Should the Bible be used as a moral compass?
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
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.
- We're going to be examining whichever testament Pro deems to be Gods word. The rules for this is only the old and new testament are your choices. PM me whichever testament you're choosing to defend.
- BOP is on Con
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.
- The Bibles blatant sexism
- The Bible endorsing Slavery
Definition of sexism
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex
especially: discrimination against women
34 let the women keep silent in the churches: for it is not permitted to them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. 35 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to speak in the church.
- This is a prime example of sexism since it’s under a prejudice that women are incapable of having a thoughtful opinion based on their sex.
Cleopatra, Elizabeth 1st, Frida Kahlo, Helen Keller, Mother Theresa, Rosa Parks, Oprah, and Elizabeth Blackwell to name a few.
Everywhere we see we can find strong and capable women, the Bible by ignoring women's opinions in the church isn’t making itself stronger, it’s making itself weaker by casting aside half of the population.
This isn’t the only verse that states this, in fact, another verse has a similar sexist quote from the new testament being 1 Timothy 2:12:
12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
- Yet another example of similar sexism as demonstrated by the Bible.
The fact that the Bible endorses such as the destructive and inhumane way of thinking makes it a bad moral system to fall and not beneficial towards society.
Ignoring half of the population's talents isn’t beneficial to society and treating half of the population poorly is an example of a bigoted moral system and is destructive.
Now that we’ve established that the Bible is sexist, let’s discuss the Bibles endorsement of slavery.
The Bible endorsing Slavery
The Bible not only endorses slavery but even gives clear instructions towards slave masters funnily enough and no other verse than Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT.
44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou shalt have; of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them, shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigor.
This quote took a while to fully digest it, so here is a summary of this quote as for some this may appear as confusing. So here is an explanation from Salon.
You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
This demonstrates two things,
- The Bible encourages the purchase and ownership of slaves.
2. The Bible is hypocritical since it states that Israel is free from slavery, yet its neighbors aren’t which is very racist and hypocritical.
The fact that the Bible encourages the inhumane treatment of other human beings based off of a racist dogma is down right repulsive.
This type of bigoted moral system very plainly shouldn’t be used as a moral compass since the inhumane treatment is something me and my opponent will agree as being repulsive and we’ll also agree that racism is also disgusting.
Instead of perhaps keeping the captured enemies as prisoners, or finding a peaceful solution to the issue, the bible instead inhumanely keep them as slaves and then hypocritically orders that Israelians can be slaves.
I’ve provided numerous examples of the Bibles blatant sexism, it’s hypocritical nature, and it’s repulsive endorsement of slavery.
These ideals are very much harmful to society as they’re inhumane ways of treating other people and are repulsive acts.
Therefore for these reasons, I deem the Bible as a prime example of a poorly constructed moral system due to these destructive ideals.
I will now await my opponent's response.
Instead you chose to go with another version-- the American Standard Version (ASV).
The version (ASV) you chose (and incorrectly state I agreed to use) is significantly different from the Bible I specified (NABRE): the ASV is missing a significant number of Books compared to the one I requested (NABRE). THe NABRE has the approval of the Holy See.
So, let the record show that PinkFreud (by the way, which one is "Pink"? ;-) ) asked that I specify which Bible to use. I did (NABRE) and He goes on to say we agree to the ASV Version. The NABRE and ASV differ significantly.
If you come to Scripture looking for something to criticize and isolate passages out of context, no doubt you will find something to be outraged about. One must take into account who wrote it and when. Alright, so on to the heart of the debate.
While it’s attractive to pick and choose passages and view those independently of the rest of the Bible in order to promote a narrative, one must always consider context. One can’t ignore or refuse to acknowledge how high the Bible esteems women and their level of responsibility:
- The Story of Creation – as God creates, there is a certain level of “hierarchy” to his creation. He first starts the lowest levels (some would say least perfect) and keeps getting “better and better” so to speak. First the earth, then seas, then the animals, and then ultimately humans. The 2nd creation story also highlights the next level of creation—the creation of woman. So all of creation gets progressively advanced all the way up to the very last thing he creates—his crowning achievement….woman.
- The 2nd story of creation – underscores how woman is “necessary” for the goodness of man. Companionship. (See Genesis)
- One of the heroines of the OT is a woman (Judith). You’ll find this in the book of Judith. A book that happens to be absent from the version Pink wants to use. (See Judith)
- God chooses the Savior of the World to be born of a, you guessed it….woman. One of the important, dare I say heroic acts, in the Bible is when Mary agrees to become the Mother of God. Given a woman such mighty, awe-inspiring is hardly sexist in my opinion (see the Gospels)
- Jesus’ first appearance after his Resurrection was to a ….you guessed it, a woman. The greatest event in Human History, rising from the dead, is performed and he chooses to appear, not to a man, but first to a woman. And not only that, but he gives this woman a mighty responsibility of telling others. There is huge significance in that.
- Again, it’s tempting to take this Corinthian’s passage or Timothy passage and use that to build your case on, but one can’t ignore Ephesians. People often cite Ephesians 5 as another “sexist” passage with it’s “Wives be subordinate to your husbands” passage, and then gloss or choose to ignore the next line which states “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word.” Ask yourself—how did Christ love the Church? I’ll dare ask—who has the more difficulty/weighty task? The wife or the husband? Christ did everything perfectly. He suffered for the Church, allowed Himself to be humiliated, tortured, insulted, crucified for the sake of His Church. gave his life for the Church. Paul is commanding men (husbands) to be Christ for their Church (wives). Paul is telling wives to submit to their husbands, but he is also telling husbands to love as Christ loved. This gives a fuller picture of how Paul viewed the wife/husband relationship.
Leviticus relates specific laws/rules for a specific time. If you examine a Middle School or High School text book, you’ll find passages about slavery in the U.S. Why? We must learn what our history is about. Does the fact that HS textbook talk about slavery mean that the current government condones slavery? Absolutely not.
My opponent cites Leviticus, which were specific rules for a specific time and a specific people. In order to properly view “slavery” one must take into account the totality of the Bible, context, how does this passage relate to what the rest of the Bible says, and more importantly what Jesus says. Also Pink is falling into the trap of equating the idea of “slavery” in the OT with our most recent use of slavery in the U.S. Slavery was viewed differently in the OT. “Slave” and “servant” were often used interchangeably as denoted by the use of the word “ebed” – they used to use overlap in meaning, not so much these days. A “Servant” is not inherently negative, but relates to work.
The Pharisees asked Jesus why did Moses permit the Jews to do certain things and Jesus responds “out of the hardness of their heart, but in the beginning it was not so”.
In short, regarding slavery, I have to ask my opponent—how were slaves treated in the OT? What were the rules/laws regarding the treatment of slaves?
Be careful not to take things out of context. MLK’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” has the following passage “We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”. Someone, taken the passage out of context, might use to state that MLK condoned the holocaust and all the other atrocities because he calls what they did “legal”. But when you take it out of context like that, you miss the point of what the author MLK was really trying to state.
- The Story of Creation – as God creates, there is a certain level of “hierarchy” to his creation. He first starts the lowest levels (some would say least perfect) and keeps getting “better and better” so to speak. First the earth, then seas, then the animals, and then ultimately humans. The 2nd creation story also highlights the next level of creation—the creation of woman. So all of the creation gets progressively advanced all the way up to the very last thing he creates—his crowning achievement….woman.
- No source nor citation is given for me nor the voter to check. Because of this, I am unable to accept this as legitimate and I ask my opponent to cite their source of this in the next round.
- Assuming this is correct and this is legitimate, this still doesn’t ignore the underlining fact that in this case, the Bible is inconsistent.
The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.
- The 2nd story of creation – underscores how a woman is “necessary” for the goodness of man. Companionship. (See Genesis)
- God chooses the Savior of the World to be born of a, you guessed it….woman. One of the important, dare I say heroic acts, in the Bible, is when Mary agrees to become the Mother of God. Given a woman, such mighty, awe-inspiring is hardly sexist in my opinion (see the Gospels)
- Jesus’ first appearance after his Resurrection was to a ….you guessed it, a woman. The greatest event in Human History, rising from the dead, is performed and he chooses to appear, not to a man, but first to a woman. And not only that, but he gives this woman a mighty responsibility of telling others. There is a huge significance in that.
- No citation
- Still doesn’t excuse the inconsistency
- Again, it’s tempting to take this Corinthians passage or Timothy passage and use that to build your case, but one can’t ignore Ephesians. People often cite Ephesians 5 as another “sexist” passage with it’s “Wives be subordinate to your husbands” passage, and then gloss or choose to ignore the next line which states “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word.”
- This doesn’t excuse the fact that the Bible is still calling wives inferior to their male counterparts.
Leviticus relates specific laws/rules for a specific time. If you examine a Middle School or High School textbook, you’ll find passages about slavery in the U.S. Why? We must learn what our history is about.
44 The male and female slaves that you possess—these you shall acquire from the nations round about you. 45You may also acquire them from among the resident aliens who reside with you, and from their families who are with you, those whom they bore in your land. These you may possess, 46 and bequeath to your children as their hereditary possession forever.
Also Pink is falling into the trap of equating the idea of “slavery” in the OT with our most recent use of slavery in the U.S. Slavery was viewed differently in the OT. “Slave” and “servant” were often used interchangeably as denoted by the use of the word “embed” – they used to use an overlap in meaning, not so much these days. A “Servant” is not inherently negative but relates to work.
- No citation is given to back this up.
- In the quote I just previously gave, you’ll notice the bolded sections which give a clear indication that slaves at that time were the owner's possessions and owned forever. More often than not slaves of war.
- I’ve demonstrated the Bible is still inconsistent with its messages.
- I’ve also given a rebuttal to several of my opponent's arguments IE opponents claims on OT slavery being different to modern slavery.
- My opponent has made it harder by not offering clear sources to check.
- The bible version you linked had a very strange layout. For example, it didn’t have a search option which made it more annoying for me since I have a master list of all the Bible passages I could use and like to look it up as opposed to shifting between menu’s numerous times.
- The question I asked was necessary, I asked if this version was the correct version I could use. I fail to see how this was unnecessary.
“ II.The Bible version is relevant. One of the examples I gave involved the heroine Judith, from the Book of Judith, which is absent from his version. There are other books missing from the version my opponent cited.”
- The reason why I cited that the Bible version, in this case, isn’t relevant was that the passages I was quoting still exist in the revised version. Even if there is an addition of this new female character, it still doesn’t excuse the inconsistency and is almost irrelevant to the point I was making.
“ III. Let the record show that my opponent and I have been engaging in a very friendly discussion related to this particular debate (see comments). As part of this response, I plan on citing my opponents own words as a source since it gives insight into my opponent's ideas on what "consistent" / "inconsistent" means and how to determine it.”
- For the voter reading this I’ll highlight what I defined as consistent and inconsistent just so you don’t have to sift through 20 comments.
“ I'll admit, I've worded this a bit weirdly so let me explain how this works.Moral systems can be 100 % consistent but they generally lead to absurdity.For instance, I can say my moral system is that any living organism must die, well this moral system is consistent however can be rather absurd.Moral systems can be consistent, it's dependent on the person.For instance, if you're a psychopath and an idiot, that moral system would work since it's consistent and in your mind, doesn't lead to absurdity.Obviously, for the vast majority of people, this moral system doesn't work.Most moral systems and the people who abide by them are sometimes inconsistent.In the case of the Bible, the system itself is inconsistent and the inconsistency isn't dependent on the person thus making it overall inconsistent.I hope this clarifies that moral systems can be consistent, it's mostly dependent on the person.”
“ V. I’ll address point IV.B first (“has consistent outcomes we like”). My opponent’s idea of what constitutes a “good moral system” should give us all pause. Anything that is predicated upon “something we like” is an open invitation to subjectivity and inconsistency. Perhaps the reason the Bible is being discarded is not that it’s inconsistent, but rather it doesn’t have “outcomes we like”?
- Morality is inherently subjective. I want to debate whether or not the morality seen in the Bible is moral by both of our standards and if any disagreements occur than we can debate the morality of it.
- Secondly no, when I call the Bible inconsistent, I mean it’s logically inconsistent with itself. I clearly outlined this in the description and in the comment I made. For reference here are the portions of the description in which I clarify that I mean logically inconsistent and in the comment where I clarify that when I call the Bible inconsistent I mean it’s inconsistent with itself.
“ The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.”
“ In the case of the Bible, the system itself is inconsistent and the inconsistency isn't dependent on the person”
In these two comments I’ve made, I have clearly outlined to my opponent that when I mean by consistent I mean by logically consistent and when I call the Bible inconsistent I call it inconsistent with itself.
“ VI. My opponent is arguing NOT that the Bible is inconsistent with itself, but rather it is inconsistent with “something else”.
i. Sexism - my opponent provides no evidence that the Bible is inconsistent with itself when it comes to Sexism. In fact, he does the opposite. All he is doing is highlighting instances (two) he claims are “sexist”. He doesn’t outright state what or where the inconsistency is. In fact, by showing two instances of the same thing, he is actually making the case that it IS CONSISTENT with itself. Of course, I provided several more instances where it’s not Sexist, but we’ll get to that later.
- Secondly, I did state where the inconsistency was in this quote from the previous round.
“ If the Bible has quotes such as 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: and 1 Timothy 2:12: which demonstrate the Bibles sexism, but then ( possibly ) demonstrates it’s love for women, this proves it’s inconsistent and unclear what the Bible's stance is. “
“ This proves that the Bible is very inconsistent when there are passages that demonstrate it’s sexist and nonsexist at the same time.”
“ ii. Slavery – again, my opponent provides no evidence that the Bible is inconsistent with itself when it comes to Slavery. He only provides one reference (Leviticus), and as we saw above, one can’t use speak of something’s consistency (or inconsistency) to itself if there is only instance.”
- I never stated the Slavery stance in the Bible is inconsistent, the inconsistent portion I was referring to was the sexism portion. Therefore this argument is irrelevant since I never made such claims.
- Overall this slavery point essentially goes undisputed by my opponent and it still stands.
“ B. Something Else. If my opponent is not arguing it’s inconsistency with “itself”, then he must be arguing it’s inconsistency against “something else”. This “Something Else” is Society’s view of Women and Slavery, or simply put, Societal Norms and Values. This is in alignment with what he says his Moral System is : the benefit to society and if it produces results he is alignment with. “
- Already clarified in the Debate description and my clarification comment on what I was referring to when I mentioned the Bibles inconsistency.
- Secondly, I clearly stated in the comments that I don’t appeal to societal norms and values and any time our values align is a coincidence.
- Thirdly my personal views are almost irrelevant to the discussion and have no place here. Since it appears my opponent agrees that the Bible’s quotes I’ve mentioned are indeed sexist and racist, my personal views are irrelevant.
i. Sexism – he compares the Bible vs Society’s history and cites key women throughout history.
ii. Slavery – he compares the Bible vs Society’s current view of Slavery (not all of Society, just current, prevailing laws for some members of Society).
- Firstly I compared the Bible vs. society’s history with women not to show an inconsistency but to show the Bibles blatant sexism by casting women aside when they have indeed achieved a great deal throughout history.
- Secondly, you’re the one who brought up modern slavery point in the first place. I was simply clarifying that when the Bible references slavery, it’s referring to actual modern slavery. Since you were making the claim of the references not pertaining to modern slavery as your argument.
A. Via Comments, my opponent made the following comment “Firstly, really you found a moral system that is 100 % consistent, that holds up in ANY scenario, ok share it with me”.
- I clarified in my clarification comment that from in the very beginning in which I clarify that I’ve worded everything weirdly and I’ll use this comment for clarification purposes. Therefore my previous comments shouldn’t be taken seriously as I’ve already stated that they weren’t accurate. Because of this, XIII should be cast aside since it’s built upon a comment I’ve admitted wasn’t accurate.
“ But If he truly was discarding the Bible “because it’s inconsistent”, he should be rejecting his current Moral System, because it too is inconsistent (remember he implied no 100% moral system exists). So he’s not rejecting the Bible because it’s inconsistent (otherwise he’d be rejecting his own Moral System because it too is inconsistent per his comments’ implications), but rather he is rejecting it because his current moral system is “less inconsistent” then the Bible (in his opinion)”
- Firstly, my personal moral system is irrelevant.
- Secondly, like the previous comment I’ve made, this is built upon the falsehood of an inaccurate comment I’ve made.
- Thirdly, I've already outlined in the description and in my clarification comment what I meant by consistent. There’s a reason why I clearly stated that the Bible is inconsistent with itself.
“ He then stated this gem: “My moral system is 100 % consistent in and of itself. “
Which begs the question, does his Moral System lead to absurdity? After all, at one point he did say “Obviously there is no known 100 % morally consistent system that doesn't lead to absurdity in some way.” (citation is above).
- Firstly again, my moral system is irrelevant.
- Secondly again I’ve already clarified in the description and in my clarification comment on what I was referring to by inconsistent.
“ If my opponent has such a changing, dare I say “inconsistent”, idea of Consistent Moral Systems, how can he make the claim one should be discarded because it’s “inconsistent’ and thus not worthy to be used as a “moral compass”?”
- Firstly it isn’t inconsistent since I made a clear clarification comment.
- Secondly, I disregard the Bible in this context because it’s inconsistent with itself which I clearly outlined in my clarification comment.
This entire part is irrelevant since the clarification comment and the description of the debate defined what I meant by consistent and inconsistent.
“ XII. My negation of his examples:
A. When it comes to quantity, my opponent only provided 2 examples of how the Bible treats women. I, however, provide 6 examples of how the Bible esteems women. When I last checked, 6 is greater than 2. “
- Firstly this is built upon the falsehood of the previous comments I’ve made and not the clarification comment where I clearly outline what I mean by consistency.
- Secondly, this still doesn’t disprove the Bible’s inconsistency.
“ B. When it comes to “Severity”, I will focus on “Slavery”. My opponent provides just one instance from Scripture on Slavery, and claims this is an “endorsement of slavery”. And since there is but one example cited, I’m inclined to think my opponent perceives this as a “huge one”….the “doozy” I referred to earlier. My response:
- Never stated the Bible’s views on slavery was inconsistent. And again this also is built upon the falsehood of previous disregarded comments I’ve made and not my clarification comment.
“ While my opponent may regard his Leviticus reference as huge (a doozy), I see mine as huge as well (a doozy…in fact, I see mine as a huger doozy ;-) ).”
- Firstly the wink seems a bit condescending and I’d ask my opponent to refrain from using it and have better debate conduct. Granted I’m not offended however I would like for voters to consider my opponent's condescending winks he’s making.
- Secondly, I changed my mind, from the quotes you’ve demonstrated the Bible is actually inconsistent with its stance on slavery.
“ A. In the Debate Description and in arguments, my opponent did not define or elaborate on what “Inconsistent” (or “Consistent”) meant when it comes to Moral Systems (how does one determine something is consistent or not). This calls into question whether or not he can definitively say any particular Moral System is “consistent” or “inconsistent”.”
“ The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.”
“ In the case of the Bible, the system itself is inconsistent”
- I’ve clearly defined what I mean by consistency being logical consistency and in my clarification comment, I elaborated that the Bible itself is inconsistent.
My opponents first part of their argument delves into how different texts can be interpreted in different ways.
“ The possibilities are endless. It would be foolish to assume that the only correct interpretation is the 1st one, and ignore what other texts, works, authors have to say on the matter. “
- Firstly regarding sexism, I’ve cited not one but two quotes. Therefore this argument of perhaps it’s a coincidence that the interpretation is wrong is false and this still doesn’t ignore the inconsistency in the moral system regarding sexism.
- Secondly regarding slavery, my opponent never actually provided other scriptures debunking my point on slavery. All my opponent cited were scriptures that stated that slave masters should be nice to their slaves. I’ve already debunked this point previously in another round so I’ll debunk it again.
“ My opponent seems to ignore all that when it comes to the Bible. He takes one passage, be it from Leviticus, Corinthians or Timothy and proclaims “This is what the Bible teaches or condones” based on those passages. He ignores what the rest of the Bible, nay, the rest of those specific texts have to say.”
- Because consistency matters as outlined by the description which by accepting the debate, you’ve essentially agreed to. If one portion of the Bible endorses slavery and another condemns it, this is a logical inconsistency by definition.
“ 1. My opponent takes one passage from Leviticus and uses that as his foundation for proclaiming that the Bible endorses slavery. That’s akin to taking one line from Aesop’s fables and proclaiming “Aesop believes animals can talk so we should ignore his teachings!” Or akin to taking Orwell’s “Animal Farm” and proclaiming “Orwell believes animals can talk and form governments! This is preposterous we should discard what he says!” When you do this, you are missing the main point of “Aesop’s Fables”, “Animal Farm” or the Bible. “
- Here my opponent is creating a false equivalence fallacy.
“ 2. My opponent can’t seem to decide exactly what he’s arguing when it comes to Slavery:
a. In the Debate description, he states that the reason to reject the Bible is that it doesn’t satisfy these requirements:
i. Is logically consistent
ii. we agree with where we get consistent outcomes we like. (Note: It is interesting how this is used or added. The Bible may actually be consistent when it comes to certain things, but if he doesn’t agree with the consistent outcomes, it gives him an “out” so he can discard it. )”
- I stated in the description this,
“ To summarize, a good moral system is consistent and doesn't lead to absurdity “
“ iii. He ignores what Leviticus says, just a few lines later inline 53 (Leviticus 25:53) in which God describes how the Master shall treat the bondmen/bondwomen:
- “As a servant hired year by year shall he be with him: he shall not rule with rigor over him in thy sight.” (His ASV version)
- “The tenant alien shall treat those who sold themselves as laborers hired on an annual basis, and the alien shall not lord it over them harshly before your very eyes.” (my NABRE version)”
- Already debunked in a previous round and previously seen in this round.
“ - Both are basically saying that servants (bondman, serf, slave) shall not be treated harshly. This hardly sounds like forced exploitation and trafficking. And hardly comparable to modern-day or recent slavery. “
- The slaves as described in the Bible are being kidnapped thus being trafficked. Which therefore according to the United Nations, violated their human rights.
- The slaves are owned by masters and are forced to do labor against their will, thus being exploited. Which therefore according to the United Nations, violated their human rights.
“ d. In Round 3, he states that he is indeed arguing that the Bible is inconsistent with itself (but doesn’t cite which specific passages it’s inconsistent with).”
“Similar to sexism, the Bible has two stances of slavery, one being an endorsement and one being condemning it which makes it logically inconsistent due to the opposing stances exhibited.“
- As can be seen from the previous round, I’m going off of the passages from my argument and your argument. Therefore this argument is false.
“ e. Then, he drops this bombshell in Round 3:
“I never stated the Slavery stance in the Bible is inconsistent, the inconsistent portion I was referring to was the sexism portion. Therefore this argument is irrelevant since I never made such claims.”
Um, that is what he was arguing initially in Round 1. That the Bible endorses slavery….but yet at the same time the Bible also doesn’t endorse slavery for some (Israel) is thus inconsistent (not the same moment to moment) “
“ As he admits, in one instance it endorses and on the other hand, it condemns it. But if two things are said or thought to be contradicting or inconsistent, how can you say definitively it is one or the other? Without context, you can’t. But with context, you can. “
- Which is precisely why in that round I stated that I’ve changed my mind and the Bible’s views on slavery are inconsistently assuming my opponent is correct in their quotations somehow proving the Bible isn’t endorsing it.
“ I can say “I hate vegetables”. But I also say “I love vegetables”. Can you say definitively that I hate vegetables? But what if I only said I hated vegetables once but said I loved vegetables many more times—does that give you some insight into my stance on vegetables? “
“ Yet he refuses to take context or the rest of the Bible into consideration unless it supports his position.”
- Because it’s an inconsistency and as outlined by the description. An inconsistent morality system isn’t a good one.
“ Let’s say I compile a group of books into one collection— Let’s call this collection The ComBible and in this compilation are the following books:
Night by Elie Weisel
Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Franke
The Gulag Archipelago by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich – William Shirer
Letter from a Birmingham Jail – Martin Luther King, Jr
Man’s Search for Meaning - Viktor Frankl “
“.My opponent makes the claim that his moral system is irrelevant (see Round 3)
His moral system is completely relevant. He is passing judgment on the Bible as a Moral Compass (i.e. rendering it either good or bad). Whenever you pass judgment on something, be it a person, an action, or text, you are essentially making an appeal (i.e. using) to whatever Moral System you have in place.”
- My opponent has made multiple false equivalence fallacies.
- My opponent has still yet to counter my claims regarding the Bible being logically inconsistent.
- My opponent has misinterpreted the debate description
The onus is not on me to argue, justify or explain away the inconsistencies (which I’ve done by the way). What I am arguing is that “inconsistency” alone is not necessarily a good one reason to discard a Moral System, especially if one (a) can’t show that it’s an inconsistency, or prove that this is what the Bible is in fact teaching.
A Good Moral System (GMS) must satisfy BOTH of these requirements:
(A) – be consistent
(B) – doesn’t lead to absurdity
Likewise, a Moral System must be discarded if it fails either (A) or (B) or both—but only one need fail in order to be discarded.
Implications of this:
2. It is also safe to infer that this Moral System, “X”, must itself be consistent and not lead to absurdity, otherwise it will violate its own rules and thus lead to it itself being deemed not good and thus discarded).
3. If it is to be consistent, then it this Moral System, “X”, must be used to evaluate all other Moral Systems , otherwise there is no consistency, and one simply chose this Moral system (analyzing consistency and absurdity) because it met one’s agenda (to discard the Bible).
does it lead to absurdity? Yes or NO. If yes, then my opponent’s Moral System is to be discarded (see (B) above)
And if it is to be discarded, then it follows his claim that “the Bible is not good” is baseless, since the Moral System he himself used to deem it “not good” is itself “not good.”
My opponent is always making the claim that my analogies are false analogies etc. I’m not using the analogies to “prove” my position (i.e. analogies A, B, and C do this, therefore Y must do this). No I explain why Y must do this, and use the analogies A, B, and C to help him view it, not as a reason to why it is. Like Vizzini, I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
Sorry, the U.N. fails the GMS sniff test by being inconsistent. Remember, this doesn’t leave any room for ifs, ands or buts.