Instigator / Con
0
1469
rating
341
debates
40.91%
won
Topic
#3581
The biblical scriptures justify/support/permit marital divorce.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Winner
0
1
After 1 vote and with 1 point ahead, the winner is...
Novice_II
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
1
1890
rating
98
debates
93.37%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
I think I am just ignorant when it comes to this. I don't know any better when it comes to this. I'm taking this opportunity really to learn.
May not be disputable but just in case, can you back it up with bible, chapter and verse?
That is the stipulation. Your position cannot be, will not be validated in any other fashion. If you fail to comply and provide scripture, you're disqualified to debate this topic.
Any questions, please send a message or leave a comment.
Round 1
Con
#1
Well first off the top of my head, 1 Corinthians 7:
"10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."
Further down to verse :
"39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
Now verse 39 is pointing to remarriage which isn't possible before divorce which is not permitted in the earlier verses .
Likewise with Mark chapter 10 at verse :
"11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."
Pro
#2
Resolved: The biblical scriptures justify/support/permit marital divorce.
- I choose the route of "permit," effectively arguing that the Bible does permit marital divorce in many cases.
Con.1 The case of immorality
- The Bible clearly outlines that divorce is permissible if your partner is sexually immoral:
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
Con.2 Additional permissibility of divorce
- Additionally, if a man has a wife/a woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and the partner leaves them while being an unbeliever, they are allowed to divorce and no longer have an obligation to them:
12. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.15. But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
Conclusion
- The Bible permits divorce in many cases and circumstances
Round 2
Con
#3
"The Bible clearly outlines that divorce is permissible if your partner is sexually immoral:
Matthew 19:9:
And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
I want you to reread this. Where does it say that it permits divorce?
It says whoever divorces and marries another commits adultery.
It didn't say divorce is justified. It didn't say divorce is permissible due to sexual immorality.
Stop reading these things into it.
All it says is when adultery is the case which it is except when fornication or sexual immorality is in the picture.
See how I left that. Just as it is written. Where in this passage does it say you're free to divorce?
"Additionally, if a man has a wife/a woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and the partner leaves them while being an unbeliever, they are allowed to divorce and no longer have an obligation to them:
1 Corinthians 7:12-16
12. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord):
If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
13. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.
14. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15. But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.
16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?"
Again presupposing the text .
Verse 12 and 13 say "must not divorce ".
Verse 15 then says "if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so". It did not say "let it be divorce ". The furthest you can go with is departure or separation.
But you are truly reaching and nearly jumping to divorce in desperate attempt.
Again not pitting scripture against itself but harmonizing it, I'll show you again.
"1 Corinthians 7:
"10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:"
So first off there's discouragement with even separating. Just separating, not talking about divorce yet. It said "let not the wife depart".
"11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."
But if she disobeys, defies the Lord, she can do nothing else in reference to marriage except get back together with who? Her HUSBAND which the husband is forbidden to divorce her anyway.
Just so there's no hangs up about the language, here's the translation in the new international version.
"11 But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife."
That is "must not divorce ". So it's permitted and not permitted at the same time.
No , as the scripture say, God is not the author of confusion.
Not at once, not at the same time.
But the laws changed. We have the old and new covenant.
For the stubbornness, hardness of the heart to rebel, there was a "giving in" if you will. It was permitted.
Jesus Christ came along appearing to change things but in all actuality affirm what was meant to be from the beginning. Man and woman, one flesh, what God has joined let not man put asunder or SEPARATE.
We learn all this in context of Matthew 19. That's the aim, not to promote and champion divorce and separation. That is valid exegesis.
You're committing eisegesis standing in violation of Proverbs 30 speaking about leaving God's words as they are as pure .
That's exactly indicative of a commitment of that coming behind me making a statement such as the following.
"The Bible permits divorce in many cases and circumstances"
According to the text, the Lord commands otherwise .
Pro
#4
Overview
- Extend all arguments.
Con.1 The case of immorality
I want you to reread this. Where does it say that it permits divorce?
- The verse (Matthew 19:9) says:
"I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
- So the verse is stating that divorce is not permitted except if your spouse commits sexual immorality. In addition to being basic English, this is known as the "Exception Clause," in scripture for marital divorce.
Con.2 Additional permissibility of divorce
Again presupposing the text.Verse 12 and 13 say "must not divorce ". [sic]Verse 15 then says "if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so". It did not say "let it be divorce ". The furthest you can go with is departure or separation.But you are truly reaching and nearly jumping to divorce in desperate attempt.Again not pitting scripture against itself but harmonizing it, I'll show you again.
- Nothing is being presupposed in any way. For individuals who know how to read, the context of verses (1 Corinthians 7:12-16) is talking about divorce.
- Verse 12 says, "to the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her."
- Verse 13 follows up with, "and if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him." So first we can agree passage is speaking about the conditions where you must not divorce.
- Verse 14 goes on to say why this is the case, as in, why you must not divorce in these situations; the obligations we have. "For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."
- But verse 15 says "but if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace." Verse 15 is saying that if your spouse is an unbeliever and they leave you, you are no longer bound by the same obligation and divorce is permissible. Put simply by The Gospel Coalition:
Marriage is a union of two people. If your unbelieving partner leaves you with no intention of returning, he or she has broken that bond. And so, just like in the case of adultery, you are free to seek either reconciliation or divorce.
Rebuttals
"10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:"So first off there's discouragement with even separating. Just separating, not talking about divorce yet. It said "let not the wife depart".
- Yes, but there are exceptions (see above). Separating is discouraged by permitted in cases.
"11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."But if she disobeys, defies the Lord, she can do nothing else in reference to marriage except get back together with who? Her HUSBAND which the husband is forbidden to divorce her anyway.
- There are exceptions (see above), and read just 4 verses later. If her husband is a believer, even if he leaves, his wife cannot remarry. As shown above, she can divorce and remarry if her husband is an unbeliever and leaves her.
Jesus Christ came along appearing to change things but in all actuality affirm what was meant to be from the beginning. Man and woman, one flesh, what God has joined let not man put asunder or SEPARATE.
- Jesus himself here said an exception for divorce is sexual immorality (cheating etc.)
You're committing eisegesis standing in violation of Proverbs 30 speaking about leaving God's words as they are as pure .
- I am saying what the Bible literally says verbatim.
Sources
Round 3
Con
#5
"I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
"So the verse is stating that divorce is not permitted except if your spouse commits sexual immorality. In addition to being basic English, this is known as the "Exception Clause," in scripture for marital divorce. "
Where in this verse we see the words "permit divorce"?
It does say commit adultery except for fornication or sexual immorality. The point of the verse is pointing out what adultery is. It does not tell us about divorce being allowed or not.
You see the language "except for" , you assume allowance for divorcement. You read in those words. Read it, as is, except you be found in violation of Proverbs 30.
"Nothing is being presupposed in any way. For individuals who know how to read, the context of verses (1 Corinthians 7:12-16) is talking about divorce."
Ok let's see. Again it's about reading as is.
"Verse 12 says, "to the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her."
The Bible still does not permit divorce.
"Verse 13 follows up with, "and if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him."
"So first we can agree passage is speaking about the conditions where you must not divorce. "
The Bible still does not permit divorce and the remaining scriptures say nothing of permitting it if you want to read the text as is. Tampering with it to suit you, I'm going to show you.
"Verse 14 goes on to say why this is the case, as in, why you must not divorce in these situations; the obligations we have. "
"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy."
"But verse 15 says "but if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."
"Verse 15 is saying that if your spouse is an unbeliever and they leave you, you are no longer bound by the same obligation and divorce is permissible."
Here's where you presupposed and added.
"but if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so."
But if the unbeliever (disobedient person) leaves, let it be so. Let it be so what? Here's where you come plugging in permission of divorce.
Let the unbeliever depart because a believer knows about Matthew 19, let no man separate.
Let the unbeliever depart or leave. So the scripture is talking about leaving somebody.
Now the scripture goes on with a person not being bound. Not being bound what?
Everytime we get to the "what" part, here you go filling in a preconceived position.
We just read it as is, it says you can leave, you're not bound for the sake of keeping peace. You are not bound to stay , you can leave the person. I added nothing to the text. Staying is the opposite of leaving. You can stay or leave. If you're bounded, you can't leave.
"Put simply by The Gospel Coalition:"
Put simply by scripture. All I do is just reiterate the words in sequence or out of sequence using the same words to reflect the words back again .
No matter how it's shaken up and then poured, you get what you get in this drink called the book .
That's why this debate pertains to what the Bible says. Not what someone else says it says.
"11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife."
"But if she disobeys, defies the Lord, she can do nothing else in reference to marriage except get back together with who? Her HUSBAND which the husband is forbidden to divorce her anyway."
"There are exceptions "
Those so called exceptions you're thinking about don't fit with verse 11.
If she is to be reconciled to her HUSBAND, she never divorced him, she just left. That's all this passage in Corinthians is saying as is. The person leaves, not divorces, leaves. That person has to remain that way or reconcile or go back to their Spouse as they were. Otherwise we would be reading about going back to someone to become a spouse again.
"If her husband is a believer, even if he leaves, "
I don't see in verse 15, it says a believer that leaves. Just another one of those details to show if you're really reading the text as is.
"Jesus himself here said an exception for divorce is sexual immorality (cheating etc.) "
You're saying that and ignoring the context of Matthew 19.
Jesus did not say except for this circumstance, divorce would be alright with him. It said except for this circumstance, this is what adultery would be.
Two very different things. I can see at this point in the debate, things will just become circular.
"I am saying what the Bible literally says verbatim."
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and conclude just how unaware you are at realizing where the Bible ends and you begin.
I can give you Matthew 5 where Jesus mentioned about it being said, not himself but it hath been said "let him give her a writing of divorcement".
Then Jesus said "but I say". "But I say" and did not echo what hath been said.
Pro
#6
Overview
- Extend all arguments.
Con.1 The case of immorality
Where in this verse we see the words "permit divorce"?
- Those exact words are not necessary. There are many ways of conveying a message. I can say for example:
- Thou can do X action in Y circumstances
- Thou shall not do X action, unless in Y circumstances
- X is a sin except in the case of Y, etc.
- They all convey the same message, understanding such is also known as reading comprehension.
It does say commit adultery except for fornication or sexual immorality. The point of the verse is pointing out what adultery is. It does not tell us about divorce being allowed or not.
- The verse is saying that divorce is a sin (adultery) except in the case of sexual immorality. So Jesus is stating that there is an exception to when divorce is allowed or not. I already cited that this is called the exception clause in scripture. My opponent did not mention any issue with the credible source I cited and as typical, continues to repeat the same thing for no apparent reason.
- We have some time in this debate, and if you still don't understand there are many sources that explain this passage. BibleRef says:
Now Jesus gives a direct answer to the Pharisees' question. In Deuteronomy 24:1, a man is pictured as giving his wife a certificate of divorce because he finds some "indecency" in her. One group of Pharisees believed "indecency" to mean some kind of sexual sin. Others believed it to mean anything the husband might not like about his wife. The Pharisees want to know which side Jesus takes.Though He is speaking directly to the question of men divorcing their wives, these guidelines would apply to the question of a woman seeking divorce, as well. Jesus puts His answer in very specific terms. Any man who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery. In short, Jesus declares divorce sinful except in the case of sexual immorality.
Con.2 Additional permissibility of divorce
But if the unbeliever (disobedient person) leaves, let it be so.
- Correct, namely, divorce is permissible if your spouse is
- An unbeliever, and
- He/She abandons you
Let it be so what?
- Let divorce be so, as in, divorce is permissible in these cases
Here's where you come plugging in permission of divorce.
- Nothing was plugged in, this is simply a basic use of language. The message of the text (I will quote again below for voters):
12. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.15. But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
- Is that divorce not allowed in situations listed, but if X situation occurs, divorce can be allowed. This is not difficult to understand nor is it some controversial Bible interpretation. I even posed a credible Biblical source, that explains this passage in The Gospel Coalition (TGC).
- I believe that my opponent seems to be stubbornly clinging to the idea that because it doesn't literally mention the word divorce in every single verse, and because of this somehow basic grammar no longer applies.
- It seems like I am providing an English lesson here, but you can refer to things when you are speaking for more than one sentence, and not constantly mention them by name if you have already mentioned them previously.
Conclusion
- If I were to post nothing in the next round I would effectively win this debate. Mall resorts to repeating himself and displays a lack of reading comprehension.
- Credible sources were provided for explaining both verses/passages in case any doubt remains.
Round 4
Con
#7
"Those exact words are not necessary."
So you concede that you're saying what the scriptures aren't. You are adding words because using exact words, no addition would be the case.
Here's the point of exact words.
It has to be verified where the Bible ends and you begin.
People can go off on a tangent implementing their ideas in a very sly like fashion seamlessly giving the appearance of what something is saying but not actually saying.
"They all convey the same message, understanding such is also known as reading comprehension. "
According to you. If the text is not saying it, all I have is you and your word telling me that of what something is saying whether you want to face that or not.
"The verse is saying that divorce is a sin (adultery) except in the case of sexual immorality. "
I cannot read, you cannot read anywhere where it says divorce is a sin in that verse. But you can read that those that are married and divorced marrying another is adultery. I just said the verse is talking about what makes adultery.
How do we know? We can actually read that. I'm not reading that into it. Reading comprehension is paying attention to the actual words being used. Everybody that will read that verse will read the same thing.
But debate comes in when you try to argue varying interpretations from presupposing the text.
"Nothing was plugged in, this is simply a basic use of language. "
You just indicated you don't go by or adhere to exact words, they're not necessary. So words that aren't there are being plugged in. Let's understand that right now.
Now all these other things are just circular points from you. You want to presuppose the text, fine. For those that will allow the text to be as is, I want to just leave the following for teaching and understanding.
Here are some things to add, just food for thought.
Back at Matthew 19
"3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."
Jesus brings them back to the beginning where it was established of God's plan which discouraged separation.
Yet an exception is to be made as some would believe.
Now a true exception was made at the time of Moses.
"7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. "
From beginning it was not so with any exception. But we see the text say "divorcement ".
But the next verse does not say "divorcement ". Doesn't say for divorcement or justification of divorce but for fornication.
"9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
The bottom line here is where adultery comes in at. Outside or except for fornication, it is an adulterous situation. Says no way or the other about justifying divorce.
Now we'll come back to the "fornication" part.
Let's look at the plan not to separate and the whole promotion of that .
It's promoted here in chapter 19.
Carries over to 1 Corinthians 7.
"10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband"
The established plan, no separation.
Further encouragement in verse 27.
"27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife."
Don't look for a way out which would include separation, let alone divorce.
None of 1 Corinthians 7 condones divorce so it can harmonize with verse 39.
"39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
The wife is bound by law not to marry again until death of the spouse. She is not loosed. If she is divorced, she can marry again.
All this harmonizes with Romans 7
"2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband."
She is bound to the spouse by law, loosed upon death.
"3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man."
Explains the ways of adultery as we find in Matthew 19 and that brings us back to more food for thought when addressing adultery versus fornication.
I just wanted to show you all this emphasis of becoming and staying one flesh and yet , tear all that down for an exception some place, no.
Let's look back at Matthew 19
"9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Excluding or not withstanding fornication, it's adultery.
I could take you through three different interpretations or explanations here.
But I won't overwhelm you with food for thought.
We know, those of that do, fornication is for single unmarried, never been married folk.
"2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."
So it's avoided or escaped through matrimony. Once you're married, you cannot fornicate.
I can't divorce my spouse due to them fornicating because spouses don't fornicate. Marriage was setup in order for them to avoid that.
So my spouse I'm putting a way is one in name sake such as Mary was in Matthew 1.
Now these are just things to think about when looking at consistency in scripture.
They may help to open up yours as well as others understanding of a lot of these texts.
But the crux is still where it's at .
When looking for biblical divorce justification, Matthew 19 does not give that support. That passage can't be used for that.
When speaking of verbatim text, exact words, I shouldn't have to ask where can we read exact words if we can indeed read them.
Matthew 19 don't work. Give me Bible that says somebody can lawfully put away their spouse.
Pro
#8
Overview
- Extend all arguments.
- I will summarize our debate. In round one, I presented two obvious cases where the Bible allows divorce. Mall responds to this by saying I failed to show what I just showed. I respond to Mall's notions with a basic analysis of both context and language, people can refer to things without repeating them in every case.
- An obvious example is using the word "it," or "that." In the same way, the Corinthians passage clearly says that divorce is allowed if your spouse is an unbeliever and they abandon you.
- Con continues to make responses by simply repeating what he said previously, a common theme among one who has no argument to make, but continues to hold dogmatic assertions.
- Sources: In an event of a dispute, if we require further confirmation, we can look to the documentation of ministers, theologians, and biblical scholars who have dedicated years to studying, reading, and interpreting the Bible. I show two credible Biblical interpretation sources that both clearly stated that each respective case is where divorce is permitted in the Bible. Mall also does not respond to this.
Con.1 The case of immorality
So you concede that you're saying what the scriptures aren't. You are adding words because using exact words, no addition would be the case.
- Nothing has been conceded by con, however, I argued that there are many ways of saying the same thing see from the previous round:
- Thou can do X action in Y circumstances
- Thou shall not do X action, unless in Y circumstances
- X is a sin except in the case of Y, etc.
- You can deliver the message that something is permissible or not permissible in many ways.
According to you. If the text is not saying it, all I have is you and your word telling me that of what something is saying whether you want to face that or not.
- False, we have basic logic, understanding of context, a basic understanding of language, a basic understanding of communication, etc. all of which can assist us.
- The Bible says in John 3:16 "for God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." We can understand that Jesus is speaking about eternal life in heaven and not hell because of our understanding of context and Jesus's previous statements. In the same way, we can understand what people are speaking of based on context and an analysis of language use.
- Mall would hold that we literally cannot know whether or not Jesus is speaking about Hell or Heaven which is an obviously incoherent position.
I cannot read, you cannot read anywhere where it says divorce is a sin in that verse.
- It says divorce is adultery, which is a sin (see understanding context above).
I just said the verse is talking about what makes adultery.
- See above.
- In addition, Mall drops the interpretationary reference I provided, conclusively, this verse provides an exception where divorce is allowed in the case of sexual immorality.
- BibleRef: "Now Jesus gives a direct answer to the Pharisees' question. In Deuteronomy 24:1, a man is pictured as giving his wife a certificate of divorce because he finds some "indecency" in her. One group of Pharisees believed "indecency" to mean some kind of sexual sin. Others believed it to mean anything the husband might not like about his wife. The Pharisees want to know which side Jesus takes" Though He is speaking directly to the question of men divorcing their wives, these guidelines would apply to the question of a woman seeking divorce, as well. Jesus puts His answer in very specific terms. Any man who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery. In short, Jesus declares divorce sinful except in the case of sexual immorality."
Con.2 Additional permissibility of divorce
- Mall here drops my entire rebuttal and refers to an entirely new and irrelevant verse that speaks about the death of a spouse. From this, I have already won the debate as Mall fails to respond to such a pivotal contention. I will simply requote the passage for voters:
12. To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13. And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14. For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.15. But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
- Verses 14 and 15 are pivotal and clearly demonstrate that divorce is allowed in certain cases. Ignore Mall's dogmatism and position of irrelevant verses in the final round. There Bible allows divorce in clear-cut situations with defined situation parameters. All the additional verses Mall shows does not refute this, as already cited.
Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Winner
1 point(s)
Reason:
Any debate along the lines of "does the Bible say x" or "does the Bible condone _____" are very tricky. First of all the Bible LOVES to contradict itself, especially between the New and Old Testament. In this case, both sides were able to find scriptures supporting their case, and the burden of proof was poorly defined. Here is my best interpretation.
The title of the debate introduces the question as to whether "the biblical scriptures justify/support/permit marital divorce." This is actually the extent to which the topic was defined, as no definitions or burden of proof were given in the debate description. Generally speaking burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim, which in this case would be Pro, as they are being expected to provide evidence in favor of marital divorce being permitted in the Bible.
Pro's arguments:
1. a verse laying out an exception for divorce under the circumstances of sexual immorality
2. a passage laying out an exception for abandonment by a non-believing spouse.
While neither of these are in the most straightforward phrasing, the first is unambiguous, with the clause "excepting sexual immorality" clearly marking a special case allowing for divorce. The second is more open to interpretation, but Pro was able to provide a source establishing that the grounds for divorce or "separation" is a common interpretation.
Con's Rebuttals
Con's rebuttal to the first appears to be either a misunderstanding of the sentence, or else ignoring the critical clause quoted above. Either way, this point was not refuted. The second rebuttal primarily pointed to the ambiguity surrounding the phrase "let it be so," which is a fair point, but no effort was made to offer an alternative interpretation, so while this point is rather weaker than the first, I still consider it unrefuted.
Conclusion: I consider Pro's arguments more than sufficient to prove that the Bible has at least one case in which it supports/justifies/permits divorce.
Non-argument points
While I am aware that points on winner/loser debates are dependent only on the quality of the arguments themselves, I would like to mention a few other critiques as a matter of giving things to improve on in the future.
Format: Especially to Con, try not to use the same markers to indicate quotations from earlier in the debate and outside quotes. Personally I like to use the markdown quote box for the former, as it can nest if necessary, and quotation marks for outside quotes. The main point though is to have a consistent distinction.
All of you are in support of lying on the scripture. This person stating what the scripture have not said.
Done.
I just realized my vote here and I have thought a pipeline leading me to think actually the other side would have won.
Please remove my vote here.
Didn't want to beef it out in my vote, so here it is instead, but I definitely disagree with the idea of the entire Bible being considered a "singular subject." There are way too many contradictions in it to seriously consider it such, the Bible consists of dozens of books by different authors over a period of centuries if not millennia, and in this specific case the passages relating to divorce were literally laying down law for Jews and later Christians. In this case the Bible was functioning as a living legislative document. To compare it to U.S. law, the 18th amendment is still written in the corpus of the Constitution, even though it was nullified by the 21st. You can't say that oh, the constitution says two different things about whether the sale of alcohol is illegal, therefore the stance of "the entirety" can't be proven.
Much appreciated.
This is a relatively small debate, and I hope you can vote on this if you have time because I have just a week left and I don't think the current vote is reasonable.
Well, no. I don't see how this even relates to our current larger predicament. We are debating the biblical scriptures, which allow divorce in many provisions (as demonstrated). Now I am currently looking towards your vote...I am not sure how it makes logical sense. The scriptures are a collection of canonical books and verses.
The "law" seems inconsequential here. What I am trying to get us to understand is that you said "pro's job is to show that the entirety of the Bible scriptures agree or permit divorce." If the Bible is cannonical the provisions I cite would apply to all aspects of scriptural derivation, and even if your interpretation was true, there is no sound conclusion that yields your vote.
“Law: this law makes so that you are under arrest unless you are mentally ill.”
Conclusion: this law is ineffective because when I “violate” it I can be not punished.
Umm do you see what you are doing here?
I suspect you my have some fundamental disconnect on the structure of the Bible. For one, "the biblical scriptures," are simply the scriptures of the Bible. The biblical scriptures are canonical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon). Even of they were multiple independent entities they would all still permit divorce in the cases I listed because different passages entail new laws of the Bible (old laws can become fulfilled and perfected by new doctrines). I fear you may be exhibiting a precarious level of misunderstanding as expressed within he content of your own voting parameters.
"Bible scriptures" are multiple independent entities and removing the "the" as long as any quote favoring your position is brought up you win.
"The Bible scriptures" is to be seen as a whole, so it requires there to be NO quote against your position in order for your win to take place. That is exactly what the indefinite article does.
If you are not going to change or remove the vote I may as well be wasting time here, but I don't see how your decision makes sense frankly. If I claimed that the constitution allows for the restriction of free speech, it could be the case that there are areas in which it does not, but I simply need to show the areas in which it does. Interpretationally, if the Bible does allow divorce in cases, then it does permit divorce in such distinctions.
Remove the "the" and you would have yourself a victory. IDK about other voters, maybe you will eventually be voted the better effort out of the two but I am someone who pays way too much attention in grammar and definitions. In my opinion, you didn't win, and to be frank you can't win here. That does not prevent you from spending the better of the two efforts.
I don't think you understand the burdens here. Pro would have to show that the Bible permits divorce in many cases, right? All the resolution entails is that "the biblical scriptures justify/support/permit marital divorce. Secondly, I did not simply bring up bible quotes that stipulate my view, although manifested that way, these are provisions in which the bible allows divorce. The Bible doesn't really work in the way of 1 passage here, one passage there.