Should the Bible be used in arguments involving political issues such as gay marriage?
Sure why not?
I think it should be argued because there are religious people that vote. If they find that God does not want to do it, they will probably not vote in favor of it.
So whats your point about Jefferson? He had some secular ideas about the governemnt, ones that I do not share. If there was less "seperation from church and state", I think that there would be more benefits to the religious crowd. It may even help shape policies that are more compatible with religion in general.
But to point out, religious areguments have been shown to be profitable. For as it is written in the constitution, "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." If they use religious arguments to resolve issues like human rights, I don't see why the Bible can't be used to resolve political issues... after all it's a religious text.
If a politician stood at a stand and argued their point using the Bible as a source, how many individuals in the audience would roll their eyes in exasperation? Likely many of them -- because the Bible is not proven to be true. I feel that my greatest point here is that the Bible is not necessarily a reliable source; albeit tiny bits and pieces of the text are proven to be historically accurate, not all of them are. There is no proof that Jesus turned water into wine; no proof that he walked on water.
Thus, in modern day society, why should the Bible be argued as if it is a reliable, truthful, and modern source?
Also, I would like to address this point of yours --
"If there was less "seperation from church and state", I think that there would be more benefits to the religious crowd".
Perhaps that is true, but it would also inconvenience those who are not religious. This is a biased decision and favours those who are religious over those who are not. In a democracy such as America, both parties should be treated equally and laws/policies should apply to and benefit both of them. How would incorporating religious ideas (particularly Christian ideas) benefit the masses of people who disagree with them (non-religious people)? Sure, not all of us can agree with America's policies and laws, but there are a GREAT deal of people who are not religious in our nation who would oppose these Christianity-centred ideas.
I agree with you, you probably wouldn’t. But I don’t see how that matters, some people may not be interested in arguments that they find are controversial because they don’t believe in them. If you were not an atheist you may have more interest in Biblically based arguments.
To be clear here, are you trying to say that it is immoral to advocate what you believe in?
In the context of a politician, it may not be prudent to bring up controversial arguments to gain favor with the certain crowds… If his agenda is to gain favor with say God, then he might need to speak his mind. If his agenda is to gain a particular office, then it might be wise to refrain. So what the politician “should” do is subjective here.
On the subject of reliability, it doesn’t matter what your and my opinion is. For example, I view that a lot of things in science is unreliable, things like the big bang and evolution. Does this mean that you shouldn’t vote for policies that favor these things merely because I don’t view the evidence as reliable? No. You should vote in what you believe in, much like I do. We may have our disagreements, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t vote in what we believe in.
I believe you are probably correct that there is no absolute proof about the miracles of Christ (atkeast humanly possible to acquire). But this is due to my belief that there are truths that are impossible to prove because of the nature of what they are. For example, it’s impossible to prove what you see is real or a dream because any evidence you see is assumed to be real instead of proven. Miracles that happened 2 thousand years ago are difficult to empirically prove in the present because they don’t naturally happen. This doesn’t mean miracles did not happen because of unprovable evidence much like we can’t prove we are real.
I think here your making the assumption that things need to be proven for it to be relevant to political issues. This is just not so, things like moral good and evil is never proven objectively because it’s subjective (atleast in an athiest), and these mere opinions on morality is intertwined with politics. Raping a woman being evil can’t be proven from an atheist worldview.
Why should the Bible be argued? Because some people believe it to be true.
Yes, It is probably an inconvenience to the non-religious, so? The American government has a secular nature, it can only support secularism over religion. So it’s an extremely big inconvenience for us religious folks. Basically my tax money is going to indoctrinate kids into naturalism through “education”, and I disbelieve naturalism. There really isn’t any neutral ground for equality when it comes to the religious and non-religious, for if you are secular you will favor things that are secular, and if religious, the vice-versa.
What does it matter if people oppose it? If too many people oppose it, it probably won’t come into effect. You lose nothing. As to incorporating Christian ideologies here, I have no problem with it. For these ideologies (at least the biblically based ones) are based off of two things, love for God, and love for one’s neighbor. In this case of gay marriage, it is a matter of love for one’s neighbor. I know that the marriage union between a man and a woman is greater than that of marriages between the same-sex. So I oppose it because I love the gays, for I want them to have a greater life.
ciel forfeited this round.
ciel forfeited this round.
Debate is over.
|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:||0||1|