The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Thoreau
Con (against)
Winning
49 Points

bible is fallible

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,958 times Debate No: 1228
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (17)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the outrageousness speaks for itself.

---When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

--Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

---Let the women keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the law says. And if they desire to learn anything, let thorn ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."
I Cor 14:34.35

----"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB

-----Exodus 22:16, where we read "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall give the marriage present for her, and make her his wife." But when we look at the verse immediately following, we get a whole different picture. In verse 17 we read, "If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equivalent to the marriage present for virgins."

--Kill Your Neighbors
(Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)

---2 Kings 2:23-24
"Elisha Is Jeered
23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" 24 He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths."
Now, granted,they made fun of him. But c'mon. Plus, why doesn't this tstuff happen nowadays?

even if these are not the way things are done anymore, it still does not answer why it ever was, and by "God"'s command
Thoreau

Con

Basically what you did to support your point is list several passages from the Bible that you believe prove what you are saying. However, the problem with this is that you are assuming that there is no room for judgement in interpreting the Bible. Obviously, just because things happen in the Bible doesn't mean you should do them in today's world. For example, there is a story in Judges where a girl invites an enemy commander into her tent, gives him something to make him fall asleep, and then drives a tent stake through his head. Does this mean that if you have an enemy, you should do the same thing? Of course not. What you have to understand when you look at the Bible is that not everything is to be followed exactly, because it was meant for that time and not this time. The Old Testament, which is mainly what you are talking about, was written over two thousand years ago. It is vastly different from the New Testament, which is where we are living now, in that there was no forgiveness. As such, stronger punishments were needed to deter crime (by the way, this is also an answer to your other argument of "why would this ever even need to happen?"). Does that mean that in today's forgiveness-allowing world, we should follow the same codes? Are punishments from over two thousand years ago necessarily still applicable?
What you are saying about the Bible being fallible ONLY applies if you take everything literally (which, especially when reading Revelation, can get a little ridiculous). What you need is a more open interpretation and an understanding that what was necessary 2000+ years ago is not always necessary today. Following the specifics to the letter is a fallible way of seeing the Bible, it doesn't necessarily prove that the Bible itself is fallible.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

what it appears to me that you're doing is taking a vague theory that helps answer some of the issues, occastionally, which i acknowledge it does, and thinking that it works all the time.

i could buy, as a possible proposition, the argument that, perhaps, we don't have bears attacking kids for making fun of todays prophets and people of God, because after Jesus, we're to be inherently more of a forgiveness society.

but, that does not explain why women had to shave their heads when raped, or marry the rapist. this doesn't have to do with forgivness, but with harming the woman who did nothing wrong.
this is just an example.
you haven't explained then, why it was ever the case that those things were believed, to begin with. (you only answered some of the things, at best)
Thoreau

Con

You responded to my argument that the Bible was open to interpretation; however, what you may have missed is when I said "things were different back then" (albeit in different words, but the point was the same). So in today's society, we may think that these punishments are completely unacceptable and ridiculous. But back then, these same codes may have actually reduced crime, kept the Church together, etc. You ask "why were these beliefs ever established" without having intimate knowledge of the time period, the day-to-day life, the morals, the values of the society. You have no idea if these laws really WERE necessary, you only know that living in today's world, you would frown upon them. Basically, you're trying to criticize things that you don't fully understand, which is not a good thing, to say the least.

You're not proving that the Bible is fallible, merely that you don't agree with it.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

so you think women should marry their rapists?
or, you think times can change what is truth?

or you think a woman shaving her head is necessary response to the culture of those times?

or you tihnk when a rapist doesn't treat the woman right, she's suddenly socially acceptable such that she can now not have to stay the guy and not worry about a social shunning?
it seems more like the reason they had to marry is because she was now unclean and needed to marry the rapist.
Thoreau

Con

You seem to have missed the point of what I said. I did not say "I am completely and utterly okay with all of these things happening." What I said was, you have no way of knowing whether these things were necessary back then or not! All you know is that in TODAY'S world, you would find these punishments repulsive. This does not prove that the punishments were wrong during the time that they were used, as the only perspective you have is that of a person from the 20th/21st century. Obviously people back then agreed with the punishments; what makes you more right than them? Throughout this whole debate you have not presented any evidence to speak of that actually proves that things were wrong back then. You have presented what you believe to be flawed passages, and then used your OPINION to judge whether they were right or not. What the voter must realize is that darygirl's opinion isn't objective, as she would obviously prefer that she won over me. Her opinion also does not reflect the morals of the times of the Old Testament. This makes her inadequate to make any such judgement on the Old Testament and whether or not it is morally flawed.
The Instigator of the debate has the burden of proof. This is basically the burden to prove all of her contentions. Debate is about arguments, obviously, and which to prefer. As the Con, I only need to give a shadow of a doubt in the voter's mind that her case is refuted. Now, this could be as simple as her saying "A Means B" and me saying "A doesn't mean B". If she posted "A means B" again, well then I would have to win, because she never disproved my arguments. My point is basically that without any substantial evidence backing up her claims, there is no reason to accept her arguments. She gives personal opinions and nothing else, merely stating "these things are immoral". This is obviously faulty, as what she thinks is not universal truth. The only way she could have suitably proved that her arguments held water would be evidence, which has never been presented.
As the Instigator, she must uphold her case. A Con arguer could perfectly well only ask questions (like she did in her last round) and still come away with a win. However, a Pro can not and should not do this in order to win. Her questions didn't refute any of my arguments, or prove any of hers. In the end, due to the rules of debate, I deserve the vote.

What I've said in all these words basically comes down to this: Dairygirl4u2c has not proved her points with evidence, merely provided her opinion on the matter. This is clearly not enough to prove that the Bible is fallible, and so she should not win today's debate.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
dairygirl, you are missin the point of debates. Debate isn't all about Cross Examination (questions), it's much more centered around Rebuttals.
Posted by Thoreau 9 years ago
Thoreau
Well, it's possible that dairygirl4u2c is just trying to gather conflicting viewpoints and expand her way of thinking, rather than improve on her debate skills.
Posted by cody30228 9 years ago
cody30228
BTW, why do you make to debates with the exact same points? I just disputed this very similar to Thoreau over here. Both debates were started around the same time. If you wish to become better than you should debate one of us, learn why you went wrong and try again with someone else. What you are doing is wasting space on the debate boards.
Posted by Rousseau 9 years ago
Rousseau
Go Fundamentalists....!!!
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Paine 9 years ago
Paine
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by colsen112 9 years ago
colsen112
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by i_am_batman 9 years ago
i_am_batman
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by NapoleonofNerds 9 years ago
NapoleonofNerds
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by CoKeCaN 9 years ago
CoKeCaN
dairygirl4u2cThoreauTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03