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 the Bible useful as a FOUNDATION for morality?
This debate is not meant to focus on whether the Bible is at odds with currently acceptable standards of morality, but whether the Bible is a poor ***foundation*** for morality.
I was merely trying to establish whether any sort of bible could be useful as a foundation for morality. You clearly have a problem with some particular collection, so I thought the shift of perspective might help.
Right - you were specifically being dense for fun. The Bible means THE Bible - you can skirt the actual debate if you would like - I just would to have liked to see the actual debate transpire. Apparently too much to ask.
It may have seemed to you like I was trying to skirt the actual debate, but I think that whether or not ANY type of bible can be used as a foundation for morality, speaks quite directly to whether the one you have in mind can...for better or worse.
I have some thoughts to share about objective vs subjective morality and how the biblical tradition can allow for increased objectivity. But I will withhold them since you don't seem to value my input anyway.
It may have seemed to you like I was trying to skirt the actual debate
Answering this debate with believe the parts you want or change which bible you use or ripping out pages is puerile (or worse) - whether intented or not.
If you want to debate a different bible - just create a different debate - why is that not the correct response?
I have some thoughts to share about objective vs subjective morality
I unbanned you because the debate is basically already incoherent and filled with detritus, if you have something targeted at THIS debate then fine.
how the biblical tradition can allow for increased objectivity.
still very unlikely to be relevant to this debate.
you don't seem to value my input anyway
Stop whining - I'll appreciate your response when it directed at the actual debate.
Yes, the Bible is a useful foundation for morality. Most of people's morals they actually follow our from the Bible. For example, treating others the way they want to be treated, or loving their neighbor as themselves.
Most of people's morals they actually follow our from the Bible.
No - many of our subjective morals already existed when they wrote the bible and we currently chose to ignore the parts of the bible which don't comport with our morals - therefore the bible isn't/wasn't the foundation for those beliefs.
treating others the way they want to be treated
Codes of reciprocity existed outside the bible (e.g. Code of Hammurabi circa 1780 BC) - in fact several animals employ it. It is a product of evolution not Jesus.
I think theoretically it can be a good foundation. I mean if you can, with great intelligence, see into the life of Jesus. Historically this has also been the case, because of the existence of great saints like Francis of Assisi. Can anyone in the opposition side of this debate match him? And he's just one example.
The logic you present depends on a presumption that morality must only have a single source. So I am inclined to attack that first. Even if you miss the relevance and start banning me and calling names.
I have to admit I am a bit surprised - I must have always mixed up your account with thousand or someone - I thought you were at least a decent debater (though I can't think of anything we have specifically debated). Hopefully you are better at other topics because you are just completely out of your league in this one.
I have literally banned maybe twice in over 4 years (and clicked report on a few obvious spam accounts) - within a couple minutes you had gone through and posted trivial garbage on every one of my arguments - am I suppose to somehow praise your useless participation?
I don't give a rats if you make me your enemy (if people make me an enemy I just click ignore; if people request to be allies I say ok - I really don't know if that whole part of the web site is just more trouble than useful - note I have never made anyone on here an enemy and never will)
I really don't care about people on here getting their panties in a bunch - it is a debate site - spend a lot more time making your argument and a lot less time being emotional.
If you had some awesome relevant point to make regarding this debate - why not just lead with posting that?
Way to ignore my argument and still be insulting. I am fine with how I have conducted myself here. I'm not going to engage in trading insults.
Maybe it will come to you in a flash of insight later. You seemed to get agitated when I didn't help you complain about the scriptures other people find morally salient.
History is the only sure answer to this question. For the last 60 years we have been moving in the Liberal direction, away from traditional moral values lifted up in the Bible. If you have an honest bone in your body you would admit our culture & society has been moving in an immoral irresponsible direction. This is proven by the huge growth of our welfare roles, our broken families where fathers walk way from their children, mothers throwing their babies into dumpsters, the sexual revolution where Aids and teen pregnancy ravaged our nation.
Without a moral foundation, a nation will wither & die as we are seeing with our huge debts. There were no moral laws and no one was ever forced to live moral lives but we all understood the value of lifting up basic moral responsibility in our lifestyles. It was intertwined in our society. It used to be considered shameful to be a pregnant teenager or walk away from your children, but today it is accepted as normal. We used to be ashamed to ask for charity from tax payers but today it is demanded as your right!
As with Russia and other atheist nations, separating God leads to a broken nation.
What answers do the Left have to address all our cultural problems. There answers are bigger and more intrusive Government to bail out all the harmful results of an amoral nation. There answers are gun control, sex ed., free abortions paid for by tax payers, free birth control, more & more social programs to pay for irresponsibility on the backs of tax payers. Bail out after bail out no matter that we are 18 TRILLION in debt. Never will you hear the Left speak of the moral breakdown in our culture. To them, Government is always the answer & any mention of God MUST BE SEPARATED! Liberals want to be your God forcing you to live by their Politically correct moral values. They consider themselves all powerful, all knowing and truly believe that they should control your notions of morals, not God.
away from traditional moral values lifted up in the Bible
The bible isn't even that moral. Its full of immoral verses.
It used to be considered shameful to be a pregnant teenager
Its none of your damn business. Whether you think its shameful or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter its their life not yours. Also what about the teenagers who were raped and got pregnant as a result? Would you consider them shameful?
As with Russia and other atheist nations, separating God leads to a broken nation.
Hate to break it to you but the majority of Russians are Christian. Also are you saying your against secularism? In that case you must be against what the founding fathers of the United States stood for.
There answers are gun control
see this why both conservatives and liberals are both hypocritical. they are both against what the constitution is for. Conservatives want to get rid of secularism and the separation of church and state. Liberals want to get rid or restrict gun's. Both of you are against parts of what the constitution stands for.
They consider themselves all powerful, all knowing and truly believe that they should control your notions of morals, not God.
You do realize not everyone believes in the Christian god of the bible right?
In essence, the Bible operates on a "because I said so" sort of logic. As opposed to say, Buddhism, where allegories are specifically designed not to teach us some alternative history but rather WHY the things that are good or wrong are so.
There is no definition of what constitutes morality really, just a list of those things a potentially non-existent entity is pleased or not pleased by. Suppose we face moral quandaries not mentioned in the Bible?
Also, one could certainly argue its obviously contradictory nature, brought about by the fact that dozens of ancient people with a dozen ancient moral codes authored it over the course of centuries.
I'd prefer to debate the issue rather than each one in detail, so hopefully we can just concede that there are some and discuss from there, but examples are available if necessary.
You don't have to keep anything you don't find valuable in your bible. If you think the god stories are silly, replace them with some better literature.
Not exactly sure what you are driving at. I don't use the bible for my morality; this is asking whether those that do have any more moral foundation than those that don't.
I don't see anything wrong with using collected scriptures in effort to establish logical morality narratives. I think keeping records is a sign that you are taking the task seriously.
Why could biblical scriptures NOT be useful as a foundation for morality?
Im not arguing objective vs subjective morality. You concede that it's useful as a foundation for (subjective) morality. If you wanted someone to defend the bible as a foundatiom for objective morality, you should put that in your debate description.
Right - you haven't been and yes that is the topic of the debate.
YOUR DEBATE TITLE: Is the Bible useful as a FOUNDATION for morality?
YOUR DEBATE DESCRIPTION: This debate is not meant to focus on whether the Bible is at odds with currently acceptable standards of morality, but whether the Bible is a poor ~foundation~ for morality.
The title looks like you are wondering if any morals CAN be bible based, but in the description it sounds like you just wanted to talk about how the bible (That you are thinking of) has crappy contents, that wouldn't make for a good moral foundation.
Then you rip on me for not picking up that you wanted to focus on the subjectivity/objectivity of morals. I am calling bullshit on you..You just want to rant abount your least favorite bible
Don't feel bad lots of others here don't know the difference either...
You can't resist trying to be insulting with your comments can you?
I look at morality as being more or less subjective. It is neither entirely subjective or objective. I am capable of nuanced thought on the matter.
Actually, the debate description says specifically that it is not about crappy content in the Bible.
I also explicitly told you yesterday that it was about the "foundation for objective morality (as lolzors uses the term)", before most of your continually meaningless posts.
It is neither entirely subjective or objective.
There is no evidence that it is in any way objective, and there is evidence for the opposite.
I am capable of nuanced thought on the matter.
You can keep saying that you have a view, or you can actually post an argument - I prefer the latter...
Actually, the debate description says specifically that it is not about crappy content in the Bible.
How can a bible be, as you say "a poor foundation for morality." Without having poor quality content?
I also explicitly told you yesterday that it was about the "foundation for objective morality (as lolzors uses the term)", before most of your continually meaningless posts.
they were either meaningless, or just....not......understood
.......by.....YOU
You missed the relevance and chose to lash out at me personally. This subject happens to have been fascinating to me for a long time. You don't want to talk about scripture's actual role in the development of morals. You want to make it seem like you've got something more to say than "The Bible Sucks". But excepting your attacks on me you don't appear to
I wish you had asked something like...
"Can the use of biblical scriptures in any way help to render our fundamentally subjective morality in any way less subjective, or more objective?"
But you didn't
There is no evidence that it is in any way objective, and there is evidence for the opposite.
Preferences can be objectively proven to exist, as described. Morals are no different
You can keep saying that you have a view, or you can actually post an argument - I prefer the latter...
Oh yeah! that was a good one. you really burned me there...lol Feel good?
Having content you agree with doesn't make it objectively good.
meaningless
Yes, switching bibles, or ignoring, or rippping pages out are meaningless responses for this debate.
I wish you had asked
I really don't care what you wish I had asked. That is not this debate; if you want that debate, just create it! Why keep posting if you have nothing to say regarding the actual topic?
Preferences
Preferences are subjective.
that was a good one
Indeed it was - as obvioated by the fact you still have provided no argument directed at the debate in question.
I've already contributed to objective/subjective morality debates. This one started as a debate about how a bible either can or cannot be used as a foundation for morality. Then you clued me in that neither the debate title nor the description have much to do with what you truly want to discuss which is "Can a bible provide any measure of moral objectivity?"
If you are finished attacking me maybe we can argue that.
Then I confess I have no idea what you want to dispute. normally I would want to make some insults for some kind of balance but that got nebeling to quit the site so I am trying to reform, and not talk condescendingly in response to being talked down to. He saw me as playing petty power games. I can see how it looked that way, but I just figured it's ok (even fun sometimes) to give people a taste of their own medicine. When I looked at one of the first posts you made at this site you were talking about how we have had to fight hard to overcome THE Bibles influence on our morality. This admits it's usefulness toward moral instruction. It's OK you can still say "it's a bad system of morality", but you have to admit that biblical moral instruction is possible ie THE Bible is useful as a FOUNDATION for morality. Now go do something nice for yourself :)
Your basically just a troll at this point. My argument (from FOUR fucking years ago) said the same thing I am saying now - the Bible is not the source of our morality - it is not dispositive of what we should do - it is not the ontological origination or morality, there is no objective morality - until you know what the debate is about - fuck off troll!
I'm not convinced that YOU know what you are trying to debate. I am certain that you were very unclear about it throughout this discussion. It looks like the insults were meant to distract attention from that.
Anything but some arguments...
I hold the arguments I made previous to this as evidence that I am not in any way trying to avoid engaging on the topic. You have yet to clearly explain what the topic is. If I created a debate: "Was Justignoreme clear about what he wanted to debate I wonder If I would be the lone person who thought you were VERY unclear about what you wanted to debate here.
I am getting better at ignoring your personal attacks.
If God knew the entirety of what would happen by creating a universe and still specifically created this one - a person lacks moral agency since their actions were/are predestined by God.
It depends. I'm pretty sure that valid moral principles can be illustrated through fictional tales. Conversely, corrupt moral principles can be as well. Our bibles should be full of principles we want to honor. Reading and re-reading is a way of training the mind. The first stories our children are told are profoundly formative, and can be instrumental in early moral education. So yes bibles not only can be, but bibles are, very useful as "foundations" for moral contemplation and development
So the only way to tell the difference would be subjectively - that's the point.
Our bibles
Is there a better way to say "THE" BIBLE than "the Bible" (from the title of the debate) - not looking for choose a different bible or rip pages out answers
profoundly formative
formative of our subjective morality.
bibles are, very useful as "foundations" for moral contemplation *
THE Bible as THE source for THE morality
why continue to post when you refuse to actually direct your answer to the debate in question? If you want to debate creating your own bible that might be useful for contemplation - go create that one.
If you want to pretend like there is only one kind of bible just say so! I didn't mean to offend. just dont respond to my posts. But your only chance of a serious answer would be from lolzors. Just sayin
TLDR: 'Which fricken bible' is a relevant question, given the numerous translations and interpretations of the christian bible. Judging whether it can be used as a foundation for morality is highly dependent on how it was translated and what interpretations and conclusions are drawn from the verse. If you can't specify these, then there is no answer to this debate, as insufficient information is presented to draw a conclusion.
A couple things.
The term 'bible' is not limited only to the Christian bible.
The word bible literally means 'book,' and the christian version being called 'The Bible' is fundamentally equivalent to referring to a specific piece of equipments instruction manual as 'The Manual-' A common practice. 'The Bible' is 'The [definitive] Book' for the denomination of christianity in question (each denomination generally favoring a particular translation).
Actually using the term 'bible' to refer to any given book has been deprecated by antiquity, but it can be used in a literal sense to describe the religious texts of any number of religions. In colloquial usage, it can refer to more or less any definitive set of instructions, eg. a 'build bible' detailing specific setups for a given computer system.
Even under the assumption that we're referring to the christian bible, there are numerous different translations, some having notably different connotations in key areas than others. Of those translations, there are numerous possible interpretations of any given one.
It should also be noted that using the term foundation does not necessarily imply using all of the bible, or using only the bible. It implies using it- in whole OR in part- as a starting point, which is later expanded upon before being 'complete.'
Gotta side with atypican here- the term 'bible' is too broad to answer your debate, EVEN if we assume that it only refers to the various versions of the christian bible, and the requirements you assert for something being considered a foundation are themselves erroneous.
That said- I don't support the christian bible in its entirety, in any of its forms, as a basis for moral codes in general. But selecting particular parts and using those as a foundation to further expand upon? Only a problem if certain less-desirable parts are used.
With the admonishment that you should actually read before posting, I'll respond thusly:
given the numerous translations and interpretations of the christian bible
By saying THE Bible (capital B and everything), multiple times, people know I mean the Christian Bible. The fact that there are different translations is important to the debate (that used to exist). Narrowing to "Is the Septuagint a good FOUNDATION" loses that fact (along with the New Testament, etc.)
The term 'bible'
Which specifically isn't the term I used.
the term foundation does not necessarily imply using all of the bible
'foundation' does't but "THE Bible" does
as a starting point
No, as a FOUNDATION.
Gotta side with atypican here
Right, not reading the debate is how he got here too.
If you guys want to debate what a bible is - just create that debate - why is that so hard?
With the admonishment that you should actually read before posting, I'll respond thusly:
I did read :b
By saying THE Bible (capital B and everything), multiple times, people know I mean the Christian Bible. The fact that there are different translations is important to the debate (that used to exist). Narrowing to "Is the Septuagint a good FOUNDATION" loses that fact (along with the New Testament, etc.)
That doesn't change the fact that one interpretation of one translation may be suitable and another may not be. As such, a conclusive answer cannot be reached without exploring all of these.
Which specifically isn't the term I used.
Fair enough- but as noted, it was still too broad even if the christian bible was assumed.
'foundation' does't but "THE Bible" does
No, it really doesn't. Check again.
No, as a FOUNDATION.
Yes. A basis. An origin. A starting point. As in, not the final product. As in, additional work, revision, and clarification are required. As in the bible does not represent the entirety of the moral code, and that the bible need not be taken in its entirety for either the beginning or the final product.
Right, not reading the debate is how he got here too.
If you guys want to debate what a bible is - just create that debate - why is that so hard?
Or, you could specify a version and clarify the whole thing. How about the King James version, or the New Revised Standard Version? We can get into minutiae of interpretation of specific points as they come up, but we don't even have a starting point here.
one interpretation of one translation may be suitable and another may not be
Then that would be the case the affirmative side would have to take/defend.
Check again
Yep - THE Bible still means THE Bible.
A starting point. As in, not the final product.
But, a structure upon which everything must rest
the bible need not be taken in its entirety
There would need to be some reason to exclude part that would not impugne the rest.
you could specify a version
No, I can't as illustrated before. Chrisian Bible is as far as I will go since that is the target audience, but, of course, the same argument(s) would apply to any scripture. If the affirmative side believes a specific version to be the one true source, I'll leave it to them to say so.
No, I never did. If you're referring to the section at the top of my post refixed with 'TL;DR,' that is something I've taken to include in my longish posts (when I remember) to more or less summarize what I'm saying- I have a tendency to make long posts sometimes that many might ignore altogether.
Then that would be the case the affirmative side would have to take/defend.
But it's rougher on the negative side. Answering 'Yes' to this argument would only require one suitable translation/interpretation be identified and specified. Answering 'No' to this argument would require ALL translations/interpretations to be shown unsuitable. That is the issue- or perhaps you wanted to give the positive side an advantage?
Yep - THE Bible still means THE Bible.
Only to christians. Perhaps the implication is there, but that is a colloquial usage, not a literal definition.
But, a structure upon which everything must rest
The entire structure above must rest on the foundation, but the entire foundation need not support the structure. As a building metaphor (it appears where you're going with this), portions of the foundation would not bear load, and portions might be removed or drilled through in the process of the initial construction, or when making an addition.
There would need to be some reason to exclude part that would not impugne the rest.
This would be true if the bible was a single text, but it isn't- it's an anthology of many texts. It need not be taken as a whole to be useful. If using the bible at all can be justified, then using specific parts and not others certainly can.
No, I can't as illustrated before. Chrisian Bible is as far as I will go since that is the target audience, but, of course, the same argument(s) would apply to any scripture. If the affirmative side believes a specific version to be the one true source, I'll leave it to them to say so.
Fair enough, but it does seem to give an advantage to the 'other side' as any argument you might make could likely be addressed by sourcing one version or another. Maybe you're ok with that?
'TL;DR,' that is something I've taken to include in my longish posts
Ah - that sounds better. You are using that wrong (or at least very unconventionaly). It is generally used to say Too Long 'Didn't' Read.
Answering 'Yes' to this argument would only require one suitable translation
Yep - I'm cool with that.
that is a colloquial usage
that was all that was necessary
if the bible was a single text
If there was a problem in the canonization process, etc. that should exclude one part, but not others - that would need to be proffered by the affirmative.
That said- I don't support the christian bible in its entirety, in any of its forms, as a basis for moral codes in general. But selecting particular parts and using those as a foundation to further expand upon? Only a problem if certain less-desirable parts are used.
Right because your subjective morality trumps whatever is in the Bible - oops I mean THE Bible as accepted by the Church of England on a Tuesday in 1563 with the 39 articles and...
Right because your subjective morality trumps whatever is in the Bible - oops I mean THE Bible as accepted by the Church of England on a Tuesday in 1563 with the 39 articles and...
Yes, my personal sense of morals based on a decent education and access to a LOT of information that includes centuries of documented history involving atrocities committed based on the teachings of said bible does in fact trump a bunch of stories passed along from uneducated peasant to uneducated peasant (with an extremely narrow view, if any, of the past outside of said stories) before being put to paper, when there is significant disagreement over exactly how to translate it, and even then how to interpret it.
I stand by that. I never slaughtered people en masse for not believing what I believe, or for suspicion of witchcraft. The Church of England, specifically, has culpability for both of these.
You think what I am doing is so far inferior to what you are doing that it doesn't even qualify as debating. That's your point now. I wonder what you will switch it to next in this debate?
Yes - if you are not offering arguments you're not debating.
I am making arguments. That is certain. It is also certain that these now have no relevance to you initial topic at all. What is in dispute is whether there was anything wrong with my approach, and/or your response to my approach.
If we used the actual words of the bible as a foundation for morality, we would be killing adulterers with rocks and killing anyone who opposes us. Case closed.
Maybe as a source for people interested in the history of the concept of morality, but not as a direct foundation to morality. There is just too much in the bible that would have to be picked out: passages relating to rape, other religions, etcetera.
Morality? No I dont think so. If it is moraly right for a daughter to have sex with her father to get pregnant, then sociaty is messed up (Abraham and his daughters) But the bible does talk about a Jesus that onl wants peace. so I guess that's kind of a nic example if ou think aboout a peaceful Jesus. Otherwise... no!
