We should live by Biblical Morality
Debate Rounds (4)
Of course we should not live by biblical morality. Biblical morality is too deeply flawed for our global post-modern society, where better systems are in place and proven to work, and the theocratic, slavish methodology the Bible preaches simply do not work. They are out of date. They are impractical. They are obsolete.
OK, firstly, there is the issue of time. The Bible was written over two thousand years ago, and compiled 1300 years ago. Parts of the Bible are based on fables millennia of years old, in a time where magic was rife and war was a daily occurrence. Lives were expendable, slavery was condoned, and punishments were extreme. Now, if we look in other places around the world, we can see the moral system is similarly terrible. The Bible also copies the rules set out by other governments, and phrases them as its own. At least governments realise times change, and their laws are removed when they are made obsolete. All I have to do is prove that times have changed from Biblical Times, and my point is perfectly made. All I need to do is prove that the Biblical moral code is obsolete.
The Bible was written in a time of theocracies, monarchies and other dictatorships. Persia, Iran, Papal States, they were all theocratic nations, which ruined countries, and their people. But the important thing is that they were ruled by one person, with absolute control. Post-modern times feature republics, federations, communist states and parliaments. These (should) all be ruled by a large amount of people, when everyone has power, to some degree. In a theocracy, you don't get to vote on your divinely appointed dictator, or question the powers they hold, or laws they pass. In fact, in the Bible, it says do not question your leaders, "(Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.) Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." Romans 13
And it is not the Roman Catholic church that got it wrong. John Calvin, leader of Calvinism, had a personal hand in the execution of Michael Servetus. It's worth noting, because Servetus was murdered for doctrinal differences, namely, denying the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as infant baptism, believing the age of accountability is 20, and remaining unmarried in his life. And Calvinism isn't a fringe group. There is over 75 million Calvinists in the world.
In the words of Ingersoll, "Calvin founded a little theocracy, modeled after the Old Testament, and succeeded in erecting the most detestable government that ever existed, except the one from which it was copied"
Now, let us look at the other flaws of the Biblical Moral system. It condones slavery (Exodus 21:7-11), condones capital punishment (Numbers 33), and condones abuse of Prisoners of War (Put to death, Josh. 10:16-27; 1 Sam. 15:33; 27:11; 2 Sam. 12:31; 2 Kin. 25:7; 1 Chr. 20:3; Hos. 13:16;Amos 1:13; Lam. 3:34; by divine command, Num. 31:9,17. Thumbs and toes cut off, Judg. 1:6,7. Blinded, 2 Kin. 25:7), and many other things that are unthinkable in a modern society. There are also quotations used by others to back up their beliefs of hatred, an example of this is the Westboro church, probably the most hated group in America right now. They're threatening Al Qaeda, in my opinion. On their website, they state things such as God hates everyone in the world http://www.godhatesfags.com... is actually one of the more factual documents I have read.
Some more hatred produced by "Christian Morals."
But now, I think I need to move on from the… unliked topics of Christianity. Let's move on to Biblical Morals. Biblical Morals. Based on the Bible. You know who else use the Bible? I'll give you a clue. Sinai Bombings. Oslo Bombings. 9/11. Yes, terrorism is founded by religion. There was the Mohammad agency attack, the Kabul bombings, there was even one in Exeter, where I live. But let's just go for the one that everyone will know of: The Oslo bombing, happened yesterday. The blast blew out most windows of a 17-storey government building housing the Norwegian prime minister's office and the nearby oil ministry, which was on fire. 9 or 10 people confirmed dead at Ut�ya so far. Then it was followed up by a systematic, cold, planned and calculated attack on 80 students between 14 and 18. Breivik has a Facebook and Twitter account that he set up a mere few days ago on July 17, where he identifies himself as a Christian and a conservative. There are several reports of his anti-Muslim views. In a post in Norwegian in an online forum on Anders Behring Breivik states there is not one country where Muslims have peacefully lived with non-Muslims, stating that instead it has had "catastrophic consequences" for non-Muslims.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com... and other news sites.
Using Religion as your moral code has been seen to create massive distress and pain for those who do not. I agree with his statement. In countries where Muslims live with non-Muslims, there are drastic consequences. Same goes with Christians living with non-Christians, it seems.
Let's get back to the heart of the issue though; morals. Can Christian morals solve real issues? Euthanasia. Abortion. Artificial organs. Stem Cell Research. Racism. Now, let's look hypothetically. What if we find a species which has a greater capacity to feel love, empathy, pain, etc.? What about electronic issues? Internet Fraud, cyber hackers, impersonators?
Well, the abortion issue has been split between two sides, for Christianity as a whole. Euthanasia has as well. Racism, hacking, illegal downloads, they all have been equally argued using the Bible as a reference, and it comes down to external sources. What does this show us? Not only does the Bible not teach us how to deal with issues, but it can be used by anyone to back anything.
One top of that, we can bring up more moral issues the Biblical moralities are fringe. Homosexuality is the largest of them; Americans are 1.5x more likely to be intolerant to homosexuals than European counterparts. In America, 2/3rds of people were against homosexuals, one of three major countries with a majority, and 9% less tolerant (that's almost 1 in 10 people) saying it is "unjustifiable". In modern times, it is actually reaching 1 in 3 Americans against homosexuals. In contrast, Sweden has a 4% being intolerant. Another study shows that in 2004, 63% of people were against homosexual unions.
In fact, Biblical fervour is actually detrimental to society. A study on the effect of religiosity on economic inequality came to this conclusion:
"The results of the empirical test offer some support for the hypothesis that more
religious populations have higher levels of income inequality. Considering the correlation was found on the variable that measured religiosity specifically as the importance of god in daily life, it may be more accurate to hypothesize that it is not religion as a whole but rather just the singular aspect of god which drives the relationship. Establishing the presence of a correlation between these two variables was an important first step in investigating the influence of religion/belief in god on economic trends.
Times change. New customs evolve. Standards of morality change. Vote Con; thank you
I 'd like to thank my opponent for bring forth such an interesting topic of discussion, and I am very happy to make a response to his argument. Before continuing in this debate, however, I feel that a couple of key terms from this resolution must be made:
Biblical: of, relating to, or being in accord with the Bible.
Morality: conformity to ideals of right human conduct
The definition of "morality" extends to a conglomeration of theories on such correct conduct, as defined by Professor John L. Perkins:
From these definitions, we can make the following observations fo the debate:
Observation One: The resolution is very narrow and specific enough for the burden of the PRO to be that it has to argue that we should live with Biblical morality. Therefore, the burden of the PRO is to prove that we should live with Biblical morality.
Observation Two: Because the Bible makes clear contradictions with what it considered to be moral in general, it cannot be considered moral at all. Therefore, "Biblical morality" is an inherent oxymoron and cannot exist.
Observation Three: Morality must encompass all of those theories of what is moral according to John Perkins.
With these observations and arguments, it is clear that the PRO does not have anything that it can argue because the resolution itself has an inherent oxymoron, as I will prove in my case. The Bible is among one of the most immoral texts in the history of mankind, and with this condition, the resolution inherently makes a query of analysis on a subject that only one side of the debate can make. Therefore, this resolution cannot be debated in any way because the PRO does not have any way of making such an argumentation under this resolution.
Now, to my argument:
Contention One: The Bible promotes harm of people.
The Bible is notorious for the promotion of harm to people, and this inherently violates the codes of conduct for what encompasses morality. Therefore, there is no way that the Bible could be considered moral.
Sub 1a: Promotion of Harm Against Homosexuals.
Sub 1b: Promotion of Harm Against People of Other Religions
Deuteronomy 13:13-19; Deuteronomy 13:7-12; Romans 1:24-32
Sub 1c: Promotion of Harm Against People who Work on Sabbath
Contention Two: The Bible does not allow for justice.
Because the Bible openly discriminates against other groups of people, it is also considered to be unjust. This clear by the Biblical statements I've made before.
My opponent is right when he says that my case doesn't go agaisnt anything that he's said. That's because I'm not trying to go against his position. The method of addressing the resolution at hand that I am using is probably something my opponent is not familiar with, especially if he is not with the National Forensic League debate teams. What I am trying to argue here is that the resolution that he has provided cannot be debated because the terminology within the resolution is oxymoronic, and it places a burden on my position to uphold a concept that does not exist, as I have explained in my case, which he has not argued against. At this point, you can definately extend all of his points across the flow because it only substantiates the case I'm running.
For those who are confused as to the type of argument that I am running, I am running a kritik (not misspelled. This is how it is spelled in the context of debate), which is a completely valid method to run in a debate, whether they be formal ones or less formal ones like the ones of this site. I can go against a common ideology or stanpoint, including the standpoint of the resolution itself, as I have done. My opponent has not argued the main point of my case, so you can place my case over his.
On top of which, a kritik argues impact and implications, where the winner of this tactic is one whose practical position is rather than observation and confliction. I see you are attempting to criticise the framework implications, however, the critical point is that you should be criticising my alternative, and say all alternatives have no weight. If, as you said "the claim the Pro must make is oxymoronic", then it justifies my position further. Also, the position you are taking is known as a disadvantage, not a kritik, from my experience, but I shall continue using the word kritik in case I am mistaken.
But simply, your argument is a turn, for it coincides with my framework without flaw, and strengthens it. However, I feel you are arguing from a semantic disadvantage, yes? Therefore, I simply need to prove that biblical morality is an option. Therefore, I need to prove morality is relative. If morality is relative, then not also does using an absolute (in the definition of non-relative) morality make the Con position weaker, then the idea that any other option is flawed is non-existent.
The opponent has forced my hand into an interesting topic -- metaethics. If I can prove that, ethically, morals are relative, then my argument stands, and the kritik of the question is nulled. Also, if I can provide contradiction in John L Perkins, to the point that the 7 notions can conflict, then the argument of the opposition is also null.
Imagine the scenario of a serial killer. He has confessed, has no mental degradation, and is to be sentenced. How should we sentence him? Non-malificence dictates that we do not harm him, yet justice dictates we must punish him equally to those he has killed. This also contradicts the utility of the situation; you are decreasing the benefit:harm ratio. How do we decide which takes precendence? It comes down to a relative issue. You can say that it depends on the situation (subjective) or that it makes no difference (objective), but if I disagree, then the situation is relative.
Also, the judges should view the appropriateness of constructing a linear degradation. Also, the unfair position of newer judges without understanding of a degradation will cause harm unto their voting pattern, and that the justification behind the application of the kritik/linear disadvantage should be made clearer. As I am not putting forth this argument, then I cannot be required to justify its use. As a side note, I applaud you for attempting this form of debating, and it is refreshing to hear a disadvantage.
ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
Thank you for debating.
ScarletGhost4396 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kohai 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||7||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeits.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.