Instigator / Pro
11
1632
rating
20
debates
72.5%
won
Topic
#2702

The Bible is the Best Standard and Foundation for Ethics

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
11
1706
rating
33
debates
80.3%
won
Description

The Bible: the sacred writing of Christianity, consisting of the 66 books in the Old and New Testaments
Standard: something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example
Foundation: a basis upon which something stands or is supported
Ethics: the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation

In determining which standard and foundation is 'best,' it will ultimately be left to the judges to determine which system is superior based on the arguments provided. As PRO, I will be arguing that the Bible is a better standard and foundation for ethics than all others. CON will simply have to show that there is at least one other standard and foundation that is better than the Bible.

Bear in mind, CON will have to show that there is a better system than the Bible for ethics. It is not enough to point out perceived deficiencies of the Bible if no other system is presented. This also means that there must be consistency within CON'S system.

-->
@Theweakeredge

But anyone who is familiar with the Bible is likely also familiar with Romans 4:2-3

"For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Abraham lived long before Jesus. People in the Old Testament weren't saved by how well they followed the law. They were saved by faith. This is like Christianity 101.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

The bible.Only very specific people were brought to heaven with god - anyone else who did not fulfill the laws of the land went to hell - this is until (arguably) Jesus came to die for everyone's sins. Btw, I'm not saying arguably because I don't believe in Jesus, I'm saying arguably, because you can read that portion of the bible as coming to fulfill the old laws - not save people.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Just because it's bugging me, where are you getting the idea that God is sending one group of people to hell without the chance to repent of their sins? I don't know any Christians who actually believe that. Obviously you can find fringe groups who will believe anything, but I have never met anyone, nor am I aware of an actual denomination, that holds that view.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Sources for Round 3:

1. https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2016/s062387.html, see page 767.
2. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, J. Murray, London, 1901, pp. 172–173 (footnote), https://archive.org/details/ncbs.BB-001_0_0_0_1/page/n189/mode/2up
3. https://www.vox.com/2014/11/24/7272929/global-poverty-health-crime-literacy-good-news
4. https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

Got to say this is a much better topic than some similar ones which try to proclaim it as the only standard for ethics.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Since I would like to try to interact with your view but I don't want to make false assumptions, let me ask a quick question if you're willing to answer here. Should I take your definition of sentience to refer to a level that includes only humans? As in, animals wouldn't be included in the same moral standard as humans?

Or are you saying that sentience would include at least certain animals and not just humans?

I don't need an exact definition, just hoping for a bit of clarity.

-->
@FLRW

I assume you are an atheist? I have to ask then, do you believe stealing is ok?

The modern Christian does not adhere to the teachings of the Bible except, as they so often derisively say, by a "pick-and-choose" method. This is inevitable because the teachings of the Bible are scattershot and mostly impracticable. Modern Christians routinely disregard arcane Old-Testament laws — and then accept other ancient prescriptions as God's own self-evident will.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I ran out of time to do this debate between everything else, sorry for the cut off round, but it generally describes my argument.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Did you just drop my name? XDDD

I would’ve argued for utlitarianism and the platinum rule (treat others as they want to be treated) defeating the golden rule (treat others as you would want to be treated). Neitzsche could work but he’s not really a standard of ethics and more of a way to live. Interested in seeing your arguments.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Yes sometimes I rush editing because of how many times I've already read through my arguments. Oh well

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I've been there for sure, this will be an interesting one to debate, definitely going to be throwing some classic "Undefeatable" research at this one.

My time of shame is now complete.

I will now feel ashamed of myself for the next five minutes because I did not catch the wrong usage of "too" in my Round 1 conclusion.

ah, slow to the draw. Oh well, this will be fun to read.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Mm, nah it's cool, mostly I want to see if there are any more topical definitions, and the goal post described isn't quite what I think the resolution would imply, it could be true that I agree with all the assertions in the descriptions, its just to let you know that that is the approach I will take when looking at the debate.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I appreciate the compliment and look forward to the debate. I will not protest if you would like to take that approach if you think that will be a more productive approach to making an argument.

Would you like to explain which assertion from the description you are challenging so I might address it in Round 1, or would you like to keep your argument a surprise?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

As you are a very talented debater, I look forward to the following debate - though as outlawing kritiks is not something you did, I'll take everything in the description as an assertion, not a rule

I am 99% sure that utilitarianism/Deontology is better than the Bible... because Bible's foundation is basically just golden rule and following God's ideals

Well that didn't take long