The Instigator
Bible2000
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
headphonegut
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Those who seek for the truth should study the Bible

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 2 votes the winner is...
headphonegut
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 987 times Debate No: 67467
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (2)

 

Bible2000

Pro

Accept this debate if you believe an absolute truth (concerning what happens after death, if the universe and everything within it had an intelligent creator, if that creator cares about us, etc.) exists, but believe it is unreasonable to search for this truth in the Bible. Round 1 is only acceptance. Thank you.
headphonegut

Con

I accept. Feel free to define terms you deem relevant.
Debate Round No. 1
Bible2000

Pro

The Bible claims to be God’s word numerous times. For instance, 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial”. John 17:17 says, concerning God's word, "your word is truth." And 1 Thessalonians 5:21 exhorts us to, “test everything; hold fast what is good.” So, let’s do that.

According to the book Philosopy Now, the truth is,

congruent with our experience, meaning it fits the facts. [...] internally consistent [with] no contradictions within itself [...] It confirms, or at least fails to contradict, the rest of our established knowledge [...] is useful. It gives us mastery. When we act on the basis of a true theory or explanation, our actions are successful.

P1) The Bible is congruent with our experience.

P2) The Bible is internally consistent.

P3) The Bible is in harmony with all of our established knowledge and confirms most of it.

P4) When we follow the Bible, our actions are successful.

C) The Bible is worthy of consideration and should be studied by those who seek for the truth.

The Bible is congruent with our experience.

Consider the universal complex language of DNA within our cells, the extraordinarily complex structure of the human brain, and the navigational systems of birds and bats. All this exists side by side with injurious viruses, illness, and death. Our cells replicate faster than they die. Really, we should not have to die. And yet, eventually, that just stops and, “to dust we return”. Consider also the fact that humans possess an inner moral code they cannot get rid of and, yet, seem unable to obey. Does this not seem like deterioration from hopeful beginnings? Well, this is what the Bible teaches. And it certainly fits with the facts.

The Bible is internally consistent.

The first book of the Bible tells us how mankind’s problems began. The last book shows that the whole earth will become a paradise, or garden. All the harmonious material in the Bible covers thousands of years of history and has to do, in some way, with the unfolding of God’s purpose. This is extraordinary, when you consider the Bible was written in three different continents, three different languages, with over 40 writers, in a period of 1,610 years.

The Bible is in harmony with all of our established knowledge and confirms most of it.

The problem with the scientific method is that it is limited by imperfect human observations. For instance, science observes the universe expanding, so it says Big Bang. The Bible also mentions the expansion of the universe many times, but it says “God stretches the heavens”. Who knows, maybe he did use an explosion. What we do know is that the Bible confirms this and many other scientific facts such as the water cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:6-7; 11:3; Job 26:8; Amos 9:6.), which were not fully understood until well over 1,000 years later.

When we follow the Bible, our actions are successful.

Some Bible principles cope with work habits, family life, and relationships with others. The Bible’s principles apply to all individuals, and its counsel is always beneficial. The wisdom found within the Bible is summarized by God’s words through the prophet Isaiah: “I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit yourself.” (Isaiah 48:17).

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion

The Bible is not merely a book that makes claims. It asserts to be the truth of God. This is something that can be tested, and that the Bible exhorts us to test. For these reasons, the Bible is worthy of consideration and should be studied by those who seek for the truth.

Thank you. I eagerly await Con's response.

headphonegut

Con

I thank you for this most engaging topic, and look forward to the discourse.

I will begin by stating "Philosophy Now" does not define, but instead establishes the standard for truth and Bible2000 is holding the Bible to that standard. The truth relevant to this debate is asserted in Bible2000's opening statement i.e. what happens after death, intelligent creator, etc. etc. Bible2000 - my opponents case is weak, because if one premise falls or doesn't hold up to the standard put forth by my opponent the conclusion is not probable, and thus negated. The standard put forth does not have multiple legs that are mutually exclusive, but a well defined single one that does not exist without its necessary components.

There are many things I want to express pertaining to his paragraphs under each premise, but as they neither support nor elevate the premise's they stand on their own. A statement without an explanation of how it pertains to the premise as it is not expressly clear is not support of said premise.

Consider the first premise: The Bible is congruent (in agreement) with our experience. The premise itself is very similar to the last one . Both sound like rehashes of each other. I ask my opponent to explain how they are distinct from each other. After all experience is the process of living which presupposes action. I am assuming my opponent means our as in humanities. Talking about humanities experience people tend to talk about this generation or iteration (era) of humanity neglecting the past generations and their actions. Cognizant of the fact that my opponent said an inner moral code. There are many past actions of societies, that extend to now, that are disgusting like the acceptance of slavery based on scripture. The language surrounding how women are viewed - as objects - in the bible, and the treatment of homosexuals. IF the bible is correct: that a man who lay with another man be killed. God is giving permission or an exemption to the rule of thou shall not kill. People who don't kill homosexuals - that is many people - then their experience of life is not agreement with the bible, since they are violating Gods laws. Now, women hold positions of power some are leaders of their countries, but the bible puts property before the wife in the 10 commandments. It is telling to the fact that women be viewed as property. It had been done in the past, so our current experience is not in agreement with the bible. That of slavery; either its practice is in agreement or is not is befitting since we have practiced slavery and do not anymore. We as a society have determined morality and so there is no moral objective fact.

Acknowledging the second premise and holding my opponent to that in his arguments pertaining to the bible.

The third premise: The bible is in harmony - does not contradict - all of our established - accepted - knowledge, and confirms most of it.

The most gross violation of this premise would obviously be the acceptance as evolution of how man came to be in the natural world vs the bible saying that Adam and Eve are the proximate, and God the ultimate, cause. Simply that there is an argument be enough to discount this premise.

_________________________

Death is the ultimate reality. Accepting death is accepting life. Failing to recognize we are both dying every moment and living in each moment speaks to a delusion of the self and the idea of self. There is an unwillingness to accept that This is It. The principle of both sides of the same coin is present to see: Live by the word of God. Put another way pursue the good and disregard evil; if this is not done - enter consequences - you are wrong (essentially). It is a dualistic mentality that many cannot escape. The assumption that choosing God/the Bible will enhance your life, or better it in any way errs in the fact: We should not approached life from the outside. As if it were a meal. There is nothing to be gained from it. This delusion of enhancement arises from difficult moments. Choosing the "better" path is only better as long as the "wrong" path remains. Liberation from this mode of thinking stops the circle that happens when always choosing the path that goes left.

Consider:
The man who goes, comes.
The man who comes, goes.

Disenthrallment of good is not the acceptance of stagnation as an alternative. To choose is silly since there is no choice. We are not submitting to the inescapable (death). We are relative, mutual, and inseparable; as all other dualities of subject and object. Like moon that does not cast its image intentionally or the water that does not capture its image intentionally.

God is a symbol pretending to be a reality and to pursue it is an idea, which never comes. To follow it is to give more reality to it. Attempting to get into the kingdom of heaven is a goal that does not really exist. Our ideas of self improvement relate back to ourselves. A separation happens between who we are and who we think we are, and the idea of who we are is easily comprehended more so than the reality; such that it's substituted for the symbol. This gives rise to the idea of permanence, which society encourages because of stability. When we no longer identify self with our nature, then the duality relationships that of subject and object becomes real. Like the moon in the water. It's an epiphany of sorts: I have no other self than the totality of things of which I am aware. So the notion of getting something from life, or receiving something at the end of it becomes ludicrous.

I also contest the "decision" to go left or deciding to be good. It implies an infinite regression that fortunately does not occur. I would put it as: A decision just happens. We can't decide to decide.

Conclusion: Bible2000 presented fallible premise's, and we should not accept the Bible based on his standard of determining truth.
Debate Round No. 2
Bible2000

Pro

The difference between the first and last premise is explained in my first round. Congruent with our experience means it fits with the facts. And the last premise means the Bible is practical, and when we follow it, our actions are successful. None of these premises have to do with human morality. Nevertheless, let's take a look at headphonegut's arguments and see why they do not disprove that the Bible is the truth.

"There are many past actions of societies, that extend to now, that are disgusting like the acceptance of slavery based on scripture. The language surrounding how women are viewed - as objects - in the bible, and the treatment of homosexuals."

Slavery: Understand that by the time the Bible began to be written, humans already had established social structures that conflicted with godly principles. Whereas many of the practices concerned were condemned in his written Law, God selected to tolerate others, like slavery.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says, “It was meant to function as a brotherhood in which, ideally, there were no poor [and there was] no exploitation of widows, waifs, or orphans.” Therefore, rather than simply allowing an already established social and economic structure, the law of God regulated slavery so that if practiced, slaves would be treated in a loving and humane manner.

1. Oppressive slavery was not allowed under God's law to Israel. A slave killed by his master had to be avenged (Exodus 21:20). And if the slave was maimed, he was set free.

2. Leviticus 25:39, 40 says: “In case your brother grows poor alongside you and he has to sell himself to you, you must not use him as a worker in slavish service. He should prove to be with you like a hired laborer, like a settler.” So, the Bible slavery was a loving provision for Israel's poorest. Kidnapping a man and selling him as a slave was punished by death (Exodus 21:16).

3. The maximum time an Israelite could be a slave was six years (Exodus 21:2). But the law demanded that every fifty years all Israelite slaves were to be set free nationwide, no matter how long the Israelite had been a slave (Leviticus 25:40, 41).

Later, during the time of Jesus and his apostles, slavery was an established practice in the Roman Empire. As Christianity spread, it was inevitable that slaves and slave owners would come in contact with the good news and become Christians. However, neither Jesus or the apostles preached social liberation, as if trying to reform the existing system. Rather, slave owners and slaves were exhorted to love one another as spiritual brothers (Colossians 4:1; 1 Timothy 6:2).

Conclusion

Slavery is considered immoral because it is usually abusive, and the belief that everyone has the right to own their own life. But, really, isn't God, the giver of life, the owner of all lives? And, as you have seen, kidnapping a slave was punished with death. If an individual wants to be a slave for a short amount of time, and the giver of life allows this, is it really immoral? Now, are we not slaves of our employers? TheBible shows that God will deliver us from all forms of slavery soon. Then we will enjoy true freedom. (Isaiah 65:21, 22).

Women: From the beginning, both man and woman were created with the ability to reflect God’s qualities (Genesis 1:27). Adam and Eve had their unique physical and emotional makeup, but they enjoyed of the same rights before their Maker, and received the same commission (Genesis 1:28-31).

Israelite women enjoyed a great measure of freedom, unlike women in many nations of ancient times. For instance, the wife could "consider a field and obtain it" and "plant a vineyard." She could even run her own business if she had skills in spinning and weaving (Proverbs 31:11, 16-19).

Women also were free to have a personal relationship with God. Women, such as Deborah and Huldah, were used as representatives by God. Interestingly, important men and priests seeked advice from them (Judges 4:4-8; 2 Kings 22:14-16, 20).

Many Israelite women had the skill and knowledge neccesary to run a profitable business (Proverbs 31:24). Unlike the culture of many nations in ancient times in which the father alone taught his sons, the mother was to share in the education of her sons until they became adults (Proverbs 31:1).

The Ten Commandments clearly commanded, “Honor your father and your mother.” (Exodus 20:12). And wise king Solomon said, “Listen, my son, to the discipline of your father, and do not forsake the law of your mother” (Proverbs 1:8).The Law also included detailed orders concerning conduct among unmarried persons, showing respect for females(Leviticus 18:6, 9; Deuteronomy 22:25, 26).

Conclusion

The law in the Bible clearly reflects God's view of women. Concerning this, the author Laure Aynard, in her book, La Bible au féminin (The Bible in the Feminine Gender), says, “For the most part, when the Law covenant speaks of the woman, it is to defend her.”

Homosexuals: A reason the Old Testament law was so harsh is that it demonstrated the severity of righteousness and the requirement of perfection before a holy God. Galatians 3:24 tells us that the law is what points us to Christ by showing us we are unable to keep the law and that the only way of obtaining righteousness before God is through the sacrifice of Jesus.

Also, the Old Testament times were very diffucult. Many nations warred against Israel, and Satan was constantly working to destroy Israel to prevent the Messiah from being born. God, therefore, established laws, as difficult as they were, that ensured the survival of the Jewish nation, helped maintain social structure, and reflected the harshness of the law.

Conclusion

How do God's people view homosexuals? We don't hate them, but can't approve of their conduct. To illustrate, Ichoose not to smoke. In fact, I find the idea repulsive. But maybe you are a smoker and feel differently.I would not be prejudiced against you for your view, just as you would not be prejudiced against me formine, correct? God loved the world so much that he sent his Son to die so that everyone that has faith in him can have everlasting life. This gift of salvation is a gift we all have, but he does not force us to accept it. God understands very well that because of imperfection many can be attracted to the same gender. He also knows that this is something that is controllable, and those who strive to live a life God approves will benefit from his gift of salvation. It's that simple. Those whose sexual desires are more important for them than their love for God, should they really expect to benefit from God's gift?

Third Premise

The Bible certainly is in harmony or atleast does not conflict with our established knowledge. I gave examples in the previous round of how it is in harmony. An example of how it does not conflict is with the fact of evolution. Nowhere does the Bible conflict with the fact that living things adapt to their environment and occasionally mutate. However, the theory of evolution that attempts to explain how man came to be through evolution is not an established fact. Understand that the scientific method is limited by imperfect human observation. What will you trust, imperfect human observation, or the book of God, which is in harmony with our established knowledge and even contains knowledge far ahead of its time such as the expansion of the universe and the water cycle?

Conclusion

My premises certainly are falsifiable, and yet, headphonegut will not find a single fault within the Bible. Human philosophy such as that of humangut is just that, the philosophy of an imperfect human. And whom better to seek the truth from than from the One who created it all? Unlike other books, the Bible does not make mere claims. It gives evidence and exhorts the reader to test the truth in the Bible. For these reasons, those who seek for the truth should study the Bible.

Thank you. Once again I await headphonegut's response.






headphonegut

Con

Thank you for your timely response.

My opponent stated that morality had nothing to do with his premise's. I submit they do; If the bible is truth, then our so called inner moral code helps us determine what path to follow i.e what action is in line with Gods truth. If not why do we have an "inner moral code".

I thank my opponent for his succinct points of his first and last premise. The first one "fits with the facts," I still contest that it is a rehash of not only the last one but now of the third one as well. "In harmony with our established knowledge". The last premise; What is practical is another way to say what's convenient, and what's convenient is what's so called conventional knowledge i.e known put in a fancy arguments that established itself as fact - fits in with the facts. This is to illustrate that most of the premises aren't mutually exclusive. Acknowledging the second premise; I am going to call it a lie. As I have called the bible in previous arguments. An internally consist lie is not truth.

We must note what "facts" my opponent is talking of in his premises. One can only assume as it isn't stated directly. The facts of natural laws or species as observed by humans. Their are many "events" in the bible that defy natural laws. Moses parting the Red Sea, only one language as written by Moses, and then a confusion of that one language by the lord, the ten plagues occurrence, the making of a golden calf, the story of dipping in the Jordan several times to cure lepersy. There are many stories where God is involved. Why should we accept those; As they cannot be proven? My opponents argument essentially is because some parts are ofthe bible true and make sense it's all true and all makes sense. That is fallacious logic.

Now to the previous arguments.

1.) Slavery :
This brings us to the moral code argument. If we have an inner moral code as asserted by my opponent as fact. Consider that in the scriptures it talks of men following the bibles word. It still leaves us with the problem: Whether they were right in keeping slaves and were in fact following the word of God. The men and women who fought bravely in a war one to determine and extend free will to slaves - the civil war. A God given gift - free will.If God gives that to you is man wrong to try and take it away? I would submit yes. The practice of slavery commits idolatry: Bowing to someone's will other than Gods. it's all very convoluted and confusing because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. That's my point it's all very contradictory.

2.) Women: My opponent doesn't address my argument but instead ignores it and presents an alternative that satisfies his. It doesn't negate mine. And it illustrates why the 2nd premise fails of being consistent. It states to honor your mother but covertly telling you she is an object, a tool, property undermining that same statement in the same 10 commandments.

3.) Homosexuality:
The analogy is not a very nice one, and is malicious and mean spirited. It takes smoking something that 1.) someone chooses 2.) becomes addicted to 3.) severe health hazards that occur if continued and relates it to being gay. This is an appeal to emotion veiled in a fallacious analogy. The appeal being the social stigma that occurs from being gay a very valid concern and the threat of potential death. It concerns non homosexuals mainly those who follow the bible because they want the social stigma to continue to pound people into submission to enslave them into thoughts not their own. I digress. From reading my opponents statements. concerning homosexuality it sounds like some sort of greater sin that requires harsher punishment? Under my opponents heading "homosexuality" no argument is made (until ironically the conclusion) It sounds mostly like justification of actions. It is important because it implies an answer was thought up because the facts do not fit in accord with the belief.

I notice my opponent said "we" here in his conclusion. I ask him: Was there a meeting of some sort? I highly suspect my opponent does not speak for every person who follows the supposed good book. That is just a very transparent way of patronizing someone. My opponent said smoking repulsed him. And he equated it to homosexuality. The only logical conclusion is that homosexuality repulses him - the idea of two men together. My opponent has a sexual orientation - straight (I assume) - his analogy postulates that he can change it at will, but this is highly suspect because of the idea of two men being together repulses him. What about the idea of himself an another man? Sexual orientation is not a choice. My opponent cannot help but be repulsed by another man. Justifications are arguments to understand feelings that just happen i.e. it's unnatural, or it's a sin. The first one is self defeating as it happens in nature, and the second is what we're arguing. Its my opponents nature to like women; just like it's mine to like men.

3.) Third Premise:
We have a concession: "the bible doesn't conflict with living things adapting to their environment". That is evolution by any other name. I would also note here my opponent did not dispute my linking established and accepted. I had asked my opponent to define terms he deemed relevant. Terms not defined were left to me.

My argument here is that there only be a dispute to negate the premise. Simply saying the dispute is not valid because of human observation, which you hailed in another argument, is not good enough. We have built machines for calculation and observation. All we do is interpret the facts presented. Do you mean our interpretation is wrong? How man came to be through evolution is a disputed fact primarily by those asserting that God created Man.

Conclusion:
I am not sure what my opponent meant by "falsifiable," but if he was in fact quoting me then that is a concession as well. My opponent has failed to hold the bible up to his standard of truth. I extend my arguments made. in my first rounds thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Bible2000

Pro

Bible2000 forfeited this round.
headphonegut

Con

I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
Bible2000

Pro

Bible2000 forfeited this round.
headphonegut

Con

Thank your for the discussion.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
I'm very sorry, headphonegut, I just don't have time for this, I shouldn't have started the debate. Hopefully I can have a proper debate during one of my vacations of school.
Posted by headphonegut 2 years ago
headphonegut
I should stop making my rebuttal so early in the morning :/
Posted by headphonegut 2 years ago
headphonegut
I can read just fine, I think. Thanks much though.
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
Well, headphone, by accepting this debate you agreed to debate that an absolute truth exists but that we should not seek for it in the Bible. Good luck.
Posted by headphonegut 2 years ago
headphonegut
No to both.
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
headphone, do you believe in the Bible? If not, challenge my premises, explain why those who seek for the truth should not consider the Bible, and what they should rely on (some may say science, or Quran). If you are Christian, just make a concession and I will start this debate again. :/
Posted by headphonegut 2 years ago
headphonegut
Not sure about challenging premises.
Posted by Bible2000 2 years ago
Bible2000
I have plenty to say about the Bible, and you'll probably want to challenge some of my premises.
Posted by headphonegut 2 years ago
headphonegut
why is this five rounds? :(
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Ideas stand or fall on their own merits. If they are respectable ideas, they will withstand any mockery, criticism, or down-right disrespect we can throw at them. If they are not respectable, then we, as mature adults, need to be able to handle that.
If you care about the truth, then you should be able to mock your own ideas and hear mockery with the ability to remain rational. This is not to say that people will not be emotional in such cases, but that we all need to practice hearing mockery by challenging our own ideas so it does not make rationality impossible in the face of such criticism. The truth will attend to itself, whether we respect it or not.
If you don"t care about the truth, then why do you care if others respect your beliefs? If you don"t care about the truth, then you don"t respect your beliefs. So why should anyone else?
We all, as adults, need to maintain a safe distance from our beliefs. We should not make them sacred, protect them from criticism, or demand that people respect them. To demand that ideas remain protected in such ways, we are telling people that we are less concerned with truth than with our comfort. We are declaring that we don"t care if our ideas are true. And, again, if truth doesn"t matter than other people"s respect is irrelevant
The truth is that our various bad ideas, whether religious, political, or spiritual in nature, have survived because of the unwarranted demand for respect.We need to stop demanding respect for ideas until those ideas have survived skeptical analysis.
we all have the right to our ideas and our ability to articulate them.
We just don"t deserve respect for those ideas automatically. And by demanding it, we betray that we know that the idea might not survive criticism.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Bible2000headphonegutTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet.
Vote Placed by Rubikx 2 years ago
Rubikx
Bible2000headphonegutTied
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: Double forfeit.