The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The Ten Commandments should be the basis of our Laws

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,130 times Debate No: 54574
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (1)




I shall argue that the Ten Commandments shall never run in our judicial system, and neither will it be part of the law.


The law of people is the difference between Man's law & Godly.

I guess so, one would agree if the situations of the laws were to reflect a more accurate standpoint of modern day in the acts of many including myself rather than what the people of some seem so to fit a non-fitting standard in substitution of it.

Most don't accept the biblical accuracy or the basis though it applies to past to modern. The truth is whether or not one puts it into application simply is not just saying accuracy all the time because biblical context says you break one, then you broke them all according to a more divine so approach yet a more hypocritical manner because it is impossible to keep the law because it constantly changes without as so much as the people to see it unless proved among mankind with universal principles. So one can partially agree and disagree on some as was stated here by some of the comments.

Anyone who debates this topic will lose or win based on a accountability and association to a religious (practical) or more moral (behavior) standpoint to belief within (internal or external). It is how the world sees its own contexts to that of its manner. Not every law is based on viewpoint that was biblical but structural basis. Others do not believe in authority but man's law to foundations.

I accidentally challenged this when I misread. One of observation can understand that for a Christian to debate this though indeed one is right 1 way is of confusing situation. A model example is a Christ was Godlike.

The true atheist does not believe in practice of religion but the situation here is that religion is a practice of belief.
The satanic which in compared would use logic with reasoning but go against that to choosing a demonic value as to misinterpret the virtues that are important to some or most evangelist to that of some try to conduct more ritualistic.

The fact that indeed knows or acknowledges minimal to some of the existence of other beliefs different shows a world that each religion to that of its practice or belief by a man has indeed a flaw in it. It is there we must choose to acknowledge something greater than the law or just to see life to much though the bible would say pride in life to that of its wisdom totally without faith, work, and love is no answer.

But the ten commandments, I do agree on if one were true to the belief rightly according to God, believes this though the world and one is not perfect as we all should have realized that based on the mistakes made though some of the commentary goes straight to the heart with some additions added on to understand the law better to correct each.

We all know this is a matter of Jewish origin to that of Christian to say that indeed we are not Jews but yet Jesus was. He followed the law of God perfectly with loyalty. But a man would assume of him as that of Job similar in some case but with a difference in the true heart of him to the point where was not conflicted in much reasons explanatory in some scriptures or books be compared as man's way to God.

1-2. Thou shall have no other gods before me or shall not make any graven images.
(uh... it is a heart to that of what is important most of the person to determine to acknowledging existence for what it is rather than make up an idol as money or a statue with material to that of man in position or to argue the past presence to whatever be divine or not to that of one or more ancestors to show onto a generation in mind.)
3. Do not commit adultery: Kind of hard to do when every person is conflicted on moral values to that of some in the thought who practice the sick intentions or just try to conceive that in the mind. Any man who does that truly in his heart or desired sexuality did that already so = broken or conflicted be mostly everyone at some point, including the purest of a man.
3. Though shall not steal? Um, what is there to be stolen of an object or time to ones energy? = broken if one were to honestly admit that to other peoples sanity of knowing what did one do as a kid.
4. You shall not covet your neighbors wife, possession etc... (um lets see, I wish I had that this or this but not that of my neighbor.) But for me it was just at the time to determine what is not to take of though steal would be associated as well in some way.) You can even in common sense to that of reasoning in scripture there is an expansion on the covet to a jealous heart wanting.
5. Thou shall not kill = um, have you killed a man or has one slain themselves compared to life?
6. Do not take the name of the Lord in Vain. = Like, OM______ = okay, finish the sentence.
7. Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. = Saturday and not a Sunday for some = a day of rest as God rested on the seventh day.
8. Honor mother & father.
9. We shall not bear false witness against our neighbor. (Who is my neighbor? You me or anyone?) All lied at one point to get ourselves out of a mess.
10. See relation difference on covet and theft.
Debate Round No. 1


Cornelius forfeited this round.


I do talk about religion for this reason only to use as a minor example.

I was comparing that each one including my own practice has a moral code or some belief associated to contentment that people follow.

A moral code is of the law for which one or society accepts into their own countries and so passed down through generations whether or not that be some legislative paper or by voice, to where they relied on something more in the past.

So if you said the ten commandments shall not be part of the law or neither they will be, one is incorrect as I to agree with the statement that indeed they might not be.

Note: I had put this statement against Cornelius that the law indeed is a structure of what other people fear because it is taken out of context and others do not want to live by it but make their own way.

However if some read me correctly based on the fact round 1 was hard to explain let me make it simple.

If so the ten commandments are relative to a law for which others took into practice to that of how civilization builds itself among history, to that of how we treat others, so then those words of the law be found true besides those who abridge it or take for granted the chance to break the law or make the world a total mess through the twisting of them.

If one needs an enforcer to edit the legislative and other branches, one can indeed see reason though this is not a separation of church and state, but for law to intercede or combine with educational to life principles.

The fact that one man flees from an argument such as this, I do not blame the man. If I had been a liar I would have let the comment or round slide here without actually giving it some thought onto what was a first generation or so century standard to that of its future for which the world progresses through an order or by stability factors.

I am not here to compare universal law but explain a flaw to the statements about the ten commandments not being a part of the law below.

If you believe being a liar to the courts or higher to lower is the right thing to do, one is a transgressor of the law system.

If one believes all violence is right that we should kill a man, then would there not be punishment whether good or bad consequence?

Are we forced to respect our parents or do we as children of much try to honor them through what they taught us as a part of us in a family? Yes, some of you grew up without or had neglect, but that is no reason to dis-acknowledge the world around them unless one hated the fact of existing.

If one read my explanation for not stealing they would understand that people have ownership rights to that of a claim but hear me when I say that if it does not belong to you unless worked for in society it will so happen that is breaking the rules of a civil matter and leads to issues unless otherwise one was clueless and accused a false accusation by another.

Should I gain a profit for something I stole?

Hence the truth would better suit in these matters or convict most of us even with law abiding standards knowing the public cheated and ignored truth virtues.

I do not understand the Lord's name in vain unless one curses the ground to that of have anger with ones shame. Even those of other sides of the world would understand this with a proper translation.

We must remember the rest of the law relates to the ancient laws or to acknowledge a Lord higher than a man and I am not to claim myself that unless one were against what I had explained here with my lecture.

Judicial system = you are telling me deals with the Supreme Court and are enforcers of the 4 branches of law, but even they go by the laws of the land to that of its people to that of its history; to protect the constitutional right and up-hold what most of some Americans had held as true virtue to that of colonial days.

I will not go look up the law and the history of it to that of its founding principles all over again as they state that the constitutional laws are somewhat similar based.

If so I am wrong about the judicial system though I was given a small definition or description of it, so yes I can acknowledge being a little wrong, then show me where exactly I messed up besides saying that if you throw a cross into the system the law or describe Christianity or your own belief that people may persecute for it.

I do not blame the people here or anyone but I find it ignorant they could change the law to that of hide its history, to that of extend it so great that no man could read it and yet people tell me from ten commandments and such the bible will never be a part of the law.

History lesson!

Exodus, we all remember Egypt, Mesopotamia the tale or history of one named Hammurabi, though yet which of those laws were in the book of the Bible? What about Moses on MT Sinai?

- Feel free to read round 1.
I will not flee.

It is better of me to admit the truth rather than fall by slandering of the law and keep history with hypocrisy.
Debate Round No. 2


I thank the Pro for accepting my debate :) But just to let pro know, are you aware that our founding fathers were strictly against religion? They have clearly said not to include any religious reference into associating to our government and everything.

" First Amendment (1791)o "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Link-

Here are my refutations to the commandments

1. "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have no other God before me. (Stop all rational thinking and worship a narcissistic hypocritical skyman)Mosiah 12:34 Mosiah 12:35"

-I honestly find this absurd, we live in a very diverse nation where it's full of people who practice different beliefs. The First Amendment of the US Constitution is a requirement to break the First Commandment; Freedom of religion. Basically since our laws run on the Commandments, this breaks the constitution rules; and it spoils our founding fathers favor that this country needs to be separated from Church. Our founding fathers were secular people; they really wanted that our country's laws should never interfere with anything religious. "The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion."

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing in heaven above, or things which are in the earth beneath.Mosiah 12:36

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.Mosiah 13:15 (Mosiah 13:16

Why should this be necessary to be part of the law in the first place? This violates the first Amendment of free speech. Freedom of speech can contain criticism; especially about religion. Although, it may NOT be fully protected but, here is the list of certain speech that isn't protected: And luckily, religion isn't on the list, so that shows that we may talk whatever we want about God thus showing providing more good reasons that the 10 commandments are faulty and un-needed.

"Defamation (meaning slander and libel)
"Threatening or fighting words
"Lying in court (perjury)
"Speech containing copyright infringements
"Trade secrets
"Words that promote lawless activity
"Words that cause contempt of court

Read more:

4. Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.Mosiah 13:20

-I really disagree with this. here's why; what if your parents are aggravating jerks to you? In what reason would you need to respect them? What if your mother molests you and she never regrets it, so why bother honoring her? And not to mention, this rule is a irrelevant. It's not against the law to disrespect or disobey your parents.

Thou shalt not kill.Mosiah 13:21

-Pfft yeah, like God didn't kill millions of innocent people to justify for his arrogance and jealousy... Hypocrite alert. It's funny because God's favorite man, David was influenced by him to kill many people as possible, because David attacked cities and left NO men, women or children alive, and committed unprovoked mass murders? David IS truly one of God's "Thou Shalt NOT Kill" heroes? And not to mention, God command the extermination / genocide of the Canaanites, (women and children included.)

And I have another refutation to this

-What if you're being maliciously attacked, and someone is going to murder you and you need to fight back in which will result in killing the guy who's about to kill you? This contradicts with the law of self defense, if you end up killing your soon-killer? Which is another reason why the commandments fail.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.Mosiah 13:22

Thanks to the religious freedom act, people can have sex how and whenever they want it without following one person's religion. One religion can't control everyone's decisions and actions; considering the fact our nation's laws were never ran on religion.

Thou shalt not steal.Mosiah 13:22

This one I sort-of agree. But, the swat team and FBI is allowed to confiscate belongings of criminals; whilst stealing.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.Mosiah 13:23

Only good one.

Thou shalt not covet.Mosiah 13:24

I don't feel like refuting this one, as I refuted too many. It's no debate really. All of this basically violates the first amendment. Many of our laws didn't derive from Christianity as the that religion borrowed many things from others. Most of these are weak. And I'm sorry that I forfeited that round, as pro said he accidently accepted my challenge as I got confused.


Oblisk forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
So, Cornelius, were you talking about the American judicial system or what?
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
@Sagey, "... The early earth was not inhabitable by humans... so much for earth being created for life."

Genesis doesn't say that God didnt make uninhabitable planet and name that one "Earth," then call it "hell"and then put another inhabitable Earth (I.e. The one we live on) in its place.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
Well it wouldn't have to be a distance we could notice from a photo of it
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Also, the early earth was not inhabitable by humans, the atmosphere was extremely toxic to all life, except microbes which through photosynthesis, took 2 billion years to produce enough oxygen to rust the earth and cover the world with an atmosphere that animal life could exist in. It was only after they made the earth livable for land animals that the amphibians and other creatures crawled onto land and produced all the land creatures we know of today.
Though of all the creatures that have existed since then, 98% are extinct.
We only can find 2% of all creatures that have ever lived existing today.
So much for the Earth being created for life.
If it was not for those prokaryotic photosynthetic bacteria that arose around 4 billion years ago to make our planet inhabitable, we would not exist.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Though the Earth's distance from the Sun varies by 5 million Kilometers twice a year.
I would hardly think half a kilometer would make any difference, since the collision that created the moon was with an asteroid the size of Mars, that collision would still have occurred.
Posted by Loveshismom 2 years ago
It's the "Solar Scatter" argument. It's premise is that he Solar System argues for the existence of God. I.e. none of the planets would have to be much further away from or closer to the sun or else there would be no Solar System. Let's pretend, for example, that Earth had been something like half of a kilometer closer to the sun when the Solar System formed, but all of the other planets had formed where they actually are. It would take less than 7,000 years for the earth to rash into the sun and, speaking from deep logic, probably take Venus and/or Mercury with it. That would leave them all as vapor with no gravitational pull, causing all the other planets to drift off into space OR Jupiter and Neptune to crash into each other, causing them to become a single body, and then they would drift into the sun due to their combined gravity. They might also take the smaller planets with them. In any scenario you can imagine with the smallest misplacement of any planet, you get a Solar Scatter in 7,000 years or less.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Definition of Irony: Swearing To Tell The Truth, while placing your hand on A Book Of Lies!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
The Ontological argument is also fallacious.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Strong Arguments for the Existence Of God!

Not the teleological argument, that is weaker than homeopathy toxins.

Nor the Cosmological Arguments, they are weaker again.

Cannot think of any Strong Arguments for God.

If God Farted, could we sense his presence??
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Thought Pro was going to romp it home at first, but Con came back with a clincher and good sources to back up his argument which made the difference.