The Bible Cannot Be Trusted
Debate Rounds (4)
1 Before these holy texts were written, they were preserved orally then the teachings were written down. From the time God first told us these things and the books we have today must be tremendously different.
2 Archeology, anthropology, and other investigations that there are many parallels in religions such as the teachings of the Christians' Jesus and the Buddhists' Buddha.
3 Other than knowing God exists and the fact that we are souls that can go to heaven, the Bible, Quaran, and Torah are just stories of people and rules that the writers thought will make you a good person. This is common knowledge that you can learn yourself throughout life rather than read form a book.
These people did not hear about god's stories from other people but were instead inspired to write a part of the bible after they were divinely inspired.
As to my opponent's second point, from what I can gather is that there are many similarities between Jesus and Buddha. I do not find how this has any relevance to the debate. The topic that my opponent made is that the bible is not to be trusted and while I found the topic very biased, I will do my best to defend the bible's teachings. Just because religious works are similar does not mean that they are not to be trusted. Or is my opponent suggesting that either Jesus or Buddha is completely evil and anything like them would be something not to be trusted?
Finally, in regards to my opponents third and last point, they seem to be agreeing with the fact that there are some parts of the bible that can be trusted. "Other than knowing God exists and the fact that we are souls that can go to heaven,". While I am not saying I agree with that sentence, my opponent did make that statement. Anyways, my opponent then goes on to say that many things in the bible are common knowledge. Now I ask my opponent, is common knowledge not to be trusted? Is our common sense not to be trusted? All and all, I think my opponent accidentally strayed too far from the resolution and made the point that the bible is something that provides common knowledge that can be learned elsewhere. However, just because the knowledge that my opponent agrees will make one a good person and is common knowledge can be learned elsewhere, where does he/she get the impression that the bible cannot be trusted because of that? I believe that my opponent made a logical error, but it happens to all of us.
In conclusion, in support of the con side, my opponent agrees that much of the stuff in the bible is common sense although it may be learned elsewhere. Is common sense not to be trusted? In my opinion, common sense is what is so absolutely to be trusted that it has even been deemed COMMON sense.
My opponent is right in the fact that the Bible along with other holy texts had many authors. These authors were "inspired" by God or in other words wrote their opinions. Why did people believe them? The same reason the first Muslims believed Muhhamed when he claimed to see Gabriel in a cave. If you do not believe, you are threatened with the risk of eternity in hell after death. (http://www.religionfacts.com...), a very convincing aspect.
There are many verses of the bible that Christians now contradict with their beliefs:
Leviticus 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
The reasons behind this belief are logical. For one, God is said to command humankind to "be fruitful and multiply" in Genesis but babies can only created by males and females in the human species. Therefore, homosexuality defeats the purpose of two sexes.
Many, however, have swayed away from that belief (http://www.religioustolerance.org...). If we, again, think about it logically...maybe homosexuals are here for a reason. All over the world we have problems with over-population (http://mwillett.org...) but if we continue to "go forth and multiply" our problem will become even more serious.
I must point this out if you have not noticed: I have not once referred to the Bible or other Holy Texts as evil and I do not believe they are. Many of their teachings, however, do not apply to today's world such as Genesis 3:16 where God supposedly makes women inferior to men.
The ten commandments are simply, as I said before, common sense and I find no fault in them but say that other than those commandments and having faith in God holy texts do not have much to offer.
The bible, as my opponent agrees is it is filled of common sense and my opponent can find no fault in them. I agree. So, I guess my opponent agrees that the bible can be trusted instead of what she previously believed.
For one, let me say that my opinion towards the bible has not changed. The Bible makes delivers it's message through stories in which the meanings are already interpreted for us. The bible was created by many authors but that does not mean those authors were changers of the original words of the bible along the way of its many years of oral and written preservation.
The words of the Bible did not come from God but form those who claimed to be "inspired" by God therefore the way people were created along with other teachings of the bible may not only be incorrect but purely opinion. In writing their opinion, they may include points that may be common sense or maybe even good advice, but the bad outweighs the good. It is for these reasons that the bible cannot be trusted. I make what my opponent calls "irrelevant points" because I cannot address the bible without addressing the beliefs that people hold because of it.
For the record, I did not say homosexuality is wrong or not but that it is much more tolerated in the present that it has been in the past.
Here are my examples for correct parts of the bible.
The 10 commandments (my opponent agrees that this is right)
Common sense is included in examples (quote from opponent "The ten commandments are simply, as I said before, common sense and I find no fault in them but say that other than those commandments and having faith in God holy texts do not have much to offer.")
My opponent also makes the rather irrelevant statement that the bible has little to offer. However, the resolution that my opponent made is actually whether the bible is to be trusted or not. She does not give any examples other than the homosexuality one that I have refuted and is currently unanswered. My opponent agrees with me that the bible has many parts that are common sense "Other than knowing God exists and the fact that we are souls that can go to heaven, the Bible, Quaran, and Torah are just stories of people and rules that the writers thought will make you a good person. This is common knowledge that you can learn yourself throughout life rather than read form a book."
Also, she admits later that common sense is correct and to be trusted. The resolution is saying that the bible is not to be trusted and she admits that it can be trusted. She provides no examples that the bible cannot be trusted but instead has given me examples in which the bible can be trusted. I ask my opponent to stick with a point that is actually beneficial to her argument. Finally I ask her to give points so I have a chance to refute them.
mynameisnowtamia forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 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:||0||7|
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.