The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
65 Points
The Contender
Tatarize
Con (against)
Losing
47 Points

the bible is not infallible

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: 12/27/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,131 times Debate No: 1059
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (32)

 

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.
Tatarize

Con

You have made fantastic arguments that the Bible condones slavery, supports murder, advocates genocide and calls for men to keep their women silent in church. However, you have not established that the Bible is somehow flawed. God commands these things and they are therefore moral. Are you using some moral understanding outside the Bible to condemn the words of the Bible? And if so, how? The Bible is the origin of morality and is thusly immune from criticisms on the grounds of morality.

Also, you are taking all of those cited works out of context.

It says in the Bible that the devil will quote scripture in order to trick you. That is what is happening here. Don't be fooled.

If the Bible says to murder or punish somebody, we must, like Abraham and Isaac abide by what it says and have faith in God's plan. To disobey God's will based on our own flawed moral judgment is to risk hell fire.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

well from a more logical perspective. you could argue it's a question of consistency. don't kill or have sex before marraige or rape... unless i say so?

also, there are these...
http://www.evilbible.com...

which the things i quoted at first are sufficent in themselves, i think to show inconsistency. and combined with those contradictions, or at least apparent contradictions, if any question, the deference should be to be against consistency.

otherwise, your argument could be taken to any point... the bible could say say blue is black, the ible is not infallible, then say it is, then say jesus was brothers with satan etc...... but we are not t oquestion it, because it's just our faulty understanding and bad judgment.

do you really believe your arguments, or are you just arguing to take a position?
Tatarize

Con

Yes, God is not bound by His own laws. His laws are made for man.

It isn't a question of consistency, it's a question of morality and fallibility. The fact that you object to the proscriptions of the Bible no more makes the Bible flawed than if I were to object to your political views. However, there's a certain trump card here. We're not talking about a difference of opinion. We're talking about the Bible. The Bible says what it says. That is all which is required in order to know it is right. But, to answer your question, yes, God put us into this world and He can take us out again. It's hard to worry about some bumps and bruises in this life when you have the rest of eternity in paradise for following the laws.

You quoted some sections of the Bible (a biased translation, but Bible nonetheless). However what you failed to show how any of it was wrong. You failed to show how the Bible doesn't say the stuff it did. You showed no contradictions. Go ahead, look the text you posted, you have pretty typical law code for the people who lived when it applied (prior to Jesus). However, you showed not one jot which was inconsistent or fallible. Nor can you, as the Bible dictates what is moral and what isn't moral. Clearly the Bible is moral. Though again, morality is not fallible. You can disagree with the Bible (I'm sure Satan does) but that doesn't make the Bible wrong... that makes YOU wrong!

The Bible could say that black was blue, though if it did that black would be blue and the Bible would say that black is black and it is. The word of God is infallible. You aren't rebutting anything here. You are just stating things which are clearly true. God could make black into blue. He's GOD! We do have faulty understanding and judgment compared to God the source of understanding and judge of the universe. Go figure!
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i almost have to think you're arguing just to argue and not really beliving what you're saying.

if "God" says blue is black, and that Jesus has brothers but then says Jesus doesn't, then it was never God who said it. You're simply talking in theory that has no basis in reality. Black cannot be blue. God cannot say black is blue, to the far and away concensus of what God is at least. One cannot have brothers but not have them.
your arguments are just rhetorical with no basis in reality. "if one plus two equal four" "then one plus two plus one more HAS to equal five" that sort of nonsense, as if the rhetoric has any bearing in reality.

I tend to think you're trying to find a way to argue without actually engaging in any of the posts, as it takes too much effort or something...
Tatarize

Con

>>if "God" says blue is black, and that Jesus has brothers but then says Jesus doesn't, then it was never God who said it.

Really? What are you using to decide this issue? You clearly must have some epistemological source for information. You clearly seem to be able to judge God. When God says you should punish people for rape (as in the first round) then clearly, the reply that we shouldn't is taken from some external morality outside the God sphere. Where did you get it? Buy it from the ACLU?

God could have made black blue, but he made black black. He doesn't contradict himself, but clearly there's no real objective attachment to the words. For example, did you know that the word "purple" use to refer to what we now call "crimson"? Did the colors magically change? No, the words did. And if you think moving a couple entries in a dictionary are below the powers of God, you have another thing coming. "Black" could refer to the color we see today as blue. The word refers *only* to the color and so long as everybody agrees that this is "black" or that is "blue", what colors they actually see don't matter. My black could very well be your blue. And I would see a 'your-black sky' and say "blue".

>>to the far and away concensus of what God is at least.

Consensus of what God is? I'm sorry, I didn't know that the creator of the Heavens and the Earth who made you and me and gave us our souls was dictated by a consensus. I'd personally think he could speak for himself and has in a perfect Bible.

You argue that 1+2 = 4, would make 1+2+1 = 5, and yes. God has dictated and serves as the foundation for mathematics. Due to his perfect nature he provides rules to math which allow for consistent results. Though, it is still easily within his power to dictate that math could work exactly like that. For example, if the numbers went, 1, 2, 4, 5, 3, 6 ... You'd be quick to note that math works EXACTLY like that!

However, just as God dictated that black would be black, he dictated the order of the numbers and that "four" refers to IIII - that many objects rather than III - that many. However, had he, in his ability to do so, done the latter, you would be arguing that God couldn't make "2 + 2 = 4", or "2 + 2 + 1 = 5".

------------------------------------------------

I am simply pointing out your problem with the Bible isn't a problem with the Bible itself, rather you have a problem with God. You do not think Him to be all powerful, or at the very least real. It's rather sad actually. You clearly think God to be decided by consensus and that you have some secondary judgment beyond the judgment of the Judge of the Universe, which moreover can be used to judge God. I wonder who would perhaps provide people with "special powers" to think they could judge God.

At no point did you even fathom to argue that there was any part of the Bible was flawed. You argued that it had some things in it which you didn't agree with. Nobody needs agree with God, he gave you free will. However, disagreement doesn't establish the topic of this debate. How does anything you say, show the bible to be fallible? Honestly, read your statements and find one phrase which suggests the bible is flawed! You disagree with some parts. Fine. But, the Bible is still consistent and still consistent with reality.

You presented no valid arguments for the topic. I have shown how and why you are wrong, and corrected your non-topic misunderstandings about God's reality.

The Bible is infallible. -- You presented nothing to dispute this.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
God did that too. With Buddhism.

As for Adam and Abel they talked with God. And I'll have you remember that Adam disobeyed God and doomed all mankind. So much so that God had to drown the world, split the tongues, and finally sacrifice himself to himself. I hardly call that moral. Lot had contact with some angels of God before he did what he did. He even offered his virgin daughters to the mob to be raped in order to protect these visitors.

*notes that's well enough to suffice an argument against biblical morality*
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
Buddhism existed 4000 years before Christianity and any Christian texts which are included in the bible. Since the experiences of Moses and Jesus were similar to those of Buddha it is safe to say Buddha was following some standards of morality. Furthermore, Confucian philosophy is the basis for most Eastern philosophy and standards of morality. Confucius was being followed long before many of the characters in the bible.

Furthermore, Adam himself was said to have displayed morality (I already said Abel did), and they both existed LOOOONG before the bible was ever written or compiled. If the bible is the source of morality, how was Adam a moral man? How was his son, Abel, a moral man?
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
God didn't instruct Job what to do. God didn't instruct Abel what to do. God didn't instruct Lot what to do, and when he DID tell him to do something he disobeyed that command. God didn't tell many people in the bible what to do, yet they demonstrated morality long before their stories were ever written down.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
What? Nonsense. If they were instructed by God they were instructed by God. Their actions, as recorded by the Bible, were moral... as such they must have actually been instructed by God to have this moral ability.

Q.E.D.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
You can't prove what God told who to do because you must rely on heresay. There is very little scholarly debate as to whether or not the names on the books of the bible are those of who actually wrote them, rather they were written by scribes and historians who many times were dictated these writings by others. Unless you believe that 64 different author's are 100% infallable, then you can't say the bible is not infallable. I can point out historical, geographical, and anthropological inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible that prove it is not infallable.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
They were instructed by God what to do. That is as concrete as the Bible as they both the word of God.
Posted by Mangani 9 years ago
Mangani
The bible is about people who displayed morality before the bible was ever written or compiled. Otherwise, it's all lies... There is your "proof"
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
>>I vehemently disagree.

Again disagreement isn't disproof.

-- Any reason you disagree?
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
"The Bible is the origin of morality and is thusly immune from criticisms on the grounds of morality."

I vehemently disagree.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
A valid argument is one which logically makes sense. It has nothing to do with whether or not I actually believe it.

Arguing against a position you actually hold is virtuous in a debate.
32 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Smithereens 2 years ago
Smithereens
dairygirl4u2cTatarizeTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments employed by Pro to affirm the resolution were segments of passages that Pro disagreed with from her own moral system. She inadvertently argues that she is infallible. Since Pro did not meet her BoP, Con wins.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
dairygirl4u2cTatarizeTied
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 likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
dairygirl4u2cTatarizeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:24 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 7 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cTatarizeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 7 years ago
s0m31john
dairygirl4u2cTatarizeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
dairygirl4u2cTatarizeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
dairygirl4u2cTatarizeTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by YummyYummCupcake 9 years ago
YummyYummCupcake
dairygirl4u2cTatarizeTied
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 redinbluestate 9 years ago
redinbluestate
dairygirl4u2cTatarizeTied
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 Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
dairygirl4u2cTatarizeTied
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