CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is deuteronomy the most immoral chapter in the whole bible?
Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
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.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion."
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Well I never read the bible so I wouldn't know. However I have been referred to by a plethora of atheists, to some old testament verses that prove how evil God is. SO yea, the old testament is pretty immoral. Even if that's not the part they follow anymore, it still happened, yet they follow that guy stating he can do no wrong. That's a laugh!
How can you say that Leviticus 20:13 is not immoral? If you agree with gay people being killed simply for being gay hen you're truly a horrific person. Or say that it is not immoral to stone a rape victim?
How can you say that Leviticus 20:13 is not immoral?
Its not immoral.
If you agree with gay people being killed simply for being gay hen you're truly a horrific person.
How do you say that I'm a horrific person? Are you not presupposing a system of objective morality? But what base do you have for saying that I'm immoral, then? You're being inconsistent.
So, no, killing a person who has had homosexual relations is not immoral, insofar as the person has been condemned. I don't see any problem with killing a person who has been condemned to death for having homosexual relations. Its simple justice. Do you hate justice?
Or say that it is not immoral to stone a rape victim?
Oh, we say that it is immoral to stone a rape victim, if she has indeed been the victim of rape.
I find it amusing that on another debate you called me a "mini-Hitler" and yet here you are saying you have no problem with people being killed for their sexual orientation. God you're a monster, I hope you know that. You're clearly a nutter and the worst kind; a religious nutter.
Don't give me any of you BS about "objective morality" the fact is killing someone for their sexuality just is wrong and completely unjustifiable.
I know right. This Eccentric guy is an idiot! Cant believe he would oppose stoning gays! How dare he?!
How do you say that I'm a horrific person? Are you not presupposing a system of objective morality? But what base do you have for saying that I'm immoral, then? You're being inconsistent.
Actually if you agree with stoning gays then yes, he has every right to call you a horrific person.
So, no, killing a person who has had homosexual relations is not immoral, insofar as the person has been condemned. I don't see any problem with killing a person who has been condemned to death for having homosexual relations. Its simple justice. Do you hate justice?
Killing someone for having sexual relations with the same gender is not justice. I seriously hope you are trolling. If your not please go and see someone, you need mental help.
I know right. This Eccentric guy is an idiot! Cant believe he would oppose stoning gays! How dare he?!
Do you disagree with morality?
Actually if you agree with stoning gays then yes, he has every right to call you a horrific person.
Sure, he has every right to call me a horrific person. But, he has no justifiable proof of such. What basis does he have for saying that I am a horrible person?
Killing someone for having sexual relations with the same gender is not justice. I seriously hope you are trolling.
How is destroying evil not justice?
If your not please go and see someone, you need mental help.
Thats what atheists always come back with when they cannot prove their points. They always reduce the argument into "You're an idiot" or "You're insane." What basis do you have for saying this, though?
It seems nothing that you have said here has any backing. I hope you can do better than this, because right now, you'd fail my philosophy course.
Only when that so called "morality" isn't morality.
Sure, he has every right to call me a horrific person. But, he has no justifiable proof of such. What basis does he have for saying that I am a horrible person?
Killing people for having sexual relations with a consensual partner whether it'd be gay or straight is immoral and for you to say its perfectly ok.........its no wonder why he called you that.
How is destroying evil not justice?
Let me answer your question with another question. Why is having sexual relations with the same gender "evil". "The bible says so" is not a valid argument.
Thats what atheists always come back with when they cannot prove their points.
What does this have to do with me being an atheist?
They always reduce the argument into "You're an idiot" or "You're insane." What basis do you have for saying this, though?
If you have the mentality of thinking its ok to stone consensual adults for having sex with the same gender, then yes you deserve to be called an idiot/insane. Even most Christians would agree with me. It has nothing to do with atheism. Its just basic fucking morality. Stop living in the past!
It seems nothing that you have said here has any backing. I hope you can do better than this, because right now, you'd fail my philosophy course.
Yet again you are off topic. This has nothing to do with philosophy.
Only when that so called "morality" isn't morality.
What is morality, then?
Killing people for having sexual relations with a consensual partner whether it'd be gay or straight is immoral and for you to say its perfectly ok.........its no wonder why he called you that.
What basis do you have for saying this?
Let me answer your question with another question. Why is having sexual relations with the same gender "evil". "The bible says so" is not a valid argument.
God says so. Why would the Bible not be a valid argument? What justification do you have for saying that the Bible is not a valid source for morality?
What does this have to do with me being an atheist?
The point was to say that atheists don't have an argument here, so they reduce the argument into ad hominems and name calling.
If you have the mentality of thinking its ok to stone consensual adults for having sex with the same gender, then yes you deserve to be called an idiot/insane. Even most Christians would agree with me. It has nothing to do with atheism. Its just basic fucking morality. Stop living in the past!
Why do you say this? what justification do you have for saying this? What justification do you have for saying that its basic morality?
Yet again you are off topic. This has nothing to do with philosophy.
How am I off topic? Ethics is a huge field within philosophy.
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
How is stoning gays morality?
What basis do you have for saying this?
How would you like it if I stoned you for being straight?
God says so.
and this is why people think you are a troll. Also that's circular logic.
Why would the Bible not be a valid argument?
It would be like me reading a dragon ball z manga and saying "Kamehameha's must exist." Tell me have you ever seen a talking snake, have you ever seen a women become magically impregnated, have you ever seen a talking donkey?
What justification do you have for saying that the Bible is not a valid source for morality?
I never necessarily said the bible isn't a good source for morality it just isn't a book I would recommend. I do agree there are some good morals in the bible and I don't dispute that unlike most atheists and other non-Christians. However that doesn't change the fact there are also a fuck ton of immoral verses in the bible.
The point was to say that atheists don't have an argument here, so they reduce the argument into ad hominems and name calling.
Honestly who could blame them? Anyone who thinks the way you do deserves to be name called and have ad hominem attack thrown at. There's no reasoning with people like you.
Why do you say this? what justification do you have for saying this? What justification do you have for saying that its basic morality?
So you disagree with murder being basic morality? ok got it.
How am I off topic? Ethics is a huge field within philosophy.
Whether I would fail at your pathetic philosophy class is inconsequential. I'm not here to debate you on that. Your pathetic attempt to try and insult my intelligence won't work on me.
Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior... How is stoning gays morality?
Stoning gays is not morality. It is an instantiation of what is morally right, though, if under certain circumstances.
But, even at that, you're misapplying the language of the question to appear intelligent. The context of the question and the intention of the question is asking what morality is, in the sense of what is moral and what is not. You know better than that. Do not equivocate morality between what it is and what it is defined as.
How would you like it if I stoned you for being straight?
Who cares how I would feel? Criminals don't like being killed all the time. Whats immoral is immoral; whats a feeling is a feeling.
and this is why people think you are a troll. Also that's circular logic.
How is that circular logic? How does that show me to be a troll; you apparently haven't gone out much, because many people believe this, including many famous philosophers.
It would be like me reading a dragon ball z manga and saying "Kamehameha's must exist."
Thats a weak analogy fallacy. DBZ is not taken as an actuality; religions are taken as serious. The Bible is considered to be a serious book, one that is not fiction. DBZ is taken to be fiction.
Tell me have you ever seen a talking snake, have you ever seen a women become magically impregnated, have you ever seen a talking donkey?
Have you seen the dark side of the moon? What about Africa? What about Asia? What about cells? What about atoms? What about the Big Bang? What about..... Your argument is just horrible.
I never necessarily said the bible isn't a good source for morality it just isn't a book I would recommend. I do agree there are some good morals in the bible and I don't dispute that unlike most atheists and other non-Christians. However that doesn't change the fact there are also a fuck ton of immoral verses in the bible.
Such as? And what justification do you have for such?
Honestly who could blame them? Anyone who thinks the way you do deserves to be name called and have ad hominem attack thrown at.
And thats a logical fallacy.
There's no reasoning with people like you.
Hahahahahahaha I literally laughed out loud. You're just so arrogant. There are many world renowned philosophers and theologians who are taken to be highly intelligent, although theists.
So you disagree with murder being basic morality? ok got it.
I agree that it is, based on the notion that God has forbidden it. What justification do you have for saying it is?
Whether I would fail at your pathetic philosophy class is inconsequential. I'm not here to debate you on that. Your pathetic attempt to try and insult my intelligence won't work on me.
Thats because you can't see how bad your arguments are.
So, all-things-considered, you have no justification for any of your points; you have presented logical fallacies, and you're simply arrogant. Would you like to continue this intellectual massacre?
So, no, killing a person who has had homosexual relations is not immoral, insofar as the person has been condemned. I don't see any problem with killing a person who has been condemned to death for having homosexual relations. Its simple justice. Do you hate justice?
So is it okay to kill anyone if the law in that country says its okay. Do you seriously believe this or are you trolling?
So is it okay to kill anyone if the law in that country says its okay. Do you seriously believe this or are you trolling?
Not at all. I never stated that, nor implied that.
On the other hand, I most certainly am saying that, because God has condemned homosexual relations, if a nation makes homosexual relations illegal (or any other thing that God has declared immoral), then, if justly condemned for doing such immoral action, then it would be just to kill the person (and not only just, but morally obligatory for the executioner to kill the person, under just condemnation).
Ok. So to you it is okay to kill by means of torture anyone that doesn't something God deems to be immoral? We have to bear in mind that to God all sins are equal. So therefore wearing clothes with a mix of materials is immoral (Deuteronomy 22:11)...?
If torture is just, then it is just. Thats a tautology.
I am questioning whether it is just to make law that tortures people to death for a homosexual act.
That depends on what the definition of torture is and at what angle it is taken. From an absolutist standpoint, God's wrath could be seen as torture, but this is in God's absolute destruction of all sin. In a worldly sense, death would be appropriate, as the Bible has descaled. Torture, on the other hand, I'm not sure, as the Bible has not really elaborated on that. Now, if you take stoning to be torture, then, insofar as we are doing so, then, yes, homosexual actions, like many other actions, deserve torture.
Why only in Israel? Why only during that time? Why isn't it okay for the UK to change their law to stone homosexuals and cloth-mixers to death?
Hebrews 7:12 says that there has been a change in the law, as a new high priest has entered. So, the Old Testament laws are no longer applicable. Moreover, the Old Testament laws are applicable for those who are not under the new high priest, Jesus, and under the Law. Finally, the Old Testament laws were put in place for three reasons: to look forward to Jesus (and, so, once He came, these are no longer applicable), to govern the nation of Israel (and, so, for those not in it, not applicable), and to declare God's moral laws (e.g. don't murder). So, stoning is not a command for Christians, necessarily. Though, if a government were to have it, a Christian can abide by it.
Though, if a government were to have it, a Christian can abide by it.
Right. So a Christian can stone someone to death for wearing clothes with mixed materials if their government has lawfully sentenced someone to do it and that Christian is the executioner?
Yep. And a Christian should do it. Now, of course, the argument against that, which I am very sympathetic to as well, is that, as said before, there are laws that are only for the nation of Israel. So, this means that the laws that are only for the nation of Israel should not be enforced, because they only apply to the nation of Israel
And, actually, I think I'm probably going to take that position.
So, this means that the laws that are only for the nation of Israel should not be enforced, because they only apply to the nation of Israel
And, actually, I think I'm probably going to take that position.
What does 'should' mean in this context? Why do you take the position that it should only be applied to the Israel of the time? Is it because you consider it immoral to torture someone for wearing the wrong clothes...? ;)
Why do you take the position that it should only be applied to the Israel of the time? Is it because you consider it immoral to torture someone for wearing the wrong clothes...? ;)
As said, Jesus is the new high priest. We do not abide by the Law. The only aspects of it that we abide by are the moral laws, which are absolute and undefiled.
No, there are some laws in the Old Testament that do apply, and can be applied today. One of the groupings is sexual immorality, as the New Testament makes clear that is immoral. Dress is said in the New Testament to be fine. So, no, stoning others for homosexual actions, if the government were to regulate it, would be moral, as the law is still under moral law.
So, no, stoning others for homosexual actions, if the government were to regulate it, would be moral, as the law is still under moral law.
I see. My morality is formed by observations of my surroundings. I generally think that people that have learnt to empathise with those around them will be predisposed to act in their interest. This is what morality is to me on a basic level. They learn the ideas like... it is wrong to do to others what you wouldn't have done to yourself etc. I believe realistically this is what it is for you deep down too...
If you saw someone being stoned in the street, screaming in agony for hours for kissing another man and then finally dying in a pool of blood.... I can't believe you'd watch that and then turn to your friend and say "they did right".
it is wrong to do to others what you wouldn't have done to yourself etc. I believe realistically this is what it is for you deep down too...
I agree with that. Thats the Golden Rule in the Bible (Matthew 7). That does not mean, though, that it applied in all situations, as a criminal might not want done to him what justice requires of him.
If you saw someone being stoned in the street, screaming in agony for hours for kissing another man and then finally dying in a pool of blood.... I can't believe you'd watch that and then turn to your friend and say "they did right".
I guess you are young. I hope as you get older you'll have more empathy and respect for your fellow man. Due to the love I have for my man kind I find your views evil and disgusting.
This is another example (you asked me in another debate how what you say seems blurry to me) I say that anyone who honestly believes everything in the bible is good, is just odd, and that oddness seems unrealistic to me. Unrealistic online means trolling.
Begging the question is to assume for the point. You don't even know your fallacies. Come on, bro. And even if you do equate circular reasoning and begging the question, how would that be such? You have no justification for saying that it is. Yet again, you have no justification. You can't just claim and assert; you have to defend, rationally and intellectually.
So, I ask you: how is it circular (or begging the question) to say that something is wrong because God said it is wrong?
There is absolutely no immorality being taught to us that can be found in the bible. The rules we follow are all moral and those moral laws come from our law giver, which is God.
Just to clarify- so you're saying that it is not immoral to kill gay people, force women to marry the men who raped them, or to take and keep slaves, so long as those are done under the circumstances deemed ok by the bible- which would appear to be all cases, according to this?
Are you so sure? According to the Bible, he's done it before on numerous occasions- both in all seriousness with the offender put to death, and in tests of faith a la Abraham and Isaac. If he has changed his ways once, he could change his ways again.
You know, this is always claimed, and I'm dubious about the specifics. The context of the new law is very vague, and seems to just be an excuse to pick and choose which portions of the old testament they can dismiss out of hand and which they adhere to, based on the agenda of their own particular church and overall denomination.
This is probably the first case of this being mentioned where it wasn't in regards to something like that, and for a change actually seems like an acceptable response. Still... I suppose you can kind of understand acts of terrorism, at least where the terrorist truly believes his god wants him to do this- even if it's the wrong god, and still a misinterpretation. Am I wrong?
I never really dismissed the old law, but it isn't for us. It was given to a certain group of people. It was the law of the land and they followed it. Then came law for the common man. I wouldn't mind abiding by the old testament. If people want to pick and choose then let them, just remember that we cannot judge them for anything they do.
I suppose you can kind of understand acts of terrorism, at least where the terrorist truly believes his god wants him to do this- even if it's the wrong god, and still a misinterpretation. Am I wrong?
For the second, I'm... impressed actually. Usually a theist will draw the line at acknowledging that. Have you considered a career in counter-terrorism? You could probably help lend some perspective to get inside their heads a bit; non-theists often have difficulty wrapping their heads around such a mindset and motivation, and most theists as I've said want to keep a very firm, bright line there. You could be quite valuable.
Well, it's understandable. I mean I see it in the news quite often and I think it's understandable in their eyes. If Allah or whatever they call their god give them a directive I would respect it since I would do the same if God tells me anything since I would have to do it. I have actually thought about it once, but I feel like females aren't well respected in that career choice.
Unfortunately there aren't many career fields where women are well respected, at least as compared to how men are respected. Even if the wage gaps have been closed in most industries, there are still long-standing prejudices working against you.
If it were my call to make, I'd go where I could accomplish the much potentially, even if I had to work against a lot of prejudice to do so. Doesn't mean that this is the best choice for you, but if you want to make a difference you're going to have to fight against prejudices in almost any field, mores the pity.
Well, for a start you didn't explain how these are immoral so....there's that. I mean do you even believe in God or have a religion? How can you call the books immoral if you have no moral law giver? All I did was answer questions. I see nothing wrong with the bible. All I said was that I would do what God says since what he says is good. Are you going to give me a good basis for your moral judgment?
Why wouldn't you? If you are asking me for my basis and I give it to you isn't it only polite to do the same in return? How do you know for a fact that murder, pillaging, rape, torture, and all that stuff is wrong/bad? Don't tell me you can't give a girl some easy answers.
This is not rape this is consensual sex. The praise "he seizes her" would seem to mean rape in todays language but in the language of that period it is implied that she yielded to him.
I believe what he is getting at is that this English translation uses the term rape; he is possibly asserting that a different word was translated as 'rape' from the Hebrew Torah.
I'm not familiar with this one, but it's similar to the distinction between the Hebrew 'ratsakh' and modern terms like 'kill' and 'murder' in the ten commandments. No idea if he's onto anything here or grasping at straws though.
2. Enter the verse in the search box and select what version of the Bible you want from the drop-down list. I recommend NASB.
3. Click the search button.
4. Next to the verse click the Tools button
5. Click on the number next to the relevant word.
6. It will display detailed information about how the word is used throughout the bible. If you scroll down it will show you every verse in the Bible that uses that word.
A few other tidbits of information: The numbers next to the words are known as Strong's numbers. They come from a book called Strong's Concordance. If the number starts with an H that means it's a Hebrew word. If it starts with a G it's Greek. Anytime you get into a debate over interpretations of Bible verses, BlueLetterBible.org is an invaluable tool.
Im looking at my bible right now it says seizes. Its the n kjv version, also I looked it up in the king James version it says seizes. So the word got translated wrong, the english version. If you want to underatand the bible better perhaps you should try and understand some hebrew first.
Pretty sure neither is the case. How are we mentally insane? We have a basis for our morality. What is your basis? If you don't have a moral law giver how would you even know what is right and what's wrong? How would you even know if everybody has subjective morals? At least we have an objective basis. Nothing is immoral to us that's in the bible, well at least that's how it is for me. You just can't judge people like that based off of your subjective interpretation of me. Unless you have a religion, if that's the case then ignore this.