Modern Day Christians Oppose The Bible.

My opponent is yet to refute any of the claims successfully for reasons which I will point out to you now, before I begin I would like to address what a Modern Day Christian is, I would class this as anyone alive within the last fifty to a hundred years who claim to adhere to the word of Jesus, this being something which covers any denomination of the Christian Church and individuals. That being said let me first comment on the observation given by my opponent which needs to be addressed. Q-"The title cannot be true because its self contradictory "Modern Day Christians Oppose The Bible.". If you oppose the bible then you're not a Christian, naturally." My Opponent has indirectly here asserted that: - 1)To be a Christian you must follow the bible. 2)Christians follow the Bible 3)If The Modern day Church's refute fundamental ideals which reside in the bible. 4)No modern day Church is Christian. Now the result of this debate puts into question the entire premise of which my opponent is arguing and if Pro wins, will conclude that in fact as with every other Christian my opponent is indeed following something other than Jesus and the Bible. Now let me move to the refutations my opponent has made on my claims, I will deal with each of the three points in order to avoid any confusion. He has also given me the authority to rule out many denominations … if not all. Point 1 – Physical Discipline of the Child. Refutation 1 Q-"[ (See also 13:24, 22:15 and 20:30) I will exclude those since I can make my point with one verse besides anyone can add thousands of erroneous verses]" As my opponent refuses to deal with these verses, I will assume that my opponent accepts them to point that they are evidence that the Bible advocates Physical Discipline in any way shape or form. He however claims them to be erroneous and with no evidence does he back this statement up, Can the readers not see that my opponent has read these verses and finds himself doubting he can truly convince anyone it means otherwise. Readers what my opponent is doing here, is seeing truth in my words but is scared to admit that truth and so is doing as many Christians, Islamists, Hindus ect do and closing his eyes to these and giving Assertions to keep his faith. Refutation 2 Q1-"Don't fail to correct your children. They won't die if you spank them. Physical discipline may well save them from death" Q2–"Its better to have a good child then an imprisoned child. Now if the child is reasonable and not wild then we can use Paul's advice "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged. " Colossians 3:21" My opponent has given me an explanation from this verse… stating that it means its better to have a good child than a imprisoned one. May I ask quite exactly where this verse says such? To me and I am sure readers who are paying careful attention, there is nowhere in this verse that what my opponent is describing as the meaning is showed, it is very clear cut about its intent, use Physical Discipline as it will better the child. To the other Verse he has given me "Colossians 3:21", I would like to point out that we would not use physical discipline on the child if they behave and obey, My opponent merely points out the obvious that physical discipline will not be used when the child is in a state of good behaviour. I would like to point out that all his verse says is not to Abuse the right to physical discipline but does not counter the claim that physical discipline is wrong. Refutation 3. Q-"Most modern day Christians Campaign against the very thing the Bible states is good for the child." Perhaps you mean child abuse ? Indeed, child abuse is frowned upon for good reasons but child abuse does not equal corporal punishment." My opponent here has clearly stated child abuse yet this is not the subject matter the subject matter is physical discipline, Now the resource he has given me shows and I do not know how he can see this as "Most of the World" In fact over half of the countries listed here do not advocate any physical discipline, and about a third is dominated by countries who have banned such in schools, there are only around three countries remaining where physical discipline is accepted in its entirety. Refutation 4. "The times are changing, the law and Jesus teachings remain, however, due to changing times the way we apply the teachings of the Bible may change." My friend let me point you and the readers to Matthew 5:18. The law will not change until everything is resolved! (This includes Revelations.) My opponent has just rejected this verse so as I explained at the beginning by his own admittance my opponent has indirectly attacked the foundations of his faith. Point 2 – Slavery Refutation 1. In this section my friend gives examples of Slavery as Hebrew, It does not matter how slavery comes about it is still the removal of liberty from the person, and there are a mass of Modern Day Christians who oppose this in any form, does my opponent want to tell us all that he is Pro-Slavery in certain circumstances? Perhaps we may see the ethics of the bible coming into reality after all but the morality of them is for another debate. Q – "2.A father might sell his children into servitude (Exodus 21:7)." Q – "Number two is not technically an exception since what kind of father would do that ?" My opponent here forgets about the father that has other children, they are starving they are on the point of death, the father loves his son/daughter but is forced to sell them into slavery due to the financial needs of his other children. Some may say this is an honour for the child sold, But since when is a child in the point that he has the knowledge or the understanding to lose their liberty! This is a disgrace against all that we call Human Rights, an organisation heavily backed and funded by Christian Organizations! Fortunately Modern Day Christians see this. Anyway evidence Christians are refusing to conform to the Bible and Slavery. http://www.christiantelegraph.com... My opponents entire argument about the rules of the slaves is Irrelevant as I have stated in my first argument that the bible puts rules down, it matters not how they are treated but the fact they have lost there dignity and Liberty, a point Modern Day Christians understand. Point 3 – Muder Due to my Opponent stating "There's a difference between murder and kill:" •Definition of Murder: - kill intentionally and with premeditation; "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered" or "God ordered Homosexuals and Sorceress's Murdered" Evidence - http://www.google.co.uk... His link does little to help him in his argument. Thank you my dear Opponent! Q-""This was considered a severe enough threat that sorcery was considered a capital crime. The link between drugs and the occult was rightly seen as deadly." David Guzik" I owe you a debt of gratitude for you have made my job a lot easier, I may have had to look that up myself but you gave it to me like a child in a candy store. Anyhow Most Modern day Christians look back in horror at the actions of killing Witch's ect and would never allow such a thing, yet you yourself have given me a explanation that shows me and the readers that the Bible condones Murder. Refutation. Quote - "Where does God command death" Simple answer to this is that you go back and read the verse, if god is telling you they are deserving of death then you may well give it to them, not only this but read between the lines and you will see it is a clear order for death. On a final note – I am unable to answer the Commenters subject due to low letter count but will do in the next argument. Not only due to his non-acceptance to answer the remaining versed in this section I