the way we apply the teachings of the Bible may change."

My friend let me point you and the readers to Matthew 5:18. The law will not change until everything is resolved! (This includes Revelations.) My opponent has just rejected this verse so as I explained at the beginning by his own admittance my opponent has indirectly attacked the foundations of his faith.

Point 2 – Slavery

Refutation 1.

In this section my friend gives examples of Slavery as Hebrew, It does not matter how slavery comes about it is still the removal of liberty from the person, and there are a mass of Modern Day Christians who oppose this in any form, does my opponent want to tell us all that he is Pro-Slavery in certain circumstances? Perhaps we may see the ethics of the bible coming into reality after all but the morality of them is for another debate.

Q – "2.A father might sell his children into servitude (Exodus 21:7)."

Q – "Number two is not technically an exception since what kind of father would do that ?"

My opponent here forgets about the father that has other children, they are starving they are on the point of death, the father loves his son/daughter but is forced to sell them into slavery due to the financial needs of his other children. Some may say this is an honour for the child sold, But since when is a child in the point that he has the knowledge or the understanding to lose their liberty! This is a disgrace against all that we call Human Rights, an organisation heavily backed and funded by Christian Organizations! Fortunately Modern Day Christians see this.

Anyway evidence Christians are refusing to conform to the Bible and Slavery.
http://www.christiantelegraph.com...
My opponents entire argument about the rules of the slaves is Irrelevant as I have stated in my first argument that the bible puts rules down, it matters not how they are treated but the fact they have lost there dignity and Liberty, a point Modern Day Christians understand.

Point 3 – Muder

Due to my Opponent stating "There's a difference between murder and kill:"
•Definition of Murder: - kill intentionally and with premeditation; "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered" or "God ordered Homosexuals and Sorceress's Murdered"
Evidence - http://www.google.co.uk...

His link does little to help him in his argument.

Thank you my dear Opponent!

Q-""This was considered a severe enough threat that sorcery was considered a capital crime. The link between drugs and the occult was rightly seen as deadly." David Guzik"

I owe you a debt of gratitude for you have made my job a lot easier, I may have had to look that up myself but you gave it to me like a child in a candy store. Anyhow Most Modern day Christians look back in horror at the actions of killing Witch's ect and would never allow such a thing, yet you yourself have given me a explanation that shows me and the readers that the Bible condones Murder.

Refutation.

Quote - "Where does God command death"

Simple answer to this is that you go back and read the verse, if god is telling you they are deserving of death then you may well give it to them, not only this but read between the lines and you will see it is a clear order for death.

On a final note – I am unable to answer the Commenters subject due to low letter count but will do in the next argument. Not only due to his non-acceptance to answer the remaining versed in this section I
vardas0antras

Con

"Can the readers not see that my opponent has read these verses and finds himself doubting he can truly convince anyone it means otherwise."
And I am still a Christian ? The fact is I am too lazy to go through every verse for fun. I am enjoying this debate but that doesn't mean - I enjoy wasting time. Look, if my points cannot apply to some verse in the Bible then show it to me but if my points can apply then I see no need. "Readers what my opponent is doing here, is seeing truth in my words but is scared to admit that truth and so is doing as many Christians, Islamists, Hindus ect do and closing his eyes to these and giving Assertions to keep his faith." I find that funny. How did you come to that extreme (very extreme) conclusion ?

Point 1 - Physical Discipline of the child.
According to my opponent:
"Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death" – Proverbs 23:13 – 14
+
" Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. " Colossians 3:21
=
use Physical Discipline as it will better the child.

Just how can you come to that conclusion ? Even if we take the proverbs verse in isolation, would a child that behaves or at least has some problems be in danger of death ?

"his verse says is not to Abuse the right to physical discipline but does not counter the claim that physical discipline is wrong." I don't see a reason to comment...

"there are only around three countries remaining where physical discipline is accepted in its entirety." I support the banning of physical discipline for the reasons I mentioned just after I said that.

"My opponent here has clearly stated child abuse yet this is not the subject matter" Readers ponder this point.

"My friend let me point you and the readers to Matthew 5:18. The law will not change until everything is resolved! (This includes Revelations.) My opponent has just rejected this verse so as I explained at the beginning by his own admittance my opponent has indirectly attacked the foundations of his faith."
At what point did I choose to change the law ? You may likewise say that Christians should keep Sabbath with this train of logic. Ill say two things to end this:
1) Law itself doesn't have to be changed for the way it is apllied to change.
2) Old Testament was for the Jews.
3) Proverbs is a poetic book... I suppose if it were a law instigator, I should walk with a straight back:
"Whoso walketh uprightly shall be saved: but he that is perverse in his ways shall fall at once." Pro. 28:18
http://www.jesus-pictures.net...

Point 2 - Slavery
"It does not matter how slavery comes about it is still the removal of liberty from the person"
How ? Are suggesting that one may not have another choice ? That may be true but suicide due to poverty is worse than enslavement. Readers please note that we're not talking about slavery which Early Americans bestowed upon black people but we're talking about a whole different genre of slavery (in a positive way, obviously)

Human Rights:
My opponent wants a dead child over an alive child. Or, he wants a starving child over a not-hungry child. A disabled child via beating over the alternative. I question his morals.

"Anyway evidence Christians are refusing to conform to the Bible and Slavery."
Then he gives a link which has to do with a completely different type of slavery...What a waste.
Deuteronomy 15:12-13 " And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty"
http://www.biblegateway.com...
Plus all I said previously.

Point 3 - Murder
"Thank you my dear Opponent!" I'm glad you're excited ... Though you should calm down.
" Anyhow Most Modern day Christians look back in horror at the actions of killing Witch's ect " You're telling me that they would want a drug dealer be free ? Wow.
"if god is telling you they are deserving of death then you may well give it to them,"
The first video. Its not my fault you have never read a verse from the Bible.

Cheerio
Debate Round No. 2
Christopheratheist

Pro

I will admit when I read my opponents response and watched the video, not only was I somewhat disappointed with the amount of red herrings he through out, the fact that he is still not refuting the verses [1] even though he has been asked twice now, I will take this as a statement of concession, and so should the audience for if he can not rebuke my claims he admits defeat. Not only all this so far my opponent has sadly fallen astray of the topic at hand, he has even made an attempt to throw the topic of the debate in to something completely different to undermine this all together. This my readers is a desperate act and I hope I am not the only person to see this, and believe me it is not the first time I have seen such an action take place.

Now back to the points. I will spend a very small time showing you all how pointless and wasted round two was for my opponent.

Point one – Physical Discipline

Q - "Just how can you come to that conclusion ? Even if we take the proverbs verse in isolation, would a child that behaves or at least has some problems be in danger of death?"

Thanks for repeating me. I will answer this with a quote from myself. But as an extension to it, I would like to point out that the verse says he is in danger of death, not me, again you refute that which you believe.

Q - "To the other Verse he has given me "Colossians 3:21", I would like to point out that we would not use physical discipline on the child if they behave and obey, My opponent merely points out the obvious that physical discipline will not be used when the child is in a state of good behaviour."

Ok my opponent then goes on and mention's that he sees no point to comment, I think it is time to show him the difference between Child Abuse and Physical Discipline, as he seems to think Child Abuse is Physical Discipline, even more evidence that he goes against this point.

Child Abuse - physical, emotional, or sexual abuse of children, usually by parents, relatives, or caretakers. See also battered-child syndrome, under syndrome.

Physical Discipline - Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable. ...

Anyway all this is irrelevant he proves that he is against it and thus I am correct as he himself if a Modern Day Christian.

Q – "I support the banning of physical discipline…" (The rest is not needed as it just tries to say the bible is self contradictory)

Point Two – Slavery

Q – "Are suggesting that one may not have another choice ? That may be true but suicide due to poverty is worse than enslavement. Readers please note that we're not talking about slavery which Early Americans bestowed upon black people but we're talking about a whole different genre of slavery (in a positive way, obviously)"

Again my opponent forgets the purpose of the debate he walks in and tries to show me that there are rules to the slavery, I knew that I said that at the beginning and last round, it is clear my opponent is unable to give me any reason why I or the readers should think otherwise when it comes to the claim that Christians oppose the Bible.

Q - "My opponent wants a dead child over an alive child. Or, he wants a starving child over a not-hungry child. A disabled child via beating over the alternative. I question his morals."

This is to try to deter the debate onto a subject of morals, the subject or morals are not the subject and so thus I do not need to comment, It again appears my opponent is struggling to prove anything and is trying a desperate attempt to try to make others follow his misconceived concept of the Bible.

Q – "Deuteronomy 15:12-13 " And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty""

Again a pointless statement, not on the subject matter, he in fact proves my statement that Christians should believe in Slavery and if I was to show you some of the rules of slavery set down by the bible as he is content on doing so, I would bring up the verses which authenticate Killing of slaves and if my opponent so wish's there is one verse which is sickening to every man I will show him, but if he wish's he may concede this debate beforehand.

Point Three – Murder

He offers no Refutation here.

I will bring in another point the next round, for now I want my opponent to stop avoiding the issue, and to combat it head on, if he refuses yet again then I will take that as a concession.

Vote Pro

[1] - [ (See also 13:24, 22:15 and 20:30)]
vardas0antras

Con

"he is still not refuting the verses" Until you show me how these verses make my points erroneous, I have no desire to waste my time.

"This my readers is a desperate act and I hope I am not the only person to see this, and believe me it is not the first time I have seen such an action take place." I suspect you're a troll, believe it or not.

Point one – Physical Discipline
"Thanks for repeating me" You refuted your own points? Swell.

"as he seems to think Child Abuse is Physical Discipline" =/= "child abuse is frowned upon for good reasons but child abuse does not equal corporal punishment." How did you get that idea is beyond me.

"Anyway all this is irrelevant he proves that he is against it and thus I am correct as he himself if a Modern Day Christian." I am not against the Bible ?!?

"I support the banning of physical discipline…" (The rest is not needed as it just tries to say the bible is self contradictory)" This is my chief proof that my opponent is a troll. I have stated previously that the law does not change but the way we apply it changes due to changing times.

"1) Law itself doesn't have to be changed for the way it is apllied to change.
2) Old Testament was for the Jews.
3) Proverbs is a poetic book... I suppose if it were a law instigator, I should walk with a straight back:
"Whoso walketh uprightly shall be saved: but he that is perverse in his ways shall fall at once." Pro. 28:18"

Point 2 - Slavery
"I knew that I said that at the beginning and last round, it is clear my opponent is unable to give me any reason why I or the readers should think otherwise when it comes to the claim that Christians oppose the Bible."
What are you trying to say ? Didn't you just quote "Are suggesting that one may not have another choice ? That may be true but suicide due to poverty is worse than enslavement. Readers please note that we're not talking about slavery which Early Americans bestowed upon black people but we're talking about a whole different genre of slavery (in a positive way, obviously)".

"This is to try to deter the debate onto a subject of morals"
Obviously a moral law which produces more good is supported by all people (with few exceptions).

"but if he wish's he may concede this debate beforehand." To a troll ? No, I have pride.

Point 3 - Murder
My opponent ignores this one ?!?

Anyhow I feel that I am being trolled here.... Please vote Con because all you need is read the first round to refute every word that guy says. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Christopheratheist

Pro

Dispite the fact my opponent has directly attacked me with a lie and tried to make this debate personal, let alone ruin it altogether. I will not lower myself to that standing, so I will conclude my argument and urge the readers to vote pro.

Number one – This Troll Buissness

Q - "Please vote Con because all you need is read the first round to refute every word that guy says. Thank you"

You have failed to do this, others would have failed.

Number two –

Q – "I suspect you're a troll, believe it or not."

Thanks for the support on joining the site, perhaps what you could do is be more civil to new members rather than try every attempt to run them out of town.

Number Two –

Q – "You refuted your own points? Swell"
Point was to prove to the rest of us that Christians follow these points, you failed. Vote Pro

Q – "This is my chief proof that my opponent is a troll. I have stated previously that the law does not change but the way we apply it changes due to changing times."

The fact that he is opposed to Physical Discipline proves this debate he opposes the Bible. Thank you.

Number Three : -

Q - "Point 3 – Murder My opponent ignores this one ?!?"

You refuse to debate this point.

Now readers I was going to continue my argument but my opponent has fallen into disarray because he has realised the truth of my words and the only way for him to win is to spiral and spread vicious beliefs about me. So without further a do, I conclude my argument.

Vote Pro.
vardas0antras

Con

First, I would like to apologize to my opponent and especially to the readers for my conduct. If you could vote bad conduct against both of us - you undoubtedly should. I have changed my mind about him being a troll but as far as this debate is concerned, there's no difference. Perhaps this is because he's inexperienced or perhaps I got fiery way too fast. Many misunderstandings did happen, now Ill tell you all why you should vote for me. Again, I'm sorry for this. However, do understand that I don't want this, in fact I hoped for an enlightening response...

1. Physical discipline

In round 1 my arguments are the following:
0. I will deal with extra verses if you can show me how they contradict my points.
1. It is better to have a good child then an imprisoned one.
2. There's a difference between child abuse and corporal punishment.
3. The Old Testament was written in different times.
My opponents response:
0. "As my opponent refuses to deal with these verses, I will assume that my opponent accepts them to point that they are evidence that the Bible advocates Physical Discipline in any way shape or form"
1. "it is very clear cut about its intent, use Physical Discipline as it will better the child"
2. "To the other Verse he has given me "Colossians 3:21", I would like to point out that we would not use physical discipline on the child if they behave and obey, My opponent merely points out the obvious that physical discipline will not be used when the child is in a state of good behaviour. I would like to point out that all his verse says is not to Abuse the right to physical discipline but does not counter the claim that physical discipline is wrong."
3. The law doesn't change

Now, immediately one can see about three big problems here.
0. He refused to show me verses which contradict my points. If you can't show me that then the natural assumption is that they are accord with my points.
1. Just how ? This is the stuff that made my rather angry, just how did he come to that conclusion ? I don't feel like typing right now but hey you gotta do what you gotta do.
2. This is what the Bible says... " I would like to point out that we would not use physical discipline on the child if they behave and obey,". You right there refuted your own argument.
Hence, I win even if we ignore:
"3) Proverbs is a poetic book... I suppose if it were a law instigator, I should walk with a straight back:
"Whoso walketh uprightly shall be saved: but he that is perverse in his ways shall fall at once." Pro. 28:18" "
Also:
"The fact that he is opposed to Physical Discipline proves this debate he opposes the Bible. Thank you."
Just how ! You have a law and then you have different ways of applying it... How does another way of applying the law change the law ?

Point 2 - Slavery
He completely ignored this in his final round. I showed how Hebrew slavery is a completely different thing from the slavery blacks suffered from American for example Hebrew slavery was voluntary and if a Hebrew slave was murdered by the owner then likewise the owner would die. This is getting short but if you have read the first round then you are equipped to win this debate yourself.

Point 3 - Murder
He makes few dumb assertions like "if god is telling you they are deserving of death then you may well give it to them," which I refute and I showed to everyone that witches weren't girls in Halloween costumes or women that stood out but they were more like drug dealers. This was especially dangerous in ancient times and death penalty is justified. Then he proceeds to say "You refuse to debate this point". I am now feeling sick from the lies...

I don't know if my opponent is a troll but I do know that I would rather never debate him again nor do I recommend anyone to challenge him in any case be my guest if you do want to challenge him. Yes, my conduct went down again, sorry but as you can see I hate this debate. To my opponent: good luck in improving ! To the readers: vote con ! To myself: I ought to stop for its bad for my health.

Cheerio to all
Debate Round No. 4
60 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Answer the question please :)
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"If thats your view fine, but I had better not find you ever using OLD Test law, to support a moral position, and I am sure you rebuke christians that use old test law to support various moral positions right ?" You trollin' ?
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
LOL You do realize that the old testament was made for Jews in ancient times ?

If thats your view fine, but I had better not find you ever using OLD Test law, to support a moral position, and I am sure you rebuke christians that use old test law to support various moral positions right ?
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
"you see X only applies in situation A, situation A does not exist here, therefore X does not need to be obeyed." Yes but the chief point remains. "Bible says Jesus says give all that you have to the poor ? well you see that only applies in situation X, thus it doesn't have to be obeyed." LOL You do realize that the old testament was made for Jews in ancient times ?
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
Con let the cat out of the bag when they said "however, due to changing times the way we apply the teachings of the Bible may change"

You should of exposed what this really means in practice, what it means is, there is something in the bible lets call it X, which I am against and thus do not follow. But I don't want to admit that, so I need a justification, you see X only applies in situation A, situation A does not exist here, therefore X does not need to be obeyed.

Bible says Jesus says give all that you have to the poor ? well you see that only applies in situation X, thus it doesn't have to be obeyed.

Bible says kill the homosexual, its God law, it must be obeyed or it only applies in situation X thus it doesn't have to be obeyed.

Bible says kill the sabbath breaker, well it only applies in situation x, thus it doesn't have to be obeyed.

Bible says X, .......if you don't want to obey it, then its only applies to situation x, if you do want to obey it, its the holy law of the holy God and must be adhered too.
Posted by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
" Each seemed to be simply stating the other was incorrect, but not enough sufficient examples from either to prove so. However, the bible verses which Pro quoted was not sufficiently, refuted,which was important for Con to win the debate." Are you mad ? When did I simply state that my opponent is wrong ? AN example please. AND HOW were the verses not refuted ? Explain !
Posted by Fatihah 6 years ago
Fatihah
Pro's opening statement was not thoroughly refuted to suggest that he was wrong. I would say that both debators' rebuttals were not very strong in refusing the other. Each seemed to be simply stating the other was incorrect, but not enough sufficient examples from either to prove so. However, the bible verses which Pro quoted was not sufficiently, refuted,which was important for Con to win the debate.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Christopheratheist, though I agree with you on the topic you chose some quite poor examples of Christian irreligion; you also shown an incomplete knowledge of NT-OT coherency. Futhermore I'm shocked that when in came down to the original mesnings of the terms neither of you cited the classical vulgate bibles.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
I think the meaning of the resolution is important to the debate, and neither side did much to clarify the meaning. The common sense meaning of "oppose the Bible" is "are against the preponderance of teachings of the Bible." What Pro seems to have in mind is "Christians do not obey all the teachings of the Bible as written." What Con argued is "Christians obey the teachings of the Bible as they now understand them." Both sides, I think, made their points, but, again, what was the resolution? I think the burden of making a clear resolution is on the instigator, and since Con's interpretation is reasonable, I voted arguments to Con. Christians interpret the Bible, not oppose it.

If morality is transcendental, how can God have a different morality in the Old Testament and in the New Testament? That's along the lines of situation ethics. However, that's a different debate.
Posted by Wendivere 6 years ago
Wendivere
Firstly I should like to say I have found this debate interesting - at least until towards the end when it became personal. As a Christian I can see no wrong with the physical chastisement of a child so long as it is done with love and not anger - and it was pointed out that there is a HUGE difference between "beating" and "abuse". Another comment I should like to make is ... "if god is telling you they are deserving of death then you may well give it to them,". Err no. As a Christian, I believe it is ok for God himself to be judge. If He finds someone deserving of death, this doesn't mean we can carry it out. I believe only God has the power to judge and so therefore it is noone's place to take it into their own hands. At the end the whole debate becomes a bit muddled and lost. However, sadly I tend to agree with Pro for the most part. God's word cannot be changed to fit current times... And it seems it has.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 6 years ago
gavin.ogden
Christopheratheistvardas0antrasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Vote Placed by Fatihah 6 years ago
Fatihah
Christopheratheistvardas0antrasTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Christopheratheistvardas0antrasTied
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 RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Christopheratheistvardas0antrasTied
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