The Instigator
AndyHood
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
DreamilyMidnightBlue
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

One of these four statements must be true...

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
AndyHood
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 73286
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

AndyHood

Pro



One of these four statements must be true:

1]
God does not exist
2] God's rules are sometimes wicked
3] The bible is sometimes not representative of God's rules
4] Owning and beating people is not wicked


Argument

God's rules, as recorded in the bible, sanction slavery.

Leviticus 25:44-46
Your male and female slaves are to come from the
nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
You may also buy some of the temporary residents
living among you and members of their clans born
in your country, and they will become your property.
You can bequeath them to your children as inherited
property and can make them slaves for life.

Exodus 21:20-2
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod
must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but
they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a
day or two, since the slave is their property.

1 Peter 2
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your
masters, not only to those who are good and considerate,
but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if
someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering
because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your
credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure
it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this
is commendable before God.

Now, I know that many Christians don't like the use of the word "slave" in these translations and argue that "servant" is a better word. I could go into all of the technical, historical and linguistic reasons why "slave" is the right word... I could give you definitions of the word "slave" so that you can judge for yourself from exactly what the bible says and whether you agree that "slave" is the best word to describe what the bible is talking about. But I don't need to... if you wish to read "servant", that's fine by me... but we are still talking about servants who can be bought and sold, kept for life, left to their master's children, beaten to within an inch of their lives AND, were they to die three days after a severe beating (from infected wounds, for instance) then they are to take comfort in the fact that their continued subservience is commendable before God... all the while knowing that their masters are to receive no punishment.

Since the bible says that God's rules sanction owning and beating people, it logically follows that one of the following is true:

1] God does not exist
2] God's rules are sometimes wicked
3] The bible is sometimes not representative of God's rules
4] Owning and beating people is not wicked

I challenge any Christian to pick which of those four statements is true (one must be). Go on... see if you can see which of those four statements is true... if you pick 3, just remember that when you use the bible to justify an idea such as "homosexual acts are abhorrent to the Lord"! If you think that homosexual acts are abhorrent to the Lord because the bible tells you so, then you have to accept that it pleases the Lord that slaves are beaten almost to death. Anything less is hypocrisy.


Nature of the debate:

I'm hoping that nobody is going to take this debate on but, if they do, Con will be arguing that it is not logically sound to conclude that at least one of the four statements I've made is true.


Oh how I wish the World wasn't such that this debate will inevitably be taken up soon...
DreamilyMidnightBlue

Con

The Bible is not written by God himself.

Keep in mind the Bible was written by scholars and is based on the word of God. So, by default, there are going to be many different interpretations as to what the text means as well as what God was meaning in certain verses and chapters.

There is absolutely no way to describe the word of God within these four statements, because not only is the presence of God only presented in the Bible, but he is also present within churches, temples, priests, and teachers.

The Bible is the representation of God, however one had to understand that cultural ideals and situations are not applicable to God and his laws. For example, Joseph in Egypt was sold as a slave . Does that mean God was accepting of slavery? Absolutely not. God does not deny nor affirm the acceptance of slavery.

One key portion of this debate is that there are many different versions of the Bible. Also what about the Qu'ran? King James I? There are many different versions of God, you cannot judge one version of God and deny the presence of him altogether. And you cannot compartmentalize him into four different statements where only one is true.
Debate Round No. 1
AndyHood

Pro

Thanks for accepting the debate.

I think that you're making it somewhat easy for me so far, to be honest, starting the way that you did:

"The Bible is not written by God himself. Keep in mind the Bible was written by scholars and is based on the word of God. So, by default, there are going to be many different interpretations as to what the text means as well as what God was meaning in certain verses and chapters."

It seems to me that your position fits very neatly into category 3:

3 The bible is sometimes not representative of God's rules

Or am I wrong? Would you mind, if I'm wrong, plainly stating the logical alternative please? i.e. "The bible is always representative of God's rules". It appears to me from what you've said that you can't agree with the latter statement and therefore must believe the first.


---


It strikes me that what you must do to win this debate is one of two things:

1. Show that this statement is false: "God's rules, as recorded in the bible, sanction owning and beating people."
2. Demonstrate that there can be any position that doesn't fall into one of my four statements.

So far, it seems to me, you have attempted to do neither.
DreamilyMidnightBlue

Con

I think you may have misinterpreted my position on your argument. If you had fully read it through, you would've understood that Christianity is not the only religion in which Heavenly Father is depicted as well as his divine rules and commandments.

But for the sake of making it easy, I will reference other places where the Bible depicts that we are equal in the eyes of God.

In the Bible, I quote "We are all God's children". The Bible states we all have a divine purpose. Another quote from Jesus, the son of God, in the New Testament says, "As I have loved you, love one another." Or, "Love thy neighbour."

Taking certain verses in such books as Leviticus or anything within the Old Testament can be subject to opinion and are somewhat pertaining to the cultural time. God clearly demonstrates his rules in which he wants his disciples and his children to follow.

Therefore, I believe I have disproved your third statement.

1) God does not exist.
I am going to disprove this statement by fact and fact alone. How many people are believers in a God? Whether they be Muslim, Christian, Baptist, Jewish, nondenominational, etc. There are way too many miracles that occur on a daily basis to disprove a higher power. This debate is very much about opinion and not fact, but for the purpose of staying within the boundaries, I am going to say that God is believed by many and it is impossible to falsely persuade so many people into believing such things.

2) God's rules are sometimes wicked.
God's rules are not wicked (not by far if I can say). Yes, Heavenly Father has commanded his children to do bad things, and has done hurtful things himself ( the plagues, other examples if you wish). God has not ever done something that was wicked, and he has only done what was NEEDED. "The greatest good for the greatest number," a famous quote by Bentham I should remark.

4) Owning and beating people is not wicked.
Now, who would need to ask something like this? Of course it is wicked to beat your neighbour, and since we are all equal in the eyes of God, I would suggest that owning slaves and therefore beating slaves is against his rules.
I have read over the quotes listed inside of your portion of the debate, and I will further say, what is being referenced here can be read metaphorically or literally. 1 Peter 2 does say this, however it also can be seen as following your savior. Fear in this time when it was written did not mean actually fright, but rather peaceful love and submission.

I will say this in a way that will not deny number three, but the Bible in this period was TRUE to the time, and not to ours. I am definitely not saying the Bible doesn't necessarily represent God all of the time, but rather that the Bible is also very cultural and is an insight into the time of King James I, since this is the version I am reading out of.

Also, the view of slavery has been very twisted in today's society. Slaves loved their masters, and masters also cared for their slaves. I will create an analogy to compare this to. In the 1950s, parents hit their children to teach them lessons, and many still had bruises. Now I am not speaking of actual abuse, but in that time that was seen as a natural way to punish and did not indicate the level of care or love. Parents loved their children, and the children loved their parents.

Slavery in that time was not seen as actually "owning" someone. If you truly owned something, you could do whatever you want with it, and that is definitely denied here when you say " as long they can recover in a day or two." Yes, they were viewed as property, but not the same type of property seen in today's society.
Debate Round No. 2
AndyHood

Pro

If anything, I think that you may have misinterpreted my argument.

My four statements were constructed such that logically, given the assumption, at least one of them had to be true.

Consider that logical argument with this analogy:

The book "Stories about some bloke called Bob" says that Bob thinks that hitting people with spanners is acceptable [assumption A].
THEREFORE one of the following statements must be true:
[1] - Bob doesn't exist.
[2] - Bob's ideas are sometimes nasty
[3] - "Stories about some bloke called Bob" does not accurately retell Bob's true position
[4] - Hitting people with spanners is not nasty

One is logically forced to choose one of those statements as true, if the premise is accurate... this can be demonstrated thus:

ALL FOUR STATEMENTS CANNOT BE SIMULTANEOUSLY FALSE BECAUSE THEIR OPPOSITES BEING TRUE LEADS TO A LOGICAL CONTRADICTION:

IF Bob exists [1']
AND Bob's Ideas are accurately reported by "stories about some bloke called Bob" [3']
AND "stories about some bloke called Bob" says that Bob thinks hitting people with spanners is acceptable [A]
AND Bob's ideas are never nasty [2']
AND Hitting people with spanners is nasty [4']
THEN We have arrived at a logical contradiction.

One of those things HAS to be false.

We have to believe the assumption [A]. That stays where it is and stands on its own merit. Since [1'] and [2'] and [3'] and [4'] cannot all be true then at least one of [1],[2],[3] and [4] must be true.

This is simply deductive reasoning and is logically guaranteed.

Now, I'll spell the argument out for you in the biblical case more verbally and less technically:

Our assumption is that the bible says that God sanctions owning and beating pople.
Notice the definition of sanction by typing "define:sanction" into Google.
"sanction" in context was being used as a verb, so we'll take the first definition from Google of what the verb "to sanction" means:
"give official permission or approval for (an action)"

So, this is the assumption:

The bible says that God gives official permission or approval for owning and beating people.

If it's true then where does the following line of reasoning go wrong?

The bible says that God gives official permission to own people and beat them[A]. Owning people and beating them is wicked [4']. The bible always represents God's rules [3']. God's rules are never wicked [2']. (God exists [1'])

[1'], [2'], [3'] and [4'] cannnot all be true because this doesn't make sense:

An extant God who we hear accurately in the Bible is sanctioning slavery in his rules, which is wicked, but God never rules wicked things.

So, we HAVE TO resolve this dilemma only by one of five methods:

a) Decide that "the bible does not say that God rules it's okay to own people and beat them"
b) Decide that "God doesn't exist"
c) Decide that "God's rules are sometimes wicked"
d) Decide that "the bible sometimes get's God's rules wrong"
e) Decide that "owning and beating people is not wicked"

You really can't say "no" to all of those. You HAVE to say "yes" to one of those.

If you have said "no" to all of those, you've got a logical contradiction.

One of those statements HAS to be true. It MUST be true that either:

[A'] The bible does not say that God rules it's okay to own slaves
[1] Or God doesn't exist
[2] Or God's rules are sometimes wicked
[3] Or The bible sometimes misrepresents God's rules
[4] Or Owning and beating people is not wicked

Which of those statements is true? Do you accept the logical argument that one of them must be? I really don't care which one you PERSONALLY pick... everybody has to pick at least one, though, otherwise they cannot be logically consistent.

Do we agree that the bible reports that God says it's okay to own and beat people? I've cited the verses... and it WOULDN'T MATTER if the bible contradicted itself later and also directly said "slavery is bad" (which it doesn't), because that simply reveals that either God's rule is alterable (and sometimes wicked [2]) OR the bible misrepresents God's rules sometimes [3].

There is no way out, logically. It is necessary to be of the opinion that ONE of the statements is true.

You seem to be trying to show that ALL of my "assertions" are false. They are not assertions that I want all to be true; I'm not claiming [1] through [4] are all true, only that one of them must logically be so.

Am I right in judging your answers to be the following?
You accept that [A] is True so the bible reports that God's law includes not punishing people for owning and beating other people
AND you think that [1] is False so God definitely exists
AND you think that [2] is False so God's rules are never wicked
AND you think that [3] is False so the Bible is always representative of God's rules
AND you think that [4] is False so owning people is wicked

Therefore your position is illogical. All of those positions cannot be simultaneously right, but you hold them all. Do you not see the problem with that? One of your conclusions must be wrong. Which is it?
DreamilyMidnightBlue

Con

Why must one be true? If you truly created your position to DEBATE, and put me in a paradox where I have to argue which one is true, why create the debate in the first place? As stated above, I was able to argue all 4 statements being false AT THE SAME TIME without contradicting any of the other statements. If I truly messed up and it is evident within my previous argument, then it is purely your job to state where my logic was not sound.
1) God does not exist
2) God's rules are wicked
3) The Bible is not representative of God's rules
4) Owning people isn't wicked.
I had stated my position in a way where none had contradicted each other. Therefore your argument in this debate has to do one of two things. 1) You need to reference exactly where my reasoning was off, or 2) You have to argue my position on one of the four statements. IT is not my problem to find exactly where my logic was not sound, because then I would be making this debate easier for you.
Another thing to consider is the fact that the Bible is not only a story of God, but also John, Joseph, Moses, Adam, Joshua, etc. So not only are there different stories, but different perceptions, different circumstances, different CULTURE. Following the law of the land is one of God's rules, and that is yet ANOTHER way to deny your position of 2) and 4).
So I would like for you to argue my position and not have me do all of the dirty work.
Debate Round No. 3
AndyHood

Pro

There is no paradox!

One must be logically true if the assumption is true because:

IF God exists and has rules that are never wicked and if those rules are recorded faithfully in the bible and those rules sanction owning poeple and beating them THEN owning people and beating them must not be wicked. But you say that it is wicked.

SO,

If you agree that owning and beating people is wicked, where is the point in that last story where the logic breaks?

You can only really identify a few key points... either the bible does not, in fact, sanction owning people and beating them... or the bible does not faithfully record God's rules... or God's rules are sometimes wicked... or God does not exist.

Unless you can see any other gap in the logic?

I'll spell it out in half-steps (forgetting the need for the "God exists" bit, because I assume that you're not challenging that!:

IF God has perfect rules AND those rules are recorded faithfully in the bible THEN the bible has perfect rules
IF the bible has perfect rules AND the bible sanctions brutal slavery THEN brutal slavery is acceptable.

Do you see my challenge to you to break the logic?

You must either think that brutal slavery is acceptable (at least in some circumstances)
Or you must think that the bible doesn't say "brutal slavery is acceptable (at least in some circumstances)"
Or you must think that the bible is not the literal word of God (at least in some parts)
Or you must think that God thinks that brutal slavery is acceptable (at least in some circumstances)

If you think that God has perfect rules
AND you think that God's rules are faithfully recorded in the Bible
AND you know that the bible sanctions slavery
THEN you must think that slavery is part of a perfect ruleset. Do you? Is slavery not fundamentally immoral, per se?

Is your position basically that if God commands (through the perfect medium of the bible) perfectly moral rules then owning people and beating them isn't wicked because God commands it thus? I suppose we could defend this position by arguing that this rule was for a certain group of people in a certain time... but this wouldn't wash because we might ask "how do we know which of the Bronze Age rules still apply"? There would be no reason to believe any moral pronouncements in Leviticus, for instance, and you'd have to revise any position that you held on homosexuality if your justification for that was biblical (unless you wanted to be a hypocrite).

Do you not accept that the bible sanctions the owning and beating of human beings?

Maybe instead you think that the bible isn't exactly the direct word of God; slavery might be some slip-up that made it into the Bible because of the prevailing thinking at the time... but then, again, you'd need to stop citing Liviticus to justify positions on homosexuality, for fear of being branded a hypocrite... unless you could give us a reliable method for determining which of the Bronze Age rules did "slip in" in this way and which were literally God's laws.

Or maybe you question even the suggestion that "God is sometimes wicked" and claim this is false, despite the fact that he created and commanded a World in which SLAVERY was acceptable (owning and beating someone half to death) according to His own book. Maybe you are forced to admit that you think that brutal slavery is sometimes morally acceptable?

How can you think that {God exists}, {His rules are never wicked}, {the bible records His rules perfectly}, {the bible says that brutal slavery is okay} and yet still think that brutal slavery is wicked?

You cannot hold all of those positions simultaneously and remain logically consistent!
DreamilyMidnightBlue

Con

DreamilyMidnightBlue forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
AndyHood

Pro

I'd like to remind Con of what I said in round 1:

Nature of the debate:

I'm hoping that nobody is going to take this debate on but, if they do, Con will be arguing that it is not logically sound to conclude that at least one of the four statements I've made is true.


The resolution itself is very plain indeed; it is simply that one of the following four statements must be true:

1] God does not exist
2] God's rules are sometimes wicked
3] The bible is sometimes not representative of God's rules
4] Owning and beating people is not wicked

This is all because the bible makes it plainly clear that beating slaves half to death is acceptable behaviour.

I really don't see how one could argue against this resolution; it doesn't seem to me that Con has even understood the proposition and tried to argue against it:

Con says "The Bible is not written by God himself"
This clearly means that Con agrees with my third statement.

But Con is not so straightforward, claiming "Therefore, I believe I have disproved your third statement."
Which implies that Con does not agree with this:
3] The bible is sometimes not representative of God's rules
Which implies that Con DOES agree with this:
The bible is always representative of God's rules

Con is very clear that God exists.
Con is very clear that God's rules are never wicked.
Con is somewhat clear that the bible is always representative of God's rules.
Con agrees that it is wicked to beat a man nearly to death.

But one cannot hold all of those positions wihtout logical contradiction!

Con seems to be under the illusion that owning slaves is against God's rules. Here's a direct quote:
"Of course it is wicked to beat your neighbour, and since we are all equal in the eyes of God, I would suggest that owning slaves and therefore beating slaves is against his rules."

How illogical can one person be? If it were true that beating slaves was against God's rules AND it's true that the bible always represents God's rules, how can one explain the following quotations?

Leviticus 25:44-46
Your male and female slaves are to come from the
nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
You may also buy some of the temporary residents
living among you and members of their clans born
in your country, and they will become your property.
You can bequeath them to your children as inherited
property and can make them slaves for life.

Exodus 21:20-22
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod
must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but
they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a
day or two, since the slave is their property.

An important point to consider
I would like to point out that even if there was a verse in the Bible (and there is not one) that directly said "Thou shalt not keep slaves", this would do nothing to escape the inevitability of one of the four statements being true... because if the bible sometimes said "slavery's okay" and sometimes said "slavery's not okay" then the third statement becomes true by default... the bible must not be representing God's laws accurately (disagreeing with yourself about something cannot be said to be accurate portrayal).


The bible clearly states that it's okay to own slaves. It repeats that message time and time again. Despite this, my opponent is quite happily telling us that he does believe that the bible accurately represents God's laws and that God's laws are against slavery!!!

I think, therefore, that I should win the debate by default for Con being so logically inconsistent. I'm going to end with another Biblical citation which I think shows even more emphatically that the bible is pro-slavery:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you.

Is this representative of God's perfect moral law? To enjoy the spoils of war, including taking women and children as slaves?
THAT IS WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS YOU.

It is therefore not possible to avoid one of the following concepts:

1. There is no God.
2. God sometimes makes some ****ed up rules.
3. The bible doesn't always represent God's rules.
4. Slavery is not a ****ed up thing.

That is to say that you can't believe that all of those statements are simultaneously false... for to do so would be to believe that the logical opposites of those statements were true, namely:

God exists.
God never makes ****ed up rules.
The bible is the inerrant Word of God.
Slavery is a ****ed up thing.

You just can't have all four of those at the same time... because... the bible does say that slavery is okay; indeed, it even lays down the law in regards to how much you are allowed to beat your damned slaves. And, did you know, it never retracts this foul pronouncement... not once. Jesus says that he "comes not to change the Law"; he is specifically referring to the Mosaic Law, laid out in the first five books of the bible (attributed to Moses, hence "Mosaic Law"). But it gets better... if you are one of those Christians who take the line that the New Testament replaces the Old, consider this from the NT:

1 Peter 2:18-20
Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

So, it seems, Con is in direct disagreement with Saint Peter. According to Saint Peter, it is commendable before God that a slave bear up and endure a harsh beating for doing no wrong! According to Con, slavery is against God's rules. Who do you believe? It doesn't really matter who you believe, the important thing to understand is that the bible says some pretty rotten things... so, you have to either accept that God says some pretty rotten things, or you have to accept that the Bible does not always represent God's will. Unless, of course, you'd be happy getting out of this logical conundrum by saying that the bible never says any rotten things... but then you'd have to accept that beating slaves within an inch of their lives wasn't a beastly, rotten and wicked thing to do!
DreamilyMidnightBlue

Con

DreamilyMidnightBlue forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by AndyHood 2 years ago
AndyHood
Nice, Chaosism, nice. I like the tack... unfortunately, I think that I assumed a level of logical competence in my opponent that was, shall we say, a little optimistic. I should have kept future rounds to short, sharp, pithy observations like that... ah well.
Posted by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
Con's Round #2 argument...

"I will say this in a way that will not deny number three, but the Bible in this period was TRUE to the time, and not to ours. I am definitely not saying the Bible doesn't necessarily represent God all of the time, but rather that the Bible is also very cultural and is an insight into the time of King James I, since this is the version I am reading out of."

...does hit the snag of #3. (The bible is sometimes not representative of God's rules"). Very literally using "sometimes", at THIS point in time, it is not representative of God's rules.
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
judgement based on belief is obvius, religion is obvius, lies are obvius :)

telling lies that dosnt exist, how rude..
Posted by AndyHood 2 years ago
AndyHood
@CommunistDog are you a Christian?
If so, do you not find it a bit awkward to be leaning towards the belief that God's rules are sometimes wicked?
Posted by CommunistDog 2 years ago
CommunistDog
Statement two is probably the truest and can easily be supported by the information in the bible (in my opinion).
Posted by AndyHood 2 years ago
AndyHood
Obvious troll is obvious
Posted by vi_spex 2 years ago
vi_spex
beliefs exist, religion exist, lies exist
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
AndyHoodDreamilyMidnightBlueTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con. Pro's logical argument was not refuted.