Instigator / Con
7
1650
rating
44
debates
77.27%
won
Topic
#1283

Is Christianity A Good Moral System To Follow?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
0

After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

TheRealNihilist
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
3
1435
rating
15
debates
33.33%
won
Description

-- INTRO --
This is about whether Christianity is a good moral system to follow or not. Old Testament and the New Testament will be used.
Whatever is agreed upon in the comments will be the Bible version we 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.

-->
@Dynasty

Unless you quoted me a key the Bible fails to be clear on whether it is fictional or non-fictional.

Just realized you were talking about my arguments. Well I don't think I will read it but thank you for giving it anyway. Mainly because I can start an argument from your links and then this would be a debate in the comment. Don't really want that to happen.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

1 Timothy 2:12 is Paul was responding to a heresy. And 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is Paul quoiting something that the Corinthians said to him, which he then refutes. I suggest you read Daniel Wallace's work on this. As for slavery, I suggest you read Exodus 21:16, and Ephesians 6:9.

-->
@Barney

If the Bible wasn't strictly fiction or non-fiction then how do you know parts which apply to other side?

The person is basically a claim that something without having any referance in the book. It is not has a key to state blue writing is fiction whereas black is non-fiction.

Regarding Jesus' talk of thought crime and dismemberment for imagined sins... Dismissing his words as hyperbole he did not mean for anyone to take seriously, risks the coherence factor in following his teachings as a moral system. On the other hand (pun intended), following the letter of his word would be dangerous and stupid; about like if followers of Islam were to actually riot over cartoonist renderings.

Part of the problem is that in both cases, either are not simply one moral system, but each a spectrum with different focuses and interpretations (arguably they are both parts of the same spectrum within Abrahamic faith...).

"1 Timothy 2:11-12"
Paul was responding to a heresy btw.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Liked the new one.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

curious...why the name change?

-->
@Speedrace

I'll make one after this or maybe during this one. Depends on time.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Welp I was too busy

-->
@TheRealNihilist

done

-->
@GuitarSlinger

I accept using NABRE.

Do you want to accept now?

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Okay.

I'll add Old Testament as well.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

If I were to accept this debate, I would insist on the following:

1. Use of the New American Bible, Revised Edition (NABRE) found at www.usscb.org/bible. THe KJV is lacking in several key books of the OT. And since the early Christians only used the OT, it's important which version you use.
2. Must also use the Old Testament, and not just the New Testament. "Christianity" is about a person, namely "Jesus Christ" and following Him (which you properly defined), and not about "book". The first Christians practiced Christianity-- they were followers of Christ. The NT wasn't even written at that time-- the only Scriptures the early Christians had to follow was the OT.

-->
@GuitarSlinger

Lay out your preferred Bible version.

I'll change the description to say whatever is accepted would be used.

-->
@TheRealNihilist

Is the KJV the authority on Christianity? Why or why not?

Why would you opt to use that Bible version?

-->
@Speedrace

So?