The Instigator
killshot
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jukebox101
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Abrahamic Religion & Morality

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: 2/6/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,118 times Debate No: 120199
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (67)
Votes (0)

 

killshot

Pro

I argue that the Abrahamic based religions are not a foundation for morality and in many ways they actually impede morality.

Although there are a few generically moral guidelines in the Bible, Such as the Golden Rule, It really doesn't provide anything that you cannot get elsewhere. In additional to the generic morals it provides, It also provides a bunch of useless or completely immoral guidelines such as commandments against wearing multiple types of linen, The condoning slavery, The subjugation of women, Genocide, Rape, Any many other things. Religious practitioners generally are not racist, Genocidal, Etc; therefore, They are not getting their moral principles from their religion. There are also cultures without religion, Or different forms of religion, That have overlapping morals with those of the Abrahamic followers.

Secular morality is superior because it is dynamic and can change as needed to serve the interests of the participants.
Jukebox101

Con

After the Abrahamic covenant, Laws given by God can be divided into three categories that help us to understand what to follow now and what not to follow:

1. Ceremonial Laws
2. Civil Laws
3. Moral Laws

The ceremonial and civil laws (which mainly make up Leviticus, Numbers, And Deuteronomy) were given to the Israelites and are not meant to be followed today. However, Moral laws, Such as the ten commandments, Are meant to be followed and are talked about by Jesus when he states, "I came to fulfill the law. " This is meant to clear up confusion on which laws Christians follow and why.

Secular morality is relative and therefore is not constant. If we all were left up to our devices, There would be anarchy. What would make one's morals better than another's?
Debate Round No. 1
killshot

Pro

Hello, Welcome to the debate, Thanks for accepting!

You said, "The ceremonial and civil laws (which mainly make up Leviticus, Numbers, And Deuteronomy) were given to the Israelites and are not meant to be followed today. However, Moral laws, Such as the ten commandments, Are meant to be followed and are talked about by Jesus when he states, "I came to fulfill the law. " This is meant to clear up confusion on which laws Christians follow and why. "

Is this all just interpretation or is this literally spelled out somewhere? I am pretty familiar with doctrine, And I am unaware of anything in the Bible clearly articulating which commandments to follow and which ones not to follow. Are you saying some of Gods laws are not moral? Are you saying he is fallible? Are you saying parts of the Bible are not intended for certain people? I would argue that when Christians are faced with conflicting moral standards, They cherry pick the pieces that suites their underlying morality, Further proving my point that morality does not originate from religion. Some reject the old testament, Some make excuses for it. It's all one collective book and allegedly sourced by the same God.

Secular morality can be relativistic, But it's also objective. The concept behind secular morality is the overall well-being of its participants. If someone is performing an action that would be considered a violation of another's well-being, It would be immoral. So slavery, For example, Would be immoral because it violates well-being. It's not up to each individual to decide what is moral and immoral. It would come down to what is beneficial or non-beneficial to the well-being of the collective group, Which is why it is objective. It is also able to self-correct and evolve to become better over time as cultures change and definitions for well-being improve. Religion cannot do this as it is considered to be an absolute morality.
Jukebox101

Con

I am glad to debate!

Is this all just interpretation or is this literally spelled out somewhere?

This is an accepted hermeneutic for interpreting laws given the Old Testament; it is consistent. Since God is immutable and doesn't change his beliefs, moral laws (which deal with morals; determining them is simple) such as "do not murder" and "do not kill" are morally unacceptable to him in the Old Testament, Therefore, They are morally unacceptable now.
For laws dealing with stoning and how to wear clothes and what clothes to wear and especially what meat to eat deal with civil problems and ceremonial problems of the Israelites, Therefore, They are considered civil and ceremonial laws. Paul in the new testament says himself that it is okay to eat meat. We are not bound to the civil and ceremonial laws of the Israelites. Also in the new testament, Adultery is condemned. Even though that law was given to the Israelites, It deals with morals, Therefore making it a moral law, Therefore being applied to us.
We both know by saying moral laws that I mean dealing with morals specifically. He is not fallible, I didn't say that.

If someone is performing an action that would be considered a violation of another's well-being, It would be immoral.

What if someone else's morals disagree with this?

It would come down to what is beneficial or non-beneficial to the well-being of the collective group. . .

Who's to determine what's beneficial for a certain group or not? There is no absolute consensus on what is beneficial or not. We're not talking about overall religion, We're talking about Abrahamic religions. In these religions, There is no need for evolution, There is no need to improve, Since the best option is already there. It is more simple than moral relativism (Occam's razor).
Debate Round No. 2
killshot

Pro

So this is all subjective interpretation after all, As I originally stated. There is nothing directly from God stating "You can cherry pick the pieces you want and ignore the rest". He never said "You people have to follow these rules, But everyone else can do whatever they want". You don't get to throw out all of the pieces you don't like and only keep the pieces you like. Nor do you get to cherry pick what does or doesn't apply to you based on your personal preference. I will also add that I have yet to meet Christians that can come to a mutual agreement on what is/isn't permitted. Everyone has their own thoughts on the matter. Are you saying Israelites are more moral than non-Israelites because they have more moral guidelines to follow? Are you saying the guidelines they follow are immoral? How can God tell one group of people A is ok, But then tell another group it's not?

If God is immutable and he doesn't change, Then slavery should be condoned by your world view, Right? The Bible clearly states you can own other humans, Even beat them and buy/sell them. Don't try to pass it off as indentured servitude or twist the meaning of the word slave, It's clear what it means. I will pay you the compliment in assuming you do not condone slavery, Even though your moral compass (God) says it's ok. This further illustrates my point that you do not get your morals from your religion. The fact that people can reach a moral dichotomy and rationalize themselves into the correct moral answer shows they have morals that are unfounded in their religion. I don't think you're immoral. I don't believe the majority of Muslims or Christians or Mormons are either, But, It's not due to your/their religion.

If morality was a result of religious belief, All religious people would be moral, And all immoral people would be non-religious. This isn't the case. There are immoral religious people and moral non-religious people, And vice versa.

You said "What if someone else's morals disagree with this? "

Then it's their subjective belief. It doesn't change the objective outcome of well being. Someone can think it's ok to murder, That doesn't make it morally ok, Because murder is demonstrably negative to well being.

You said "Who's to determine what's beneficial for a certain group or not? There is no absolute consensus on what is beneficial or not. We're not talking about overall religion, We're talking about Abrahamic religions. In these religions, There is no need for evolution, There is no need to improve, Since the best option is already there. It is more simple than moral relativism (Occam's razor). "

Well for one, A democracy of a society. There are laws against stealing, Killing, Raping, Assaulting, Etc. These laws change/adapt over time to shift with the moral consensus of the society. Furthermore, It's usually easy to determine if the action is moral or not, Assuming a person has empathy and is of rational mind. Throwing a grenade into a group of people is immoral - why? Because it will hurt the well-being of others. It's in everyone's best interests to look out for each other's well being. It promotes a better society that is more comfortable/enjoyable to live in, Rather than a Darwinian survival of the fittest type of environment.

You said there is no room to improve on Abrahamic religions. Surely you cannot be serious. I'm not even going to waste a lot of time debating this argument. They are far from the pinnacle of morality. Islam teaches that infidels and apostates should be murdered and it condones and supports pedophilia - to name just a couple reasons. Christianity teaches that slavery is permissible, Stoning people to death is ok, Rape is ok (if you buy her afterwards) and women are just property - to name a few reasons.
Jukebox101

Con

Where in the Bible is slavery condoned? Stop stating it and give proof, Please.


"If morality was a result of religious belief, All religious people would be moral"

-This is a false synergism. All I'm arguing is that the Bible has the right morals.


"Christianity teaches that slavery is permissible, Stoning people to death is ok, Rape is ok (if you buy her afterward) and women are just property - to name a few reasons. "

You COMPLETELY disregarded my explanation above.



-If there is no absolute standard, Then you can't know what are the right morals.

Remember, A society is made up of people with different moral beliefs. In your position, It is impossible to determine what is actually right, And what is actually wrong. Societies can be wrong! The Mayans performed child sacrifice!

"It's in everyone's best interests to look out for each other's well being"

-wrong. Tell that to necrophiliacs, Pedophiles, Murderers, And selfish people.

How do you know your determination of what is rational is trustworthy?


"There is nothing directly from God stating "You can cherry-pick the pieces you want and ignore the rest".

I'm not cherry-picking! Read my argument! I'm using a consistent hermeneutic; if you don't know what that means, Look it up!

How can God tell one group of people A is ok, But then tell another group it's not?

How can you tell me I'm wrong, But another group that they're not? !


Debate Round No. 3
killshot

Pro

You asked where is slavery condoned. I assumed since you are so familiar with the Bible that you already knew all the references. Here is one, Per your request, Which I also previously posted in the comments to this debate:
Exodus 21:20-21
Leviticus 25:44-45
1 Peter 2:18

You said "This is a false synergism. All I'm arguing is that the Bible has the right morals. ".

There is nothing "right" about the morals in the Bible. Here are some more examples since you want references. There are lots more, You can Google the others.
- Genesis 19:8
- Deuteronomy 22:20-21
- Deuteronomy 21:1
- Deuteronomy 25:11-12
- Leviticus 21:18-19
- Leviticus 20:9
- 2 Kings 2:23-24
- Psalm 137:9

You said "You COMPLETELY disregarded my explanation above. "

Yes, I completely disregarded your need to cherry pick. I explained that the Bible is taken in it's entirety by Christians, Not selectively. Well, At least it's supposed to be. .

You said "If there is no absolute standard, Then you can't know what are the right morals. "

You're assuming absolute morals exist and they are the only ones. We disagree here entirely.

You said "Remember, A society is made up of people with different moral beliefs. In your position, It is impossible to determine what is actually right, And what is actually wrong. Societies can be wrong! The Mayans performed child sacrifice! "
This is true, But it's easy to determine what is moral based on whether or not it affects someone's well being. In you're own belief system, You can be a serial killer and still go to heaven simple by accepting God. There is nothing about your system that is superior in any way.

You said "-wrong. Tell that to necrophiliacs, Pedophiles, Murderers, And selfish people. How do you know your determination of what is rational is trustworthy? "

Is it or is it not against the law? I rest my case. Sure, You'll always have people who act immoral, But there are consequences for those people. This is an issue in your system as well.

Trustworthy? I don't understand what you mean.

You said "I'm not cherry-picking! Read my argument! I'm using a consistent hermeneutic; if you don't know what that means, Look it up! "

I know what it means. It's subjective because it was determined by people. These were not directions from God. God didn't write anywhere that it's ok to ignore almost all his rules. I already addressed this previously.

You said "How can you tell me I'm wrong, But another group that they're not? ! "
Easily. Read your own Bible and actually read it - front to back. REALLY think about what it says and the things it condones. Then tell me you still think it's morally correct and "right".
Debate Round No. 4
killshot

Pro

Jukebox conceded this debate (per the comments section). I'm just submitting this response to end it.
Jukebox101

Con

Do to trouble posting arguments (even in comments) I have conceded the debate for now.
Debate Round No. 5
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
missmedic
if you have any links in your post it will get dumped
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Jukebox101 - Yeah I get that also. You do nothing wrong and DDO will not let you post! Very frustrating to say the least. If you are willing and believe me I know you are at the breaking point as it happens so so so often to me, Try rewording your argument, And then try reposting here in the comments section. Who knows, DDO may take it? But leave out all links and bible verses if you have any. DDO hates them. Please tc and have fun.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
Ok
Posted by Jukebox101 3 years ago
Jukebox101
I will just concede this debate. For now, It won't let me post a comment either. Anyway, We won't get anywhere because it will just result in the same arguments. -Juke
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@Juke, Go ahead and post your rebuttal in the comments. It's no big deal. This site is annoying at times. I've had issues posting things too
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
No omar2345 I don't think that Pro should concede the RD. I think it would be a better idea if he would allow Con to post his argument in the comments section, And the RD 5 can continue on. After all, If Pro concedes the RD, That's the end of the debate!
Please tc and have fun -Michael
Posted by Jukebox101 3 years ago
Jukebox101
thanks.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Pro can you concede that Round or use it only as your conclusion?
Con just gave j as an argument which I am sure he would state is not his argument.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Jukebox101 - Grrrrrr. Hate to say it but that "j" posted for your RD 4 was accepted as your RD 4 argument. Regardless, I think killshot is a more than a reasonable guy and I'm sure if you ask him, He'll allow you to post you post your argument in the comments section. Then the debate can continue on to RD 5. Regardless omar2345 is 100% correct! Use google docs! When you type something into it, It automatically saves your work. So when finished with something, Like say an argument for a debate here, All you have to do is simply copy and paste it into the argument section here. But wow, This happens to ---everybody--- the arguments section deletes a person's argument. I've found personally that it has a nasty habit of specifically not taking bible verses, Some links that have been used too often etc. Please tc and have fun.
Posted by Jukebox101 3 years ago
Jukebox101
ok thanks
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.