The Instigator
nathanknickerbocker.9
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Gondun
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

Should the bible be used in religious arguments

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Gondun
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,198 times Debate No: 31786
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

nathanknickerbocker.9

Con

No, because there is no proof any of these storiess took place
Gondun

Pro

Because of the nature of the topic, I do not have to prove that the Bible is true or that it can be used in all arguments, only that it can be used in some situations.

The topic is not very clear, but I assume from your first argument that you mean arguments along the lines of whether or not there is a god, or atheism vs. theism, so I'll talk about that. If you were talking about arguments between religions, like is one religion better than another, then the Bible should be a significant part of the argument.

Firstly, there is proof that at least some of the stories in the Bible took place http://en.wikipedia.org..., so that refutes your argument.

My stance on this is that the Bible can be used in religious arguments, but it should not be unquestionably accepted as true. If a situation arises where Christian doctrine can be used without assuming the truthfulness of the events then the Bible is an acceptable source.
Debate Round No. 1
nathanknickerbocker.9

Con

ok I'll clarify what I mean by this is the Bible should be as you said be used as the all out truth and when I mean used in religious arguments I mean you shouldn't just flat out say O but it says in the bible blah blah blah
Gondun

Pro

Ok, going by that my original argument still stands. There are plenty of good parts of the Bible that don't involve supernatural occurrences.

In addition to this, the Con does not make any arguments for his side, even though it is his job to prove that the Bible should not be used and my job to show that it can be used in some situations.

The one almost-argument that the Con makes is that you shouldn't just automatically accept everything in the Bible, but that is true for everything. Because that is not specific to the Bible, it is not applicable here.

Without any real contribution from the Con, this is all I can do.
Debate Round No. 2
nathanknickerbocker.9

Con

The con (me) does have a point the Pro claims that I have not made a point well here is my point the bible has no FACTUAL evidence to support any of the story's in the Bible it contradict it's self one Mosses lead the JEWS out of Egypt but its a christian and catholic book you can't support one religion and use another to make a point.
Gondun

Pro

To address the Con's claim that there is no factual evidence for the Bible, I would refer him to the link I gave in the first round. It does not prove everything in the Bible, but it does show that the whole thing is not completely unfounded.

The Con clearly has no real understanding of the Bible if he thinks that because Moses led the Jews out of Egypt, then it can't be a Christian book. Christianity came from the Jews not believing in Jesus, so Jesus' followers left the Jews and became Christian.

To defend my claim that the Bible can be used in religious arguments, I say that it does not have to be 100% factually proven to be used in an argument. Key points of Christian doctrine can be used from the Bible without referencing sections about resurrection and miracles. If my opponent cannot deny this then I win.
Debate Round No. 3
nathanknickerbocker.9

Con

Let me ask you if you are in a trial you have evidence that points to the man that you know did SO IF ITS NOT 100% FACTUAL HE IS GUILTY you could be putting an innocent man in jail this bears to the bible by your calming that this is right o by the way there is no proof its all real but that's ok I fail to see your point pro you clam that you should USE A DOCUMENT THAT IS NOT 100 TRUE
Gondun

Pro

I am not proposing to use the Bible to convict someone as guilty, only saying that it can be used in arguments.

To prove my point, there could, for example, be an argument where an atheist said Christians don't believe in Moses. In a situation like this, you could pull out the Bible and use it to prove his argument false.

The Con is continuously making and doping arguments. If he cannot hold onto an argument, then I win by default. Also, the Con is stating that the Bible is not 100% proven, not that it is 100% untrue. This means that parts can still be good. It is possible to accept part of the Bible as true, but not the whole thing.
Debate Round No. 4
nathanknickerbocker.9

Con

My argument doesn't mean the bible will convict someone it is that the bible isn't 100% factual so it shouldn't I repeat it shouldn't be used to make a point and yes the bible uses Mosses story (I'm using the bible to prove that the Pro is wrong) Exodus 6:6 "God" talking to Mosses "There fore, say to the Israelite 'I am your Lord and I will lead you out of Egypt' proving the Bible talks about Jews meaning it can't be used in religious arguments.
Gondun

Pro

Ok, seeing as this is the last round I will sum up the arguments.

The Con holds to his claim that the Bible shouldn't be used because it is not 100% factual without responding to any of my arguments. This is his only real argument, but it doesn't do him any good. Because the Con has not given any real limits to what type of religious arguments this debate is about, I can use any kind of religious debate to prove my point. Because the Bible shows what Christians believe, it is a reliable and accurate source for what Christians believe. For this reason it could be used in an argument to prove what Christians believe, therefore I win this debate.

The Con's only other claim is that the Bible can't be used because it talks about Jews. Anyone with an elementary understanding of the Bible can see that this is not a contradiction, nor does it prove the Bible false.

Because I have sufficiently refuted all the Con's arguments and proven that the Bible can be used in some religious arguments, I win this debate.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by erost07 4 years ago
erost07
The dead sea scrolls, Josephus. Look them up and explain to me what they are, then we can debate about this!
Posted by Sleezehead 4 years ago
Sleezehead
Well they can if they want but it wouldn't be in there best interest. In fact the Bible often contradicts itself on how most debates undergo in terms of morality.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
nathanknickerbocker.9GondunTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was all over the place and used bad grammar and horrible punctuation. Pro was concise and convincing.
Vote Placed by KingDebater 4 years ago
KingDebater
nathanknickerbocker.9GondunTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never responded to Pro's original argument, Con had numerous typos and a lack of punctuation, and sources to Pro because although his only source was wikipedia used once, he still used one more source than Con.
Vote Placed by Nimbus328 4 years ago
Nimbus328
nathanknickerbocker.9GondunTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was better educated on the subject matter of the debate. Kudos!
Vote Placed by DoubtingDave 4 years ago
DoubtingDave
nathanknickerbocker.9GondunTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: con never addressed the subject and never rebutted pro