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

There doesn't exist a religion that believes in lying to promote it's believes, except Christianity.

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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 525 times Debate No: 56924
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)




  • First round is for acceptance.

  • Sources must be cited.

  • There must be proof from scripture, and examples from real life.



I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I don't debate with trolls, (but only homo sapiens). So, I will re-start debate.


Um... My opponent has opted to waste his second round presuming, so I guess I'll start things off.

Pro's resolution is that Christianity is the only religion that believes in lying to promote its beliefs. Pro has the burden of proof. His resolution in syllogism form is as follows:

P1: Christianity believes in lying to promote its beliefs.
P2: No other religions believe in lying to promote their beliefs.
C: Christianity is the only religion that believes in lying to promote its beliefs.

In order for C to be true, both P1 and P2 must be true. To uphold his resolution, my opponent must prove P1 and P2. If I can prove that one or both of Pro's premises are flawed, I win the debate.

For now, I will focus on P2, no other religions believe in lying to promote their beliefs.

There are estimated to be 4,200 religions in the world.[1] By claiming that only one of these, Christianity, believes in lying, my opponent is claiming that he has examined the beliefs of all 4,199 remaining religions and found that none of them believe in lying. However, if I can show that even one other religion believes in lying to promote its beliefs, I prove my opponent's research has been faulty and his resolution is false. I will show two:


The Hadith is part of Islamic scripture, and is considered to be a report of the teachings, deeds, and sayings of Muhammad. It forms the basis for Shariah models of Islamic law. [2] Here are a couple interesting passages:

Bukhari 49:857 - "He who makes peace between the people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."[3]

Muslim 32:6303 - "he did not hear that exemption was granted in anything what the people speak as lie but in three cases: in battle, for bringing reconciliation amongst persons and the narration of the words of the husband to his wife, and the narration of the words of a wife to her husband (in a twisted form in order to bring reconciliation between them)."[4]

We see that the Hadith specifies conditions in which it is acceptable to lie, including keeping the peace. It is conceivable that a feud may be caused by religious differences, therefore lying about religious beliefs would be acceptable in order to keep the peace.

The Qur'an is the central religious text of Islam.[5] Here are some interesting passages:

3:28 - "Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever [of you] does that has nothing with Allah , except when taking precaution against them in prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself, and to Allah is the [final] destination."[6]

According to this passage, it is ok for Muslims to pretend to be friends with non-Muslims as a cautionary measure.

66:2 - "Allah has already ordained for you [Muslims] the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise."[7]

Allah allows Muslims to break oaths they have made to non-Muslims.

"Reliance of the Traveler" is a classic, authoritative summation of Islamic jurisprudence. [8] In Book R, Section 8.2, it says:

"When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. When the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory."

"Whether the purpose is war, settling a disagreement, or gaining the sympathy of a victim legally entitled to retaliate against one so that he will forbear to do so; it is not unlawful to lie when any of these aims can only be attained through lying."

"One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie..."[9]

So, as evidenced by all of the above, it is acceptable for Muslims to lie if they believe the ends are justified.


Despite the claims of dissenters, Pastafarianism is a real religion. [10] The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti monster does not forbid lying, unless it offends your yourself or your significant other. [11]

Back to you, Pro, should you deign to debate with me.

Debate Round No. 2


You used Copy-Paste method, for argument, if you read the Bukhari49:857, the few (2 or 3) hadiths after you would see other hadith, Go read it.

Make your own argument.


My opponent has resorted to libel and slander rather than argumentation. I took the time to research this subject, despite Pro's rudeness to me in Round 2, and in return Pro falsely accuses me of plagiarism.

It is a thoroughly lazy person, and an extremely poor debater, who would rather insult and lie about his opponent than form even a simple argument. At the least, Pro could admit that he is unprepared for the topic and forfeit gracefully. His behavior in this debate says much about his character.

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3


I alreadt said I will not debate with you, because I read your other debates.


Pro has lost himself a debate without even trying. Congratulations, Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: PRO chose not to address CON's points.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Dreadful conduct from Pro. He simply insulted Con. Con's argument went uncontested.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro basically forfeited.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had bad conduct and no arguments.