The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
Galiban
Con (against)
Losing
23 Points

The Book of Leviticus Contains Many Silly Ideas

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 10 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,201 times Debate No: 6613
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (39)
Votes (10)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that the Book of Leviticus contains many silly ideas about things like proper animal sacrifice, diet, social norms, and even God's consideration of the smell of burning flesh.

**************************

Some brief examples:

- The first nine chapters of Leviticus are devoted to detailing how to sacrifice animals and contain the phrase "a sweet savour unto the Lord" many times to describe the smells and emanations of the sacrifice.

- Leviticus 11 contains dietary requirements that are completely spurious in modern society.

- Leviticus 20 contains some rather silly notions about sex, including considering homosexuals to have forfeited their lives and that one should face social ostricization for having sex with a menstruating woman.

- Other silly notions include the ideas that one should both own slaves and refrain from oppressing one's fellow man, as well as the notion that one should not fear God, even though Leviticus 26 outlines some scary things that God will do it you do not follow his rules.

*******************

Again, just a sample, but the Book of Leviticus contains many, many silly ideas that have little or no value in modern society.

AFFIRMED.
Galiban

Con

Silly.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Silly an adjective describing the lack of intellect: Foolishness.

I will show there was intellect behind these teachings you have stated and refute your assertion that there was no intellect behind the teachings. I will also show that though the acts behind the statements are not extant for today, the principles still are extant and the Holy God that gave them requires them.

The "acts" these statements held required a purpose to met and fulfilled and if that meaning was not fulfilled the "acts" themselves were worthless, even in the time that they were supposed to be dutifully fulfilled.

To show that all of the "acts" described required lateral thinking:
Gen 17:11 "You are to undergo circumcision , and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you."

Notice the circumcision was a "sign" of the covenant of love.
But Israelites did the circumcision but did not do the things of the circumcision.

Jer 9:26 For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart ."

We see the Bible writers like Jeremiah understood this even when the "act" was still required. It was worthless if it was not understood to be something that takes place on the inside. The physical "act" was nothing but a representation of what was supposed to occur on the inside.

Lateral thinking. All the "acts" and requirements stated in Leviticus have another meaning. Now this is not to condemn anyone in anyway for not understanding this. The Jews for thousands of years have not understood there is more meaning. They did those works of the hands and did not do the work of the heart. It is why so much of the Bible condemns them. Even Christians do not fully understand all of those meanings.
But God gave us a system of study to discern these things. All of the acts represent something. All of the commands represent something.
Now as Christians, we know the Intent or Spirit behind all of these laws and we do the Spirit or stated another way we perform the truth.

Taking just a couple of others starting with the sacrifice. This is an amazing principle. The Jews were surrounded by sacrifice. Just imagine this major bloody event always going on. It all happened at the Temple. Just slaughtering hundreds of animals a day. The priest would put his hand on the sinner and his hand on the sacrifice.
http://www.byfaith.co.uk...
The website details briefly the general purpose of the sacrifices and feasts.
We must understand the difference with all religions and Judeo Christianity. The need for redemption. We are evil and have done wrong. We have all fallen short and offended a Holy God. We all have sat up at night and thought about evil things like, murder, lusting after little children, cheating on our wives, or whatever particular sin encumbers you. We all know it.
There is simply no way we can approach a completely Holy God. He is perfectly clean and can touch no unclean thing. We must be "cleansed".
The principle today is the same. We are unclean and we need to be cleaned. The sacrifice is what changed. God sacrificed his only begotten son as that "lamb". It was bloody and brutal. Life had to be paid for death.
That was pleasing to God, the sacrifice having been made. The pleasing part was the completion of the sacrifice. Not the act but the result.
Ps 40:6-8
6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced ;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.
7 Then I said, "Here I am, I have come —
it is written about me in the scroll.
8 I desire to do your will, O my God;
your law is within my heart."

We also see the significance in commands like do not have marital relations while the woman is on her period "because they discovered the fountain of life." What this is discussing is the reason they were doing this. They were having relations and disobeying God because they did not want children. God opens or closes the womb. It is the reason most Christianity is against birth control. There are many reasons why they did not want Children one more is below:

Gen 38:9-10 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife[After the brother died and Onan married her], he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.[It was required that the children would actually be his brothers by law] 10 What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also. [Onan's heart was not where God wanted it and his actions showed it]
When we do these things we are usually stating or justifying our own hearts desire to be against the Will of God.

Notice already so much has been described to have an alternate meaning than what is perceived? This is the reason that the Bible was written. It was to point to the intent of the Law. Realize the Bible has changed and many books they had during that time are not in use anymore as Cannon. However, the best way God could describe to the fallen Israel his character and Will is through example. This allowed them to choose to know Him or choose to reject Him.

Gal 3:24 24 This is why the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

The Law was the way to teach Israel and all that followed God during that time. It was the chosen method to reveal the things of the heart. Even when Israel did the "acts", if they did not have their hearts right with God (obedience to the intent of the law) then they were still guilty.

Isaiah 1:12 "When you come to appear before me, who has asked this of you,
this trampling of my courts? 13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations — I cannot bear your evil assemblies. 14 Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates.
They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them."

We see the "acts" of the Law in Leviticus just worked to bring judgment on Israel. We are in the same boat. If we do not get right with God, we will stand before him after death and state, "I did not know". God will state "I gave my laws that you would know and I gave my people as a witness to teach you. You chose not to listen to them or my laws. That was your decision to reject the sacrifice made for all. You counted it foolishness, not Me."

I have shown there was massive intellect that placed wisdom behind symbols. To show that we do this today with intellect I can appeal to advertising.
http://images.google.com...
Though their initial purpose is not apparent we cannot deny that symbolic imagery does have intellect behind them and can not be considered silly.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Once again, I meet the esteemed Galiban. I'd like to start by addressing his incomplete definition.

I shall accept his source for the definition of silly. However, we re going to use ALL of his source, and not merely the part convenient for him. From his source:

Silly
- adjective
1archaic : helpless , weak
2 a: rustic , plain bobsolete : lowly in station : humble
3 a: weak in intellect : foolish b: exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment c: trifling , frivolous
4: being stunned or dazed

Galiban has posited merely part 3a of this definition. At the very least, we shall consider the entirety of definition 3.

*************************************************************

Some responses:

>> "Gen 17:11 "You are to undergo circumcision , and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.""

Immaterial - we are talking about ONLY the book of Leviticus.

>> "Jer 9:26 For all these nations are really uncircumcised, and even the whole house of Israel is uncircumcised in heart .""

Immaterial - we are talking about ONLY the book of Leviticus.

>> "All the "acts" and requirements stated in Leviticus have another meaning... All of the acts represent something. All of the commands represent something."

This is all well and good, except that my opponent does not say anything about what that meaning IS. Thus, without elucidated further meaning, they qualify as trifling or frivolous and fulfill the resolution.

>> "Ps 40:6-8"

Again... immaterial.

>> "Gen 38:9-10 "

Yet again... immaterial.

>> "Gal 3:24 24 "

Really?

>> "Isaiah 1:12"

Are you done yet?

>> "I have shown there was massive intellect that placed wisdom behind symbols. To show that we do this today with intellect I can appeal to advertising."

Actually, my opponent has asserted that the laws in Leviticus must have some further meaning, mostly centered around keeping the Israelites faithful to God.

>> "Though their initial purpose is not apparent we cannot deny that symbolic imagery does have intellect behind them and can not be considered silly."

My opponent asserts that something done with intelligence behind it cannot be silly. This is simply false, as I'm sure every person reading this debate is seen someone intelligent do something silly.

****************************************

My opponent has not really addressed any of the examples I have given, but merely asserts that since there is intelligence behind the notions in Leviticus, they cannot be silly. However, this is the same line of reasoning as to consider slavery to not be a silly idea simply because the people that HAD the idea were intelligent.

Let us address some of the silly notions in Leviticus:

1. God spends 9 chapters detailing how to kill animals in sacrifice (even though other places in the Bible say he doesn't like sacrifices... but that's immaterial to this debate...)
2. God seems to especially like the smell of burning fat, as it is a "sweet savour" to him.
3. If you touch something unclean (animal or bug or the "uncleanliness of man") then you will be unclean.
4. Moses dresses Aaron with the "curious girdle of the ephod" (similar to a loincloth or sword belt).
5. Jews are not to eat seafood because it is an "abomination." They can't even move the carcasses.
6. All four-legged fowls (which would be...?) are abominations.
7. So are all other four-legged flying creeping things (which would be...?).
8. Weasels, mice, turtles, ferrets, and chameleons are all unclean, even when dead.
9. Chapter 14 has some silly medical advice for lepers.
10. If it slithers, creeps on four feet, or has more than four feet you can't eat it.
11. If you masturbate or pull out too soon and get any sperm on yourself or your clothing, you are unclean.
12. Homosexual activity is an abomination.
13. Bestiality is "confusion."
14. Don't look at your naked relatives. And especially don't take their clothes off.
15. The fruit of freshly planted trees is "uncircumcised" and cannot be eaten for 3 years.
16. If you have a threesome with your wife and mother in law, you will all be burned.
17. Priests must take a virgin for a wife, but not profane their seed among the people.
18. Handicapped people can't go to church, even if it is just a "flat nose."
19. Men with damaged testicles can't go to church either.
20. God details the punishment for breaking these laws including animals that eat your children and forced cannibalism.

I ask the readers.... do any of these make you giggle? Some of them are clearly quite silly. Indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment... Such sound judgment, keeping the flat-nosed people out of church.

I'm still chuckling at this abbreviated list of the silly things in Leviticus...
Galiban

Con

I put forth knowledge.

I ask you Tarzan. What possible logical reason could ever be "discerned" that would justify ignoring the people that wrote the Bible? Their very words both wrote the words of Leviticus and shaped the understanding of Leviticus. The first 5 books of the Bible were not divided out as they are today but they were called the Torah or Moses. We divided them out much later to make the easier to find and reference material. They are not separate books.
The people who wrote the Bible, those individuals that lived, breathed, slept and died IN the very culture we are discussing wrote all of the words in the Bible.

Do you trust yourself when you claim that the man who wrote those same words in Leviticus is irrelevant or that the very ones who are approved by God and cannon are irrelevant? That is SADLY absurd and illogical.

Do you ignore the Mechanic's teacher when your car mechanic's teacher says something? Might he have bearing on your mechanic's statement?

Do you read the 4th chapter on a book about the stock market and ignore the rest? Where is wisdom in this so called LOGIC?

Why do most Christian Scholars not completely agree with you(Tarzan) that Leviticus is silly? (Not Ad Populum fallacy, it is an appeal to the authority of Christian scholars and not quantity appeal based upon belief but upon their resident knowledge.)

We see from your rebuttal that you (Tarzan) desire to ignore context when it is inconvenient to his winning the debate.

We also see that you have no knowledge of the Culture of Middle Eastern Judaism in Africa at the 2500-3500 B.C. timeframe.

We also see that you have no knowledge of the Semitic languages these books were written in.

Let me use an analogy of a person that is attempting to criticize the content of a different book with the same constraints on his knowledge.

Here is an excerpt:
""He rode forth proud and astrid his powerful warhorse with lance in hand. He cried "Avanti!" and charged down the rail the sun glinting off of his metal suit of armor.""

The critic is as follows:
Is this author a completely silly person? There is not one person riding around yelling "Avanti!", and even "charging down a rail" is plain and simply silly and makes absolutely no sense, and who wears metal armor as clothing!

Foolishness!

Back to my rebuttal:
Clearly you would think the person absurd to criticize such a document in such a way.
We all KNOW what the author is talking about, but the critic and potentially his audience does not. The rail is a jousting tourney rail. Avanti means forward or charge and is not in use today. In the Medieval age people wore metal armor to do combat.

I am asserting that this is exactly how you are criticizing the Bible. You do so with no knowledge and are playing "Chicken with God".

Now I do not blame any of the audience for agreeing with Tarzan. I completely understand why you would. If you just read what Tarzan is putting forth it completely sounds foolish!

But realize you are NOT putting your trust in Tarzan's contextual criticism to get a good grade….

You are trusting in Tarzan's ability to listen to God. You are in agreement when you may not know these things as well.

I will address all of the points of Leviticus in my video.

But first the rebuttal.
"<>"

The standard use of Silly is this.
Silly- an adjective describing the lack of intellect: Foolishness.
That was the context you used silly in your first round. Please do not redefine. I do believe my opponent has a problem with understanding context.

<<"My opponent asserts that something done with intelligence behind it cannot be silly. This is simply false, as I'm sure every person reading this debate is seen someone intelligent do something silly.>>"

Yep I saw that coming. The definition of the word silly indicates lack of intellect. My opponent is trying to redefine his own usage in the first round to – "An intellectual person can do something silly" but generally when you are critiquing a silly book you are indicating of the author an overwhelming lack of intellect to propose such information as we see in the quote below.

"<>"

The above shows that you even used the word Silly to point to more than just "a mere instance". If you misspoke or failed to clarify I believe that burden rests on you at this point.

"Immaterial - we are talking about ONLY the book of Leviticus."

I will redirect a couple of assertions. Leviticus is not (despite my opponents misunderstanding) a stand-alone book. It is a part of the Torah, it is only separate books to reference key events. All books of the Bible point to and reflect information in that book. The Torah is keystone for the Bible.

This may help my opponent in understanding the over arching context of the Bible. Just think, If I am right and it should be read in the context of the whole Bible it "might" NOT be SILLY! (Facetious statement)

<<"This is all well and good, except that my opponent does not say anything about what that meaning IS. Thus, without elucidated further meaning, they qualify as trifling or frivolous and fulfill the resolution.">>

I have encountered this with you before. You failed to study or read the source. The source was the "source" of elucidation. I even chose one that taught these things with very few words due to our repeated encounter with your attention span.

<<"However, this is the same line of reasoning as to consider slavery to not be a silly idea simply because the people that HAD the idea were intelligent.">>

My opponent is now implying that I am asserting something different.
The assertion is this (If my opponent had read the source he might be a bit more lucid) each of the laws in Leviticus has a particular symbol behind them, and were DONE with intent and intellect behind them. They are intellectual laws.

I used even other Biblical references to show the context of this very thing, which my opponent promptly ignored.

He ignored the references because of ignorance. He declared them irrelevant. My Opponent has a severely nasty habit of ignoring context and sources. It is causing me to state the same things over and over again in different ways and wasting rounds.

<<"(even though other places in the Bible say he doesn't like sacrifices... but that's immaterial to this debate...)">>

I again put forth how is the context of the Bible's understanding of the sacrifices in that very Bible not relevant? These statements from Tarzan are Silly.

So now that my entire understanding was rejected I must point the audience to first my video. The video will give a critique on Leviticus and the supposed silliness.

Like Tarzan that completely misquotes the Bible and ignores relevant context, anyone can justify anything.

Be careful who you agree with or listen to.

The video directly address the points in Tarzan's arguments.
http://www.sil.org...
Information contained on this site for rebuttal in video. This is not complete but the quote and charts utilized from this site are in the video.
http://www.godtube.com...
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

>> "I ask you Tarzan. What possible logical reason could ever be "discerned" that would justify ignoring the people that wrote the Bible?"

Because they were barely literate primitives living in a time where iron chariots were God-defeating technology?

>> "Their very words both wrote the words of Leviticus and shaped the understanding of Leviticus. "

That's all well and good, but they still wrote some very silly things.

>> "The people who wrote the Bible, those individuals that lived, breathed, slept and died IN the very culture we are discussing wrote all of the words in the Bible."

Simply because their culture was formed around silly ideas does not indicate anything at all about the nature of the ideas themselves.

>> "Do you trust yourself when you claim that the man who wrote those same words in Leviticus is irrelevant or that the very ones who are approved by God and cannon are irrelevant? That is SADLY absurd and illogical."

What is illogical about assuming that some very strange and humorous notions are silly? Simply because God endorses some silly ideas says nothing at all about the ideas themselves.

>> "Do you ignore the Mechanic's teacher when your car mechanic's teacher says something? Might he have bearing on your mechanic's statement?"

That makes no sense... if the mechanic's teacher told me the car ran on potatoes, toenails, and lizard farts, I'd consider him a fairly incompetent teacher.

>> "Do you read the 4th chapter on a book about the stock market and ignore the rest?"

Except we're talking about just that 4th chapter... not the whole book.

>> "Why do most Christian Scholars not completely agree with you(Tarzan) that Leviticus is silly?"

Appeal to improper authority - Christian Scholars are hardly an unbiased group.

>> "We also see that you have no knowledge of the Culture of Middle Eastern Judaism in Africa at the 2500-3500 B.C. timeframe."

Knowledge of just HOW silly the culture was doesn't really help...

>> "We also see that you have no knowledge of the Semitic languages these books were written in."

As though it was somehow less silly in Hebrew...

>> "But realize you are NOT putting your trust in Tarzan's contextual criticism to get a good grade…."

What?

>> "The standard use of Silly is this. Silly- an adjective describing the lack of intellect: Foolishness."

Really? You posit yet another definition after I accepted your first one and actually made you USE it?

>> "each of the laws in Leviticus has a particular symbol behind them, and were DONE with intent and intellect behind them. They are intellectual laws."

Slavery had a particular symbol behind it - it was done with intent and intellect - it's an intellectual law.... Now... are we talking about colonial slavery or the slavery in Leviticus?? Food for thought - is slavery a silly idea?

***********************************************

My opponent inserts a video in order to extend his argument FAR beyond the limits of the debate field he is limited to. I submit that this is dishonest debating.

Furthermore, much of the movie is spurious and not related to the resolution. We are talking about the notions in Leviticus, not the history of the bible. Also, Galiban states that "All of the Levitical sacrifices, all of the Levitical laws were pointing to that very sacrifice of the Messiah. In fact, Job says 'My redeemer lives" - he knew a redeemer was coming."

Obviously this has nothing to do with the resolution, and Galiban is just dismissing these silly ideas as pointing toward the sacrifice and "describing a holy God." He also states that God has "laid out these people's lifestyles."

I submit that if God actually did lay out these people's lifestyles, he did so in a silly way.

**********************************************

Regardless of any sort of purpose, intellect, or design, the notions that are put forth are silly notions. Simply because someone is intelligent or has purpose/design does not mean that their model is inherently not silly. This debate concerns only the Book of Leviticus. If it were about the Bible as a whole context, the resolution would state "The Bible Contains Many Silly Ideas." But it is not.

I now ask the readers: Are any of the following, which Galiban did not directly address individually, notions that are "(1)weak in intellect, (2)foolish, (3)exhibiting or indicative of a lack of common sense or sound judgment, or (4) trifling or frivolous??"

1. God spends 9 chapters detailing how to kill animals in sacrifice (#4)
2. God seems to especially like the smell of burning fat, as it is a "sweet savour" to him. (#4)
3. If you touch something unclean (animal or bug or the "uncleanliness of man") then you will be unclean. (#1, 2)
4. Moses dresses Aaron with the "curious girdle of the ephod." (#4)
5. Jews are not to eat seafood because it is an "abomination." They can't even move the carcasses. (#1, 2)
6. All four-legged fowls (which would be...?) are abominations. (# 1, 2, 3)
7. So are all other four-legged flying creeping things. (#1, 2, 3)
8. Weasels, mice, turtles, ferrets, and chameleons are all unclean, even when dead. (#4)
9. Chapter 14 has some silly medical advice for lepers. (#1, 2, 3)
10. If it slithers, creeps on four feet, or has more than four feet you can't eat it. (#1, 2, 3)
11. If you masturbate or pull out too soon and get any sperm on yourself or your clothing, you are unclean. (#4)
12. Homosexual activity is an abomination. (# 1, 2, 3, 4)
13. Bestiality is "confusion." (#4)
14. Don't look at your naked relatives. And especially don't take their clothes off. (#4)
15. The fruit of freshly planted trees is "uncircumcised" and cannot be eaten for 3 years. (#1, 2, 3, 4)
16. If you have a threesome with your wife and mother in law, you will all be burned. (#4)
17. Priests must take a virgin for a wife, but not profane their seed among the people. (#4)
18. Handicapped people can't go to church, even if it is just a "flat nose." (#1, 2, 3, 4)
19. Men with damaged testicles can't go to church either. (#1, 2, 3, 4)
20. God details the punishment for breaking these laws including animals that eat your children and forced cannibalism. (#1, 2, 3, 4).

As one can see, all of these statements qualify as silly in some way.

AFFIRMED.
Galiban

Con

Wow!
That was again a refusal of the evidence and a personal barb. I do feel the need to address the personal barb.

To the audience and Tarzan- By us both using this debate forum and agreement in meeting in this forum we both agree to the rules and constraints of this forum equally. This debate forum allows lengthy sources and video embeddes into the debate. This is not against this particular debate forum. We are equally restricted by characters and equally open to using videos as sources. (Some debate forums allow a projector for information in the background. Some do not. A person can use the projector or not. I did not and do not see a difference in utilizing the forum allowances.) He is attempting to poison the well against me despite the fact we both agreed to debate on this forum.
http://www.nizkor.org...

Due to Tarzan's weak attention span (he did not read my sources) a video that had more entertainment value was necessary and forced him to focus in an orderly fashion on the information presented rather than skimming the information with his "vast attention span."

Third - there was not a comprehensive source detailing the necessary information that was specifically targeted to Tarzan's debate concepts. Anything that does not "spell it out quickly" for Tarzan, he ignores. The debate resolution and information developed the need for creating one. I have a degree in this specific field of study and I have an understanding of the reasons for each of the laws of Leviticus, I am a source that is quotable.

To summarize All of Tarzan's Rebuttal:

>> "We also see that you have no knowledge of the Culture of Middle Eastern Judaism in Africa at the 2500-3500 B.C. timeframe."

Knowledge of just HOW silly the culture was doesn't really help..."

I really drew out for the audience and Tarzan both, the need for study. Simply put Tarzan feels he can make assertions about the Bible without this need. This summarizes the sum total of knowledge in his rebuttal and saddens me greatly. Nothing in his rebuttal contained knowledge.

Fallacy:
Tarzan believes knowledge is important to make all assertions. He is "special pleading" He has made an assertion without knowledge. This is ok because he does not need to know "silliness" because the subject matter is silly. Thus you should believe him because he does not need knowledge of silliness.
http://www.nizkor.org...

>> "Do you ignore the Mechanic's teacher when your car mechanic's teacher says something? Might he have bearing on your mechanic's statement?"

That makes no sense... if the mechanic's teacher told me the car ran on potatoes, toenails, and lizard farts, I'd consider him a fairly incompetent teacher.

This second statement summarizes his understanding of logic.
In no way does this form of logic dictate anything. Clearly if the Mechanics teacher did such a thing he would not be a Mechanic. Clearly a straw man as the Bible claims God's authorship and intent, it is "your" claim that the mechanics teacher is doing so.

Also it is CIRCULAR reasoning – You are starting with an assumption of Leviticus being silly and this is predicated on your belief of Leviticus being (not just appearing) silly, so authors that explain how it is NOT silly are thus silly, because they wrote silly Leviticus.

What this boils down to is that you do not believe these men were sent from God. You are critiquing information about God when you have no knowledge about God, the men he sent, the information he gives, and the reasons he gives them.
You claim Christianity is biased but have no knowledge of what Christians assert or even what the Bible says, how it was written or what the logical "consequences" are from those statements.

The third fallacy is the entirety of this debate.
Basically Tarzan is claiming to be an authority (when he is not) and making a claim on the information in Leviticus. That is a fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org...

The fourth fallacy is also the entirety of this debate.
It is a "layered" composition fallacy.
Tarzan states Leviticus is silly because of A,B,C which he has no knowledge of or understanding (He claims himself as authority). This predicates the Bible is not real. If the Bible is not real because Leviticus is silly, then Leviticus is even more silly and he does not need to know about the history of the silly authors, the reasons for silly laws to become an informed authority! Thus Leviticus is silly because all of the things pertaining to Leviticus about Leviticus is written from silly authors… because Tarzan states they are silly. No information here just absurd assertions.
http://www.nizkor.org...

Severally warped reasoning – He just ignores my entire informational sources (the video and websites) and says "because I do not understand how this points to holiness, purity and the Messiah it must not be true."

To directly address the points again:
God created all of these symbols for the people who lived them to meditate on them.
All of the other god's were made of wood stone or Metal. The Golden Calf incident in Exodus directly showed that is how the people "thought" of God.
God said no statue will do. My presence and representation will be performed by an entire nation, people and history. Think about the ramifications.
The major atheist and agnostic assertion states that "If God were real we would see him manifested."
God states "you as a nation and people will manifest me. You will be my representation to teach people about me, you will be my impact on History and you as a people will show my character, through your successes and your failures to live out my laws."

This was meant to be a lifestyle of thought and reason. Nothing you did was arbitrary. It was for a specific purpose. If you touched a dead corpse and then you had to cleanse yourself with a lengthy ritual. This is how you meditated on the cleanliness and purity of God with severely drawn out impact.

As you go through the Bible read how many times you find meditating (dwell and consider) on the Bible and the Laws. When you consider what each one of them was teaching… you see the reason.

The address is on the video. You can choose to watch this. I have put forth they, unclean things, represent God's cleanliness and relationship to him. The burning represents God's acceptance in the Hebrew cultural language etc. The symbols that the laws represent a Holy God and our relationship to Him, and the symbolic actions represent the coming Messiah that would take away the sins of the world that the sacrifices could not do. All points fall under those headings.
All my opponent states is "nuh uh!" "It has nothing to do with silliness."
Moses was trained as a Prince of Egypt, one of the most knowledgeable societies in history. So advanced that people even put forth that Aliens made all of their mega structures, which we cannot duplicate yet today. They were severely advanced and Moses had a greater understanding of mathematics and law than most today. Deuteronomy was written as an ancient Assyrian legal document! Study on how much information they knew about cosmology and math building tech. The pictures are showing the difference in culture, their wealth oppulance and their worldview. It is nothing like we have today. Their worldview was completely different.
My Video – http://www.godtube.com...

Stoneworking and Mega structures - http://www.livescience.com...
Debate Round No. 3
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
What kind of sick and demented God sets his people apart by denying them the pleasures he created the tendencies for?!?!

Furthermore, how does it in any way set the Jews apart from the rest of the world to tell them not to eat certain animals? That just sounds silly! God comes down from the heavens and says to Moses - you are my chosen people... and because you are my favorite, you cannot eat this, and this, and that.... oh, and no doing this, and that, and I'll force you into cannibalism if you sin too much.

What kind of disgusting deity is that?
Posted by Galiban 7 years ago
Galiban
I do not agree that it was for the purpose of actual harm that God told them not to eat the particular animals. It was to show themselves as a set apart people.

I believe you do not understand submission. The Bible is there instead of a hovering lightning bolt because God desires submission. When you pick up the Bible to learn you are submitting yourself. When you strive to learn who God is through symbolism you are submitting yourself. God will not give His knowledge to just anyone. So he hid it. Certain things are for everyone like the Golden Rule. There are many things only for those who are humble.

A lightning bolt everytime you do something wrong is forced servitude. God does not desire that. Striving day and night to learn who he is shows your willingness to do good and spend time on the really important things.

How is that not superefficient if your purpose is to hid your will from the world and still call your chosen people? I think it outright brilliant.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
If God created everything... then God created homosexual tendencies. You even see homosexual tendencies in animals. There are literally dozens of animals the display homosexual behavior. So if God created homosexual tendencies in both man and animal, and God calls these tendencies wrong... God's law MUST be arbitrary.

Furthermore, as far as the argument from disease goes, if God was really omniscient, he would know that roasting the animals over a fire for a while would kill most if not all diseases present in non-ground meat. But instead God made it immoral to consume the animals at all.

Could not an omnipotent God have just told Moses to COOK the animals instead of that it was IMMORAL to eat them? Sounds like a pretty freakin' stupid God to me...
Posted by Galiban 7 years ago
Galiban
That would be an arbitrary definition of morality with no authority. God is not arbitrary He is transcendant.

If you were God and used a "way of life" of a special chosen culture and people and said the cabbage represented all the bad things you could do with your penis and then you proceed to liken all of those bad things to cabbage throughout all of your teachings, which would then cause everyone who heard and thought about it why would such a thing be stated and then come to understand the full ramifications of it, then yes as a teaching tool it would make perfect sense.

(love run on sentences : )

Same with Homosexuality. God did not give that function as the purpose of the using your penis. He gave it with the purpose to create children. By what authority do you state God was wrong? Your personal opinion? Common consensus? Because you can get someone to agree with you? All of those things encounter the Nazi problem.

You have no weight :) It is why Christians still exist. You say it is not immoral but God defines good and bad, not someones personal lusts.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 7 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
So if I conclude that it is immoral to put my penis in a cabbage, it makes perfect sens to ban that?? What if I conclude it is immoral to put my penis in another man's butt? It makes perfect sense to ban that??
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Many of the animals that they were told not to eat back then were carriers of diseases that were unavoidable back then. So the eating stuff makes sense.

And the sex regulations were simply banning what was considered immoral. Not 'silly' in any way.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
"I just tested God by asking him to fill my class with Coke. Nothing happened. Test failed."

Now try and ask Gravity to fill your coke. Let me know how that goes. God has rules. Same as Gravity. You are constrained by the formula. Thank you for proving that you are not using reason in dealing with the concept of God.

>> "Science God is completely provable."

""False. Prove it."

I already have. Easy to solve this delima.
You are just denying the Math of God. I deny the math of Gravity.

I also claim the sources that propose gravity are stupida and biased. They are not true.

See prove Gravity with no sources and no math. Go ahead. Try it. Reason out Gravity with only reason and no actual information and no actual math.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
If a mere assertion fulfills the burden of proof, my assertion that you haven't met God fulfills MY burden of proof... We are at an impasse with science and reason completely behind my assertion...

>> "You do not say to the theory of relativity I need to see you. No you test it. God is the same thing. He is an invisible person that operates on the principle of force. Same as Gravity. Do what he says and you will validate the results."

I just tested God by asking him to fill my class with Coke. Nothing happened. Test failed.

>> "What burden of proof do you require? A personally defined criteria or a scientific one?"

Science of course.

>> "Science God is completely provable."

False. Prove it.

Humans recognize ownership via law. God has no ownership of any location on Earth. God will not even defend "his" earth if I declare ownership on it. So unless God is materialistic enough to need to own an entire planet, which is in and of itself somewhat ludicrous, God owns nothing.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
""Verify it. Scientifically. Asserting you have met God fulfills no burden of proof.""

I have met the burden of proof and there is a process to verify it. I am assuming you are meaning some arbitrary personal definition of relative proof that you need.

You do not say to the theory of relativity I need to see you. No you test it. God is the same thing. He is an invisible person that operates on the principle of force. Same as Gravity. Do what he says and you will validate the results.

You know that the theory of relativaty works because you have the formula (Bible) and you have the testimony of mathematicians (Believers) and you can experience it yourself by utilizing the math (personal experience of God). You can measure Him by results. You measure Gravity By results. I see no difference here.

What burden of proof do you require? A personally defined criteria or a scientific one? Science God is completely provable. I do not know why people keep saying he is not.

God is not material but He became material. We can experience the Spiritual world in the material world. They are not seperate but disjointed. The material world is governed by the Spiritual world. You have a false assumption of the interaction.

As to ownership - We give up materialism because God the son gave up Materialism. He is worthy of All honor and worship becuase He did not count equality with God as something to be grasped. Humans pursue promotion and prosperity to become rich. He understood service and sacrifice to be true "good". God understood true love and goodness. He sacrificed being God to be a man. He became poor to make us rich. He is now King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He has total wealth because He gave it up. We become Kings because we too give it up.
We recognize what He did. Now we give up pursuit of wealth and prosperity in the call to service. We have a full understanding of what is true and false.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "I do not know the "in principle" you are defining here."

God does not exist in the physical world. You exist only in the physical world. Ergo, you cannot have met God.

>> "I have met God."

No - you think you have met God.

>> "Testify I have met God. It is completely verifiable."

Verify it. Scientifically. Asserting you have met God fulfills no burden of proof.

***********************

God does not OWN the earth. Does not the Bible say that to be like Christ (God) we must give up our possessions and follow God's laws? Thus, to be most God-like, we should give up materialism. God is the most God-like, ergo, he has given up materialism to the highest degree and owns nothing.

Furthermore, it is completely disingenuous to suppose that a non-physical God has any need to "own" or even use the Earth for any sort of reason. God has given man free will and dominion over the earth - ergo God has given control of the earth and the earth itself to man.

God does not OWN earth - man does.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by ozziegirl 8 years ago
ozziegirl
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 SixSigma 8 years ago
SixSigma
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 sydnerella 8 years ago
sydnerella
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by LoveyounoHomo 8 years ago
LoveyounoHomo
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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:04