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.

-->
@gugigor

You made valid points. I think there are good reasons to vote either way in this case.

-->
@whiteflame

what did you think about my vote? I feel like the R4 helped elucidate Con's argument more, while Pro's grew muddier and muddier. So while I would vote Pro with only 3 rounds, I felt like Con had just a hair more idea by the very end.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Well I had to use up a round just to figure out what you meant by a "sentient creature" since you failed to give any meaning to that. But like I said, that was probably a smart move since your position shielded itself from scrutiny through vagueness.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Incorrect - you had plenty of time to interact with my standard, I expanded the standard whenever you criticism - the fact of the matter is that my standard is a logical priori, not a manual - just because your standard is a manual doesn't mean every standard is

-->
@Undefeatable

That's because I essentially didn't have anything to argue against until the last round of the debate. But perhaps that was smart because then CON's system was put under minimum scrutiny.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector
@Theweakeredge

For some reason, this debate's arguments felt really hard to see through (though I'm used to bigger impact shown in policy debates). I felt like both of you kind of talked over each other.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector
@Theweakeredge

Next on my list, guys. Will get to this.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Um... well no - you just aren't excepting Jesus's own claim - now my fault you don't agree with your god.

-->
@Theweakeredge

You are just confirming that you do not understand what justification by faith means, which explains why you no longer consider yourself a Christian. I have provided Old and New Testament citations with explanations, but you are just falling back on the weak argument of baseless radical skepticism ("Well that's not what that text means!"). If you will not show enough intellectual integrity to honestly criticize the Bible, I see no reason to continue this back and forth. I got my answer for where you came up with the unique and unbiblical idea that everyone before Jesus went to hell, which is why I engaged in the first place.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Um... no - romans 4-5:1 talks about Abraham being faithful - nothing about him actually going to heaven - as for the 2 kings quote.... that kinda makes my point BEFOE JESUS it was completely arbitrary who did and didn't go to heaven, only direct intervention from god did that, yet.... again, people in the new testament got Jesus! Where god didn't even have to be directly involved. Again, IF anything else was said to bring people to heaven except for Jesus that is a CONTRADICTION. Nothing else.

Finally - do you mean the messiah that the women believed WASN'T JESUS - lemme read the context bud: "25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us. 26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.” People literally did not think Jesus was the Messiah, because they DID NOT THINK HE WAS ACTUALLY JESUS, that's the opposite from faith.

So let's see what you've proved, that there are exceptions to Jesus's rule, whenever god specifically makes them, and.... that's it. Doesn't prove your point, the stats about what Christian's believe don't even agree with you

-->
@SirAnonymous

I'm glad this makes sense to at least one person!

-->
@Theweakeredge

No, that is not my claim. But if you need a reference for that point, I would direct you to where Jesus specifically identified Himself as the coming Messiah from the Old Testament in no vague terms (John 4:25-26).

But my twofold claim is in response to your point that everyone who died before the crucifixion went to hell, and I used scriptural references from both the Old and New Testament to support it:

1. The Bible does not support it ("...And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven" 2 Kings 2:11)

2. Your point that Jesus contradicts the rest of the Bible by saying "No one comes to the Father except through me" in John 14:6 is demonstrably false. It shows a clear lack of soteriological understanding - particularly as to what it means to be justified by faith through Christ (Rom. 4-5:1) - which is unbecoming for a prestigious former junior youth pastor like yourself.

-->
@Theweakeredge

You're right, that is where we disagree. I think he actually has cited some scripture that backs up his claims.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Your claim: that people before Jesus went to heaven by believing in.... the messiah? The same Messiah that was thought to be a warrior king, was barely mentioned, much less be connected to Jesus. Jesus was VERRY SPECIFIC - that the ONLY way to heaven was believing in HIM, not a vaguely defined Messiah, not a god the father, JESUS THE SON OF GOD, believing in him is THE ONLY way to get to heaven, so says Jesus. So, unless your saying your god is wrong, that would make -YOU - wrong

-->
@SirAnonymous

You see thats where we disagree - I am not brushing him aside because we have different "interpretations" Fruit-Inspector has failed multiple times to cite scripture would back up their claims - that people before Jesus went to heaven by believing in.... the messiah? The same Messiah that was thought to be a warrior king, that was barely mentioned, much less be connected to Jesus.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I thinking you're being a little too quick to dismiss him. From my perspective, it looks like he does care. He has been citing some relevant passages from the Bible. But laying that aside, just because someone doesn't agree with your interpretation of what the Bible says doesn't mean he doesn't care what the Bible says (and this applies to things other than the Bible as well). It's easy to dismiss people who disagree with you as not caring about the facts, but that doesn't reflect reality. One thing I've noticed more reading this site without being active on it is that people with differing opinions usually have entirely different sets of facts that they're familiar with (the politics forum is an excellent example of this). One person can bring up facts X, Y, and Z, and then say that people who don't agree with him don't care about the facts. But odds are, that person has never heard of facts A, B, and C that people who disagree with him have heard of. Of course, that doesn't mean that all of those facts are actually factual or that both views are equally valid. But what it does mean is that you shouldn't be too quick to conclude that people who disagree with you don't care about the facts.

-->
@Theweakeredge

You do realize that my claim isn't connecting the particular name of Immanuel to the Messiah, right? Do you even know what I am actually arguing for?

-->
@SirAnonymous

Well - we are talking about the bible - and he doesn't seem to care what the bible says... ironic that the Atheist here is talking about the context of the bible

-->
@Theweakeredge

Actually, what Fruit_Inspector has been saying in the comments isn't remotely fringe. It's pretty mainstream evangelicalism. And for what it's worth, which probably isn't very much, he does seem to know what he's talking about.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Well yeah - its not - and no it doesn't say anything about a messiah.... you just kinda added that in the - most importantly there wasn't any mention that that was Jesus - from a narrative perspective - Jesus is just pretending to be the messiah there... because there was no connection between Imanual and the messiah (my actual point bud) until the new testament. - but also - yeah - they.... aren't talking about a messiah - it vaguely says "he" here - my point is that I asked you for a thing and you've failed to provide a SINGLE quote to support your claims - i think your just a fringe believer, because you obviously don't know what your talking about.

-->
@Theweakeredge

You: None of that is about the Messiah!

Also you: The passage in Isaiah about the Messiah wasn't a prophecy!

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

All of these things... were fulfilled by... technicality - none of these things at all say that they ae talking about a messiah, nor that by believing in this messiah that you will go to heaven - none of these actually apply to my point. Why don't you just stop dancing around the issue and cite exactly what the old testament says? That's right.... the old testament didn't actually say anything about how to go to heaven - it was an arbitrary thing decided by god. It wasn't until Jesus came up that there was actually a listed way to get to heaven.

Though you are right, kinda, about one thing - less and less people accept the bible's claims about jesus (though around 30% still believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven-still waaay more than your claim - "firing" - yeah sure bud.) Isaiah's claims are...well, certainly not prophecy - you do remember that Jesus knew he was gonna be crucified before the dinner? He CHOOSE to go, he CHOOSE to let the guards take him away - that "prophecy" you cite is self-fulfilling, that doesn't actually prove anything on your end. The other stuff just isn't relevant - how about you actually get some relevant scripture instead of baking at everything that doesn't share your precious beliefs, kay?

-->
@Theweakeredge

2/2
"Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer" (Galatians 3:6-9).

Christ is the fulfillment of the covenant God made with Abraham. So there is no contradiction to say that Abraham was saved through Christ by faith, just as we are. Without the blood of Christ, Abraham's faith would be worthless.

-->
@Theweakeredge

1/2
"Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 4:23-5:1)

Abraham's faith justified him since he was credited with righteousness. Abraham's faith was the same faith that credits us with righteousness. This is why the the Old Testament says that the righteous will live by faith (Habakkuk 2:4).

But it is ONLY by the blood of Christ that ANYONE is justified.

"But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him" (Isaiah 53:5-6).

Acts 8:32-35 makes clear Isaiah was speaking about Jesus. So the sins of Abraham were atoned for by the sacrifice of Jesus.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

That's not a critique of me, that's just a contradiction of your holy book - the two statements directly contradict one another, but my statement was by Jesus - your was by followers, so if we were to prefer one to the other it would certainly be Jesus's claim bud.

Furthermore, no, god could have made EXCEPTIONs, but that does not change my broader point - that a significant amount of humans were refused the oppurtunity to go to heaven.

-->
@Sum1hugme

But CON's argument is that all people who died went to hell with no chance of repentance, meaning they stayed there. While I see problems with those sects' interpretation, they aren't arguing that everyone goes to hell without a chance to go to heaven. That's certainly an interesting take though.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was some small fringe group who held to the belief CON is asserting, but you can always find people that will believe anything. As far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority of Christian groups would reject such an idea.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I remember seeing a television show many years ago about how some sects of people believed that all the people pre-crucifixion did go to hell, but when Jesus died, he went there personally and removed them so they could go to heaven.

-->
@Theweakeredge

No, you misinterpreted a single passage by ignoring the rest of the Bible. We can go into prophecies concerning the Messiah, particularly how the Messiah is identified as distinct from God the Father but is still deity (Jeremiah 23:5-6, Psalm 110:1).

But your interpretation of the Bible also requires that every person who died before Jesus went to hell. Meaning that if a single person is demonstrated not to have gone to hell, the interpretation is wrong.

Enoch went to heaven (Hebrews 11:5-6).

Elijah went to heaven ("As they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven" 2 Kings 2:11.)

In fact, let's just say that the entire chapter of Hebrews 11 refutes this idea:
"But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for He has prepared a city for them" (Hebrews 11:16)

Hebrews 11:26 even says Moses considered " the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward."

So do you still think the Bible teaches that everyone who died before the crucifixion went to hell? Because that's the actual question at hand.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

God is omnipotent by your standard, no? Therefore he would surely have the power to walk upon the earth; however, your interpretation continues to be without scriptural evidence, in contrast, mine has ONLY been inspired by the bible. Do you have any scriptural evidence that there was a prophecy specifically calling Immanuel or Jesus the messiah befoe the new testament? Because so far you've failed utterly in that respect - As far as Jesus himself says - the ONLY way to god the father is him, and if no one knew that Jesus was that messiah there would be no wide spread ability for people to be saved.

So.... both in the debate round and here you've failed to actually rebut my point.... are you sure you know what you're talking about?

-->
@Theweakeredge

Have you never heard of a theophany? A physical manifestation of the presence of God? God is a spirit, an immaterial being (John 4:34). He does not EXIST as a physical being. We can discuss the nature of the hypostatic union of Christ in reference to this point if you'd like, but God is not a physical being because He created the physical material in the first place. Matter did not exist before it was created, so God is not made of matter.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I haven't either talked with other atheists about the bible, not in depth anyway, - I WAS A CHRISTIAN UNTIL 14 - I was a junior youth pastor, I gave f*cking speeches about this stuff. Please provide your biblical citations to demonstrate your claim - that's what I asked -

Here's some proof - god PHYSICALLY walking around - please pay attention during your sunday seminar - " Genesis 3:8 , “And they heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden.”

SOUND OF GOD WALKING

Please demonstrate your claims

-->
@Theweakeredge

Ummm...do you get all of your understanding of Christianity from atheist forums? Because now it sounds like you're just making it all up as you go. This is why I said that it seems you aren't concerned with being intellectually honest in understanding what the actual claims of Christianity are.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

There are indeed some references to someone named Immanuel being birthed, but the actual confirmation Immanuel is the "messiah" is not, as far as I can find, actually verified until the new testament. Please provide actual citations proving your claim here-furthermore-you make a non-sequitur here- because as far as Jesus himself is concerned, him and god are separate - the old testament messiahs were most likely referring to GOD THE FATHER in physical form, similar to what he was described as in the garden of eden WALKING AROUND

-->
@Theweakeredge

And the Old Testament is full of references to a promised Messiah. So those who had faith in God also had faith in a coming Messiah who would save them. And who was that Messiah that the Old Testament saints had faith in? Jesus. Whose sacrifice was it that forgave the sins of Abraham because of his faith? Jesus.

Abraham could not have "come to the Father" except through the saving work of the Messiah. That's literally the main point of the entire Bible.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Yes - you come to Jesus through faith, but Jesus was very specific here- he differentiated himself from god the father - he said the ONLY way to know the father was through himself

-->
@Theweakeredge

And how does one come to the Father through Jesus? By faith. That is the most basic principle of Christianity.

"By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him" (Hebrews 11:5-6).

As I said, trying to argue that everyone from the Old Testament went to hell is a lost cause.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

(John 14:6-9) "Jesus said to him, “I am l the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (7) If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?"

NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME - as I said previously - I got my interpretation from the bible

-->
@Theweakeredge

I tried to discuss it with you in the comments and you refused to answer. Like I said, when I wrote my argument, it didn't seem worth addressing because I actually laughed when I read it. But after, I was curious WHERE you got that idea from since you didn't source it, but you didn't answer. And I think you know that trying to argue that everyone in the Old Testament went to hell is a lost cause.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Okay - I believe you are wrong in your interpretation of the bible - the fact of that matter is that you failed to actually respond - if you were being intellectually honest, then you would have attempted to answer it in the debate. The fact that you've dropped so many points makes me think you don't care about honesty - you just wanna continue your narrative without the bite back I afford.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I am more concerned about intellectual honesty than winning debates. And it is intellectually dishonest to make a claim about Christianity that no one believes and the Bible clearly contradicts. If ignoring a ridiculous claim loses me points, oh well. But I can understand not wanting to discuss it before the voting is over so I won't press it. And you're right, the voters can decide.

-->
@whiteflame

Of course! Take your time, good luck with the rough week and all.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I can do it, but remind me about this over the weekend. The week’s rough.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Perhaps if you addressed it in the debate instead of leaving it to biased voting, then you would have a point; however, you failed to actually address it - meaning that my points remains unrebuked.

-->
@Theweakeredge

I didn't address it because it seemed so ridiculous of a representation since no one believes that. Except maybe the most fringe of groups you can find on the internet. But as I said, I was curious where you actually got that from because it didn't come from the Bible...

-->
@Barney
@whiteflame
@gugigor
@Undefeatable

Would any of you mind voting on the debate?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

I fail to remember you addressing my "strawman" in the debate - could you remind me when it is you did that?

-->
@Theweakeredge

Doubling down on the "God sent everyone to hell before Jesus" straw man?

-->
@Theweakeredge

I guess the point isn't to argue what Romans says. I'm just curious where specifically you got the idea that God sent everyone to hell before Jesus' death with no chance to be saved. Again, basically no Christian groups teach that, and the Bible clearly doesn't support that if you don't ignore the clear teaching of it. Was there a passage that you read that implied that?

-->
@Theweakeredge

Except that Paul was quoting Genesis 15:6 when he said, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." So Paul's teaching in Romans was a truth revealed in the very first book of the Old Testament. And most translations use all caps in Romans 15:6 to make it explicitly clear that Paul is using an Old Testament quotation so there should be no confusion. So if Paul is stating that a particular passage in Genesis was teaching that Abraham was saved by faith, how is that a teaching exclusive to the New Testament?

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

Anyone who knows anything knows that Romans is in the New Testament, and furthermore, where is it stated that all you need is "righteousness" to get to heaven? This is Christianity 101 - only in the New Testament is anything said about believing in god gets your to heaven, throughout the entire Old Testament it spoke of how unworthy humans are