The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
35 Points
The Contender
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

To Be Decided During The Debate

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/16/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 776 times Debate No: 5416
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

Kleptin

Pro

This is a special debate in which the one who accepts the challenge will be the one suggesting the topics of debate.

There will be 5 rounds of this debate.

1A: This introductory post

1B: My opponent will suggest 3 topic of debate, of a wide variety of categories. The three topics of debate suggested cannot all be within the same topic of discussion, (ie. All three cannot be about Religion, All three cannot be about Politics), cannot include both sides of a particular argument, and must be broad enough for a layman to be able to adequately debate with limited research (ie. No extraordinarily complicated Physical theorems).

2A: I will respond with my choice of the three, or rule that the choice of the three subjects violates rules stipulated in 1A. If I make that ruling, 3 new topics of debate will be given as a comment and I shall respond with my choice of those 3.

2B: After choosing one topic, my opponent will then pick a position, either PRO or CON.

If my opponent picks PRO, he/she shall use the rest of 2B as his opening post, and FORFEIT 5B by typing "Thank you for the debate" until the character limit is satisfied.

If my opponent picks CON, he/she shall choose a position and wait for my opening post in 3A.

The rest of the rounds will be devoted to a typical 3 round debate.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

1. Killing is morally equivalent to letting die. (Ethics)

2. It is better to have a small government than a large government. (Politics)

3. The bible should not be considered holy. (Theology)

I don't really care what side I get, so do what YOU want. Although, you probably would have done so anyways.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

I choose the last one "The Bible should not be considered Holy"

Even though my opponent has decided to pass the choice of position to me, I have explicitly stated in the rules that I would not be choosing my own position, only the topic.

If my opponent does not wish to choose, I suggest he flip a coin in order to decide.

I await the results (opponent chooses Pro, he begins next round, otherwise, I will start)
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

I'll take PRO on the resolution then.

Contention 1: In which Holy is defined and analyzed.
"exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness" That's Merriam-Webster's most applicable definition of holy for this debate. That means a holy object/being must be perfect in goodness and righteousness. Perfect is defined as "being entirely without fault or defect" and goodness is defined as "the quality or state of being good" good being defined as " well-founded, cogent" and righteousness is "acting in accord with divine or moral law." That means, in order to be considered holy, the bible must be entirely without fault or defect, and it must be well-founded, cogent, and in accord with divine or moral law.

Contention 2: In which the history of the bible is summarized
The Christian Bible was put together during the Council of Nicea. The Old Testament came from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh. The New Testament was a compilation of writings and letters written by early Christians. Emperor Constantine, benefactor of the council, wanted a Bible that would allow for the organization of a strong church, presumably so he could use it to wield more power. That meant that certain books of the Tanakh, and some early Christian writings, most famously the Gospel of Judah, were declared apocryphal and heretic, and were not included.

Contention 3: In which I support my claim
The bible was compiled by men, and it was written by men. Men, are by nature imperfect, so clearly they cannot produce a holy work. That's one reason to vote PRO. Also, the bible was compiled by power-hungry leaders. Constantine only gained power because he called the Council of Nicea. If he hadn't, Rome would have stayed pagan, and Constantine wouldn't have been emperor. The Council of Nicea was used as a tool to grab power. Clearly its result cannot be called holy, as it is most certainly not righteous. Also, the bible, because it was written by different men, at different times, it often contradicts itself. Therefore, it is not cogent. Clearly the bible is not holy.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

I would like to first thank my opponent for his participation in this debate and everyone for being patient enough to sit through the "opening ceremonies".

The issue of the debate is "The Bible Should Not Be Considered Holy". While my opponent is arguing this point, I as CON shall argue against my opponent's claims.

As my opponent begins his first point by defining the word "Holy", I shall also like to direct the audience's attention to the other definitions of the word "Holy", the first one having been provided by my opponent.

Holy:
2: divine
3: devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity
4 a: having a divine quality b: venerated as or as if sacred
5—used as an intensive ; often used in combination as a mild oath

-From the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry on "Holy"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

And also the entry on "divine"
1 a: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god b: being a deity c: directed to a deity
2 a: supremely good : superb b: heavenly , godlike

-From the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry on "Divine"
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

As can be seen from these above definitions of Holy (Including Divine, since it is also one of the definitions of Holy) All but Definition 5 match up perfectly. The Bible is indeed divine in that it relates to God, and it is taken to be God's message to man. In addition, it is obviously devoted to the work of God, and undeniably venerated as if it were sacred. Thus, I disagree with my opponent's contention that the bible must be, as he says, "entirely without fault or defect and must be perfect etc."

However, I accept my opponent's contention that in terms of this debate, the Bible should be shown as "righteous", "good", and "sacred".

As for my opponent's second and third contentions, I will address them, but before I do so, I need my opponent to comment on a preliminary argument before I address his points in my second round.

The reason why many people are against the notion of flag burning is not that it is a waste of white cloth, wood, and blue/red dye. Similarly, when we are discussing the "Holiness" of the bible, we are not merely referring to a stack of documents. Whether the documents in the bible were written by man or not, it is taken to be inspired work. Thus, I ask that the *validity* of the Bible not be called into question, purely because this debate will turn into a squabble on biblical interpretation or worse, a debate on the existence of God, which is trite, boring, and quite unnecessary.

I shall respond to my opponent's points above after he responds to the ones I made in this post.

Thank you.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

Contention 1: In which my opponent's interpretation of the resolution is analyzed.
Basically, he says that definitions 2-4 relate perfectly, in that with the first it relates to God, in the second it is devoted to God and with the third it is venerated as if sacred. Unfortunately, for him, he is wrong. For the first, definition 2, my opponent misinterprets the meaning of divine. The definition implies that it comes from God, directly or indirectly. So if the Bible was simply written by some very religious men, we should not call it divine. Second, the bible is only partly devoted to God. As it was written and compiled by men, it reflects the interests of men, which are by default not entirely those of God. For the final definition, although the bible is venerated as if sacred, using this definition simply gives the resolution a new meaning, that the bible should not be venerated as if sacred. I can offer a contention on that as well.

Contention 2: In which I contend that the bible should not be venerated as sacred.
Christians, Jews, and Muslims are taught to worship God, and not to worship the works of man. For these reasons Jesus condemned the use of churches for worship, idol worship is condemned, and its ban is included in the ten commandments. Clearly a work of man should not be worshiped or venerated as if sacred. So if the bible is solely a work of man, than its veneration is bad. I contend that the bible is a work of man alone. It may have been written by very holy and important men, but unless God or Jesus sat down at a writing table and penned it out, it is simply a work of men, with differing interests of their own that are reflected in the text. I fit was written by God it would not have contradictions, or laws that today we know are immoral. God did not mess up, but some Hebrew priest or prophet did.

Contention 3: In which I address my opponent's concern.
My opponent says "The reason why many people are against the notion of flag burning is not that it is a waste of white cloth, wood, and blue/red dye. Similarly, when we are discussing the "Holiness" of the bible, we are not merely referring to a stack of documents. Whether the documents in the bible were written by man or not, it is taken to be inspired work. Thus, I ask that the *validity* of the Bible not be called into question, purely because this debate will turn into a squabble on biblical interpretation or worse, a debate on the existence of God, which is trite, boring, and quite unnecessary." I agree that the bible is not just a stack of documents. It is the most influential book in history, and it is the only authoritative account of Judaism and Christianity's beliefs. I simply contend that it is contradictory to consider the bible holy because works of men are not holy. I would argue much of the bible is valid, but by nature, a compilation of 60 some works on religion by 40 or so different men will be contradictory and flawed. Something like this is not and should not be called holy.
Debate Round No. 3
Kleptin

Pro

I shall begin by addressing my opponent's issues from the first round.

Although I see the reasoning behind my opponent's argument that the Bible, being used as a tool and as a political weapon cannot be Holy, I find points of disagreement in his historical retelling, which provide the factual basis for his argument.

First of all, my opponent wishes to paint the construction of the Bible as a political tool that Constantine used in order to "wield more power", however, this is nothing but a presumption, and my opponent has yet to validate this belief with any citation. Constantine was the one to give power to the church in the first place, not to mention the fact that he devoted a considerable amount of resources to aiding the spread of Christianity, supporting its practice, and giving practitioners the right to do so, an act that was quite unheard of in that time and place.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

In addition, my opponent makes the statement "Constantine only gained power because he called the Council of Nicea. If he hadn't, Rome would have stayed pagan, and Constantine wouldn't have been emperor. The Council of Nicea was used as a tool to grab power". As with before, my opponent offers no citation to support his belief, and I find it erroneous.

http://www.ccel.org...

The Council of Nicea was called in 325, which Constantine's wikiarticle determines to be part of his late rule. Constantine rose to power long before he began 306. At the point, he used the substantial amount of power he had and increased it with military victories. He did not even pass the Edict of Milan until 313, which allowed Christians to practice their faith openly without punishment or persecution. My opponent is attempting to argue that Constantine, who ruled with so much power by that time already, is looking to a persecuted group for more? That point is nonsensical.

My opponent also declares that the Bible was put together during the Council of Nicea. This is also a complete untruth. The Council of Nicea was called to come to terms with several issues, including the relationship between God and Jesus, the date of celebration for Easter, and the legitimacy of baptism by heretics.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Nowhere is it stated that it was a council dedicated to the canonization of the Bible. Furthermore, according to the article on canonization of the Bible:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The canon "bible" was not developed until over a millennium later in 1545 during the Council of Trent.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Having found so many flaws in my opponent's fact finding, it is hard for me to understand where his point lies. Regardless, the fact that there are so many errors in his historical background leads me to disregard his entire argument so far. He attempted to prove that Although I am sure he is not trying to deliberately mislead the audience by giving faulty information to support his point, it does make us question his understanding.

That having been said, I move to my opponent's new contentions. Although my opponent has split his argument into three contentions, all three of them rest on just one single foundation: That the Bible is a manmade work with no divine aspect.

The people of the Christian faith wholeheartedly believe that the Bible is the word of God, or at the least, divinely inspired by God through man. The authors of the Bible are transcribing a message of faith. Although my opponent wants to paint the bible as a tool purposely erected to command power or to manipulate the masses, he has failed to provide a substantial reason as to why he believes so. The message of the Bible has little to nothing to do with worldly conquest or acquirement. People who read the Bible derive their faith and strength from it, and this is how we can see God through the work of man. Although we can point to any number of manmade things and pinpoint a purpose from it: That cup was made to hold water, that fork was made to eat with, one cannot point to the Bible and declare any rote, purely secular purpose. Thus, we must say that the Bible is holy. Why? Because its only purpose and its only devotion, is to the will of God.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

"First of all, my opponent wishes to paint the construction of the Bible as a political tool that Constantine used in order to "wield more power", however, this is nothing but a presumption, and my opponent has yet to validate this belief with any citation. Constantine was the one to give power to the church in the first place, not to mention the fact that he devoted a considerable amount of resources to aiding the spread of Christianity, supporting its practice, and giving practitioners the right to do so, an act that was quite unheard of in that time and place."

He did all of this to gain power. At that point, Rome was in a Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org... and Constantine's support of Christianity was his key to victory.

"In addition, my opponent makes the statement "Constantine only gained power because he called the Council of Nicea. If he hadn't, Rome would have stayed pagan, and Constantine wouldn't have been emperor. The Council of Nicea was used as a tool to grab power". As with before, my opponent offers no citation to support his belief, and I find it erroneous.'

Although the Council of Nicea occurred later, his actions to support Christianity were used to gain power. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"The Council of Nicea was called in 325, which Constantine's wikiarticle determines to be part of his late rule. Constantine rose to power long before he began 306. At the point, he used the substantial amount of power he had and increased it with military victories. He did not even pass the Edict of Milan until 313, which allowed Christians to practice their faith openly without punishment or persecution. My opponent is attempting to argue that Constantine, who ruled with so much power by that time already, is looking to a persecuted group for more? That point is nonsensical."

Addressed above.

"My opponent also declares that the Bible was put together during the Council of Nicea. This is also a complete untruth. The Council of Nicea was called to come to terms with several issues, including the relationship between God and Jesus, the date of celebration for Easter, and the legitimacy of baptism by heretics.'

All of which are reflected in the canonical bible.

"The canon "bible" was not developed until over a millennium later in 1545 during the Council of Trent."

Based on the determination of the Council of Nicea. Which was influenced by clouded interests. Furthermore, it was still written by men with conflicting interests and opinions. It cannot be considered holy.

"Having found so many flaws in my opponent's fact finding, it is hard for me to understand where his point lies. Regardless, the fact that there are so many errors in his historical background leads me to disregard his entire argument so far. He attempted to prove that Although I am sure he is not trying to deliberately mislead the audience by giving faulty information to support his point, it does make us question his understanding."

Even if some of my facts were false, my point is not moot. As you said, the Bible was put together by the Council of Trent. They were still men. They do not make it holy.

"The people of the Christian faith wholeheartedly believe that the Bible is the word of God, or at the least, divinely inspired by God through man. The authors of the Bible are transcribing a message of faith. Although my opponent wants to paint the bible as a tool purposely erected to command power or to manipulate the masses, he has failed to provide a substantial reason as to why he believes so. The message of the Bible has little to nothing to do with worldly conquest or acquirement. People who read the Bible derive their faith and strength from it, and this is how we can see God through the work of man. Although we can point to any number of manmade things and pinpoint a purpose from it: That cup was made to hold water, that fork was made to eat with, one cannot point to the Bible and declare any rote, purely secular purpose. Thus, we must say that the Bible is holy. Why? Because its only purpose and its only devotion, is to the will of God."

As I said, men do not have purely holy interests. Even if they are filled with the Holy Spirit and inspired to write it, the canonization and the wording reflects their interests. For example, even though slavery is seemingly contradictory to Christian beliefs, parts of the Bible support it.
Debate Round No. 4
Kleptin

Pro

**Quick reminder to my opponent. As you were PRO in this debate, your final round is to be forfeited**

I am very disappointed. My opponent's counterargument to all of the flaws I have found in his fact-finding was simply to redirect me to the article on Civil Wars fought by Constantine, and to reiterate without any sort of citation that Constantine's support of Christianity was used to gain power.

My opponent has not only failed to defend himself against those corrections, but is deliberately attempting to mislead the audience in the hopes that they will not read the article. The article on Civil Wars says nothing to support my opponent's claim that his support of Christianity was used to gain power.

In his first response to the lsit of things I said, he says

"He did all of this to gain power. At that point, Rome was in a Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org...... and Constantine's support of Christianity was his key to victory".

I was referring to the Edict of Milan, which occured BEFORE the first Civil war in the article and was the REASON why he went to war the second time. In order to defend the Edict of Milan, he went to war with Licinius. Thus, his support of the Christian faith was a liability to his power, not an asset, and my opponent has failed to state his case.

In his second response defending against my counterpoint, my opponent says again:

"Although the Council of Nicea occurred later, his actions to support Christianity were used to gain power. http://en.wikipedia.org...;

Again, he is attempting to insult the intelligence of the audience. This link goes to the "early Rule" section of Constantine's Bio and does not even CONTAIN the word "Christianity". Moreover, it states that his power came from his military strategies and building projects.

"Constantine's military skill and building projects soon gave the panegyrist the opportunity to comment favorably on the similarities between father and son, and Eusebius remarked that Constantine was a "renewal, as it were, in his own person, of his father's life and reign"

I also criticized my opponent for giving faulty information as to what the council of Nicea was about.

"My opponent also declares that the Bible was put together during the Council of Nicea. This is also a complete untruth. The Council of Nicea was called to come to terms with several issues, including the relationship between God and Jesus, the date of celebration for Easter, and the legitimacy of baptism by heretics.'

He merely responds:

"All of which are reflected in the canonical bible."

Not only is this an irrelevant response, but he also glosses over the fact that he made up faulty information and refuses to acknowledge it. Furthermore, I also criticized his notion that the Council of Nicea set forth to develop the canon Bible when historical truth dictates this did not occur until over 1000 years after my opponent stated.

"The canon "bible" was not developed until over a millennium later in 1545 during the Council of Trent."

He merely responds

"Based on the determination of the Council of Nicea. Which was influenced by clouded interests. Furthermore, it was still written by men with conflicting interests and opinions. It cannot be considered holy."

Which is incorrect. There was no determination of the Council of Nicea to hold another council. This decisionw as made by the Catholic Church over 1000 years later. My opponent then tries to redirect the argument knowing he made another factual error.

"Even if some of my facts were false, my point is not moot."

Not some, most/nearly all.

Audience, my opponent offered a good argument in the beginning, but supplied a very hefty load of flawed information that he never ended up supporting. He even tried to support those illegitimate claims with trickery. All his evidence for the notion that the Bible was a tool for power have been disproven. I now make my response to my opponent's only remaining argument:

"As you said, the Bible was put together by the Council of Trent. They were still men. They do not make it holy...As I said, men do not have purely holy interests. Even if they are filled with the Holy Spirit and inspired to write it, the canonization and the wording reflects their interests. For example, even though slavery is seemingly contradictory to Christian beliefs, parts of the Bible support it."

The bible need not be put together by God himself in order for it to be Holy. I argue that the Bible can be considered Holy even if that is the case. The Bible is not a word for word document. Similarly, the American Flag is not simply white cloth painted red and blue. The inherent meaning of the Bible, which is the true meaning of the Bible, is a Holy message. There are plenty of Contradictions my opponent can point to, as with slavery. Times have changed because men have changed, and yes, men have penned the Bible. However, the pure message of God is in the Bible as well. Each and every chapter of the bible, though possibly tinted with human interests, was penned out of faith and for the faith. This is why a millenia old piece of literary work is relevant to billions of people today. Because no matter what the time period, the message of God, stored within the Bible, is ETERNAL, and thus, HOLY.

Thus, I have made my case for the Holiness of the Bible while also offering more than enough counterexamples for my opponent's erroneous points.

Thank you to both my opponent and the audience, and VOTE KLEPTIN.
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Con

As per the agreed upon rules, I will not post anything this round. I thank Kleptin for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Edit: What I meant to say was that if you want, you can choose your side as well.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
KleptinLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
KleptinLR4N6FTW4EVATied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:70 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 7 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
KleptinLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
KleptinLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
KleptinLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:70 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 8 years ago
brittwaller
KleptinLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
KleptinLR4N6FTW4EVATied
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