The Instigator
kohai
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
ReformedArsenal
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The Bible contains FATAL flaws.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
ReformedArsenal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,663 times Debate No: 16702
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

kohai

Pro

I contend that the Bible contains some pretty fatal flaws. My opponent will prove otherwise.

Contention 1: Ez. 20:25 God wrote laws that are "Evil"

http://www.biblegateway.com...

Wherefore I (The LORD) gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; (Inserted "The LORD" for clarification)

One may say that this is out of context and that the LORD is not speaking. However, if you read the whole passage, you clearly see that the LORD is speaking.

The Law of the Lord is perfect as it says in Psalms and throught the Bible. So, how can God give them statutes that were not good? If God is perfect, how can this be?

There is clearly a problem.

Contention 2: Mark 16:17-18

http://www.biblegateway.com...

And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; and shall speak with new toungues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Contention 3: Ezekiel 14:9


http://www.biblegateway.com...

And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.

So a prophet is deceived, the LORD deceived the prophet, and now he's to be punished? For what? He heard it from the LORD and was deceived by him--why should he be punished?

Contention 4: Judges 11:29-39

http://www.biblegateway.com...

Jeptha sacrifices his daughter to the Lord and the Lord approves of it. Note that in Hebrews 11 he is listed in the hall of "faith" or as I call it, the hall of "Biblical heros that did attrocious things and got favour from the Lord anyways.

Good luck to my opponent.
ReformedArsenal

Con

My opponent has asserted that the Bible contains fatal flaws. However he fails to define what the definition of a "Fatal Flaw" is.

Fatal:

–adjective
1. causing or capable of causing death; mortal; deadly: a fatal accident; a fatal dose of poison.
2. causing destruction, misfortune, ruin, or failure: The withdrawal of funds was fatal to the project.
3. decisively important; fateful: The fatal day finally arrived.
4. proceeding from or decreed by fate; inevitable: a fatal series of events.
5. influencing or concerned with fate; fatalistic.
[A]

Flaw:

–noun
1. a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault: beauty without flaw; the flaws in our plan.
2. a defect impairing legal soundness or validity.
3. a crack, break, breach, or rent.
[B]

When taken together, we see that the definition of a "Fatal Flaw" is a defect causing destruction, misfortune, ruin, or failure

As Pro, my opponent has the burden of proof to show that any "flaw" that he identifies causes the entire Bible to be invalid. Anything less than that would be, by definition, a non-fatal flaw. My burden is to show that the issues Pro points out are either not issues, or are not fatal issues.

RC1) My opponent is correct in that indeed YHWH is speaking (through Ezekiel) in this passage. However, he is incorrect in that the "statues" in Ezekiel are the same as the "Law" referenced in the Psalms and other places.

In Ezekiel 20:25 we see that the word "Statutes" is used. In Hebrew the word is "Chok" which is defined as a "prescribed task" or "prescribed portion" and typically refers to a specific instances. [C] However, in the Psalms we see the word "Torah" which is used to speak of general dictates and laws. Torah also refers specifically to the Mosaic Law given to Moses on Mt Sinai.[D]

My opponent is claiming that this is a fatal flaw to the overall Biblical witness because it presents contradictions, when clearly it does not. The Law that is perfect in the Psalms is God's general instructions for life, the Statutes referred to in Ezekiel are referring to specific provisions that were given to the Israelites as a form of judgement for their disobedience.

RC2) My opponent simply quotes a verse with no explanation of why this is a fatal flaw. Until an explanation is given about what makes this verse fatal, this point does not stand.

RC3) My opponent claims that the deceived prophet, who is deceived by the LORD, is being punished for being deceived. However, this ignores the context of the passage. Earlier in Ezekiel 14, we see that the people who are being deceived have already fallen into idol worship and been urged to turn from that and repent. (vs 6) It is for this idol worship and refusal to repent that the person is being punished. In fact, the LORD deceiving him is part of that judgement.

We must ask of this passage, is it just for God to punish those who sin against him? In the biblical framework, it is. Idol worship is one of the gravest offense (it is listed in various forms as the first 2 or 3 {depending on how you number them} of the 10 commandments), so the punishment of that sin is justified.

RC4) My opponent mischaracterizes this passage. No where in Judges 11:29-39 does it state that the LORD approved of the sacrifice. Furthermore, it does not state in Hebrews 11 that he is being glorified because of this. We must ask, does one sin cancel out the good that one does? There are many figures in the Old Testament who have done awful things yet overall have done more good than bad. We see this in extra-biblical history as well. Most of the founding fathers in American history have atrocities in their personal history, yet we do not exclude them from honor. Why would we treat Jephthah differently?

Overall Refutation:
When looking at these arguments we must ask "Is this a fatal flaw?" So far, I have responded and showed that these "flaws" are not flaws at all, and result of an inaccurate reading and understanding of the text. However, even if they were legitimate flaws, what makes them Fatal. My opponent has the burden to prove that these flaws fit the definition of a "fatal flaw," that is, a defect causing destruction, misfortune, ruin, or failure. He has not done so thus far. Until he does, he cannot be declared the victor.

I look forward to my opponent's responses.

[A] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[B] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[C] http://www.blueletterbible.org...
[D] http://www.blueletterbible.org...
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for his reply and would like to wish him the very best of luck. I agree with your definitions. Therefore, based on my opponents definitions, I will define "Fatal flaw" as a failure in the Bible that proves Christianity false. (In the case of this debate topic.)

My opponent is claiming that this is a fatal flaw to the overall Biblical witness because it presents contradictions, when clearly it does not. The Law that is perfect in the Psalms is God's general instructions for life, the Statutes referred to in Ezekiel are referring to specific provisions that were given to the Israelites as a form of judgement for their disobedience.

You are correct. However, it is a contradiction. The Bible says "God cannot lie" and the passage states that God decieved the prophet. What is a deception? A deception is a lie. If God cannot lie, how can God deceive that prophet?

RC2) My opponent simply quotes a verse with no explanation of why this is a fatal flaw. Until an explanation is given about what makes this verse fatal, this point does not stand. (See post above)

RC3) My opponent claims that the deceived prophet, who is deceived by the LORD, is being punished for being deceived. However, this ignores the context of the passage. Earlier in Ezekiel 14, we see that the people who are being deceived have already fallen into idol worship and been urged to turn from that and repent. (vs 6) It is for this idol worship and refusal to repent that the person is being punished. In fact, the LORD deceiving him is part of that judgement.

My opponent assirts that the LORD is deceiving him as a part of his punishment. However, as the Bible says God cannot lie so how can he decieve if deceving is a lie?

My opponent mischaracterizes this passage. No where in Judges 11:29-39 does it state that the LORD approved of the sacrifice. Furthermore, it does not state in Hebrews 11 that he is being glorified because of this. We must ask, does one sin cancel out the good that one does? There are many figures in the Old Testament who have done awful things yet overall have done more good than bad. We see this in extra-biblical history as well. Most of the founding fathers in American history have atrocities in their personal history, yet we do not exclude them from honor. Why would we treat Jephthah differently?

My opponent claims that nowhere in Judges 11:29-39 does it state that the LORD approved of the sacrifice. True. But biblicaly when ever someone seems to commit such an attrocitiy they get whats comming to them, or God somehow shows his disapproval. What makes this even more profound is that 11:29, the spirit of the lord came upon him. In the very next verses he makes the promise to sacrifice whatever comes out of his house as a burnt offering.
This makes one wonder, does being under the spirit of the Lord allow for a person to commit such an attrocity?

Deos one sin cancel out the good that one does? No.

When looking at these arguments we must ask "Is this a fatal flaw?" So far, I have responded and showed that these "flaws" are not flaws at all, and result of an inaccurate reading and understanding of the text. However, even if they were legitimate flaws, what makes them Fatal. My opponent has the burden to prove that these flaws fit the definition of a "fatal flaw," that is, a defect causing destruction, misfortune, ruin, or failure. He has not done so thus far. Until he does, he cannot be declared the victor.

My opponent is correct. If you reason enough and really think about it, you will see that it is a flaw in the Bible. You have NOT responded to the passage in Mark. Why?
"Even if they were legitimate flaws, what makes them Fatal?" I have already shown you why in my previous arguments.

More "Fatal Flaws"

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. -Matthew 16:28 Clearly if you read the whole passage, Jesus is talking about the second coming. This hasn't happened yet. Funny isn't it? Not a one of them that were standing there are still alive.

What makes this a misfortune, ruin or failure? Simple fact that the prophecy failed!

Here are some passages that harmonizes with that passage.

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. -Mark 9:1 (What things? To see the kingdom of God come with power. Clearly that has not happened yet.)

But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.-Luke 9:27

Back to you, con!
ReformedArsenal

Con

Thank you to Pro for his responses. Pro, I urge you to post an argument regarding contention two. You have posted it in the comments, but you need to post it in the debate to be considered.

RC1) My opponent has confused two arguments here. He seems to be responding to RC3 in place of RC1. As such, my rebuttal to C1 stands unchallenged at this point. I am sure he will remedy this in future rounds, but until he does his point has been defeated.

RC2) Again my opponent has given no explanation in the argument as to why this is a fatal flaw. He has done so in the comments of this debate, and I have urged him to post it in the arguments but until he dos so this point does not stand.

RC3) This is indeed a tricky question, so we must ask two things. First, are all deceptions lies? Second, how does God deceive?

The answer to the first question is what my opponent's argument hinges on. He assets that a deception is a lie and therefore if God cannot lie he cannot deceive. However, this is not the case. There are many instances in which you can be deceptive and not lie. For example: If I create a DDO account with the name "Jessica13" most users would assume that my name is Jessica and that I am 13 years old. I never said those things, and if I allow people to believe that without affirming it, am being deceptive but not lying. In addition, if I tell someone else to lie for me and they lie... I am taking part in deception but not myself lying. So it is indeed logically possible in at least two ways to deceive someone without actively lying. The first is by allowing someone to think something false about you without correcting them, the second is to participate in a deception by having someone else lie for you. I'm sure there are many more, these are only two examples.

Next we must look at how God deceives. While this passage does not give us a clear indication of the method of deception, we see in other passages where God does indeed deceive. Let us now observe those passages and see if God lies in these cases.

In 1 Kings 22::20 we see God asking who will entice Ahab to go out to battle at Ramoth-Gilead. An angel responds and accepts the call. God then asks the angel how he will do this and in vs 22:22 the angel responds "I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." The passage then continues to explain "the Lord has put a lying spirit int he mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you." (vs 23) One of Ahab's greatest sins was that he fell into idol worship. This situation is closely analogous to what was happening in Ezekiel's day, so it is a logical comparison between the two. It is highly likely that the deception that God employed to judge the people in Ezekiel is similar or the same as he deception employed in the case of Ahab.

We also see in 2 Thessalonians 2:10 that God sends those who have hardened themselves against him a "strong delusion." A delusion is "a false belief or opinion" [A] So similar to my example of the screenname "Jessica13", God may chose to present himself in a way that leads to a false conclusion, without actually lying. While this is likely not the way that things operated in the Ezekiel passage, it is possible.

I have shown two ways God could deceive a person without lying to them, and therefore have defeated this contention.

RC4) My opponent claims "but biblically when ever someone seems to commit such an atrocity they get what is coming to them, or God somehow shows his disapproval."However he has not substantiated this claim. This claim is markedly false. We see numerous instances in the Scriptures where someone is not immediately judged for doing something contrary to God's will. Solomon has 300 wives and 700 concubines, yet he dies of old age after a prosperous and relatively peaceful reign. Pilate and Herod condemn Christ to death for a crime he did not commit, yet we see no evidence in the Bible (or history) that they were judged any harsher than anyone else. The Bible explains that justice is meted out in ways we do not understand, and sometimes not in this world. Jesus teaches "For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." (Matthew 5:45). Psalm 73 ponders why the wicked prosper, but concludes by affirming that they will get what they deserve in the end. The Bible teaches that those who do evil do get what they deserve, however it is not always in a temporal sense here on earth.

RC5) My opponent has missed a very critical point and something that even a brief search in Google would find. There are two ways of understanding what Jesus means when he says that someone will see the Kingdom of God.

The first is to see the kingdom inaugurated when Christ defeated death a sin on the Cross. If Christ came into his kingdom when he accomplished this, then John the disciple was present and there was "some standing here" who did not taste death until Christ came into his kingdom.

The second is to see the kingdom inaugurated when Christ returns in the second coming. While it seems as though this prophecy is false, consider the following: John the apostle wrote the book of Revelation. In the book of Revelation, John saw, in a vision, Christ coming into his kingdom. He saw the second coming. John was present when Christ prophesied, and he did not taste death until he saw Christ come into his kingdom.

I have shown two possible ways that this prophecy was literally fulfilled, and therefore this point false.

I look forward to your responses.

[A] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Pro

My opponent has requested that I expand upon argument number 2. I shall do that.

In the book of Mark, Jesus says

And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out devils; and shall speak with new toungues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Now, people today cannot cast out devils, speak with tounges (unless they learn the new language), and if they drink any deadly thing it will hurt them.

This is the point I was saying in contention 2. I hope I cleared up my argument.

Your RC1 says this
RC1) My opponent is correct in that indeed YHWH is speaking (through Ezekiel) in this passage. However, he is incorrect in that the "statues" in Ezekiel are the same as the "Law" referenced in the Psalms and other places.

I can agree with what you are saying. No need to discuss this.

RC2 I have just explained.
Now, I shall expand on the RC3.

My opponent says that if you were to create an account Jessica13, most people assume your name is Jessica and you ar 13. Obviously, you could be talking about your daughter. However, what if you actually posted that on DDO? Then it is a lie.

You are saying that it is the same way how God decieves people. However, this is absurd.

Let us look at 2 Kings--the verse you expanded on.

Here we see that the man said that he would resort to lying in order to entice Ahab and God supported the idea and told him to go ahead and do it! (i.e. God supported the idea that a man lied to entice Ahab.)

Furthermore, if the prophet is being decieved, and the people are believing the prophet, how can the prophet be truly accountable for his lies? After all, God is deciving that prophet and since he is getting it from the LORD, he obviously would believe it.

RC4 is absurd. Solomon and the other people were eventually punished. Psalm 73 agrees that they will get their just reward in the end--however, we do not see that in that case.

RC5) I will go with two of your possible explanations.

Possibility 1: The first is to see the kingdom inaugurated when Christ defeated death a sin on the Corss.

My opponent assirts that what Jesus was talking about was that some here will not die until Christ is ressurected. However, this is clearly not the case.

In order to understand why it has to be the second coming, we need to understand what "These things" are.

Luke 9:27 Jesus uses the phrase, "Until THEY see the Kingdom of God." They died without seeing it. Not it was just the ressurection of Jesus and it being inaugurated, but actually seeing the kingdom of God.

Possibility 2: John wrote Revelation, John saw the vision; therefore it was fulfilled.
"There be some (plural) standing here..." not "There be one (singular) standing here..."

I'm looking forward to your responses. Good luck.



ReformedArsenal

Con

Thank you for clearing up your C2 argument.

RC1) Pro dropped the contention.

RC2) A simple Google search will reveal thousands of Churches that practice casting out of demons, speaking in tongues (both in a "prayer language" format, as well as speaking existing languages that are not known to them), snake handling, and drinking various kinds of poison. These Churches also practice healing services and claim effectiveness. This point is moot as these signs are present in the modern Church, as well as throughout the historical record.

R3) Let us pretend that my best friend calls me Jessica, and I graduate from Grad School in 2013... so I create the account Jessica13. If people take that to mean that I am a 13 year old named Jessica and I do not correct them, I have not lied but I have decieved them. If I SAID "I am a 13 year old name Jessica" that would be a lie, but if I only allow people to think something incorrectly, that is not a lie.

Furthermore, it is not a man enticing Ahab, it is an angel. God supported the idea of a person lying to Ahab in order to lead him into judgment, but that does not mean that God lied himself.

Finally, the prophet is not being held accountable for being decieved, he is being held accountable for idol worship. The deception is a means of punishment, not what he is being punished for.

RC4) My opponent claims that Solmon and the other people were eventually punished. I would urge my opponent to provide some kind of evidence to show this. There is nothing in the Biblical record that shows that Pilate was punished temporally by God for his part in the crucifixion. The same can be said of Herod.

RC5) My opponent again refers to "These Things" as iron-clad proof that Christ is talking about his second coming. However, he has given no explanation of what "these things" are, why they are such iron-clad proof that Christ is referencing the second coming. In fact, no where in the entire chapter of the references he has provided (Matthew 16, Mark 9, Luke 9) does the phrase "these things" occur. Pro will have to explain more of what "these things" means in order to invalidate my argument, as it is a commonly held Christian belief that the Kingdom of God was initiated when Christ died and rose again.

Back to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Pro

Thank you for your reply. I also thank you for your tremendous conduct.

A simple Google search will reveal thousands of Churches that practice casting out of demons, speaking in tongues (both in a "prayer language" format, as well as speaking existing languages that are not known to them), snake handling, and drinking various kinds of poison. These Churches also practice healing services and claim effectiveness. This point is moot as these signs are present in the modern Church, as well as throughout the historical record.


There are many other healing that have failed--many can be explained scientifically. Most protestant churches hold the view that the Spiritual gifts only lasted a short time.

Furthermore, why don't they just go into hospitals and heal cancer paitence and heal the deathly ill? Isn't it quite evil if you know you have the power to do that and don't?

My opponent claims that Solmon and the other people were eventually punished. I would urge my opponent to provide some kind of evidence to show this. There is nothing in the Biblical record that shows that Pilate was punished temporally by God for his part in the crucifixion. The same can be said of Herod.

Are Pilate and Herod in hell today? For a Christian, the answer is yes. Therefore, that was their just punishment.
As for Solomon, his kingdom will not be given to his sons (1 Kings 11:9-13) and the fact that enemies will envade them. (1 Kings 11:14-40)

My opponent again refers to "These Things" as iron-clad proof that Christ is talking about his second coming. However, he has given no explanation of what "these things" are, why they are such iron-clad proof that Christ is referencing the second coming. In fact, no where in the entire chapter of the references he has provided (Matthew 16, Mark 9, Luke 9) does the phrase "these things" occur. Pro will have to explain more of what "these things" means in order to invalidate my argument, as it is a commonly held Christian belief that the Kingdom of God was initiated when Christ died and rose again.

Let us look at the verses before and after to show what "these things" are.

Matthew 16:27 says this
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Then the very next verse he says that Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Clearly this is talking about the 2nd coming. Did he reward every man according to his works in the ressurection or the crucifixion? no.

Furthermore, my opponent did NOT respond to my argument that Jesus says "Some (Plural)" and not "One (Singular)" if he is referring to John.

I would like an answer from con. Back to you.
ReformedArsenal

Con

RC1) Pro dropped the contention.

RC2) My opponent asserts:

"There are many other healing that have failed--many can be explained scientifically. Most protestant churches hold the view that the Spiritual gifts only lasted a short time.

Furthermore, why don't they just go into hospitals and heal cancer paitence and heal the deathly ill? Isn't it quite evil if you know you have the power to do that and don't?"

There are two issues with these assertions. For the first section, just because some healings fail or are not supernatural does not mean others are not. He has not shown satisfactory proof that the healings claimed by some Churches are wholesale false. Furthermore, in his assertion that most protestant churches are cessationists (the gifts ceased at the end of the New Testament Church) he has not shown any evidence that this is true. Regardless, if the gifts ceased, that means logicaly they were active for a time. If they were active for a time, then Christ's words are true and we have no "fatal" flaw present.

Furthermore, my opponent seeks to undermine the claims by asking why people do not heal everyone. This is a fallacious question, as this shows a poor understanding on the Christian understanding of spiritual gifts. The gift of healing is not represented as a superpower which the believer can use at will, it is represented in Scripture as a move of God's Holy Spirit through the believer, at the impulse of God not the believer. Specifically this impulse of the Spirit is for the edification of the Church.

Also note that my opponent has sought to only attack the healing aspect of this passage and therefore acknwoledges that snake handling, poison drinking, and speaking in tongues are no longer in question.

RC3) My opponent has not responded to my rebuttal and therefore we must assume that he has conceeded the point.

RC4) My opponent claims that Pilate and Herod are in hell serving their punishment. While this may or may not be true, this is hardly the universal Christian perspective. Furthermore, he argues that Solomon's punishment for his transgressions was the discontinuement of his dynasty (not entierly accurate, the throne of Judah - the southern two tribes in the nation of Israel - was held by a davidic king and by extention a solomonic king until the exile to Babylon in 588/87 BC).

This line of argumentation proves my point. Just because Jephthah did not recieve immediate temporal punishment does not mean that he is not punished. My opponent's initial claim was that Jepthah's actions were approved of by the LORD. However, we see this no where in the text. His response was that he was not punished. This assumes he was not punished. There are many theoretial punishments that are a result of his actions:
A) His family line may have ended because he slew his only daughter.
B) He was plagued with guilt for the rest of his life for his actions, just like when a parent allows the consequence of an action to be the punishment rather than impose another punishment on top of it.
C) Loss of credibility and respect amongst his peers.
D) Some form of eternal punishment.

Simply put, my opponent rests his entire argument on the fact that there is no mention of his punishment. This is an argument from silence and is extremely weak. The fact that one aspect of his life (his faithfulness as a judge and redeemer of Israel) is honored in Hebrews 11 does not preclude some form of temporal or eternal punishment. There are many examples in Hebrews 11 of people who were punished temporally (David's first child with Basheeba was killed because of his adultry, for example) yet are still honored here. Why would we treat Jephthah differently without evidence to the contrary.

RC5) My opponent is making a faulty association. He is claiming that because the two are closely placed within the text, that they must be associated. While this is a possible interpretation, and one that many hold, it is not the only interpretation. There is nothing inherant in the text to assume that "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father..." is synonymous with "The kingdom of God." In fact, if we look at the Parables of Christ, we see that the kingdom of God is described as many things. For example, in the Parable of the Mustard Seed we see that the kingdom of God is something that proceeds slowly with a process (just as a plant grows). To associate the kingdom of God with only the second coming ignores all of the other places that Jesus speaks of the kingdom of God (Primarily in the parables). Furthermore, John the Baptist preached the kingdom of God was "at hand" or imminent. John the Baptist presens the kingdom as Christ's first coming rather than his second.

Plainly put, the kingdom of God is not limited to the second coming. Drawing comparison the the mustard seed: The seed was planted when Christ was born, sprouted when he died and was raised, and reaches full maturity in the second coming. However, seeing the sprout rather than the final plant does not mean you have not seen the plant. The apostles present DID see the kingdom of God and therefore this point is invalid.

I did not respond to the single/plural distinction because it is not central to my primary argument in this contention. I was simply proposing an alternate theory to show that my opponent's argument is not the only possible one.

Back to you Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Pro

I thank my opponent for this excellent debate and for showing superb conduct. I implor voters to vote not on their original beliefs, but on how well we debated. I ask my opponent to limit the last round to rebuttals only.

There are two issues with these assertions... The gift of healing is not represented as a superpower which the believer can use at will, it is represented in Scripture as a move of God's Holy Spirit through the believer, at the impulse of God not the believer. Specifically this impulse of the Spirit is for the edification of the Church.

My opponent assirts that I have not shown satisfactory proof that the healings claimed by some churches are wholesale false. I shall expand on my proof.
However, the Bible clearly states that it will work. We see hundreds of cases where people with treatable diseases were killed because they did not take medication, but rather relied on faith healing--which failed them.

If it is the impuls of God and not the person, then why is it that it has failed numerous times?
say that .

Also note that my opponent has sought to only attack the healing aspect of this passage and therefore acknwoledges that snake handling, poison drinking, and speaking in tongues are no longer in question.

The reason I did not attack speaking in tongues is because I was afraid of running out of room. Furthermore, if I could attack and destroy just one part of the Bible, the entire thing is ruined; therefore, it isn't necessary to do so. But since you asked, I'll at tack speaking in tongues.

Speaking in tongues is called "glossolalia." Glossolalia is the fluid vocalizing (or, less commonly, the writing) of speech-like syllables, often as part of religious practice.

Logical Explanations (Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org...)

1) Mental Illness

As Pentecostalism expanded in the 20th century and attracted the attention of the wider world, psychologists initially thought of glossolalia in pathological terms, thinking that it was caused by mental illness. In 1927 George Cutten described speakers in tongues as people of low mental abilities.

2) Hypnosis

What is taught is the ability to produce language-like speech. This is only a partial explanation, but it is a part that has withstood much testing. It is possible to train novices to produce glossolalic speech. One experiment with 60 undergraduates found that 20% succeeded after merely listening to a 60-second sample, and 70% succeeded after training:
Our findings that glossolalia can be easily learned through direct instruction, along with demonstrations that tongue speakers can initiate and terminate glossolalia upon request and can exhibit glossolalia in the absence of any indexes of trance[…] support the hypothesis that glossolalia utterances are goal-directed actions rather than involuntary happenings.
That glossolalia can be learned is also seen in the traces left behind by teachers. An investigation by the Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn showed that the influence of a particular leader can shape a group's glossolalia: where certain prominent glossolalists had visited, whole groups of glossolalists would speak in his style of speech.

On final attack on speaking in tongues
glossolalia go back as far as 1100 B.C. Furthermore, many non-Christians have also practiced Glossolalia. I urge you to see this source http://www.speaking-in-tongues.net...

Speaking in tongues as we see it today did not come about as a result of studying the Bible. It just out of the blue happened. It should be of extreme concern to all Christians, because as already shown, it is not uniquely a Christian practice by any means. Various studies have revealed that speaking in tongues is present in non-Christian religions all around the world. It is practiced in China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Indonesia, Siberia, Arabia, Burma, and Arctic regions just to name a few. Glossolalia is found among the Eskimos, Japanese séances in Hokkaido, in a small cult led by Genji Yanagide of Moji City, the shamans in Ethiopia in the zar cult and various spirits in Haitian Voodoo and is also found extensively in African tribal religions.

Since history records that the practice of tongues goes back well before Pentecost in Acts chapter two, which was speaking in foreign languages, is speaking in tongues as we see it today from God, or as some claim from demonic sources or are there other explanations? Does what Paul speak of in regards to spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12-14 relate to what we see in Churches today? Why do Christians that practice speaking in tongues as we see it today, now call it a heavenly language or the tongues of Angels from the same page.

RC4) There is one big attack on the fact that some people go unpunished. God is just. Therefore, he CANNOT let sin go unpunished. God is unchangeable. Therefore, if God lets sin go unpunished, he is not just. Therefore, he cannot be God because he contradicted his very nature.

RC5) I shall expand on the argument and give 100% PROOF that he was talking about the 2nd coming.

24But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

25And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

26And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

27And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

28Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:

29So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

30Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
Mark 13:24-30

Clearly, it is talking about the tribulation period and the second coming.
vs 24: Tribulations, sun darkened (eclips?)
25: Stars fall
26: Son of man returns
27: Rapture
http://www.biblegateway.com...
It may be possible that "Generation" is referring to the Jews. However, as seen in previous verses, this cannot be the case. "There be some standing here until these things occur..." (paraphrased.)

I did not respond to the single/plural distinction because it is not central to my primary argument in this contention. I was simply proposing an alternate theory to show that my opponent's argument is not the only possible one.

I have proved both of your theories wrong.

Back to you, con. Good luck in voting. You have proved yourself worthy of being my opponent.
ReformedArsenal

Con

RC1) Pro Dropped Contention

RC2) My oponent claims that because some healings fail, that all healings are false. My opponent has jumped to a faulty conclusion by way of faulty syllogism. Lets look at the syllogism that he uses and discuss the failure in logic.

A) All healings that fail are false
B) Some healings fail
C) All healings are false.

In order for this syllogism to work, the B) in the sequence must be universal... it is not, so his syllogism fails.

He also seeks to question why if it is God's work and not man's, then it shoudl not fail and therefore it is not God's impluse. The simply answer is that the ones that fail are not God's work and are the result of a mistake made on the part of the believer. As I said previously, my opponent has not shown sufficient proof that ALL healings are false and therefore his point does not work.

In regard to Tongues... he has committed the same fallacy. He points out that some instances of tongues may be a result of mental illness, hypnois, or other things. He also cites the venerable Wikipedia to support this. However, all this proves - if it proves anything - is that some instances of tongues may be false. I am not denying this. Again, my opponent does not show that tongues are universally false, and therefore his syllogism does not work.

RC3) Pro Dropped Contention

RC4) My opponent writes "There is one big attack on the fact that some people go unpunished. God is just. Therefore, he CANNOT let sin go unpunished. God is unchangeable. Therefore, if God lets sin go unpunished, he is not just. Therefore, he cannot be God because he contradicted his very nature."

There are two significant issues with this contention. First, and foremost, my opponent has not shown that not all people are punished. Regardless, the punishment of people other than Japhthah is irellevant to this debate. Only the punishment or lack of punishment of Japhthah is significant, and my opponent has not shown any evidence that supports the punishment of Japhthah did or did not occur. He is making an argument from silence and that argument does not hold water.

Furthermore, my opponent asserts that God is just. I would ask the reader to consider where this knowledge comes from. In a discussion about the characteristics of the Christian God, the only source of knowledge about the Christian God is his revealed word in the Bible. In essence, my opponent is asserting that the Bible s authoratative by appealing to its authority in an argument. Since my opponent confirms the validity of the Bible in his argument, he is negating his own resolution that the Bible is invalid.

RC5) My opponent is either being intentionally deceptive, or he is committing a mistake. I will give my opponent the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the later, and I urge the voters to do the same.

The error comes in in the following way.

My opponent cites Mark 13:24-30 and treats it as though it were a parallel passage to the one in question. However, it is not. The passage that my opponent cites is part of what is called "The Olivet Discourse." It is called tihs because Christ delivered this teaching to his disciples on the Mount of Olives. We see parallel passages in Matthew and Luke (Chapters 24 and 21 respectively). However the passages we are talking about is Mark 9 (parallels in Matthew 16 and Luke 9). To put it plainly, my opponent has used Mark 13 to define what Jesus means in Mark 9. While mark 16 MAY help inform us of the meaning of Mark 9, my opponent has treated them as though they are the same passage. Because of this unjustified connection, my opponent's argument does not hold water.

I would like to thank my opponent for a fun and engaging debate. I also appreciate the patience it took for the readers to read this, and look forward to reading your votes and comments.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
the bible, the religious scripture, are perfect for they themselves are the word of god. Any inconsistency found in them may either be attributed to: the misunderstanding of its words, or the fact that inconsistencies and contradictions are themselves are a natural part of the universal order and that god, being the creator of this natural order, might have intended it so.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Ok.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I'll be happy to answer it in private messages, I'm not going to answer a question that is relevant to the debate in the comments.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Yes—you will understand why I asked you the question when you answer it
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Does it matter? In this debate it is your job to prove your assertions, not mine.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
What is your definition of justice and being just?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
But you haven't shown how he contradicts it. You argue that if there is anyone who is not punished, then God is not just... there are two assumptions in that

There are people who are not punished
There is no possible way to avoid punishing without violating justice

Neither of these assumptions have been proven... you are begging the question.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
No, what I'm doing is pointing out a characteristic of god in the bible and showing how he contradicts his nature.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I know where you got the assertion. The fact that you're using the bible as a valid source disproves your resolution. You claim that the Bible is invalid, so you are either appealing to an invalid source (argument fails) or you are stating that the Bible is a valid authority (resolution fails). Either way, you're in trouble.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
He is the rock; His deeds are perfect. Everything He does is just and fair. He is a faithful God who does no wrong; how just and upright He is!
Deuteronomy 32:4, Discover God Bible, (NLT).
That is where I get the assertion that god is just
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by SkepticsAskHere 6 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: The Bible does NOT contain flaws. This is directly an anti vote bomb response to jar
Vote Placed by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 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: "any "flaw" that he identifies causes the entire Bible to be invalid." With that definition accepted by pro, con wins. Good debate guys.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Really enjoyable to read, Reformed as always shows strong ability to represent knowledge of the Bible. Kohai brings a decent argument but is forced to concede points and resort to fallacious claims in the end. 3:2 Con
Vote Placed by vardas0antras 6 years ago
vardas0antras
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: ---------------Kudos to Con for not making a warranted semantic argument------------------- Spelling and Grammar: Pro invested much more time. Arguments: Clear win for Con. The debate ended with dropped arguments mixed with weak arguments from Pro. Overall this is a splendid, cliche debate. Good job to both of you.
Vote Placed by Lionheart 6 years ago
Lionheart
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros resources were used more reliably and more frequently to support his argument. Pros argument was very convincing in his logical evidence of the flaws presented in the bible. His arguments supported the validity of these flaws and carried the weight better than Con in my opinion.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 6 years ago
KeytarHero
kohaiReformedArsenalTied
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 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: Definitely a very engaging debate. In the end, I felt that Reformed made stronger arguments. Not only did Kohai drop a couple of contentions, but some of his other arguments were weak. However, the strong arguments Kohai brought, I feel, were more than adequately refuted.