CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
24
yes no
Debate Score:36
Arguments:29
Total Votes:36
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (11)
 
 no (17)

Debate Creator

truthteller9(93) pic



Do we need Christianity to debate morality?

The Church for me is and should be a place to wrestle with Gods and Christ's words and deeds. A place where one can ponder and consider , discuss and debate the very menaing of life and crucially where one can consider moral issues.

The trouble is when we have politician deciding what is moral or not, it falls down as they are so corrupt.

When we allow the media to moralise they pander to either their sales targets or the far right or the far left. In short everyone has a vested interest.

I suggest world cannot survive without Christianity. It simply needs to utilise it better, open the doors and encourage more people in.

I think mainstream moral debates are a joke. It descends into name calling and the actual goal of finding peace and consensus is always lost as the media wants to avoid finding answers it wants to create division in order to create news, sell papers and hype their 24 hour news channels

Id also suggets without Christianity , moral debates and simple open discussions over right and wrong will be lost forever. All we will be left with is the self interest of political and money making organizations, who ultimately will always simply serve their own interests

yes

Side Score: 12
VS.

no

Side Score: 24
1 point

How else will we legitimately debate Satan's sexy amorality without Christianity of some kind? :D

Side: yes
1 point

I was just about to say I agree then I realised that this was me...

Side: yes
3 points

We can use it, but do we need it? No.

The teachings of the bible are far from moral, take Lot, that wonderful human being.

His idea of a fair trade to save the anuses of three angels was his virgin daughters, the idea of these God-sent beings having to fend for themselves against a band of roaming queens was too much for him, so he offered up his children, cos, like you know, women are useless unless they're receiving gay schlong in every orifice.

Noah's flood, there's another trail blazing moral compass, God wants us to do as he says, not as he does, but hey, the mentally retarded and children don't know that. They met a miserable end after quaffing too much salty brine, or maybe being smashed off of rocks, trees or homosexuals., and what of the animals, it must be really moral to kill them.

But not for good old Moses, he liked the animals, so he left them alive after slaughtering all of the men, women and children in Bashan.

Maybe you think that being a God fearing man is good, because God loves us all right?

Well he loved Job so much that he allowed Satan to fuck with his life in ways that make Hitler look like Papa Smurf.

Maybe it should still be OK to sell your daughter as a sex slave, I mean Lot would do it, that is until she no longer pleases her master and he sells her on to some other up-standing gent, or marries her (what a guy) or insists that she marry his son, because as we've stated earlier women are drooling sausage wallets.

Oh yea, don't shave your manly beard or God will think you're a queer and probably rain asteroids down on you.

Why not look to Solomun, man, that dude was wise, his idea of solving an issue was to pretend to cut a baby in half in order find out which of two women were the rightful mothers, but God has no problem with infanticide now does he, in Hosea he calls for the skewering of pregnant women and chopping their infants up into little pieces.

If you're a man, you'll fare OK when the bible is used to discuss morality, but if you happen to be a gay man you're snookered, or if you're a child, or a woman, or an animal.

If morals were cotton wool, the bible wouldn't have enough to make a tampon for a canary.

Side: no

Since we've debated this before I'm just gonna copy/paste my original answer.

We all get our morality via empathy, and by examining cause and effect.

Empathy

At approximately 18 months old, we slowly begin to grasp the concept of empathy, understanding how other people feel. This is the first step in our development of morality. As we experience different emotions in life, we gain an understanding that everyone else experiences those same emotions. We know that sadness doesn't feel good, and since we are able to understand how other people feel, we put 2 and 2 together to come up with the idea that making other people feel sad is bad.

Cause & Effect

The desire of nearly everyone in this world is to live in peace and prosperity. By examining the effects of different actions such as murder, rape, charity, tolerance, etc, we see if those actions promote or hinder society's progress towards that common goal of peace and prosperity. If an action promotes the peace and prosperity of a society, we label it "good". If it hinders it, we label it "bad".

Where do Christians really get their morals?

Although Christians claim to get their morality from god, in reality this is not the case. According to the Bible, slavery is an acceptable practice and god even says in his own words that it's okay to beat your slave as long as they don't die within a few days (Exodus 21:20). Do most Christians today agree that slavery is an acceptable practice, and that beating them is okay? Absolutely not, they know that slavery does not promote peace and therefore it is wrong.

The Bible also says that if a man rapes a woman and is caught, he has to pay fifty sheckles of silver to her father and then the woman will be his wife (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Do Christians today believe that paying 50 sheckles is acceptable punishment for rape, and that the woman should have to marry her rapist? Of course not, they would never put the poor woman through such trauma because they use the same empathy and logic that atheists use to determine right and wrong. There are many more examples, but I'm sure you get the point. Christians use empathy and logic to pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they believe are moral, and ignore the ones they think are immoral.

Side: no
2 points

Nobody has yet proven that god, jesus, the bible, and anything in it is true beyond a reasonable doubt or even suggested it's true pretty well, therfore it shouldnt be used at all. Morals do not come solely from christianity, in fact, i consider it in my top 5 worst places to get morality from second only to Islam.

We dont need christianity for anything, let alone a debate on right and wrong. As i said right and wrong are not dependent on christianity at all. Morality is subject to context and situation which is always changing. It is up to us as a race to decide what is right and wrong for us, not for a 2000 year old belief system to.

Back to what i said about christianity being a terrible place to base your morals out of: the bible is FULL of terrible, evil, immoral things done by god or commanded by god. Every so called "moral lesson" relates back to god. For example, the story of job didnt end with the moral: treat others how you want to be treated for instance. It said "never lose faith in god and you will be rewarded (if you consider a new family a reward). This isnt moral for anyone. It is pointless. That's how most stories are in the bible. It has a terrible grusome story that ends with some half assed moral that relates back to god or no moral at all.

Now everything else that doesnt relate back to god and does relate to human-human interactions are pointless too because they are so obvious and unnecessary. What are these? Dont kill, dont steal, dont covet your neighbors wife, no adultery. These are things that a five year old could tell you in our society even if he hadnt read a word of the bible. They're common knowledge in our society and we dont need a book to learn them. Then of course there's ridiculous shit like "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off" and the such, which is of course absurd.

Conclusion: No. No. No. We dont need christianity for morality.

Side: no
truthteller9(93) Disputed
2 points

what predictable unoriginal poison. I presume youd rather entrust politicians to decide your moral code?clearly you have no personal identity and get all your opinions from anti Christian media personalities, how sad.

who said all the stories in the Bible were good ones? These are parables and yes there is loads of proof of most f the scriptures, please try and do research befre spouting the unsubstantiated anti Christian bile of the radical atheist celebrities. The entire basis of western culture is built on Jesus Christ and his teachings. Thousands of our laws come through his teachings. What part of what Jesus said and did do you find so hatefuL?

Side: yes
Gokumohan(334) Disputed
1 point

what predictable unoriginal poison. I presume youd rather entrust a dictator (god) to decide yuor moral code? clearly you have no personal identity and get all your opinions from anti-atheist media personalities, how sad.

who said all the stories in the bible were bad ones? These are parables and yes there is loads of anti-proof of most of the scriptures, please try and do research befre spouting the unsubstantiated anti atheist bile of the radical christian celebrities. The entire basis of western culture is built on secularism and its teachings. Thousands of our laws come through its teachings. What part of what secularism said and did do you find so hatefuL?

just as much base as your argument as to say none.

Side: no
AveSatanas(4443) Disputed
1 point

Hahahahaha you're a joke. Typical theist crying over "media" acting like they're the victim. Morality comes from our own fucking heads. From our teachers and mentors mostly parents. Not necessarily the bible. If the bible was never written we'd be exactly the same because the bible states the obvious. It may have been substantial 2000 years ago but today it's already common knowledge to kindergarteners.

I don't get my morals from politicians where the fuck did that come from? My morals are from my parents and my experiences. I didn't read the bible till I was 15 and by then I knew every moral lesson in the whole book and was even critical on it as being less moral then me.

So lemme get this straight. The GOOD parts of the bible are true like Jesus'a life and god creating the world and giving the 10 commandments to Moses, that's literal. But when it's BAD oh it's just a parable it's just a story made up to prove a point. I see. Typical.

Oh really tons of proof? Then by all means fire away. I'd love to hear what you call proof. What I haven't found in months upon years of research.

Yes western culture was built on it. The Greeks were also build on their polytheism of Zeus, ect. And Germanic tribe empires were built on Norse mythology. Point is, just because something's based on a religion doesn't make it true. I'm of course assuming you don't believe in Zeus and the above.

AMERICA is built upon the constitution and the founders ideas of democracy. Many of these founders were deists and even atheists. Some were Christians too but they ALL agreed that A) Christianity had flaws, and B) religion should stay out of government. Sure, some of the earliest puritanical laws were biblically based but that's pre-revolution and thereby null. Also many biblically based laws that remained thereafter are now gone. The last one I remember going out was selling alcohol on Sundays which (at least in my state CT) is now gone. And yes jesus said not to kill or steal, that doesn't mean our homicide and theivery laws come from that, anyone with half a brain knows that's bad. Seriously, I wrote an entire thesis paper on the fact that our country was founded with a secular government don't test me.

Jesus didn't say anything and I don't hate him. I don't hate god or the devil. I don't think they're real. I hate RELIGION. I hate what it does to people. It causes hate, violence, seperations, impedes progress scientifically, and brainwashes people out of their free thought and money. It's been a tool for control and selfish gain for thousands of years. And most of all ITS WRONG. I'm not saying there is no god. Because i can't prove that. But you can't prove there IS one. And I feel that there is a massive weight of evidence for my side than yours so I do the logicall thing and disbelieve it until there's evidence.

Oh actually if there WAS a god I assure you I have countless reasons to spit at the feet he wishes me to how before.

Balls in your court. Meet your burden of proof or shut up.

Side: no
1 point

Why would we need christianity. Theres so many more usefull religons. Even Khorne is a more usefull god than, the god in that religon. It atleast tells you exactly what its morals are. Its also very proud and honerable, unlike christianity.

Side: no
truthteller9(93) Disputed
1 point

How do you conclude Jesus wasnt proud and honourable? or are you simply seeking attention?

Side: yes
Omnesiah(165) Disputed
1 point

I ment the religon as a hole. It sure is proud, but honorable? Idk about that, this is christianity we're talking about

Side: no
1 point

It's just a religion and gives some pretty questionable advice. The best religion to consult on morality would be something like buddhism.

Side: no
truthteller9(93) Disputed
1 point

What part of Christs words do you find questionable? I must have missed it?

Side: yes
Elvira(3446) Clarified
2 points

“But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)

And the part that says any man checking a woman out is instantly an adulterer.

Side: yes
AveSatanas(4443) Disputed
2 points

"If your right hand causes you to sin cut it off and cast it away, and if your left eye causes you to sin gouge it out and cast if from you, for it is better to lose one part of your body for than your whole body to be cast into hell"

Not a literal word for word but close. From Matthew somewhere.

So yeah self mutilation, pretty awsome. He also told people that they were pathetic and unworthy to him if they didn't want to follow him. For instance in one part a girl wants to bury her dead father and Jesus tells her not to and to go with him.

He also said outright that you should abandon your family for him which is immoral.

And he killed a fig tree in anger because it didn't give him fruit.

And those are just off the top of my head.

Are those true or just parables like you said? They're negative so they must just be stories. Oh but he certainly turned water into wine no doubt!!!

Side: no

Nope. Morals are pretty much similiar in all religions. It isn't "you cant steal because god said its wrong". Instead we say "Stealing is wrong because you are depriving that person of their purchased items which can hinder their quality of life and thats very bad." or at least something similiar to that.

Side: no
truthteller9(93) Disputed
1 point

sounds easy but this is not the case in secular europe. where the radical liberal agenda went so far as to make the thief the victim and beneficiary of societies pity, even financial reward and support. the honest and decent hard worker gets far less support finacial or morally. this ends up being the case for 2 main reasons, its impossible for a moral line to be drawn , at what point do we say, enough is enough, regardless of how poor you are or your upbringing, stelaing is wrong and you need to go to prison. the second reason is democracy alone isnt enpough. as millions of criminals that receive pity and benefits will of course vote for the radical liberals. which in turn encourage the radical liberals to continue with this agenda to find more votes and these criminals will grow in number and bad deeds. that is a downward spiral, with no one capable to stating right from wrong. meanwhile the silent law abiding majority suffer.

Side: yes
1 point

Yeah but thats europe and they are well known for that. In America its completely different. We have seen just and unjust things both religious and non-religious. Using religion as a backbone for debating, such as for on this site, would make atheist or non-believers go insane. Some peoplw don't believe that religion is a proper backbone.

Side: no
1 point

Religion is not necessary for the formulation of moral thought. For instance, I was not indoctrinated into religion growing up and have thus been an agnostic or atheist my entire life. I still have a system of morality, and it is one completely independent of religion; I derive it from a functionalist perspective - What is the function of an act? What are its consequences? Who does it effect? How does it alter the fabric of social cohesion and stability? And so forth. This morality is premised upon objective, pragmatic, and functional ethics which derive their value from their actual impacts upon human life rather than from abstract, traditional belief.

I would go so far as to say that not only do we not need Christianity to debate morality, but that it gets in the way of such a discussion. If the morality is already decreed, what room for growth and development is there?

Side: no
truthteller9(93) Disputed
1 point

I find it hugely ironic that those who hate Jesus, claim to somehow have a greatrer level of intellect and greater morality. Yet they express their views in such a hateful bitter nasty way. also in a very narrow minded and frankly unintelligent illogical way. Billions have been inspired by Jesus, billions, tens of thousands of Churches have been built in his name. Billion of people get spiritual strength and moral fortitude from Jesus. You decide to dwell purely on the bad side of Christianity. Such as come corrupt individuals in the Church. Well humans are imperfect in all walks of life. and power does corrupt in all areas of life. However this in no way besmirches the teachings of Jesus. Im not saying you have to follow him or even get inspired by him. But to ignore his enormous influence is simply ignorant. Id also add instead of over dwelling on the minority of bad people in churches, why not look at the billions of pounds raised for the poorest people on earth, the thousands of missionaries like Terry waite, the feeding of the starving across the third world. The Christian church has been a backbone of strength and identity for the western world. I dont doubt some use and corrupt the good words of Jesus for their own ends. Take George Bush. But dont confuse the message with the messenger. Jesus taught to heal the sick, to protect the weak against the tyranny of the rich kings. His lessons of redemption and forgiveness were revolutionary concepts, they still are in many ways. yes I believe we can evolve and grow and improve as a society. But to throw out Christs teachings would be self destructive and frankly idiotic. His teachings, just as the teachings of our beloved teachers and parents always hold an infinite value, regardless of the fickleness of fashions

Side: yes
Jace(5222) Disputed
2 points

1. Your assumptions are galling; did you even read my post? I never claimed greater intellect nor greater morality. I also do not hate Jesus. I never even mentioned Jesus. I think that from historical accounts he likely existed as a person, although I doubt his divinity. I think he (or the idea of him) has also had an influence upon history. At no point in my post did I even imply otherwise.

Similarly, at no point did I say that Christianity was all bad and never did anything good. I know religion has had a positive impact for some. I think it is naive to ignore its detriments however, and in particular I was arguing that being grounded in a dogmatic tradition and doctrine that is constant and largely inflexible prevents or unnecessarily delays the social evolution of morality. Religious morality has long been the strongest and last point of resistance to social progress - race issues, women's rights, LGBTQ equality, etc. That does not deny its positive contributions, but it calls into question whether those positive contributions could not have been achieved under a non-theistic morality which is not afflicted by the same detrimental aspects.

2. At what point in my post did I express anything remotely hateful, bitter, or nasty? Anything I said is accurate in definition and in fact. Most of what I said did not even directly address Christianity, but instead pointed out how morality and debates pertaining to it can occur outside of Christianity. Arguing that Christianity is not necessary for a discussion of morality can hardly be construed as an attack on Christianity. If anyone has stooped to personal attacks in this discussion it is you in your implication that I am narrow-minded, unintelligent, and illogical (attacking a straw man rather than actually addressing my argument and reasoning).

3. You are correct in assessing that Christianity has exerted an incredible influence upon Western society, and certainly there are positive lessons to be taken from the teachings of Jesus. You assume however that this means that Christianity is the only way to reach a moral understanding, and that simply is not true. I do not and never have believed in Christianity and derive my morals from a pragmatic, functionalist approach; yet I value many of the same things which a number of Christians do (e.g. life, neighborliness, giving, etc.).

4. You ask: "What if society sees your judgments as wrong, immoral or illegal?" I hardly see the relevance of your question in relation to the debate prompt seeing as latter is a question purely of possibility (can we debate morality without Christianity?) answered in the affirmative. Still, I will refer you to my earlier point which is that on many of the major aspects of morality my non-theistic morality aligns with prevailing attitudes. In the event that there is disagreement, then I suggest that we as a society have a debate and a discussion. Obviously, I would be at the disadvantage in terms of numbers yet the actuality of majority rule does not invalidate my point or my perspective. If I have the facts and reason on my side and am overridden by theological belief, that does not make the facts or reason less valid it just makes them overridden.

Side: no
truthteller9(93) Disputed
1 point

and what if society sees your judgements as wrong , immoral or illegal?

Side: yes
1 point

Of course not. Christianity isn't the only religion claiming a monopoly on morality. I dare not forget to mention the fact that Christianity also isn't the only moral stance in the world. Atheists seem to do alright without Christianity.

Side: no