The Instigator
ThesnamisSorreall
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
SegBeg
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Christians have their religouse rights/freedoms taken away from them?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 435 times Debate No: 92163
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

ThesnamisSorreall

Pro

I feel kind of bad that people keep forfeiting to you, so I thought I would take up this debate to see if I can address what you're thinking.
First, I have to include a disclaimer. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to the idea of taking religious rights/freedoms away from Christians. I will probably post my rational in the comments section after the debate. I agree with virtually the entire planet in saying that to say Christians should be stripped of religious liberty and rights is silly and frankly irrational.
That said, it seems really, really hard to argue pro on this debate, and so naturally I kinda want to give it a go! I also want to see to what degree I am giving fair consideration to the other side, if I do a reasonable job I am probably giving fair consideration to those that disagree with me. If I do an awe full job, I probably am not. So as long as we understand that I am arguing for a position that I think is absolutely stupid, and that virtually everything that is about to come from my mouth are misguided LIES (even my minor points, most likely), I will with that disclaimer begin my opening argument...

Firstly, we must understand that the freedom/right to practice one's religion freely is subject to what a society believes to be right and wrong. The freedom of religion applies ONLY to religion insofar as it is considered right by society. A practical demonstration of this...many use the example of the First Amendment in America. In America, the freedom/right to practice religion is guaranteed, yet terrorists are not allowed to practice their religion freely. They clearly believe a religion (regardless of ones opinion of whether that religion is Islam or a twisted version of it, it is a religion still) that commands them to murder innocent people. So when we deny terrorists the "right" to murder innocent people, we deny them the right to practice their religion freely, correct? And what is the reason for this? The reason is because society in general believes that murdering innocent people is wrong, thus terrorists should not be allowed to do so.
Other examples of this might be how society does not allow religions that might require human sacrifice or extra-legal punishment. Such religions are not allowed to practice their religion freely. Why? Because the practices of that religion are deemed unethical by that society.
So, this is a matter of whether there is anything in Christianity that is considered unethical by society. If there is, it stands to reason that the right/freedom of Christians to practice freely will be subject to the collective morality of society just like terrorism. Let's look at a few examples.

Leviticus 20:13King James Version (KJV)

"13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Wow! This part of the Bible is clearly commanding it's followers to kill homosexuals, is it not? Exterminating homosexuals is generally considered wrong by the societies that believe in the freedom of religion, so in this sense Christians should not have the right to practice fully. Christians should not have the right to murder homosexuals.
Another verse for consideration,
Galations 1:8-9 reads, "8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Acceptance and tolerance of other religions? No! This verse pretty much seems to be claiming that if anybody proposes that the gospels should be different than the Pauline version of the Gospels, they should be cursed.

Just to mention two examples. As a general summary, do Christians believe that what is morally right is what the rest of the world thinks is morally right? No? Then Christians should join the terrorists in having religious freedom stripped, and replaced by the more tempered judgment of the world at large.

(Again, everything I am saying I VEHEMENTLY disagree with and think is utter nonsense. Hence, I want to see if I can get away with it! But that's off the record. I can address my arguments, especially the homosexual one in the comments section if requested.)
SegBeg

Con

I am grateful for you challenging me to this debate. I shall do it wisely.


"Leviticus 20:13King James Version (KJV)


""13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Wow! This part of the Bible is clearly commanding it's followers to kill homosexuals, is it not? Exterminating homosexuals is generally considered wrong by the societies that believe in the freedom of religion, so in this sense Christians should not have the right to practice fully. Christians should not have the right to murder homosexuals."

The problem with this verse is that it no longer applies to Christians today. It is part of the Old Testament Law which only applied to the Israelites and we need not follow the Mosaic Law- we are under a New Covenant- under the law of grace. Verses from the Old Testament are always what atheists like to use to justify their hatred of Christians. I do know that there are loads of Christians ou there who would love to see homosexuals excuted and quite frankly, they are completley wrong. They completley disregard the New Testament where it says, "love they neighbour as they self" (Mark 12:31) and that includes homosexuals. So of course we should not have the right to have homosexuals killed. God won't allow it therefore we won't allow it.


"Galations 1:8-9 reads, "8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Acceptance and tolerance of other religions? No! This verse pretty much seems to be claiming that if anybody proposes that the gospels should be different than the Pauline version of the Gospels, they should be cursed."

Again, this is not what the verse is implying- and it certainly would not be since it is in the New Testament. What it means is that if they preach heresy, they will end up in Hell because they will be leading people away from the Lord.


Matthew 5:43-45:

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.…"

What about this? It says pray for those who do wrong to you- including the heretics. Galatians 1:8-9 is not about intolerance, it is about the consequences of teaching a false gospel that will eventually lead the person to eternal punishment in Hell. It does not say that we should execute them for throw stones at them. We leave all that to God.


"Just to mention two examples. As a general summary, do Christians believe that what is morally right is what the rest of the world thinks is morally right? No? Then Christians should join the terrorists in having religious freedom stripped, and replaced by the more tempered judgment of the world at large."

Actually, Chrstians and non-Christians agree on a lot of moral wrongs:

Lying
murder
theft
rape
incest
polygamy

I mean, of course there are a few in which Christains and non-Christians come into conflict with, but that hardly matters (most of the time).

Again, thank you for the challenge!





Debate Round No. 1
ThesnamisSorreall

Pro

(If I have not made myself clear, I strongly caution my readers to check the verses I am using as well as my interpretation, and I will straight up admit that I am blatantly manipulating them. I am arguing a side that is frankly totally wrong.)

Looking at the arguments you quoted from me, I sound outright evil! Which makes sense, of course, since I'm arguing for a side I think is horridly wrong. But still....shiver!
Anyway,
"The problem with this verse is that it no longer applies to Christians today. It is part of the Old Testament Law which only applied to the Israelites and we need not follow the Mosaic Law-" Need not follow the Mosaic Law? Do you believe that the Ten Commandments no longer need to be followed? Additionally, I will cite Matthew 5:18:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This is from the New Testament, and does not seem to support the idea that Christians no longer are "supposed" to follow the Mosaic law.

"They completley disregard the New Testament where it says, "love they neighbour as they self" (Mark 12:31)" Ahh, but let's look at the whole verse. The whole verse is "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30-31) True, it says to love others as oneself. But the passage you cited also CLEARLY says that loving others as oneself is subordinate to loving God. So, if the Bible claims God said to persecute homosexuals, the passage you cited is saying that takes precedence over loving one's neighbor as themselves, no? (As a side note, is it impossible to persecute somebody and not love them? Is it impossible to persecute somebody out of great love for a higher cause, and just love the persecuted less, but still love them? Just a thought.)

"What it means is that if they preach heresy, they will end up in Hell because they will be leading people away from the Lord." So how is this different from what I said, "This verse pretty much seems to be claiming that if anybody proposes that the gospels should be different than the Pauline version of the Gospels, they should be cursed." This verse is clearly discouraging people from questioning what they have been told, isn't it? Because that would be deemed "heresy".
"It does not say that we should execute them for throw stones at them." I did not claim that it did. I am saying that the Bible seems to strongly discourage Christians from accepting other religions as just as legitimate and equal as Christianity, and that such discouragement is viewed as ethnocentric and wrong by the rest of the world, generally.
"Actually, Chrstians and non-Christians agree on a lot of moral wrongs:" Oh, to be sure! Similarly, terrorists usually think prostitution is wrong...and coincidence, so does the rest of the world! I am not saying that Christians do not share ANY similarities with the rest of the world in regard to moral code. I am saying that Christians believe that things that the rest of the world believe are morally wrong are allowable and even preferable. As such, religious rights/freedoms should be taken away, as has been done with the terrorists and other such religions.
"I mean, of course there are a few in which Christains and non-Christians come into conflict with, but that hardly matters (most of the time)." So we agree that Christians hold a different moral code than the rest of the world, correct?
The majority of (western, since you're in Britain) society believes that Homosexuals cannot change, and as such it is wrong to try and change the way they were made. Yet, doesn't Romans say, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." It de'facto calls homosexuals "unnatural"! What if I were to say, "dark skinned people are unnatural", that would be deeply wrong and narrow minded, would it not? Here, Christianity is CLEARLY advocating for a view that the rest of society deems backwards and wrong! Do you not deny this?
Similiarly, does the Bible teach that all religions are equal and are to be valued? No! It clearly teaches that Christianity is the SUPERIOR religion! Do you deny this? The rest of society believes in tolerance, in open mindedness, and in the equality of all faiths. Can you not deny that Christianity has different interests?
Similiarly, the Bible seems to argue that people are made either male or female, does it not? In fact, it even goes so far as to condem "men who dress in women's clothing" if I remember correctly, as if those men would dress as women if they did not identify as women! How does this work with the rest of the worlds strong belief that transgender individuals should be accepted, their condition accepted as legitimate, and given the rights they have for so long been withheld.
To be sure, there are many good things about Christianity. And at one time, it really did the world a lot of good. But now, society has progressed to the point where our collective morality is quite a bit better. (Just look at civil rights and slavery!) And now that we have progressed as such, it is CLEAR that Christianity holds a different moral standard than everybody else. Correct?

(It's so weird arguing the other side! My arguments really do sound evil! Oh, I would be such a good bad guy! But I feel the need to clarify, AGAIN, that I am arguing for a position I passionately disagree with. Again, I would STRONGLY caution all readers to check the verses I am citing and form relatively independent opinions.)
SegBeg

Con

"Need not follow the Mosaic Law? Do you believe that the Ten Commandments no longer need to be followed? Additionally, I will cite Matthew 5:18:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This is from the New Testament, and does not seem to support the idea that Christians no longer are "supposed" to follow the Mosaic law."

Yes. The NEW TESTAMENT LAW, not the Old Testament Law. The Old Testament Law was for a time where people did not have Christ in order to be saved. But since Christ showed his love us 2000 years ago, the Mosaic Law no longer need be followed. Of course, we should still abide by the Ten Commandments, but Jesus ammended those commandments and explained them more clearly.


"Ahh, but let's look at the whole verse. The whole verse is "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment."

Yes it is. Anything wrong with that?

"And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

Indeed it is.


"There is none other commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:30-31) True, it says to love others as oneself. But the passage you cited also CLEARLY says that loving others as oneself is subordinate to loving God."


Because it is. Loving God is the most important thing about being a Christian, if you don't love God, you are not a true Christian.


"So, if the Bible claims God said to persecute homosexuals, the passage you cited is saying that takes precedence over loving one's neighbor as themselves, no?"

Technically yes, but God would NEVER ask us to do such a thing. God loves homosexuals just as much as any other human.
Yes, homosexuality is a sin, but we are all sinners. No sin-including homosexuality is greater than another.


"What it means is that if they preach heresy, they will end up in Hell because they will be leading people away from the Lord." So how is this different from what I said,"

It is different because it is supposed to protect people from being lead into a false gospel that will lead them to Hell. I can say this is intolerance, but we cannot be tolerant of something that is wrong. If someone was bullying another person, should we tolerate that? Most people would claim no. WHy is this? Because it will cause harm to the person being ullied and could also lead to mental health problems or even murder/suicide. This is the same with not tolerating false teachers. If we continue to let them preach a false gospel, their students will end up in Hell with them and we do not want that to happen. It is not our job to curse those false teachers though- that is God's job. He will deal with those perverting his gospel. We can expose them but it is not our job to condemn them.

"I am saying that the Bible seems to strongly discourage Christians from accepting other religions as just as legitimate and equal as Christianity"

Right on. Becuase no religion is equally as valid as Christianity. They can't be. They all describe God in ther own ways: Islam views Allah as a God that requires our good works in order to recieve slavation, Hinduism believes in many gods, Judaism rejects Christ (who is essential for slavation) and Bhuddism is atheistic. How can they be "legitimate and equal" to Christianity? All other religions were made by men who are dead. However, Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ who is alive and will never EVER die!!!

"and that such discouragement is viewed as ethnocentric and wrong by the rest of the world, generally."

God does not care what the world deems wrong. His views never change. Just becuase the majority of society thinks something is right/wrong doesn't make it right/wrong per se. God warned us about these times: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." (Isiah 5:20).

"I am not saying that Christians do not share ANY similarities with the rest of the world in regard to moral code. I am saying that Christians believe that things that the rest of the world believe are morally wrong are allowable and even preferable."

And that is good. For example, Christianity says homosexuality is immoral and unnatural (Romans 1:26). Society says homosexuality is okay-just an alternative lifestyle. However, God could not care less that the majority of soceity thinks homosexuality is okay. God stands by His morals and his Word will NEVER EVER change, no matter what soceity thinks, homosexuality has been and always will be a perversion of God's creation. This can go the same with abortion and other subjects. Society may deem it a woman's choice but God deems it murder!!!

"As such, religious rights/freedoms should be taken away, as has been done with the terrorists and other such religions."

You cannot compare terrorists to Christian. No true Christians would even think of turning to terrorism. Of course terrorists should have their religious rights taken away from them becuase they are using their rights to cause harm and spread hate to others who view contrary.


"The majority of (western, since you're in Britain) society believes that Homosexuals cannot change, and as such it is wrong to try and change the way they were made. Yet, doesn't Romans say, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." It de'facto calls homosexuals "unnatural"! What if I were to say, "dark skinned people are unnatural", that would be deeply wrong and narrow minded, would it not? "

No one is born homosexual. Some might be born more prone to it, but why would God allow a person to be born homosexual when He declares it unnatural? Second, race has nothing to do with it. The Bible condems racism and declares all people are equal regardless of their race (Acts 10:34-35, Romans 10:12-13, Galatians 3:28). If you were to say that dark skinned people are unnatural, then yes it would be wrong and narrow minded. However, the Bible is not saying homosexuals are unnatural, it is saying homosexual attraction and activity is unnatural. The Bible does not condemn the homosexual but the homosexuality. There is a difference.

https://www.lifesitenews.com...


"Here, Christianity is CLEARLY advocating for a view that the rest of society deems backwards and wrong! Do you not deny this?"

I do not deny this, but like I said above. Gove does not care if society deems something wrong or right. He is the final authority on that- not us.


"Similiarly, does the Bible teach that all religions are equal and are to be valued? No! It clearly teaches that Christianity is the SUPERIOR religion! Do you deny this?"


Correct. I know this will sound offensive to others but Christianity is the "SUPERIOR" religion. In fact, despite what soceity thinks, Christianity is NOT a religion. Religion is about following laws and trying to obtain righteousness in order for God to accept us, however Christianity's main focus is about having a personal relationship with God and works mean nothing to Him. We are supposed to follow the Law but it is not as important as our relationship with God.

"The rest of society believes in tolerance, in open mindedness, and in the equality of all faiths. Can you not deny that Christianity has different interests?"

Does it, does it really?

Muslim woman denied a job at the Abercrombie & Fitch clothing chain because she wore a headscarf for religious reasons.
http://www.aljazeera.com...

Arms of Jesus on Crucifix Statues broken in Germany
http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu...


Texas School punishes Christian teen for voicing his opinion against homosexuality.
http://www.foxnews.com...


Nurse faces the sack after refusing to take of her religious necklace
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

As you can see, society is not quite as tolerant as they claim to be. The only time they are is if someone has beliefs that fit ther own. If anyone dare believe contrary, the are scoffed at. So much for tolerance.

Look, I am running out of characters so I will continue the debate in the next round.


































Debate Round No. 2
ThesnamisSorreall

Pro

(Once again, I feel the need to include the disclaimer that I am arguing for a position that is utterly wrong, and that the majority of what I am about to say are straight up lies. I am also being manipulative in my usage of Scripture, it seems. So I strongly urge my readers to exercise caution with my arguments and interpretations. Please don't include this disclaimer in voting, but please do in assessing your own position!)

The dissertations of my chastising, arrogant, evil self continue!

"Yes. The NEW TESTAMENT LAW, not the Old Testament Law".
Actually, it refers to the Old Testament Law. The verse before, Matthew 5:17 reads, " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." This is clearly referring to the Old Testament Law. By the way, what do you refer to by the "New Testament Law"? What law is that? Similarly, you said,
" God stands by His morals and his Word will NEVER EVER change" Is this true or is it not true? You just said the Old Testament Law has been replaced by a New Testament Law, did you not?

"the Mosaic Law no longer need be followed. Of course, we should still abide by the Ten Commandments," The Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law, are they not?

"Technically yes, but God would NEVER ask us to do such a thing. God loves homosexuals just as much as any other human."
We have already established that this is false, have we not? You agree that the Old Testament Law commanded Israel to persecute homosexuals, do you not? Now, I know you think this command can now be ignored, but regardless you can agree that it is false that in the Bible God would "NEVER" ask us to do such a thing, right?
As a side note, where in the Bible does it say that this part of the Law no longer needs to be followed? We see from other verses in the New Testament that (unlike unclean food in the Old Testament being considered clean in the New Testament) homosexuality is still considered an abomination. What makes you think that verse can now be ignored?

" I can say this is intolerance, but we cannot be tolerant of something that is wrong."
Good, so we agree that Christianity is intolerant of those IT deems to be wrong.

" If someone was bullying another person, should we tolerate that? Most people would claim no. WHy is this? Because it will cause harm to the person being ullied and could also lead to mental health problems or even murder/suicide."
And if Christianity were to claim that those it disagree with are cursed, should we tolerate that? Most people would claim no. Why is this? Because it will cause harm to the person the Christians are being intolerant of, and could also lead to mental health problems or even murder/suicide.
In both cases, even in the bullying example you yourself presented, whether or not something should be tolerated is dependent upon the collective morality of society. Do you disagree? I don't think you do, but I need to make sure to be reasonable.

"You cannot compare terrorists to Christian. No true Christians would even think of turning to terrorism. Of course terrorists should have their religious rights taken away from them becuase they are using their rights to cause harm and spread hate to others who view contrary."
This is EXACTLY why Christians should be stripped of religious rights! Like verbatim! You said the reason terrorists should be stripped of their rights is" becuase they are using their rights to cause harm and spread hate to others who view contrary." Now, here are just a few things you yourself have said about Christianity,

" .Becuase no religion is equally as valid as Christianity. They can't be...I know this will sound offensive to others but Christianity is the "SUPERIOR" religion."

"...if they preach heresy, they will end up in Hell because they will be leading people away from the Lord"

".... no matter what soceity thinks, homosexuality has been and always will be a perversion..."
And the list goes on and on....

Give all this, would you say Christianity more causes benefit and encourages acceptance of others who view contrarily, or causes harm and spreads hate to others who view contrarily?

The answer, of course, if obvious. So is it really different from terrorism? Keep in mind, they too think they are just obeying "God", in spite of what the rest of the world may believe is moral.

"No one is born homosexual. Some might be born more prone to it, but why would God allow a person to be born homosexual when He declares it unnatural?" Would you agree that the Bible claims that man's nature is sinful? (That is a common Christian belief.) If the Bible claims that man is born with a sinful nature, is it unreasonable to conclude that homosexuality, which the Bible views as sinful, is also a part of one's nature?
And where in the Bible does it say that homosexuality refers explicitly to homosexual intercourse? Where in the Bible does it say that when it says "homosexuality", it actually means something completely different (homosexual intercourse, specifically.) What verse are you going to to re-define this term?

" As you can see, society is not quite as tolerant as they claim to be."

Frankly, your sources are horribly biased. One of your sources is "intolerenceagainstchristians.eu"! More creditable and objective sources are required here.
And even if these sources were objective (which they obviously are not) they record isolated instances that, in the case of the Texas teenager you cited especially, were strongly condemned by society as a whole!
Still, tolerance is a moral standard society values and adheres to, but by no means has attained yet. There are always "bad apples" in the same way that there are mass shooters in Western countries, even though those societies strongly condemn terrorism. Your argument is not helped here.

Please, I implore you. Be objective, and think about this rationally. If you do, you should be able to see that while Christianity was once useful, it is now a relic of the past. An outdated and backward belief system that it is time to do away with, in the same way that a child does away with the fairy tails they grow up. There are good things about it, there really are. But let's be reasonable and fair, and understand that it is overwhelmingly backward and harmful.

(I'm sorry, I just had to say that! My evil self would not be complete without the classic, "my belief is fact and yours is a fairy tail" argument! Again, I am arguing for a position that is WRONG! I am using lies, manipulation, and emotion based argument to attempt to make idiocy seem reasonable. Don't quote me please in the argument on this though.

I must say, as a side note, you are actually being a lot more objective than I had expected. I fully expected you to be cowering before my "Christianity does not accept other religions" argument, and I'm having to resort to deception more than I thought I would! Well done!)
SegBeg

Con

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." This is clearly referring to the Old Testament Law."

Yes. Jesus did not come to destroy the Old Testament Law. However, just because he did not come to destroy it does not mean it still applies to Christians today. The Old Testament Law was given tothe Israelites in order for them to obey and please God (The Ten Commandments), to show the Isrealites how to worship God and atone for sin (sacrificial system) and in order to tell them apart from other nations (the food and clothing rules). That doesn't mean we cannot use the Law and apply it to our lives today. But it is not essential to go to Heaven. When Jesus died on the cross, he put and end to the Old Testament Law (Romans 10:4, Galatians 3:23-25, Ephesians 2:15).

"By the way, what do you refer to by the "New Testament Law"? What law is that?"

The New Testament Law is also known as the Law of Grace. Its commands are like you quoted to love God with all your, heart, soul, strength and mind." If you do this, then you will be able to follow the moral law more easily.

"Similarly, you said "God stands by His morals and his Word will NEVER EVER change" Is this true or is it not true? You just said the Old Testament Law has been replaced by a New Testament Law, did you not?"

God does stand by his morals. Just becuase he replaced a Law with a new one does not mean that his ways have changed. Like I said, the Old Testament Law was only for the Isrealites- not Christians, however the morality behind it (eg. committing adultery, worshipping other gods) have not changed in God's eyes. They are still morrally wrong and wicked.


"The Ten Commandments are part of the Mosaic Law, are they not?"

Correct. Let me correct myself there. I said we still need to abide by the Ten Commandments but that was a poor choice of wording. We can look to the Ten Commandments for guidence and support for how to live out a Christian life, but overall, God does not require us to obey it. The Ten Commandments only tell us what we should NOT do (eg. thou shall not steal, thou shall not kill,etc) whereas the Law of Grace tells us what we SHOULD do. (eg. love the Lord God with all your heart,etc).

"You agree that the Old Testament Law commanded Israel to persecute homosexuals, do you not?"

Yes. Yes I do

"Now, I know you think this command can now be ignored, but regardless you can agree that it is false that in the Bible God would "NEVER" ask us to do such a thing, right?"

No I cannot agree that it is false. The reason why God cammanded for the execution of homosexuals in the Levitical Law was because this was prior to Christ's appearence. All sin-including homosexuality, was punishable by death. Whereas now, homosexuals need no longer be put to death because Christ came and died for us so God sees mercy for our sins. (it's a long story that I don't have enough characters to go through).

"homosexuality is still considered an abomination. What makes you think that verse can now be ignored?"

Yes, homosexuality is still considered an abomination, but the rule of putting homosexuals to death does not spply today becuase in the New Testament, God tells us to treat others the way we would want to be treated (Luke 6:31), to love they neighbour as they self (Mark 12:31) and love one another as I (Jesus) have loved you (John 13:34-35). Surely if you were gay you would not want people calling for you execution, calling you derogatory names or to think Jesus would have treated you the same way. Most likely not.

"so we agree that Christianity is intolerant of those IT deems to be wrong."

Can we agree that secular society is intolerant of what IT deems wrong as well? Eg. society deems murder as wrong and they do not tolerate it, they deem stealing as wrong and they do not tolerate it, they deem rape as wrong and do not tolerate it. So what makes Christianity any different. What is wrong should not be tolerated.

"And if Christianity were to claim that those it disagree with are cursed, should we tolerate that? Most people would claim no. Why is this? Because it will cause harm to the person the Christians are being intolerant of, and could also lead to mental health problems or even murder/suicide."

No true Christian would ever curse another. Yeah, don't tolerate those who claim to be Christians but instead spread hate, but the true Christians would never do this and thus should be toerated.

"In both cases, even in the bullying example you yourself presented, whether or not something should be tolerated is dependent upon the collective morality of society. Do you disagree? I don't think you do, but I need to make sure to be reasonable."

I don't disagree. What the majority of soceity deems immoral is indeed immoral, but not everything. With the quotes you pointed out that I made. You have left them incomplete. As I said afterwards, Christianity is not actually a religion despite what the rest of the world thinks. To society it may be but to Christians it is much more than that so to corect myself, Christianity is not the "SUPERIOR" religion because it is not actually a religion.

"Give all this, would you say Christianity more causes benefit and encourages acceptance of others who view contrarily, or causes harm and spreads hate to others who view contrarily?"

Like I said a thousand times, no true Christian would have such bigotry or hate in their heart. Only hatemongers would.

"Would you agree that the Bible claims that man's nature is sinful?"

Yes.

"If the Bible claims that man is born with a sinful nature, is it unreasonable to conclude that homosexuality, which the Bible views as sinful, is also a part of one's nature?"

Man being born sinful is something that has been since the Fall. Man cannot help but sin. This doesn't make it okay to sin but no matter how hard we try not to we will never be sinless like Christ was. Howevever, homosexuality is just one of the many sins listed in the Bible. It is no greater than any other sin.

"And where in the Bible does it say that homosexuality refers explicitly to homosexual intercourse? Where in the Bible does it say that when it says "homosexuality", it actually means something completely different (homosexual intercourse, specifically.) What verse are you going to to re-define this term?"

I don't understand what you mean. Clarify please!

"Frankly, your sources are horribly biased"

Whether biased or not, they contain some truth that cannot be ignored.

"And even if these sources were objective (which they obviously are not) they record isolated instances that, in the case of the Texas teenager you cited especially, were strongly condemned by society as a whole!"

You want some objective sources. I'll give you one:

Bakery owners Aaron and Melissa Klein were forced to pay a $135,00 fine for refusing to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding.
http://insider.foxnews.com...

As you can see, the couple weren't discriminating. They said that these two women were regular customers. The only reason they refused to make the cake was becuase it went against their beliefs- not because they were lesbians. Otherwise they would have refused them service altogether. The couple also recieved death threats through emails and a protest was held outside their bakery. This seemed condoned by society and not comdemned.


"Still, tolerance is a moral standard society values and adheres to, but by no means has attained yet. There are always "bad apples" in the same way that there are mass shooters in Western countries, even though those societies strongly condemn terrorism. Your argument is not helped here."

To be honest, despite the fact that society has become much more tolerant that it once was, we will never achieve full tolerance. Everyone-even Christians will be intolerant of something in their lives.

"Please, I implore you. Be objective, and think about this rationally.

Are you saying my thinking is irrational???

"If you do, you should be able to see that while Christianity was once useful, it is now a relic of the past. An outdated and backward belief system that it is time to do away with, in the same way that a child does away with the fairy tails they grow up."

Man can live a satisfying life on Earth without God, however they cannot live an eternal life without God. Without Christianity, as soon a we die, we would be burning in hell for eternity. We need Christ in order to spend eternal life in Heaven, in paradise with God. To say man can live without God is foolish. To say Christianity is "a relic of the past" is foolish. And Christianity is not a bunch of fairytales that most atheists like to believe. There is historical evidence that Jesus existed and rose from the dead.

http://www.bethinking.org...

(so much for fairytales)

I wish I could argue more but characters are running out.
Debate Round No. 3
ThesnamisSorreall

Pro

I repeat, I am arguing for a side that is wrong. Please exercise extreme caution when reading as I am being manipulative.)

Ahh, closing arguments!

I think it has been well established that the Bible CLEARLY says to persecuate homosexuals. In fact, when asked if my opponent agrees, opponent replied,
"Yes. Yes I do". She simply is arguing that this command in the Bible has been revoked, which as we can see from verses in the New Testament, there is no rational basis for.

My opponents also has consistently claimed, "Christianity is not actually a religion despite what the rest of the world thinks". This, at least in the Bible it seems, is also false. James 1: 26-27 reads, "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain. Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." Highly indicating that Christianity is a religion. Furthermore, the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of religion is,
":the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group"
Does not Christianity fit this definition?

My opponent asked in regard to redefining homosexuality,
"I don't understand what you mean. Clarify please!"
Here is a Merriem Webster dictionary definition:
": the quality or state of being homosexual" The Merriem Webster dictionary defines homosexuality as "the state of being homosexual", so to say these verses actually are refering to same-sex intercourse when they say "homosexuality" is trying to redifine the term.
We have established that Christianity believes itself superior to other belief systems.

My opponent has constantly asserted that,
"Like I said a thousand times, no true Christian would have such bigotry or hate in their heart. Only hatemongers would."
Contrarily, I point out that these are not mutually exclusive terms. It is more than possible that, (and I argue is true that) true Christians are hatemongers.

For a creditable source, my opponent cited FOX NEWS to attempt to illustrate an isolated instance of intolerance of...well...Christian's intolerant beliefs. Fox News is far from unbiased, and this is only an isolated instance. Now, is it a little ironic that as a society, we are intolerent of intolerence, yes! In the same way that we do not allow people to practice their religion freely, if their religion requires them to hinder others from practicing their religion freely! It is strange, but not necessarily wrong. By and large, Christinas are anti-gay rights, anti-transgender rights, anti-abortion rights, and anti-rights in general. This is known by most of society to be immoral and backwards!

My opponent mentioned that people should loose their right to freedom of religion if their religion spreads harm and hate to those that disagree with them. All this considered, would not an objective person understand that Christianity does precisely this? Seeing as it encourages hostile feelings against homosexuals, considers other beleif systems to be inferior, and a host of other problems.
In regard to whether or not it is time to do away with this religion, my opponent cited an external source to prove it is viable, instead of citing evidence or reasoning themselves. This is one of the greatest things about this religion, that I had not mentioned yet, that harm us. It seems people of this religion are conditioned to site "other" authority, and presumably infallible sources, instead of engaging in evidence, logic, and reason like the rest of the freethinking world. Case in point.
WE already curb the rights of religions that run contrary to the collective morality of society, such as terrorists. Christianity would be no different.
All considered, this religion does far more harm than good. And it is time to encourage these religious people to adopt more open-minded, fair ways of thinking.
(Again, this is all my evil self talking and arguing for a position that is patently wrong.)
SegBeg

Con

"My opponents also has consistently claimed, "Christianity is not actually a religion despite what the rest of the world thinks". This, at least in the Bible it seems, is also false."

I don't blam you for thinking my statement about Christianity not being a religion is false. Ah how the atheists love to think that they know Christianity and the Bible better than actual Christians do. While Christianity might have some sparking similarities to religion, it is truly unique. You see, religion is all about mankind trying to rach out to God whereas Christianity is about God trying to reach down to man. Religion is all about following a set of moral rules in order to please God in order to obatin slavation (i.e no drinking alcohol, no cussing, no dancing,etc) whereas Christianity is primarily about God's love for us and our love to him back and our personal relationship with him.

"The Merriem Webster dictionary defines homosexuality as "the state of being homosexual", so to say these verses actually are refering to same-sex intercourse when they say "homosexuality" is trying to redifine the term."

Whether or not the Merriam Webster dictionary describes homosexuality as "the state of being homosexual," homosexuality is still and will always be a sin, whether you ingage in same sex intercourse or not.


"My opponent has constantly asserted that,
"Like I said a thousand times, no true Christian would have such bigotry or hate in their heart. Only hatemongers would."
Contrarily, I point out that these are not mutually exclusive terms. It is more than possible that, (and I argue is true that) true Christians are hatemongers."

Sorry mate. Christianity and hatemonger don't mix. They're an emulsifier. You're either a hatemonger or you're a Christian. You cannot be both at the same time. A true Christian loves one another as they love them self (Mark 12:31). A true Christian speaks the truth not in hate, but in love. Many people think that when Christians speak out against homosexuality, they are spreading hate. This is illogical. If you speak out against lying, is this spreading hate? Most people would agree no.

"For a creditable source, my opponent cited FOX NEWS to attempt to illustrate an isolated instance of intolerance of...well...Christian's intolerant beliefs."

Once again, I can see that you think that someone who disagree with same sex marriage is inherently intolerant. The source was not meant to expose Christians intolerance (though I don't deny there are some Christians out there who are), it was meant to expose the left's intolerance for those who hold differing opinions. They act like they are sweet little angels who are the most tolerant people on earth when in reality they are just as bigoted as the right (ps. I know not all liberals are like this). Whether or not I used FOX NEWS, biased or propaganda sources can still contain some truth.

"It is strange, but not necessarily wrong. By and large, Christinas are anti-gay rights, anti-transgender rights, anti-abortion rights, and anti-rights in general. This is known by most of society to be immoral and backwards!"

Here's the thing with LGBT rights. They have them. Period. But like everyone else, they tend to take advantage of those rights and ty to silence those who do not agree with them. I am a Christian and I believe that everyone- including LGBT's deserve equal rights and gays and transgenders have the right to be gay or transgender. The only thing I have a problem with is when they try to force themselves on others and make them accept them when they chose to be this way. I feel this is unacceptable.


"My opponent mentioned that people should loose their right to freedom of religion if their religion spreads harm and hate to those that disagree with them. All this considered, would not an objective person understand that Christianity does precisely this?"

Not true Christianity. Enough said.

"Seeing as it encourages hostile feelings against homosexuals, considers other beleif systems to be inferior, and a host of other problems."

Funny how atheists love to condemn those who are hostile towards them but praise those who are hostile towards religious people. I.e. Richard Dawkins, who has said that religion is like a virus or disease that "we can find the cure" for. He seems to be implying that his atheistic beliefs are superior to a religious person's and has not tolerance for those who are not atheists. Saying religion needs a "cure" is just as offensive as calling a homosexual mentally ill but I guess when an atheist talks crap about those who are different, it should be held up and honoured.

"In regard to whether or not it is time to do away with this religion, my opponent cited an external source to prove it is viable, instead of citing evidence or reasoning themselves. This is one of the greatest things about this religion, that I had not mentioned yet, that harm us. It seems people of this religion are conditioned to site "other" authority, and presumably infallible sources, instead of engaging in evidence, logic, and reason like the rest of the freethinking world."

The reason why I quote other sources is because they are better at explaining it than I am am at times and they break it down more sufficiently. There is nothing wrong with using other sources in an argument. It can show that the person knows what they are doing and what they are arguing about. Everyone does it and I'm aure you have as well. And besides, within regards of Christianity, no sourcce is infallible other than the Bible. The Bible is out final authority. We can use other's sources to explain it but in the end, the Bible is always correct so while some of the sources I have quoted may have some bias or be "invalid" to you, they still contain truth.

"WE already curb the rights of religions that run contrary to the collective morality of society, such as terrorists. Christianity would be no different."

It is illogic to say that Christianity is the same as terrorism. Like I cannot squash all atheists into a box and say they are all arrogan, rude and religion-hating bigots, atheists cannot say all Christians are terrorists. It is irration and silly.


"All considered, this religion does far more harm than good. And it is time to encourage these religious people to adopt more open-minded, fair ways of thinking."

This is ridiculous. Oh how the atheists love to blame Christians and other religions for causing all the war and harm in the world an leave themselves like innocent little angels who are almost blameless. This is far from the truth. Stalin was responsible for the death of around 38-49 million people but atheists seem to want to cover that up. Don't go quoting Hitler becuase Hitler was in no way Christian. He may have killed 6 million Jews in the name of God but that in no way makes him a true Christian. He was an atheist who was inolerant of those who believed otherwise.

Fair ways of thinking? Open mindedness? This is absurd. Religion is a free way of thinking. Religion gives a person the oppertinity to believe that there is more to the world and to us than what can be explained by science. It gives us the oppertunity to think we are more than just evolved monkeys. It gives us the oppertunity to believe that there is someone out there who loves us and cares for us. It gives us the oppertunity to understand things most people would not know. So much for open mindedness. Geez!

I thank my oppenent for this debate and I enjoyed it. Though I know these views aren't your own, there is truth to some of it. This is what a lot of atheists believe abotu religion and quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. I feel atheists think they have the right to criticize religion but religious people are in no place to criticize them which is very hypocritical.

In conclusion, I will say this: Christians, nor any other religion should have their religious right mor freedoms taken away from them. They are free to practice their religion as long as they do not spread hate in the name of it.

Vote Con!!!













Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Wylted 11 months ago
Wylted
I don't know, I just glanced over it. I would advise you to be unapologetic when playing devil's advocate in the future.
Posted by ThesnamisSorreall 11 months ago
ThesnamisSorreall
Hiw woukd you have voted, just our of curiosity?
Posted by Wylted 11 months ago
Wylted
Next time your debate is at risk of tying get ahold of me. Even if I can't find time to place a vote 75% of the timw it is still better to atleast try.
Posted by ThesnamisSorreall 11 months ago
ThesnamisSorreall
Finally, meven if Christianity seems to some to be hatefull and discriminatory, taking away the rights of christians runs contrary to the western ideals of free and open discussion. Sure, the ideas of christians might be detestavke to some, and id they do, these ideas should be rebuffed.in a free and open academic foforum, not surpresed by force. If the Christian beliefs can be emperically found to be wrong, thats different (they haven't been.) But untikk then, taking rights away from Christian s will harm the clinate if.free and objective discussion whichbis so important to western society. Sorry for the grannar, in rushed!
Posted by ThesnamisSorreall 11 months ago
ThesnamisSorreall
In regard to whether religion is subject to the cokkective morality if society, NO!!! At a very basic level, if the mahority of society were Catholic, they might believe Protestantism is immoral, and thus ban it. This defeats the whole purpose of freedom of religion, because it defacto gives the dominant belief system to enforce their beliefs under the premise of "we all agree."
Secondly, the collective moarality is often wrong. For instace, a few centries ago, western society believed slavery was morally right, now western society believes it is pretty.much the epitome of evil. This said, collective.morality is clearly not a good determinant.of what is actually right.
Posted by ThesnamisSorreall 11 months ago
ThesnamisSorreall
Due to time constraints, ill have to be brief with my own opinion.
1.) With the verse about stoning homosexuals, the verse doesnt actually to exterminate homosexuals. It says to kill a man who lays with another man which, though a homosexual is nore likely to conduct this act, can also be committed by somebody of the heterosexual "orientation". I e., they could be doing it just for the "thrill " of it or because they are committeing same sex sexual harassment. This act could be conducted by "heterosexuals", too.
Secondly, if the verse were to say to punish homosexuals (which there might be other verses that do, I cabt remember) in any event the Old Testament is telling the government how to conduct itself, not so much individuals. For instance, we can all agree that a person who kidnaps and tortures a chikd to death should at LEAST get locked up. However, that does not mean individual citizens should be the ones to.carry out this punishment. Similarly, if this verse were to be saying ro punish homosexuals, the punishment would be carried out by the government, not fanatic terrorist liske individuals that are more likely to attempt it on their own.But again, this verse seems more concerned with the ACT of homosexual intercourse, and actually doesn't say "homosexuals", at least not here. Though it might possibly elsewhere.
Posted by ThesnamisSorreall 11 months ago
ThesnamisSorreall
Or you can post in the comments section! I think thats okay. I wouldn't want to miss out on the full grandour of your argument!
No votes have been placed for this debate.