The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Leonitus_Trujillo
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

the bible = 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: 1,427 times Debate No: 1062
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (12)

 

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.
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

Well I can see your debate strategy is to throw a lot of examples at me that seem bad, and hence making me spend my efforts to defend them all which would spread my argument out very thinly as I have little room to play my role as con and refute the question that the bible is not infallible. In any case your examples rely on winning votes emotionally, using pathos. You want people to look at these examples and just be disgusted and vote for you. But I'm going to debate this not according to your neat trap but through my way.
You claim that the bible is not infallible. Yet you provide no evidence that it is wrong, once again all you do is try to capture the hearts of the voters by providing many examples that seem bad and most of them out of context anyway.
So I am not going to refute any of your examples.
What I will say is this. For the people to believe in the bible they have to believe that the bible came from god. In order to believe that the bible came from god, they obviously must believe in a god. But where do they get the idea that god exist? Outside of the bible how do people even know about god? The answer to that is that, it is embedded within us the notion that there is a god. The difference is how we respond to that. Every atheist must make the decision to deny that a god exist, but he has to first come from the standpoint that there is a god or there could be a god. Even if a person is raised by atheist , the parents at one point would have to ‘correct' the child in his natural assumption that there is a god. Some people pursue the notion and find answers in many different religions. The bible is one answer to that notion, or that natural assumption that there is a higher being.
Now why is the bible infallible and not science?, and not Islam? and not Buddhism? Why can't the bible share infallibility with another religious text. Well religions are mutually exclusive all of them. Because at one point there is going to be a contradiction between the two religions. If there wasn't a contradiction between them at one point they wouldn't be two separate religions. Science is not infallible because it is constantly changing, and constantly updating , and constantly being corrected, and that something that every scientist will tell you. Now this isn't to mean that all of science is wrong. But that science doesn't have the credentials to NEVER be wrong. You can cancel out most religions the same way. If a religion ever changes its text then how can we establish that it is credible to be infallible that it is credible to be seen as NEVER wrong. The very fact that the da-li-lamba witnesses changes in Buddhism to go in accordance with obvious contradictions to the natural world takes away its credibility to be infallible.
But The bible is unique in that its pure 66 book version form it has never been changed. It has been translated, yes, because people like me cannot speak Hebrew and Greek . But we do have access to the original Hebrew and Greek texts, and the 66-book bible is 99.9% in accordance with the same original texts that are millennia old, it has not been changed, the .01% error is only due to the translation.
That is why the bible is infallible and that is why the bible stands out from all text and even text books as to being the most credible for infallibility.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

I wasn't throwing the arguments at you. I was throwing them at whoever wanted to debate.
If you didn't want to engage my examples, you shouldn't have taken the debate.

The reality of the situatino is you're arguing I'm appealing to pathos, so that you can go ahead and avoid the issues. The definition of a cop out.
If you can't engage the verses in the next post, and we can do other debates if you wish, then you're obviously in denial.

Your other arguments. "man believes in God. he must have a reason for believing so God must exist. God says that bible is true." God says the bible is true? that's the definition of circular reasoning. Really, God doesn't say it's true, man says God does. The only way to know if I'm right or you are, is to look at the bible itself for what it has to say, and check to see that it's rational.
unless.... you don't think God is rational?

I don't deny God. in fact i believe in him. That doesn't mean the bible is word for word true.
in fact, i think the bible is generally inspired too, but these are all beside the point. other than to show that your insistance on the bible is not warranted based on your belief in God, and apparently must only be based on your blind acceptance of what society tells you.

of course, again, the only way for us to find out who's right, is for you to actually engage teh verses.
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

I don't know what a cop out is or isn't. But I do know that the verses you provide don't relate to the question you asked and that's its part of a strategy to have you win a debate based on something other than the question. If you want to argue that the bible is cruel make another debate but you picked that the bible is not infallible and I expect relevant text that backs that statement up. I can engage all the verses , most are taken out of context anyways, but that wouldn't help my con argument that the bible is infallible.
And your not only taken what the bible says out of context but your also twisting what I said.
Here is what I said
"For the people to believe in the bible they have to believe that the bible came from god. In order to believe that the bible came from god, they obviously must believe in a god. But where do they get the idea that god exist? Outside of the bible how do people even know about god? The answer to that is that, it is embedded within us the notion that there is a god"
Here is what you say I said.
"Your other arguments. "man believes in God. he must have a reason for believing so God must exist. God says that bible is true." God says the bible is true?"
And I never said that because someone has a reason o believe something its true. I go on to explain that this natural assumption that there is a god, is not the reason that got exist, but its what gets people searching for different religions and many even in their search turn atheist.
Your only good assertion is that man say's god says the bible is True. And that would mean that go didn't write the bible.
And this goes back to the question. If god didn't divinely inspire the words written in the bible , than of course its wide open to errors inconstancy's and inaccuracy's. But you have yet to give me an example of this. None of the scripture that you provided answers your side of the debate so I wont refute them, there's no need to.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

so con's argument is that the verses are perfectly acceptable.

to any rational person, there are problems with them. he either chooses to embrace the irrationality of the verses, or he simply does not want to engage the substance of the arguments and try to salvage what is at least an apparent irrationality, and only wishes to bicker.
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

Just because something is controversial doesn't make it irrational. You are trying to prove that the bible is not infallible based simply upon verses that don't back up your argument. As I said if you find examples that support your argument for example possibly a verse that says Jesus was in such and such place, and historical evidence that he wasn't. That would be proof that the bible is infallible. But some pity party doesn't help your argument. That is the stance I've taken whether I win or loose.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by double_edged_words 9 years ago
double_edged_words
I would have to agree with ubercryxic on this one. Keep in mind, this was a completely different culture. The jews had a diferent goverment and different tradishions. But, I am not aware of any flaws or contradictions regarding bible.
Posted by UberCryxic 9 years ago
UberCryxic
Hmmmm...this is a tough debate to adjudicate. I personally agree with the instigator's position, but the contender nailed it when he questioned the methodology being used to dethrone the Bible's (supposed) infallibility. There are plenty of verses in the Bible that would scare modern readers because they run so diametrically against some of our beliefs, but this stance does not provide a compelling argument for why the Bible is not infallible. Disliking a few Biblical statements is not grounds for labeling them, or the Bible itself, as fundamentally flawed or not infallible. The instigator missed a ton of legitimate complaints against the Bible, among the primary ones being its blatant contradictions.

So despite my strong anti-Biblical views, I have to give this one to the contender, Leonitus. Good job in recognizing that your opponent's position was logically erroneous. The negativistic side of your argument - the one showing the limitations in your opponent's reasoning - was superb. The positivistic side, however, the one where you laid out the reasons for the Bible's infallibilty, was outright atrocious and laughable, but your opponent either failed to realize this or realized it and did not mention it. That's ok though; in philosophy, it's generally very difficult to make notable positive arguments.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Wow. Claim the Bible is not infallible but then say you believe in God? This is something you should be bringing up with your preacher, not in this forum. (and I agree with you)
Posted by solo 9 years ago
solo
dairygirl4u2c has posted this debate three more times, so I'm going to tackle all three trying to take the debates on three separate paths, but I get the distinct feeling that dairygirl4u2c is trying to steer the debate down one particular path. I invite her to re-strategize her argument(s), otherwise she'll lose them just as has lost this one. This is just a word of warning, dairygirl4u2c.
Posted by azrael777 9 years ago
azrael777
Pro, I think you are confused about what infallible means.

unfailing in effectiveness or operation; certain is the definition that is most fitting.
Posted by double_edged_words 9 years ago
double_edged_words
Con you are a very clever speaker. Although, I do think that you should stop engaging the opponent and focus on the argument in its self.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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
dairygirl4u2cLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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
dairygirl4u2cLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
dairygirl4u2cLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
dairygirl4u2cLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
dairygirl4u2cLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 UberCryxic 9 years ago
UberCryxic
dairygirl4u2cLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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
dairygirl4u2cLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
dairygirl4u2cLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 crabjuicer 9 years ago
crabjuicer
dairygirl4u2cLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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