The Instigator
Flynn58
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The bible (OT + NT) is a horrific piece of work and should not be used as moral guidance

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 3 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 909 times Debate No: 24239
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

Flynn58

Pro

a) For the following debate, the New King James Version is to be used.
b) No holds barred, nothing off limits.
c) Please look to this flowchart to see how a religious debate, or any debate, should operate: http://blog.case.edu...

It is of my opinion that the Judeo-Christian bible is a horrific piece of work, which glorifies the subjugation of women and children, people that are not heterosexual and people of other religions/people without a religion:
1. The Bible's treatment of women is horrifying. In 1 Timothy 2:9-15, the following verses occur: 9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 15 Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. These verses state that a woman doesn't have the right to dress as she pleases, must stay silent, may not teach or have any authority over a man, and states that women are all foolish and are bad for their alleged great many times ancestor (who most likely didn't exist) choosing not to be a thought slave. It is also suggested they may only have the ability to bear a child if they follow these laws. These 7 verses horrifying subjugate women to a level below men, to servitude and silence. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, it states that when a woman is raped, she must marry her rapist and can never divorce him. Why would any good person force a victim of rape to be subject to his every sexual desire? And as for children, proverbs 13:24 states that anyone who loves their child will hit them with an iron rod, but whoever hates their child will spare them the rod. How is it appropriate to smack a child with a rod, much less call it love?

2. Leviticus 18:22 states that homosexuality is a sin, and that anyone who commits it should be put to death. That is absolutely outrageous. How dare you condemn someone for being homosexual? It's just as natural as heterosexuality, and their love is as valid as heterosexual love. There is nothing more to be said here.

3. In Deuteronomy 17:2-5 (2 "If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, 3 who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded, 4 and it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently. And if it is indeed true and certain that such an abomination has been committed in Israel, 5 then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones) the bible states to kill atheists and anyone of alternate faith. That is just ridiculous, this book is in no way a good base for moral guidance if it suggests the murder of anyone skeptical of religion.

As you can see here, the bible promotes unreasonable hate, violence and murder. Basing your moral guidance off it is just silly.
socialpinko

Con

Before I begin my deconstruction of the Pro case, I would like to offer definitions of the terms of the resolution left undefined by my opponent, as well as some other terms relevant to the debate.


Should: Used to express obligation or duty[1]

Moral: Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character[2]


For the Bible to be used for moral guidance means that the contents of it would be factored in the decision of how one ought to act. If one should not use the Bible for moral guidance then, this means that the Bible contains material which is morally dubious or wrong. The Pro case relies on the argument that the Bible promotes behavior which is morally wrong to push the proposition that it should not be used as a moral guide.


===Deconstruction===


Put clearly in syllogistic form, my opponent's argument goes as follows:

P1: The Bible supports actions A, B, C, etc.
P2: The aforementioned actions are morally wrong.
P3: One ought to do what is morally right and not do what is morally wrong.
C: The Bible should not be used for moral guidance.


On the argument forwarded by my opponent, I concede that the writings in the Bible supports the actions described by my opponent in his case. The description of the views purported in the Bible regarding the treatment of women, homosexuals, non-religious people, etc. by my opponent are all true. However, the reason why the Pro case is insufficient to support the resolution is because he has failed to uphold P2 (I will concede the implied assumption of P3). My opponent has not sufficiently shown why the various treatments described in the Bible are actually morally wrong, thus he has not shown why there is anything wrong with using the Bible for moral guidance (or by extension committing the acts described). If nothing can be shown to be morally wrong with the actions prescribed in the Bible, then my opponent has not upheld his burden of proof.


===Sources===


[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Flynn58

Pro

Touch´┐Ż. Morals are in modern society understood to be a concept held by people on whether certain actions are good or bad, by the way they affect society. Therefore, if the actions I have pointed out above can be shown to negatively affect people or society, I can prove that they are morally wrong. Firstly, women and children. With the verses from 1 Timothy Chapter 2, it tells women that they must all dress covering most of themselves, and that they may not have authority over men or teach men. This represses the individuality of women, subjugating them to the will of men. If a woman cannot teach a male, then it is also impossible for them to share information. This can create a intellectual bottleneck, as new concepts and theories cannot be put forward by women. What if instead of Einstein, a woman proposed the theory of relativity? According to 1 Timothy, she would not able to have put forward the theory of relativity, which would mean project Manhattan would never have occurred, and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima would never have occurred, which wouldn't have acted as a proper deterrent to the Japanese, which could have turned the tide of WWII in the Axis' favor. Next, Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Why is it bad? Because imagine the unbearable PTSD from having to live with the man who raped you, who violated you in the most intimate way possible for the rest of your life? As for the verse in Proverbs, imagine the physical trauma that would be inflicted by smacking a small child with a iron rod? The psychological deterrent to ever questioning your parents? It's horrifying that anyone would suggest physically abusing a small child. They could be killed! On Homosexuality, how is it appropriate to repress someone's natural sexuality, or kill them for simply expressing it as heterosexual people do? This isn't like having someone repress their hyper-sexuality, their desire to rape. It's repressing something just as natural as heterosexuality, just as human. That is absolutely unacceptable. This leads to the portion which says to kill the homosexual, and to the verse about alternate faiths. It's disgusting that you would even propagate that I need to prove that murder has a negative impact. It's ending a life that has every right to live. This is a human life, just like yours. It's a theft, and the only kind that is of a property that can never be returned. Since I have here forth proved that each one of these verses suggests behavior that has a negative impact, P2 is now proved as well as P1.
socialpinko

Con

===Opponent's definition of morality===


My opponent has done a very good job of showing that many of the actions prescribed in the Bible do go against his own definition of what is moral and what is not. However, my opponent has completely failed to actually defend this conception of right and wrong. What reasoning does he bring to support his contention that morality is "a concept held by people on whether certain actions are good or bad, by the way they affect society"? Nothing. My opponent simply defines morality to make what is beneficial to society fit in without actually supporting his contention. Therefore we have no reason to accept this definition and all of the arguments based off of this faulty definition (its relation to women, children, homosexuals, etc.) should not be accepted.


I apologize for the relative shortness of this round. My opponent has spent the majority of his R2 arguing the implications of his definition of morality without actually defending the definition itself. In his entire case my opponent never so much as attempts to defend this definition. Therefore there is nothing for me as the contender to refute, accept to point out that the definition of morality lacks warrant. Seeing as this is the case, my opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof as instigator and Pro. He has given no reason for us to accept his standard under which he measures what makes an action right or wrong and thus P2 lacks warrant. Therefore I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 2
Flynn58

Pro

Flynn58 forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

It is a shame my opponent was unable to post a response in the last round. I suppose all that is left is to do is for me to extend my refutation. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Knologist_Prime 4 years ago
Knologist_Prime
Scientific Accuracy:: Now let us consider one or two of the Bible's comments on scientific matters. Why are these significant? For several reasons: (1) They harmonize with scientific facts; (2) they reflect knowledge that was beyond the available human knowledge at the time they were written; and (3) they are completely free from the mistaken views held at the time. Perhaps you have heard that the Bible says that our earth hangs upon nothing and is round. (Job 26:7; Isaiah 40:22) ‘Why is that so remarkable?' you may ask. Keep in mind that these Biblical comments agree with proved scientific fact and they are in contrast to ancient myths about the shape of the earth and how it was supported. Why, up till just a few hundred years ago most men, even those involved in science, believed that the earth was flat! So it is extraordinary that the Bible writers knew these facts about the earth thousands of years ago and that without modern scientific instruments! Here is another example. At the time of Moses it was the custom in Egypt to use human or animal excrement as a remedy for certain ailments. Furthermore, Moses was raised in Egypt and was "instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." (Acts 7:22) But the comments he wrote at Deuteronomy 23:12, 13 are completely free from the mistaken—in fact, harmful—medical practices of Egypt. According to these words, in ancient Israel human excrement was to be considered unclean, to be buried away from populated areas and water supplies. As you know, modern medical science agrees. Are not these examples a further indication that the information recorded by the Bible writers must have come from a source higher than themselves? Book of Isaiah. Writer: Isaiah. Writing Completed: After 732 B.C.E. Book of Deuteronomy and Job. Writer: Moses. Writing Completed: c. 1473 B.C.E. W 82 12/15 p. 5 The Bible—Is It Really From God? A higher source indeed! Bible said it first! Almost 3500 years in advance! Not a guess, real facts.
Posted by Flynn58 4 years ago
Flynn58
Please prove your god created this book. And I did check a dictionary, Oxford's New American Dictionary.
Posted by Knologist_Prime 4 years ago
Knologist_Prime
It's not about semantics, it about what is factual. Especially when the ideas/thoughts are conveyed accurately from one language into another. And that IS key, being unbiased in the translation.
It says, what it says and means, what it means. Facts destroy all biases. Maybe that's why some hate facts.

Words have specific meanings when you use the correct authoritative dictionaries and or transliterations for the languages you don't understand or are honestly trying to understand. That's another key, HONESTY;to the language being translated so that the other person receives it accurately.

Also you HAVE to follow the rules of grammar when translating from one language it's feel, sense, meaning, corresponding words and phases to match up and or closely match up to the other language.

You don't have to personally like what any piece of literature says on a subject, or even the Bible, what it contains.

But no one. You. Me. No one has the right or authority to change what is stated/presented or written by the Author, no one has the right to change what God has preserved, His word contained in the Bible. I think that would fall under 'plagiary' and 'libel' and possibly 'being a Decepticon'.

The Bible, in fact, is one of the most hated books in the world. Wouldn't you think that it should have been completely made irrelevant and just as dead as the numerous ancient manuscripts and religions of long ago? For example, the Egyptian religion is gone. Who worships Pharaoh today?

But the Bible still here alive and well.

As for your simpleton statement of:
"You don't defend a definition, if definitions aren't reliable then our language isn't reliable."

"Pah-leeze."

Use a Dictionary, older ones are helpful for understanding older works of English Literature, along with a Authoritative Modern Dictionary to see how word usage has been and used now. Also what helps to understand the past are REAL Encyclopedias and not using 'wickedpedia'. Wickedpedia
Posted by Flynn58 4 years ago
Flynn58
Semantics are your game, aren't they? You don't defend a definition, if definitions aren't reliable then our language isn't reliable.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Spaces bro.
Posted by Knologist_Prime 4 years ago
Knologist_Prime
Just saying what your fweelings are without investigating 'why' and 'what' the context of the scriptures are is an emotional response, not a thought out one.

Anytime YOU are quoting from Leviticus, God had established the Isrealites as His people and the Isrealites agreed to the 'requirements' of being God's people. They agreed to the terms, you know like a contract. All parties involved MUST agree in order for the contract to have a legal application.

Therefore, since God's viewpoint on the matter of homosexuality and conduct related to such IS bad. Remember, it's God's viewpoint, his rules of human conduct for anyone wanting to have a relationship with God, the Isrealites conformed and adopted and practiced something that was stipulated in being His people.

No one can change God's viewpoint on the matter. No one as the right to change what is contained in the bible, even from the view of looking at the bible as just 'literature'. No author would allow their work from being changed.

You don't have to like what is says, but also you mustn't misquote the context of the principle of the scriptures. Because misquoting what the bible says, on purpose, is the same as deception and lying.

Which in God's viewpoint, lying is just as BAD as homosexual acts of conduct.

(Revelation 21:8) "But as for the cowards and those without faith and those who are disgusting in their filth* and murderers and fornicators and those practicing spiritism and idolaters and all the liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur. This means the second death."

*(1 Corinthians 6:9) What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men*.

*Or, "nor sodomites." Lit., "nor liers with males." Gr., ou′te ar·se·no·koi′tai; Lat., ne′que ma·scu·lo′rum con·cu·bi·to′res.
Posted by Doulos1202 4 years ago
Doulos1202
hmmmm going to think about taking this one on.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Flynn58socialpinkoTied
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: Forfeit loses conduct. In order to show that the Bible is immoral, Pro has to prove objective morality and show how the Bible goes against it. This was not proven, so arguments to Con.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
Flynn58socialpinkoTied
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: Conduct to Con for FF. Arguments to Con because Pro was unable to ground his evaluative framework for ethical actions in a way that withstood Con's line of attack.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
Flynn58socialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF