azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

From Bible.org:“The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations” (Exodus 34:5-7)Punishing the guilty is not forgiveness. Neither is punishing the next generations for crimes they have not committed. Therein lies the contradiction.More examples I have found include"I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins" Isaiah 43:25"Who forgives all your iniquities..." Psalm 103:3Or do you choose to ignore these parts? An all-forgiving God is actually a very popular Christian belief. I'd have been surprised if there was nothing from the Bible supporting it.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

“The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth; 7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations” (Exodus 34:5-7)You just proved that God isn't all-forgiving according to the Bible. It says he will not leave the guilty unpunished.Punishing the guilty is not forgiveness.Exactly. Now you see that God is not all-forgiving.Neither is punishing the next generations for crimes they have not committed. Therein lies the contradiction.But now you are changing the wording of the text. It is not saying that because a father commits a crime the children are punished as well."I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins" Isaiah 43:25"Who forgives all your iniquities..." Psalm 103:3These verses apply to those who believe in and follow God. If you bother to look at the context, you will see this is true.Or do you choose to ignore these parts? An all-forgiving God is actually a very popular Christian belief. I'd have been surprised if there was nothing from the Bible supporting it.This is a fallacy. Popularity does not equate to what is actually true.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

I never said that because of the popularity of forgiveness meant it was true, just that it must have arisen from somewhere, and that somewhere would have been the Bible.So we've established that God is not all-forgiving then. That would rule out 'forgiving iniquity and sin', which the Bible also says he does.'..visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children..." This means exactly that. The sins of the father will be put on the children's shoulders. It even goes on to say:'I will even repay into their bosom, both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together'So, they will be punished for both their own sins and 'fathers' before them. Yes?No, apparently. Because the Bible also says in Deuteronomy 24:16'Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin'. All these quotes are from the same book, but their messages are completely contradictory.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

I never said that because of the popularity of forgiveness meant it was true, just that it must have arisen from somewhere, and that somewhere would have been the Bible.So then we can both agree that because the Bible does not support the idea of an all-forgiving God, Christians that believe to the contrary are mislead or not follwers of the Bible.So we've established that God is not all-forgiving then. That would rule out 'forgiving iniquity and sin', which the Bible also says he doesJust because he is not all-forgiving does not mean he is non-forgiving.'..visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children..." This means exactly that. The sins of the father will be put on the children's shoulders. It even goes on to say:'I will even repay into their bosom, both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together'I think this is implying a if a child follows in the sins of his father, they will then both be punished for their transgressions.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

But the Christian God is also omnibenevolent, it's the essential foundation of Christianity, in fact.Romans 8:38 "... neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord."Going to Hell.. that's about as far from being connected to God's -unconditional- love as you can get.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Once again, you've overlooked the simply fact that this is referring to Christians only. I find it hard to believe that you're just that stupid. Obviously this isn't directed towards all people.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

How is the Christian god different from the Jewish god or Islamic god?Let me answer that for you: they're supposed to be the same person. This verse from this book in particular may be referring to Christians, but what's this debate about again? Oh, right, THE BIBLE.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

"It is not saying that because a father commits a crime the children are punished as well."What about original sin? This is punishing children for the crimes of the father and mother.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

One must change their minds about all of their sins to be forgiven.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

The theology in the Bible may be always appear to be contradictory. In fact, it is a sign of contradiction, Luke 2:34. Yet, belief solely on signs should not be what Christian's believe. To the Christian the Bible is not a book but a person, "ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ," -St. Jerome. Do we have free will if someone else knows what we will do? Of course. Whenever you look at child who is hungry for food, and put food in front of it, you know the child will want to eat it because its hungry. Well the child could also not eat it too, of which you know that as well. Still the child will choose which direction it wants to go. Whatever the child chooses, you know that the best choice, if it is hungry for food would be to consume the food and not wear it as a helmet.Knowledge doesn't impede will. God will never bully someone into believing in Him, but He will do everything in his power to reach out to humanity always stopping short of 'making' someone believe. Hence the Bible, divine love letters from Heaven.So how can we fully understand how can the justice of God seem to contradict mercy shown to sinners? To the Christian, we are all sinners, believers and unbelievers. Yet while we merit the eternal pains of hell, all, including those unaware of the message, Jesus has reconciled man to God. Nobody deserves or merits it. It is a gift freely offered and freely received. The mercy of God is higher and more profound than the mercy of Man. Really, the mercy of God is justice because while He is well aware that not everybody will come to know him through the Bible, He is not not going to have it written. God is love and love will conquer death in order to be reunited with the soul of man. It is wrong that a just man die without meeting the fullness of justice Himself! It would be merciful to bring the just man, who is ignorant of Christ, to see God face to face rather than to let him perish.To even the one who is willfully ignorant and despite all attempts from Heaven to reconcile with God, God will still be merciful and respect his free will. Its man who chooses Hell for all eternity, God simply honors the decision.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Here's a random nonsensical fact in the bible- There are a weird types of angels called Thrones that are depicted as wheels within wheels, with eyes on its rims. The way you see angels is not how the bible says it. Of course there are the winged baby angels but there a some that are just... disturbing. Also, the figure of Jesus is not what he appears to be, in fact, the painters from the Renaissance took the liberty of painting what he looked like, so the figure of Jesus that you would see right now is actually a figure of a "handsome Italian man" who is supposed to be Jesus. Other cultures have also depicted Jesus as their own race as well. Keep in mind that Jesus was middle eastern, and wouldn't of appeared like how the artists depicted it. Also, hell is only mentioned as a placed that has fire and it sucks to be there.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

the space hubble telescope has prooven that universe was created from the "big bang" about 10 to 15 billion years agoI'm pretty sure no telescope could prove a theory about the origin and age of the universe.When you look at the night sky, some of the light from the stars you see takes millions of years to reach your eyes.What? This makes no sense. there are cave paintings from our ancestors that are 30,000 years oldCan you prove this claim? Heaps of proof are thrown at you showing you that the book you so highly value is mistaken and completely false in so many ways, and you still believe in it?Most of the 'proof' you have provided is highly misguided.And what about women?? So only men are made of the image of god, not women? Then how did women come to being, what is their image?Man is referring to all humans. This is not saying that only males are made in the image of God. Why is god male anyway?God cannot be classified as being of an earthly gender. Aaaand, why does it say in the bible that women have no power over a man and that they have to be silent and obedient.Again, please provide the verse(s) that mentions this. Why did they make Adam the goody two shoes and Eve the sinner and transgressor?Who is 'they?' And whoever they are, this is not what they 'made.'The bible is clearly saying that women are a lesser being to men!Well, women are generally physically weaker than men, and men have accomplished more if you look at history. If you put 2 and 2 together, you'll find that this statement is necessarily true.Why couldn't god make Adam and Eve out of nothing, like he did with the universe?He chose to create them symbolically, this does not make the Bible illogical."However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)Oh My! God has been a very naughty person lately, with all those slaves...World culture and morality changes over time. When this text was written, every civilization thought slavery was moral. It was fine at the time; they had no reason to believe it was unfair or immoral in any way. The bible also contains instructions of how to handle slaves, and that you can beat them and also instructs when to rape a female slave O:Care to reference this? The basis of Christianity is of the bible and of god, but since the bible and god is NOT good even though they are said to be good and are said to be the cause of creation, it is called a lie. So there, the foundation Christianity just got unstable.Your sorry idea of logic and proof did not make Christianity any less stable.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Chimps have 10 fingers, 10 toes, fingernails, forward facing trichromatic eyes, ears, nostrils, lips, teeth, a brain, heart, lungs, liver, stomach, intestines, an appendix, blood, veins, arteries, similar muscle and bone structure (ankles, knees, hips, shoulders, elbows, wrists, knuckles) - they eat, sleep, dream, breath, urinate/defecate, communicate, procreate, die, etc.Biblical creationists would have us believe that, instead of sharing a common ancestor with these animals, humans are made out of dirt in the image of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, space-less, timeless, all-good creator of the universe and somehow we turned out to share more than 95% of our DNA with modern day Chimpanzees.....See, you're interpretating the Bible entirely literally. By saying men were created in the image of God, it figuratively implied that humans are spiritually similar to God, in that they own consciences and souls. Also, when God appeared on Earth, he was a man, not a chimp.God is often referred to as fatherOnce again, you interpret this literally. God is not everyone on Earth's father, God is simply a father figure to humans.wouldn't the morality of an all-knowing ever-existing god be fairly constant?Yes, but humans do not have constant morals.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

See, you're interpretating the Bible entirely literallyGenesis 2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Yes. I am using the bible's own words and you disagree with them so you decide it is not to be taken literally. Who gets to decide which parts are to be taken literally and which parts men or god thought it would just be better to make something up?Also, when God appeared on Earth, he was a man, not a chimp.he was only >95% chimp...humans do not have constant moralsyour comment that "World culture and morality changes over time" was in reference to Leviticus 25:44-46 which is supposedly from the laws god gave Moses (Leviticus 25 begins "And the Lord spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying,") So the verses about slavery, etc. are about god's morals not man's.Though god does not have constant morals either. God and Jesus are one and the same, yet god of the old testament says:Exodus 21:23-24) And if any mischief follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.-while god in the new testament (Jesus) says:Matthew 5:38-41) "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.  -----------------------------If you can't take literally what the bible says about how or why things work or which morals to have, what good is it exactly?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

I'm pretty sure no telescope could prove a theory about the origin and age of the universe.I believe he is referring to Hubble's Law:http://www.answers.com/topic/hubble-s-law The idea is that everything in the universe is moving away from a central point, and given Newton's First law of motion, we must conclude that at one point all matter existed at this central point before it started to expand. This is what we call the instance of the Big Bang.What? This makes no sense.What doesn't make sense? The fact that there are celestial objects so distant that it takes millions of light-years to reach earth. This is true. Light does not move instantly, and the further away the object is the greater the time delay between when the light is emitted and when we actually see it. At the very least it suggests a very old universe.These facts only present a challenge to Christians who hold a very literal view of the Bible.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

These facts only present a challenge to Christians who hold a very literal view of the Bible.Kamikaze is the one interpreting the Bible literally. It's completely logical once you realize many things mentioned are either meant to be figurative or are badly worded/translated.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

So sexism, slavery and rape are to be seen as metaphors? Please explain to me why the bible condones this because it's not spreading a special message.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

No, this is not what I said. You are either interpreting verses containing what you think to be concepts of illogic wrongly, or they are badly translated/worded.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

what if it's the verses you like/agree with which are badly translated/worded?
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

What? Whether I agree with the verses or not doesn't make them badly worded.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

No, I am asking who is the final arbiter of which verses to take literally and which ones God didn't really mean?Kamikaze and I referenced several bible verses and your response (without any substantiation) was that the verses were either wrongly interpreted or wrongly translated. We have cited the verses, if you feel this is the case, then support it with evidence.You also say "I personally don't think gays should get married because the Bible teaches that homosexuality is an abomination" refHow do you know that you aren't the one misinterpreting or that those verses weren't translated incorrectly, etc.? see also
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

Indeed. And I believe his name is spelled "kamekaze", which translates roughly as "means nothing" into English.The Bible's translations are endless, usually resulting in some discrepancies, but as long as you don't take it literally, you're okay.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Its called Doppler shift. Stars are millions of light years away, you can measure this though various means.Radiometric dating is pretty accurate most of the time.If man refers to all humans, then why isn't a gender neutral term used? Is it a bad translation? Does referring to the christian god as a she, he-she, or genderless really fit his description as well as referring to him having the stereotypical male gender. Also, Adam, as in man was made in god's image. Eve was made from Adam's rib. I'll leave the bible quotes, to someone else but their there as I'm sure your aware.Relative Physical Weakness and social oppression as property due to baby making and physical weakness does not constitute general inferiority.God didn't think it was immoral, isn't that the issue. Moral relativism isn't a defense for the supreme and absolute being.I would of just mentioned how the properties of god are contradictory, how free will is just basically a rehashing of Leibniz best world bullshit, etc But attacking the bible works as well.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Would anyone bother explain these so called metaphors to me because I'm quite unsure how rape can have a special meaning. :P
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

Obedience without knowledge is slavery. Oh wait, I mean Christianity.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

"I shall bring peace and harmony, right after I send this infidel to hell."Yup, totally logical, no doubt about it.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

The Bible doesn't say that, sorry. Next opinion.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

In actuality, the bible does say that, but not straight to the point like that. I thought you knew metaphors. :P
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

I do know metaphors. It is you who does not know metaphors if you think the Bible has metaphors that say all who don't believe must die.What the Bible does say in it's metaphors that all people whom are evil must die. 'Evil' was far less understood back then as it is today, but that doesn't mean the Bible hailed the killing of innocent people who were not Christian.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

People could be... merciless in those days, with all the cruel punishments like death by crucifixion, stone or fire. People were not very knowledgeable in those days as well, so a sinner would be seen as a corrupt thing that must be killed. You are either saying it is a metaphor as an excuse or as truth but don't mistake the darkness of those times. Some would actually take pleasure in seeing the sinners and faithless burn in hell, they wouldn't even consider them "innocent" for not being religious, because that was a wrong doing all in it's self. The bible really does hate the faithless because it is the very thing that goes against the it. In all the tales that the bible tells, the faithless end up suffering, and the faithful end up saved. Much like the prophecy foretold in the book of Revelations.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

People could be... merciless in those days, with all the cruel punishments like death by crucifixion, stone or fire.Cruel punishments were necessary in those days, considering crime in those days was far more dangerous then it is today. Examples had to be made to keep order. I don't like it, but that's what had to be done.People were not very knowledgeable in those days as well, so a sinner would be seen as a corrupt thing that must be killed. Right. They didn't understand what evil was like we do today, so a sinner was always evil. That's a logical train of thought in an ancient society.You are either saying it is a metaphor as an excuse or as truth but don't mistake the darkness of those times.I don't mistake the darkness of those times. The fact that they were dark is a truth that excuses the horrors those people committed. After all, if they hadn't, we wouldn't be here today with the prosperity we currently have.Some would actually take pleasure in seeing the sinners and faithless burn in hell, they wouldn't even consider them "innocent" for not being religious, because that was a wrong doing all in it's self.Back then, faithless and sinning people were evil. They were without morals and couldn't be trusted to behave properly in society. There was no consideration for the idea that these people could be good because they knew no other way to be good.Once again, I don't like it, but that's how they kept order in ancient times.The Bible really does hate the faithless because it is the very thing that goes against the it.The Bible does hate the faithless, because in ancient times, the faithless were a deterrent to society. The Bible supported the elimination of that which deterred ancient society.I don't like, but that's what they had to do. And it followed a completely logical point of view for the audience it was intended for.In all the tales that the bible tells, the faithless end up suffering, and the faithful end up saved.Of course, because in that society, the faithless were always evil and the faithful were doing what they were supposed to be doing. That's how they kept order. I think I'm repeating the same thing at this point.Much like the prophecy foretold in the book of Revelations.End times stories are like creation stories; they aren't meant to be literal anymore. They were written by the author(s) as a sham to get people to stop asking questions. In the case of Revelations, they wanted people to be terrified of end times so they be scared and stop asking questions and get back to work.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: No! Completely Logical!

What verse are you citing? I can't recall one that says that.
Debate: The bible is... illogical
Side: Illogical!

I am against the antidisestablishmentarianism of churches.