We have all seen the claims that Christianity has so many contradictions it shouldn't be believed, a claim which I reject. I challenge anyone here to an online debate with the following resolution: "Be it resolved, that the Christian Bible contradicts itself".

Rules
1) He who asserts must prove.
2) In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.
3) Facts, presented in a debate as such, must be accurate.
4) Any restatement or quotation of an opponent's argument must be accurate.
5) Rebuttals must met the requirements of points 1 and 2.
6) Definitions of words found in scripture must be taken from a Bible dictionary (these are available for free online)
7) Shotgun arguments (many arguments on many different topics in one post) are not allowed.
8) If either participant believes that a rule has been violated, he/she will make a case for the violation and allow the forum members to vote. His/her opponent will have an opportunity to rebut any suggestion of a rules violation. A violation of the rules by one participant will count as a win for his/her opponent.

Process
1) My opponent will post an assertion according to the rules above.
2) I will attempt to refute said assertion.
3) The members of the forum will vote for the person who makes the most convincing case.
4) Personal bias will be ignored and only fair judgements will be made.
5) The first side to get three wins will be declared the winner.

Do these rules seem fair to everyone? Does anyone believe they could judge such a debate fairly? Is anyone willing to take up the gauntlet?

hmmm? let me think on this spider ill get back.

The book asserts that the world was formed and inhabited with all that it was inhabited by in 6 days, do you take this to mean that it was 6 literal days of equal 24 hour periods of time?

If so and your answer is yes we will proceed from there, if not, then what do you believe the 6 time periods said to be days, to consist of as to time meant by the writer??

I will not address this. You didn't follow any of the rules or process I presented for this debate. I am not going to attempt to prove that the earth was created in six days, the evidence to support that position isn't strong enough right now. Please follow the rules and process so that we can do this fairly. Present a contradiction and I will attempt to refute it.

OK - how bout this was the whole world that Jesus, god, Paul and others talk of meant to be taken as the "whole world as we know it today?

Spider this whole post sounds like no more than a means to build your ego up as being the defender of the faith, I'll leave it to those who want to really participate in your game. No offense, just not interested.

Tribo,

It's an attempt to make those who insist the Bible has contradictions to look at the evidence logically and reasonably. Notice you are the only person who has responded? I believe that those who claim the bible is "full of contradictions" lack the courage of their convictions. To put it another way, they aren't convinced that they are right, but they certainly don't want to be proved wrong.

You can't insult someone "no more than a means to build your ego" and then claim "No offense". Just go ahead and offend me, don't offend me and then lie about your intentions.

This will always be deemed a win for your side, as there are more believers than non, and the believers will always revert to "You have to read the bible as a whole to get its meaning, not just the passage you are quoting"

Too much like hard work for a Friday evening.

but why do you want to do this if it's not for ego Spider? What will your god gain from this? i can't help but see it as being for your own interest, a pat on the back by other's who see as you do - that's why i state what i do to you. It's not meant as an insult, it's just i cannot see any other reasons to do what your attempting to do????

Maybe you could ask? I sent you a nice email and you sent a nice one back and then you post this?

Here's how it would have gone...

Tribo: SpiderCMB, why did you post this thread?

SpiderCMB: Because I'm tired of seeing people post false claims about Christianity. Not so long ago, I was a confused person looking for religion and seeing some of the lies posted here about Christianity, might have ensured that I didn't become a Christian. So I hope that my posts will not only awaken those who claim the Bible is full of contradictions to the fact that the Bible doesn't contradict itself and also help guide people who are lost and don't know what to believe, just as I myself was just two years ago.

Now I would like to ask: Why do you find it strange that someone might want to defend his faith from lies and false claims of non-believers?

We need a referee and a sexy woman who holds up those number signs also in here!

and don't forget a bell that rings very loud!!!

"NICE" is a very subjective word, i don't find it strange that you want to defend your beliefs, or have other's see more clearly what the truth you believe in actually says from your perspective, do as you want, but i will tell you this - some of your post i read and have responded to are not in a manner of Christ, and if i was looking for something to believe in i would have been turned off by your words not drawn to them, just a friendly reminder to respond without anger or futility with those you debate against. No more "P****ng up some ones leg" remarks, if your to be believed as someone who cares for others eternal souls OK?

I'm preposing a debate, with rules and decorum. Not the childish insult matches which are so popular here. Rules which would include throwing out gratuitous assertions and strawman fallacies. Wouldn't it be nice for everyone to use their brains and articulate their positions with logic and evidence? Wouldn't that be nice instead of "Your religion is stupid" "No it's not" "Yes it is" "No it's not" ad infinitum?

yep, i agree

Jesus often used sarcasm and mocking in his discussions of those who were unreasonable. Most of the posts here are just total garbage. Gratuitous assertions. Strawman fallacies. Begging the question. Appeal to authority. Refusals to offer evidence to support statements. I know this is an informal forum, but come on! Doesn't anyone feel the least bit ashamed that no effort is made to defend their position? "Christianity is stupid" passes as a valid argument and is applauded by the people here. It's like a playground, not a forum for adults to discuss religion.

I don't think it will happen to tell you the truth, but perhaps just maybe a few will find a way to have a debate to the rules you present.

This is what will most likely happen

http://www.justsayhi.com/topic/show/150822

With respect to the Rules:

1) He who asserts must prove.

I assert that the biblical story of God changes in the way that he handles man's disobedience of him. I hold that this is a contradiction to the idea that the biblical God is unchanging.

It is said that the biblical God is unchanging. I don't need to prove this part. If Christians are willing to conceded that their God does indeed change in his behavior then my assertion that he changes stands. Whether or not it is deemed to be a contradiction is irrelevant to me. A God who changes in his behavior cannot be trusted to remain the same and is therefore undependable. No need to prove any contradictions then.

So there's the assertion. I assert that the biblical stories depict a God that changes in the way he handles mankind's disobedience of him.

2) In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.

My assertion is that God changes the way that he deals with mankind's disobedience.

The evidence is overwhelming and obvious in the mythology itself. In the Old Testament the biblical God handles disobedience by flooding out humanity. In the New Testament he handles disobedience by sending his son to come to earth and die in man's place.

That's inconsistent behavior with respect to dealing with the same problem; man's disobedience of God.

Therefore the mythology itself is proof of my assertion. I shouldn't need to post those stories, it should be assumed that intelligent people have some clue about this mythology to begin with. The flood was intended to destroy humanity, Jesus was intended to save humanity. Clearly two distinctly different and diametrically opposing methods of handling the same problem.

3) Facts, presented in a debate as such, must be accurate.

I think we can all assume that most educated people know the stories of Noah, and Jesus. One ends in the destruction of the bulk of humanity, the other ends in an act to save humanity from destruction. Both of these stories are quite popular and are definite in their conclusions.

There are no 'facts' to present other than the fact that both of these stories exist within the same mythology that's claims to be stories about an unchanging God. Yet these stories tell of this supposedly unchanging God changing the way he deals with the same problem. So the facts should be obvious in this case.

In short, to refute the assertion that God didn't change his tactics one would need to prove that either the story of Noah, or the story of Jesus, is false, or that one or both of them are mere allegories and not meant to be taken literally.

I submit than any arguments of why God changed his behavior are irrelevant because they automatically concede that God did indeed change his tactics and therefore they simply provide an excuse for why God changed, thus agreeing with my assertion that the biblical God changed.


Process:

1) My opponent will post an assertion according to the rules above.

Done.

2) I will attempt to refute said assertion.

Have at it.

3) The members of the forum will vote for the person who makes the most convincing case.

This will be like a pole to see how many Christian versus non-Christians are on the forums at the time of the voting.

Aside Note:

I have a good idea of the rebuttal that I think Spider will come up with. I hope I have a chance to refute that rebuttal as well. If he uses the argument that I think he's going to use, I believe I can show why it is flawed and cannot be applied to refute my assertion.

I await your rebuttal Sir.

I think it will be fun to watch the votes rolling in if it ever even gets to the voting stage. Not that they will mean much, but it will be fun just the same. And I mean that whole-heartedly. I don't care which sides 'wins' it's really just a pole to see who supports Christianity and who doesn't. But let's do it and see how it goes.

Let’s see if we can bring it to a vote just for fun. This will be interesting.

I've heard very little of "Christianity is stupid" here and much more of a friendly discourse including all who participate. Only occasionally does some random remark come and go just as fast as it came. The friendly banter is what is applauded... If Jesus could have a sense of humor, why not us?

Who am I all of a sudden... a referee?

Abra,

Your assertion is quite long, so if you don't mind I will summarize your assertion and facts before I continue.

Assertion: God's behavior changes from the Old Testament to the New Testament, disproving the belief that God is unchanging.

Facts: In the story of Noah, God flooded the world as a way to deal with humanities evil. In the story of Jesus, God sent his son to be a sacrifice to deal with humanities evil. Those two methods show a contradiction in God's behavior and thus God is not consistent with God being unchanging.

Is this a correct summation? If so, I will post my response after your approval and my dinner.

that is the easy way out of the fundies who believe the Bible literally, but they don't have the logical answers to prove their point.
That is when SOLA SCRIPTURA fails.

I will answer as far as I understand the creation of the universe in six days: It's an allegory used by the sacred author to teach us that the Almighty God created the universe out of nothing. But ofcourse it was not done is six days.
The intention to use the 7 days period was to teach that God rested the last day, and therefore the seventh day is the Lord's day, thus we also need to rest in that day, and offer that day to the Lord in gratitude for His love to us.