Is Christianity A Good Moral System To Follow?
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 7 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- One week
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
-- INTRO --
This is about whether Christianity is a good moral system to follow or not. It is focused on the New Testament and it's teachings, as it is called Christianity for a reason, that reason being that it focuses on Jesus Christ and his teachings. Therefore, all arguments should center primarily around Jesus Christ/the New Testament.
KJV Bible as the source we are agreeing to use.
-- STRUCTURE --
1. Opening (State your positions. No rebuttals.)
2. Rebuttals (Attempt to debunk opponents augments)
3. Rejoinders (Attempt to defend your case with the rebuttals given)
4. Rebuttals/Close (Rebuttals and conclusion)
When I say attempt. That is the bare minimum. You can do more and would help your case a lot.
-- DEBATER OBJECTIVES --
Pro - must sufficiently prove that Christianity is a good moral system while simultaneously disproving Con's arguments. (Basically Christianity is good and demonstrate it)
Con - must sufficiently prove that Christianity is a bad moral system while simultaneously disproving Pro's arguments. (Basically Christianity is bad and demonstrate it)
-- DEFINITIONS --
Christianity - the religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.
Good - to be desired or approved of.
Moral system - a system of coherent, systematic, and reasonable principles, rules, ideals, and values which work to form one's overall perspective.
Follow - act according to (an instruction or precept).
-- RULES --
1. No forfeits
2. Citations must be provided in the text of the debate
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
4. Observe good sportsmanship and maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)
7. For all irresolution terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate
8. The burden of proof is shared; Pro must show why Christianity is a good moral system to follow, and Con must show why it is a bad moral system to follow. Simply rebutting one's opponent's arguments is not sufficient to win the debate.
9. Violation of any of these rules merits a loss.
- Doesn't exclude people and stating they will
go to hell
- Tries to condemn wrongs in order for change to
occur to make people's live better
- Advocate for equality so that people are
I'll stick to that. This might not seem like a lot but it is enough in my book to consider Christianity a bad moral system to follow.
Homosexuality: is romantic attraction, sexual attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.
Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible. I don't think I need to show Bible quotes to show this but I will. I will also mention saying homosexuality is a sin is you pretty much saying if they carry on with their lifestyle they will go to hell. So basically a Christian has openly allowed their God to punish gays in hellfire for eternity for something that could've only occurred for 40 years. The hyperlink I added before this specifically talks about gays being sentenced to an eternal fire.
Romans 1:26-27: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
The Bible call both instances of same sex actions "vile affections". Given this I am safe to assume this is sinful. This would mean they eventually given a gays lifestyle will be punished forever in hell. Christianity permits torture of people forever for something that happened for a limited amount of time compared to being hellfire for eternity. This is of course is bad because there is no way of gays to simply leave hell and not be tortured forever. They are there forever for something as a society we have agreed upon is not something that can be changed on a whim.
Given that a good moral system is implied to be followed by everyone. If this was implemented in the US 3.5 percent of the population in 2011 are gay, lesbian or bisexual.
Slavery is never really stated whether it is allowed or not. It does state how to treat your slaves. This to me means slavery is an assumption of Christianity and they are building upon that foundation.
1 Timothy 6:1-2
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.
This source states the servants of the master should treat them with honour. Since there were less liberal societal norms back in the day. People had less choice to change things in their life. Given this a servant back when this was written would be considered human property whereas now it wouldn’t be the same given the lesser importance Christianity has and more rights people have been given. Since Christianity was around during slavery. The Bible told servants to be submissive to their masters not try to get their freedom. This is bad because controlling people doesn’t lead to happiness since the necessity of control requires the person to be restricted in what they can do. If they are restricted, they have less choices that can lead to happiness.
Given that a good moral system is implied to be followed by everyone. If this was implemented 12.5 million blacks who were would have been told to obey their masters not to see their freedom.
I left the best for last. If it wasn’t clear already that Christianity is not good moral system as in attempts to make people happy then these quotes would be enlightening. Freedom can lead to happiness and given the lack of freedom women are given, women would have to find happiness in control which I don’t think is fair given men are not held to the same standard.
1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
I have painted a real clear picture that women should be treated, if we follow the Bible, submissive to their husband while other things. Not being allowed to speak in Church to name one. This is bad because a moral system if good should treat people equally given that it means people are not given unfair rulings or judgements.
Given that a good moral system is implied to be followed by everyone. If this was implemented across the world 49.5% of the population will be treated differently than the remaining number.
Yes, I forfeited. However, as many of you know, I'm very busy as a student. I thought I had two weeks to post this and could finish over the weekend, but I woke up on Saturday to an email saying I had forfeited. However, I can still easily complete the debate by posting both my opening and my rebuttal (which I fully intend to do).
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. Being an ‘ebed could be a position of honour. Everyone is a servant / slave of someone else. 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. The term shows the person is subservient to another. All subjects of Israel are servants of the king. The king himself is a servant of their God. So in the time of the Old Testament, no-one is free – everyone is subservient to, an ‘ebed of, someone else. 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 and it becomes hard for readers not to read into the word ideas from subsequent, very different systems of slavery (eg. in Greece, Rome and North America). 
This is kind of like arguing that you should respect your grandmother. No one would argue that your grandmother is more important than you, or should have authority over you, and yet most of us would think it’s tasteful to show some kind of deference to the fact that she helped bring you into existence.
I don’t know about you, but when I spend time with my grandmother, I try not to embarrass her in public. If we’re in a store, or walking somewhere, I don’t feel the need to constantly point out that I’m a grown man and can do whatever I want. I don’t wear clothes that she’ll find terribly offensive, or do some of the ridiculous things that I might feel comfortable with, but would make her nervous. 
"put yourself under, arrange yourself under someone, for a good and proper purpose." It is a totally voluntary action.
In that case, if voters are taking the loss for forfeits seriously, then me in my opponent are tied in forfeits, and therefore no points should be taken off for them.
However, remember, nowhere in the voter guidelines does it say that voters are binded by the debate description. In fact, the word "description" isn't even mentioned in the COC. So losses don't have to be given for forfeits of you, the voters, don't feel that it is right to do so.
As no rebuttal was given from my opponent to defend, I extend my arguments.
"6. No "kritiks" of the topic (challenging assumptions in the resolution)"
This rule was broken at the start of Round 2 and Round 3. You are supposed to accept the resolution as in rules not question them during the debate.
This if it wasn't clear already merits a loss because of Speedrace's non-argument in Round 1.
Besides that, as I have stressed so much, rule 9 is not binding on you, the voters, so you can do almost anything you want in the end as long as it complies with the COC.
All I have to say is that I showed that Christianity is based entirely on love. I also showed how the arguments my opponent presented from the Bible were either misinterpreted or nuanced arguments for something else. In the end, I believe that a moral system based on love is a pretty good moral system.