Instigator / Pro
28
1614
rating
17
debates
85.29%
won
Topic
#778
The Bible is evil
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
6
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4
After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
Pinkfreud08
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
22
1495
rating
47
debates
48.94%
won
Description
Definitions and Rules,
Evil: Harmful to society
Rules:
- Keep it civil
- This debate is going to assume that Gods version of morality is subjective and not objective morality
Pretty simple debate topic, if I left any rules or definitions you feel I should have clarified I urge you to tell me so that I may clarify.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Greetings before we start I will clarify a couple of things,
1. I am NOT 100 % against religion, I have many friends and family who are religious who are good people at heart.
2. I am NOT against the 100 % eradication of the bible. In light of my first debate on this subject with KillShot, The Bible has places in modern society. Not necessarily as a moral compass, But for the studying of our history, And for various form of academics.
Before you prove to me why the Bible isn't repulsive and has a place in modern society, I will first explain why I and many others believe the Bible is repulsive. For my argument, I will be using direct quotes of the Bible followed by my analysis of this. On that note, let's get started.
"You shall acknowledge no God but me. . . . You are destroyed, Israel. . . . The people of Samaria must bear their guilt Because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, Their pregnant women ripped open. " (Hosea 13:4, 9, 16 New International Version)
- In this quote, God is destroying an entire town including women and children, Simply because they rebelled against him. Surely a loving and forgiving God would forgive the people of Samaria for rebelling against him? Furthermore massurcurring an entire town just because they don't believe in God is not the way to go about it, Instead of destroying them God could simply try again to save them. If they rebel again, Than God should just leave them alone and not kill them.
" And in those days the tribe of the Danites was seeking a place of their own where they might settle Because they had not yet come into an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. . . . Then they said to [the priest], 'Please inquire of God to learn whether our journey will be successful. ' The priest answered them, 'Go in peace. Your journey has the Lord's approval. '. . . Then they took what Micah had made, And his priest, And went on to Laish, Against a people at peace and secure. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. . . . The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. " (Judges 18:1"28 NIV)
- In this quote, God is once again destroying an entire people so that one of his tribes could live there even though the Tribe living they're originally was peaceful and didn't want to harm anyone.
"See, The day of the Lord is coming " a cruel day, With wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated. " (Isaiah 13:9"16 NIV)
- In this quote God is saying that because this group of people was arrogant their infants should be put to death, Their houses should be looted, And their women raped. Once again God is wiping out an entire group of people simply because their arrogant which is once again REPULSIVE.
These 3 quotes are just the tip of the iceberg, Other quotes in the bible state that women shouldn't have any authority or that disobedient teenager should be stoned to death. While the Bible does have some good lessons to teach such as thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, Or love thy neighbor, The Bible overall is repulsive
Another very common argument is that I am only citing from the old testament when that testament isn't Gods teachings. Even if we buy this argument, it's still irrelevant since the new testament is also repulsive as well.
"Women Should Shut Up in Church: 1st Corinthians 14:34 NASB"
- This is a pure example of the blatant sexism exhibited in the Bible, And sexism is REPULSIVE.
" Return Runaway Slaves to Their Owners: Philemon 1:12 The Message"
- Slavery is a violation of human rights And helping the slave owners catch runaway slaves is almost as bad as owning them. Since the new testament preaches slavery, This makes the new testament REPULSIVE.
" The Wealthy Will Be Condemned by God: James 5:1-5 NASB"
- I currently am growing up in the California bay area which is arguably one of the richest areas's in the world, And I've learned through the first-hand experience that the majority of rich people are kind, Giving, And forgiving, While there are horrible rich people out there, The mere fact that the bible clumps all rich people into one negative category is almost as bad as racism or sexism. Which in and of itself, Is REPULSIVE.
The bottom line is even if we buy this argument that the old testament is invalid, There are still many immoral messages in the new testament which make the new testament as well as the old testament, REPULSIVE.
However I am very open to someone changing my mind so that being said I hope whomever you are, We can both learn a little something from this debate.
Sources: https: //ffrf. Org/faq/state-ch urch/item/26141-the -10-worst-old- testament-verses
https://w ww. Ranker. Com/ list/top-2 0-bible-pa ssages-to-u se-ag ainst-fundamen talists/ivana-w ynn
Con
#2
While I agree with you that all the examples you brought up are repulsive, there is no objective "repulsiveness" in the universe. Being repulsed by something is your own reaction to it, not a description of the thing itself. Nothing is inherently repulsive because the repulsive is that which repels you, and what repels you is decided by how you react to it, not the thing itself which others may respond differently to. Repulsive is not the same as evil, and evil does not even exist. Nothing can be "evil" in and of itself, it can only be considered to be evil depending on your values and standards. There is no inherent property of any given thing which can be measured in terms of "evilness" or "repulsiveness", because these things depend entirely on your own responses and ethical standards.
Furthermore, a book cannot be "evil" even if we pretend the word evil actually means something in objective reality. The book itself is just ink and paper, it has no intentions and can do no harm. It is the ones writing it who can be called evil, or the ones who receive an evil message from it and follow that message, but a mere bundle of paper with symbols in it cannot be "evil". You have already accepted this by saying we should not eradicate the bible itself. If the bible itself is evil, then why is it so benign as long as there aren't people carrying out what it says to do?
Round 2
Pro
#3
Furthermore, a book cannot be "evil" even if we pretend the word evil actually means something in objective reality. The book itself is just ink and paper, it has no intentions and can do no harm.
- We've just agreed on definitions to define " evil " being harmful to society. So this semantic's argument really isn't making sense when we just agreed on the definition of evil.
- A book can cause harm, books carry ideas. And when you mix violent people with terrible idea's, you get disaster.
You have already accepted this by saying we should not eradicate the bible itself. If the bible itself is evil, then why is it so benign as long as there aren't people carrying out what it says to do?
I already brought this up in 2, since my opponent apparently glossed over it I will not be explaining this again.
To conclude my opponent has agreed that the Bible is evil and is instead attempting to change this debate to a semantic argument when his semantic argument doesn't make much sense in the first place.
Con
#4
Okay, well let's say my initial objections are all bullshit (which they are not). The bible is still not inherently harmful to society, because there are both good and bad messages that can be taken from it and it really comes down to the people reading it and what messages they choose to follow. The fact of the matter is the majority of christians do not condone murdering infants or stoning gays etc. The messages they choose to follow are relatively positive and christianity actually has a positive influence on many people, as they see it as encouraging them to do good and they usually cherry pick the good messages to follow and practice in daily life. Yes the bible is full of many vile things, but it is full of an equal number of sound moral teachings and although it has caused people to do harmful things, in the context of modern society where most christians try to be good people and biblical teachings help them achieve that, and there are no authoritarian regimes based on christianity and very little terrorism or human rights violations etc. based on the teachings of christianity, it is clear that the bible is not actively bringing harm to society and when it does, it is due to the fringe extremism which is more attributable to the stupidity and bigotry of individuals than the bible itself.
Round 3
Pro
#5
"The Bible is still not inherently harmful to society, because there are both good and bad messages that can be taken from it and it really comes down to the people reading it and what messages they choose to follow. The fact of the matter is the majority of Christians do not condone murdering infants or stoning gays etc. "
- Publishing a book that condones slavery, stoning people, and sexism is EVIL and the fact that people follow the Bible despite the fact that it's inconsistent and evil is REPULSIVE.
- This is as if I used a book as a moral compass which condones love and acceptance, but then features the message of homophobia and sexism. While I am sure the majority of Christians do not follow these messages, they still follow an evil and logically inconsistent book.
" there are no authoritarian regimes based on Christianity and very little terrorism or human rights violations etc. based on the teachings of Christianity,"
- Christianity condones wiping out people who cause harm and are evil correct? Since these are teachings in the Bible these are the Bible's morals, going off of this let's examine a VERY infamous group of people that fit this description,
NAZIS:
- Well, Hitler used Christianity as a weapon and a moral compass as he believed the Jews should be wiped out since they in his mind are evil and cause harm. Not to mention the fact that Hitler also used the argument that since Jews killed Jesus, they deserve to be exterminated. So yes there are regimes and terrorism that have used Christianity to spite violence. In case you reject this example and pass it off as a coincidence let's examine another one...
SLAVERY:
As seen in the quote I previously used which demonstrates that the Bible condones slavery, this is obviously teaching in the Bible. Going off of this, Slave owners and Whites used the Bible as a moral compass and a tool to argue for slavery and racism. They would pull up the same quotes of the Bible similar to the one I brought up and would use this as a justification for owning slaves and discrimination against minorities as they believed Blacks to be subhuman.
Let's say you reject both of these examples, ok here's another.
JEHOVAH's WITNESSES:
Jehovah's Witnesses believe the wholeheartedly in the Bible and use it as a moral compass, and they use it to argue against homosexuality. They often cite " homophobic " quotes from the Bible and even believe that homosexuals were created by the devil. Not only this but one of their leaders even believes that tight pants are created by the homosexual so that they may look at men's genitalia and that's why they are creating those pants.
" it is due to the fringe extremism which is more attributable to the stupidity and bigotry of individuals than the bible itself."
- Regardless of whether or not these acts are committed by extremists, the Bible STILL condones and often encourages these acts. Again the Bible condones Slavery, wiping out groups of evil people, and sexism.
- The fact that the Bible condones these act's, is EVIL.
- Whether or not the Bible is actually committing these act's is irrelevant since by this same logic Hitler and Stalin weren't evil since they for the most part never directly did act's of violence and instead encouraged or manipulated people to do these acts.
Con
#6
If evil means harmful to society, then the bible is clearly just as good as it is evil if not more. The bible may condone slavery, stoning people etc. in some instances but more often than not your average Joe christian is a non-slave owner who goes to church to sing songs and give sandwiches to homeless people. Sure, christianity is kind of stupid but most christians are not bad people. There is nothing inherently evil about the bible as evidenced by the fact that it all comes down to how the individual takes it's message. Just as easily as one could follow it's bad messages people can focus on the good and choose to practice that, or take it as a work of fiction and not follow it at all, and since the latter two are what most people do the bible is clearly not causing harm to society unless it falls into the hands of people who are insane psychopaths to begin with.
Hitler and the high ranking Nazis were not christians, they followed some bizarre occult belief system. These web-pages were written by actual neo-nazis who follow the beliefs of the nazis and consider it a form of Satanism.
Since the vast majority of christians do not condone slavery these days, slavery is not evidence that the bible is inherently evil. If it was, then people who believe in it would condone slavery regardless of whether or not it was still widely practiced or accepted by general society. Many christians would argue that christianity is ultimately anti-slavery because God gave us free will according to christianity and there are bible quotes which can be interpreted as promoting liberty/equality and having no master/lord but the lord in heaven etc.
Here is a list of 100 quotes from the bible about freedom and liberty.
As for Jehovah's witnesses, they may have bigoted beliefs but that is due to their interpretation of the bible, not the bible itself. Like I have stated numerous times there are numerous people who read the bible and do not start hating gays or condoning slavery, but instead are inspired to do good deeds or to simply chuckle at it's primitive sillyness.As modern society shows consistently, the latter two are the default without the influence of an authoritarian church or the larger cultural context of a backwards society which encourages you to condone and focus on the evil messages of the bible, and/or believe in retarded superstitious ideas. Furthermore, Jehovah's witnesses may have these beliefs, but they do not actively bring harm to anyone based on their beliefs in most cases. I don't think many of them would want you stoned for being gay, and they don't have the authority to do it even if they did want to.
Towards the end you make the remark that
Whether or not the Bible is actually committing these act's is irrelevant since by this same logic Hitler and Stalin weren't evil since they for the most part never directly did act's of violence and instead encouraged or manipulated people to do these acts.
This is not the same at all, Hitler and Stalin are humans with moral agency who purposely manipulated people into doing evil things, the bible is just a bundle of paper and ink that can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
I would also like to add that the bible's inconsistency is one of the greatest proofs that it is not evil. It was written by multiple authors and has a huge variety of messages contained within it, making it subject to all kinds of different interpretations and thus there is an opposite message for almost every "evil" message contained within it.
Round 4
Pro
#7
If evil means harmful to society, then the bible is clearly just as good as it is evil if not more.
If the Bible is logically inconsistent than it's still harmful to society.
- logically inconsistent ideologies are harmful to society since they breed a hypocritical generation of people who can't be trusted.
Imagine if teenagers were running around being racist and yet complain about racism all of the time?
Or perhaps have pacifists spreading peace and love and yet at the same time riot and cause violence?
Unless you are going to defend logically inconsistent ideologies, than I have won this point as very obviously the Bible is inconsistent which of course means it's harmful to society.
more often than not your average Joe christian is a non-slave owner who goes to church to sing songs and give sandwiches to homeless people. Sure, christianity is kind of stupid but most christians are not bad people.
If you follow a logically inconsistent ideology, than you are a bad person who is ignorant.
This is as if I was a communist and yet at the same time believed in private property.
Or if I was a Nazi but wanted to protect Jews.
It's the same scenario, Christians are spreading love and happiness and yet also carry around and use a book as a moral compass that condones slavery, sexism, and genocide.
Since the vast majority of christians do not condone slavery these days,
Who is talking about christians nowadays? I don't care about Christians nowadays, I care about Christians back than.
Even if we buy this argument that people at the time were simply ignorant, what about Christians who use the Bible to argue for homophobia, racism, and genocide?
Here is a list of 100 quotes from the bible about freedom and liberty.
I don't care if there's a million quotes from the Bible encouraging freedom and liberty, the fact that there are quotes from the Bible that condone slavery and restriction of freedom directly contradicts the freedom message.
that is due to their interpretation of the bible, not the bible itself.
Jehovah's witnesses quote verses from the Bible to argue for homophobia and sexism. So no it's not just their interpretation when the Bible directly condones these acts.
Again even if you want to argue that this is just an extremist view and that the majority of Christians do not follow this,
The fact that they follow a logically inconsistent book is still harmful to society since they are essentially hypocrites.
Furthermore, Jehovah's witnesses may have these beliefs, but they do not actively bring harm to anyone based on their beliefs in most cases.
Are you so sure about that? They defiantly encourage and condone violence against gay people.
One of their leaders made up crazy conspiracy theories about tight pants,
Their leaders publish anti-gay propaganda videos,
And they were actively pushing against gay marriage ( Christians included )
This is not the same at all, Hitler and Stalin are humans with moral agency who purposely manipulated people into doing evil things, the bible is just a bundle of paper and ink that can be interpreted in a variety of ways.
Ok and Stalin and Hitler were just two random guys who's messages can be interpreted in different ways? What's the difference?
I would also like to add that the bible's inconsistency is one of the greatest proofs that it is not evil.
Inconsistent ideologies are inheritly evil and harmful to society since again it mean's everyone who follows said ideologies is a hypocrite
And personally i'd respect an honest and psychopathic person than a hypocrite.
How can Christians Claim to follow the Bible's teachings about love and acceptance when the same book also condones horrible acts such as slavery, sexism, and genocide?
And many Christians actually do use these teachings as weapons?
Christians used the Bible to justify slavery and homophobic behavior?
One of the main arguments used against gay marriage used by Christians was the Bible.
SOURCES,
Con
#8
If the Bible is logically inconsistent than it's still harmful to society.
Christian ideology is not necessarily inconsistent because it is an evolving ideology with numerous interpretations and versions at play. The bible itself may be contradictory but christians who believe in it have derived consistent beliefs as well as inconsistent ones as a result of how they interpret it's message. Also the bible could exist on it's own without doing any damage to society as you already admitted. What is the difference between an evil bible and a benign bible? How people interpret and use it's message.
It's the same scenario, Christians are spreading love and happiness and yet also carry around and use a book as a moral compass that condones slavery, sexism, and genocide.
They don't condone those things though, they consistently preach love and happiness. Many christians would argue that the new testament is what they follow primarily and the old testament applies largely to an older time and must be taken in context.
Who is talking about christians nowadays? I don't care about Christians nowadays, I care about Christians back than.
In that case I don't care about christians back then, I only care about christians nowadays LOL.
You just lost all your arguments, the vast majority of christians do not condone anything you accuse them of therefor I win.
The bible existed then and it still exists now, if people in modern times are capable of using and perceiving the bible differently now than they did then that shows that the bible is not inherently evil. The difference between a mere historical curiosity , a divine message of love and peace, and a barbaric endorsement of genocide and bigotry is the mother fucking human being receiving the message, not the bundle of paper and ink sitting on your shelf which has no inherent effect on anything. Read the bible and see if you start killing infants as a result of merely reading it if you don't believe me.
Ok and Stalin and Hitler were just two random guys who's messages can be interpreted in different ways? What's the difference?
Stalin and Hitler are human beings who intended to do evil things, the bible is just an object which can be interpreted from various perspectives and cannot be inherently evil, because the evil that comes from it depends upon the people reading it. Hitler's evil ideas may be present in mein kampf for example, but the book cannot be evil because any harm that comes of it depends upon how a human reacts to it. A person could just as easily read it out of curiosity and walk away with the opinion that Hitler was a disgusting piece of shit who's ideas are invalid as someone could read it and blow up a synagogue as a result. If the person reading it is not sick in the head or brainwashed to interpret it a certain way, there is no harm being inherently caused by it merely existing.
personally i'd respect an honest and psychopathic person than a hypocrite.
Which person would you rather have as a neighbor?
Person one: "Hi, I just wanted to honestly let you know that I'm going to kill you and rape your mom."
Person two: "Hi, I believe the bible is the word of God but I try to be a good person and would never kill you or rape your mom"
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Pro lists a substantial number of repulsive aspects of to the Bible.
Cons response is mostly semantic lawyering: that the book itself can’t be evil, and that there’s no objective definition of repulsiveness. As con shows no actual harm in accepting the decisions and intuitive understanding of the debate - I cant accept this argument.
Cons argument then morphs into an argument that says that while the Bible is vile, people don’t use that vileness. Again this feels like a bit of a semantic argument that veers of the intent of the topic.
Pro provides significant example of where the Bible has been used to advocate evil.
Con goes on to repeat his claims - he defends the JW example as saying it’s down to their interpretation of the Bible. Uh - that appears to concede the point. Con also concedes that the bible advocates slavery, and implicitly concedes it has been used by Christians in the past - just not now. Con objects to the Nazi example as being driven by people not the Bible.
Out of all of this, who I vote for comes down to definitions. If I accept the definitions as stated and the resolution as intuitively understood - this goes to pro. Pro clearly stated the evil aspects of the bible, as a book.
Cons objection were primarily semantic, and were mostly attempting to haggle over definitions of how the bible could be interpreted as evil - rather than any specific defense of how it was not.
As a result - arguments to pro.
All other points tied
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Too much left unresolved. Too many Bibles, not enough evil measurement tools.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Con avoided and ignored many of pro's rebuttals including,
" Christian ideology is not necessarily inconsistent because it is an evolving ideology with numerous interpretations and versions at play. "
- Pro already answered this question before with the fact that Hitler's and Stalin's ideology can be interpreted as well.
" You just lost all your arguments, the vast majority of Christians do not condone anything you accuse them of therefor I win."
- Pro already proved to why this isn't the case, since if Christians follow an inconsistent book. this makes them ignorant as well as the Bible harmful to society.
Con actually NEVER rebutted any of Pro's points at all and instead kept on spoiting the same none sense pro alredy refuted
" not the bundle of paper and ink sitting on your shelf which has no inherent effect on anything."
- Once again pro already refuted this claim by citing that technically stalin and hitler had no inherent affect on anything either since they never committed the acts themselves
to summarize con initially tried to attempt semantics which pro rebutted and con overlooked and ignored several of pros reuttels and because of this convinving arguments goes to pro, all other points tied although i am tempted to award sources to pro
"1st Corinthians 14:34"
Been there done that.
lol