The Instigator
TheAce
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Man-is-good
Con (against)
Winning
48 Points

The bible-written by schizophrenics- not the man himself.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,165 times Debate No: 16970
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

TheAce

Pro

Con will argue that the stories, prophecies, etc. were not dreamt up by humans.

Round 1- Acceptance
Round 2- Opening arguments
Round 3- 1st rebuttals
Round 4- 2nd rebuttals
Round 5- 3rd rebuttals and closing arguments.

Forfeits=loss
Man-is-good

Con

I accept this debate on the terms of your rules and principles.
Now, let the debate begin.
Debate Round No. 1
TheAce

Pro

TheAce forfeited this round.
Man-is-good

Con

Well, my opponent has forfeited his round. I hope he can come back to discuss this debate, otherwise I am forced to wait for him for a few other rounds.

Contention one:

“This man” is, as I interpreted it, to be God. One of the chief attributes of the Christian God is omnipotence, which, allows the “deity…to do anything it chooses”[1]

Consider this logical syllogism:

1. God is omnipotent and can do any action/deed he/it chooses.

2. Writing the scripture, and the bible, is an action.

3. God might have written the bible or scripture.

Notice that I wrote, “might have”, because it is a possibility. There is no direct evidence to prove that God definitely (must have) written the scriptures. But, I will present a few arguments that might or might not attribute the work of the bible to the Lord:


Contention two: The Bible’s perfection

In ((1 John 1:5), it states, ”And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” [2]

I will now do a little bit of literary analysis here: light is associated with white, which in turns is associated with purity and innocence [3], and darkness the hours of night and the presence of shadows, evil, or depression”, or, in other words, negativity. [4] Pure lightness of God, without the presence of any darkness, is perfection. To be perfect is to “conforming absolutely to the description or definition of an ideal type.”[5] In other words, a god of light conforms to man’s ideal of a being entirely made of light, a force of good.

Therefore, god’s work must be perfect. It is here where I will argue that the bible has no

contradictions: Much of the “contradictions” of the bible, especially the new testament, are based on modern concepts that juxtapose sharply with the ancient concepts used in the bible. One so called “contradiction” is the episode where Jesus curses the fig tree, which, despite the seemingly attack against his benevolent nature, however, refers to his deity-like authority over nature: “As deity, therefore, the earth and its fullness are his (Psa. 24:1). He has the sovereign right to use the elements of creation to accomplish those higher goals which man, limited in his knowledge, may not perceive at a given moment in time. And that includes the destruction of a tree,” [6] An excellent series of debates, set by one of the participants, Reformed Arsenal, discusses such “errors” in the New Testament…*For the sake of space, I recommend that my opponent read such debates to get a full picture on the explanation of the Bible and its “errors”.

In addition, the Bible’s structure, while hardly an important factor, is remarkable, since:

Written over more than 1,500 years by vastly different writers, yet every book in the Bible is consistent in its message. These 66 books talk about history, prophecy, poetry, and theology. Despite their complexity, differences in writing styles and vast time periods, the books of the Bible agree miraculously well in theme, facts and cross-referencing.” [7]

“History, prophecy, poetry, and theology”: this should not be contested with. The history refers to the scope of the bible’s narrative, from the separation of light and darkness and the creation of the world (Book of Genesis) to the end of Revelations, where Christ rises again, covering entire decades from Moses’ Exodus and the story of Job, and so forth. “Poetry” refers to the verses in the bible. Despite much contestation, there is enough evidence to at least indicate that the bible was written in poetry since: it includes the prospect of parallelism, accentual rhythm (indicating a deliberate choice of words and syllables often seen in poetic practices), and so forth. [8] The word prophecy is also obvious, and refers to the several predictions in the books of the scripture, one example being, “"Therefore, my Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, ha-almah [the young woman or virgin] harah [is pregnant or is about to become pregnant or shall conceive], and bear a son, and [she or you] shall call his name Immanuel." [9] This, in a literary context, might have been referring to Jesus, who is the son of the Lord, and born of Mary, a virgin. 2. “…agree miraculously well in theme, facts, and cross-referencing”. There is much support for this statement, as seen in the symbolism of Satan as the serpent, in the Book of Genesis**, patron of lions and fierce creatures, and the dragon of Revelations. Ultimately, the theme here is destruction that is seen in the figure of the fallen angel.

Whether or not, considering the fact that the long history of the Bible ["The original manuscripts for the OT. Written between 1450 BC and 400 BC. Written in archaic Hebrew, gradually changed to modern square script Hebrew after 400 BC, and still used to this day. Around 500 AD the Masoretes developed a system of vowel and accents to punctuate the text, they also standardised the text and content, preparing it for printing much later (Psalter 1477, Full OT 1488). The oldest surviving material was the Masoretic from the 9C, until the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 from 2-1C BC" [11]], it is a miracle or not that the Bible retains much of its detailed structure.

Whether this is a miracle, and proof of its divine nature, or merely just a coincedence (and an example of extreme faithfulness on part of its believers), is up to the voters to decide.


*See, "The New Testamnent contains no genuine contradictions". ReformedArsenal addressed much of the errors that I myself presented rather adequately, in my view, and used both logic and interpreations by reputed scholars to prove that the seeming contradictions of the bible were not so contradictory after all. Remember, and I strongly encourage all voters to remember, I am doing this, for the sake of space. [10]

[1] www.wikipedia.com: Omnipotence

[2] Book of John, chapter one, verse five

[3] www.wikipedia.com: Black and white dualism

[4] www.wikipedia.com: darkness

[5] www.dictionary.com: perfect, first definition given

[6] www.christiancourier.com: Why did Jesus “Curse” the Fig Tree? [It also explains the fact that “curse” is merely to place judgment on, and does not include the connotations of profanity.]

[7] www.allabouttruth.org; Who wrote the bible?

[8] www.wikipedia.com; Biblical poetry

[10] www.debate.org: The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions [with the following participants: Man-is-good, tvellot, and so on]

[11] www.gentles.info: Bible history flowchart

[9] www.wikipedia.com: Isaiah, 7:14



Debate Round No. 2
TheAce

Pro

TheAce forfeited this round.
Man-is-good

Con

Once again, my opponent has forfeited. But, the show must go on: I will continue with my defense that God created the scripture, though the evidence I have is more of logic and doctrine. Contention I: God is capable of human works. It is wrong to assume that God, because he is “an uncreated, omnipotent, and eternal being, [and] the creator and sustainer of all things” [1], that he is incapable of creating human works. I have already addressed with my syllogism, regarding the omnipotent attribute in my last argument. Now, I will discuss the doctrine of trinity as best as I can to promote my contention…The doctrine of trinity states that God operates through an assemblage of three divine figures: God the father, God the son [Jesus of Nazareth], and the Holy Spirit [the dove that inspires piety] [2] Jesus, a carpenter born of Joseph and Mary, was the supposed incarnate of God on earth. [3] My main argument in this round is that Jesus is, in spite of his divine status, arguably partly human. Like all humans, Jesus dies. Evidence for this is given when it is stated, in the Gospels, when he “gave up the ghost” after being crucified on the third hour [4]. (Note for possibly counterarguments: Remember, Jesus’ ascension to the heavens is separated from his death. It serves, in the context of this debate, as proof of his divine nature.) Another human characteristic might be “emotional capacity”, which Jesus fulfills as the Messiah. One may argue that Jesus can be characterized as fearful when he cries, “My god, my god, why have you forsaken me?” after the high priests have hung him, on the crucifix, as the king of the Jews. [4] He is apparently calm when he responds, “I am. You will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of the sky.” [5] He speaks human speech, as evident in his communication, and displays the aforementioned emotions. He is apparently reserved when speaking of his own death, to his servants and disciples, and is also understanding and wise, considering his Sermon on the Mount. “Wisdom” is the “knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action” [6] One may argue when Jesus instructs his disciples to ignore certain laws and customs, such as vowing oaths under the name of God, as a sign of what should be right…In addition, it should be known that I stated “partly human” to describe Jesus. I hope that I have demonstrated here that, to a certain extent, Jesus is human.*

I will introduce a second syllogism: Major premise: God can manifest as a human [incarnate]. Minor premise: A human can create a “human” work. Therefore, god can create a “human” work. If we were to consider the limitless abilities and functions of the Godhead, then it should be safe to conclude that God can perform even a task such as writing a text or passage. For example, I will introduce a third, and less clear, logical example: presume God is set ?. Set ? contains all the letters of the alphabet [all actions/deeds, used to demonstrate his omnipotence.] One of those letters is X.5, the act of writing human works, and X.5 (1), specifically writing the scripture of Christianity itself. If Set ? contains X.5(1), then it is a part of its function. It is the same as another, even weaker analogy, a man who can do anything in gardening. Planting seeds in the soil is a part of gardening. Therefore, the man can plant seeds in the soil. Understand that the concept of God is limitless and rather hard to define in words. That is why I have chosen to at least use these analogies to support my argument.

[1] www.wikipedia.com; God in Christianity
[2] www.wikipedia.com; Trinity
[3] www.urantia.com; The Biography of Jesus-Paper 122: Birth and Infancy of Jesus
[4] Gospel of Mark; 15:33
[5] Gospel of Mark; 14: 62
[6] www.dictionary.com; definition of wisdom

I would like to point out that PRO has already lost the debate. In the first round, he specifically stated "forfeits=loss". And he has forfeited two of his rounds, and may likely forfeit his other ones as well. Sadly, this seems a waste of time for me, because I am still interested in showing that there is some possibility that "the man himself" wrote hte bible.

I am waiting for PRO's response. If he does not come back, I will then try to refute his resolution and prove that "schizophrenics" are less capable of writing the bible...Interesting, but flawed resolution, PRO.
Debate Round No. 3
TheAce

Pro

TheAce forfeited this round.
Man-is-good

Con

I have decided not to post an argument, since it would be unfair of me to refute a non-existent argument made by the instigator.

Please, extend all arguments, and vote CON. Remember, PRO himself wrote [1] "Forfeits=loss". Pro has forfeited three of the rounds...Therefore, he has already lost the debate.

Thank you for reading my arguments and statements. Have a good day.

1. www.debate.org; The bible-written by schizophrenics-not the man himself: first round, first (and only) post made by PRO
Debate Round No. 4
TheAce

Pro

TheAce forfeited this round.
Man-is-good

Con

This is my last argument for this so-called debate. I urge all to vote for CON since Pro never posted anything after his first outline the entire debate, and its rounds, failed to respond, apparently deactivated his account, and logged out for a week or more after the inception of this debate.

After all, consider this a logical syllogism:
Premise one (Major): "Forfeits=loss" (1)
Premise two (Major): Pro has forfeited four of the five rounds.
Conclusion: Pro has lost (by default, due to his own rules).

I will not devote my energy to compose an actual argument, since this debate was wasted. I am very sorry that pro is no longer here for us, but his departure has cost me the benefit of a debate and an experience arguing and introducing newcomers to the customs of this debate. Even though I am not qualified to speak as high and mighty as of now, I have already waited, patiently, for my opponent's rebuttal and response. I see that my patience was not worth the time and effort.


(1) See pro's opening argument
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
vote, vote, vote
vote, vote, vote
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
My opponent's account is no longer active...for shame.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
I have to wait four more days until this debate is over...Wow. If PRO wanted to debate, why hasn't he been online for a week?
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Yep, BennyW.
Premise one: "forfeit="/leads to "loss"
Premise two: PRO has forfeited.
Pro has lost.

I wonder why PRO didn't respond. But, I am not willing to redo this debate unless if Pro can at least guarantee some sort of responsibility. I myself have forfeited, but I do know that forfeits cost conduct, argument [you do not get a chance to argue for yourself], and even spelling or grammar [since you wrote NOTHING]. As SkepticsAskHere once said, "They kill you." So true.
Posted by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
It looks like pro has already lost per his own rules.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
I don't understand your resolution.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Is this "the man"?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
TheAceMan-is-goodTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
TheAceMan-is-goodTied
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 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: Forfeit=Loss
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
TheAceMan-is-goodTied
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: Unfortunate, but easy win.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 6 years ago
GMDebater
TheAceMan-is-goodTied
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: forfeit
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
TheAceMan-is-goodTied
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 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: obvious
Vote Placed by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
TheAceMan-is-goodTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
TheAceMan-is-goodTied
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: Forfeits.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
TheAceMan-is-goodTied
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: FF