The Bible is Law and Should Be Followed Accordingly

Again there is nothing really to refute, but for the sake of the debate I will offer some brief rebuttals. The debate is already over at this point.Types of LawsSee my prior round to confirm the bible is law.A law can be applied to set group of community, groups, workplaces or even across the board. My adversary almost completely drops this and even concedes the point" For any community (church or otherwise), the process of forming laws by consensus is complicated "" The process of forming consensus is a complex process. " (she is referring to community laws )These laws are derived from the bible from a communal and personal sense. People believe following the word is God is what they aught to do and this is accepted in a community, thus verifying the bible as a law to some. This does not have to be for everyone but by acknowledging this can happen in a community or a group, she concedes this. By claiming this, she has conceded this point. She is openly acknowledging that a community or a group can have their own set of laws. This is the entire premise behind [p1], and by making these statements she concedes the point. By saying it is complicated she is admitting it happens, which supports by case and the point that I madeSince we can acknowlede the bible is a law, we can strike out the entire first part of the resolutionThe bible is a lawA bunch of nothingLiterally there is almost nothing left to refute. All of her points did not even address the contention and she tried to straw man the actual premise behind the debate. I could spend an entire round refuting all of her arguments, but it is moot. All of her contentions do not actually touch anything that is relevant to the debate at all. She argues that because the bible can be interpreted differently , and is read literally, that it should not be a law. This is the breakdown of her entire argument. Essentially this is false. No matter how people read or interpret the bible it can be and is a law for groups of people. Again premise 1 stands. "For most Christians then, the bible really should not be viewed as law. In fact, the bible as we know it today was not even compiled until the 4th century [4]. Early Christians believed that the Holy Spirit (not the bible) would guide them spiritually [5] and they also believed that Jesus' second coming was imminent. So, initially, they were not concerned about compiling a holy book for future generations [6]. Establishing a set of rules and "bylaws" for the Church as a perpetual human institution was also far into the future. "Again this is a bunch of irrelevant things that are not applicable to the debate. Note her own words"Establishing a set of rules and "bylaws" for the Church as a perpetual human institution was also far into the future. "She admits that churches and Christians have by laws. This is often derived from the bible and even in a communal sense and personal sense following the teachings of the bible often goes hand in hand with those laws. Should be followed accordinglyAgain his was never really touched and my argument stands. If someone openly accepts the bible is law, and goes into a community that accepts it as such they should follow it if they wish to remain in the community.ConclusionMy adversary all but concedes this debate when she admits that a church and community can adopt a set of by laws and rules that are directly impacted by the bible itself. By acknowledging that a group of people or even a person can accept the bible as a guideline or law to live their life by, she has lost this debate. She has even made it easy for me, and allowed me to not spend a bunch of unnecessary time refuting half of her arguments because she conceded the essential premise behind this debate.