The Instigator
LearnLoveLiveLife
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

The Bible was not meant to be literally interpreted.

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: 7/31/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,029 times Debate No: 4851
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (11)

 

LearnLoveLiveLife

Pro

This debate isn't whether we should interpret parts of the Bible literally, there is no "grey area here". It's either to be 100% literally interpreted, or otherwise.

----

==Pre-modern era

Throughout most of the Christian era, Bible reading and Bible interpretation were confined to religious professionals. Until the fifteenth century, the Bible was available only in Latin. Even when the Bible was translated into other languages, the scarcity and high cost of Bibles kept them out of the hands of ordinary people. Availability of Bibles was also restricted by church officials.(SRC1)

During this era, the Bible was interpreted according to church beliefs and traditions. There was little or no attempt made to determine the original meanings of the Scripture. Difficult passages "were interpreted as having a figurative meaning, so that they convey, through a kind of code, deeper truths about God, the spiritual life, or the church."(SRC2)

==Sixteenth to eighteenth centuries

Galileo. Christians have always believed the Bible is inspired by God and is authoritative on spiritual, moral and ethical matters. It wasn't until science began to develop in the 16th century that questions and arguments arose about whether the Bible is also authoritative on scientific and historical matters.

The first major conflict was between the ancient view of the earth, as reflected in the Bible, and the Copernican theory, which held that the earth and the other planets revolve around the sun. The astronomer Galileo, using his telescope, found evidence to support the Copernican theory and began publishing his results in 1611. Church officials were alarmed because the Copernican theory seemed to contradict the Bible, and in 1616 Pope Paul V ordered Galileo to abandon the Copernican theory.(SRC3)

==Literal Bible interpretation.

Many fundamentalists reasoned that "inerrancy of Scripture" meant that everything in the Bible must be absolutely, literally, scientifically and historically true. Anything less would be unworthy of God. According to this view, the Bible, in all its detail, is inerrant on matters of history and science, as well as doctrine. Any apparent conflict between the Bible and another source (science, history, etc.) should be resolved in favor of the Bible because of its divine origin.

Bible verses such as these are often quoted to support the literal view:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (KJV, 2nd Timothy 3:16)

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. (NAS, 2nd Peter 1:20-21)

However, interpreting the entire Bible as literal divine revelation poses severe problems for serious Bible study. Besides the apparent conflicts with science and history, there is evidence within the Bible itself that it has both human and divine origins. Luke attributed his Gospel to his own research:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught. (NIV, Luke 1:1-4)

Paul's letters (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, etc.) were originally written as letters to churches he had founded, not as part of Scripture. They dealt not only with divine revelation but also with many mundane matters like disputes among church factions. Paul often stated his own personal opinions:

To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. (NIV, 1 Corinthians 7:12)

There is also evidence within the Bible that portions of it are intended to be interpreted figuratively rather than literally (John 16:25, Galatians 4:24, Revelation 1:20, 17:18, etc.)
----

Other things from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries(ex.Darwin), and many other ideas, theories, scientific evidence, etc., point to:
Man wrote the bible, it was not meant to be literally interpreted, but rather a "roadmap" of sorts to salvation.

Sources:

1Herbert Lockyer, Sr., ed., Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986, pp. 166-176.

2James L. Mays, ed., Harper's Bible Commentary, Harper, 1988, pp. 8-9.

3Encyclopedia Americana, Americana Corporation, 1971, vol. 12, pp. 240-244
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

This is a wonderful topic, which has been in question in Christian circles since the first century AD, and in Jewish circles long before that. Thank you for the opportunity to debate it with you.

First of all let me disclose that I am an Atheist, who no longer believes in God, however, I have 30 years of Christianity under my belt, and have read the bible many times over in my personal life, and while attending seminary.

My contention is that the bible MUST be interpreted literally for several reasons.

1. God has failed to provide a Rosetta stone for determining which parts are literal and which parts are metaphor, leaving that determination up to humans like you and I. In essence God's silence on the subject reduces His word to subjective human interpretation, which is flawed and sinful as claimed by His followers. This supports your contention that there is no gray area, so the bible is either all metaphor or all literal.

2. There are parts of the bible that clearly read as 'historical' accounts, most notably lineages. The bible has an incredible amount of 'begats' that act to provide literal relevance to the accounts surrounding the people that are listed. This shows a literal intent by the writers, whether inspired or not.

Matthew 1:2-16 is exhaustive in its attempts to connect Jesus to David and Abraham, precisely because the account that is about to follow, requires weight and a literal connection to Judaism. It done so that Matthews claims of Jesus Messiah ship can fulfill Jewish prophesy. This is not a metaphorical attempt, it is completely literal and would not be required if Matthew's intent was for a metaphorical interpretation.

3. The bible seeks to change human behavior, utilizing rules (ten commandments and the Golden rule) This is a literal, physical endeavor, not a dharmic contemplative effort. The bible is not written like the Tao Te Ching, utilizing metaphor for contemplation, rather it commands the reader to behave in specific ways, relating to specific events.

Numbers 5 gives a chilling example of a literal directive of how husbands and high priests should deal with wives accused of infidelity. A dharmic approach would utilize metaphor designed to help the reader think about the emotions surrounding cheating. The bible however, tells the reader to make the woman drink water tainted with dust from a temple floor that is invariably tainted with sacrificial animal blood, and that if she rots from the inside, she was indeed an adulterer. yikes.

4. Utilizing Metaphor without strict definitions and rules of engagement reduces salvation, and the idea of escaping the finality of death through heaven or hell pointless. If biblical accounts are only metaphor then its entire premise is called into question. Escaping death and going to Heaven and a loving God may simply only be metaphor's and living a life for Christ is pointless.

If Christs life on earth and death on the cross are metaphor, then so is salvation.

4. The fact that a literal interpretation of the bible is hard to justify given scientific understanding, does not require an assumption that the writers of the bible meant for it to be non literal. It is more reasonable to understand that it simply is outdated and not an accurate representation of history.

The utility of metaphor in Christian apologetics is used specifically to maintain a God connection to the bible and to excuse its scientific and historical inaccuracies in the light of modern education and understanding. While making a strong argument for the inaccuracies of the bible, it in turn, reduces the essential claims of the bible as meaningless, beyond subjectivity.

The bible is literal, therefor wrong -OR- its metaphorical therefor meaningless beyond subjective contemplation.

your round.
Debate Round No. 1
LearnLoveLiveLife

Pro

Hmmmmmmmmmm. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate.

-
Some Christians continue to believe that the Bible should be interpreted completely, or almost completely, literally.
But... by the mid-twentieth century, many Christians had come to a different view.

Nearly all Christians continue to believe the Bible is inspired by God. God inspired its human authors to deliver His message to the world, and ensured that they delivered it faithfully. But He left it up to them to express that message in their own words and in terms of their own cultures. He did not give the Bible's authors any supernatural knowledge of future scientific discoveries. There is no conflict between the Bible and science because the Bible is a book of spiritual and moral guidance, not a book of science or history.

Further, most Christians accept scientific and scholarly study of the Bible as legitimate. Christianity is a religion built on truth (John 8:32, Romans 1:18, James 1:17-18) and whatever we can learn about the Bible adds to our ability to understand the truth of the Bible as it was originally intended. Restricting ourselves to a narrow ideological view, such as strict literalism, interferes with our ability to fully understand God's revelation through the Bible.

In the majority view, many of the Bible's stories are historically accurate and should be interpreted literally. But some spiritual truths are revealed through the common literary mechanisms of allegory, parable, simile, metaphor, hyperbole, and irony that were never intended to be taken literally. Such mechanisms serve to "paint a mental picture" of ideas not easily expressed in words. The Bible reveals timeless spiritual truths about God, love, salvation, faith, morals and ethics that transcend the realms of science and history. We can appreciate the beauty of a sunrise whether or not the sun literally "rises" above the earth. In the same way, we can understand and appreciate the lessons of the Bible whether or not all its stories are true in a literal sense. We should accept the Bible on its own terms, rather than try to force its stories into a scientific or historical framework.

This leads me to hermeneutics:

This new view of the Bible came about partly as a result of discoveries in the fields of astronomy, geology and biology, but also as a result of developments in hermeneutics, the science and art of Bible interpretation, which can be summed up as follows:

These four key words-- observation, interpretation, evaluation, and application-- are the heart of all approaches to finding out what the Bible means. They provide the structure of what questions you ask of the text, and when.

-Observation: What are the basic facts of the passage such as the meaning of all the words?

-Interpretation: What did the author mean in his own historical setting?

-Evaluation: What does this passage mean in today's culture?

-Application: How can I apply what I have learned to how I live my life?

Interpreting the Bible correctly is a two-step process. We must first discover what the passage meant in the day and age of the author. Then we must discover its message for us in today's culture. Observation and interpretation apply to the first step; evaluation and application apply to the second.(SRC 6)

Many Christians believe the Events of Genesis Chapters 1-11 are allegories that establish the spiritual foundation of all that follows. The stories of Creation, the Great Flood and the Tower of Babel reveal the essential nature of God, His power, and His relation to us. Trying to interpret these stories as historical events detracts from their true meaning.

Using the techniques of hermeneutics, the Genesis account of creation (Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3) might be analyzed as follows:

Observation: What are the basic facts of the passage such as the meaning of all the words?
The creation story is similar to other ancient creation stories, but modified to stress that there is only one God, an all-powerful God, who lovingly created the universe and everything in it, including men and women.

Interpretation: What did the author mean in his own historical setting? Genesis was originally written for the Hebrews of Moses' time who were still tempted to worship the multiple gods and idols of their pagan neighbors. The important message was not how or when God created the universe, or how long it took him to do it; people of that era did not know or care anything about science. Rather the intended messages were:
There is only one true God who created and sustains the universe; the pagan gods were false gods who had no power and should not be worshipped.
Just as God rested on the seventh day (Genesis 2:1-3), man should reserve the Sabbath for rest and worship.

Evaluation: What does this passage mean in today's culture?
All the way from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation, the Bible tells of one true God who created everything and loves all His creation. We can worship God and receive the benefit of His divine love today as much as in Moses' time (Psalms 8:3-5, 24:1-6, 90:1-2, 96:5-6, Isaiah 37:16, Jeremiah 33:2-3, Romans 1:20, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 11:1-3, Revelation 4:11).

Application: How can I apply what I have learned to how I live my life?
We can examine our own lives to see if we are really putting God above worldly concerns such as today's "false gods" and "idols" of wealth, status, power, success, etc. (Matthew 6:24, Romans 16:17-18, 2 Timothy 3:1-5, Colossians 3:5, Ephesians 5:5). We can be sure to reserve time in our lives for rest and worship and serving God (Exodus 20:8-11, Matthew 12:1-8, Luke 4:16, 13:10-17, Acts 20:7).

Just how much of the Bible should be interpreted literally is one of the hottest debates within Christianity today, and there are many different opinions. But, the important thing is that we understand what God is telling us through the Bible and that we don't let arguments about the literal truth of the Bible distract us from that goal. Perhaps, with a bit of humility, we can admit that only God knows all the right answers.

--
Sources:
6. Lockyer, pp.160-166
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

Very compelling, I applaud my opponents strong defense of a non literal interpretation of scripture. However he fails to delineate where the literal ends and the metaphor, allegory, simile and irony begins and then flows back into the literal. Leaving interpretation of the proposed metaphor and allegory completely up to each individual. The results of which are a dilution of organized Christianity, which we can clearly see occurring today.

At this point most Christians will be yelling at their computer screens "What about the Holy Spirit". The Holy Spirit was promised by Jesus before he left the earth to be here amongst his followers, acting as a comforter, a guide, and a tool for discernment. However the existence of over 20,000 Christian denominations, filled with Christians, honestly seeking the will of God, and completely disagreeing about that will is damning to the existence of a discerning spirit, perhaps it was just allegory?

At this point it will be valuable to explore why Christianity changed its view on literal interpretation of scripture in the mid twentieth century. It should strike Christians as odd that scriptural interpretation was considered literal for all its existence until the last 70-160 years. Why the change? My opponent addresses a part of it when discussing hermeneutics. Scientific discoveries forced a new understanding of the bible, primarily because they contradicted the literal interpretation. At this point Christians were forced to either reject the mounting scientific evidence or adjust their opinion of the bible as historical and accurate. The resulting hybrid theology of sometimes literal and sometimes allegorical gives them the wiggle room they require to simultaneously embrace the evidence of science and their faith in the God. Unfortunately it also creates a completely subjective interpretation of scripture that results in widely varying doctrines. This is a terrible problem for Christianity, because of its claims of a single God with perfect will.

Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals and Mormons are the result of this new approach to scriptural interpretation. (Note the time frame in which they were founded) Each found 'old truths' which were hidden to the larger Christian community and claim that they have a more complete interpretation of the bible as a result. The resulting conflicts in doctrine lead to disillusionment of the Christian message and the bible itself, primarily because there is no Godly Translation service which definitively interprets metaphor from historical account or literal directives from God. How can a Christian counter the claims of Joseph Smith about the divinity of Christ, if the scripture is open to an allegorical interpretation without a key to determine what is literal and what isn't?

Is God's will purely subjective? If so, Where is God's omniscience? Is God only a human expression of the unknown?

If not, how does an allegorical view of scripture support that belief?

Onto the parts of the bible which clearly utilize metaphor and allegory. I argue that when ever this happens the bible ALWAYS prepares the reader by telling them that the tool is in use. For instance, Jesus utilized parables to teach deeper spiritual meaning. However when reading the bible the author always notes that Jesus was speaking in parable so as not to confuse the reader. In the old Testament, metaphor and allegory appear in dreams, but once again these dreams are prefaced with terms like "then Pharaoh had a dream, or Daniel had a vision" The reader is informed that the bible is about to use allegory and metaphor, but it is framed in a literal event, like a dream, vision or the telling of a parable.

If the book of Genesis, began with a similar disclaimer, then it would be fair to claim that its claims of the existence of the earth and vegetation prior to the existence of the sun and stars, had deeper meaning and was not literal, however, no such disclaimer exists, therefore it MUST be taken literally.

Hermeneutics:

The biggest problem with the utility of Hermeneutics is that it leads to subjectivity, not a better understanding of the nature of God.

The non literal approach to Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3 listed was beneficial to the follower, however, it is just as easy to utilize hermeneutics to develop a completely different understanding of the nature of God from the same text.

For instance.

Observation and interpretation can remain the same, however Evaluation could lead one to come to the conclusion that God is unforgiving towards those who question his authority and ignore his law. That the addition of the flood story was an indictment against humanity as was the story of the tower of babel. Showing that the nature of God is vindictive and merciless.

The application of this evaluation would be horrific of course, and in many cases has been exactly that.

You and I both agree that incorrect evaluation and interpretation of the scripture is not beneficial for humanity, however I argue that the utility of a non literal approach to scripture leads to increased subjectivity thus a dramatic increase in bad theology and incorrect doctrine as seen by the dramatic increase in denominations and more recently the non-denominational approach which is leading to secularism, and ultimately Atheism.

Case in point, myself.

You said: the important thing is that we understand what God is telling us through the Bible and that we don't let arguments about the literal truth of the Bible distract us from that goal. Perhaps, with a bit of humility, we can admit that only God knows all the right answers.

I submit that 'the understanding of what God meant in the bible' is in direct conflict with adopting an allegorical approach to it, primarily due to the subjective nature of personal interpretation.

Wonderful debate thus far, it is clear that my opponent and I are both very interested in benefit for humanity, but with different approaches....
Debate Round No. 2
LearnLoveLiveLife

Pro

Touche.
-
I will break down my opponents points, and respond to them, then post further arguement to support my claims.

"However he fails to delineate where the literal ends and the metaphor, allegory, simile and irony begins and then flows back into the literal. Leaving interpretation of the proposed metaphor and allegory completely up to each individual. The results of which are a dilution of organized Christianity, which we can clearly see occurring today."

=Some people feel that a literal translation is the most accurate. But this is often not the case. A literal translation frequently does not accurately transfer the meaning of the original to the target language. Some feel that if a translation is not literal, it is not faithful to the original. But this is also not true. Some people feel that any translation less than literal means inserting the translator's own opinions about the meaning of the original. But this is not true either. A translator does not make up the meaning of the original. He discovers it through commonsense study of the language patterns of the original text. The translator understands, as does anyone who has learned more than one language, that every language expresses its ideas in different ways. The translator understands that much of what we say in any language is figurative, that is, non-literal. If we translate figurative language literally, we have not preserved the true meaning of the original. Some people feel that we should translate literally, then use footnotes or a commentary or a trained person alongside the translation, to explain what the real meaning is behind the literalisms of the translation. But this is not true translation, since true translation allows the user of the translation to understand the original meaning, just as the users of the original text did. We are not talking here about understanding everything possible in the original or translation, such as concepts which are difficult to understand, regardless of how they are expressed. We are only talking about commonsense, standard meaning understood in our normal spoken and written communication.
-
"However the existence of over 20,000 Christian denominations, filled with Christians, honestly seeking the will of God, and completely disagreeing about that will is damning to the existence of a discerning spirit, perhaps it was just allegory?"

=I believe so.
-

"Unfortunately it also creates a completely subjective interpretation of scripture that results in widely varying doctrines. This is a terrible problem for Christianity, because of its claims of a single God with perfect will."

=May I remind you of some of the characteristics of God, outlined within The Bible. God is a spirit. God is changeless. God is all powerful. God is all knowing. God is everywhere. Got is eternal. God is holy. God is righteous. God is love. God is truth. God is wisdom.
Not that it has anything to do with this, but I would like to remind you that love, truth, and wisdom are completely subjective hypothetical constructs.
-
"Is God's will purely subjective? If so, Where is God's omniscience? Is God only a human expression of the unknown?"
=I believe so.
-
"If not, how does an allegorical view of scripture support that belief?"
=It doesn't.
-

"You and I both agree that incorrect evaluation and interpretation of the scripture is not beneficial for humanity, however I argue that the utility of a non literal approach to scripture leads to increased subjectivity thus a dramatic increase in bad theology and incorrect doctrine as seen by the dramatic increase in denominations and more recently the non-denominational approach which is leading to secularism, and ultimately Atheism."

=True, a non-literal approach has led to hundreds of versions of scripture, across many different languages. Let me throw out an example of how ideas can be lost in translation.

In Spanish, if I tell someone that I'm going for a walk I say "Voy a dar un paseo." Correct translation in English of this Spanish is "I'm going for a walk." The literal translation is "I'm going to give a pass." The literal translation is simply a matching of the Spanish words to the English words. Such matching is not true translation. It is a form of transliteration, at the word level. If an English speaker hears this literal translation he can justifiably assume that the Spanish speaker is going to hand out a pass to some event, or he might assume that the Spanish speaker is a quarterback who is telling his teammates in the huddle that he is about to throw a pass (we do try to make sense of utterances like this, thinking that maybe the speaker didn't use quite the right words but that this is what he meant). "I'm going to give a pass" is not, of course, the true meaning of the Spanish utterance. The literal translation is not accurate translation. It is only accurate translation of the individual words, not of what the words mean as they relate to each other. Ultimately, the common misunderstanding that literal translation is the best seems to come from a focus upon individual words, rather than how the individual words relate to each other.
-

Just because someone writes words, it doesn't mean they should be literally interpreted.

Intuitively, we all actually understand that meaning is more than just the meaning of individual words. For instance, we can understand all the words of the following utterance.
John forgot office at his home key

We can even make some sense out of this utterance. But we don't accurately understand what this utterance means until we hear the words in their original order:

John forgot his office key at home.

Meaning is composed of the meanings of words, including any non-literal meanings of those words, as they relate to each other, within a social context. Meaning is not simply the meaning of individual words, strung together one after the other.

We need to apply this truthful, commonsense understanding about meaning, words, and how words relate to each other to our thinking about Bible translation.

There are a number of similar examples in the Bible, where a literal translation does not tell the users of the translation what the original meant, so the literal translation is not accurate, however sincere its translators were. Sincerity, even in the cause of devotion to God and His Word, does not guarantee that we will be as accurate, that is, as close to the truth as we should be. And our goal in dealing with God's Word should always be truth-telling, accuracy to God's truth.
-

A priority question each person must ask of anything in any text is "What does it mean?" A priority question each person must ask of anything in any translation is "Does this mean the same as what the original means?" If the answer is no, then we need to revise the translation until its meaning is faithful, true, accurate to the meaning of the original. This revision is needed even if the translation is literal. If it is literal but doesn't preserve the meaning of the original, then that literal translation must be revised until it does. Being literal must never be the highest priority of normal translation. Having faithful preservation of meaning is the highest goal.
-

Thus, I do not believe The Bible was meant to be literally interpreted, and I do not believe that a literal interpretation is possible if we wish to uphold the message that "God" meant to share.
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Con

Wonderful perspective, it is always interesting to see the many views and beliefs that evolve from reliance on faith.

"Some people feel that a literal translation is the most accurate. But this is often not the case"

I agree with this statement, however when there are very specific references in text pertaining to troop counts, numbers of dead, accounting of plunder and how it was divided, it is very clear that the intent of the writer was not allegorical in nature.

It is a good exercise to try and find hidden meaning in works of art and books, but sometimes "God struck Uzzah dead" means just that. As humans we always attempt to apply 'extra' meaning to things that are of importance to us, but it doesn't lead to a reliable understanding, as each human interprets perceived meaning through his own eye. The absence of unity amongst the Christian community, proves that the applied meaning approach to scripture must be false, or that God doesn't guide his children as he promised in the word. If God doesn't keep his promises then the word is not worth anything.

The fact that my opponent believes that the Holy Spirit is only Allegory, should help readers of this debate vote for the affirmative, based completely on the fact that if the Holy Spirit is not real, then trinitarian doctrine implies that God and Jesus are also allegory, along with heaven and hell and salvation and judgement. That being the case, there is no point to being a follower of Christ verses a follower of Lao Tzu.

The allegorical approach to the scripture is not satiated at any point, leading the adopter of this view to go in any allegorical direction to support his own subjective perspective.

Perhaps the story of Jesus was simply about human empathy, and Jesus represents the selfless side of our humanity, that we should strive to bring to life? Why not. Perhaps God, is an allegory for the mean spirited ugly side of our humanity that will judge and kill to protect his own, when ever given the chance. Why not.

There is no governor on an allegorical approach to interpretation, which by proxy leads to any outcome, including disasterous ones. There is no doubt that Jim Jones used allegory liberally in his sermons. And Yes, just because one nut utilizes an allegorical approach doesn't mean that all will, but isn't one mass murder/suicide enough?

"Not that it has anything to do with this, but I would like to remind you that love, truth, and wisdom are completely subjective hypothetical constructs."

I believe that this statement has everything to do with this debate. My opponent precisely correct that all emotion is made of subjective hypothetical constructs, which highlights where an allegorical approach to scripture leads. A comparison of God to human emotion which is ultimately only a subjective hypothetical construct. Therefor God does not literally exist as seen by his next concession, that God is only a human expression of the unknown.

My opponent's argument shows its directive, and I argue that the original writers of the bible did not intend for mankind to adopt his perspective of God being no more than a human emotion.

In conclusion, I would like to thank my opponent for his perspective and argument. I concur that a metaphoric approach to scripture is likely better for humanity in the long run, but only because I am an Atheist and understand that a mystical, non literal approach will ultimately lead to Atheism, which is better for humanity in the long run.

I don't however agree with the original topic of debate "The Bible was not meant to be literally interpreted." It is not tenable to believe that the writers of the bible included literal specifics and meant something more than for the reader to take a literal approach.

I urge the reader to join me in contention of my opponent's position as it is impossible, given that he conceded that "God is only a human expression of the unknown". This concession alone makes intent on the part of God impossible and his final statement; "uphold the message that "God" meant to share." invalid.

Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by LearnLoveLiveLife 8 years ago
LearnLoveLiveLife
Note the quotes on God in my closing argument.
I'm an athiest.
There was a reason for the quotes.
Posted by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
Best debate I've seen in a while. Great job guys.
Posted by JakeRoss 8 years ago
JakeRoss
Wonderfull Debate! Good Topic
Posted by LearnLoveLiveLife 8 years ago
LearnLoveLiveLife
Yes, great debate. Someone finally gave me a run for my money.
Posted by CiRrO 8 years ago
CiRrO
Very interesting debate. I personally agree with Pro, however I think Con did a better job arguing. Well, cya all around.
Posted by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 8 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Great debate Learnlovelivelife.

I appreciate your pov and learned quite a bit from it.

Thanks.
Posted by Dr_Harvey 8 years ago
Dr_Harvey
This is such a great debate, I wish I was in it.
Posted by Dr_Harvey 8 years ago
Dr_Harvey
This is such a great debate, I wish I was in it.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by doesitmatter 8 years ago
doesitmatter
LearnLoveLiveLifeBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 Blessed-Cheese-Maker 8 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
LearnLoveLiveLifeBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 mjoveny 8 years ago
mjoveny
LearnLoveLiveLifeBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
LearnLoveLiveLifeBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 Armageddon23 8 years ago
Armageddon23
LearnLoveLiveLifeBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 Casiopia 8 years ago
Casiopia
LearnLoveLiveLifeBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 JakeRoss 8 years ago
JakeRoss
LearnLoveLiveLifeBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 LearnLoveLiveLife 8 years ago
LearnLoveLiveLife
LearnLoveLiveLifeBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 Dr_Harvey 8 years ago
Dr_Harvey
LearnLoveLiveLifeBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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 Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
LearnLoveLiveLifeBlessed-Cheese-MakerTied
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