bible christians: if you lived in old testament days you should have stoned people or supported it
Debate Rounds (3)
Then some Pharisees and
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.