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

The bible is immoral.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
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: 6/28/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 24492
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I take the position that the bible is not a source of morality because people pick and choose what passages are moral and immoral. I want a debate with as little emotions as possible as I know that these types of discussion can get heated, I am hoping that whoever chooses to oppose me opens their mind before they start the debate. I also expect that my opposition has knowledge of the bible beyond church sermons. Thank you and good luck. :)


I accept the debate.

I will argue that the Bible is an acceptable source of morality. I don't believe we can pick and choose what passages to believe out of the Bible. It's all or nothing. However, I would hope that Pro would not be an Atheist who pulls verses out of their context in order to try and prove his position. If he would like me to have an open mind, I would ask that he has an open mind in return.

I look forward to a fruitful exchange of ideas.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my contendor for accepting my debate and I would like to assure you that I will keep and open mind througot this debate, and I will provide some context to the passages I present.

To start off I will present the verses Jeremiah 19:7-9 " and I will make void the council of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of heaven and for the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in seige and straightness werewith their enemies and they seek their lives, shall straighten them" This verse is describing how god punishes a whole city that burnt the flesh of their son after they had already died, now I mind you that now everyone in the town was guilty but they still got punished, we dont send 20 people to prison when only 5 have commited a crime.
Going to Exodus 21: 20-21 the bible describes the rules of slavery "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand ; he shall surley be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two , he shall not be punished: for he is money." obviously we dont agree with slavery now.
Now onto what the bible says about disobedient children from Deuteronomony 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, wich will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city,and unto the gate of his place: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is glutton and a drunkard, and all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you and all israel shall hear, and fear." Nowadays people chose to not stone unruly kids.
I feel that it is an obvious fact that christianity does not follow these rules and has moved past things like this so the churches chose to hide these passages from their followers.


I would like to thank Pro for his argument and I look forward to our exchange.

I would like to begin by pointing out that the Bible is a
book from God to man. It contains many different pieces of information, such as rules of morality for us to exhibit, prophecies, God telling us about Himself, poetry, etc. As such, you cannot just read the Bible and apply them all in the same way. For example, there may be certain things that are okay for God to do, but not for us (for example, God is the giver of life; only He has the authority to take it). As such, something that is true for God is not necessarily true for us. It is important to take passages in context rather than pulling them out and saying, “all people at all times are to do this.” I hope to offer reasonable explanations for the three passages in question.

Jeremiah 19:7-9

Here Pro takes issue with the case in which an entire city has been punished for “burning the flesh of their sons after they had already died,” and not the entire town was punished. However, this is a very bizarre objection to this passage, since it is obviously not what they are being punished for. The answer is found a few verses prior:

Behold I am about to bring a calamity upon this place, at which the ears of everyone that hears of it will tingle. Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods, that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind…” (Jeremiah 19:3b-6a).

The people were being punished for their forsaking of God, for their idolatry and worship of other gods, have killed innocent people (through sacrifices to these foreign gods), something which God has never commanded anyone to do. God hates the shedding of innocent blood. We can also be sure that the entire city was guilty of this. Remember that when God brought retribution on Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot and his family were spared because Lot was a righteous man (Genesis 18-19). This is not a case of people being punished for the sins of others.

As the Bible elsewhere points out, “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20). We are responsible for our own sins; we are not punished for the sins of others.

Exodus 21:20-21

Here we see that the Bible seems to condone slavery. However, it is important to note the distinction between slavery. Often when people think of slavery, they think of white Americans capturing Africans from their homeland and forcing them to be slaves. However, this is not what slavery was in the Bible. God did not necessarily condone slavery, but he allowed his people to keep slaves. And these were bondservants, which were people who could not afford to live on their own or to support their families, so they would become bondservants to the Israelites, working pretty much as slaves but they and their families would be well taken care of. In fact, the Bible condemns kidnapping (Exodus 21:16). Whether the person was kidnapped to be a personal slave or to be sold as a slave, the penalty for kidnapping was death.

Now, some atheists have read this to indicate that this verse allows slaves to be beaten, but this is not the case. In fact, if a slaveowner loses his cool and beats his slave to death, he was to be put to death (because the punishment for murder was death). However, since the slave was, effectively, his property, if he beat the slave and the slave was out for a few days, the loss in revenue he would suffer from the lack of work getting done was the punishment for that.

So just because God allowed slavery to happen (which, again, was much different than we think of now) and had rules about it, does not mean he condoned the behavior. There were some practices (divorce being another) which God condemned, but allowed due to the hardness of his peoples’ hearts (Matthew 19:8).

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

At first blush, this seems harsh. But remember the passage I quoted earlier, that we are all responsible for our own sin. We may not condone stoning to death now, but Old Testament Judaism was a Theocracy. They were directly led by God. God’s standard is perfection and his punishments were, at times, harsh. There were many things besides murder which were deserving of death. But we live under the New Covenant now (in New Testament times), so we no longer carry out Old Testament punishments. Appealing to verses like this does not disprove that the Bible is an acceptable source of morality. We look to the New Testament as our guide for the time that we live in.

However, remember that sin is very heinous to God. In fact, Jesus said that the fifth commandment (“honor your father and mother”) was the first commandment with promise (“that your days shall be long on the earth”). Disobeying parents was grievous to God (especially since He is, essentially, our Father). Children were to be chastised, but in cases where children were too depraved to listen to correction or to honor their parents, engaging in drunkenness and other forms of disgraceful behavior, bared heavy punishment. The child has no one to blame but themselves, since they knew the Law, just as their parents did.

Pro has not shown that the Bible is an unreliable book for morality. He has merely appealed to obscure passages in the Old Testament, took them out of context, and tried to show that they meant something contrary than their intended meaning. The church doesn’t hide anything from its congregation. My Bible has the exact same number of passages as my pastor’s does. The reason that Christianity no longer follows these rules is because 1) We are not under a Theocracy, and 2) crimes and punishments are different in New Testament times than in Old Testament times. This doesn’t mean the Bible is unreliable for morality, just that atheists need to take more time to actually study the thing they are trying to attack.
Debate Round No. 2


I will admit that that first passage was interpretted by an atheistic website, but you are saying that it is okay for god to kill people because they worship the wrong god that is a greedy and jelous god not a perfect god. You may make the argument that because he brought us into this world, he can take us out, but then you can't say he loves us. You also say that someone will not be punished for their fathers actions then explain how we are still being punished for adam and eve eating an apple that after all is why all humans are sinners. When you say that god never killed anyone inocent you are telling me that in the great flood everyone on the planet, even a newborn baby in a village or a pregnant womans fetus they where all guilty enough to be put to death not even one person that wasn't in noah's family was innocent.
When you say that god doesn't condon slavery but he just doesn't say that it is bad. but god goes out to tell us that we cant say his name in vain, 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.' can't work in the sabath day (obviously you have done that in you life), 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.' And ever worship another god, 'You shall have no other gods before Me.' I mind you all of these are punishable by death or at least were in the times the bible was written, but god doesn't care if we keep and beat slaves and yes just because they were not black and kidnapped instead they where mostly hebrew and were sold into slavery by there parents or gaurdian doesn't mean that it is good. But it is not important enough for god to tell us not to do it in today's society slavery is much worse than saying oh my god.
So in this part you are saying that it is fine to stone a kid to death hopefully not but you are justifying it by saying that it is not immoral when most people would disagree that killing a kid for disrespect is greatly immoral. But you pass this off as being in the old testement and that that was a theocracy, but the new testement was too thats why jesus was suposedly put to death thats not free. And saying that the old testement isn't relevant proves my side note that you pick and choose what you beleive because the 10 comandmments are in the old testement. What is your definition of out of context even in context these passages are evil and I am interpriting them literally as if god wrote it for us.
I suppose since you disregarded all of my inconsistancies I will list some more, a lot more:

exodus 21:7 "and if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do"

exodus 35:2 "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death"

Deuteronomy 23:1 "If a man's testicles are crushed or his penis is cut off, he may not be admitted to the assembly of the LORD."

psalm 137: 8-9 " O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed;happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against stones.

Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 "If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her, then ye shall bring them both out to the gate of the city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled hos neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you."

1 timothy 2: 12-15 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For adam was first formed, then eve. And adam was not deceived, but the woman being decieved was in transgression. Not withstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

If the bible is the tue word of god then these morals should not be lost and still be practiced today hopefully people chose not to.


KeytarHero forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


For all of you reading this my opponent forfeited not because he had nothing to say but because he was too busy incase you aren't going to read the comments.


KeytarHero forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
Sigh. I didn't realize the deadline was coming up so quickly. Obviously, a vote for Pro is in order here.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
Well, it shouldn't be necessary for you to have to argue again. I wasn't able to respond to your last round so you can just extend your arguments into the final round.
Posted by mega-antitheist 4 years ago
Ok I will try to put my argument in near the end of the deadline so that you can have more time to post hopefully.
Posted by KeytarHero 4 years ago
Sorry about that. I got suddenly busy the last few days. I'll be sure and post a closing argument for next round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for FF