The Instigator
justthefacts
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Iamthejuan
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

The Bible is true, the Book of Mormon is not.

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 5 votes the winner is...
justthefacts
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,717 times Debate No: 43479
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (32)
Votes (5)

 

justthefacts

Pro

Terms:
I am a Christian looking to debate a Mormon.
If you are not a Mormon, this debate is not for you.
The Bible has withstood the test of time. It is accurate in areas of History, Geology, Logic, Prophecy and Science. The Bible literally warns against Mormonism. A Christian who follows the Bible will not be able to then also follow the Book of Mormon, because they are in conflict with one and other.
First round, accept challenge and introduce yourself. Second round make the case for your claim. Third round rebuttal and closing statement.
Tell us why we should trust the book of Mormon. I will tell you why we should not, and why we should trust the Bible.
I am not "anti-Mormon", but I am against Mormonism, and the attack it has brought on Christianity.
Iamthejuan

Con

Since con has stated two premises as one complete argument, I only need to disprove one of them, (particularly since proving the book of Mormon or any ancient book to be true is impossible).

Con's conclusion that "the Bible is true" indicates that he believes in the truth of the entire Bible, not just certain parts of it. Therefore, I only need to disprove one thing in the Bible to discredit his argument.

"Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" --Matthew 7:7

--Go on and ask god to explode my computer, like he did for Elijah in front of Baal's prophets (in the STORY). Watch me still reply.

"For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you." --Matthew 17:20

--Doesn't work. Trust me, I tried last time I was up on the Appalachian.

Luke 10:27 (YLT)
"And he answering said, `Thou shalt love the Lord thy God out of all thy heart, and out of all thy soul, and out of all thy strength, and out of all thy understanding, and thy neighbour as thyself."

Luke 12:5 (YLT)
"but I will show to you, whom ye may fear; Fear him who, after the killing, is having authority to cast to the gehenna; yes, I say to you, Fear ye Him."

1 John 4:18 (YLT)
"fear is not in the love, but the perfect love doth cast out the fear, because the fear hath punishment, and he who is fearing hath not been made perfect in the love"
Debate Round No. 1
justthefacts

Pro

"Tell us why we should trust the book of Mormon."
Con has failed to to do this.

"I will tell you why we should trust the Bible".
I trust the Bible because it is reasonable to do so. Historically, it is correct, and we can check the History books to verify this. The same can not be said for the Book of Mormon. Jesus Christ the man walked this earth, and even Richard Dawkins has admitted that Historians agree on this fact, retracting his own statements made to the contrary, in a recent debate with Dr. John Lennox.
Furthermore, The beginning of the Bible states "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth". This is in agreement with what is accepted by modern science and quantum mechanics - time, space, energy and matter HAD to all come into existence at the same time.
The Bible has made several prophecies that have come to pass, such as the city of Tyrus ( see the account of Alexander the great, and the city of Tyre ) the scattering of the Jews, and the rebirth of Israel, just to name a few.
The Bible is logical as it can provide a reason for the human conscience and universal morality that we all hold to as humans ( thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, etc ). Without God, we would make up our own rules, rather than hold to universal ones like these.
These are a few reasons that it is worth the time to investigate the Bible, and its claims. I did investigate, and found the evidence of truth to be persuasive.
When I investigated the Book of Mormon, I found a book about people who know one has ever heard of, and cant be found in history. The places mentioned can not be found on a map.

The book starts by declaring that ALL of Christianity is an Abomination.

I am answering that accusation, and declaring the Bible to be our source of truth.

I believe the Bible because I can find evidence that it is true.

The Book of Mormon makes a different appeal, as it has no evidence at all. Instead, it asks you to read the Book and pray to see if you get a special feeling. If you get this special feeling, that is what they say is the truth.

God gives us evidence, I will take that over trusting my own special feelings; they can be deceptive.

Con, you would do well to find a debate in your field of interest, instead of intruding on a legitimate debate in an area that you are ignorant of, and hostile towards. I forgive you for your bad conduct, but you have offended many others as well. I hope you gain some clarity on this issue.

Thank you for your time, and your votes. I trust I have won already, as this wasn't a "real" debate. I will look for a worthy opponent on this same topic again.
Iamthejuan

Con

I won't bother since people get butthurt too easily.

The very premise of this debate is ridiculous:

my religious book is > yours. There is nothing respectable about such a debate.
Debate Round No. 2
justthefacts

Pro

Con has failed to show evidence of why the Book of Mormon should be trusted. I showed evidence for the Bible. Not everyone will be persuaded by the same evidence, but at least I showed some that many people do find persuasive. Thank
you for your time, and your vote.
Iamthejuan

Con

Pro, in a bad mood already, I accepted this debate because I wanted to teach you a lesson. But the truth is, if you really are 10 years older than me and still don't know what a fable is, you are in trouble.

You actually completely ignored my first argument-- which utterly defeated your resolution --and moved on to state why you believe the Bible which is NOT evidence that it is entirely true.

You put a BoP on us both. Proving the book of mormon to be true would be impossible, and so is proving the bible. It is a jerry-rigged debate that will rely mostly on the preconceptions of the voters.
Debate Round No. 3
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
Thank you for an honest vote Artur.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
"It's "woman" by the way."

No kidding? You felt pretty good about finding that one, didn't you?
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
"Normal as in having a sense of humor and not being an uptight douchewad."

Purposefully being an jerk to a complete stranger is some poor choice of humor. So, someone has to really enlighten me on what was funny about any of your comments within the debate.

"I'm not being hypocritical at all."

You all but gave me a link to your beliefs, to which you directly contradict as I pointed out. You pretend to believe all these things about compassion, love, peace and integrity.. yet you have demonstrated that you don't actually live by those standards. Which according to your belief system... "Know that the way we behave towards one another is the fullest expression of what we believe." Your behavior reveals something very different from what you purport to.

"You have your own limited view on what constitutes as offensive versus "proper Christian behavior", and you throw around words like "disrespect" and "hypocrite" just to use the words."

Well, the person who you debated was offended, and called your behavior bigotry... You also stated that your primary intention was to aggravate this user. So tell me, what is respectful about purposefully aggravating a complete stranger, and how is that not hypocrisy with respect to your supposed beliefs?

"In truth, as Anon pointed out, what I was doing here had a point."

You stated your point... which was to aggravate a total stranger.

"What you are doing here has no point. "

Do I really need to highlight the point of my dialogue with you again, I think I effectively communicated that previously..

"So I will be the adult"

Your behavior relegated that task to me long before you gave the "responsibility" to me.

"and let you get the last word,"

Of course you will.

"but for the record, you are seriously behaving like a loser."

Standing up against your bigotry and childishness constitutes behaving like a loser? By your estimate then, I am happy to be called a "loser."

"It's "woman" by the way."
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
It's "woman" by the way.
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
Normal as in having a sense of humor and not being an uptight douchewad.

I'm not being hypocritical at all. You have your own limited view on what constitutes as offensive versus "proper Christian behavior", and you throw around words like "disrespect" and "hypocrite" just to use the words. In truth, as Anon pointed out, what I was doing here had a point. What you are doing here has no point. So I will be the adult and let you get the last word, but for the record, you are seriously behaving like a loser.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
"Lol thanks for being the only normal person here Anonymous."

Those who are "normal" are those who agree with your behavior? Strange.

"Truescot, I know you think you are the all knowing God who is able to judge people for "sowing discard" by "trolling" the internet looking to make people think twice about the ridiculous ideas they put forth, but you are not."

I'm merely pointing out your hypocrisy, and the immaturity of your behavior concerning this debate. I have no moderation privileges, I simply have my opinion. If you had the capacity to act like an adult and receive criticism, and admit the fact that your behavior was inappropriate, perhaps you could benefit from this exchange.

I for one would never hijack a debate, merely to try and belittle and inflame someone whose position I deemed inferior. It's really simple Juan, if you think the contention and terms are ridiculous... don't accept the debate.

"You are just a person,"

When did I ever allude to the idea that I was more than such?

"and what you think doesn't matter because you think it matters more than anything else."

You're welcome to be a dick for the rest of your life, and consider the opinions of others to be of little value. Don't be surprised though, when you yourself are regarded as being of small value.

"Again, I didn't lie about anything,"

When you accept a debate, you agree to the terms laid out by the instigator. You knowingly accepted the debate with the intention to contradict those terms. What would you call that?

"I didn't disrespect anyone,"

You say this right before you call me a "clown," which mind you is disrespectful. I feel sorry for the women who is engaged to you, and I wonder how you would react were she to observe your behavior here.
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
Truescot, I know you think you are the all knowing God who is able to judge people for "sowing discard" by "trolling" the internet looking to make people think twice about the ridiculous ideas they put forth, but you are not. You are just a person, and what you think doesn't matter because you think it matters more than anything else.

Again, I didn't lie about anything, I didn't disrespect anyone, and I answered the original topic. You are a clown.
Posted by Iamthejuan 3 years ago
Iamthejuan
Lol thanks for being the only normal person here Anonymous.
Posted by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
"Listen, I don't care. I really don't."

Yet you feel enough concern to continually engage my remarks.

"You keep misusing the word troll."

I gave the definition of the word, which just so happens to be subjectively applied. So, in reality there is no real misuse of the word troll so long as it applies to the basic concept of what constitutes a troll.

You intentionally involved yourself in a debate, to which you knew you did not fit the criteria, and did so only to aggravate another poster. You've all but admitted to being a troll.

"I have exhibited no form of cruelty, and you are calling for an inquisition. You are really like a gnat is all."

Got enough hyperbole in that sentence? You exhibited disrespect, dishonesty and immature behavior. You intentionally sought ought to aggravate a total stranger, simply on the basis of what he believes. What does that sound like to you?

And what did you get from it all? Anyone on this site who reads this (143 views already) will not have any respect for you, all the more reason for you to go elsewhere. You wasted your time being involved with a debate whose premise you thought was ridiculous to begin with, and took a loss. You also wasted your time receiving criticisms from myself, since you never should have taken this debate in the first place.

If you have any respect for yourself, you should analyze your actions here, and contemplate on how to make better choices when you come across people you disagree with. The internet isn't a "do whatever you want" pass on moral and ethical behavior, your willingness to shirk your own values... speaks volumes.
Posted by justthefacts 3 years ago
justthefacts
Again, I am not here to defend the Christian religion against your bigoted hate speech. What I believe is what I believe, and I will not be persecuted for it. If you would like to have a proper debate with me, then we can debate on something we both agree to, but your intolerance and bullying is not going to help you to win. You must come up with facts, should we debate proper. Let me know if you find a suitable argument that we can have a rational debate about that isn't so emotional for you. Remember, this is the USA. You can have thoughts and feelings and ideas, it is your actions that bring consequences. Learn to sort out the difference between the two, before you verbally assault someone for their religious beliefs, world views, feelings, orientation, etc. Thanks.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by chengste 3 years ago
chengste
justthefactsIamthejuanTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: No sources other then scripture and CON used those out of context
Vote Placed by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
justthefactsIamthejuanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: seems CON's aim is to discredit the bible, not to discredit the bible and credit the BoM together, so he did it very well. his arguements are not answered. PRO gave some true predictions from the bible but it dfoesnot mean that the whole bible is true, it jus tmeans the bible has true things while CON asked to show the reliability of the whole bible.
Vote Placed by TrueScotsman 3 years ago
TrueScotsman
justthefactsIamthejuanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con deliberately accepted the debate despite Pro laying out clear terms for this debate only to be accepted by someone who is a Mormon. Therefore, Pro is awarded conduct. Pro is also awarded the arguments because of 1) the lack of merit that Con had to his argument (really, really silly), and 2) he did not provide a positive argument for why one should trust the book of Mormon per the agreed upon terms when he accepted this debate. For someone who always welcomes a "respectful debate," Con should go evaluate his motives here.
Vote Placed by Anonymous 3 years ago
Anonymous
justthefactsIamthejuanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Was gonna give to pro until I checked CoC. There are 5 rules members must follow, and honoring silly requests is not one of them. I agree with Con's overall point even though he came across brazen, and based on his argument alone in the first round he sufficiently met half of his resolution in disproving the Bible is completely true, whereas Pro did not. Judgement for Con, and I agree-- adulthood means not everyone gets a sticker. Con used the Bible, Pro used personal experiences and beliefs. Con was also funny to read.
Vote Placed by Sojourner 3 years ago
Sojourner
justthefactsIamthejuanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con accepted this debate in bad faith.