The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
pr.Daniel_Jordan
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

bible believing christians should consider that stoning was one time moral

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 2 votes the winner is...
dairygirl4u2c
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 305 times Debate No: 78980
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the old testament commands that some people be stoned. jesus called the jews hypocritical for not stoning when God commands it. chrisitans might view stoning as immoral now, but if they are to believe the bible, it must have at one time been moral.
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Con

Stoning was one time moral in the same way that lethal injections are moral today -- but not necessarily in the next thousand years. Your static view of time and cultures is disturbing.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con argues stoning is similar to lethal injection, and these are all up for the fads of time. con seems to act as if it is all arbitrary. that would mean while stoning was moral, it was just a fad. im arguing that it must be considered more than a fad, but actually moral, the right thing to do, God ordained, etc.
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Con

Everything, including the method of execution, changes over time. I don't see how you could deny that.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

what changes are considered man's changes. con is acting as if God's plan of stoning was just another of man's fads. con hasn't disproven that if you follow the bible, you should consider stoning at one time moral. in fact, he almost agreed with me "it was moral, then it wasn't... things change"
pr.Daniel_Jordan

Con

You attempt to say that since moral was one time considered moral, Christianity is immoral, since today we know that stoning is immoral. I hope you see the fallacy there.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by dairygirl4u2c 1 year ago
dairygirl4u2c
well if you start a debate and invite me, you take the position that Jesus didn't call them hypocrites for not stoning and i will take the other position.
Posted by walle 1 year ago
walle
ok, dairy, you need to cite where you got your info on because I don't remember Jesus calling the Jews hypocrites about stoning people and I'd really like to know where that's found.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
roguetech
dairygirl4u2cpr.Daniel_JordanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a close vote on who was most convincing. Pro claims that christians should accept stoning. They state it is in the bible, but provides no source. Con failed to dispute it. Since Con then subsequently failed to address anything to the contrary - that Christianity has changed - the victory must go to Pro. Indeed, Con's closing statement implies they didn't even try, and instead preferred to take a pot-shot at all Christians for being "immoral", when that wasn't even in the issue, and it's limited to "bible believing" Christians. This is not a case where Pro won, it's where Con lost.
Vote Placed by asi14 1 year ago
asi14
dairygirl4u2cpr.Daniel_JordanTied
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: This was literally the most pointless debate I have ever seen, but I voted con primarily because he had better conduct.