The Instigator
Aaronroy
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
BangBang-Coconut
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The New Testament Bible supports the ownership of Arms by means of context

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
BangBang-Coconut
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,957 times Debate No: 16725
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (4)

 

Aaronroy

Pro

I am in accordance to the stated resolution that the New Testament Bible supports the ownership of Arms by means of context.

Definitions:

support - to give approval to (a cause, principle, etc.)

Arms - Instruments or weapons of offense or defense

context - the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect

It is without a doubt that the teachings of Jesus heavily influence the ownership of arms alike, and its influence is self-evident in the context of the New Testament.
Here are some direct passages from the New Testament Bible further proving this resolution (note, passages marked with * were apparently said by Jesus himself):

Luke 11:21* -

"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace."

Luke 22:36-38* -

"'But now let the one that has a purse take it up, likewise also a food pouch; and let the one having no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell YOU that this which is written must be accomplished in me, namely, ‘And he was reckoned with lawless ones.’ For that which concerns me is having an accomplishment.” 38 Then they said: “Lord, look! here are two swords.” He said to them: “It is enough.” "


Note, I am NOT claiming that the New Testament Bible supports the act of murder or assaulting others with a weapon. Jesus was a firm believer in non-violence, but did believe in self-defence. The rumor of Jesus being a hate-mongerer and violence-lover is easily dispursed with this passage:

John 18:11* -

"Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

This verse clearly demonstrates how Jesus disapproved of the acts (the Acts of Peter, most importantly, for attacking with this sword) such as whipping out one's sword and waving it around as a demonstration of some sort of threat. He firmly believed that they should only be used in times of self-defence, which throughout history, this ideology of self-defence surely reinforces the ownership of weapons.

I will cite sources upon request.

As the saying goes, buying/bearing a sword and using a sword are completely different actions.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

=Greetings=
First off, allow my to thank my opponent for such a resolution as this.
As Con I will show that the new testament Bible does NOT support the ownership of arms by means of context.

So before I begin Let me offer a breif roadmap. I will go first offer some framework regarding the round, I will then deconstruct my opponent's claims, and finally I will offer voters.

=Framework=
I accept my opponent's definitions.

Obs1: As the framer of this debate, my opponent has the burden of proof to show beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Pro position is indeed true. If he is unable to do so, or does so in such a way that is obviously of semantic interpretation of the bible; then he will lose this round.

Obs2: the resolution uses the phrase "by means of context". And as my opponent himself stated, whatever is said in this round must be linear with the Bible's text. Meaning that unless my opponent proves his stance in context with the bible; His arguments are invalid.

Obs3: This debate is not one of reciprocal burdens. As the Con, it is only my job to disprove my opponent's arguments. Outside of that I do not in turn have anything to prove.

=Clash=
I'm just going to go through and argue what my opponent has said piece by piece.

-My opponent claims that it is without a doubt that the teachings of Jesus heavily influenced the ownership of arms. However he offers us no warrant to prove this rather hefty claim; So at that point we cannot accept it.
This claim is also entirely abusive, as if it assumed to be true it takes all clash out of the round. If there is no doubt then I cannot oppose this idea. Also if there where no doubt, I would not have accepted this debate/

- Luke 11:21*-
Now out of context this verse would appear to have me sunk. However when backing up to verse 14 of the same chapter, we see that this verse is actually in rebuke of the pharisees saying Jesus's power comes from Beelzebub. Now let's read verse 22-23 "But when some-one stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."

Luke 22:36-38*-
Cross-referenceing this with
Isiah 53:12 " Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

He told the disciples to take their swords in order to fulfill prophesy, in all reality this verse does not support the ownership of arms, as Christ wants us to trust in his power not ours. You see the theme of turning the other cheek all throughout the new testament Jesus, Steven, and Paul are to name just a few.
And in fact in Luke chapter 22: 50-51, Jesus rebukes one of the disciples for cutting off one of the guards ear; he then promptly heals the guard. "And one of them struck the servant of the high preist, cutting off his right ear. But jesus answered, "No more of this!" and he touched the man's ear and healed him."

- My opponent agrees that the New Testament does not support violence. Of course, we cannot look at the new testament alone, we must reference it with the old testament for deeper understanding. And ecclesiastes 3:8 Tells us there is a time for war. The does not however justify the private ownership of weapons, it justifies the ownership of weapons during times of war.

-John 18:11, Yes.

In conclusion my opponent does not fulfill their burden of proof, and cannot be voted for in this round
Please vote Con
Debate Round No. 1
Aaronroy

Pro

In this round, I will be replying to my opponent's rebuttals.

"Now out of context this verse would appear to have me sunk. However when backing up to verse 14 of the same chapter, we see that this verse is actually in rebuke of the pharisees saying Jesus's power comes from Beelzebub. Now let's read verse 22-23 "But when some-one stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.""

I find verses 22-23 highly irrelevant in lieu of the primary message of verse 21, that when an armed man protects his palace, his goods are, indeed, in peace. Remember, I am not debating over the meaning of the entire verse, but the significance and meaning of the singular verse alone.

"And in fact in Luke chapter 22: 50-51, Jesus rebukes one of the disciples for cutting off one of the guards ear; he then promptly heals the guard. "And one of them struck the servant of the high preist, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" and he touched the man's ear and healed him.""

The act of the disciple Peter was NOT condoned by Jesus. Take note, the New Testament concentrates on the Teachings of Jesus, thus the response and action of Jesus shows that assault with weapons is not condoned. Jesus, however, was a firm believer of arm ownership and self-defence, but by no means an advocate of aggression.

"Isiah 53:12 " Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors."

"My opponent agrees that the New Testament does not support violence. Of course, we cannot look at the new testament alone, we must reference it with the old testament for deeper understanding. And ecclesiastes 3:8 Tells us there is a time for war. The does not however justify the private ownership of weapons, it justifies the ownership of weapons during times of war."

"And ecclesiastes 3:8 Tells us there is a time for war. The does not however justify the private ownership of weapons, it justifies the ownership of weapons during times of war."


As much as I agree with some of the italicized statements, the posted Resolution bluntly states the New Testament Bible, thus I naturally must regard all arguments relating to the Old Testament Bible to be irrelevant.

Also, I would like to elaborate on a verse I've posted.

"38 Then they said: “Lord, look! here are two swords.” He said to them: “It is enough.”

"It is enough" roughly translates to "That's enough!', being that Jesus saw how his disciples were so eager to brandish and use their weapons of war, of which he did NOT condone. He only wished his disciples to bear their swords for self-defence and self-defence alone. Regardless of for just or unjust purposes, the New Testament Bible.

The contender candidly failed to fully rebut my context contentions, and instead has cited verses of the Old Testament, which do not hold water in this otherwise inapplicable topic/

Vote PRO.
BangBang-Coconut

Con

I thank my opponent for their reply, as well as I apologize for my late reply.

First; my opponent claims that the surrounding text to the verse he mentioned is irrelevant; he is off topic in regards to the resolution. The resolution explicitly states that the bible supports ownership via context; yet he advocates that the support is garnered through direct interpretation of the verses he used. He's already lost that debate in that realm of thinking

Second; My opponent's refutation makes no sense in regards to my argument. He claims that Jesus was a firm believer of arm ownership and self-defense, but gives us no scripture to back this claim up; all he is doing, is superimposing his own beliefs onto Jesus so as to justify his own stance.

"As much as I agree with some of the italicized statements, the posted Resolution bluntly states the New Testament Bible, thus I naturally must regard all arguments relating to the Old Testament Bible to be irrelevant."

The new testament does not stand on it's own; it is the fulfillment of the law in it's entirety. For my opponent to make this claim is to make this entire debate one of semantic interpretation. Jesus never quoted the new testament while preaching, but he always quoted the old testament.

""It is enough" roughly translates to "That's enough!', being that Jesus saw how his disciples were so eager to brandish and use their weapons of war, of which he did NOT condone. He only wished his disciples to bear their swords for self-defence and self-defence alone. Regardless of for just or unjust purposes, the New Testament Bible.""

- This makes absolutely no sense, and my opponent does not prove such a farfetched claim to be true in the fist place.

Vote Con, as my opponent has made little sense in this round; and thus there is no reason to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
Aaronroy

Pro

"First; my opponent claims that the surrounding text to the verse he mentioned is irrelevant; he is off topic in regards to the resolution. The resolution explicitly states that the bible supports ownership via context; yet he advocates that the support is garnered through direct interpretation of the verses he used. He's already lost that debate in that realm of thinking"

The verse itself is too diverse in diffrent meanings to NOT be interpreted. Claiming that intepretation of these versus is going out of context is foolish for the verse MUST be interpreted to be thoroughly understood.
I apologize for dismissing the verse addressed in the italicized statement above as irrelevant, I was more trying to address when my opponent started cited Old Testament verses, of which I was dismissing as irrelevant.

Although I admit my 1st and 3rd posted versus were out of text, my 2nd posted verse was on accord with my definition of context. It seems my 1st and 3rd verse can only be a

"Second; My opponent's refutation makes no sense in regards to my argument. He claims that Jesus was a firm believer of arm ownership and self-defense, but gives us no scripture to back this claim up; all he is doing, is superimposing his own beliefs onto Jesus so as to justify his own stance."

My opponent seems to have forgotten that there are MANY interpretations of specific Bible verses, like the one my opponent is so vexed about. I am merely narrowing down interpretations to a point where one seems relevant to the resolution, whilst YOU must interpretate to negate the resolution (if the interpretation is feasible, logical and widely acknowledged.) This verse does have surrounding context, so no loss of conduct should occur for interpreting it.

"The new testament does not stand on it's own; it is the fulfillment of the law in it's entirety. For my opponent to make this claim is to make this entire debate one of semantic interpretation. Jesus never quoted the new testament while preaching, but he always quoted the old testament."

My opponent has failed to see the foolishness of his own statement that Jesus never quoted the New Testament. Although true, Jesus never quoted the New Testament for the New Testament wasn't written until AFTER the death of Jesus Christ. I hope this clarification should further show that my opponent's proclaimed certainty is nothing more than a fallacy.

"This makes absolutely no sense, and my opponent does not prove such a farfetched claim to be true in the fist place."

The countryside was a dangerous place for Jesus and his disciples, whom if which may well have been political agitators as well as religious reformists alike. But, he would not allow his disciples to use their swords against the soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane, as this supports my previous contention of his firm belief in nonviolence.

My opponent has done nothing but dismiss my contentions as senseless jabber whilst I have proven that they do indeed hold water, figuratively speaing. Vote PRO.




BangBang-Coconut

Con

I've said all I need to say. And, my point has been proven.
Even through my opponent's "refutation" he fails to warrant his point, he succeeds only in making claim after baseless claim, but never proving, or validating these claims.
So at the point my opponent neither proves their stance, but also simply dismisses a good majority of my own arguments, you have no reason to vote for him.
---
"My opponent seems to have forgotten that there are MANY interpretations of specific Bible verses, like the one my opponent is so vexed about. I am merely narrowing down interpretations to a point where one seems relevant to the resolution"

- Again, my opponent gives us no warrant, but simply claims (very abusively) that it is his own interpretation.
- This arguments aren't linear with the resolution; and in terms of debate he has made no argument.

"My opponent has failed to see the foolishness of his own statement that Jesus never quoted the New Testament. Although true, Jesus never quoted the New Testament for the New Testament wasn't written until AFTER the death of Jesus Christ. I hope this clarification should further show that my opponent's proclaimed certainty is nothing more than a fallacy. "
- Which all the more so proves my point, that we cannot go off of the new testament alone.
- Throwing around debate terminology, and telling me how much I fail to see a point does not make a point suddenly come into existence.

"The countryside was a dangerous place for Jesus and his disciples, whom if which may well have been political agitators as well as religious reformists alike. But, he would not allow his disciples to use their swords against the soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane, as this supports my previous contention of his firm belief in nonviolence. "

- Aside from the fact that this is a completely new argument; i still doesn't prove that the bible supports the use of arms via context.
- Matthew Chapter 6

Extend everything from round 2 as well since my opponent did not cover it. And please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Aaronroy 2 years ago
Aaronroy
since this debate, I've become an atheist. Why did I even create this foolish debate is beyond me
Posted by ReformedArsenal 3 years ago
ReformedArsenal
A) Not always
B) It never says that Jesus struck anyone with the whip. Most likely it was being used to move the animals along.
C) As I said, Jesus being sinless is a CORE teaching in Christianity... to teach otherwise is explicitly contra-biblical and undermines the point of Christ's sacrifice.
Posted by Aaronroy 3 years ago
Aaronroy
Really?
Is assaulting another human being considered a sin?
If so, Jesus was by far a sinner
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@reformedarsenal Whew, I was worried there for a moment :3
Posted by ReformedArsenal 3 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Sorry,

My mistake... that's what I get for posting quickly.

I meant to say that Jesus lived a sinless life, and that it is a basic tenet of Christianity that is explicitly taught in the Bible.

To say that Jesus did not live a sinless life is to undermine the very message of Christianity.
Posted by Aaronroy 3 years ago
Aaronroy
Reformed, I was saying that Jesus DID live a sinful life. "Even Jesus COUDLN'T live a sinLESS life."
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
Jesus did not live sinful life, what on earth are you talking about?
Jesus ' life was completely sinless.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 3 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Aaronroy,

Proper interpretation of a verse necessarily involves placing a verse within it's context (context = the surrounding text). When you interpret a text without rooting it in the surrounding verses, you are interpreting it "out of context."

Also, Jesus lived a sinful life... this is a foundational tenet of Christianity and is explicitly taught in the Bible.
Posted by Aaronroy 3 years ago
Aaronroy
"Also, you are contradicting your resolution explicitly by saying that you are debating this verse out of context (Context = Con Text = With Text = Surrounding text)."

Since when I was debating out of context?

Interpretation of the verse =/= Debating out of context

"You reckon? What about when Jesus lost his temper, armed himself with a massive whip and went into a temple and trashed the place, assaulting innocent businessmen and damaging their property in the process?"

Everyone's human, we've all have had out altercations with others. Even Jesus couldn't live a sinless life.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 3 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
@ReformedArsenal Yup ;)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 3 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
AaronroyBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: "Remember, I am not debating over the meaning of the entire verse, but the significance and meaning of the singular verse alone." - that is the exact opposite of what "context" means. Clear argument win for Orange-Coconut, 3:1 Con.
Vote Placed by feverish 3 years ago
feverish
AaronroyBangBang-CoconutTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro defines the debate in terms of context, then attempts to ignore any context that doesn't agree with his interpretation. Fail. Also he called his opponent foolish on more than one occasion, which I view as bad conduct
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 3 years ago
ReformedArsenal
AaronroyBangBang-CoconutTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: It's very rare to actually vote 7 against... but this is not a vote bomb. Pro's conduct is awful, and he gets no credit for using the Bible when he uses it out of context. In addition, the attempt to argue out of context, when the resolution explicitly states it is in context... you whole argument falls apart then. All around... awful performance by Pro... Con could have FF and I would have given him the match.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
AaronroyBangBang-CoconutTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: By Pro saying that things must be in context, then refusing to look at them in context to other verses (like the ones directly before) is poor conduct in itself, and also causes him to trip over himself and lose all credibility in his arguments.