The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Fanath
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

bible christians: if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it

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: 6/7/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 305 times Debate No: 56203
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

The bible says it was dictated by God.

'Matthew 15
Then some Pharisees and
teachers
of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don"t wash their hands before they eat!"

3 Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, "Honor your father and mother"[a] and "Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."'

'Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36)'

Most people just say they would not stone anyone, nor support it, as if that is the proper response. Then they are unable to articulate why. If you follow the bible though as God's word, as most of these people do, doesn't that mean you would be compelled to stone and/or support it?
Fanath

Con

Accepted.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

duly noted.

you should just start debating right away, unless the initiator says otherwise. at least, that's my understanding of the way it works. or should work.
Fanath

Con

The reasoning against this is pretty simple.

My opponents arguments only apply to fundamentalists. Not all Christians. Furthermore, my opponent doesn't recognize that many Christians wouldn't be Christians if this was the things they believed. Christians these days appreciate the love they feel from God and the happiness they have when they go to church. So now we know that many of the Christians in modern day wouldn't have supported it back then because it goes against what they actually believe.

Even if we assume her contentions prove that Christians would support it, it doesn't prove that they should support it. Stoning people is bad, so no one should support it. Just because you're a Christian and you would have supported it, doesn't mean you should.

I've refuted her contentions and supported mine, vote Con. And have a nice day!
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con is merely trying to undo the rules established in the debate. if you are fundamentalist or follow the bible etc, then you should support the things i said. con merely says not all people are fundamentalist so it's not required. the whole point of the debate though is premised on if you are.

if we don't have the fundamentalist basis, i can't say a christian even should support it, as con later argues. again without that basis, the debate is kind of pointless.
Fanath

Con

Pro fails to rebut my argument:


"Even if we assume her contentions prove that Christians would support it, it doesn't prove that they should support it. Stoning people is bad, so no one should support it. Just because you're a Christian and you would have supported it, doesn't mean you should"

So in other words, i was making the claim that it's immoral to stone people so even if they would have supported it it doesn't mean they should have. It's like saying even if you would have been a terrorist if you grew up in X, that doesn't mean that you should have been a terrorist. Or in other words, just because something happens doesn't mean it's right. Should is used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness. Would however, is indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation. There's a huge difference. Con has arguments for why they would but not for why they should. She essentially ignores all points except for one small one. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by T_parkour 2 years ago
T_parkour
Okay, let me correct my previous comment: the first Christians would have been during Jesus' life. The book of Acts just details the early church.
Posted by T_parkour 2 years ago
T_parkour
If you lived in Old Testament days you would have been Jewish, as there were no Christians in the Old Testament. The first Christians didn't come until Acts. The Israelites were Jews.
No votes have been placed for this debate.