The Instigator
Avatar7777777
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
gusgusthegreat
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Mormonism is as valid a Christian form as any other Christian sect.

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...
gusgusthegreat
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,822 times Debate No: 12289
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (3)

 

Avatar7777777

Pro

I want someone to challenge me. I'll make my first arguement sweet and simple:
Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
Mormons profess the teachings of Jesus Christ, so they must be Christians.
Remember, the debate is to discredit Mormon faith on Mormon grounds. Otherwise, this debate means nothing.

Secondly, only debate if you actually know a decent amount about Mormonism. I want a real debate, not a debate with an ignorent anti-Mormon who dosen't know a thing they're talking about. If you are opposed to a religon, at least know a decent amount about it.
gusgusthegreat

Con

I'd like to thank Pro for instigating this debate and wish him my regards in the oncoming debate.

Pro's argument, as of yet, hinges on the idea that Mormonism professes the teachings of Jesus Christ and that they are therefore Christian. On the surface, this seems perfectly reasonable. "If we teach Christ's teachings, we're obviously Christian!" Pro's definition of Christian is indeed accurate, as confirmed by Wikipedia: "A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity. Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament (http://en.wikipedia.org...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...)." Where his argument fails then, is in the idea that Mormons profess Christ's teachings.

However, it must be noted that one of the main tenets of Mormonism, made clear in the eighth of thirteen Articles of Faith (a set of creeds written by Joseph Smith Jr. defining fundamental beliefs), is that the Bible is true and believable only insofar as it is translated correctly:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God (http://www.lds.org...)."

Since this is the case, how can Mormons claim to be Christians if the teachings of Christ they profess have every possibility of being inaccurate?

The Joseph Smith Translation (JST), an attempt by Joseph Smith Junior to repair inaccuracies in the Bible and included at the back of each Bible issued by the LDS Church, in fact, only contains a portion of the many revisions made by Joseph Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The full set of revisions can be found in the Inspired Version of the Bible used by the Community of Christ. Additionally, these JST scriptures, referenced by footnotes throughout the main body of the King James text, have not been officially canonized as part of the LDS Church's standard works. The absence of the Joseph Smith Translation in Church canon is quite obvious when visits this link: http://scriptures.lds.org...

The ONLY parts of Joseph Smith's revisions that have been canonized are in the Pearl of Great Price: Joseph Smith—Matthew and the Book of Moses. Indeed, it has been stated by the Church itself on December 7th, 2974 in it's "Church News" that: "The Inspired Version does not supplant the King James Version as the official Church version of the Bible, but the explanations and changes made by the Prophet Joseph Smith provide enlightenment and useful commentary on many biblical passages (http://www.lds.org...)."

Thus, we have found that Mormonism tries to "repair" the teachings of Christ and other Bible passages. Among these reparations are changes to the teachings of Christ and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the New Testament. Recall that pro stated in his argument that a Christian is someone who "professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." Pro seems to think that the teachings of Christ are an entity that Christians and Mormons alike can agree on. However, if two groups of people have different conceptions of what Jesus Christ actually taught, how can they both be Christian? If Christianity professes one set of Christ's teachings (and presumably calls these teachings "Christian") while Mormonism professes a reconstructed set of Christ's teachings, how can it be said that both are Christian?

Let's look at an example of another work that claims to agree with Christ's teachings, but cannot be said to be Christian because it eliminates and reconstructs elements of Christ's teachings as they are found in the Bible.

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it was formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of the United States and a deist, to remove any and all references to the supernatural from the New Testament. "The Jefferson Bible begins with an account of Jesus's birth without references to angels, genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus' resurrection are also absent from the Jefferson Bible. The work ends with the words: 'Now, in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.'" The work, in its entirety, is 46 pages long, as compared to the 400 or so page New Testament found in the LDS scriptures. This book does indeed contain teachings of Jesus. However, these teachings have been heavily modified and slimmed down. Would a religion using this book as it's Bible be considered Christian? Of course not.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

In summary, while Pro claims that Mormonism professes the teachings of Christ, and is therefore Christian, Mormonism does not even believe that the Bible accurate in its description of Christ's teachings. Furthermore, Mormonism's attempt to repair inaccuracies in the Bible, including the New Testament, has only been canonized in two instances, leaving much of it to be used only as a supplement and entirely omitting other portions. Not only does this give the idea that the Church doesn't quite take its founder and prophet seriously, but it also means that they have modified key elements of Christ's teachings. Again, recall that both Wikipedia and Pro state that a Christian "professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." If the teachings of Christ can't even be agreed on, how can we determine who is Christian by the aforementioned criteria? If Christianity at large teaches Christ's teachings as found in virtually all versions of the Bible while Mormonism teaches an entirely different set of Christ's teachings composed of heavily modified King James Version passages, how can both be Christian as defined above? They simply can't.
Debate Round No. 1
Avatar7777777

Pro

Thank you for your post

If I am correct (I may not be), than con's arguement is composed of 3 points:

1.Mormons believe the Bible to only be the word of God if it is translated correctly. The Bible is possibly incorrect, than how can it be considered to be the true word of God?
2. Mormons haven't canonized most the JST translation they confess
3. If Mormons and other Christians have different ideals concerning Christ's teachings then they can't both be Christain

1. The Bible has been proven over and over again to have mistranslations. Several Middle Aged historians, before Martain Luther had begun the reformaion, noticed that the Bible had many instances and and inserts that could not have been given in the day of Christ. For example, Christ, in one version, speaks of the feudal system and other aspects of Middle Aged culture. However, the feudal system (and many other aspects of Middle Aged Culture) had been created hundreds of years after Christ's mortal ministry. Furthermore, there are teachings of the Bible that contridict each other. For example, whether or not God tempts men:
"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (GEN 22:1)
"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (JAS 1:13)
Furthermore, the Bible was translated from Hebrew to Greek to English, etc. Monks had to constantly handwrite translations day after day after day. Out of hundreds of years of translating and writing in such a manner it is extreamly likely the Bible was mistranslated multiple times.
Finally, while Mormons may have 'changed' aspects of the Bible, Prodestants have taken out of the Bible. Books of the Bible not in Protestant Bibles but in Catholic Bibles include Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, and Sirach, just to name a few. Furthermore, there are litterally hundreds of different interpritations of the Bible other than the JST. Translations include but are not limited to: The original King James, The American King James (http://www.angelfire.com...) , and the New Cambridge Version (http://www.cambridge.org...). Joseph Smith was not the only English Biblical Translator aside from King James. To say Mormonism is not a valid Christian sect due to a different translation of the Bible is to discredit the vast majority of Christianity due to different interpritations of the Bible. A few examples include:

Matthew 6:13: The Lord's Prayer traditionally ends: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." This seems to have been absent from the original writings. (http://www.bibletexts.com...)

Matthew 17:21 is a duplicate of Mark 9:29. It was apparently added by a copyist in order to make Matthew agree with Mark. But Mark 9:29 also contains a forgery; this makes Matthew 17:21 a type of double-layered forgery. (http://www.bibletexts.com...)

2. The RLDS has copyright laws. If the LDS church takes most rights of the JST translation it will be sued and rights to translate the Bible in the correct format will be taken away anyways. Mormons understand this.

Mormons take Joseph Smith and other prophet's words extreamly seriously (in doctrine, at least. Not all Mormons, like any religon, practice the doctrine they beleive in). A Mormon scripture mastery states that whether it 'comes from the mouth of God or out of his servents, the prophets, it is the same'. That is to say that if a prophet states a beleif on 'the stand' (that is to say, in a setting sugjesting he was directed by God, such as General Conference) it is the same as if God said it himself. Mormons, whether or not they are allowed to have it, only beleive in the Bible in so far as it is translated correctly according to Mormon doctrine.

3. Christianity is full of denominations that disagree with each other. A few examples include:
-The Beleif of the source of doctrine.
-Catholics: Bible, church fathers, popes, bishops; Seven Ecumenial Councils; Trent, Vatican, and other Catholic councils
-Orthodox:The Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, along with Sacred Apostolic Tradition." Seven Ecumenical Councils.
-Prodestant: Bible alone
-The Trinity
-Catholic, Orthodox, and most Prodestant: "The mystery of the Most Holy Trinity is the central mystery of the Christian faith and of Christian life."
-Lutheran: "We teach that the one true God. is the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, three distinct persons, but of one and the same divine essence, equal in power, equal in eternity, equal in majesty, because each person possesses the one divine essence."
(http://www.religionfacts.com...)

Those are only a couple of examples, I'd be happy to give more

If you wish to continue to debate over Mormons and the Bible, I'd be happy to. If you also wish to bring up other doctrines, I'd be happy to debate those as well.

If all possible, could you allow time to not expire on my debate time before the end of 6/27/10. I will, unfortunatly, be gone from Monday until then. I might have time to check and debate tomorrow, but I'm not sure.
gusgusthegreat

Con

I will label my arguments according to the numerical ordering of Pro's rebuttals in the above round despite extra, somewhat unrelated content in each section.

1. Pro first affirms that I was correct in stating that the Mormons do indeed claim that the Bible is not reliable nor the inerrant word of God. He goes on to point out a few examples of where the Bible contradicts itself or has been mistranslated. This presentation of contradictory and mistranslated scriptures is futile, as his overall argument here does not make any sense. He presents what he thinks is evidence that the Bible is mistranslated, but whether or not the Bible really has been mistranslated or not is simply not the issue. The issue is whether or not Mormons affirm that the Bible has been mistranslated. Pro and I have made it abundantly clear that this is, in fact, the case. How can Mormons claim that they believe in the teachings of Jesus just like everyone else, but simultaneously deny that anything in the Bible is completely accurate?

This is equivalent to reading the encyclopedia, telling your friend that you agree with and believe everything the encyclopedia says about a given topic, but at the same time denying that the encyclopedia is accurate concerning this same topic. It simply doesn't make sense. Similarly, Mormons can't claim they agree with all of Jesus's teachings, tell Christianity at large that they do, and simultaneously claim that the Bible (the only source common to both Christianity and Mormonism which contains Christ's teachings) is inaccurate.

Pro's next contention essentially says: "Protestants are considered Christian and they, too, have made major alterations to the Bible. Therefore, Mormons can be considered Christian even though they have made alterations to the Bible."

As Pro says, Protestant versions of the Bible (including the King James Version) are missing 7 books that the Catholics include: Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (or Ecclesaisticus) and Baruch. However, each and every one of these books was included in the Old Testament. (1) As such, they don't contain Christ's teachings, Protestants hold to the same set of Christ's teachings as Christianity at large, including the Catholic Church, and no infringement has been made by either dogma to our established definition of Christianity.

Next, Pro provides a couple examples of where the Bible has been translated differently. However, both examples Pro provides are such minor changes that they do nothing to change any teachings of Christ in the New Testament.

Furthermore, we can be sure that current New Testament translations (which contain the teachings of Christ) are accurate because "there are tens of thousands of manuscripts (about 24,000 to be precise) from the New Testament, in part or in whole, dating from the second century A.D. to the late fifteenth century. These manuscripts have been found in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Turkey, Greece, and Italy." 99.5% of all the text in each of these 24,000 ancient manuscripts agrees with one another. In contrast, only 643 copies of the Iliad have been found and agree with one another in only 95% of the text. (3) "Thousands of early Christian writings and lexionaries (first and second century) cite verses from the New Testament. In fact, it is nearly possible to put together the entire New Testament just from early Christian writings." (2) Due to our vast collection of ancient New Testament manuscripts and their mutually affirmed validity, scholars have confirmed that our current Bibles do not deviate from their predecessors. As such, any changes to the New Testament text, such as those made by Mormonism in the Inspired Version of the Bible and its Joseph Smith Translation are completely arbitrary and do not at all reflect what the original text actually said.

2. Pro next claims that the RLDS Church possesses both the original manuscripts and the copyright for the Inspired Version of the Bible and that this is why the LDS Church does not use it. However, there have been two editions of the Inspired Version published by the RLDS Church: one in 1867 and another in 1944. Unfortunately for Pro's argument, the first edition, published in 1867, is now public domain due to the United States declaring that all copyrights prior to 1923 have expired. (4) Should the LDS Church desire, could easily and legally be used for its own purposes. Bruce R. McConkie, a former LDS apostle and prominent church leader, once that the Inspired Version "is a thousand times over the best Bible now existing on earth." (5) If this is the case, we simply MUST question why the LDS Church doesn't jump on the opportunity to publish the public domain Inspired Version. Again, this gives the idea that the Church doesn't take its founder and his version of the Bible very seriously.

3. Finally, Pro attempts to undermine my argument that, because Mormons and Christians teach fundamentally different versions of Christ's teachings, they cannot both be Christian.

Pro first provides differences in sources of doctrine and interpretations of The Trinity between denominations. However, none of the interpreted Pro has listed modify or contradict the teachings of Christ as Mormonism does. This is because they are just that: interpretations. Let's let the dictionary define the difference for us:

Interpret: To explain the meaning of (6)
Modify: To change in form or character; alter. (7)

Mormonism most definitely modifies Christ's teachings fit its own theology. For example Matthew 23:39 in the King James Version of the Bible (8) reads in stark contrast to the Joseph Smith-Matthew version of Matthew 23:39 (9) which doubles the size of the original verse and adds doctrine.

As such, Pro's suggestion that different interpretations of Christ's teachings put other denominations of Christianity on the same level of Mormonism in terms of Christ's teachings is false. Under our definition of Christianity and Christians, different interpretations of what Christ has said in the Bible are allowable. Modifications to what Christ actually says are not, because this fundamentally alters the teachings of Christ in the Bible, which, as previously discussed, are completely reliable.

In summary, Mormons claim that the Bible is permeated with errors, but also claim that they agree with Christ's teachings as presented in the Bible. However, it is logically contradictory for one to state they agree with Christ's teachings in the Bible, and are thus Christian by definition, while simultaneously claiming that the Bible, the source of Christ's teachings, is full of errors that they do not agree with. Further, Protestants have not altered Christ's teachings and the idea that the Bible cannot be relied upon and that there are excessive mistakes is completely false. Secondly, the Church IS able to use the Inspired Version of the Bible because it has been declared public domain. Finally, Mormonism does not fit our established definition of Christian because they MODIFY the teachings of Christ whereas other religions, which are considered Christian, only make different interpretations of Christ's existing and reliable teachings. Thus, both Mormons and Christianity at large cannot both fall under our established definition of Christian.

(1)http://www.nationalbible.org...
(2)http://www.godandscience.org...
(3)http://www.amazon.com...
(4)http://copyright.cornell.edu...
(5)http://www.lds.org...
(6)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(7)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(8)http://scriptures.lds.org...
(9)http://scriptures.lds.or...
Debate Round No. 2
Avatar7777777

Pro

Avatar7777777 forfeited this round.
gusgusthegreat

Con

Pro previously stated that he would be absent until tomorrow, June 27th. As such, I will refrain from posting further arguments in this round. I'd like to thank Pro for warning me of his absence ahead of time and wish him luck in the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
Avatar7777777

Pro

Thank you for your pateints and excelent arguement. My responce is as follows:

1.The Bible is perfectly written and needs to be kept the way it is
a. By definition, if the Bible is mistranslated it is not perfectly written
b. The encyclopedia is always being changed because not every piece of knowledge is true.
Ex) The dictionary once classified electrons as to be stuck onto atoms like raisins on putting as in J.J. Thomson's Plumb putting model. (http://www.chemteam.info...) However, latter evidence by Ernst Rutherford proved that electrons circle the atom as opposed to being directly attached to it. (tp://nobelprize.org...)
i.My opponent would argue, with all due respect, that if it was proven that the plumb putting model was in the encyclopedia it should be kept there even though it is wrong.
ii.The Bible has incorrect principles and important conflicting doctrines (as will later be proven). If not translated correctly, it cannot be completely a work of God, but partially a work of men. (Rev. 22:18)
2.…each and every one of these books was included in the Old Testament. (1) As such, they don't contain Christ's teachings…
a.My opponent would argue that the Old Testament is less important, or even unimportant because it does not contain teachings of Christ.
b.There are many vital Christian doctrines in the Old Testament, such as….
i.Prophecies of Christ
Ex) Isaiah 11:1-5 (NIV) A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. 2 The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD-- 3 and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; 4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. 5 Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist.
ii.Christ's Doctrine reinforced in the Old Testament (The Old Testament does contain Christ's doctrine)
Ex) Joseph of Egypt's forgiveness of his Brothers
Ex) David's love for his enemy, Saul
1.If it is Christ's actions only that are important in the Bible, why are the Acts of the Apostles included? Christ communicated to the apostles just as he did to Godly men in the Old Testament.
c.There are important doctrines of Christianity in the Books taken out of the Old Testament
Ex) The Book of Tobit is a metaphorical story of Christ and his mission of Salvation (http://www.sermoncentral.com...)
d.Since the Old Testament obviously has important Christian doctrine in it, then why were parts of it taken out by Protestants?
e.If the Old Testament is unimportant to Protestant Christianity, than why do they still have it and teach principles from it as if it were a holy book?
f.To emphasize the above, Christians accept the Old Testament to be the Word of God as well as the New Testament; otherwise it would not be part of the Bible.
3.If the Bible is not mistranslated, both the New Testement and Old Testement have aspects that advocate horrific immorality
a.Old Testement
Ex) Genoside- Advocates it concerning the conquest of Cannan: "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations . . . then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy." (Deutoronomy 7:1-2 )
Ex) Cruel Punishment-If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. (Lev. 20:9)
b.New Testement
Ex) Slavery: Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (1 Peter 2:18)
Ex) Subjigation of Women: Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. (Eph. 5:22-24)
4.It is true I originally put down insignificant contradictions. Here are some more serious ones:
Ex) Concerning Fogiveness:
-Christ claims you may be angary ‘with a cause': Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill….but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment (Matt 5:21-22)
-Latter, when Peter is insulted, Christ commands him he must forgive ‘seventy times seven' times.
oPeter had cause to be angry (he was insulted), yet Jesus did not say it was justified. In fact, he commanded Peter to forgive ‘seventy times seven' times (meaning forgive people no matter what)

Ex) Concerning Christ and Peace
-Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. (John 14:27)
-Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10:34)
5.Concerning variation in translations of the Bible
a.This says it better than I could: (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
6.The vast majority of the JST remains the same as the original KJV. It makes sense that most interpretations of the Bible are nearly identical. However, they are nearly identical. The JST changes parts here and there, but the vast majority remains the same.
7.Christ's moral teachings (ie the way to live your life) are identical in Mormonism and Christianity with the exception of the few minor, unimportant details found as a difference in every Christian sect. If you wish to challenge, I'd be happy to accept.
8.JST translations are in the Back of the modern Mormon Bible. While not typed in, there are ‘footnotes' in retranslated verses that indicate that the verse has a JST. Translated verses are in the Back of the Mormon Bible.
gusgusthegreat

Con

Due to family obligations, my time to post a rebuttal argument to Pro in this round will inevitably expire, as I will simply not have the time to compose it and post it in the next two hours. I hope that Pro and those who read this debate will understand and allow me some leeway in this area.

As the next round will be the last, however, and, seeing how Pro's last posted argument will likely be his last during this debate, I understand completely if Pro wishes to add a few more things to his last argument in the next round.

I apologize for the delay and hope that Pro will cooperate with my time schedule. I'd also like to thank him for his arguments and courtesy during this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
Avatar7777777

Pro

I completely appreciate you informing me of your absence. There is a few last bits of information. I have inquired among multiple church leaders concerning why the JST is not translated inside the Bible and why the translations are in the Back of the Bible as opposed to inside it. They have informed me missionary work would run much smoother if our King James Version was identical (aside from the 'in the back' translations) to the traditional KJV. Furthermore, the differences between Mormonism and other denominations of Christianity all concern doctrine. Moral principles in Mormonism are nearly identical to conservative Christian interpritation of principles. One may look at Mormon past and recongnize polygomy, but every Christian denomination has had its questionable moments. For example, the Catholics once beleived in indulgences, a very morally frowned upon doctrines. Indulgences have recently been removed from Catholic doctrine, but so has polygomy from Mormon doctrine. (Current religous polygomy is practiced by a Mormon breakoff: the FLDS, not Mormons themselves).

Furthermore, Mormonism is not the only type of Christianity that does not take every word of the original Bible as complete and divine truth. Many liberal Christians consider the only 100% knowladge of truth to come from God. Doctrines coming only from the mouths of prophets or apostles in the Bible are considered ideologies worthy of consideration, but not nessisarily correct. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
Finally, if the Bible is considered an 'encyclopedia', than I would like my opponent to explain why these Christians could beleive these verses completely. Furthermore, I would like my opponent to explain how Jesus himself could agree. Finally, I would like my opponent not only to explain how these examples are morally wrong, but how genoside and extreamly harsh punishment (not just unique to the Old Testement. God killed a man in the first few chapters of Acts for not paying a full tithe) are morally acceptable and Christian principles:

"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
1 Timothy 2:12-15
Christians: Mother Terrisa, Joan of Arc, Christian women in general

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (1 Peter 2:18)
Christians: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (He had a docterate in theology, he would know about this), John Quincy Adams, Black Christians in general

In short: if the Bible is taken word by word for what it is than it is extreamly immoral and contridictory. It supports slavery while at the same time God comanded Moses to let the Children of Israel go, it comands women to be submissive to their husbands while the prophetess Deborah comanded the armies of Israel (consisting of men) in the book of Judges, etc. There are many more examples of immorality and biblical contridictions, but enough has been said to understand my point. If one beleives the Bible is an 'encyclopedia' from God one must beleive most of the Bible is a big metaphor or it has been mistranslated. Throughout history it has been proven the Bible has been mistranslated. If the encyclopedia is mistranslated, translating it back is the only way to understand the full truth. If the Bible is completely correct the way it is than God beleives slavery, sexism, genoside, etc. are all justified under the correct circumstances.
gusgusthegreat

Con

gusgusthegreat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by gusgusthegreat 6 years ago
gusgusthegreat
Again, I apologize for my tardiness with the last two rounds and for my very brief responses (posted in the comments) in the last round.

If Pro or anyone else wishes to debate me concerning Mormon issues, I will be most willing to accept. Hopefully, I will be more able to keep up with round deadlines in the future.
Posted by gusgusthegreat 6 years ago
gusgusthegreat
Now, I am NOT saying that the Old Testament as wholly unimportant. It is certainly an important part of Christianity. But it is not the key document of belief for one to be a Christian. Most of Christianity affirms that one need only accept Christ as their personal savior to be saved. This can be done with or without the presence of the New Testament.

3.Next, yet again, Pro presents egregious examples of immorality and contradictions on behalf of God in the Bible. Yet again, I will refer you to my argument in Section 1 and layed out in Round 2. Furthermore, I will point out that all of these verses Pro has provided has an apologetic response to them pointing out how God was justified in his actions or how there is no contradiction. Here is an example of such a source.

Here, I must apologize to my audience and to Pro and end my arguments here. I have only a few seconds left in which to post this argument. I wish my opponent luck in the voting.
Posted by gusgusthegreat 6 years ago
gusgusthegreat
I'd like to thank my opponent for his patience. I will respond to Pro's arguments in the order that he presented them using identical numerical notation. I am short on time so my arguments may not be as detailed as I'd like.

1.Here, again, Pro affirms that the Bible is a very flawed creation, and, again, he confirms the first argument I posed in this debate. If Pro and his fellow Mormons affirm that the Bible is inherently flawed and that the teachings presented therein cannot be wholly trusted to be the word of God, how can they simultaneously claim to agree with all the Christian teachings contained within? One cannot agree with someone if they think the person they are agreeing with is a believer of inaccurate teachings. Because Mormons do this, however, and because Christians and Mormons DO NOT agree upon the teachings of Christ in the Bible and their inerrancy, we must conclude one of two things. A) Mormons are true Christians while Christians are not because they believe in purported "inaccurate" teachings of Christ and, via are definition, are not Christian or B) Mormons are not Christian. For a more detailed layout of this argument, see my argument in Round 2.

2.Here, Pro argues that the Old Testament is just as important to the Christian faith as the New Testament. However, I must remind him that our definition of Christian was "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ." The Old Testament simply DOES NOT contain the teachings of Jesus Christ, as he was not even present on the Earth until the time of the New Testament records. There is nothing vital to Christianity found in the Old Testament that is not reaffirmed or expounded upon in the New Testament.
Posted by gusgusthegreat 6 years ago
gusgusthegreat
AHHHH, crap. I composed my argument and missed my chance to post it by a matter of seconds.

While I realize that it will probably not help my standing at all to do so, I will post the arguments that I was able to to compose in the 10 minutes or so before my deadline here on the comments board.
Posted by Kinesis 6 years ago
Kinesis
I'll be impressed if the Mormon church is still around then.
Posted by gusgusthegreat 6 years ago
gusgusthegreat
Ahh, dang it. :P That's supposed to say "1974", not "2974". :P I apologize to everyone who reads this for the typo.
Posted by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
that's a friendly MANNER for the record. :P
Posted by InsertNameHere 6 years ago
InsertNameHere
Time travel? lol jk. I wish...
Posted by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
I'd just like to remind Con in a friendly matter that it's physically impossible for a statement to have been made in 2974 and quoted in 2010. :D

But seriously, I look forward to this debate and will follow it closely.
Posted by Avatar7777777 6 years ago
Avatar7777777
I suppose I should refer to Mormonism as a 'denomination' as opposed to religon to be politically correct.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Dingo7 6 years ago
Dingo7
Avatar7777777gusgusthegreatTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by Kahvan 6 years ago
Kahvan
Avatar7777777gusgusthegreatTied
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 
Vote Placed by gusgusthegreat 6 years ago
gusgusthegreat
Avatar7777777gusgusthegreatTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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