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

The demonic of the Gospels were derived from human attack

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 515 times Debate No: 65676
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




The Pro position, (mine) is that the demon possession found in the Gospels and confronted by Jesus were the results of human planning. It is not demons that attack human beings. It is other humans that attack human beings. Demons and Angels are fraudulent beings. These fake beings are used to provide cover for spiritual terror. As always my main source is the Bible but Con is welcome to use any source, and good luck Con.

"The peoples of the Mediterranean began to emerge from barbarism when they learned to cultivate the olive and the vine." Greek historian Thucydides


The con position (mine) will argue not only for the existence of angels and demons, but for the validity of the gospels and Acts (Luke's writings especially) as genuine historical sources. My main source will, of course, be the Bible. I look forward to debating this toic with the opposition.
Debate Round No. 1


Argument Number 1: The Bible does not tell us everything.

A. Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil

God did not tell Adam and Eve, (or us for that matter) why they should abstain from the particular fruit. The Bible does not list the ingredients contained in the fruit. The Bible does not even tell us what kind of fruit.

The fruit of Eden fame is sort of like the processed food that is so popular right now in the United States. We must pass a LAW forcing the manufacturers to list the contents of the 'food' they would have us consume. Just forcing the manufacturers to provide a list of the contents makes the manufacturers begin to upgrade the nutritional value of their products.

Have the Cons ever heard of MSG for example? The 'food' manufacturers like to slip this 'spice' into the food they produce. The nutritional value of MSG is suspect. But its importance to the 'food' manufacturers is not suspect. MSG is a cheap way to trick human taste buds into thinking that the junk food that the manufacturers are producing tastes better. Making food taste better is not the only thing MSG does to the human body but the 'food' manufacturers only care about the bottom line, and staying out of prison.

That is right, prison. It is against the LAW to knowingly produce food that can harm people. The manufacturers must meet certain standards by LAW. The manufacturers cannot do anything they want no matter how much money they might be able to make. They must adhere to strict guidelines.

B. Ancient warfare

The Bible tells about several battles and wars of ancient times. But it does not tell us how. How could men face hand-to-hand combat of such a brutal fashion? And after the battles, how could men face such agony from the wounds they would have had to endure? It is simply not possible to suffer the kinds of wounds that the soldiers of ancient times would have had to have suffered without some kind of medication to block the pain.



These arguments are both lengthy, but I'm afraid they're not effective. I will first address argument 'A'.

You claim that the bible doesn't tell us the nature of or ingredients of the fruit in Genesis. You compare this with modern nutritional information. This is, quite frankly, absurd.

Bible commentator Matthew Henry suggests that the fruit itself did not give knowledge of good and evil, but the act of disobeying God did ( This is supported by the use of the word 'know' throughout the Bible. Knowledge can mean:

Literal knowledge of facts.
Sex (Genesis 4:17)
And decision.

The fruit was probably just some other kind of fruit. The sin was the disobedience that Adam and his wife Eve showed towards God.

In argument 'B' you say that it is impossible for men to survive ancient warfare. This is also untrue. Not everyone would have been injured, and of those who were many would have died of their wounds.

The issue you seem to have, however, is that the Bible doesn't tell us literally everything about everything. The Bible is not an encyclopedia, ladies and gentlemen, not is it supposed to be. It is supposed to be a collection of texts that tell the history of God's people and share the good news of Christ's resurrection. Whilst reading Plutarch, for example, do I throw up my arms and declare that, since he didn't tell me literally everything about ancient life, he's inaccurate and should be ignored?

Does contemporary American history tell us what George bush had for breakfast on the 72nd day of his term of presidency? Does ancient history tell us how many time Julius Caesar blinked? Of course not! The reason being that those are facts, yes, but of no importance to the overall text.

Ladies and gentlemen, how boring would The Lord of the Rings have been if all of the extensive information in the appendices had been part of the main body of the work? What if, the moment we were introduced to the elves, we had to stop reading the main story to learn the entire elvish languages, Sindarin and Quenya?

History textbooks do not tell us the facts that do not pertain to the main story, so we should not criticise the Bible for not doing so. In fact, the writings of Luke (Luke's Gospel, and Acts) have been historically and archaeologically proved time and time again to the point where experts no longer pay any attention to the ridiculous claims that Luke's high status as an historian is undeserved.

So, no, the Bible does not tell us everything. Nothing tells us everything. Only what's important.

Furthermore, I don't see how this pertains to the original topic of debate.
Debate Round No. 2


Maybe Con you have heard of the product Coke-a-Cola? It is just the most recognized brand name in the entire world. Maybe Con you could guess where Coke-a-Cola got its name? To conserve time and space Pro will tell you Con-


The makers of Coke-a-Cola use to put cocaine in their 'soft' drink. Highly addictive. That is good for sales. Cocaine is also a stimulant. You can run faster longer on cocaine. Also cocaine blocks pain receptors in the human body. You can run faster longer even when wounded on cocaine.

The guy who formulated the original Coke-a-Cola was a morphine addict. This is important because directly after the United States Civil War there were more drug addicts in America then all the drug addicts before and since all added together. The Civil War was the most brutal war America has ever fought. It was on the order of ancient warfare because of the strong feelings and valor of the Americans on both sides.

The NAZIs used meth to 'stimulate' the fighting spirit in the German Army.

Is it becoming clearer for you Con?


The_R3d_Fury forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


(Maybe this place should be called

Pro's final argument: John 2:1-11 (the good versus the worse)

"And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2 and both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. 4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. 5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. 6 And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. 7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. 8 And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 and saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. 11 This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him."

Every wine Sommelier is trained and knowledgeable in all aspects of wine service, not just pairing wines with foods. Obviously the Governor of the marriage feast did not know what he was talking about. From a purely economic point of view the bridegroom would naturally be inclined to serve the worse wine first. Then after men have well drunk that which is best. In this way the best would be saved for last. But the Governor had no insight to the wisdom of saving the best for last. Neither did the Nation of Israel.

What is the ancient wisdom for serving the worse wine last?

Has the Con of this debate or anyone in the audience ever drank Laudanum?

Laudanum has such a terrible taste there are only a few ways one could drink it-

1 Your pain is such that the need for relief exceeds the repugnant taste that Laudanum carries.

2 You are addicted to Laudanum, (which is another way of stating reason number 1 because if the addict does not drink he/she will be in agonizing pain).

3 You are already inebriated to such an extent that your senses are dulled to the point where you don't recognize the foul taste of Laudanum.

The question is-

Did Israel at the time prior to the Gospels have any need for Laudanum?


Sorry. Been busy.

I'm going to keep this short because, honestly, I'm starting to get annoyed by your cocky and condescending attitude.

1: the apostle Luke was a physician. A doctor. More likely than not, he would be able to tell the difference.

2: the wisdom for serving the worse wine last is that people have the good wine first and are too drunk to tell that the bad wine is bad. That's pretty straightforward.

3: you claim that there are no angels or demons. Then disregard the angel Gabriel coming to Mary, because both statements can't be true.

So far all of your arguments have rested solely on a lack of understanding of ancient customs mixed with hastily drawn conclusions that are so far off the mark that it's funny. Read 1 and 2 Kings. That details ancient warfare and how people die of their wounds.

Furthermore, in the bible those who were healed of demon possession had instantaneous recoveries and the demons even once went into a herd of pigs. Regardless of whether or not you believe in demons (because in all likelihood there will be some atheists reading this debate) you cannot make the claim that the demon possessions of the Bible were drug-induced. They were either real, or they were made up (but that's a debate for another time) but they were not - could not possibly be - drug-induced.

And even more than that, for the arguments that you're making to be valid, EVERYBODY would have had to have been addicted to a substance that was not around for another 1600 years. That seems highly unlikely to me. if literally every man, woman, and child in Israel were addicted to narcotics and hallucinogens, then we would have, at the very least, an astoundingly expansive record of birth defects ranging from 2000BC through to now.

In conclusion: there is more evidence for the demon possession of the bible to be from actual demons that from substance abuse. Laudanum wasn't around for another 1600 years after the death of Jesus. And every single claim you have made thus far has rested not on evidence but on your ability to swing from one assumption to the next like some sort of debating Tarzan.

Thank you for your time, ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
Delusional disorder, previously called paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness called a "psychosis" in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something untrue. These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
That should have read " all of us "not " none of us".
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Demons do exist. They are spirit beings. But are on a lower plane than man. None of us , or at least those who know better, take full responsibility for our words and actions.All demons can do is make suggestions to cause fear.Because fear is the only weapon he has.If he can get a person fearful, that will put them in his territory. And then when they speak fear words, that opens the door for the curse. Look what happened to Job. It was his fear-driven mouth that caused all those problems.

We need not be afraid of demons, they are under our authority.At least the authority of the believer.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
Demons are an attempt by Christians to negate responsibility.
"The devil made me do it"
Taking responsibility for one's own action is one of the corner stones of morality.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
Pivot...... Confusion must be your middle name.I said Jesus put this guy in ministry WITHOUT 4 years of theology.I think that seminary at best is useless.All they do there is teach how God does not do anything and how to explain away lack of faith and patience in the word of God.Just like our law schools today. They are not there to teach the constitution, but how to get around the constitution and make it sound legal.
Posted by pivot 2 years ago
An eyewitness to what?
"No one has ever seen God. The Son declares Him."
Your 'eyewitnesses' are just like you. You have never seen a demon. Neither have your eyewitnesses.
Let me ask you a question chernobyl-
Why in the world would Jesus heal the demonic man and then send him to learn at the feet of the demons?

Most of what comes out of seminary is pure demonic. But not all. They do also produce trash for the dump heap. We cover that with dirt and go on.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
The writer of the gospel was an eyewitness to what happened. Jesus cast out the demon and the guy sat there in his right mind. A guy who ran around naked half his life and tore chains loose. He came screaming down off that hill figuring to tear Jesus apart, and had the what to do it with. Jesus used words to confront that evil spirit and cast him out. Jesus was fearless when it came to demons. We should be just as fearless.

But my take on this episode is the most fearless thing Jesus did was put this guy in the ministry without 4 years of theology.
No votes have been placed for this debate.