The Instigator
Tavadon
Pro (for)
Tied
43 Points
The Contender
shlh1514
Con (against)
Tied
43 Points

The Bible should not exist and is not the word of god.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,557 times Debate No: 675
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (26)

 

Tavadon

Pro

The Bible did not exist at the time of Jesus Christ it was in fact put together out of many different books by a bunch of power hungry old men interested only in thier continuing dominance over the illiterate peasentry. So many christian writings of the time were left out and the bible portrays woman in a worse light then even the romans. I refuse to believe a god who teaches equality would have a book in his own words teaching sexism.
shlh1514

Con

I think you feel that bible was written by men but it was God who told people that he chose to write the Bible because God can't write the bible but his holy spirit was sent down to the people he chose that followed him to be his "authors" making you believe that people really wrote the bible. And how can people write such magnificent things and if they did, why write it and say its the word of God? They could have just wrote i and say it was them how did it.
Debate Round No. 1
Tavadon

Pro

Ok, i do feel that the original writings may have been well intentioned but, we do not have the originals. what was there to stop the creators of the cannon, not the writings themselves, to change the wording, one example is the way women are treated in the bible. evidence shows that in the early church women were treated as equals not like later on in church history and even now. the priests who may have changed the wordings were the only ones who could actually read therefore making it easy, very easy, for them to change the words and destroy or hide the originals.

Like ive stated before the writings within, somewhat, arent always wrong or evil, just the way the cannon was conceived reeks of corruption, which was very very prevalent in the church during that time in history. are we to believe the same clergy men who overtaxed the peasents. slaughtered many, raped women are to be thought to have been inspired by the holy spirit... rubbish
shlh1514

Con

But the bible tells so many magnificent things, then how could an power hungry leader write that kind of stuff? The bible always have ways to teach you and way for you to do good. The Holy Spirit is 1. the spirit of God.
2. the presence of God as part of a person's religious experience. From http://dictionary.reference.com.... It proves that it can descend to people and the bible even says so. In 33 A.D the bible shows that the holy spirit was descended to 3,000 people and they started speaking other languages. Preaching is god's will and the preachers (Jehovah' Witnesses) have done that. And in the last round, I said that God chose his people. And now he uses other preachers to send his word by the holy spirit.
Debate Round No. 2
Tavadon

Pro

People who desire power corrupted the teachings of christianity only slightly... enough for them to gain power. the idea of christianity is good in theory but just like communism can be easily corrupted. my argument is that the cannon did not exist during the apocolistic age and was only put together after the death of jesus and anyone who knew him or the apostles.

You cant respond to my statement by saying " well the teachings are good" because not all of them are... like wifes being subservient to thier husbands. i for one treat woman with respect, not like slaves. you also cant use parts of the bible to counter my statement saying it is false, because if i believe it is false why would i change my mind based upon parts of the book, which i do not believe in.
shlh1514

Con

The bible doesn't teach that women that they are subservient to men. The Bible says that women should be loyal to men (if they are married). The Bible never states that "wifes being subservient to there husbands". And the Bible never can be corrupted. The people that teach the religion that are corrupt. Like the pope for instance. No one back when Jesus was born was the pope and the Bible never states that the pope is head of Christianity. People that weren't listeners to the Bible use it as a way to have power. The Bible I have is called "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures" and the website to find the religion that uses it is http://www.watchtower.org...
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mr.Cactuar 9 years ago
Mr.Cactuar
Though I am an Atheist and I don't believe in God, I still believe that the Holy Bible should still exist because it gives people a source of salvation. When bad things happen, people whether or not they believe in God still seek a way for salvation, and the Holy Bible will be there to help them have faith.
Posted by shlh1514 9 years ago
shlh1514
I don't get the fact that Tavadon never eexplained about the bible never should be in existing and I did explain the fact of religion.
Posted by tman1900 9 years ago
tman1900
history lesson:

the Bible was written in two languages - Hebrew, Old Testment and Greek, New Testment. Both were translated by King James' orders to Old English so that all the peasants may read GOD'S WORD. now as for your opinion on was it really God's word or some old men, you can get a NASB translation of the Bible and do some background checks on it. you will find all your answers there.
Posted by braves442 9 years ago
braves442
I do agree on the fact that it truly is not the word of god since it took several thousands of years for us to actually write "The Bible" down and we (meaning the English) had to translate it from many different languages. I do think the bible should exist since everyone has the right to freedom of speech and religion however.
Posted by Advidoct 9 years ago
Advidoct
I dont understand this...
Con did NOTHING!!! Why are folks still voting for him. People need to stop voting based on their personal beliefs and vote based on who was a better debater. I agree with Con, but Pro outdebated him easily.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Exactly how can the pro win? I don't think he proved his argument the Bible shouldn't exist.
Posted by aremisasling 9 years ago
aremisasling
In response to Con's 3rd round, I'd like to point out that the Catholic and Orthodox churches do have a continuous lineage of popes from St. Peter on through the present day (pope or patriarch depending on which you follow). You may be able to argue for the authenticity of those early claims, but nevertheless, an at least reasonably convincing argument can be made for a continuous lineage of popes starting from Peter (the rock) through whom the church was founded.

I also recognize that Pauline christianity (later to become Catholicism) was not the one and only interpretation of christianity in the early days. However, most of the varieties extant in the period were by no measure like the modern faith in any of its forms. Much of what is considered correct in the modern faith, whether you are talking Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, or Orthodox, was settled by church fathers in the Pauline church. Like it or not, the brickwork of modern christianity's foundation was laid by the predecessors to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, not by some wonderful purist version of the faith. The bible itself was compiled by leaders of the Pauline church and details of the faith that are taken for granted in all but the most divergent groups were hashed out in synods and counsels held by that very same church.

You can argue whether or not they were right. What you can't argue is that there was another wonderful and mysterious version that existed before Pauline christianity that fits any modern faith better than Pauline christianity itself. All of the variants we have today, with the exception of the few Gnostic groups that exist, take huge quantities of their core beliefs from the ancient church regardless of whether or not they tacked grievances to a door or retranslated the bible in what they believe is a more accurate fashion.

Aremis
Posted by Advidoct 9 years ago
Advidoct
how could Con actually be winning this???
He didnt prove a thing.

Look, Im a devout christian, but even I have to acknowledge that Tavadon dominated this debate. Shlh1514 didnt make a single solid point.
Posted by Tavadon 9 years ago
Tavadon
the original authors were most likely right but their books have changed corrupted by men. i dont think the bible should exist becuase even if it is perfect jesus nor his disciples created a cannon. i believe thier should be books just not a cannon.

and my history is not screwed up, because i never said feudal peasents, peasents did exist during roman times as well, ecspecially near the end of the western roman empire. when the cannon was established. also you have it screwed the heigth of the roman empire occured during the reign of the first emperor Augustus Caesar(27 b.c- 14 a.d.). and the closet the empire ever got back to that was during the reigns of the 5 good emerors( 96-192) still well before the creation of the cannon

And also spero. even is someone like st. jerome studied manuscripts all his life he still lived in the dark ages where many manuscripts were lost and not found till the reinnasance.
Posted by aremisasling 9 years ago
aremisasling
I will point out that many the earlier attempts to compile and canonize the bible left out Revelation and 1st Timothy and in fewer cases, but a statistically significant number, a few other books. This is interesting because a lot of the contentious views on sexism in the bible are, in fact, in 1st Timothy. Some other collections leave out a few of the other epistles of Paul due to uncertain origin, a view also held by a majority of bible scholars (christian and non). This does not make them any less valid, ultimately, but does make it harder to plead a case for their acceptance.

Curiously and conspicuously, Revelation is the only book not read publicly in the eastern orthodox faith and a few eastern versions of the canon don't include it at all.

However, with the exception of about a half dozen books/epistles, most of the NT (especially the gospels) was accepted in all attempts to create an acceptable canon.

Also of note are the infamous Apocrypha (with a big 'A' to distinguish from the larger set of apocryphal books) which, while not included in many modern bibles are still in dispute in the major denominations of christianity. For a few hundred years the Apocrypha weren't printed in most new bibles in the States or Great Britain (though curiously mine has it), but they were not completely removed from the possibility of canonization and the restrictions were later lifted. There is no certainty as to whether or not these will ever actually be included, but they have still held special status as important if not expressly canonical.

Personally, if you tossed out Revelation and the epistles of contentious origin, I'd have fewer issues with the bible as a whole. However, there's still the problem of Leviticus and some of the earlier texts for me. But then, of course, I'm not christian, so whether or not 'I' like it really makes no difference.

Aremis
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by onewayortheother 8 years ago
onewayortheother
Tavadonshlh1514Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Tavadon 8 years ago
Tavadon
Tavadonshlh1514Tied
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 
Vote Placed by phunkyboy123 9 years ago
phunkyboy123
Tavadonshlh1514Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sana8829 9 years ago
sana8829
Tavadonshlh1514Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by shaffaq0589 9 years ago
shaffaq0589
Tavadonshlh1514Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Tavadonshlh1514Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Mr.Cactuar 9 years ago
Mr.Cactuar
Tavadonshlh1514Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Keithinator 9 years ago
Keithinator
Tavadonshlh1514Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by cleon5 9 years ago
cleon5
Tavadonshlh1514Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by riclanda 9 years ago
riclanda
Tavadonshlh1514Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03