The Instigator
davidtaylorjr
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Diirez
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points

The Bible is Outdated

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 1 vote the winner is...
Diirez
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,409 times Debate No: 32878
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (1)

 

davidtaylorjr

Con

The Bible is not an outdated document and is relevent for everyone today.
Proposed Rules

Round 1 is for agreement of rules and opening statement. Statement should be short much like a Thesis Statement.
Round 2-4 are for rebuttals and evidence.
Round 5 is for Closing Statements, no new arguments or evidence.
Failure to follow this format results in automatic forfeit.
Professionalism is imperative and no personal attacks. You must stay on topic as this is to be a serious debate.

Definitions:

The Bible is the 66 books that are generally accepted as the Canon.
Outdated: Not relevant for today as a whole.

If you need any other definitions please message me so we can agree to them before proceeding.Burden of Proof is SharedI look forward to your acceptance. Serious Debaters Only!
Diirez

Pro

I look forward to debating.
The bible is an outdated document that should not be used in a person's life today.
Debate Round No. 1
davidtaylorjr

Con

I will contend the Bible is completely relevant to our lives today. Are the 10 Commandments not still applicable? Does the Bible not have words of wisdom in the Proverbs that apply today? Does the way Christ want us to treat others not still work today? I ask my opponent to show me how this document is not still relevant today.
Diirez

Pro

Diirez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
davidtaylorjr

Con

davidtaylorjr forfeited this round.
Diirez

Pro

Diirez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
davidtaylorjr

Con

The Bible is not outdated.

Example, take the 10 Commandments.

One is you shall not murder. Is that outdated? Nobody would argue that, in fact, they would say it is very much reasonable to take that as continued truth today.

You shall not lie. Do we believe lying is wrong? Yes.

You shall not commit adultery. Do we believe Adultery is wrong? Yes, we do.

The notion that the Bible is outdated is unfounded. There are arguments of portions of the Bible being outdated, and most of those, if not all, are referencing some of the law which was covered by the Death of Christ and no longer applicable. That doesn't mean they are outdated, it means they have been taken care of.
Diirez

Pro

Is sexism revelent? No, because in today's society we look down upon sexism.

The man is the head of the woman:
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God," Corinthians 11:3
Wives must submit to the man.
"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto The Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives to their own husbands in every thing." Ephesians 5:22-25
A woman is not allowed to speak in church:
"Let your woman keep silece in the churches.: for it is not permitted unto them to speakl but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."
"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent." Timothy 2:12

Is genocide revelant to today's society?
"This is what The Lord Almighty says...'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." 1 Samuel 15:3

The murder of people who call themselves witches?
"Do not allow a sorceress to live." Exodus 22:18

The Killing of infants?
"Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us/ He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137

Slavery?
"Slaves submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." 1 Peter 2:18

You cannot take an ancient book, written 2,000-5,000 years ago, written in a completely culurally different time and say it isn't outdated. Just look at Leviticus chapter 20 which says that you sjalll be punnished with death if you worship other gods, curse your parents, commit adultery, if you have sex with your step mom, if you have sex with someone of the same sex, if you blaspheme the name of The Lord. Go and read the chapter. IF someone commits adultery, do we kill them? What about homosexuals? Or everyone who isn't Christian?
Debate Round No. 4
davidtaylorjr

Con

My opponent has argued that because society doesn't believe something is correct means that it is not relevant. He cited "sexism." However, a bulk of the Christian society still holds to those values, does that mean they are outdated or simply doing it the right conservative way?

Other verses were taken completely out of context and any logical person can see that.

My opponent has not argued how the Bible as a whole is irrelevant. I would say that Thou Shalt not Kill is still quite relevant today. Do unto others, is still relevant and quoted often today by all members of society.

I yield to my opponent as he has not given any good arguments for the Bible being outdated.
Diirez

Pro

I'm simply stating that the overall concepts of the bible are outdated. Genocide, rape, slavery and sexism are all outdated. Everything I quoted is in the bible and does not need context. There is no context in which genocide, murder, infantcide and slavery is okay.
Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by davidtaylorjr 3 years ago
davidtaylorjr
Let the votes begin. I would like to take this time to thank my opponent for the debate.
Posted by olivia1 3 years ago
olivia1
Diirez argued that the killing of infants is looked down upon/no longer relevant. However, though we may not kill already-born infants, abortion kills just as many. It is horrible to think about and terribly sad, but people still kill infants in this way. Slavery, also, is still a problem in many parts of the world. Other things that he says are taken out of context, while in context, they would make sense and be relevant. I am still siding with davidtaylorjr and I know that he is right. Nothing that Diirez says is correct or agreed upon by people who actually study this topic.
Posted by van77maxon 3 years ago
van77maxon
Zezima You admit that slavery is morally outdated but then say that doesn't mean the Bible is outdated. I think you missed the point. The Bible promotes slavery as an acceptable practice. (Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5-9) The only way you can avoid the conclusion is if you try to make an arbitrary distinction between slavery 2,000 years ago and slavery a 200 years ago. In other words, you're placing yourself in a position of defending some forms of slavery so that you can keep your belief that the Bible is morally perfect. You've backed yourself into a corner. In my opinion, slavery is always morally wrong. Also your attempt to avoid the conclusion by saying all my points were from the Old Testament ignores the promotion of slavery in Ephesians 6:5-9 which is part of the New Testament in every Bible I've ever seen. If some forms of slavery are morally acceptable, why don't Christians teach it? This goes back to my point that to fully believe in the Bible you have to be moral hypocrite because you have to ignore Ephesians 6:5-9. I don't see a way you can get around this but I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss it more with you.

You say you don't "believe" in evolution but then say that you don't have a problem with "micro" evolution. That was exactly what I was saying and it seems like you're contradicting yourself. You also say long-term evolution hasn't been "proven." What exactly would qualify as "proof" to you?

Again, showing the popularity of an idea shows nothing. 40-45% of people (in some parts of the world) believe in the Bible. So what? 99% of people (in other parts of the world) believe the Koran. Also, about 1.5 billion people (21% of people on the planet) are Muslim. Does that mean the Islam is true?
Posted by zezima 3 years ago
zezima
lol ok so because slavery is outdated, (and there are many differences behind the slavery then and the slavery we had a few hundred years ago), does not mean the bible is out dated. without God, there is no such thing as absolute truth. without that, there are no moral truths meaning there is no true morality. without God, morality is non-existent (or an opinion).

now all of these things you say are outdated were in the old testament. and yes in a way some of those things are outdated. but nothing Jesus taught was. persoanally being Christian, i follow the New testament (Jesus).

no i do not believe in evolution. there is something called macro and micro. creationist, at least that i know of, have no problem with micro. macro is the long term which has not been "proven".

im using that 40-45% to show that it is not outdated.
Posted by jackjackson 3 years ago
jackjackson
Yes it is out dated. It expired about 1400 years ago, but they had to keep it around so the church can sustain power and make money.
Posted by van77maxon 3 years ago
van77maxon
For samurai:
Morals come from people. If morals came from "the bible" (so-called) then it would still be legal and socially acceptable to own slaves (Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5-9). The reason that slavery is now illegal and socially unacceptable is not because of your "holy" book but because of the (very human) Enlightenment that went against that book. This was a huge accomplishment for our species. You said that "the only way we could know about morals are from the person who created or decided what they are." Did your "god" change his mind after he decided that slavery was ok and wrote about it in "the bible?" To be a moral Christian today you have to be a hypocrite by ignoring the passages about slavery. Indeed, Ephesians 6:5-9 is morally outdated.

Regarding evolution, you said there is "no exact proof," "no written documents" and "no one was there to see it." Interestingly, you actually do believe in evolution even though you say you don't. Even if you believe that "the first two humans were created directly by God," you still have the problem of the many different races. Our species has evolved significantly over thousands of years. The issue you really want to bring up is transitions between species. The evidence in favor of such a transition is compelling. For example, take Archaeopteryx. It's the earliest known bird. It had wings and feathers and it could fly. But it also had jaws with teeth, fingers with claws and a long bony tail which no modern birds have. In other words, it's a transitional species between dinosaurs and birds. Over the past hundred years or so, we have discovered eleven fossils of Archaeopteryx. Here's a picture of one:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Oh and, by the way, it doesn't matter how many people "believe" in creationism. The popularity of an idea doesn't make it correct
Posted by samurai 3 years ago
samurai
the bible is known for its morals and history and of course religion. in 2000 years will our morals be outdated?

the problem with "evolution" is that there is no exact proof. there are no written documents about evolution and no one was there to see it. im sure in a thousand years if we still exist, evolution will be outdated with the fact our technology will be so much better. creationism is obviously not outdated with the fact 40-45% (at least) still believe in creationism. evolution whether it has been proven it is possible or not, will never be proven 100% that it actually happened.

also now talking about morals. there has to be a god to have any sense of morals. where else would we get these from?

how come animals have no real morals? and saying we are "smarter" is not an answer. the only way we could know about morals are from the person who created or decided what they are. in my opinion it is the ten commandments in the bible and jesus's teachings.

would someone who does not believe in god please tell me where they think morals came from?
Posted by effimero89 3 years ago
effimero89
But "Jegory" the creation story is such a small part of the bible
Posted by Jegory 3 years ago
Jegory
This is a very complicated topic and one that I, as a Christian, have split opinions over. I think the Bible is outdated in the sense that it is a simplified version of how the universe was created so it could be universally understood, but as a guide for how to live, it could go either way. It's important even day, in a world corrupted by greed and sin, but equally some of its "rules" do seem outdated and not relevant for today's world... Nevertheless I'll watch this debate with great interest!
Posted by davidtaylorjr 3 years ago
davidtaylorjr
Sorry my 2nd round argument was so short, I have had not computer access for the last several days and when I finally got logged on I literally had 2 minutes to post.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
davidtaylorjrDiirezTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was a rough one. Neither side was very convincing, both sides forfeited at least one round, and neither used good sources. At least Diirez used Biblical references to support his case, so I can give him credit for sources. However, since he forfeited first, I decided to penalize Pro for conduct.