Attention: Debate.org is closing and the website will be shut down on June 5, 2022. New Topics can no longer be posted and Sign Up has been disabled. Existing Topics will still function as usual until the website is taken offline. Members can download their content by using the Download Data button in My Account.
The Instigator
killshot
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Speedrace
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Multiple Topics - Pick One

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: 2/19/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,561 times Debate No: 120393
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (0)

 

killshot

Pro

I will let my opponent choose the topic of debate from a list of the following propositions that I support:

1) Creationism is not science
2) The earth is older than 10 thousand years
3) Evolution is fact

If my opponent has a better subject idea, Please propose it in the comments.

Thanks, And I look forward to the debate!
Speedrace

Con

I accept, Although, For readers, We have changed the topic to "Is Christianity An Obstruction To Society? "

I will be arguing that it is not, And my opponent will be arguing that it is. This is just an acceptance round (we agreed upon it in the comments).

I only ask that no one writes any disrespectful comments. Otherwise, Do pretty much whatever you want. Let's do this!
Debate Round No. 1
killshot

Pro

First off, @Speedrace, Thanks for accepting the challenge and proposing this topic. I look forward to a fun chat/debate :)

Is Christianity An Obstruction To Society?

I would argue yes, For numerous reasons, But I will kick this debate off with these two reasons for now, To get things started.

1) Immoral standards – Under divine command theory, Anything commanded or endorsed by God is considered “good” or “moral”, Because God is an absolute authority on the subject and his word is final. Immoral standards such as slavery, Misogyny, Stoning disobedient children and adulteress wives, The concept of Hell and genocides to name a few, Are all sanctioned by God. These views are abhorrent in nature and entirely immoral by secular standards. Our society, At least here in the US where I am from, Does not condone these types of morals, Thankfully. There are however, A lot of Christians who base their views and morals on their religious beliefs and this often ends in heated political debates. Although I wholly disagree with them, They are in fact "good" Christians, As they are basing their morals on what they believe is right, Under the misguidance of scripture. A couple examples of this is stem cell research and abortion, Where scientific development and individual rights are directly being obstructed under the guise of religious propaganda. Simple put, The Bible places Christians at odds with secular society on a moral front and this inevitably bleeds into the political and legal domains where their religious beliefs obstruct the advancement of society.

2) Anti-scientific – The Bible makes direct pronouncements about the world that completely violate all known science. Proclamations such as a universe created in a week, Magical enchantments and curses, Resurrections, Miracles and many other testaments that entirely defy our observable reality. Not only are these proclomations laughable from a science standpoint, They are a disservice to the early developing minds of the children who are indoctrinated into these belief systems. In addition to this, Christians are also fighting to include this lunacy in public funded acadeimia. Here in the US, There was actually an educational board meeting held in the state of Texas regarding whether or not creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom. This is not the only state occurrence of this. Creationism has absolutely no objective science to support it, And all known science disproves it. This is another example of Christianity Obstructing society.

I look forward to your rebuttals.

Speedrace

Con

No problem!

One rule I would add as we go forward is that you argue only against my personal Christian beliefs, As I cannot argue for every facet of Christianity at a time. Obviously, You don't know my beliefs, But I will try to make clear what I do and do not agree with as I argue against you.

You:
"Under divine command theory, Anything commanded or endorsed by God is considered "good" or "moral", Because God is an absolute authority on the subject and his word is final. Immoral standards such as slavery, Misogyny, Stoning disobedient children and adulteress wives, The concept of Hell and genocides to name a few, Are all sanctioned by God. These views are abhorrent in nature and entirely immoral by secular standards. Our society, At least here in the US where I am from, Does not condone these types of morals, Thankfully. "

Me:
Where does God sanction slavery, Misogyny, Stoning disobedient children, Genocides, Or adulteress wives in the Bible? The concept of Hell is the only one I recognize, But that is not a danger to society. If you do not believe that you will go to hell, Then why worry about it?

You:
"There are however, A lot of Christians who base their views and morals on their religious beliefs and this often ends in heated political debates. Although I wholly disagree with them, They are in fact 'good' Christians, As they are basing their morals on what they believe is right, Under the misguidance of scripture. "

Me:
This is true, But Christianity does not condone this! Frederick Douglass was owned by white people who used the Bible as justification for slavery. However, He himself was still a Christian! Shocking as this may be, He learned to distinguish between his beliefs and those of others.
Likewise, Republicans use their beliefs as justification for crimes as well, Such as the recent attempted bombings on CNN, The Obamas, And the Clintons, Just to name a few. Does this make being Republican bad?
I'm not sure what you mean by "good Christians. " Who says that they are good Christians? They themselves certainly are not qualified to call themselves good Christians, And that must be determined by their actions. Those actions say otherwise.

You:
"A couple examples of this is stem cell research and abortion, Where scientific development and individual rights are directly being obstructed under the guise of religious propaganda. Simple put, The Bible places Christians at odds with secular society on a moral front and this inevitably bleeds into the political and legal domains where their religious beliefs obstruct the advancement of society. "

Me:
For one, We live in a democracy, So if the majority says that stem cell research and abortion is ok, Then it will happen, Unless the majority says otherwise. Yes, The Bible influences Christians beliefs, But so does the news, Other books, And influential figures! Can you elaborate on how Christianity stops those scientific advances?

You:
"The Bible makes direct pronouncements about the world that completely violate all known science. Proclamations such as a universe created in a week, Magical enchantments and curses, Resurrections, Miracles and many other testaments that entirely defy our observable reality. Not only are these proclomations laughable from a science standpoint, They are a disservice to the early developing minds of the children who are indoctrinated into these belief systems. "

Me:
God is not in "our observable reality, " so of course it does not make sense. However, This does not disprove what the Bible says. If one assumes that an omnipotent God does exist, Then one must also assume that resurrections, Miracles, And a universe created in a week is all possible. However, This is not a debate on God's existence, So I will not elaborate on that, And I ask that you do not elaborate on it either.
Now, You say that this hurts the developing minds of the children who are indoctrinated into these beliefs systems. My question to you is how this hurts children? I am in complete control of my actions and constantly question my religion so that I always stay truthful to myself.

You:
"In addition to this, Christians are also fighting to include this lunacy in public funded acadeimia. Here in the US, There was actually an educational board meeting held in the state of Texas regarding whether or not creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom. This is not the only state occurrence of this. Creationism has absolutely no objective science to support it, And all known science disproves it. This is another example of Christianity Obstructing society. "

Me:
Why shouldn't creationism be taught alongside evolution? Scientists have yet to observe macro-scale evolution, With the exception of a few fossils. Presenting creationism shows students all of their options (and again, Please do not elaborate on this so that we can stay on topic, Unless you think that it will help your point). Besides this fact, Teaching creationism in schools is not obstructing society just because 12% of the population says it is not true.

Your turn!
Debate Round No. 2
killshot

Pro

Sure, I will do my best to argue within your framework and address all the points you made. :)


Where does God sanction slavery, Misogyny, Stoning disobedient children, Genocides, Or adulteress wives in the Bible? The concept of Hell is the only one I recognize, But that is not a danger to society. If you do not believe that you will go to hell, Then why worry about it?

Slavery - Exodus 21
Misogyny - Everywhere. Women are basically property. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is one example.
Stoning children - Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Stoning wives - Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Genocides - There are a few, But the great flood is one

I do not personally worry about Hell, Anymore than I worry about the other man-made religious consequences, But it's the responsibility of a Christian to worry about it. That being said, Proponents of that belief generally push it on others as it can be a powerful motivator or even provactor. It generally resides as a source of conflict between family and friends, Where one fears for the others transgressions. This often leads to unnecessary arguments or disagreements.

This is true, But Christianity does not condone this! Frederick Douglass was owned by white people who used the Bible as justification for slavery. However, He himself was still a Christian! Shocking as this may be, He learned to distinguish between his beliefs and those of others.
Likewise, Republicans use their beliefs as justification for crimes as well, Such as the recent attempted bombings on CNN, The Obamas, And the Clintons, Just to name a few. Does this make being Republican bad?
I'm not sure what you mean by "good Christians. " Who says that they are good Christians? They themselves certainly are not qualified to call themselves good Christians, And that must be determined by their actions. Those actions say otherwise.

A "good" Christian is someone who follows God's law and does not cherry pick verses for a presuppositional stance. Fundamentalists are good Christians, By definition of their moral standards. I'm glad we both agree that slavery is bad; however, Your Bible not only condones it, It endorses it. Slavery is only one example of many. God endorses this and by divine command theory, This makes it "good", Even though secular morality disagrees. They are most certainly qualified to call themselves Christians, Because they are following Christian doctrine. Abstinence from doctrine and selectively cherry picking of suitable verses is not being a true Christian. I commend you in the fact that you seem like a good person, Which is why you do not agree with all the doctrines, But this does not make you a "good" Christian. It's an all or nothing thing. God never said it's ok to obey only part of his law with selective reading and interpretation.

For one, We live in a democracy, So if the majority says that stem cell research and abortion is ok, Then it will happen, Unless the majority says otherwise. Yes, The Bible influences Christians beliefs, But so does the news, Other books, And influential figures! Can you elaborate on how Christianity stops those scientific advances?

Stops and obstructs are two different things. In a country such as the US, Where I am from, The majority of it's constituents are Christian. In this instance, Majority vote would be influenced heavily by Christian dogma. While I do agree that other sources collaborate on influencing an individuals personal beliefs, This does not negate or lessen the affect religion has on individuals.

God is not in "our observable reality, " so of course it does not make sense. However, This does not disprove what the Bible says. If one assumes that an omnipotent God does exist, Then one must also assume that resurrections, Miracles, And a universe created in a week is all possible. However, This is not a debate on God's existence, So I will not elaborate on that, And I ask that you do not elaborate on it either.
Now, You say that this hurts the developing minds of the children who are indoctrinated into these beliefs systems. My question to you is how this hurts children? I am in complete control of my actions and constantly question my religion so that I always stay truthful to myself.

I will do my best to answer this without digging too deep into science, Per your requests. If you truly do question your religious beliefs, Why do you believe them despite the contradictive evidence? I don't mean that insultingly, I'm genuinly asking. Outside of our observable reality, What else is there? I would argue nothing that we can prove; therefore, There is no good reason to believe it. An old book, Littered with immoral and disprovable stories is not rational grounds for a personal framework or belief system. Also, Depending on your indoctrination, You may be brought up a Muslim, Rather than Christian, Reading/believing in an entirely different old book. The point I am trying to make here is this: children, Indoctrinated into a religion that teaches them anti-scientific things, Like a 7 day creation story, Are at a disadvantage from children brought up subjected to actual reality. Teaching kids that reality isn't real can clearly have impacts on developing minds. This is extremely important in academia where it's a competitive environment and tools and instruments used rely on reality. We need bright minds to lead our future generations. Believing in flat earths, Magic, 10 thousand year old universes, Etc are not reality based and have no benefitial purpose. People like Ken Ham are a disservice to our country and future generations as they are obstructing the minds and futures of the families incredulous enough to entertain those kinds of radical views. This is harmful in that respect.

Why shouldn't creationism be taught alongside evolution? Scientists have yet to observe macro-scale evolution, With the exception of a few fossils. Presenting creationism shows students all of their options (and again, Please do not elaborate on this so that we can stay on topic, Unless you think that it will help your point). Besides this fact, Teaching creationism in schools is not obstructing society just because 12% of the population says it is not true.

Creationism is not science. It entirely violates all known science and make no testable/provable predictions, Unlike science. Macro scale evolution has been observed and proven, Even excluding fossil morphology. I'd love to have a creationism/evolution debate with you if you're interested, Maybe we can find some common ground. Creationism isn't true, Nothing about it is. From the 7 day universe to the created "kinds", None of it lines up with science and I can prove that. Evolution is science and it's supported by multiple independent fields of science.

I look forward to your rebuttals!
Speedrace

Con

Let's get into it.

"Slavery - Exodus 21"

Please read this excerpt:

". . . Ebed (also transliterated as "eved). It is commonly translated 'slave'. . . "ebed is translated as 'slave' in some cases and 'servant' in others. . . . Servant' and 'slave' used to overlap much more in meaning, But now have different meanings. Servants are no longer seen as slaves. The meaning of the word "ebed is not inherently negative, But relates to work. The word identifies someone as dependent on someone else with whom they stand in some sort of relation. . . . The majority meaning of "ebed is 'servant', But can also be translated 'slave'. It is not an inherently negative term, And is related to work. . . . Translating "ebed as 'slave' is problematic because of its negative connotations, Which were not originally there but we associate from other historical contexts. This generally leads to inconsistency in translation. . . "

https://www. Bethinking. Org. . .

The source also shows a chart that explains how these "slaves" were treated. You will see that they were not slaves at all.

"Misogyny - Everywhere. Women are basically property. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is one example. "

This is not an example of misogyny. Yes, It talks about a man raping a virgin, But it speaks about the retribution that he must pay for that action. Just because the Bible mentions rape/misogyny doesn't mean that it supports it.

"Stoning children - Deuteronomy 21:18-21
Stoning wives - Deuteronomy 22:13-2"

I will answer both of these since they are of a similar nature. Stoning was a form of capital punishment for capital crimes, Just like the death penalty today. However, It was NOT a commandment, But rather more of a suggestion. We know this because God himself spared David when he committed both murder AND adultery. Also, In John 8, Jesus spared the adulterer.

Besides this, Even if it was a commandment, It would be under the Old Covenant, And we are under the New covenant, So it would not affect society today. Galatians 3:13 says: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law. . . "

"Genocides - There are a few, But the great flood is one"

Genesis 6:5

"And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, And that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. "

God found only evil on the earth, Except in the line of Noah. The only other alternative here would be to evacuate Noah to another planet, In which case the evil of those people would destroy them anyway. Besides, This is akin to governments who execute criminals that present a large danger to society, The only difference is that it was a lot of people at one time.

ALSO, There is Biblical evidence that these people could be fallen angels and their children, In which case God did not kill humans, But angels that were locked in evil and could not do any good. Both of these points are explained further in the sources below:

http://www. Biblearchaeology. Org. . .
https://www. Gotquestions. Org. . .

"Proponents of that belief generally push it on others as it can be a powerful motivator or even provactor. "

Yes, But Christians do this out of love because we do not want anyone to go to hell! That said, Although the Bible commands us to spread the word of Christ, It does NOT say that we should harass anyone about it, So if anyone does, That is their personal choice alone.

"A "good" Christian is someone who follows God's law and does not cherry pick verses for a presuppositional stance. Fundamentalists are good Christians, By definition of their moral standards. . . . Your Bible not only condones [slavery], It endorses it. . . . They are most certainly qualified to call themselves Christians, Because they are following Christian doctrine. Abstinence from doctrine and selectively cherry picking of suitable verses is not being a true Christian. I commend you in the fact that you seem like a good person. . . But this does not make you a "good" Christian. It's an all or nothing thing. God never said it's ok to obey only part of his law with selective reading and interpretation. "

No offense, But how could you possibly be qualified to say what a "good" Christian is when you are an atheist? If someone accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior, THAT is when they become a Christian. Following God's law has nothing to do with it.

Romans 10:9:

"Because, If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, You will be saved. "

Those people can call themselves Christians because they accepted Jesus, Not because of what they do or don't do. You're right, God didn't say to cherry pick, But in that case NO ONE would be a Christian because every Christian has sinned. I have lied more times than I can count, And there are 612 other commandments (613 total). I will repeat Galatians 3:13:

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law. . . "

So when God judges us, He does not judge us on our actions. That is what makes one a Christian, Whether one is a "good" Christian or not is relative, Just like how being a "good" student or a "good" child is relative.

Also, I showed above how the Bible does not condone slavery.

"Majority vote would be influenced heavily by Christian dogma. While I do agree that other sources collaborate on influencing anindividualspersonal beliefs, This does not negate or lessen the affect religion has on individuals. "

You are right, It does not negate the effects of religion, But it doesn't make religion an obstruction to society! People make decisions based off of it, Just like they make decisions based off of the news, A celebrity's opinion, Etc. If the Bible is a danger because it influences people, So is every other thing that influences people.

"If you truly do question your religious beliefs, Why do you believe them despite the contradictive evidence? . . . Outside of our observable reality, What else is there? . . . Children, Indoctrinated into a religion that teaches them anti-scientific things, Like a 7 day creation story, Are at a disadvantage from children brought up subjected to actual reality. Teaching kids that reality isn't real can clearly have impacts on developing minds. . . . We need bright minds to lead our future generations. "

Please read the following conversation:

"You make a right here. "

"Really, I'm pretty sure I make a left though. Let me check. "

*checks map*

"Nope, I make a left here. "

Just because I doubt doesn't mean I must, Therefore, Switch to the other side, It just means that I weigh evidence on both sides and decide on one side, Whether it is my current side or the other one.

Heaven is out of our observable reality, If it was in it then we would certainly try to get there manually. . . Not good.

Christianity is not anti-scientific. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us to disregard science, It simply says that God did a few things that defy the scientific laws that HE made, But those things don't happen anymore. Christian children go to school just like other children, And are not at any disadvantage.

The last sentence in that quote is insulting. Christians ARE bright, Saying that they can't contribute to society is wrong. Not to brag, But I am the top of my class and one of the smartest kids in my school. Galileo, Isaac Newton, And Sir Francis Bacon were all Christians and brilliant scientists. Are you gonna argue that they, Or me, Weren't/aren't bright because of their/my beliefs?

"Creationism is not science. . . Macro scale evolution has been observed and proven. . . Creationism isn't true. . . From the 7 day universe to the created "kinds", None of it lines up with science and I can prove that. "

Yes, Christianity is not science. Yet, There is plenty of evidence for it. I would love to participate in a creationism/evolution debate!

However, Proving the validity of Christianity is not the point of this debate. It is my fault for bringing up evolution, I apologize for going off topic.
Debate Round No. 3
killshot

Pro

Ok, You want to get into it. Let's do it.

Exodus 21: 3-6

This states that if you buy a male slave, He shall serve for 6 years. If that slave marries and has children in the meantime, The slaves wife and children belong to the slave's master. After 6 years of servitude, The slave is free to go, But his wife and kids are not. If the servant chooses to not abandon his wife and kids, He can stay, But he must stay forever, And his ear will be bored through with an aul. If he chooses to abandon his wife and kids, The slave master keeps them. This clearly demonstrates humans are property.

Exodus 21: 7-11

Women, However, Are not permitted to leave after 6 years. If her master decides to have sex with her and doesn't like her, She can be sold to another Hebrew, As long as it's not a non-Israelite. If he bought her for his son, Then she can be treated like his daughters and disciplined or sold in any way seen fit. If her master decides to take on another concubine, He must continue to feed, Water and dress her, Otherwise she will be released, Broke and deflowered, With no money.

Exodus 21: 20-21
Slaves are allowed to be severely beaten, As long as they don't die within 1-2 days. If they die a week later from internal injury, This seems to be permissible.

Above clearly demonstrates slaves were not indentured servants, As you would like to believe.

You said "This is not an example of misogyny. Yes, It talks about a man raping a virgin, But it speaks about the retribution that he must pay for that action. Just because the Bible mentions rape/misogyny doesn't mean that it supports it. "

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
You claim this is retribution, But this is forcing a woman who has been raped to live with her rapist for the rest of her life and suffer. The retribution you mention is only if the rapist gets caught, Then he has to buy the women from her father, Because women are only property and she is now deflowered and worthless to her father. You cannot seriously tell me this is not sanctioning rape. The act of rape is fine, It's just a small cost of 50 shekels the rapist must pay to purchase his victim.

You said "I will answer both of these since they are of a similar nature. Stoning was a form of capital punishment for capital crimes, Just like the death penalty today. "

These passages clearly support the stoning of disobedient children and adulteress wives. There is no mention here of capital crimes or anything else. You can twist it to mean anything you want, It's still not morally just.

You said "God found only evil on the earth, Except in the line of Noah. "

Isaiah 45:7
Is your God omnipotent? Most would answer yes. Is your God all knowing? Most would answer yes. If God is all powerful and knows everything that will happen, Then free will is impossible. It would be impossible to do something God is not already anticipating. That includes original sin. That being said, God created man, Then shackled them with an illusion of free will, But the actuality of a destiny. Some children born thousands of generations later are predestined to go to hell. God created the world the way it is, And he created sin. Then he punishes the world, For the sin he made in the first place, By genocide. Eventually, The only way to forgive us for his created mistakes is to perform a blood sacrifice of himself (Jesus) to himself to atone for the sins he created in the first place. This is Christian doctrine. God is also responsible for creating psychopaths, Infant deaths, Mental disorders, Etc. All of those people are pre-destined for Hell because, Even if free will was possible, It's not for them.


You said "ALSO, There is Biblical evidence that these people could be fallen angels and their children, In which case God did not kill humans, But angels that were locked in evil and could not do any good. Both of these points are explained further in the sources below:"

Oh come on, Seriously? God only flooded a world full of angels? I’m not buying it, And it’s also not what the traditional Christian teachings profess.

You said "No offense, But how could you possibly be qualified to say what a "good" Christian is when you are an atheist? "

I can read the Bible just like anyone else, What other qualifications do I need that the lay Christian has? The only difference is, I don't read it using Bible glasses to interpret a presupposition I already have about what I want it to say. To get into heaven, You only need to believe. To be a "good" Christian, You need to follow God's laws. Are you saying everyone should ignore the Bible and just "believe in God" and forgo all the rules?

You said “You are right, It does not negate the effects of religion, But it doesn't make religion an obstruction to society! ”

True, But Christianity none-the-less still obstructs their views and influences them.

You said "Those people can call themselves Christians because they accepted Jesus, Not because of what they do or don't do. You're right, God didn't say to cherry pick, But in that case NO ONE would be a Christian because every Christian has sinned. "

So are you saying that it's pointless to follow the Bible because sin is inevitable and you'll get to heaven on belief alone? Seems like we don't need those 613 commandments after all.

You said "Christianity is not anti-scientific. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us to disregard science, It simply says that God did a few things that defy the scientific laws that HE made, But those things don't happen anymore. Christian children go to school just like other children, And are not at any disadvantage. "

Creationism teaches the universe is 6 thousand years old. This is anti-scientific. It teaches all life was made in a week. This is anti-scientific. Don't tell me the Bible is not anti-scientific. If it wasn't, It wouldn't be trying to compete in the science classrooms.

You said "The last sentence in that quote is insulting. Christians ARE bright, Saying that they can't contribute to society is wrong. "

It wasn't in any way intended as an insult, But I still stand by it. I don’t think Christians are stupid and I don’t dislike them, Just their views. If a child grows up believing the world is 6 thousand years old and decides to become a geologist or cosmologist, Then yes, They are at a devastating disadvantage against their peers. If they believe the world is 6 thousand years old and they decide to become an English teacher, Then no, It won't have much of an impact. It's situational and it depends on the context, But my point is the same - kids taught these anti-science-based beliefs are at a disadvantage at the college level when they are competing against kids who were taught correctly. When NASA goes to hire a new physicist, Who do you think they'd rather have - someone who accepts the science that runs this planet, Or someone who rejects it and claims magic? Again, I don't mean this insultingly, I'm just making a point.

Referencing older scientists will not help this case. In the days of Galileo and others, Science was still in its infancy and God still filled a lot of gaps. Since science’s advancements, I would argue a modern-day Galileo would be atheist, But that’s only speculative.

That being said, It is possible for Christians to compartmentalize. When they enter the lab, The universe is 14 billion years old and when they leave the lab, The universe is 6 thousand, However, Their Christian views are still anti-scientific and need to be shed at the lab door. Not only is this intellectually dishonest, But it’s just incoherent and a disservice to their integrity.

You said "Yes, Christianity is not science. Yet, There is plenty of evidence for it. I would love to participate in a creationism/evolution debate! "

Absolutely! Feel free to challenge me from the debate page :).

Speedrace

Con

Is that a challenge I smell? >:D

Also, I couldn't paste all of your arguments due to a lack of characters. :(

Exodus 21:3-6

This is servitude, Not slavery. You can technically call it slavery, But that puts me at a disadvantage because of the negative connotations is evokes in readers.

If you read the chart from the source I gave in my previous argument, You will see that they were treated completely fairly.

It's servitude because the people sell THEMSELVES into that service, Due to economic poverty. It is not because of racial discrimination like the slavery we know of.

"He shall serve for 6 years. "

That's just the rule of maximum years, He can be freed before that.

"If that slave marries and has children in the meantime, The slaves wife and children belong to the slave's master. "

Because the wife was in the master's service when the slave married her, And the children were birthed by her.

"After 6 years of servitude, The slave is free to go, But his wife and kids are not. If the servant chooses to not abandon his wife and kids, He can stay, But he must stay forever, And his ear will be bored through with an aul. "

One: God wants his people to go out of that service, So the aul thing is to discourage them from doing it as a mark of disgrace. Two, It is also a mark so that they can't lie and say that they aren't a servant.

"If he chooses to abandon his wife and kids, The slave master keeps them. "

Because the woman was already in the master's service, And the children were birthed by her.

"Women, However, Are not permitted to leave after 6 years. If her master decides to have sex with her and doesn't like her, She can be sold to another Hebrew, As long as it's not a non-Israelite. "

It says if the woman is SOLD by someone else. Parents would sell their children if they were in extreme poverty, like a parent today forcing a child to work. Not sure where you got the sex thing from, It only says espouse to him, And it says at the end of the scripture that HE dealt deceitfully with HER by doing that. It never says she can be sold, It says she can be REDEEMED, AKA freed, AKA sent back to her parents.

"If he bought her for his son, Then she can be treated like his daughters and disciplined or sold in any way seen fit. "

The treated like daughters, Yes, Not sure where you got the disciplined and sold in anyway seen fit from.

"If her master decides to take on another concubine, He must continue to feed, Water and dress her, Otherwise she will be released, Broke and deflowered, With no money. "

You misread the scripture. It says she'll be released without money, AKA she doesn't have to PAY to go free.

God knew that servitude was a necessary economic structure for those that went into debt or extreme poverty, So he simply provided guidelines for it.

*your thing about slaves being beaten*

It never says severely beaten, Being beaten in the scriptures is a way to punish wrongdoers. By the one to two days things, That is simply an assumption that they are fine and will continue to live.

*your paragraph on misogyny/rape*

I apologize, I incorrectly responded to this due to a lack of research. I will revise my response it, but feel free to call me out on that because it is completely my fault.

This is NOT rape. We know this because that scripture says if a man lie with a woman, However TWO scriptures BEFORE, It says if a man lies with a woman and FORCES HER, Then he must die. This scripture never mentioned force, Which simply means that it was sex before marriage.

*your argument about stoning*

Again, It was a capital crime. If a father was displeased with his son, That child had a TRIAL to determine if his behavior was bad enough that he must be stoned, And the same for the wife. Besides this, It was not a commandment, God spared many people from this multiple times, Meaning that it doesn't affect society today because it was simply a suggestion for THOSE times.


Now, I would like to point out that all of your above arguments are about the Bible being immoral, But as I said, NONE of those things are commandments, So they do not affect society today, Especially because many were guidelines for THOSE times, Not ours.


*your argument about free will*

Free will: the ability to act at one's own discretion.

This is not true. God simply knows what will happen before hand, But that does not mean that he causes it. No one is predestined for hell; that would mean that God created some WITH THE PURPOSE of going to heaven, and some without that purpose. No, He created a bar which one has to meet (believing in Jesus) and some met that requirement while others didn't. Just because he knows it beforehand does not mean that he causes it.

Sin was created when Adam and Eve first broke God's law, And when they had children that sin nature was passed down to them.

"Oh come on, Seriously? God only flooded a world full of angels? I’m not buying it, And it’s also not what the traditional Christian teachings profess. "

You can't simply say "I'm not buying it, " because the evidence is right there. You must read the article, I don't have enough characters to elaborate on it. As to traditional beliefs, You also said that being a good Christian by following the law is a traditional belief.



"I can read the Bible just like anyone else, What other qualifications do I need that the lay Christian has? The only difference is, I don't read it using Bible glasses to interpret a presupposition I already have about what I want it to say. To get into heaven, You only need to believe. To be a "good" Christian, You need to follow God's laws. Are you saying everyone should ignore the Bible and just "believe in God" and forgo all the rules? "

I said this because you never elaborated on it. I never said that we must forgo the rules. It simply means that God will not judge you for those sins that you commit, But that is still not an excuse to sin.

"True, But Christianity none-the-less still obstructs their views and influences them. "

So therefore, Every other form of media obstructs the world's views and influences them, Which means that they are all problems as well that need to be dealt with.

Christianity influences views, Yes, But it does not OBSTRUCT, Just like any other influencing media.

*your thing on sin*

We did need it, It was to govern life here on earth. It's not pointless to follow the Bible. Yes, Sin is inevitable, But that is not a reason not to try and refrain from it.

*your response to my second to last quote*

It is not anti-scientific! You can't simply claim that those facts are true, Because I then have to elaborate on them, But I cannot due to a lack of characters. :/

By anti-scientific, You imply that is says to disregard ALL science, Which it does not. It simply disparages a couple of things that GOD did because HE made the scientific laws, So he can therefore break them.


*your thing about Christians at a disadvantage*

Again, You are simply assuming that those disparities are true, And I cannot elaborate because of a lack of characters. That's not fair.

Second, Again, Yes, One can simply compartmentalize.

"When NASA goes to hire a new physicist, Who do you think they'd rather have - someone who accepts the science that runs this planet, Or someone who rejects it and claims magic? "

NASA can't ask that in an interview, So what they want in that regard is completely irrelevant.

And again, You refer to it as magic; it is not, And it's unfair to say it is when I can't argue against that (due to a lack of characters). Please refrain from doing so.


Also, These are challenges for CHRISTIANS, Not society, So it doesn't obstruct society at all.

*your claim that old scientists are not relevant*

Ok then, These scientists all are.

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology#Currently_living

So far, You have only argued how the Bible is immoral and how it impacts Christians, But as I showed, None of those points negatively impact society.
Debate Round No. 4
killshot

Pro

Haha, I too ran out of space in my last post. I had to nuke almost have of it.


Exodus 21:3-6

This is servitude, Not slavery. You can technically call it slavery, But that puts me at a disadvantage because of the negative connotations is evokes in readers.

It instructs readers on how they can beat the slaves as long as they don't die within a few days. Boring their ears with an aul marking them, Passing them on to their children. There is no way this is possibly anything BUT slavery. Are you telling me Christians did not own slaves? People don't like the word slave, But that's too bad, Because it IS slavery, Not endentured servitude. Both forms existed simultaneously, But endentured servents are not beaten and passed on like property.

That's just the rule of maximum years, He can be freed before that.

Where does it say that, Specifically?

Because the wife was in the master's service when the slave married her, And the children were birthed by her.

Women don't get a 6 year service, Which is msyogeny, The point I was trying to make. They and their offspring belong to the master, That is NOT endentured servitude. Endentured servitude is for a single individual to pay back a debt. This IS slavery.

It says if the woman is SOLD by someone else. Parents would sell their children if they were in extreme poverty, like a parent today forcing a child to work. Not sure where you got the sex thing from, It only says espouse to him, And it says at the end of the scripture that HE dealt deceitfully with HER by doing that. It never says she can be sold, It says she can be REDEEMED, AKA freed, AKA sent back to her parents.

Redeemed does not mean freed. Redeemed means her value can be redeemed to her master by selling her to someone else for coin. Forcing a child to work today is not in any way the same thing as a father selling his daughters into slavery or betrothing them for money. You don't know where I got the sex thing from, It's from the word betrothed. In other words, If her master takes her as his wife (he can have multiple), And she does not please him, He can sell her to get his money back. She is only property.

Here is a source for redeemed - right side of the page, Pulpit commentary, Verse 8:
https://biblehub. Com/commentaries/exodus/21-8. Htm

The treated like daughters, Yes, Not sure where you got the disciplined and sold in anyway seen fit from.

As we have just seen above and in other places in the Bible, Daughters are sold. Disciplining children was common practice back then, They could even stone them to death.

You misread the scripture. It says she'll be released without money, AKA she doesn't have to PAY to go free.

God knew that servitude was a necessary economic structure for those that went into debt or extreme poverty, So he simply provided guidelines for it.

I've looked this up now from several different translations and I do not see anything supporting what you said. It is saying she will be freed as a slave, But released without payment for her services.

It never says severely beaten, Being beaten in the scriptures is a way to punish wrongdoers. By the one to two days things, That is simply an assumption that they are fine and will continue to live.

And if a man smite his servant, Or his maid, With a rod, And he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, If he continue a day or two, He shall not be punished: for he is his money.

The verse speaks for itself. What do you think smiting with a rod is, Exactly? This say's he can beat the sh*t out of him or her as long as they don't die within a couple days, Because they are his property, His money.

This is NOT rape. We know this because that scripture says if a man lie with a woman, However TWO scriptures BEFORE, It says if a man lies with a woman and FORCES HER, Then he must die. This scripture never mentioned force, Which simply means that it was sex before marriage.

Here is an English translation from a Bible site and it's exactly how I read it in KJV, Too. You're wrong.

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, For he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

https://www. Biblegateway. Com/passage/? Search=Deuteronomy+22%3A28-29&version=NIV

**CAPITAL CRIME**

Can you provide any source to support this is ONLY for capital crimes? It doesn't say that.

**FREE WILL**

How can God know what will happen before hand if it's not pre-destined to happen? You can't have free will and know the future. Explain that please, Because it makes no sense.

**
ANGEL FLOOD**

I, And everyone else who reads the Bible interprets it as mankind being wiped out by a giant flood. This story was borrowed from Gilgamesh, So I'm sure it was not centered around angels, Because we can see the original story. Are you saying God did not make Adam and Eve, Who had children, Who had children, Etc? Those are all humans and they were all killed in the flood.

I said this because you never elaborated on it. I never said that we must forgo the rules. It simply means that God will not judge you for those sins that you commit, But that is still not an excuse to sin.

What purpose would one have to "not sin", If sin doesn't matter and is forgiven no matter what?

So therefore, Every other form of media obstructs the world's views and influences them, Which means that they are all problems as well that need to be dealt with.

Christianity influences views, Yes, But it does not OBSTRUCT, Just like any other influencing media.

I totally agree that other things influence people, But this debate is only about Christianity. Christianity does influence beliefs and those beliefs can lead to obstructions, As I have aforemented (politics, Laws, Science, Etc). Christianity is different than most other beliefs in that it touches many areas and it has virtually anything one seeks to find. If someone does not like homosexuals, They can justify it in the Bible (and conversely), For example. A political belief, For example, Has it's scope limited to politics. This makes religion very dangerous as it is generally interpreted to the readers presuppositions.

It is not anti-scientific! You can't simply claim that those facts are true, Because I then have to elaborate on them, But I cannot due to a lack of characters. :/

By anti-scientific, You imply that is says to disregard ALL science, Which it does not. It simply disparages a couple of things that GOD did because HE made the scientific laws, So he can therefore break them.

Let's have a debate on whether Creationism is scientific - deal? I too, Do not have enough room to elaborate lol. But I will say this, It defies science. You can argue that science is wrong, That's fine, But Creationism still defies it.

NASA can't ask that in an interview, So what they want in that regard is completely irrelevant.

And again, You refer to it as magic; it is not, And it's unfair to say it is when I can't argue against that (due to a lack of characters). Please refrain from doing so.


Also, These are challenges for CHRISTIANS, Not society, So it doesn't obstruct society at all.

Why is it unfair for NASA to ask what a person knows? Someone who doesn't believe in radio active decay, Speed of light, Etc should not be on a team of phycisits designing rockets and satellites that other peoples lives depend on. I'm almost entirely out of space, Unfortunately, So I'll summarize quickly. Who would you rather have operating on you - a doctor who studies the science used to run our world, Or a doctor who believes in magic and thinks the majority consensus of science is wrong? God speaking things into existence, Resurrections, Talking snakes, Miracles - those are by definition magic.
Speedrace

Con

*beating slaves*

"While this may seem scandalous to our modern Western mindset, Until quite recently, Corporal punishment was the norm, Even in the military for those who were insubordinate to authority. There may have been times when discipline of a disobedient, Lazy, Or rebellious slave was considered necessary, And physical force may have been used. However, If the slave owner did permanent damage (i. E. Damaged an eye or tooth), The slave walked away free, So there was certainly incentive for a master to not be overly harsh in his punishment. . . . It was God putting a limit on mankind’s evil propensities and punishing cruelty and greed, Not God condoning slavery. "

https://answersingenesis. Org/bible-questions/feedback-does-bible-encourage-masters-beat-their-slaves/

So no, It was not slavery and they were not severely beaten.

*boring ears*

I explained why in my previous argument. You completely ignored what I said.

*passing them on*

"Before the Civil War, Slaves and indentured servants were considered personal property, And they or their descendants could be. . . Inherited like any other personalty. "

https://memory. Loc. Gov/ammem/awhhtml/awlaw3/slavery. Html

So they COULD be inherited.

Sure, Christians have owned slaves, But that does not mean that the Bible condoned it. Christians have lied (myself included) but we all know that the Bible doesn't condone that.

"Where does it say that, Specifically? "

It was implied. Again, These were limits for what they COULD do. The six year service is to give the servants enough time to get back on their feet as well, But at the same time to make it so that they are not trapped in service for life.

"Women don't get a 6 year service"

"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, Six years he shall serve"

Yes, It does. It says servant, Not distinguishing between genders like it does in the scripture you're referring to. The "he" simply refers to the human race, Not specifically a man. In the one you're referring to, That is a woman put into the service by her parents. That is different.

"They and their offspring belong to the master"

Because she was in the master's service when she got married to the man, So she is still in service. I already said this and you ignored it.

"Redeemed does not mean freed. Redeemed means her value can be redeemed to her master by selling her to someone else for coin. Forcing a child to work today is not in any way the same thing as a father selling his daughters into slavery or betrothing them for money. "

KJV: "her be redeemed"
MSG: "her family must buy her back"
NIV: "her be redeemed"
AMP: "her be redeemed [by her family]"

That's just a few translations, But none say she is sold to whomever. The Bible trumps simple commentary.

"You don't know where I got the sex thing from, It's from the word betrothed. "

Betroth: enter into a formal agreement to marry.

They have not been married yet.
I have explained below (in the rape section) how sex before marriage was frowned upon, So this means you simply pulled the sex thing out of nowhere because of your own presuppositions. I would also like to point out that the source YOU gave agreed with my point on this. It simply said that by not pleased, He didn't want to marry her. You argued against your point with that one.

"daughters part*

You gave no evidence of such, So I will ignore this point.

"I've looked this up now from several different translations and I do not see anything supporting what you said. It is saying she will be freed as a slave, But released without payment for her services. "

KJV: "she go out free without money. "
AMP: "then shall she leave free, Without payment of money. "
NIV: "she is to go free, Without any payment of money. "
MSG: "she goes free, For nothing. "

The MSG version here is the clearest one, The others can be interpreted either way. However, This shows that her family didn't have to pay to get her back.

"The verse speaks for itself. What do you think smiting with a rod is, Exactly? This say's he can beat the sh*t out of him or her as long as they don't die within a couple days, Because they are his property, His money. "

I already proved with the above how this is not true.

"Here is an English translation from a Bible site and it's exactly how I read it in KJV, Too. You're wrong. "

Deuteronomy 22:28
KJV: "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, Which is not betrothed, And lay hold on her, And lie with her, And they be found. "

You're either mistaken or straight up lying. That is the KJV version, Copied and pasted, And it does not mention rape at all. I encourage readers to look it up for yourself to settle the dispute. I can't paste it, But AMP says the same.

Deuteronomy 22:25
KJV: "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, And the man force her, And lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die"

This specifically mentions FORCE, And then it says that the man ONLY must be killed. So no, In 28 it was not rape and only sex before marriage.

**CAPITAL CRIME**

"Can you provide any source to support this is ONLY for capital crimes? It doesn't say that. "

Of course it doesn't say that, the term "capital crime" did not exist in that time. It says they were brought for trial, Meaning that a committee determined if what they did or did not do was a capital crime and worth punishment. They weren't simply handing out stonings like candy, That would be absurd and there is no indication of that.

https://answersingenesis. Org/bible-questions/doesnt-bible-condone-killing-ones-rebellious-child/

And AGAIN, This was NOT a commandment, So it does NOT affect society today.


"How can God know what will happen before hand if it's not pre-destined to happen? "

Pre-determined: determined in advance by divine will or fate.
Determine: cause (something) to occur in a particular way

God does not cause them to do it, So therefore it is not pre-destined. Just because he knows that it will happen does not mean that he causes it.

"You can't have free will and know the future. "

No one ever said that humans know the future. . . If you're saying that free will can't exist, I just explained above how that is not true.

**ANGEL FLOOD**

Again, You have failed to respond to the evidence I provided. I never said it was true, I simply said it was a possibility.

"What purpose would one have to "not sin", If sin doesn't matter and is forgiven no matter what? "

Dodging the consequences of sinning. Duh. No one ever said sin doesn't matter.

*Christianity influencing*

Your implied end goal is that we must get rid of Christianity to stop those influences. My point is that if we stop Christianity, We must therefore stop ALL other influences because they ALL influencing people.

Anything can be interpreted to reader's presuppositions. The President of the United States does that every day with the news. Does that mean we should get rid of the news? No. Should we get rid of Christianity because some people interpret it in a way that suits them? No.

Liam Neeson was told that a friend of his was raped by a black man, So he went out looking for a black man to kill. Does that mean we need to stop people from telling their friends they were raped? No. The actions of a few do not determine the mindset of the many.

"Why is it unfair for NASA to ask what a person knows? "

It is illegal to ask one's religion in an interview. That's common knowledge.

"Someone who doesn't believe in radio active decay, Speed of light, Etc should not be on a team of phycisits designing rockets and satellites that other peoples lives depend on"

Literally nowhere in the Bible does it say that these are false.

"Or a doctor who believes in magic and thinks the majority consensus of science is wrong? "

Again, You have not shown how the Bible rejects the majority of science, And it most certainly does not.

". . . Those are by definition magic. "

Then everything is magic, because Christians believe that everything was caused by God.

You have not shown any obstructions to society, And I have disproved all of your claims, So I therefore have won the debate.
Debate Round No. 5
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
That was the most invigorating debate I've ever had! I learned a lot of stuff about the Bible that I never knew before lol

I will say that your presuppositions about the Bible clouded your vision, And you could've easily done more research on those scriptures, Like when you pulled the sex thing out of the betrothal.

I disagree with you, Of course, But I still think you're a great debator and would love to go at it again sometime in the future :D
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
Fun debate @speed. Thanks for being a good sport! Even though we disagree, I still respect you and like you :)
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
Ok thanks
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
It means you are trying to submit something that is invalid. Try removing the formatting or rewording something. It's usually something dumb like that. I have issues all the time also.
Posted by killshot 3 years ago
killshot
@speed Sorry, I was away all weekend and didn't see any of these comments.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@killshot

PLEASE RESPOND

Am I going crazy or did it reset my timer?

Whenever I submit, I refresh the page and it says I didn't submit AND it resets the timer. Am I delusional?
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
I apologize, I can't submit my argument until I figure out what is going on. Every time I click submits and refresh, It says I did not submit and deletes everything that I typed.
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
I don't understand what is happening. I submitted my argument. Am I being hacked?
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@killshot

IT JUST DELETED EVERYTHING I TYPED

I don't understand
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
@killshot

Finally done. You can ignore the comment where I said

"Could you do me a favor and mention that I said this in your next argument? "
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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