Resolved: A sequel to the Bible, "The Bible II", should be written
Debate Rounds (3)
2000 character limit, so choose your words wisely
Booga Booga Booga
1) There hasnt been a new one for over 2000 years!
The old Bible was written in ancient times and many of its scriptures are horrendously outdated, such as the part about sacrificing a sheep for God's favor and stuff like that. With a sequel, the Bible will be able to be better understood and accepted by society since it would be given a more modern touch.
2) Update to what God really wants
I think everyone can agree that 'Thou Shalt Not Rape' should be a commandment more then 'Thou Shalt Not Lie', and marriage has come a long way then what the first bible says it to be. Marriage is no longer a system where a dad can trade her daughter to a stranger twice her age in exchange for 3 goats and a chicken like the time when the Bible was written. With a new Bible we could have better laws like 'Thou shalt not beith a douchebag' and 'Thous shalt not let your kid scream on a plane and act like nothings wrong'....
3) Religion can now clearly address its stance on stuff like abortion and Gay Marriage
With a new Bible, people would no longer be forced to interpret thousand year old meaningless texts for their argument about why something is or isnt against ones religious beliefs, which would please bible wavers and bible burners alike
4) We would have better authors
The old Bible was written primarily by farmers and goat herders, but in an intellectual society like ours we could get far smarter people to once and for all decide what God does and doesnt condone. I think everyone would love the idea of Richard Dawkins and Steven Hawkings giving their thoughts on God and stuff
5) We could correct errors found in the first one
The Bible is full of inaccurate claims that causes many to believe it is full of sh*t. With a new Bible we could fix those errors, admit that they were wrong, and focus on stuff that is actually important instead of the alleged creation of the universe in 7 days (which we all know is horse sh*t tbh)
1) There hasn't been an a new one for over 2000 years
As the Bible is moreso a historical account of events, it's not entirely accurate to say there hasn't been a new one. We use church tradition as like a modern oral version of the Bible, but it's not necessary these traditions get written down.
2) Update to what God really wants.
The Bible isn't a book that is written like a philosophical treatise. It is an account of history of the Jewish nation, and it is the best historical document we have from antiquity. Also, God is described as unchanging, so if we can understand what God's intentions were in the past, we can conclude as to what they would be in the present.
3) Religion can now clearly address it's stance on stuff like abortion and Gay Marriage
Jesus said "Love God with all your heart, mind, and sould; and love your neighbor as yourself". This is the religious stance on everything, and when religious people try to make specific claims about what the religious stance should be, they end up breaking those two rules.
4) We would have better authors
The Bible was not written only by poor poeple, it was written by a large array of people, from simple farmers to great kings. People will always be curious as to what ancient mankind thought about God, and honestly, not too many people really care about what modern people think of God. Everyone has their own opinion, but the origins of religious thought are generally more appealing.
5) We could correct errors in the first one
The bible isn't a book full of theological errors, it is an historical account written by ancient mankind who did their best to write down what was actually happening. With archaeology we can make assumptions on whether these events happened or not, but we can't definitively prove it one way or the other.
Works of antiquity are a great marvel. We wouldn't ever want to write a sequel to the Iliad, to the Arabian Nights, etc, because it would diminish the value of what the originals stand for.
1) 2000 years Without a new one
" it's not entirely accurate to say there hasn't been a new one"
Yeah it is, all versions are based on the same crap from earlier ones, its kind of like inbreeding, which im pretty sure is also in the Bible
2) Update to what God really wants.
"Also, God is described as unchanging, so if we can understand what God's intentions were in the past, we can conclude as to what they would be in the present."
But we didnt understand what God's intentions were in the past, so that there defeats your argument.
3) Religion can address more modern dilemmas
"Jesus said "Love God with all your heart, mind, and sould; and love your neighbor as yourself". This is the religious stance on everything"
That doesnt f*cking answer anything though. Youre just doing what every other religious butt-pirate has done in the past where they take one barely related passage, interpret it to an irrational degree, and try to sell it to others. If a Bible II was made then it could directly address what people should believe on modern issues with all this ancient scripture bullsh*t.
4) Better Authors
"and honestly, not too many people really care about what modern people think of God"
Um hello, there are tv shows dedicated purely to religion where pastors give their opinion on what they think of God and his actions every day every hour! People desperately seek what others think of God because they dont have all the answers themselves.
5) Fix errors
"The bible isn't a book full of theological errors"
Yeah it is:
"Works of antiquity are a great marvel. We wouldn't ever want to write a sequel to the Iliad,"
The Iliad isnt used to launch Holy Wars or denounce entire religions though. With a book as influential as the Bible, its important to MAKE SURE ITS ACTUALLY ACCURATE.
Pro: "Yeah it is, all versions are based on the same crap from earlier ones, its kind of like inbreeding, which im pretty sure is also in the Bible"
Whether you believe in Darwinian Evolution or Creationism, you still have to recognize that either way, we came from inbreeding. Creationism teaches that Adam and Eve were created perfect, so mutations didn't come into effect until many generations later, thus nullifying bad defects from inbreeding. However, from evolutionary thought, we would have started off with bad mutations, and the inbreeding would have all of humanity be immensely defected.
Pro: "But we didnt understand what God's intentions were in the past, so that there defeats your argument. "
But we did understand his thoughts in the past. They are written in the Bible. It really actually isn't hard to understand at all what it is saying, but some people purposely misinterpret it to make it say what they want to say.
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw (http://atheistempire.com...)
Pro: Religion can address more modern dilemmas"
There is nothing more simple than doing unto others than what you would want unto you. It's pretty straightforward, and it's adding to that which causes people to lose sight of the value of simplicity.
Pro: People desperately seek what others think of God because they dont have all the answers themselves.
This is not true. I have many answers and I do not desperately seek out to others. What you are assuming is demeaning to the general population.
Pro "The bible isn't a book full of theological errors"
You attempted to disprove this by providing links to websites that have no training in religious thought or Biblical exegesis. An ignorant person cannot make claims in which they have no understanding of.
Pro "Holy Wars"
People will kill others regardless of religion.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||1|
Reasons for voting decision: While I wouldn't be interested in a "The Bible II", Much of what Con said didn't really address what Pro was saying. Conduct to Con since Pro is just fooling around.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.