The Instigator
Anti_Theist1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
funnycn
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The teachings of Christianity are immoral

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...
funnycn
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,359 times Debate No: 63369
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (41)
Votes (1)

 

Anti_Theist1

Pro

It is my proposition that the teachings of Christianity, regardless of if the religion is true or not, are immoral. From the very idea of vicarious redemption being the centerpiece of the faith or the fact that commands its followers to do morally reprehensible things on a regular basis in its scripture, this religion is a poison that cannot be rightfully called a good thing for the world.
funnycn

Con

==Argument==

i. The definition of immoral
"not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles:
[ttp://www.merriam-webster.com...]

ii. Decalogue
"You shall have no other gods before Me.

You shall not make idols.

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Honor your father and your mother.

You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet."

If Christian teachings went against generally moral principles, which they don't, then they would be teaching killing, stealing, lying, etc., would be okay; however that is not the case as clearly shown here as Christian teachings claim murder, stealing, lying etc., is not right and is not going against generally moral principles.

iii. Revenge

"Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all...Romans 12:17-21

[http://www.openbible.info...]

As you can see, the Christian Bible tells you to not avenge evil with evil, but do the right thing. This also does NOT go against general morals.

I made my 3 statements. I leave it to pro now. I'll rebut, and make 3 more statements in round 2.

Debate Round No. 1
Anti_Theist1

Pro

Since my opponent has brought up the 10 Commandments, that is where I will start. Let's go over why these decrees are immoral:

Point 1: The 10 Commandments

First I'd like to point out the redundancy of 5 of these Commandments.
The first two, "You shall have no other gods before Me" and "You shall not make idols" are entirely pointless. They do nothing but reiterate what has already been established; that God is the one true God and you shall have no other Gods but him. That was made clear at far earlier points in the Bible. 3 others merely say that murder, theft, and perjury are immoral, which is common sense. There is no civilization in recorded history that did not know that these actions were immoral, including those that existed before the Bible was even written. These values were preexisting.

The 3rd Commandment, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain", is incredibly vague. Nobody has ever quite worked out how obey this one. If I use the expression "God only knows", is that taking the lord's name in vain? If I blow myself up in a school while shouting "God is Great!", am I using his name in vain, or doing something in his name? There is no consensus. This Commandment is useless.

One says "You shall not commit adultery". While generally frowned upon, God goes as far as to put this sin on the same level as murder and theft, which is morally wrong. Would you welcome the government creating a law that made it literally illegal to commit adultery? How about giving adulterers the death penalty, which the Bible blatantly states is an appropriate punishment? What about people who participate in polymerous relationships? Do they also deserve to die? There is little debate to be had on this one: This commandment is immoral.

One says "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy". What happens to those who do not keep the Sabbath holy? They get stoned to death. Yet again, God is equating something far less egregious than murder to the act of murder and calling for the punishment to be death. This time, however, the action is not immoral in the slightest. Would God have everyone who goes to work on a Sunday stoned to death for breaking this commandment? According to the bible, yes. This commandment is immoral.

I could continue, but you should get the idea by now: The 10 Commandments are immoral and outdated.

Point 2: Pollution of "Love"

Now, I suppose my opponent will be quick to point out that one of the central teachings of Christianity is the concept of love; if you go to church and try to count how many times the world love is used, you will lose count (I can attest to that as an ex-Christian). However, I assert that the Christian version of love is not true love at all, or at least certainly no kind of "love" that any rational person would want any part of.

This is because the Bible makes the concept of love compulsory; it says that you MUST love. You MUST "love your neighbor as yourself", which is something that you can't actually do, so you can always be convicted of thought crime by a celestial Kim Jong Il who never stops monitoring your every move and action. It also states that you MUST love a grand deity who you also fear at the same time. How can anyone be in favor of loving someone who you must also be deathly afraid of? A deity who can send you to burn in an eternal hellfire of his own sadistic creation? This is not "love", this is Stolkholm Syndrome; a massochistic fetish that compels us to bow down and shower the almighty God with our praise regardless of how tyrannical and immoral his actions are. Disgusting.

Point 3: God himself is immoral

Take for example the story of Abraham and Isaac: God commands Abraham to murder his own son; a morally disgusting and reprehensible deed. Christianity GLORIFIES Abraham's willingness to kill his own son under the preface that God cannot be wrong and you MUST love God above all else. This is absolutely disgusting. Anyone who says that they would kill their own child for God is a waste of oxygen and an immoral monster. Furthermore, God HIMSELF is an immoral monster who commits unspeakable atrocities, including ordering the genocide and extermination of an entire population of the Amalekites, followed by the rape of their women. These actions are indefensible. There is absolutely no debate about it; the glorification and overwhelming support for these actions is disgusting and blatantly immoral. There is no metaphorical interpretation that makes the message of these stories acceptable; they are immoral on both a literal and figurative level, and that is not debatable.

There are many, many more points i could make, but I'll leave it at this for now. I await my opponent's response.
funnycn

Con

==Rebuttal==
"The first two, "You shall have no other gods before Me" and "You shall not make idols" are entirely pointless. They do nothing but reiterate what has already been established;"

The Catholic church has accepted other Gods, and it is important to some people.

"3 others merely say that murder, theft, and perjury are immoral, which is common sense. There is no civilization in recorded history that did not know that these actions were immoral, including those that existed before the Bible was even written. These values were preexisting."

So you support my claims? I have already said this before.

"The 3rd Commandment, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain","

It makes the point very clearly. Don't speak ill of God.

"One says "You shall not commit adultery". While generally frowned upon, God goes as far as to put this sin on the same level as murder and theft, which is morally wrong. Would you welcome the government creating a law that made it literally illegal to commit adultery?"

While I wouldn't some people would.

"What happens to those who do not keep the Sabbath holy? They get stoned to death. Yet again, God is equating something far less egregious than murder to the act of murder and calling for the punishment to be death. This time, however, the action is not immoral in the slightest. Would God have everyone who goes to work on a Sunday stoned to death for breaking this commandment? According to the bible, yes. This commandment is immoral."

Islamic people would be completely fine with it. Why? A lot of people take their religion very seriously, and quite a few see this as a very important rule.

" immoral and outdated."

1. You only argued FIVE were
2. I don't think murder is outdated

"This is because the Bible makes the concept of love compulsory; it says that you MUST love"

But let's define love.

" feeling of strong or constant affection for a person"
[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

Now, the bible doesn't mean love them in a romantic way, as it is shown in the context. The "love' the bible is talking about is simply, be friends with people.

"so you can always be convicted of thought crime by a celestial Kim Jong Il who never stops monitoring your every move and action"

How is this even relevant?

"It also states that you MUST love a grand deity who you also fear at the same time. How can anyone be in favor of loving someone who you must also be deathly afraid of?"

Two things here

i. It never states YOU MUST LOVE a grand deity.

ii. The Prince by Niccolo Machievelli

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Because this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, and as long as you succeed they are yours entirely; they will offer you their blood, property, life and children, as is said above, when the need is far distant; but when it approaches they turn against you. And that prince who, relying entirely on their promises, has neglected other precautions, is ruined; because friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."[http://www.constitution.org...]

So basically, when the two DON'T coexist together, and they can, it is better to be feared.

"of his own sadistic creation"

And you can prove this how? Unless you are God, you can't prove he is a sadist.

"God HIMSELF is an immoral monster who commits unspeakable atrocities, including ordering the genocide and extermination of an entire population of the Amalekites, followed by the rape of their women. These actions are indefensible"

This I thought was REALLY funny. God rape women? Need I mention Gomorrah and Sodom? I guess I should since both towns burned in revolt due to homosexual crimes that were committed involving prostitution and rape.
[http://en.wikipedia.org...]



Debate Round No. 2
Anti_Theist1

Pro

Response to Rebuttal:

"The Catholic church has accepted other Gods, and it is important to some people."
You must be joking. The Catholic church has not EVER accepted "other Gods" and never will; it is a monotheistic religion that claims that their God is the one true God. We just went over this with the first 2 commandments.

"While I wouldn't some people would."
And you are defending those people who would? You are defending the morality of stoning adulterers to death? I regret to inform you that the only rational thing to do in this scenario is to admit that killing or arresting people for sleeping around is not a rational or moral thing to do.

"Islamic people would be completely fine with it. Why? A lot of people take their religion very seriously, and quite a few see this as a very important rule."
Again, you defend the morality of this atrocity? If I'm arguing with someone who refuses to even concede that stoning people who work on sunday's, including people not loyal to the faith, is morally apprehensible, then I've already won. That means you have grasp on morality what so ever.

"Now, the bible doesn't mean love them in a romantic way, as it is shown in the context. The "love' the bible is talking about is simply, be friends with people."
...Honestly? Last time I checked, when the bible says "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself", they aren't suggesting that love means being casual friends. You must love your neighbor AS YOURSELF. You must love God MORE than yourself. What about this do you not understand?

My statement comparing God to Kim Jong Il is relevant because it illustrates that God is to be feared. He never stops watching you and even the slightest slip up will result in being sent to hell. Even after you die he continues to monitor you. A never-ending, celestial North Korea.

"Two things here
i. It never states YOU MUST LOVE a grand deity.
ii. The Prince by Niccolo Machievelli"
Your first statement is blatantly false (see the Bible quote I provided above, Luke 10:27) and your comparison to Machievelli becomes null and void as a result. As much as I'd love to break apart the hundreds of things wrong with equating human leadership to an almighty, all-powerful God, I don't need to.

"And you can prove this how? Unless you are God, you can't prove he is a sadist."
So I must be a sadist to claim that someone else is a sadist? What kind of broken logic is that? God created a realm where he tortures his own creations in the worst way he possibly can and he did so just because he could; he has no good reason. If that isn't sadism, I don't know what is.

"This I thought was REALLY funny. God rape women?"
If you had properly read my statement, you would see that I said that God ORDERED the Israelites to massacre and rape the Amalekites, not that he did it himself, obviously. Come now, you aren't even taking the time to properly read my arguments.

In closing, this has really not been a debate. My opponent even didn't make any valid points outside of his viewpoint about the 10 Commandments, which I addressed. I think I have sufficiently proved my point without even scraping the surface of what I had planned I would need to say (I didn't even have to go near vicarious redemption).

Thank you for reading and thanks to my opponent for debating.
funnycn

Con

"You must be joking. The Catholic church has not EVER accepted "other Gods""

This claim is false and I can prove it. First let's define what a God is
"a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people : one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions"
[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

And saint " a person who is officially recognized by the Christian church as being very holy because of the way he or she lived"

[http://www.merriam-webster.com...]

And the Catholic church claims to pray to only God, while this isn't true. They pray to saints. Since they only pray to God, we can assume that the Saints they also pray to are Gods as well. Maybe not as big, but they are in some way a God.

Don't believe me? They do pray to St. Mary

[http://www.catholicity.com...]

Hail Mary

Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

A prayer to only God? I think not, unless Mary is a God.

"And you are defending those people who would? You are defending the morality of stoning adulterers to death? I regret to inform you that the only rational thing to do in this scenario is to admit that killing or arresting people for sleeping around is not a rational or moral thing to do."

Stoning is not as common today as it was before. Islamic states continue this, as they are regressing to the past, and if that's their punishment then I won't interfere. If you defend the death penalty, you also defend the other ones in the world. And stoning is definitely not the worst way to go out. Electric chair, the iron bull, the iron seat (I think that's the name of it).

"Again, you defend the morality of this atrocity?"

What Atrocity? Keeping the Sabbath holy is an atrocity? You never proved it. You said they get "stoned" but no real evidence was even brought forth to prove this. I looked it up and there was no stoning.

"...Honestly? Last time I checked, when the bible says "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself", they aren't suggesting that love means being casual friends. You must love your neighbor AS YOURSELF. You must love God MORE than yourself. What about this do you not understand?"

So we got a mix up eh? When it comes to love thy neighbor it means be friends. When it comes to God, love him with your heart. There is no "Love God more than yourself" unless you want to then sure, love him more than yourself. In religion, it's up to you to interpret what it means. Which is probably why the mix up occurred.

"My statement comparing God to Kim Jong Il is relevant because it illustrates that God is to be feared"

And Kim Jong II is God? He may be like a God but he isn't the one we are talking about.

"So I must be a sadist to claim that someone else is a sadist?"

Faulty logic comes into play here as my opponent is trying to claim I said he was a sadist when I never did, and trying to restate he is a sadist without evidence. Faulty logic doesn't work here.

"If you had properly read my statement, you would see that I said that God ORDERED the Israelites to massacre and rape the Amalekites, not that he did it himself, obviously. Come now, you aren't even taking the time to properly read my arguments."

I have been reading them. If he did order them, you didn't provide a source. I'm not going to scavenge the internet again for you in this debate because like the last few times I did, none of the things you said even existed.

"My opponent even didn't make any valid points outside of his viewpoint about the 10 Commandments, which I addressed"

I'll restate what I said about the 10 commandments.

i. The definition of immoral
"not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles:
[ttp://www.merriam-webster.com......]

ii. Decalogue
"You shall have no other gods before Me.

You shall not make idols.

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Honor your father and your mother.

You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet."

Oh and if the teachings of Christianity were immoral, then it means you shouldn't honor your parents since they're evil beings now. Seriously, read the Decalogue.

==Summary==
i. The definition of immoral
"not moral; broadly : conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles:
[ttp://www.merriam-webster.com......]

ii. Decalogue
"You shall have no other gods before Me.

You shall not make idols.

You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Honor your father and your mother.

You shall not murder.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet."

If Christian teachings went against generally moral principles, which they don't, then they would be teaching killing, stealing, lying, etc., would be okay; however that is not the case as clearly shown here as Christian teachings claim murder, stealing, lying etc., is not right and is not going against generally moral principles.

iii. Revenge

"Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all...Romans 12:17-21

[http://www.openbible.info......]

As you can see, the Christian Bible tells you to not avenge evil with evil, but do the right thing. This also does NOT go against general morals.


I wanted to make more statements but my rebuttals were too long and if I tried to make more, I'd run out of Characters.
Debate Round No. 3
41 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by theVTOQ 2 years ago
theVTOQ
Anti_Theist1 should cite Christopher Hitchens. This does not mean his arguments are invalid, its just decorum.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Cool, MrKelly. I'm glad you liked it.

The tide is turning, though:
Posted by Mrkelly 2 years ago
Mrkelly
Might, I have enjoyed your comments, and learned from them. I have never understood why so many atheist are so anti christian . I don't believe any Christians have stoned or beheaded any atheists recently. Jesus says, love God , love your neighbor, treat others as you wish to be treated, and when possible, turn the other cheek. This replaced the old covenant, and when the Church or individual Christians have done bad things, they weren't being good Christians. Good morals are taught through many different belief systems. I am just saying.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
I love it when atheists come off all righteous, and then they can't even perform the basic and humane task of looking carefully at what someone else says.

Anti_theist, you do realize that I never claimed morality comes from religion, right? And I didn't say "all morality comes from the Bible" --- you realize that right?

I suppose you're reacting to my statement: "You are arguing on a sound foundation, actually, but you're denying its source. The 'golden rule' appears in Confucianism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. and they derive it from their own supernatural axioms."

This means only that you're arguing on the basis of the golden rule. You wrote, "This is something that I would never want to happen to me, so I would prevent it if at all possible from happening to other people" and I countered by saying, "As far as I can tell, the only biological or evolutionary reason not to take advantage of others is not because doing so is objectively wrong, but because it might make an enemy that can't or won't be defeated, or interfere with some other aim." (note: societal cooperation and harmony qualifies under "some other aim") The "golden rule" isn't morality. It's a formulation of morality, and, usually, rests on some other supernatural beliefs like the existence of God, karma, etc. It implies we "should" do something, and that is the problem. Empathy only says we feel a certain way, and we "will" act on it. It doesn't say "should" or "should not", because there is no threat, and no reward.

It sounds like anti_theist has me pegged as a Christian. In fact, I'm not. I'm not any kind of theist, either. Maybe an apatheist, but that's it. I'm telling people to read "Might is Right", for Chrissake. ;)

But I'm going be gone till late Saturday or early Sunday and there will probably be 40 messages on the comment section by then. . . :(
Posted by Anti_Theist1 2 years ago
Anti_Theist1
@might

You realize that the idea that morality comes from religion has been debunked for centuries, right? If all morality comes from the Bible, how do civilizations who have never heard of Christianity know not to murder or steal (which they do)? Your assertion is ridiculous.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Our underlying instincts that underpin our morality then dates from the dawn of our species on the African Savannah that in order to survive, it was not advantageous to harm our collective in any way. that we should cooperate in hunts and gathering food and acquiring shelter, that we should care for each other under whatever adversity persisted, that we should defend our collective and its individuals from predators and that we should love and make each other happy as far as was possible. How we got to this evolved state in the first place is the subject of anthropology and evolutionary game theory.
Real human morality is based on the primacy of the human race - combining our natural instincts that we share with all living things in nature with our super-intelligence giving us the ability to learn and reason and therefore to improve and progress. if these two aspects of our nature maintain a perfect harmony then that is all the guidance and purpose we need. But history has shown that our progress has to some extent and perhaps through necessity obscured our morality at the same time as uncovering it.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
My position is that I haven't heard a good argument for an atheist/agnostic upholding the kind of morality that Anti-Theist was talking about, and being able to critique other moral systems on the basis of such an argument.

The book "Might is Right" is a better example of atheist morality. It can be read here:
http://archive.org...

I don't agree with that book, but at least it is consistent with its premises (or I thought it was when I read it last). It criticizes the Bible for not being evil enough.

An atheist can simply appeal to their own sense of empathy, and say that the things they read in the OT are things they couldn't bring themselves to do with a clear conscience. But our own sense of empathy is a personal standard, and not a universal "objective and unarguable" pseudo-deity. It doesn't mean we can't live by it, but intellectual fairness necessitates that we don't hold others to a higher standard than we hold ourselves to.
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
Exactly where do you stand on the topic?
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
Funnycn,

Rationalwiki described the party perfectly,

"The moral principles that people claim to be 'objective' usually coincide very well with what they feel subjectively to be true. When pressed to provide justification, the person in question will usually just fail to understand that morality might not be objective, and might consequently grow increasingly doubtful or hysterical as the subjective bases of their arguments are progressively revealed, as has been observed in recent times. "
http://rationalwiki.org...
Posted by funnycn 2 years ago
funnycn
I was too late to the party. Darn.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Squirrelnuts57 2 years ago
Squirrelnuts57
Anti_Theist1funnycnTied
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: Pro, I want to state this, because you may not know. You said that the stating of, "You shall make no idols," and, "You must put no other God before me" are already established in The Bible. The Bible is not just a list of "immoral" rules. It is also a set of stories that take place in different time periods! Sorry, but that was a pretty dumb arguement.