The Bible is evil
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 4 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
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.
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?
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.
If evil means harmful to society, then the bible is clearly just as good as it is evil if not more.
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.
Since the vast majority of christians do not condone slavery these days,
Here is a list of 100 quotes from the bible about freedom and liberty.
that is due to their interpretation of the bible, not the bible itself.
Furthermore, Jehovah's witnesses may have these beliefs, but they do not actively bring harm to anyone based on their beliefs in most cases.
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.
If the Bible is logically inconsistent than it's still harmful to society.
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.
Who is talking about christians nowadays? I don't care about Christians nowadays, I care about Christians back than.
Ok and Stalin and Hitler were just two random guys who's messages can be interpreted in different ways? What's the difference?
personally i'd respect an honest and psychopathic person than a hypocrite.
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
Kiss my goddamn ass.
Too much left unresolved. Too many Bibles, not enough evil measurement tools.
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