The Instigator
annakimma
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
KyronTheWise
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Why the Bible is turning to dust and God is becoming only a word

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 294 times Debate No: 80652
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

annakimma

Con

The Bible and God were always above all else. In the late 1800's and early 1900's people were hung if they did not live within the standards of the good book and if they didn't believe in God they had better keep thier mouth shut or they would be burned at the stake. As time passed the Bible and God lived on... Until now. The world is falling to ruin- that much is certain but you know that it really is falling to ruin when people will go to church and then go and get drunk in the same day. Or how a man will be commiting adultery and then say he's so christian. Or how people are starting to go to church just for friends and not for the purpose of god. It is almost like people forgot the meaning of religion.
KyronTheWise

Pro

Okay, since no one else was biting, guess I'll give it a crack. To clarify the argument, I will be arguing Pro-Christianity has become weaker, since that really seems to be the tone of the pre-debate argument in your statement. As such, this is not an argument over whether or not Christianity is right or wrong, or if it's right or wrong for becoming weaker or not, simply whether or not it has, and reasoning backing up said claim.

As for my argument, I would argue that it has become weaker, in the following ways.
Direct Power
1- As you have said, Christian teachings at one point, could hold the power of life or death over an individual. Furthermore, at multiple points through history, Christian teachings held heavy sway over politics. Examples include events such as the Crusades, or being killed by stoning for being an adulterous wife. At one point, governments bowed to Church (some variant thereof) doctrine. Church influenced most of European power
2- This is no longer the case. As an example, going against the Church used to be capable of altering an individuals entire life. Galileo, for example, was believed to have insulted the Pope at the time, and as a result, was placed under house arrest for the rest of his days. In America, in Salem, if you were claimed to be a witch, you could be killed. Now faster forward a few centuries. The pope visits America. Now, in the old days, they put someone under house arrest because they thought they insulted him. Today, despite there being several protesters against him, none of them were placed under house arrest (They were fined in some cases, but that seems to be the worse punishment). So I think it is fair to say that in terms of direct power, yes, the church is weaker.

However, the meat of your argument seems to be about the weakening of influence on behaviors, or at least, in the reasoning behind the behaviors. I would argue that part of it is in fact what I have laid out. The Church, throughout history, has used punishment as a means of reinforcing that certain behaviors are wrong, such as heresy, or witchcraft. It used to be life altering punishments they could dish out, such as the ones mentioned. However, they can no longer execute such punishments. The only punishment still present is the claim that the people who go against the teachings, will burn in Hell. Well, here's the thing. A punishment only really gains traction as a deterrent when it is demonstrable. Say the Church showed everyone a person being tossed into Damnation. It'd probably encourage everyone to act according to the Christian teachings. However, without it being demonstrable, it loses its effectiveness.

At the same time, the only rewards as of right now for following Church teachings, are Heaven, and possibly influence with the Church, which hasn't lost ALL of it's power. Heaven falls under the same issue as Hell: Non-demonstrable. Influence with the church becomes weaker as an incentive the weaker the Church becomes. So the issue is, there are no longer any rewards or punishments to encourage the behaviors desired. Church has become separated from someone's everyday life (for some people), due to the degradation of active power that the Church can bring against it.
Debate Round No. 1
annakimma

Con

You're right, but when I was referring to the punishments that many people gave to the non-Christians and "violators" of the bible I was not saying that People should continue hanging people, I was also not implying that only the church was getting weaker, or the influence that surrounds it. I was trying to say that The Christian religion is beginning to be ignored, that is why I gave examples of people who do wrong and then go to church. I think it has a lot to do with influence like you said, but it also has to do with the power of the economy, and although people don't realize it we are beginning to worship money more than God.
KyronTheWise

Pro

All due respect to my opponent, but I have already answered the question. Christianity is weakening, or becoming ignored as you say, because it isn't providing incentives to follow it. It used to be, you followed the religion or were punished in Europe. That's a pretty compelling reason to follow it. However, now, there is only the nebulous concepts of burning in hell, or being rewarded through heaven, neither of which can be proven outside of christian teachings.

Even ignoring that, multiple religions offer a heaven/hell dichotomy. Christianity offers nothing to compete with these religions.

I would remind my opponent that this debate was stated as a "Christianity Is/Isn't becoming weaker/ignored". If you want to change it to WHY is it doing so, and argue as such, we can do so.

But yes, the statement the Christian Church is becoming ignored is explicitly tied to it becoming weaker, as I have argued. The less reason people have to go to something, the less likely they are to go.
Debate Round No. 2
annakimma

Con

Whether or not the religion has incentives to follow it should not affect the person's faith. If you are Christian you are Christian, there should be no ignoring or pushing aside a religion that you say you have chosen.
KyronTheWise

Pro

I acknowledge this is as a tautology (Saying if you are x, you x). I do agree, tautology aside, that if you say you are a Christian, you should 'practice what you preach' so to speak.

That is not the problem. Here's the thing, people are not born believing in Christianity. There needs to be a compelling reason for some to take up the faith, and it needs to be something that is not also provided by any number of other religions. Christianity needs to offer things that are unique, or not offered by alternatives. They haven't. That is why, as the political power of the Church waned, less and less people started joining. Without the consequence of being immediately punished, and with the lack of strong unique tones to Christian religion to make it more appealing than similar religions, A request for utter devotion, in any case, is a strong demand for some people. Also, as the world becomes more and more connected, people are exposed to alternatives (Christianity used to be the only 'real' choice) and some of them are going to take up those alternatives, due to something in them resonating with the individual.

Seeing as how this is the final round, I do acknowledge the weakpoint in my argument would be that certain sects of Christianity argue that EVERYONE is born believing in God, and are simply tempted away. However, in order to use that as a argument, you would have to argue that it is impossible for someone to be born and not believe in God. Absolute cases are terribly hard to prove, and in this case you would have to raise someone in isolation, and see if they still had a belief in God after a certain period of time.

Regardless of the results, it was a intellectually stimulating time arguing with you Con, and I hope to do so again some time.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by annakimma 1 year ago
annakimma
Yes you are right (: sorry, I forgot to specify that I was talking about Christianity, not religions in general.
Posted by KyronTheWise 1 year ago
KyronTheWise
Actually, I think that saying the Pro and Cons are "I think religion has lost its meaning" and "I think religion still has not lost its meaning" is incorrect, given the Round 1 argument. The issue is, you are referring to [Christianity] losing its meaning, not religion in general. Using the Pros and Cons as stated would require you to show that [all] religions have lost their meaning, rather than just one. A Pro and Con focusing more on Christianity losing its meaning or not would better suit your claim.
Posted by annakimma 1 year ago
annakimma
in this case con would be " I think religion is losing its meaning" and pro would be "I think religion still has not lost meaning" so yes you are right (:
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
Con - Religion lost meaning

Pro - Religion has not lost meaning?
Posted by MizzEnigma 1 year ago
MizzEnigma
What is Con and what is Pro? I'm confused.
No votes have been placed for this debate.