Instigator / Con
Points: 28

Should the Bible be used as a moral compass?


The voting period has ended

After 4 votes the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Pro
Points: 13
The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.
So for example, if my moral system defined intelligence as the valuable trait in humans, by logical extension any being with intelligence is also valuable.
However, consistency isn't the only thing we're looking for we also need a moral system that we agree with where we get consistent outcomes we like.
So back to that example it may be consistent however if intelligence is the trait than by logical extension, mentally challenged people also aren't valuable.
To summarize, a good moral system is consistent and doesn't lead to absurdity both of which the Bible lacks which will be elaborated on by me later.
- Keep it civil
- This debate is going to assume that Gods version of morality is subjective and not objective morality
- We're going to be examining the Bibles morality, the Bible does have a place in a modern society in the form of studying for academic purposes. Similar to Hitlers books and killers manifestos.
Pretty simple debate topic, if I left any rules or definitions you feel I should have clarified I urge you to tell me so that I may clarify.
Round 1
Greetings before we start I will clarify a couple of things,

1. I am NOT 100 % against religion, I have many friends and family who are religious who are good people at heart.

2. I am NOT against the 100 % eradication of the bible. In light of my first debate on this subject with KillShot, The Bible has places in modern society. Not necessarily as a moral compass, But for the studying of our history, And for various form of academics.

Before you prove to me why the Bible isn't repulsive and has a place in modern society, I will first explain why I and many others believe the Bible is repulsive. For my argument, I will be using direct quotes of the Bible followed by my analysis of this. On that note, let's get started.

"You shall acknowledge no God but me. . . . You are destroyed, Israel. . . . The people of Samaria must bear their guilt Because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, Their pregnant women ripped open. " (Hosea 13:4, 9, 16 New International Version)

- In this quote, God is destroying an entire town including women and children, Simply because they rebelled against him. Surely a loving and forgiving God would forgive the people of Samaria for rebelling against him? Furthermore massurcurring an entire town just because they don't believe in God is not the way to go about it, Instead of destroying them God could simply try again to save them. If they rebel again, Than God should just leave them alone and not kill them.

" And in those days the tribe of the Danites was seeking a place of their own where they might settle Because they had not yet come into an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. . . . Then they said to [the priest], 'Please inquire of God to learn whether our journey will be successful. ' The priest answered them, 'Go in peace. Your journey has the Lord's approval. '. . . Then they took what Micah had made, And his priest, And went on to Laish, Against a people at peace and secure. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. . . . The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. " (Judges 18:1"28 NIV)

- In this quote, God is once again destroying an entire people so that one of his tribes could live there even though the Tribe living they're originally was peaceful and didn't want to harm anyone.

"See, The day of the Lord is coming " a cruel day, With wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated. " (Isaiah 13:9"16 NIV)

- In this quote God is saying that because this group of people was arrogant their infants should be put to death, Their houses should be looted, And their women raped. Once again God is wiping out an entire group of people simply because their arrogant which is once again REPULSIVE.

These 3 quotes are just the tip of the iceberg, Other quotes in the bible state that women shouldn't have any authority or that disobedient teenager should be stoned to death. While the Bible does have some good lessons to teach such as thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, Or love thy neighbor, The Bible overall is repulsive 

Another very common argument is that I am only citing from the old testament when that testament isn't Gods teachings. Even if we buy this argument, it's still irrelevant since the new testament is also repulsive as well. 

 "Women Should Shut Up in Church: 1st Corinthians 14:34 NASB"

- This is a pure example of the blatant sexism exhibited in the Bible, And sexism is REPULSIVE.

" Return Runaway Slaves to Their Owners: Philemon 1:12 The Message"

- Slavery is a violation of human rights And helping the slave owners catch runaway slaves is almost as bad as owning them. Since the new testament preaches slavery, This makes the new testament REPULSIVE.

" The Wealthy Will Be Condemned by God: James 5:1-5 NASB"

- I currently am growing up in the California bay area which is arguably one of the richest areas's in the world, And I've learned through the first-hand experience that the majority of rich people are kind, Giving, And forgiving, While there are horrible rich people out there, The mere fact that the bible clumps all rich people into one negative category is almost as bad as racism or sexism. Which in and of itself, Is REPULSIVE.

The bottom line is even if we buy this argument that the old testament is invalid, There are still many immoral messages in the new testament which make the new testament as well as the old testament, REPULSIVE.

However I am very open to someone changing my mind so that being said I hope whomever you are, We can both learn a little something from this debate.


Before the universe, there was nothing. Nothing, and only nothing can come from nothing, as logic says. However, in this nothing, there is nothing to support logic, so it is possible for something to come from nothing. It is also possible for the world to come from this nothing and then the bible is formed. So, there is a need for the bible to be used as a moral compass.
Round 2
Firstly my opponent's argument is structured very weirdly and is very confusing to follow so just to clarify I'll try to paraphrase, 

What my opponent is stating is that God is real, therefore the Bible is objective morality and should be used as a moral compass. 

There are many things wrong with this and here's why, 

my opponent is using the nothing argument to justify Gods existence however this logic fails since this could justify literally any gods existence. 

Tell me specifically how this justifies the Christians gods existence? 

Also, this is assuming the bible is objective morality which we already clarified it wouldn't be. 

I am assuming this is my opponent's argument and if it isn't I ask of my opponent to clarify. 

What I meant was no object can come from itself.
Round 3
So you're pretty much using the " something can't come out of nothing argument " correct? 

Ok well, what's your explanation for God existing than? Where does God come from? Who created God? Where did the thing creating God come from? 
--> @Pinkfreud08
"Women Should Shut Up in Church: 1st Corinthians 14:34 NASB"
Been there. Done that.
"The Wealthy Will Be Condemned by God: James 5:1-5 NASB"
Solomon, anyone?
--> @Snoopy
>Reported Vote: Snoopy // Mod action: [Not Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments
>Reason for Decision: See vote
Reason for Mod Action> Arguments are sufficient as per the voting guidelines.
--> @Ragnar
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments, 1 point to pro cod conduct
>Reason for Decision: Con did not explicitly say they are conceding, but it was implied by their final round being "Okay," agreeing to how they were soundly defeated (not that they ever challenged why stoning girls to death and such is a bad thing).
Con, I suggest making your quotes bold or italic to make them stand out better from the surrounding text.
Reason for Mod Action> This vote would have been sufficient for a concession, but upon review, as the debater did not clearly and unambiguously concede the debate, I don’t think it can clearly be treated as such for the purposes of moderation.
--> @King_8
>Reported Vote: King_8 // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 7 points to pro
>Reason for Decision: Bite my shiny metal ass. Pinkfreud started this first, so returning the favor.
Reason for Mod Action> Revenge votes are absolutely unacceptable and completely disallowed.
--> @Pinkfreud08
Deleted my vote since its gonna get deleted by mods anyways no matter what. It never fails. Anyways, here in the comments, I will vote for Con. Pro put no effort into making arguments and ignored Pro's entire case in Round 1.
Hi Al0ne, welcome to the site; before you can vote you must have completed 2 debates, or 100 forum posts, and have read the code of conduct (I have provided a link below).
To try and make sure votes are fair and impartial, we have list of requirements you need to use to construct a reason for you voting decision, simply saying one side is better is not enough as of means anyone would be able to vote against s position or person they didn’t like. It’s important that debates are not simply popularity contests - either for the position or the person. This goes make it harder and more arduous to vote, but does try and make it so the better debater wins. Because of this, I’m afraid I’m going to have to remove your vote.
That said, welcome to the site!
>Reported Vote: Al0ne // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 5 points for sources and arguments.
>Reason for Decision: Con definently won this.
>Reason for Mod Action: Reason for Mod Action: This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
The vote is insufficient, the voter should review the voting requirements section of the code of conduct here:
--> @Virtuoso
How do I vote?
--> @Al0ne
Ask bsh1, Virtuoso or Ramshutu how to vote.
Simply put those names I just mentioned into the "Recievers" and ask them "How do I vote?"
If you want to put 3 at a time do this "bsh1, Virutoso, Ramshutu"
--> @TheGreatGameLord, @Pinkfreud08
Good luck folks. I'm going to get my popcorn, lol!
--> @King_8
Oops, looks like I missed out. I'm curious to see how the Pro side presents their arguments (since this would have been my position had I accepted quick enough.)
--> @King_8
Okay thanks.
--> @sigmaphil
No, Pinkfreud would make the first argument. Just hurry up and accept the debate before someone else does
--> @Pinkfreud08
If I accept the Pro side of the debate, would I get the first argument?
--> @sigmaphil
Assuming you're asking again, I am taking the con position.
--> @Pinkfreud08
You're not rude, I'm just curious what your position is on the debate and whether I want to accept your challenge.
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Con offers three key rules of morality from the bible, which within the context they are objectively horrible. Pro tried to counter with an appeal to the cosmological argument (I suspect he meant to use Divine Command Theory), but failed to suggest any reason why it's relevant to this debate, or that we should use the bible, or any way con's offered counter evidence against those morals should be rejected or reinterpreted.
So con's argument stands wholly uncontested, and pro never makes one (a vague assertion is not an argument).
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Con proves God to be destructive via relishing in destroying Israel if need be among other lines quoted from the Bible. Pro's rebuttal was LITERALLY that because something can't come from itself that therefore there is a need for the Bible to be used as a moral compass. If you think it makes no sense, that's because it doesn't.
In Round 2, Con annihilates Pro's Kalam-esque case for the Christian God by both sandwiching Pro in between needing to prove other Gods than the Bible's God false while simultaneously needing to prove the God of the Bible correct and necessary to existence. Pro was left checkmated at this point and nothing resembling actual debate continues from there on.
Only Con used sources and it was to back up terrible Bible verses existing which is superior to what Pro did which was use 0 sources.
Spelling and Grammar
The entirety of Pro's R1 was incoherent to the extent that so many times where a comma was actually needed, it wasn't used but sometimes when it was used it was arguably correct, rarely...
Let me give you some examples:
Soft-error #1: "Before the universe, there was nothing."
This is the most grammatically correct part of Pro's entire R1 and it still is written off-kilter. Before the universe... There was nothing... either add in the word 'began' or 'came into existence' before the comma or don't use a comma at all then. This was an acceptable sentence but if you compound it with the other errors it builds up why it was confusing.
Hard-self-made-error #2: " Nothing, and only nothing can "
This beginning of the sentence could be written simply as "Only nothing can" but since it was written like that, the error was to not put another comma after the second 'nothing'. This is not a soft-error at all, it severely confused even Pro himself such that in Round 2 he conceded he hadn't conveyed what he even meant.
Hard-inevitable-error #3: "Nothing, and only nothing can come from nothing, as logic says."
So, if you continue from error #2, we now have the sentence actually reading that "Nothing as logic says and only nothing can come from nothing." This is literally what the sentence reads if you correctly extrapolate the commas.
I am a genius and understood exactly what Pro was arguing but if I wasn't, I know I would struggle. I see things systematically but most humans read English grammatically, following the sentence left-to-right etc. I skim read and piece together puzzles in my head and even then it was confusing what Pro was saying because Pro basically seemed to be building a case that God was logically impossible to have come from nothing, which contradicts his side.
Hard-error #4: "in this nothing, there is"
If Pro had literally just removed that comma, so much more about the sentence before and after would make sense to most people. Because of that comma, the 'there' is severely confusing and the entire case began to become fuddled.#
Tied, Pro was lazy but Con wasn't harshly offended or mistreated.
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
I think it is nearly impossible to win this debate as Pro. Even Christians would be warry of presenting the bible as a moral compass. Pro committed intellectual seppuku making no connection to using the bible as a moral compass other than it was formed. Of course the world was formed and all sorts of books were formed as Pro states but I wouldn't be able to write this if I didn't read them, and understand that we don't use them as a moral compass because they exist so I found that unconvincing. Con's arguments that "sexism is repulsive" from a potential interpretation of a passage about women being quiet in church goes unabated. Any fool can pick up the bible and justify all sorts of things to themselves, and that's an adequate example for these purposes.
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Do outlines a series of points of why the morality of the Bible should not be followed as a moral compass. These were all ignored by pro and must be accepted on their face..
Pros counter argument was irrelebant to the resolution - in that even if I accepted everything he said as true it did not show the resolution was correct. As a result, con clearly wins arguments.