Login/Sign Up




Does The bible Prove Christianity
Books

theudas
Oct 11, 2010
14 votes
9 debaters
5
1


+ Add Argument

5
Yes It does. Its Gods word.


mixendixon
Oct 12, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theudas Show

Technically, the Bible itself doesn't prove Christianity. However, I can't give you a rebuttal on the same side of the argument.
Oh, good, you want step-by-step logical proof of Christianity. I won't bother arguing about the goodness of God. If you can prove the Bible is true in all respects, then you will find that there is a Biblical explanation for all God does. Here you go, in twelve points that are based on simple reasoning.
1. TRUTH ABOUT REALITY IS KNOWABLE - I didn't want to type in all-caps, but since I can't go bold I decided to use that as heading emphasis. So, here is my point. There is absolute truth. You may deny in your head, but do you live that belief? Do you walk towards a tree and say, "I can't know that tree is there, so I may as well attempt to walk through it?" Of course not. Although that example can be considered a flawed in scale or context, it was the first one that came to mind. Anyway, truth is basically anything that declares what is and denies what is not. If you cannot agree to that, then you are too deceived to continue. So, if truth declares what is and denies what is not, that implies that some things are and some things are not. This is the concept of reality. Some things are and some things aren't. In our daily life, we see that, and no contradiction has ever been found. Thus, truth about reality is knowable.
2. THE OPPOSITE OF TRUE IS FALSE - For literally anything you know, you can break down the information further and further until you reach a limit. This limit is based upon some fundamental ideas called the Foundations of Knowledge. One of these happens to be called the Law of Non-contradictions. This law states that (quoting from http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/phenom/old/lawnon.html), "it is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context." Thus, something cannot be simultaneously real and unreal. A block cannot be somewhere and not be in that same place. I cannot be a man and not a man (Aristotle used that example). Thus, if truth is reality, and reality cannot contradict itself, then false is not reality. Therefore, the opposite of true is false.
3. IT IS TRUE THAT THE THEISTIC GOD EXISTS - Ah, the big point. Wait, I thought I had twelve, but this is only the third point. Well, once you see the rest, this point will be further reinforced. Okay, so, since the opposite of true is false, then the existence of God is either true or false. He is either real of fake. Here are some basic arguments:
*Cosmological Argument - If something is, rather than is not, then it must have a cause. See, nothing can be without a cause. This is a basic law of causality. Thus, everything has a cause. However, since the cause was, rather than was not, it must have had a cause as well. Every cause must therefore have a preceding cause, going back into eternity. However, the second law of thermodynamics prevents an eternal past. Thus, time must have a beginning. Since the laws of nature (physics, biology, chemistry, etc) all MUST occur within time, they cannot have caused time. If they could not have caused time, then they cannot have created the universe. Therefore, the universe itself must have a cause. This cause, because of the lack of time, would have to be outside of time and itself causeless. The only possible candidate for such a being is God.
*Argument of Design - Evolutionists love to say that everything is random, and that design is an illusion. However, as we learn by the time we are five years old, "if it looks like a chicken, walks like a chicken, and clucks like a chicken, it's sure as heck a chicken." The same applies to design. Einstein based General Relativity on the idea that is acceleration and gravity manifest themselves the same, they are the same. If the world appears designed, then it is designed. If you'd rather have some harder evidence than logic, I would have to explain to you that the formation of a simple cell by randomness is no more likely than the formation of a working HDTV by randomness. Just research it on a Creationist site. The fact is that evolution is impossible according to biology, probability, chemistry, and all other "stry"s and "ology"s.
*Ontological Argument - By definition, the greatest thing one can imagine is God. However, also by definition, the greatest thing you can imagine must be real, or else you could imagine something greater that is real, and thus it wouldn't be the greatest. But what is real is always greater than what you imagine. Thus, God must be real and must be greater than we can imagine.
*Moral Argument - No matter what you believe about God, you must agree on one thing. Everyone (excluding some psychopaths) begins to feel a tug of right and wrong when they are very young. There are two possible ideas that most people accept:
1) Evolution View: Evolution programmed basic morals by natural selection. This is absurd. For evolution to produce a human is impossible enough, but for it to eventually dish out all the morals necessary for society to function would be insane. As well, some morals seem to contradict self-preservation, which is an evolutionary priority.
2) Creation View: Since the evolution view is false, that means this view must be true. God, who created us all, made us with a conscience. Most of the laws of morality are universally agreed upon. Those which are disputed are usually affected by culture and choices.
4. IF GOD EXISTS THEN MIRACLES ARE POSSIBLE. A miracle is an unexpected event attributed to divine intervention. If God exists, then He can obviously perform miracles. Why? Here are two simple reasons:
*If God exists, He is omnipotent, and thus capable of overriding the natural order ot things which He created. After all, the Creator is greater than the Creation.
*Ever heard of quantum tunneling? It is a phenomenon based on the fact that subatomic particles can spontaneous change positions because of probability. A proton might be one place in one moment, but light-years away the next, even if it wasn't moving. Because God is the Creator, He can control the random outcomes of probability. Thus, by causing significantly improbable quantum tunneling, He could manipulate literally anything without violating His own laws of nature.
5. MIRACLES CAN BE USED TO CONFIRM A MESSAGE FROM GOD. If miracles are possible, then we must next see if accounts of miracles are actually true. So, let's examine contradictions to miraculous account.
*Some say that the witnesses are incredible. They say the people are ignorant, confused, or don't understand science. True, some witnesses may be ignorant, but how often do ignorant people, such as they claim the twelve disciples were, radically change the world? Maybe they were just so "ignorant" that they weren't closed off to the possibility of miracles.
*Others say that miracles are just a basic part of human imagination, pointing to the similarity in miraculous account in all cultures and peoples. However, this could equally indicate that all miracles come from the same source, namely, God.
*Finally, in the New Testament (which will soon be proved true), each miracle had a specific message and purpose, either fixing the broken or otherwise glorifying God, often defeating death.
6. THE NEW TESTAMENT IS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE. There are various evidences for the New Testament as an accurate historical record. For one, there is much manuscript evidence. Some claim that the NT has changed much from the original texts. However, there are hundreds of texts from the same time period that agree on the content of the NT. As well, when looking at the original manuscripts, there is a difference of less than 2% in modern copies. The estimated accuracy of the common translations today is over 95%, and the remaining 5% consists of insignificant phrases and typos. Still others argue that the New Testament accounts were mythologized between their occurance and writing. However, a look in history shows that myths generally took at least a century or many more to develop. The New Testament was completely finished within the closing of the first century A.D., leaving no time for mythological development. In addition to that, the Gospels and Acts show characteristics very different from mythology of that time, such as highly specific names, times, places, numbers, and other information; random tidbits of seemingly insignificant events; important roles for several women; and references that ask one to check with the persons mentioned to validate their stories. Finally, several secular historians from that period either allude to or directly recall events in accordance with the New Testament.
7. THE NEW TESTAMENT SAYS THAT JESUS CLAIMED TO BE GOD. Some people deny this, but if you read the NT, you will find it true. For example:
*John 8:58 - "Jesus said unto them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I AM.'" I AM was the name God gave Moses in the encounter at the burning bush. This is a reference with which His entire crowd, since Jews were required to study the Torah, would have been very familiar with. By saying what He said, Jesus was asserting Himself as God.
*Mark 2:5 - "When Jesus say their faith, He said unto the sick of palsy, 'Your sins are forgiven.'" It was common knowledge to the Jews that only God could forgive sins. It was, in fact, a very fundamental teaching. Anyone listening would have immediatly recognized that Jesus was claiming God's authority (in one instance, the Pharisees blasted Him for claiming He was God over this very type of situation).
*John 10:11 - "I am the Good Shepherd: the Good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep." The book of Psalms was well-known in the Jewish community. Psalms contained many references to God as a good sheperd.
*John 9:35-38 "35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when He had found him, He said unto him, 'Dost thou believe on the Son of God?' 36 He answered and said, 'Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?' 37 And Jesus said unto him, 'Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He that talketh with thee.' 38 And he said, 'Lord, I believe.' And he worshipped Him." Every Jew knew that the Messiah, the Son of God, would be equal with God, and would be God. They believe in the union of the Father and Son. Thus, in this passage, Jesus very blatantly stated His deity. He also accepted worship, and every Jew was familiar with the commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
From this, then, it is obvious that Jesus claimed to be God.
8. JESUS'S CLAIM TO BE GOD WAS MIRACULOUSLY CONFIRMED. If the New Testament is historically reliable, and if miracles are possible, then it stands to reason that the miracles in the New Testament happened. So, then, what were these miracles and what did they mean?
*Fulfillment of prophecy: Jesus' life was unique in that He perfectly fulfilled every prophecy about the Messiah in the Old Testament. This is truly a miracle. Here are some examples:
*Micah 5:2 - "But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." This verse says that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, where Jesus was born over hundreds of years later.
*Isaiah 11:1 - "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots." According to Isaiah, the Messiah is to be of the line of Jesse, father of David. According to Matthew 1:1, that was indeed the case.
*Hosae 11:1 - "When Israel was a child, then I loved Him, and called My Son out of Egypt." This verse prophecies the events after Jesus' birth. Herod seeked to kill Jesus, but an angel warned Joseph to flee to Egypt with Mary and Jesus. Afterwards, Joseph brought them back from Egypt (Matthew 2:15).
*Psalms 78:2 - "I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old." In Matthew and Luke, you can see Jesus speaking in many parables (Matthew 13:35).
*Zechariah 13:7 - "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones." After Jesus' arrest, the disciples scattered (Matthew 26:25).
*Most of Jesus' miracles were miracles of healing. He made the blind to see, the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, and the leper clean. Death and disease fled His presence; nobody was ever dead while Jesus was near. Lazarus was risen to life by Jesus' simple word. He restored life and health. He fixed what was broken. He forgave sins. These are all signs with a message. The message is one of life and peace. Jesus came to save the world.
*The greatest miracle of Jesus' ministry was His ressurection. Interestingly enough, there is more evidence for it than any of the other miracles He was said to have done. Besides being documented in the Gospels, it was mentioned in various secular records, and the Gospels actually spoke of over five hundred witnesses, simply so that if people of the day didn't buy the written account, they could go ask those people. It was prophecied in the Old Testament along with the other prophecies Jesus fulfilled, Jesus Himself prophecied it, and the disciples testified to it. Many accuse the disciples of making up their story, but nobody ever allows themselves to die cruel and horrible deaths for a prank. Yet all of the disciples except John are historically recorded as being executed in some inhumane way. The early Christians suffered the worst persecution the world has ever known. Had the ressurection been fake, they would have given up.
9. THEREFORE JESUS WAS GOD. This part is simple. If Jesus claimed to be God, and He performed many miracles to confirm His claim, fulfilling tons of prophecies, then He must be God.
10. IF JESUS IS GOD, THEN WHATEVER HE SAYS MUST BE TRUE. Why is this? A few reasons.
*It is against the character of God to lie. If God is holy and perfect, then He cannot speak anything false. If He is not holy and perfect, then He is not God. Thus, if Jesus was God, He was holy and perfect, and thus could not lie.
*As well, because God is omnipotent, sovereign, and ruler over all, He could not tell a lie even if His character allowed, because reality would change to His word. The universe was formed by His word, and thus any subsequent words would alter reality to make them true.
11. JESUS TAUGHT THAT THE BIBLE WAS THE WORD OF GOD. Jesus taught many things about the Bible. He taught that it was divinely authoritated (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10, 5:17), imperishable (Matthew 5:18), inerrant (John 17:17), historically reliable (Matthew 12:40-41, 19:4-12), and ultimately supreme (Matthew 15:1-6).
12. THEREFORE, THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD, AND ANYTHING THAT OPPOSES IT IS FALSE. If Jesus is God, and God can't lie, but only speaks the truth, and Jesus said that the Bible is the Word of God, and God can't err (being perfect), then that obviously and logically means that the Bible is the Word of God and it is completely true and inerrant. Since the opposite of true is false, and the Bible is true, then anything that opposes the Bible must be completely false.

 
mixendixon
Oct 14, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theudas Show

*Cosmological Argument - Ah, but you ignore the simple fact that, because God exists outside of space and time, He is not bound by the laws of the universe. He is supreme, and thus is not limited to causality. In fact, causality is His creation. The creation is never over the Creator.
*Design Argument - True, the cliffs are formed by natural processes (though I believe God has a hand in it for our enjoyment), but no one would bother trying to claim that the vague appearance of order in sea-carved cliffs even begins to compare to the full order of the universe. After all, even a simple cell, such as some of the most primitive bacteria, have ridiculously complex and efficient flagella that far surpass even our most high-tech motor systems. The eyeball is so complex that even Charles Darwin considered its formation by chance absurd, and since his time we have found even more complexity in those small areas. The earth's position in relation to the sun is completely perfect, not to mention the hundreds, if not thousands of other perfectly tuned attributes of the earth, solar system, and entire universe. The possibility of a single cell forming by random processes is so unlikely as to be considered impossible, especially considering how many times a simple disturbance can obliterate any progress so far. This design can only be attributed to a designer. God, not chance, is omnipotent. To believe that the current state of life is the result of randomness is to call chance your god.
*Moral Argument - Who says kids have to be taught right from wrong? Kids understand wrong as soon as they start saying "I didn't do it!" And the fact is, if morality was the product of society, then it would be an outward pressure. However, almost anyone would say that morals feel to be an inward pressure. Morality would be an intellectual issue, and not an internal one. No one would do right in situations where they could get away with wrong if it were a mere intellectual issue. People feel bad when they do wrong. Gut-wrenching guilt cannot be a property of artificial morals.

*NEW TESTAMENT IS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE - True, there is historical fiction, but think for a second. The New Testament is written as an account of events. It is written to be true. If you remember that it was written as an eyewitness account, and it is historically accurate, then reason follows that the authors either told the truth, lied, or were crazy. They didn't seem to be crazy, and they wouldn't refer someone to other sources for their lies, especially if it was common knowledge that they lied. After all, the New Testament was originally written for people of the first century. If the authors were lying, everyone would have known. If they were crazy, everyone would have known. The New Testament could not have survived if it was not fully true.

 
mixendixon
Oct 15, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theudas Show

* Cosmological Argument - I don't need evidence; the definition of God is evidence. If He were bound by space and time, bound by creation, and not supreme, then He wouldn't be God. Thus, if God exists, He must not be bound by space, time, creation, or physical laws. By definition, God is beyond that. Something that claims to be a god, but does not have those qualities, cannot be a god.
*Design - Oh, I know that Darwin said the evidence supports it. However, I only applied the sane part of his statement. See, the evidence didn't then, and it does even less so now. The ridiculously complex systems of the eye seemed absurd to come about by chance before the discovery of microbiology and numerous other changes to our understanding, and now it is just flat-out fantastic. As with the flagella of microbes, the eye is beyond any technology with could ever hope to achieve, yet is called the product of chance.
*Morality - The kids fear punishment because they know that wrong brings punishment. If they were not aware of their wrong, they would not fear punishment.
Killing is actually an unusual thing, because the word used for "kill" in the Ten Commandments refers to taking one's life with malicious intent. Thus, self-defense, capital punishment, and war would not fall under that, and are not wrong. Some people disagree, but that is how it is. It's not a matter of rationalization in this case, but a matter of translation.
Artificial - "made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural)." Thus, creation of morals by society does necessitate considering them artificial. Alas, that is but semantics. The fact is, an intellectual knowledge of damage to society is not enough to create powerful guilt, or even guilt at all.
*NEW TESTAMENT IS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE - I never said that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster aren't real, though I do believe aliens aren't. The fact is, though, there is no reason remaining to disbelieve the accounts of the New Testament. If the witnesses were sane, were not lying, intended to use their accounts as a factual retelling of events, and are in basic historical agreement with the majority of accounts, then there is no reason not to believe them, other than the fact that you want to or that you just assume certain parts can't be true. There is more historical evidence of the New Testament accounts that the accounts of people such as Plato and other prominent ancient figures. Why believe them and not the NT? Don't ask me.

 
mixendixon
Oct 15, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theudas Show

*Cosmological Argument - The cosmological argument does not prove the Christian God, but a god. Using this alone, you must come to the conclusion that some god exists, be it the Christian God or not.
*Design - Seriously? There is not one piece of conclusive evidence for macroevolution. In fact, there is only tons to the contrary. Here are some facts, maths, and logics:
*Fact: Biology does not allow the natural addition of new genetic code, thus all variety in current life forms must be the result of mutations.
*Fact: Most of all mutations are harmful.
*Logic: If genetic code cannot be added by natural means, then the original life form must have had enough genetic code to mutate to the variety we see today.
*Fact: The probability of the spontaneous formation of the proteins for a simple amoeba in ideal conditions is approx. one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power.
*Logic: The probability of a single cell forming from those proteins with enough genetic information to supply, even if mutated greatly, an entire planet's worth of species must be ridiculously small.
*Fact: Many organisms rely on highly specific forms of symbiosis for their existence.
*Logic: Thus, if they evolved, then any given creature would have to evolve to the correct state at the same point as its symbiotic partner, and they would both have to develop symbiotic instincts at that time. This would have to happen hundreds, if not thousands, of times to account for all of the earth's symbiosis.
*Math: Such "coincidences" greatly decrease the probability of evolution.
I would continue, but my brother wants the computer.

 
mixendixon
Oct 16, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theudas Show

First, I seriously meant I was getting off for my brother. Believe it or not, it's true. Argument - There must come a point where something is greater than the natural. After all, outside of existence, space, time, and natural laws, then something must be their source. Alas, though, I realize I cannot go any further with this argument.
*Design - Wait, you actually said there are transitional fossils? I throw my head back and laugh. Although some are claimed as transitional fossils, they all have full-traits, and there is not particular reason to classify them as transitional besides the fact that they look like something in between A and B. Instead, let's listen some, shall we?
"It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today." - Dr. Michael Denton, evolutionist
"Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so." - Edmund Ronald Leach, noted anthropologist
"[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time." - David M. Raup, previous curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago
"Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils." - Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." - Stephen Jay Gould, former prominent paleontologist and Harvard professor
"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that." - Alan Fediccia, Professor Emeritus at the University of North Carolina
"I fully agree with your commentary on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument...[far later in the letter] It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." - Dr. Colin Patterson to a reader.
"One morning I woke up … and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff [evolution] for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it...That was quite a shock that one could be misled for so long … I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?' I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: 'Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.'." - Again, Dr. Colin Patterson
"And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists." - Richard Dawkins, ridiculously devout evolutionist and atheist
“Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” - Michael J. Denton, Molecular Biologist.
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of changeover millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." - Niles Eldredge, paleontologist
"Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species." - Tom Kemp
"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.'" - Stephen Gould
"And it has been the paleontologist my own breed who have been most responsible for letting ideas dominate reality: .... We paleontologist have said that the history of life supports that interpretation [gradual adaptive change], all the while knowing that it does not." - Niles Eldredge
"Stepping way back and looking at too broad a scale, one might discern some sort of progress in life’s history. ...But the pattern dissolves upon close inspection. Most structural complexity entered in a grand burst at the Cambrian explosion, and the history of Phanerozoic life since then has largely been a tale of endless variation upon a set Bauplane. We may discern a few ‘vectors’ of directional change - thickening and ornamentation of shells...--but these are scarcely the stuff of progress in its usual sense. ...I believe our inability to find any clear vector of fitfully accumulating progress...represents our greatest dilemma for a study of pattern in life’s history." - Stephen Gould

 
shadovvelite
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
While I consider myself a Christian, what truly matters is the relationship I have with God. The Bibles purpose is to lead us through the story of Jesus Christ. The time before he was on earth, while he was on earth, and the time after.

And to theudas, just because there are parts that "aren't very pleasant" does not disprove it's credibility. If you love science for instance, you think they got to the conclusion they did by just dealing with bubbles and butterflies? If you really read the Bible and get the context of everything surrounding those not so pleasant parts, it makes sense, and there is a reason for it.

 
shadovvelite
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theudas Show

The Bible took place in a patriarchal society. Don't get caught up and blame it for putting women down. Really, women rights are a fairly new theme if you look back into history. It didn't even start till around 1848. The 19th amendment wasn't even passed till 1920.

The proof is in front of you. It's up to you to decide whether or not you want to accept it. I can sit here and debate you all day, pour my heart out, and give you every bit of information I know. But honestly, would that change your opinion in any way? The change has to come from within, it's not something anyone can force you to do. God gave you free will to decide for yourself.

 
truth4eva
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The bible is God perfect word. You can’t argue with it.


 
shadovvelite
Oct 12, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theudas Show

You have to realize it was a patriarchal society back then, and still was for a long time after Biblical times. But why do you only pull out the times when women were punished? There are plenty of examples of when men were punished as well. i.e. Moses, Aaron, Aaron's sons', and many other people. All for good reasons at the time as well.
While some of the punishments are tough to swallow, that was normal back then. Cultural norms constantly change.

 
ncfcadebater
Oct 17, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
While technically we cannot "prove" anything (not even science can do that) we can logically assume things to be true. Here's why the Bible "proves" Christianity true:

1. The Old Testament Prophesies that were written hundreds of years before Jesus Christ, predicted (completely and accurately) the Gospel. This includes Jesus' Death and coming back to life.

2. Because the Bible was written by such a wide variety of men, yet not once does it contradict itself*. That means that either a) something or someone supernatural was involved (God) or b) it was mere coincidence (even if that is true, which is not, then it has just as much support as evolution which greatly relies on coincidence).

*Many people will give references to "supposed" contradictions which are always either translation problems (they will use translations that are not accurate) or completely out of context. The Bible does. not. contradict itself.


 
+ Add Argument

9
No it doesn’t


theudas
Oct 11, 2010
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shadovvelite Show

I’m not saying that the reason why I don’t believe the bible is because there are unpleasant parts... Like all the countless deaths committed in the name of God. Or the rules that oppressed women, etc.

But the bible is not proof of Christianity. If you say it is than every other religious book is proof of its own religion. And then we have proof everywhere that is conflicting.

 
dylantownesdrake
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The question should be does the Bible prove Christianity is the one true religion, because the answer to the question posted is yes, while the answer to the assumed question is of course not.

 
theudas
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
No more than the Lord of the Rings Series proves Elves and Hobbits. I’ll admit theres some nice parts to it, But theres some parts that aren’t very pleasant.

 
theudas
Oct 11, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shadovvelite Show

O please. If the bible was your loving Gods word why the hell did he make it ok to discriminate against women eh? Will silly laws that allowed them to be killed on suspicion of sexual promiscuity or forcing rape victims to marry their aggressors? I don’t really care if women's rights are a fairly new theme, your God could have changed that or at the very least prevented unnecessary deaths.

The proof is in front of me? Where. Say it in simple terms. So far I haven't seen you display any in your rebuttal list your proof as 1) ____ 2)____ 3) ____ Etc.

I need proof to accept a religion, I don’t see any. If God gave me free will he also gave me a brain, why would he purposefully hide himself from me.

 
starxx101
Oct 12, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: truth4eva Show

I agree with you. I totally do. I'm a devote Catholic. However, I think the Bible doesn't prove Christianity. The word PROVE is an empirical term. For me, the Bible is the word of God and it is just the compilation of everything a Christian believes in but it doesn't necessarily prove Christianity itself.

 
theudas
Oct 13, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shadovvelite Show

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

....


So The man committing rape is punished with a fine and forced to take his victim as a wife.. The girl is punished by being forced to marry her rapist... If you take the bible literally as Gods word this is a law he made. How is this just? how is this loving?

 
theudas
Oct 13, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: mixendixon Show


***IT IS TRUE THAT THE THEISTIC GOD EXISTS - *Cosmological Argument - If something is, rather than is not, then it must have a cause. See, nothing can be without a cause. This is a basic law of causality. Thus, **everything has a cause.** Every cause must therefore have a preceding cause, going back into eternity.

Claiming the “law of causality” Meaning that everything needs a cause means that your God too needs a cause. Can you give us an example of his cause? If you claim he always was then you break the rule and it no longer applies. If you deside that the question is unanswerable then do yourself a favor, save a step and say that the origins of the universe is unanswerable

***If the world appears designed, then it is designed.

Cliff faces by the ocean seem carved by an unseen hand, sometimes you may distinguish faces amongst the features. This “unseen had is the process of erosion. It is not a designer, just a natural process.

***Moral Argument - No matter what you believe about God, you must agree on one thing. Everyone (excluding some psychopaths) begins to feel a tug of right and wrong when they are very young. There are two possible ideas that most people accept: 1) Evolution View: Evolution programmed basic morals by natural selection.

Or there’s the view that societies that thrived are the ones that functioned well together. Co-operation and such. Morals grew from the need to co-operate. (if your in a hunter gatherer tribe and all the men are needed for the hunt, and a couple men have been steeling your stuff there will be issues) Kids have to be taught what is right and wrong. If morals were programmed by a God this would not be necessary. Since morals were created and change with society this education is necessary.

***THE NEW TESTAMENT IS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE. There are various evidences for the New Testament as an accurate historical record.

Sure, I know penalty of non-fiction & fiction books that are historically accurate. It does not prove the claims in the book.



 
theudas
Oct 14, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: mixendixon Show

***Cosmological Argument - Ah, but you ignore the simple fact that, because God exists outside of space and time, He is not bound by the laws of the universe. He is supreme, and thus is not limited to causality.

If you call it a fact you need evidence. Your claiming God is, without evidence and making elaborate rules and excuses as to why he could be.


***Design Argument - The eyeball is so complex that even Charles Darwin considered its formation by chance absurd

You know what, if your going to claim something about Darwin at least do your research. Darwin did say that to claim the eye evolved seems absurd and finished the sentence with “But the evidence supports it” Don’t go and take half of what he said and try to change its meaning.

***To believe that the current state of life is the result of randomness is to call chance your god.

No That bull sh*t.


***Moral Argument - Who says kids have to be taught right from wrong? Kids understand wrong as soon as they start saying "I didn't do it!"

You mistake fear of punishment as a sense or morality.

***And the fact is, if morality was the product of society, then it would be an outward pressure. However, almost anyone would say that morals feel to be an inward pressure. Morality would be an intellectual issue, and not an internal one.

In some ways it is intellectual. Most people would agree that robbing someone of their life is wrong.. but when you think about it “intellectually” If there is a person who is killing others and will not stop some justify killing that person. Or killing during war.

***No one would do right in situations where they could get away with wrong if it were a mere intellectual issue. People feel bad when they do wrong. Gut-wrenching guilt cannot be a property of artificial morals.

Just because society came up with them does not mean they are artificial.

***NEW TESTAMENT IS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE - True, there is historical fiction, but think for a second. The New Testament is written as an account of events. It is written to be true. If you remember that it was written as an eyewitness account, and it is historically accurate, then reason follows that the authors either told the truth, lied, or were crazy. They didn't seem to be crazy.
There’s eye whiteness accounts of people with bigfoot, aliens, the lock nest monster, etc. Some are very sane individuals who are convinced they are right.. Hell the Koran was written with eye whiteness accounts and it still survives. It doesn’t help your position


 
theudas
Oct 15, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: mixendixon Show

****Cosmological Argument - I don't need evidence; the definition of God is evidence.

Well you Do need evidence. Because I could claim that my God Allah is outside time and space, created the universe, is not bound by its laws, etc. I could substitute Allah for any number of deities or inanimate objects (like a magical purple tea cup XD).. You get the picture. I can attach the same definition to anything and it does not prove it.


****Design - Oh, I know that Darwin said the evidence supports it. However, I only applied the sane part of his statement. See, the evidence didn't then, and it does even less so now.

Really? I suggest you go back and get an education. You’ll find that the evidence did support his claims and it has only gained more support. (We’re talking about evidence and facts here.)

****Morality - The kids fear punishment because they know that wrong brings punishment. If they were not aware of their wrong, they would not fear punishment.

Kids are punished to be taught a lesion as to why something is wrong. They fear punishment because they can tell when someone is angry and punishment generally means its going to be unpleasant. Kids have to be taught the difference. Some of the things our culture thinks is wrong is not wrong in others. Society determines morality.

****Killing is actually an unusual thing, because the word used for "kill" in the Ten Commandments refers to taking one's life with malicious intent. Thus, self-defense, capital punishment, and war would not fall under that, and are not wrong. Some people disagree, but that is how it is. It's not a matter of rationalization in this case, but a matter of translation.

So its ok for God to kill babies and pregnant mothers because he was doing it in a holy way? If a man killed you and told the jury that he did not mean it in a malicious way and he had good honorable reasons for it you think its going to fly? I’d like to see the proof that this is indeed what the word means. And frankly why the Christian community hasn’t fixed it in the bible, and why there are such loopholes that allow people to get away with murder.


****Artificial - "made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural)." Thus, creation of morals by society does necessitate considering them artificial. Alas, that is but semantics. The fact is, an intellectual knowledge of damage to society is not enough to create powerful guilt, or even guilt at all.
Keep in mind that humans are a natural animal, if these morals originated as codes of conduct for societies and were reinforced with punishment and reward guilt would come about and this would be natural.

****NEW TESTAMENT IS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE - I never said that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster aren't real, though I do believe aliens aren't.
Then you have a double standard. You believe in all these unfounded things like the bible, nessy and bigfoot because of the eye witnesses but for some reason the eye witnesses that conflict with your beliefs (like those of other religions or Aliens) are not believed. Why is this.
****The fact is, though, there is no reason remaining to disbelieve the accounts of the New Testament. If the witnesses were sane, were not lying, intended to use their accounts as a factual retelling of events, and are in basic historical agreement with the majority of accounts, then there is no reason not to believe them, other than the fact that you want to or that you just assume certain parts can't be true.
And if you use this argument there’s no reason not to embrace Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. Because they have the same credibility in witnesses are your just assuming certain parts can’t be true because they conflict with your beliefs.
****There is more historical evidence of the New Testament accounts that the accounts of people such as Plato and other prominent ancient figures. Why believe them and not the NT? Don't ask me.

First off – really? More evidence? Where did you find this information? I hope you can back it up. Second – Plato was a philosopher and contemplated a great diversity of important and relevant issues. He didn’t make unfounded supernatural claims (that I am aware of) and it was his thinking that helped bring about modern philosophy


 
theudas
Oct 15, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: mixendixon Show

****Cosmological Argument - The cosmological argument does not prove the Christian God, but a god.

For all you know it could have been a magical teapot. It does not prove a God, it mearly displays the fact that we do not know and some of us assume supernatural because we can not think of a simple alternative. The Cosmological is the assumption that there was something supernatural to hide the fact that we don’t know. Yes there could be a God, this is not a good argument for him.

****Design - Seriously? There is not one piece of conclusive evidence for macroevolution.

You mean aside from the existence of transitional fossils and the real world examples we’ve had in medicine , or genetically engineering food. The transitional forms and fossils exist and the medicine and food are real world applications that have come about with an understanding of evolution. Please get an education.

****I would continue [about evolution], but my brother wants the computer.

O please don’t. I can do without the insult to my intelligence. If your going to be ignorant of a natural phenomenon thats your choice. Debating you on evolution would be like trying to talk to someone who insists that stork deliver children and sex is a non-factor.

 
againstthecurrents
Oct 16, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Sure, the bible proves God if..... you develop faith from it. If you view the bible as a textbook, no. You can believe in God intellectually, but not spiritually, just as you can read about how a blueberry tastes and believe it, but not really know until you taste it. Some people find God without the bible, one thing is for sure, you cannot intellectually debate someone into believing in God because logic is of the human realm, God is superior. Bible or no bible --faith-- is the key to spirituality, and part of faith is letting go of logic for the spirit.

 
akthespian
Jan 16, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: truth4eva Show

Personally i see anything that can be interpreted in multiple ways is not perfect. anything that skips over large portions or odd details is not perfect and any book with out an actuall sources page is not perfect.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

9/11 america BBC bible black book books britain british bush Christian Christianity comics corruption debate Democracy Election fantasy frankie global warming god government gun Harry Potter history internet Is it good that people can download music for free? Islam kindle lies literature LOTR love Marvel media money Obama politics power racism recession religion republicans school sex Terrorism terrorist twilight uk us VanCam violence war world WUC