The only genuinely sane way to adhere to an Abrahamic religion is to deem the sanctity of scripture/writing as inferior to human capacity to interpret it.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
BY ACCEPTING THIS DEBATE YOU ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING:
We agree to have sources outside the document if we wish to increase our character limit efficiency.
The term 'sane' is to be loosely defined in favour of Pro. Meaning that the strict definition of 'not mentally ill' shouldn't be literally taken as something Pro needs to prove all of the resolution don't qualify as or vice versa. Beyond that, the definition is flexible enough and this is about sound judgement and rational thought.
And never think of those who have been killed in the cause of Allah as dead. Rather, they are alive with their Lord, receiving provision, rejoicing in what Allah has bestowed upon them of His bounty, and they receive good tidings about those [to be martyred] after them who have not yet joined them - that there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve.
“It is He who has revealed to you the Book.”
There appears to be a lot of revelation going on, God to man, to claim that such communication is toxic to our souls. It appears that it is even consistent, not contradictory revelation, over three separate volumes. And, why not? Whether the god in question is Elohim, not a name, but a title, and, in fact, according to John Mclaughlin, a reference to either a single god, or many, or Christ, not a name, but a title, signifying “Messiah,” or Allah, not a name, but a title, signifying God. These several references to “God” are all titles.
First, as it has already been used in the first Con argument, “transliterate” will be defined by the Oxford English Dictionary [hereafter, OED]: “transliterate transitive:To replace [the letters or characters of one alphabet] with those of another, representing as closely as possible the same sounds; to write [a word] in the letters or characters of another alphabet.”
The claim of a debased sanctity, as opposed to human interpretation, is refuted by simple means. One must acknowledge that we have, today, a variety of “translations” of each volume [the Torah, the Bible – Old and New Testaments, and the Qur’an], however, we have no examples of original, historically contemporary texts of any volume. Therefore, we, today, being separated from any consideration of original texts, are left with transliterations, not direct translations. As such, having second, third… n-hand representations of texts, it would follow that interpretation is inferior to sanctity, not, as my opponent contends, the reverse.
It is further argued that culture drives language, not the reverse [my opponent did not argue this, but it must acknowledged as essential to the argument]. Language points to culture. Language is not merely its alphabet, syntax, and grammar, but is a reflection of the culture that creates it.Without a prior knowledge of the culture, a language foreign to our own will not be fully understood until the culture is understood. Therefore, the translationof an ancient language, let alone contemporary, is only possible by first understanding the ancient culture. To do otherwise is transliteration,a dictionary-to-dictionary comparison. Dictionaries typically do a poor job of cultural education.
In fact, the same condition affects virtually any religion of antiquity extant today. Transliteration is not unique to Abrahamic religions. It will be generously acknowledged if any religion of antiquity has, in fact, original texts, and that we understand the ancient culture. However, it is easily demonstrated that no such original texts exist today, at least that have been found to date, with respect to Abrahamic religions.
Therefore, the sanctity of religious texts is superior to any human interpretation, particularly in the event that any human has a bias against any interpretive sanctity by which any religious text would encourage that human to aspire to reach.