The Bible is Law and Should Be Followed Accordingly

My opponent's reliance on the Merriam-Webster (MW) dictionary definition of "law" helps to focus the debate and it allows us to quickly get to the heart of the matter. To frame the debate in its fuller context, here is the full definition of "law" from MW:"(1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law"This definition relies on the notion that law is established by the consensus of a community. I agree with my opponent that personal interpretations may be useful for individuals. However, this is irrelevant to this debate because personal views do not necessarily establish laws that are accepted by the community at large. To see this more clearly, let's expand on the meaning of Common Law by referring to the Wikipedia article [1]:"A common law legal system is a system of law characterized by case law which is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals . .. .it is a legal system that gives great potential precedential weight to common law, on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. " --Common Law emerged because Bible is inadequate as legal system--In essence, our debate term, "law to be followed", refers to a system of laws that the community accepts and adheres to by consensus. This system is fortified by precedence and by reason and it is enforced by social institutions. With this in mind, we can see that the issue in this debate is whether the bible alone can be used as a legal system for the whole community. The answer is no. Given that Common Law emerged within Christian communities, this demonstrates that these communities did not in fact rely on the bible as a legal system; rather, they relied on a consensus system based on reason and legal precedence. --Bible Fallibility: relevant in establishing Bible's inadequacy as a community system for absolute religious laws-- It is also clear that the bible can be used neither as a legal system for civil law nor as a system for religious law [2]. Its irrelevance as a system for civil law is clear but its irrelevance as a system for religious law may be seen after both, its fallibility and its susceptibility to multiple interpretations are recognized. So, for the sake of completeness, and contrary to my opponent's claim, the fallibility of the bible is a relevant counter to the argument that the bible may serve a community as a complete, self-consistent system for religious law. --Distinction between law and personal principles--My opponent correctly draws a distinction between law and The Law. But he may be confusing these concepts with "personal principles". Now, the bible is indeed a source for individuals to draw personal principles by which they may try to live. However, individuals are free to filter and to interpret the bible selectively. This does not necessarily lead to general principles that the community at large may then adopt and codify into law. Individuals' personal principles may factor into the process from which community laws emerge but that process is ultimately different from attempts to interpret the bible as a legal document. Indeed, the challenge for a community is to adopt laws that are uniformly applicable in a way that is as fair and equitable as possible for the entire community. Although there have been abortive attempts in history to live "according to the bible", the reality eventually sets in that the bible cannot be used as a legal manual. Upon closer examination, even conservative Christian communities that claim to live exactly according to the bible really do not live that way. For instance, few of these communities would insist today that women should either cover their heads or shave them in disgrace [3]:"For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. " (1 Cor 11:6)Quite simply, most Christians today do not share my opponent's view that the bible is law and that they should thus live accordingly. --Hermeneutics does not produce objective interpretations--Hermeneutics is a field of study [4] that has developed precisely because the interpretation of historical texts is difficult and highly subjective. Therefore, one of the goals of hermeneutics is to attempt to decipher meaning by studying, among other things, the social milieu, opinions, and views of the author. This is a very difficult task. Biblical hermeneutics is doubly difficult because it is dealing with a compilation of books that spans across thousands of years, different religions, theologies, cultures, etc. Nevertheless, my opponent claims that "Just because it (the bible) is open to multiple interpretations does not mean that it is not law. You can decipher this using hermeneutics. " Decipher what? The law? Surely, my opponent isn't suggesting that biblical hermeneutics can decipher objective meaning and a consistent set of laws from the bible! If so, he's mistaken. If it were possible to decipher objective meaning this way then bible hermeneutics would not be a live field of study. It would likely be finished and we would all unanimously agree that the true meaning and purpose of the bible is objectively clear to all of us. In fact, this is not so. Every major Christian denomination offers its own version of biblical hermeneutics to its seminarians and each version of biblical hermeneutics is hotly debated. Non-sectarian biblical scholars have also developed their own research-based set of hermeneutics [5]. My opponent's appeal to hermeneutics actually strengthens my case. The fact that biblical hermeneutics is a vibrant, diverse, and hotly debated field of study shows that the bible cannot be utilized as a consensus source of uniformly consistent laws that can be implemented fairly and equitably across a diverse set of cases. My opponent's apparent confusion on this point may stem from a misguided notion that song, poetry, and the bible are produced with objective meanings in mind. This may be why, when he referred to the song, "And fade away into the blackness", he said, "". .. the author wrote that verse with an objective meaning in mind. The same principle should be applied to almost anything you read. " My opponent's principle that almost everything is written with an objective meaning in mind is basically a novice attempt at hermeneutics; however, most poets and writers deal in a world of subjective ideas. This is one reason that principles of hermeneutics are not so simple to discover; unfortunately, the field of hermeneutics is considerably more nuanced. A general appeal to hermeneutics certainly does not lend any support to my opponent's thesis that the contents of the bible are law and can therefore be uncovered by hermeneutics. Let's keep our dictionary definition of law in mind here. Formulating laws is a community activity and it is not confined to the realm of arcane academics. --Summary--The bible does not serve as a reliable system of laws. It certainly cannot serve as an objective source of universal Laws because it is fallible and it is open to multiple interpretations. Historically, the church looked to the Holy Spirit for guidance and it has traditionally distrusted or minimized teachings based on justification by works [6]. A system of Common Law developed in Europe and has served as a foundation of our system of laws to this day. Lip service aside, even conservative Christian groups don't strictly follow the bible as law. Bottom line: Today, the bible is primarily a book for spiritual inspiration and guidance. It is not suited as a system of laws that may be enforced by our social institutions [6]. The bible is not law in our modern sense of the word. [1] Common Law, . http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] Legal Systems, . http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] Bible, New International Version[4] Hermeneutics, . http://plato.stanford.edu...[5] The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version, edited by Robert J. Miller; The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? , by Robert W. Funk[6] I have written a more detailed description of this but I had to cut it out due to space limitations. I may present it in a future round.