The Bible is a good source for morals today
Debate Rounds (5)
Round 1: post your opening argument.
And the rest of the way, we get to freestyle it, contrary to the styles of the previous times we did this.
Good luck to Con in what should be an excellent debate.
The god of the bible who is claimed to be of perfect and moral character and the bible is therefore as it was written by the prophets of Yahweh and the disciples of Christ the bible is claimed to be the perfect moral guide. How then can the bible in the name of Yahweh preach genocide? Yahweh in Deuteronomy 13:13-19 explicitly commands the destruction of an entire town if just one person worships another god. Now I know you will come back with the argument that those laws were written in a different time (ignoring that this totally contradicts the entire premise of Christian absolute morality) this is essentially to say that there is a time when this sort of religious cleansing and barbarism is justified.
Furthermore Yahweh commands his chosen people to destroy entire peoples for no better reason than because their existence complicates his real estate dealings . This is shown over and over again in the Jewish destruction of uncountable cities     and yet this is the character the bible promotes as being of perfect moral character.
Both in the old and new testament women are regarded as the property of either their father or their husband, this is shown by how women are referred to along with property in Exodus 20 and when they are treated like property in mosaic law  .
Jesus also refers to women saying that they should not be permitted to have any kind of authority over a man .
Barbarity of Mosaic Law
I know it is argued that the laws stated in the pentateuch no longer apply (regardless what Jesus says ) but Yahweh did still give these laws so in keeping with Yahweh’s perfect nature Christians must accept that there historically contingent circumstances where:
Killing witches 
Killing homosexuals 
Killing children who hit their parents 
Killing adulterers 
Killing unbelievers 
And killing apostates 
Are all justified.
Lack of Actual Morality
While there are a few good bits in the bible there does appear to be a lack of morality that wasn’t already existing in the secular world. I would like to be presented with profound morality that appears in the bible that hadn’t already been discovered.
 Genesis 12:1-7
 Joshua 6:20-21
 Joshua 8:1-29
 Jeremiah 50:21-22
 Judges 18:27-29
 Deuteronomy 22:23-24
 Deuteronomy 21:10-14
 1 timothy 2:12
 Matthew 5:18
 Exodus 22:17
 Leviticus 20:13
 Exodus 21:15
 Leviticus 20:10
 Exodus 22:19
 2 Chronicles 15:12-13
Thanks for accepting this debate. Now, I’ll go straight into rebuttals.
Rebuttal to Genocide
I just need some clarification here, was this argument written under the assumption that the Bible commands genocide because it’s mentioned in the Bible? Now, contrary to what you seem to think, I am not going to rebut this by saying that the laws were written in a different time. Rather, I would make the call that this argument is irrelevant for two reasons:
R1: We are debating over whether or not the Bible is a good source of morals today; not the morality of God Himself. (Although given the circumstances, this could be pursued.)
R2: The Bible does not command genocide. All it really does is say that it was commanded for them, but it doesn’t say anything like:
“And all those that worship me will kill anyone who disagrees with them.”
Just because it’s mentioned in the Bible, does not mean it is supposed to be followed as law today.
If your argument was not written under the assumption that the Bible commands genocide because it’s mentioned, then we will go further into that later.
Rebuttal to Sexism
I’ll cover the Old Testament laws pertaining to this in my rebuttal to your argument of the Mosaic Law, but I’ll get to the New Testament here.
The above passage (along with several others) is meant to set down the structure of leadership in the church as an organized body. Before I go into detail on this, let me first explain what it’s not saying.
The Bible does not say that a woman cannot teach a man about Christ. Priscilla, along with her husband, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26).
It does not say women cannot exercise spiritual gifts. The four daughters of Phillip had the gift of prophecy (Acts 21:9). 1 Corinthians 14:3 tells us "But one who prophesies speaks to men for edification and exhortation and consolation." Thus prophesy and other gifts can be used between women and men.
It does not say that women cannot evangelize. Lydia, after being converted, had regular fellowships in her home and evangelized others. (Acts 16:14,40).
So assuming that this verse applies to church structure, and that we’re talking about the Bible being a good set of morals for humanity in general, I believe this point has been rendered moot unless you can show me otherwise.
Rebuttal to Barbarity of Mosaic Law.
Obviously, I’m going to start with how those laws don’t apply to us today.
I see you’ve pulled out Matthew 5:18 to defend your position. However, I ask of you to tell me why you think that it means Mosaic Law. Matthew 7:12 states otherwise.(1)
And also, at the beginnings of the law books that lay out the Mosaic Laws, just read them; you’ll find that Moses specifically addressed only the children of Israel; not Christians, because that was many thousands of years before Christ even came along. I don’t even think I need to provide sources for that, but I may as well anyway. (1)(2)(3)
And your next point has the same relevancy as your argument of the Bible condoning genocide. We are not talking about the morality of God Himself.
Your arguments do not seem to hold much water. The first one is an assumption that the Bible mentioning something automatically condones it, and the next two appear fairly shaky. That is, unless you can elaborate further and show me otherwise.
The reason I brought up the charachter of Yahweh was because Yahweh is claimed to be the perfect source of morality and this perfect source of morality commands the deaths of several million people . When an omnibenovolent being commands genocide you have to question what omnibenevolence means in the context and what true morality is.
Pro claims that nowhere in the bible does it say anything like "And all those that worship me will kill anyone who disagrees with them", may I show you an example:
"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." 
That's not what I get from Timothy 2:12, I may return to this later.
Barbarity of Mosac Law
My points had little to do with the morality of god and everything to do with the morality of the bible. Mosac law was handed down to Moses by ultimate source of morality (according to the bible) and therefore when you look at the Mosac laws you should find what is supposed to be the most perfect morality for the time it was revealed.
 Deuteronomy 17:12
Con for his arguments.
However, we aren't talking about the morality of God Himself, we're talking about whether or not the Bible is a good place to learn morals and apply them today. We can go into God's moral character in another debate if you want.
"Pro claims that nowhere in the bible does it say anything like "And all those that worship me will kill anyone who disagrees with them", may I show you an example:
'Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.' "
Ah, thankyou. However, it mentions that it must be purged from Israel, and not from the
whole world. And those laws in Levitcus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers don't bind on
us today as I demonstrated.
Actually, if you read all of 1 Timothy 2, rather than just verse 12, it mentions that they are just instructions for worship (1)
Barbarity of Mosaic Law
I would argue that it's still irrelevant. I just demonstrated how those laws aren't binding on us today. And from my understanding, those laws were given in part to help distinguish the Israelites from the surrounding peoples in the area. If you're going to continue to attack Mosaic Law, then this debate is going to move off-topic as we would no longer be discussing whether or not the Bible is a good source for morals today.
Good Morals in the Bible
I probably should've touched on this first, but I'll go into it anyway.
The book of Proverbs has many good moral teachings and work ethics that can be applied successfully today. Note that these would be useful to us today, since these are separate from Mosaic Law and tell what would please God according to absolute morality. Like I said before, the Mosaic Law was mainly given to distinguish the children of Israel from everyone else.
In the New Testament, we see Jesus telling us to love everyone. This is noted in Mark 12:31(2) which tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves. That is where the Golden Rule originated, also known as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Christ never preached hatred or condemned any race, sex, or sexual orientation of people. The worst he said about them is that they would not enter Heaven. I don't remember Jesus saying that we should kill all unbelievers. (Unless you can show me where it says so.) Whether or not there was that kind of morality before the books of the Bible were written over thousands of years is immaterial, because we're discussing if the Bible itself is a good source for morals.
I could go on and on and will provide more if you wish.
Note that the Bible is not just religious teaching; it is also a historical document, poetry, etc.
As far as I can see, when all this is taken into consideration, the Bible comes out as a relatively good source or morals even in today's world.
Over to Con!
Book of Proverbs
Pro claims that the book of proverbs contains good examples of morality, pro also claims that the book of proverbs is totally separate from the Mosaic law which makes it still relevant today. While the book of proverbs does have some useful morals (even if they weren't particularly revolutionary for the time) it does also appear to call for the death penalty for children who curse their parents (this could also be interpreted as a threat of hell but that is even worse) "If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness." - Proverbs 20:20.
I see, so a person guilty of a seemingly nonsensical crime should only be put to death inside Israel.
Jesus Telling us to Love Everyone
It is very difficult to figure out what Jesus/Yeshua meant in Mark 12:31 but it appears to not be a command to love everyone but instead to love fellow Jews .
In Matthew 10:34 Jesus/Yeshua states "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." this clearly contradicts your interpretation of Mark 12:31 as in Matthew 10:34.
In Romans 1:24-32 Jesus/Yeshua seems to state that both infidels and gays should either be killed or burn in hell the moral implications of both are just as bad.
Forcing Parents to Kill Children
In Zechariah 13:3 (which I assume you accept under the same rational you accept the book of proverbs) god states the the parents of a false prophet must kill the aforementioned false prophet.
Killing Children for the Crimes of their Parents
Isaiah 14:21 (which I assume you accept under the same rational you accept the book of proverbs) orders the death of the children for the sin of their parents which is not a good moral guide.
Rape is A-OK
Judges 5:30 allows for female prisoners of war to be taken as sex slaves.
Slaves, Obey Your Masters
In Ephesians 6:5 Christ personally states that slaves should obey their masters and not rebel, Jesus is teaching that slavery is okay and that a person should not stand up to injustice by and authority figure. In Luke 12:47-48 Jesus also allows for the beating of slaves.
Pitbull15 forfeited this round.
A341 forfeited this round.
Pitbull15 forfeited this round.
A341 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 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||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Con made convincing arguments that alone would win the debate. But, the biggest factor was pro. Pro open and multiple times said that the passages of the bible "don't bind on us today". I.E. direct concession. If the bible is not related to us today, then how can it possible be a good source for people today? Forfeits in both sides even out on conduct.
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.