God Core File 1

Wipeout
1NC---Turn---IN THE NAME OF THE LORD

Death is good – SO SAYETH THE LORD
Pullman 21 [Joy Pullmann, executive editor of The Federalist, “For Christians, Dying From COVID (Or
Anything Else) Is A Good Thing”, https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/18/for-christians-dying-from-covid-
or-anything-else-is-a-good-thing/, 10/18/21, imp]
For one thing, Christians believe that life

and death belong entirely to God. There is nothing we can do to make
our days on earth one second longer or shorter: “all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be,” says the Psalmist. “For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to
the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s,” says Saint Paul in Romans 14:8.
For another thing, for Christians, death is good. Yes, death is also an evil — its existence is a result of sin. But, thanks be
to God, Jesus Christ has redeemed even death. In his resurrection, Christ has transformed death into a portal
to eternal life for Christians. What Satan meant for evil, God has transformed into good.
Verse three of the 1540 Dutch hymn, “In God, My Faithful God,” beautifully expresses this timeless theology:
If death my portion be,

It brings great gain to me;
It speeds my life’s endeavor
To live with Christ forever.
He gives me joy in sorrow,
Come death now or tomorrow.
The Christian faith makes it very clear that death, while sad to those left behind and a tragic consequence of
human sin, is now good for all who believe in Christ. A Christian funeral is a cause for
rejoicing, albeit understandably through tears from those of us temporarily left behind.
“Yes, weare of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord,”
says 2 Corinthians 5:8. This is not a small or unclear doctrine. It is repeated over and over again in
scripture. It flatly rejects the heathen idea that death is to be avoided at any cost.
Pascal’s wager means any risk we’re right outweighs all aff impacts
Williams 14 [Donald Gene Williams, Jr., (PhD student at Trinity Theological Seminary, Director of
Evangelism and Apologetics at DTW Ministries). “DEFENDING THE WORD OF GOD BY EQUIPPING
CHRISTIAN LAY PEOPLE TO HAVE A MORE EDUCATED, INFORMED, AND STRONGER FAITH IN JESUS
CHRIST OUR LORD.” Thesis. 10 March 2014.
http://www.defendtheword.com/uploads/3/3/1/9/3319720/layman_apologetics_thesis_3-10-14.pdf]
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a French Catholic mathematician and writer who argued; one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence
through reason alone, so the
wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has
everything to gain and little to lose. If we live as though God exists, and He does indeed exist, we have gained heaven. If He
doesn’t exist, we have lost little. If, on the other hand, we live as though God does not exist and He really does exist,
we have gained hell and punishment and have lost heaven and bliss. If one weighs the options, clearly the
rational choice to live as if God exists is the better of the possible choices. Pascal even suggested that
some may not, at the time, have the ability to believe in God. In such a case, one should live as if he had
faith anyway. Perhaps living as if one had faith may lead one to actually come to faith. Some have also called
this the Pragmatic Argument. This approach to apologetics deals with the issue of proving God in a very pragmatic way. Pragmatic by definition
means to deal with the problems that exist in a specific situation in a reasonable and logical way instead of depending on ideas and
theories.168
2NC---OV
Extinction is good because it sends Christians to Heaven where they live forever in
eternal paradise – that’s Pullman
Extinction NOW is preferable – any delay locks in billions of future people condemned
to hell
Falkner 15 [Scott Falkner, “Christianity to Be Extinct By 2067 Says New Government Report”,
https://www.inquisitr.com/2170856/christianity-to-be-extinct-by-2067-says-new-government-report/,
June 14, 2015, imp]
A new governmental report on Christianity is making some waves, though, according to the report, not as many waves
as one might think. The core of the report is that Christianity, once the religion that wasn't to be trifled with, is
quickly on the decline, and at a much faster rate than anyone really thought. Christianity is declining so
quickly that experts believe the religion will be "statistically nonexistent" by 2067 -- or, in other words,
extinct.
The report that leads to a prediction of Christianity's demise stems from the British Census Study , the
British Social Attitudes survey, and the British Election Study. Though the report on Christianity centers on Great Britain,
experts say that Christians would be naive to think that the United States isn't far behind, and offers evidence
and statistics to back up their predictions.
According to the statistics, between 2001 and 2011, the number of people who followed Christianity fell
by over 5.3 million people. To put that on a timescale, that's about 10,000 individuals per week
forsaking Christianity. Following up on those stats, Christianity will fall to nonexistence in England in the year 2067.
The Social Attitude survey concurs with this data on Christianity. Believers
in Christianity fell from 40 percent of the British
population in 1983, to 29 percent in 2004, to 17 percent in 2014 .
So how does all this affect Christianity in the United States and beyond? Well, again, according to the statistics, Christianity in the United States
is falling out of influence almost as quickly as in Great Britain. Thirty-six
percent (more than a third) of American
citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 identify themselves as having no religious affiliation whatsoever
-- the largest unaffiliated cross-section of that demographic in history.
Hell causes suffering which is INFINITE in both DURATION and SEVERITY

Watkins 18 [Terry Watkins, Baptist Minister, “THE TRUTH ABOUT HELL”,
https://www2.gvsu.edu/pontiusd/hell.html, 2018, imp]
We're going to examine the place the Bible calls hell. We'll present documented evidence for a place called hell. Don't take what you're going to
read lightly. YOU COULD BE IN SERIOUS DANGER!
The Bible continually warns of a place called hell. There are over 162 references in the New Testament alone which
warns of hell. And over 70 of these references were uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ!
In Luke 16, Jesus Christ gives a frightening picture of hell: 22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being
in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son,
remember that thou in thy lifetime received good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they
pass to us, that would come from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, Father, that Thou would send him to my father's house: 28 For
I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)
HELL IS A PLACE OF FIRE
The man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME." In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ." Revelation
20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."
THE BIBLE GIVES THE LOCATION OF HELL
When Jesus Christ died on the cross, He descended into hell. In Acts 2, Peter is speaking, verse 31, " . . . seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in HELL" When Jesus Christ died His soul went into hell. And in Matthew 12:40, Jesus Christ says: "For as
Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the HEART OF THE EARTH. " The Bible is clear — Hell is inside the earth! Ephesians 4:9, says of Jesus: "Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first
into the LOWER PARTS OF THE EARTH." On page 85 of Beyond Death's Door, Dr. Rawlings said, patients who described hell said, ". . . this place seems to be UNDERGROUND or WITHIN THE EARTH in some way." The Birmingham News, April 10, 1987 had an article entitled "Earth's Center
Hotter Than Sun's Surface, Scientists Say". The article stated that scientists have recently discovered, "THE EARTH'S INNER CORE HAS A TEMPERATURE OF OVER 12,000 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT!" Have you seen pictures of a volcano erupting, spewing a lake of fire from inside the earth —
consuming everything within miles just from the heat? When Mount St. Helens erupted in May 18, 1980, it was described by reporters, "when HELL surfaced upon the earth." The book, Volcanoes, Earth's Awakening (p.91) describes an erupting volcano as "descent into HELL". Thousands
of years ago, the Bible described a place called hell in the heart of the earth that matches exactly what science is discovering.
YES! THERE IS A PLACE CALLED HELL!
In Numbers 16, the Bible gives the account of people falling into hell alive! Numbers 16:32-33 says, "And THE EARTH OPENED HER MOUTH, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them,
went down alive INTO THE PIT, and the EARTH CLOSED UPON THEM:" Inside this earth, this very moment, there are millions of lost, tormented souls — burning, weeping, wailing — without any hope whatsoever! In Mark 9:46, Jesus Christ says about hell: "Where THEIR WORM dies not,
and the fire is not quenched." Jesus said explicitly — THEIR worm — not a worm, or the worm — but THEIR worm. And Jesus Christ said, "Where THEIR WORM dies not, and the fire is not quenched." Revelation 14:10 says, " . . . and He shall be tormented with fire and BRIMSTONE . . ."
And Job 18 describes the " . . . PLACE of him that knows not God" (vs 21), in verse 15 as, " . . . BRIMSTONE shall be scattered upon his habitation." Do you know what brimstone is? It's sulfur. And do you know where sulfur or brimstone is found? INSIDE THIS EARTH! According to the book
Volcanoes by Pierre Kohler (p. 43), when Mt. St Helens erupted in 1980 — 150,000 tons of sulfurous gas was ejected! Job is the oldest book in the Bible, written over 3,000 years ago, and yet Job knew what science wouldn't know for years — inside this earth is brimstone!
HELL IS A PLACE OF TORMENT

Jesus says of the man in Luke 16: 23 "And in hell He lift up his eyes, being in TORMENTS. . . " 24 ". . . for I am TORMENTED in this flame." 28
". . .PLACE OF TORMENT." It
is humanly impossible to comprehend the Bible description of hell. Nothing on
earth can compare with it. No nightmare could produce a terror to match that of hell. No horror movie could
describe it's fright. No crime scene with all it's blood and gore could begin to match it's horror.
You'll see HELL. . . You'll smell HELL. . . You'll breathe HELL. . . You'll hear HELL . . . You'll feel HELL. . .
It'll be beyond anything humanly imaginable! The Bible describes it as), weeping (Matt 8:12), wailing (Matt 13:42), gnashing of
teeth (Matt 13:50), darkness (Matt 25:30), flames (Luke 16:24), burning (Isa 33:14), torments (Luke 16:23 everlasting punishment! Jesus Christ
says in Matthew 25:41, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into EVERLASTING FIRE, prepared for the devil and his angels." In Matthew 13:42, Jesus
says: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
HELL IS FOREVER!
All who enter hell — abandon all hope! The horror of hell — for even one second is unbearable — but
FOREVER! Jesus says in Matthew 25:41: ". . . Depart from me, ye cursed, into EVERLASTING fire, . . ."
Rev. 14:11: "The smoke of their TORMENT ascends up for EVER AND EVER: and they have NO REST DAY NOR NIGHT." What could
possibly be worth eternity in hell? No wonder Jesus Christ warned so much about hell! No wonder Jesus said in Mark 8:36, "For
what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and LOSE HIS OWN SOUL?" Jesus Christ took hell
very serious. . . Jesus Christ says in Mark 9:43-47, 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than
having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter
halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it
is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Jesus Christ took hell so serious
— He could say without the slightest hesitation — to remove your eye, cut off your hand or foot, if that would keep you out of hell! Jesus Christ
knew exactly what He was talking about! How did Jesus describe hell? Jesus Christ spoke more on hell than any other subject. Just look at how
Jesus described hell:
WHAT JESUS CHRIST SAYS ABOUT HELL!
"fire" Matt 7:19, 13:40, 25:41" everlasting fire" Matt 18:8, 25:41"eternal damnation" Mark 3:29"hell fire" Matt 5:22, 18:9, Mark 9:47 "damnation" Matt 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47"shall be damned "Mark 16:16"damnation of hell" Matt 23:33"resurrection of damnation" John 5:29"
furnace of fire" Matt 13:42, 50"the fire that never shall be quenched" Mark 9:43, 45 "the fire is not quenched" Mark 9:44, 46, 48"Where their worm dies not" Mark 9:44, 46, 48"wailing and gnashing of teeth" Matt 13:42, 50"weeping and gnashing of teeth "Matt 8:12, 22:13,
25:30"torments"Luke 16:23"tormented in this flame" Luke 16:24 "place of torment" Luke 16:28"outer darkness" Matt 8:12, 22:13"everlasting punishment" Matt 25:46
WHAT IF JESUS IS RIGHT?
Hebrews 9:27 says, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this THE JUDGEMENT:"
it is appointed unto man once to die . . . and one day — YOU will die. . . And in hell He lift up his eyes, being in torments. . . As you leave your body — you realize something is happening. You hear a sound. . . getting louder and louder. . . screaming . . .weeping. . . wailing. Terror and fear
beyond anything you could imagine overtakes you. "This can't be happening!" you scream. Your nostrils are filling with the awful stench of burning souls. Your face ignites from the heat. Flames are now blazing from your eyes, nostrils, ears, mouth — every opening in your body, flames
are roaring out. Your body is sizzling and crackling from the flames. Your body is now madly thrashing and convulsing from the horrible pain. "Why don't I die?", you scream. You begin weeping and gnashing your teeth with the millions. "When will this pain stop?" But you know it will
never stop. . . The darkness is so terrifying, it begins engulfing you. You feel something moving in the darkness. . . something horrible is happening. "No! No! This can't be happening" you scream — as your worm is emerging. You begin cursing the day you were born. You scream — "Oh
God, why didn't you warn me?"— but you remember the preacher pleading with you to receive Jesus Christ. You remember reading that gospel tract. You cry — "God don't you care?" — but you remember John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son,. . ."
"God is a God of love — He won't allow this", you cry — but you remember John 3:36, ". . . he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him."
And you soon realize, that Jesus Christ was right — there is a place called hell.
AND YOU ARE THERE — FOREVER!
But God is a God of LOVE. . . Why would a GOD OF LOVE send me to hell? Yes, God is a GOD OF LOVE — but God is also a HOLY GOD. A HOLY GOD demands payment for sin. Otherwise God would NOT and could NOT be HOLY.
Because God is holy sin MUST be condemned. Joshua 24:19 says, ". . He is a HOLY GOD;. . . He will NOT forgive your transgressions nor your sins."
BUT FRIEND I HAVE GOOD NEWS!
God does NOT want you in hell. Hell was not made for man. Matthew 25:41 says, hell was, ". . . prepared for the devil and his
angels". Because God is a GOD OF LOVE, and He LOVED YOU so much, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to this earth to die a cruel death on a cross
to pay the price a HOLY GOD demands for your sins. Romans 5:8 says, "But God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us." God does not send someone to hell. You choose hell when you reject Jesus Christ.
When you refuse God's love gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ…
YOU CHOOSE HELL!
Millionaire Ted Turner, said in an interview, "I'm looking forward to dying and being cast into Hell. That's where I belong." You say — he's a
fool! But friend, when you say "No"; to Jesus Christ and His payment for your sin — you are saying the same thing! You're telling God — I don't
need Jesus Christ — I'll pay for my sins in hell! If you reject God's gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ.
ONE DAY YOU WILL BE IN HELL! What could possibly be worth eternity in hell? No wonder Jesus Christ said in Mark 8:36,
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul ? Or what shall a man give
in exchange for his soul?" John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him
should not perish, but have everlasting life." God has something far better than words can describe for those who love Him. I Corinthians 2:9
says, ". . . Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love
Him." Friend, there is a place called hell! And, if you continually refuse God's gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ — just as sure as you live
and breathe, ONEDAY YOU WILL WAKE UP IN HELL! Don't wait until you die to find out the truth about
Hell! Tomorrow may be too late! Proverbs 27:1 says, "Boast not thyself of tomorrow: for you do not know what tomorrow holds." Three
people die every second, 180 every minute, since you started reading this — 2000 more people have gone into eternity! An automobile
accident… A heart attack… A stroke. . .One thing is CERTAIN — you will DIE — today. . . tomorrow… a week… a month… a year… 5 years… 10
years… 20 years… 50 years — ONE THING IS CERTAIN —" … it is appointed unto man once TO DIE..."
DON'T BE CAUGHT DEAD WITHOUT JESUS!
You may have made some terrible mistakes in your life. There may be some things in your life you would give anything to be able to change.
But friend, I assure you — if you die without Jesus Christ — it'll be the worst mistake you could possibly make!
Has there ever come a time and a place in your life, when you received Jesus Christ as your personal Savior? If not, you are on the way to hell!
Don't let anyone convince you that when you die it will be all over! The Bible says in Hebrews 9:27, "And as it is
appointed unto men once to die, but after this THE JUDGMENT." Revelation 20:15 says, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of
life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE." If you've never received Jesus Christ as your Savior, bow your head this minute and ask the Lord Jesus
Christ to save you. Don't put it off another second!
NOTHING IS WORTH TAKING THE CHANCE!
It's simple to be saved ... Realize you are a sinner. "As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans
3:10. "... for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23. Realize you CAN NOT save
yourself. "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; ..." Isaiah 64:6. "Not by works of righteousness which
we have done, but according to his mercy He saved us, ..." Titus 3:5. Realize that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for your
sins. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, ..." 1 Peter 2:24. "... Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in
his own blood," Revelation 1:5. Simply by faith receive Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. "But as many as received Him, to them gave He
power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12 " ...Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said,
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."" Acts 16:30,31. "For God so loved
the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but
have everlasting life." John 3:16.
2NC---AT: Hell Turn
Only those who reject God go to hell
We’ll link turn it – The future includes far more non-Christians – Christianity is
declining
Falkner 15 [Scott Falkner, “Christianity to Be Extinct By 2067 Says New Government Report”,
https://www.inquisitr.com/2170856/christianity-to-be-extinct-by-2067-says-new-government-report/,
June 14, 2015, imp]
A new governmental report on Christianity is making some waves, though, according to the report, not as many waves
as one might think. The core of the report is that Christianity, once the religion that wasn't to be trifled with, is
quickly on the decline, and at a much faster rate than anyone really thought. Christianity is declining so
quickly that experts believe the religion will be "statistically nonexistent" by 2067 -- or, in other words,
extinct.
The report that leads to a prediction of Christianity's demise stems from the British Census Study , the
British Social Attitudes survey, and the British Election Study. Though the report on Christianity centers on Great Britain,
experts say that Christians would be naive to think that the United States isn't far behind, and offers evidence
and statistics to back up their predictions.
According to the statistics, between 2001 and 2011, the number of people who followed Christianity fell
by over 5.3 million people. To put that on a timescale, that's about 10,000 individuals per week
forsaking Christianity. Following up on those stats, Christianity will fall to nonexistence in England in the year 2067.
The Social Attitude survey concurs with this data on Christianity. Believers
in Christianity fell from 40 percent of the British
population in 1983, to 29 percent in 2004, to 17 percent in 2014 .
So how does all this affect Christianity in the United States and beyond? Well, again, according to the statistics, Christianity in the United States
is falling out of influence almost as quickly as in Great Britain. Thirty-six
percent (more than a third) of American
citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 identify themselves as having no religious affiliation whatsoever
-- the largest unaffiliated cross-section of that demographic in history.
Hell outweighs – it causes suffering which is INFINITE in both duration and severity
Watkins 18 [Terry Watkins, Baptist Minister, “THE TRUTH ABOUT HELL”,
https://www2.gvsu.edu/pontiusd/hell.html, 2018, imp]
We're going to examine the place the Bible calls hell. We'll present documented evidence for a place called hell. Don't take what you're going to
read lightly. YOU
COULD BE IN SERIOUS DANGER!
The Bible continually warns of a place called hell. There
are over 162 references in the New Testament alone which
warns of hell. And over 70 of these references were uttered by the Lord Jesus Christ!
In Luke 16, Jesus Christ gives a frightening picture of hell: 22 . . . the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being
in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son,
remember that thou in thy lifetime received good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they
pass to us, that would come from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, Father, that Thou would send him to my father's house: 28 For
I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)
HELL IS A PLACE OF FIRE
The man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME." In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ." Revelation
20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."
THE BIBLE GIVES THE LOCATION OF HELL

When Jesus Christ died on the cross, He descended into hell. In Acts 2, Peter is speaking, verse 31, " . . . seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in HELL" When Jesus Christ died His soul went into hell. And in Matthew 12:40, Jesus Christ says: "For as
Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the HEART OF THE EARTH. " The Bible is clear — Hell is inside the earth! Ephesians 4:9, says of Jesus: "Now that He ascended, what is it but that He also descended first
into the LOWER PARTS OF THE EARTH." On page 85 of Beyond Death's Door, Dr. Rawlings said, patients who described hell said, ". . . this place seems to be UNDERGROUND or WITHIN THE EARTH in some way." The Birmingham News, April 10, 1987 had an article entitled "Earth's Center
Hotter Than Sun's Surface, Scientists Say". The article stated that scientists have recently discovered, "THE EARTH'S INNER CORE HAS A TEMPERATURE OF OVER 12,000 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT!" Have you seen pictures of a volcano erupting, spewing a lake of fire from inside the earth —
consuming everything within miles just from the heat? When Mount St. Helens erupted in May 18, 1980, it was described by reporters, "when HELL surfaced upon the earth." The book, Volcanoes, Earth's Awakening (p.91) describes an erupting volcano as "descent into HELL". Thousands
of years ago, the Bible described a place called hell in the heart of the earth that matches exactly what science is discovering.
YES! THERE IS A PLACE CALLED HELL!
In Numbers 16, the Bible gives the account of people falling into hell alive! Numbers 16:32-33 says, "And THE EARTH OPENED HER MOUTH, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them,
went down alive INTO THE PIT, and the EARTH CLOSED UPON THEM:" Inside this earth, this very moment, there are millions of lost, tormented souls — burning, weeping, wailing — without any hope whatsoever! In Mark 9:46, Jesus Christ says about hell: "Where THEIR WORM dies not,
and the fire is not quenched." Jesus said explicitly — THEIR worm — not a worm, or the worm — but THEIR worm. And Jesus Christ said, "Where THEIR WORM dies not, and the fire is not quenched." Revelation 14:10 says, " . . . and He shall be tormented with fire and BRIMSTONE . . ."
And Job 18 describes the " . . . PLACE of him that knows not God" (vs 21), in verse 15 as, " . . . BRIMSTONE shall be scattered upon his habitation." Do you know what brimstone is? It's sulfur. And do you know where sulfur or brimstone is found? INSIDE THIS EARTH! According to the book
Volcanoes by Pierre Kohler (p. 43), when Mt. St Helens erupted in 1980 — 150,000 tons of sulfurous gas was ejected! Job is the oldest book in the Bible, written over 3,000 years ago, and yet Job knew what science wouldn't know for years — inside this earth is brimstone!
HELL IS A PLACE OF TORMENT

Jesus says of the man in Luke 16: 23 "And in hell He lift up his eyes, being in TORMENTS. . . " 24 ". . . for I am TORMENTED in this flame." 28
". . .PLACE OF TORMENT." It
is humanly impossible to comprehend the Bible description of hell. Nothing on
earth can compare with it. No nightmare could produce a terror to match that of hell. No horror movie could
describe it's fright. No crime scene with all it's blood and gore could begin to match it's horror.
You'll see HELL. . . You'll smell HELL. . . You'll breathe HELL. . . You'll hear HELL . . . You'll feel HELL. . .
It'll be beyond anything humanly imaginable! The Bible describes it as), weeping (Matt 8:12), wailing (Matt 13:42), gnashing of
teeth (Matt 13:50), darkness (Matt 25:30), flames (Luke 16:24), burning (Isa 33:14), torments (Luke 16:23 everlasting punishment! Jesus Christ
says in Matthew 25:41, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into EVERLASTING FIRE, prepared for the devil and his angels." In Matthew 13:42, Jesus
says: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
HELL IS FOREVER!
All who enter hell — abandon all hope! The horror of hell — for even one second is unbearable — but
FOREVER! Jesus says in Matthew 25:41: ". . . Depart from me, ye cursed, into EVERLASTING fire, . . ."
Rev. 14:11: "The smoke of their TORMENT ascends up for EVER AND EVER: and they have NO REST DAY NOR NIGHT." What could
possibly be worth eternity in hell? No wonder Jesus Christ warned so much about hell! No wonder Jesus said in Mark 8:36, "For
what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and LOSE HIS OWN SOUL?" Jesus Christ took hell
very serious. . . Jesus Christ says in Mark 9:43-47, 43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than
having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter
halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it
is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Jesus Christ took hell so serious
— He could say without the slightest hesitation — to remove your eye, cut off your hand or foot, if that would keep you out of hell! Jesus Christ
knew exactly what He was talking about! How did Jesus describe hell? Jesus Christ spoke more on hell than any other subject. Just look at how
Jesus described hell:
WHAT JESUS CHRIST SAYS ABOUT HELL!
"fire" Matt 7:19, 13:40, 25:41" everlasting fire" Matt 18:8, 25:41"eternal damnation" Mark 3:29"hell fire" Matt 5:22, 18:9, Mark 9:47 "damnation" Matt 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47"shall be damned "Mark 16:16"damnation of hell" Matt 23:33"resurrection of damnation" John 5:29"
furnace of fire" Matt 13:42, 50"the fire that never shall be quenched" Mark 9:43, 45 "the fire is not quenched" Mark 9:44, 46, 48"Where their worm dies not" Mark 9:44, 46, 48"wailing and gnashing of teeth" Matt 13:42, 50"weeping and gnashing of teeth "Matt 8:12, 22:13,
25:30"torments"Luke 16:23"tormented in this flame" Luke 16:24 "place of torment" Luke 16:28"outer darkness" Matt 8:12, 22:13"everlasting punishment" Matt 25:46
WHAT IF JESUS IS RIGHT?
Hebrews 9:27 says, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this THE JUDGEMENT:"
it is appointed unto man once to die . . . and one day — YOU will die. . . And in hell He lift up his eyes, being in torments. . . As you leave your body — you realize something is happening. You hear a sound. . . getting louder and louder. . . screaming . . .weeping. . . wailing. Terror and fear
beyond anything you could imagine overtakes you. "This can't be happening!" you scream. Your nostrils are filling with the awful stench of burning souls. Your face ignites from the heat. Flames are now blazing from your eyes, nostrils, ears, mouth — every opening in your body, flames
are roaring out. Your body is sizzling and crackling from the flames. Your body is now madly thrashing and convulsing from the horrible pain. "Why don't I die?", you scream. You begin weeping and gnashing your teeth with the millions. "When will this pain stop?" But you know it will
never stop. . . The darkness is so terrifying, it begins engulfing you. You feel something moving in the darkness. . . something horrible is happening. "No! No! This can't be happening" you scream — as your worm is emerging. You begin cursing the day you were born. You scream — "Oh
God, why didn't you warn me?"— but you remember the preacher pleading with you to receive Jesus Christ. You remember reading that gospel tract. You cry — "God don't you care?" — but you remember John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son,. . ."
"God is a God of love — He won't allow this", you cry — but you remember John 3:36, ". . . he that believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him."
And you soon realize, that Jesus Christ was right — there is a place called hell.
AND YOU ARE THERE — FOREVER!
But God is a God of LOVE. . . Why would a GOD OF LOVE send me to hell? Yes, God is a GOD OF LOVE — but God is also a HOLY GOD. A HOLY GOD demands payment for sin. Otherwise God would NOT and could NOT be HOLY.
Because God is holy sin MUST be condemned. Joshua 24:19 says, ". . He is a HOLY GOD;. . . He will NOT forgive your transgressions nor your sins."
BUT FRIEND I HAVE GOOD NEWS!
God does NOT want you in hell. Hell was not made for man. Matthew 25:41 says, hell was, ". . . prepared for the devil and his
angels". Because God is a GOD OF LOVE, and He LOVED YOU so much, He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to this earth to die a cruel death on a cross
to pay the price a HOLY GOD demands for your sins. Romans 5:8 says, "But God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us." God does not send someone to hell. You choose hell when you reject Jesus Christ.
When you refuse God's love gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ…
YOU CHOOSE HELL!

Millionaire Ted Turner, said in an interview, "I'm looking forward to dying and being cast into Hell. That's where I belong." You say — he's a
fool! But friend, when you say "No"; to Jesus Christ and His payment for your sin — you are saying the same thing! You're telling God — I don't
need Jesus Christ — I'll pay for my sins in hell! If you reject God's gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ.
ONE DAY YOU WILL BE IN HELL! What

could possibly be worth eternity in hell? No wonder Jesus Christ said in Mark 8:36,
"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul ? Or what shall a man give
in exchange for his soul?" John 3:16 says, "For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him
should not perish, but have everlasting life." God has something far better than words can describe for those who love Him. I Corinthians 2:9
says, ". . . Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love
Him." Friend, there is a place called hell! And, if you continually refuse God's gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ — just as sure as you live
and breathe, ONEDAY YOU WILL WAKE UP IN HELL! Don't wait until you die to find out the truth about
Hell! Tomorrow may be too late! Proverbs 27:1 says, "Boast not thyself of tomorrow: for you do not know what tomorrow holds." Three
people die every second, 180 every minute, since you started reading this — 2000 more people have gone into eternity! An automobile
accident… A heart attack… A stroke. . .One thing is CERTAIN — you will DIE — today. . . tomorrow… a week… a month… a year… 5 years… 10
years… 20 years… 50 years — ONE THING IS CERTAIN —" … it is appointed unto man once TO DIE..."
DON'T BE CAUGHT DEAD WITHOUT JESUS!
You may have made some terrible mistakes in your life. There may be some things in your life you would give anything to be able to change.
But friend, I assure you — if you die without Jesus Christ — it'll be the worst mistake you could possibly make!
Has there ever come a time and a place in your life, when you received Jesus Christ as your personal Savior? If not, you are on the way to hell!
Don't let anyone convince you that when you die it will be all over! The Bible says in Hebrews 9:27, "And as it is
appointed unto men once to die, but after this THE JUDGMENT." Revelation 20:15 says, "And whosoever was not found written in the book of
life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE." If you've never received Jesus Christ as your Savior, bow your head this minute and ask the Lord Jesus
Christ to save you. Don't put it off another second!
NOTHING IS WORTH TAKING THE CHANCE!
It's simple to be saved ... Realize you are a sinner. "As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans
3:10. "... for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23. Realize you CAN NOT save
yourself. "But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags; ..." Isaiah 64:6. "Not by works of righteousness which
we have done, but according to his mercy He saved us, ..." Titus 3:5. Realize that Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for your
sins. "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, ..." 1 Peter 2:24. "... Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in
his own blood," Revelation 1:5. Simply by faith receive Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. "But as many as received Him, to them gave He
power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:" John 1:12 " ...Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said,
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."" Acts 16:30,31. "For God so loved
the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but
have everlasting life." John 3:16.
2NC---AT: Suicide Turn
No link to pre fiat offense – voting neg doesn’t literally cause extinction and doesn’t
require genuine endorsement – just contingent recognition that we’ve done the better
debating in this round
No scenario for post fiat offense either – voting neg doesn’t fiat that members of
congress intentionally decide to destroy America
Our turn outweighs – larger internal link to hell
God Real
2NC---AT: God Not Real
god is REAL and Christianity is TRUE
First, fulfilled messianic prophecies provide mathematical and scientific proof of God
Williams 15 [David Williams, Computer Systems @ the University of Newcastle, “Mathematical
Probability that Jesus is the Christ”, https://www.dannychesnut.com/Bible/Prophecy/Mathematical
%20Probability%20that%20Jesus%20is%20the%20Christ.htm, 2015, imp] Peter Stoner = Christian writer
and Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College
The reason why prophecy is an indication of the divine authorship of the Scriptures, and hence a testimony
to the trustworthiness of the Message of the Scriptures, is because of the minute probability of fulfillment. Anyone can
make predictions. Having those prophecies fulfilled is vastly different. In fact, the more statements made about the future, and the more the
detail, then the less likely the precise fulfillment will be. For example, what's
the likelihood of a person predicting today the
exact city in which the birth of a future leader would take place , well into the 21st century? This is indeed what
the prophet Micah did 700 years before the Messiah. Further, what is the likelihood of predicting the
precise manner of death that a new, unknown religious leader would experience , a thousand years from now - a
manner of death presently unknown, and to remain unknown for hundreds of years? Yet, this is what
David did in 1000 B.C. Again, what is the likelihood of predicting the specific date of the appearance of
some great future leader, hundreds of years in advance? This is what Daniel did, 530 years before Christ.
If one were to conceive 50 specific prophecies about a person in the future, whom one would never
meet, just what's the likelihood that this person will fulfill all 50 of the predictions? How much less
would this likelihood be if 25 of these predictions were about what other people would do to him, and
were completely beyond his control?
For example, how does someone "arrange" to be born in a specific family?
How does one "arrange" to be born in a specified city, in which their parents don't actually live? How
does one "arrange" their own death - and specifically by crucifixion, with two others, and then "arrange" to
have their executioners gamble for His clothing (John 16:19; Psalms 22:18)? How does one "arrange" to be betrayed in
advance? How does one "arrange" to have the executioners carry out the regular practice of breaking the legs of the two victims on either side,
but not their own? Finally, how does one "arrange" to be God? How does one escape from a grave and appear to people after having been
killed?
Indeed, it
may be possible for someone to fake one or two of the Messianic prophecies, but it would be
impossible for any one person to arrange and fulfill all of these prophecies.
John Ankerberg relates the true story of how governments use prearranged identification signs to identify correct agents:
David Greenglass was a World War II traitor. He gave atomic secrets to the Russians and then fled to Mexico after the war. His conspirators arranged to help him by planning a meeting with the secretary of the Russian ambassador in Mexico City. Proper identification for both parties
became vital. Greenglass was to identify himself with six prearranged signs. These instructions had been given to both the secretary and Greenglass so there would be no possibility of making a mistake. They were: (1) once in Mexico City, Greenglass was to write a note to the secretary,
signing his name as "I. JACKSON"; (2) after three days he was to go to the Plaza de Colon in Mexico City and (3) stand before the statue of Columbus, (4) with his middle finger placed in a guide book. In addition, (5) when he was approached, he was to say it was a magnificent statue and
that he was from Oklahoma. (6) The secretary was to then give him a passport.
These six prearranged signs worked. Why? With six identifying characteristics it was impossible for the secretary not to identify Greenglass as the proper contact (John Ankerberg, John Weldon and Walter Kaiser, "The Case for Jesus The Messiah", Melbourne: Pacific College Study Series,
1994, 17-18).
How true, then, it must be that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, if he had 456 identifying characteristics well in advance, and fulfilled them all! In fact, what does the science of probability make of this?
The science of probability attempts to determine the chance that a given event will occur. The value and accuracy of the science of probability has been well established beyond doubt - for example, insurance rates are fixed according to statistical probabilities.
Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one
man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve
different classes representing some 600 university students. The students carefully weighed all the
factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might
indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative
enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students. However,
Professor Stoner then took their estimates, and made them even more conservative . He also encouraged other
skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for
review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his
calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner,
Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4).
For example, concerning Micah 5:2, where it states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, Stoner and his students determined the average population of BETHLEHEM from the time of Micah to the present; then they divided it by the average population of the earth during
the same period.
They concluded that the chance of one man being born in Bethlehem was one in 300,000, (or one in 2.8 x 10^5 - rounded),
After examining only eight different prophecies (Idem, 106), they conservatively estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling all eight prophecies was one in 10^17.
To illustrate how large the number 10^17 IS (a figure with 17 zeros), Stoner gave this illustration :
If you mark one of ten tickets, and place all the tickets in a hat, and thoroughly stir them, and then ask a blindfolded man to draw one, his chance of getting the right ticket is one in ten. Suppose that we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They'll cover all of the
state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting
the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would've had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote them in their own wisdom (Idem, 106-107).
In financial terms, is there anyone who would not invest in a financial venture if the chance of failure were only one in 10^17? This is the kind of sure investment we're offered by god for faith in His Messiah.
From these figures, Professor Stoner, concludes the fulfillment of these eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of the prophecies (Idem, 107) - the likelihood of mere chance is only one in 10^17!
Another way of saying this is that any person who minimizes or ignores the significance of the biblical identifying signs concerning the Messiah would be foolish.
But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation, Stoner used 48 prophecies (Idem,
109) (even though he could have used Edersheim's 456), and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the
probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is the incredible number 10^157. In fact, if anybody
can find someone, living or dead, other than Jesus, who can fulfill only half of the predictions concerning the Messiah given in the book
"Messiah in Both Testaments" by Fred J. Meldau, the Christian Victory Publishing Company is ready to give a ONE thousand dollar reward! As
apologist Josh McDowell says, "There are a lot of men in the universities that could use some extra cash!" (Josh McDowell, Evidence that
Demands a Verdict, California: Campus Crusade for Christ, 175).
How large is the number one in 10^157? 10^157 contains 157 zeros! Stoner gives an illustration of this number using
electrons. Electrons are very small objects. They're smaller than atoms. It would take 2.5 TIMES 10^15 of them, laid side by side, to make one
inch. Even if we counted 250 of these electrons each minute, and counted day and night, it would still take 19 million years just to count a line
of electrons one-inch long (Stoner, op. cit, 109). With this introduction, let's go back to our chance of one in 10^157. Let's suppose that we're
taking this number of electrons, marking one, and thoroughly stirring it into the whole mass, then blindfolding a man and letting him try to find
the right one. What chance has he of finding the right one? What kind of a pile will this number of electrons make? They make an inconceivably
large volume. This
is the result from considering a mere 48 prophecies. Obviously, the probability that 456
prophecies would be fulfilled in one man by chance is vastly smaller. According to Emile Borel, once one goes
past one chance in 10^50, the probabilities are so small that it is impossible to think that they will ever
occur (Ankerberg et. al., op. cit., 21). As Stoner concludes, 'Any man who rejects Christ as the Son of God is rejecting a
fact, proved perhaps more absolutely than any other fact in the world (Stoner, op. cit., 112).' God so
thoroughly vindicated Jesus Christ that even mathematicians and statisticians, who were without faith,
had to acknowledge that it is scientifically impossible to deny that Jesus is the Christ . our thanks to David
Williams, a mathematician who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Bible also predicted Cyrus

Springer 14 [Jim Springer, worked for over 30 years for Caltrans as a civil engineer and was an elder in
the Church of God, https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/is-there-a-god/proof-of-god/fulfilled-prophecy-is-
evidence-of-gods-existence/, 2014. Imp]
For instance, God

prophesied of the Persian king Cyrus by name more than 100 years before he was even
born! God said that Cyrus would issue a decree for Jerusalem to be rebuilt and for the foundation for the
temple to be built (Isaiah 44:28). God also prophesied of the Greek ruler Alexander the Great and his
successors. For more on these prophecies, see the article “Fulfilled Prophecy.”
Second, there is historically credible evidence for Jesus Christ’s resurrection
Choi 07 [James J. Choi, Professor @ Yale, “Why I am a Christian”,
https://faculty.som.yale.edu/jameschoi/whychrist/, 2007, imp]
There is credible evidence for Jesus’ death and resurrection
Non-Christian philosopher of religion Antony Flew: “The evidence for the resurrection is better than for
claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.”
THE LIKELIHOOD OF A FALSE CLAIM LIKE THIS BEING BELIEVED IS VERY LOW It is exceptionally rare for
followers of a religious leader to claim that he rose bodily from the dead, if only because false claims of this
sort are easily debunked Imagine trying to convince the world that the late Billy Graham is alive again Wikipedia lists 28 people who
have claimed to be the Jewish messiah over the past 2,000 years. Besides Jesus, none of them had followers claim they rose from the dead
Therefore, the
fact that the early Christians claimed this and their claim didn’t quickly fall apart suggests
that something extraordinary happened
JESUS’ DISCIPLES DIDN’T MAKE A SILLY MISTAKE Jesus really did die on the cross Roman soldiers were not exactly ineffective at meting out death After Jesus died, a soldier pierced his side with a spear to make sure he was dead ( John 19:34). Blood and water came out, consistent with the
spear rupturing the pericardial sac that surrounds the heart. Edwards et al., JAMA 1986: “Modern medical interpretation of the historical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead when taken down from the cross.” Jesus’ grave really was empty on the third day after his death The gospels
are careful to provide details on why Jesus’ followers were not confused about which grave he was buried in He was buried a tomb that had never been used before, so being confused about how many bodies should be in the tomb was impossible ( Matthew 27:60, John 19:41-42) The first
witnesses to the resurrection, the two Marys, watched Jesus being put in the tomb (Matthew 27:61) Roman soldiers were posted to guard the tomb, so the body could not have been stolen (Matthew 27:62-66) The fact that Jesus’ grave was empty does not seem to have been disputed by
anybody (Matthew 28:11-15). Christianity’s early enemies could have put an early end to the movement by producing the corpse of Jesus, but they didn’t.
THE DISCIPLES WERE UNLIKELY TO BE LYING ABOUT SEEING THE RISEN JESUS The apostles had little
incentive to lie Why do people consciously lie? They have something to gain from telling a lie What did Jesus’ apostles have to gain
from lying about seeing the resurrected Jesus? Status within a small group of followers whom they’ve
managed to deceive Condemnation and persecution from the Jewish community they had spent their
entire lives in Banishment Execution If the apostles were lying, the incentives for them to later recant were large
The usefulness of the lie for status would surely have disappeared when an apostle was about to be
executed for his Christian faith. Recanting may have saved his life. An apostle who saw that other apostles were being killed because of their faith
would have been strongly tempted to leave the Christian community None of the apostles recanted their story But could there be no record
of recantation because there was a cover-up by the church? Probably not. The Bible is not shy about recording the apostles’ failures. The big one: Judas betraying
Jesus to His death (Matthew 26:14-16) One of your leader’s 12 closest followers decided to turn against him If you were to cover up anything in order to bolster
your religion’s credibility, this would be a prime candidate If the early church didn’t cover up Judas’s betrayal, why would it cover up other apostles’ betrayals?
When Jesus was under arrest, Peter (the leader of the apostles) disowned Him three times (Matthew 26:69-75) Chuck Colson, the White House special counsel
during the Watergate scandal who became a Christian, on why Watergate supports the truth of the resurrection story: “Here were the 10 most powerful men in the
United States. With all that power, and we couldn’t contain a lie for two weeks… Take it from one who was involved in conspiracy, who saw the frailty of man
firsthand. There is no way the 11 apostles, who were with Jesus at the time of the resurrection, could ever have gone around for 40 years proclaiming Jesus’
resurrection unless it were true.” If the apostles were making up the resurrection, this isn’t the story they would have told Women are recorded as the first
witnesses to the resurrection (Matthew 28:9). But at the time, the testimony of a woman was not admissible in Jewish courts. Non-Christian New Testament scholar
Paula Fredriksen: “I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say, and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest
to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I do know that
as a historian that they must have seen something.”
JESUS’ POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES WERE UNLIKELY TO BE HALLUCINATIONS Hallucinations are

(almost?) always private experiences limited to a single individual The risen Jesus appeared to groups both small and large The two
Marys (Matthew 28:9) The two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35) The eleven apostles together (Luke 24:36-51, John 20:19-
30) Seven disciples during the fishing expedition (John 21:4-23) More than 500 people at the same time (1 Corinthians 15:6) The
Bible records that at least in the first four bullet points above, everybody in the group had a common experience of what Jesus was doing and
saying; each did not have a divergent vision. This is inconsistent with the hallucination hypothesis. The Bible often describes encounters with
God as occurring through visions. But at least in the first four bullet points above, the Bible is emphatic that they were not merely visions. They
touched Jesus, he ate their food, he fed them.
ONE OF CHRISTIANITY’S MOST COMMITTED ENEMIES TESTIFIED TO THE RESURRECTION Paul, who was extremely disinclined to
believe in a resurrected Jesus, became the greatest evangelist for the Christian faith, wrote much of the New Testament, and died
for the faith Paul was a leader in persecuting Christians, whom he viewed as dangerous blasphemers Paul becoming
a Christian is like Osama bin Laden becoming an American patriot Like bin Laden, Paul
(named Saul before his conversion) believed in killing for his convictions Paul
had nothing to gain from testifying to Jesus’
resurrection But Paul encountered the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus, where he was
headed to persecute Christians. He became an immediate convert. (Acts 9:1-19)
Third, the argument from fine tuning – physics proves the God is probable
Metcalf 18 [1000-Word Philosophy, 5/3/18"The Fine-Tuning Argument for the Existence of God," 1000-
Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology, https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/05/03/the-fine-
tuning-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/ JS]
Well, if gravity had been as strong as magnetism is now, then you wouldn’t be reading this article, because
you never would have existed. The entire universe might just be a huge black hole. It’s fortunate for us,
then, that the physical constants, such as the strength of gravity, have the values they do. Similarly,
there are laws of nature that appear to be necessary for our existence.[2] And a third example of the universe’s being
suited for us is its initial conditions, for example, that the universe began in a state with lots of usable energy.[3] Some philosophers
and scientists estimate that some of these constants, forces, and conditions couldn’t have varied by
more than one part in 10^60 (i.e., a one with sixty zeros after it) and still permitted life. Therefore, perhaps, we should very strongly
expect that a universe in which the constants, laws, and conditions formed mindlessly and purposelessly would be one in which life was almost
certainly impossible: not just human life, but anything remotely resembling conscious life as we know it.[4] It’s
difficult to imagine
how any conscious life could be composed of hydrogen alone, or could live in a black hole . And if these facts
about the universe are truly universal constants and laws, then if life is impossible anywhere (because of these features), then it’s impossible
everywhere. Arguably,
if God exists, then he would intentionally fine-tune a universe’s laws, constants, and
conditions so that they permit life like us.[5] A morally perfect God would value life, especially embodied
human beings with free will, and so ensure the universe’s physical laws, constants and initial conditions
allowed for our existence.[6] This is the basic reasoning behind the Fine-Tuning Argument for God’s
existence.[7]
Fourth, Pascal’s Wager should drastically lower the threshold for the God debate
Rota 16 [Michael Rota, Professor of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas, “A Better Version of
Pascal’s Wager”, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Vol 60. No. 3,
https://www.pdcnet.org/acpq/content/acpq_2016_0090_0003_0415_0439 2016, imp]
To see this last point, consider a game where you have two possible strategies, A and B. A fair coin will be flipped, but you
must choose a strategy before you have learned of the outcome. If you have chosen A, and the coin turns out to be heads,
you will gain eternal happiness. If you have chosen A, and the coin is tails, you will gain fifteen dollars. If you have chosen A, and the
coin lands balanced exactly on its edge, you will suffer eternal misery. On the other hand, if you have chosen B, you will suffer eternal misery if
heads, you will gain fifteen dollars if tails, and you will gain eternal happiness if the coin has balanced on its edge.
The preferable strategy is A, since it maximizes one’s chance at the supremely valuable benefit of eternal happiness. For
the same
reason, committing to God in a Christian way is preferable to refraining from religious commitment, even
if the Perverse Master is given a small non-zero credence.
IV.
Conclusion. The literature on Pascal’s Wager is vast, and no article-length treatment can address all the worthwhile objections that could be
made against the version of the Wager I have given here. Still, I hope to have shown that pragmatic
reasoning can dramatically
lower the bar for natural theology: religious commitment to Christianity is typically rational for someone who
(rationally) thinks Christianity is as likely as not. A fortiori, it is typically rational for those who rationally think it is more likely than not.
Constructing the Wager in terms of commitment rather than belief dulls the edge of moral objections to pragmatic reasoning, and
developing the argument without the use of expected utility or an assignment of infinite utilities avoids
some of the most pressing objections to what is often taken as the canonical version of Pascal’s Wager ,
the Argument from Generalized Expectations. The many-gods objection, for its part, can be addressed by examining
the relative epistemic probabilities of the various religions being considered and by utilizing the principle that one
should commit to the religion one thinks most likely to be true.38
Fifth, if they win God isn’t real, vote neg on presumption – It’s impossible to find a
secular basis for ethics
Honeycutt 12 [Willie E. Honeycutt, Reverend @ Liberty University, “Good without God? The Necessity
of a Theistic Basis for Morality”, Evangelical Theological Society ‘s 61st Annual Conference,
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=sor_fac_pubs, May
2012, imp]
In my closing remarks I quote Richard Rorty again, ―The very idea that the world or the self has an intrinsic nature is a
remnant of the idea that the world is a divine creation, the work of someone who had something in
mind . . . Only if we have some such picture in mind . . . can we make sense of the idea that the world has an intrinsic nature. Rorty, of course,
does not believe this himself, but realizes that in a godless, uncreated universe, there is no intrinsic/inherent worth
to humanity. So, to the humanists and atheists who champion the idea of the ―inherent preciousness and value of every individual person
and construct an edifice of human morality and human rights upon that idea, you have already eaten your cake, and you cannot have it back .
To deny that humanity is created by God, is to insure that we are nothing more than the product of a
blind evolutionary process driven by natural selection in an unguided and uncaring universe, and to strip
away the substantive basis for that assertion. You make the assertion, and you believe it, despite your denial of God. Thankfully that is possible,
and so is your moral behavior. Yes, you can be ―good without God, but you cannot, and will not, ever be able to prove,
propositionally or coherently, that without God humanity has an intrinsic worth upon which a solid
moral system may be erected. Simply but poignantly put, ―The essence of all morality is this: to believe that every human being is
of infinite importance . . . But to believe this it is necessary to believe in God. How can you argue against that? A s long as you hold to
your atheism, you must, along with Herbert Tonne, continue to ―delude yourself into believing ―that human life is
important and worth preserving. At least Tonne bites the bullet and admits that holding to the idea of human dignity in a godless
universe is delusional. I hope you will see that you are, indeed, operating under that same delusion. If God is a delusion, then so is
any notion of inherent dignity in humanity. But it is believing this delusion, rather than, given your worldview, the stark and
harsh reality of our ultimately pointless existence, that pragmatically serves the preservation of society.
Truth and reason require a belief in God

Honeycutt 12 [Willie E. Honeycutt, Reverend @ Liberty University, “Good without God? The Necessity
of a Theistic Basis for Morality”, Evangelical Theological Society‘s 61st Annual Conference,
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1181&context=sor_fac_pubs, May
2012, imp]
This is a frequent yet false dilemma posed by the atheists. Chesterton states it best in Orthodoxy. ―It is idle to talk always of the alternative of
reason and faith. Reason
is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any
relation to reality at all . . . Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic [when] they are both
movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?"70 Yet non-theists want both their reason and their
morality, but want no god. They cannot have their cake and eat it too, which is exactly what they are trying to do.
Presumption goes NEG

First, epistemology. “risk of offense” logic permits non-falsifiable claims about the
status quo that are impossible to debate like “here’s an aff that solves a problem only
we know about” and it’s logically impossible to prove a negative - epistemology is a
prior issue
Second, Hidden Disads. This is the same reason statistical significance matters – below
a certain magnitude of risk even the sin of the delta represented by the plan is
uncertain – this means that a miniscule risk of an advantage can be outweighed by
miniscule unintended unforeseen consequences which makes their aff just as likely to
be bad as it is good
Third, Burdens. Aff has to justify a reason why changing the world is desirable to prove
the resolution true which makes terminal defense sufficient to negate
Fourth, Research. a high barrier for solvency incentivizes better research and internal
link turns all their offense.
2NC---AT: Occam’s Razor
They say Occam’s Razor
1 – Pascal’s wager
2 – no brightline for the simplest explanation – people are cognitively biased to think
explanations they already believe are the simplest
3 – even if, can’t a priori exclude supernatural explanations – god is a simple
explanation
---Fine Tuning---
2NC---AT: Multiverse
Multiverse is a less plausible explanation than theism and doesn’t disprove fine tuning
regardless
Collins 99 [Robin Collins, “THE FINE-TUNING DESIGN ARGUMENT”,
https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil201/Collins.pdf, 1999, imp]
Reasons for Rejecting the Many-universes Hypothesis

First Reason: The first reason for rejecting the atheistic many-universes hypothesis, and preferring the theistic hypothesis, is the following
general rule: everything else being equal, we should prefer hypotheses for which we have independent evidence or
that are natural extrapolations from what we already know. Let's first illustrate and support this principle, and then apply it to the case of the
fine-tuning.
Most of us take the existence of dinosaur bones to count as very strong evidence that dinosaurs existed in the past. But suppose a dinosaur
skeptic claimed that she could explain the bones by postulating a "dinosaur-boneproducing-field" that simply materialized the bones out of thin
air. Moreover, suppose further that, to avoid objections such as that there are no known physical laws that would allow for such a mechanism,
the dinosaur skeptic simply postulated that we have not yet discovered these laws or detected these fields. Surely, none of us would let this
skeptical hypothesis deter us from inferring to the existence of dinosaurs. Why? Because although no one has directly observed dinosaurs, we
do have experience of other animals leaving behind fossilized remains, and thus the dinosaur explanation is a natural extrapolation from our
common experience. In contrast, to explain the dinosaur bones, the dinosaur skeptic has invented a set of physical laws, and a set of
mechanisms that are not a natural extrapolation from anything we know or experience.
In the case of the fine-tuning, we

already know that minds often produce finetuned devices, such as Swiss
watches. Postulating God—a supermind—as the explanation of the fine-tuning, therefore, is a natural
extrapolation from of what we already observe minds to do. In contrast, it is difficult to see how the
atheistic many-universes hypothesis could be considered a natural extrapolation from what we observe.
Moreover, unlike the atheistic manyuniverses hypothesis, we have some experiential evidence for the existence of God, namely religious
experience. Thus, by the above principle, we
should prefer the theistic explanation of the fine-tuning over the
atheistic manyuniverses explanation, everything else being equal.
Second Reason: A second reason for rejecting the atheistic many-universe hypothesis is that the
"many-universes generator"
seems like it would need to be designed. For instance, in all current worked-out proposals for what this
"universe generator" could be—such as the oscillating big bang and the vacuum fluctuation models explained above—the
"generator" itself is governed by a complex set of physical laws that allow it to produce the universes. It
stands to reason, therefore, that if these laws were slightly different the generator probably would not be able to
produce any universes that could sustain life. After all, even my bread machine has to be made just right in order to work
properly, and it only produces loaves of bread, not universes! Or consider a device as simple as a mouse trap: it requires that all the parts, such
as the spring and hammer, be arranged just right in order to function. It
is doubtful, therefore, whether the atheistic many-
universe theory can entirely eliminate the problem of design the atheist faces; rather, at least to some extent, it
seems simply to move the problem of design up one level.(5)
2NC---AT: Anthropic Principle
Illogical
According to the weak version of so-called anthropic principle, if the laws of nature were not fine-tuned, we would not be here to comment on
the fact.
Some have argued, therefore, that the fine-tuning is not really improbable or surprising at all under
atheism, but simply follows from the fact that we exist. The response to this objection is to simply
restate the argument in terms of our existence: our existence as embodied, intelligent beings is
extremely unlikely under the atheistic single-universe hypothesis (since our existence requires fine-tuning), but not
improbable under theism. Then, we simply apply the prime principle of confirmation to draw the conclusion
that our existence strongly confirms theism over the atheistic single-universe hypothesis.
To further illustrate this response, consider

the following "firing-squad" analogy. As John Leslie (1988, p. 304) points out, if
fifty sharp shooters all miss me, the response "if they had not missed me I wouldn't be here to consider
the fact" is not adequate. Instead, I would naturally conclude that there was some reason why they all
missed, such as that they never really intended to kill me. Why would I conclude this? Because my continued
existence would be very improbable under the hypothesis that they missed me by chance, but not
improbable under the hypothesis that there was some reason why they missed me. Thus, by the prime principle of confirmation, my continued
existence strongly confirms the latter hypothesis.
2NC---AT: More Fundamental Law
A more fundamental law
One criticism of the fine-tuning argument is that, as far as we know, there could be a more fundamental
law under which the parameters of physics must have the values they do. Thus, given such a law, it is
not improbable that the known parameters of physics fall within the life-permitting range.
Besides being entirely speculative, the problem with postulating such a law is that it simply moves the
improbability of the fine-tuning up one level, to that of the postulated physical law itself. Under this hypothesis,
what is improbable is that all the conceivable fundamental physical laws there could be, the universe just happens to have the one that
constrains the parameters of physics in a life-permitting way. Thus, trying to explain the fine-tuning by postulating this sort of fundamental law
is like trying to explain why the pattern of rocks below a cliff spell "Welcome to the mountains Robin Collins" by postulating that an earthquake
occurred and that all the rocks on the cliff face were arranged in just the right configuration to fall into the pattern in question. Clearly
this
explanation merely transfers the improbability up one level, since now it seems enormously improbable
that of all the possible configurations the rocks could be in on the cliff face, they are in the one which
results in the pattern "Welcome to the mountains Robin Collins."
A similar sort of response can be given to the claim that the fine-tuning is not improbable because it
might be logically necessary for the parameters of physics to have life-permitting values . That is, according to
this claim, the parameters of physics must have life-permitting values in the same way 2 + 2 must equal 4, or the interior angles of a triangle
must add up to 180 degrees in Euclidian geometry. Like the "more fundamental law" proposal above, however, this
postulate simply
transfers the improbability up one level: of all the laws and parameters of physics that conceivably could
have been logically necessary, it seems highly improbable that it would be those that are life-permitting.
(3)
2NC---AT: Other Forms of Life
Other forms of life can’t exist
Another objectionpeople commonly raise to the fine-tuning argument is that as far as we know, other
forms of life could exist even if the parameters of physics were different. So, it is claimed, the fine-tuning argument
ends up presupposing that all forms of intelligent life must be like us. The answer to this objection is that most cases of fine-tuning do not make
this presupposition. Consider,
for instance, the case of the fine-tuning of the strong nuclear force. If it were
slightly larger or smaller, no atoms could exist other than hydrogen. Contrary to what one might see on Star Trek, an
intelligent life form cannot be composed merely of hydrogen gas: there is simply not enough stable
complexity. So, in general the fine-tuning argument merely presupposes that intelligent life requires
some degree of stable, reproducible organized complexity. This is certainly a very reasonable
assumption.
---Historical Jesus---
2NC---AT: No Historical Jesus
Jesus was a real historical figure – best scholarship
Ehrman 12 [Bart Ehrman, American New Testament Scholar, “Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument
for Jesus of Nazareth”, https://books.google.com/books?
id=hf5Rj8EtsPkC&q=Serious+historians+of+the+early+Christian+movement#v=snippet&q=Serious
%20historians%20of%20the%20early%20Christian%20movement&f=false, pp. 4-5, 2012, imp]
Serious historians of the early Christian movement—all of them—have spent many years preparing to be
experts in their field. Just to read the ancient sources requires expertise in a range of ancient languages:
Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and often Aramaic, Syriac, and Coptic, not to mention the modern languages of scholarship (for
example, German and French). And that is just for starters. Expertise requires years of patiently examining ancient
texts and a thorough grounding in the history and culture of Greek and Roman antiquity, the religions of
the ancient Mediterranean world, both pagan and Jewish, knowledge of the history of the Christian
church and the development of its social life and theology, and, well, lots of other things. It is striking that
virtually everyone who has spent all the years needed to attain these qualifications is convinced that
Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure.
No contemporary scholars questioned the existence of Jesus

Gathercole 17 [Simon Gathercole, New Testament Studies at the University of Cambridge, “What is the
historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived and died?”,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-
lived-and-died, April 14, 2017, imp]
How confident can we be that Jesus Christ actually lived?
The historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is both long-established and widespread. Within a few decades
of his supposed lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of
Christian writings. Compare that with, for example, King Arthur, who supposedly lived around AD500. The major historical source for
events of that time does not even mention Arthur, and he is first referred to 300 or 400 years after he is supposed to have lived. The
evidence for Jesus is not limited to later folklore, as are accounts of Arthur.
What do Christian writings tell us?
The value of this evidence is that it is both early and detailed. The first Christian writings to talk about Jesus are the epistles of St Paul, and scholars agree that the earliest of these letters were written within 25 years of Jesus’s death at the very latest, while the detailed biographical
accounts of Jesus in the New Testament gospels date from around 40 years after he died. These all appeared within the lifetimes of numerous eyewitnesses, and provide descriptions that comport with the culture and geography of first-century Palestine. It is also difficult to imagine why
Christian writers would invent such a thoroughly Jewish saviour figure in a time and place – under the aegis of the Roman empire – where there was strong suspicion of Judaism.
What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?
As far as we know, the first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93. He has two references to Jesus. One of these is controversial because it is thought to be corrupted by Christian scribes (probably
turning Josephus’s negative account into a more positive one), but the other is not suspicious – a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.
About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-
36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed
obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.
Did ancient writers discuss the existence of Jesus?
Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a
historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate
child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel,
but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.
They are climate deniers
Yanes 18 [Javier Yanes, science journalist, PhD Immunology & Molecular Biology, “Did Jesus of Nazareth
actually exist? The evidence says yes”,
https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/science/scientific-insights/did-jesus-of-nazareth-actually-exist-the-
evidence-says-yes/, December 24, 2018, imp]
But the ancient

references to Jesus are not just found in works by Christian authors, an argument that
supports the historical authenticity of the character. “Jesus is also mentioned in ancient Jewish and
Roman texts,” says McCane. For example, around the year 93, the Pharisee historian Flavius Josephus left in his work Jewish Antiquities at
least one indisputable reference to the “brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” Two decades later, the Romans Pliny and Tacitus also wrote
about Jesus; the latter explained that the founder of the sect of Christians was executed during the mandate of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius
Pilate was governing in Judea. In short, the
abundance of historical texts converts the real existence of Jesus into
what McCane defines as a “broad and deep consensus among scholars,” regardless of their religious
beliefs. “I do not know, nor have I heard of, any trained historian or archaeologist who has doubts about
his existence,” he adds. With the weight of all this evidence, for Meyers “those who deny the existence of Jesus are
like the deniers of climate change.”
2NC---AT: Apostles Lied
Answered by the Choi evidence – nobody who said they witnessed the resurrected
Jesus ever recanted despite many of them literally being tortured and murdered for
their beliefs which inverts any theory that says they lied for political reasons
They would’ve faced intense social pressure from jewish society – all their friends,
family etc, to not be Christian
They can’t explain Paul who our Choi evidence indicates was the Osama Bin Laden of
anti-Christians but who immediately converted to Christianity after meeting the
resurrected Jesus
Reliance on the testimony of women proves it’s unlikely that they were lying
Swinburne 13 [Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Professor of philosophy, “The Probability of the
Resurrection of Jesus”, Philosophia Christi, https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d87b370b-65e4-4a03-
b6ec-9e927b50206b/download_file?safe_filename=Swinburne_2013-
resurrection.pdf&file_format=application%2Fpdf&type_of_work=Journal+article, 2013, imp]\
(5) The tomb was probably discovered empty by women. To understand this point one has to recall two facts about the role
of women in Jewish society.
(a) Woman occupied a low rung on the Jewish social ladder. This is evident in such rabbinic expressions as "Sooner let the
words of the law be burnt than delivered to women" and "Happy is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female."
(b) The testimony of women was regarded as so worthless that they were not even permitted to serve as
legal witnesses in a court of law. In light of these facts, how remarkable must it seem that it is women who are the discoverers of
Jesus' empty tomb. Any later legend would certainly have made the male disciples to discover the empty tomb. The fact that women,
whose testimony was worthless, rather than men, are the chief witnesses to the empty tomb is most
plausibly accounted for by the fact that, like it or not, they were the discoverers of the empty tomb and
the gospels accurately record this.
2NC---AT: No Empty Tomb
All credible historical evidence supports the accuracy of the empty tomb
Swinburne 13 [Richard Swinburne, Emeritus Professor of philosophy, “The Probability of the
Resurrection of Jesus”, Philosophia Christi, https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d87b370b-65e4-4a03-
b6ec-9e927b50206b/download_file?safe_filename=Swinburne_2013-
resurrection.pdf&file_format=application%2Fpdf&type_of_work=Journal+article, 2013, imp]\
(5) The tomb was probably discovered empty by women. To understand this point one has to recall two facts about the role
of women in Jewish society.
(a) Woman occupied a low rung on the Jewish social ladder. This is evident in such rabbinic expressions as "Sooner let the
words of the law be burnt than delivered to women" and "Happy is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female."
(b) The testimony of women was regarded as so worthless that they were not even permitted to serve as
legal witnesses in a court of law. In light of these facts, how remarkable must it seem that it is women who are the discoverers of
Jesus' empty tomb. Any later legend would certainly have made the male disciples to discover the empty tomb. The fact that women,
whose testimony was worthless, rather than men, are the chief witnesses to the empty tomb is most
plausibly accounted for by the fact that, like it or not, they were the discoverers of the empty tomb and
the gospels accurately record this.
(6) The earliest Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb . In Matthew 28, we find the Christian attempt to refute the
earliest Jewish polemic against the resurrection. That polemic asserted that the disciples stole away the body. The Christians responded to this
by reciting the story of the guard at the tomb, and the polemic in turn charged that the guard fell asleep. Now the noteworthy feature of this
whole dispute is not the historicity of the guards but rather the presupposition of both parties that the body was missing. The
earliest
Jewish response to the proclamation of the resurrection was an attempt to explain away the empty
tomb. Thus, the evidence of the adversaries of the disciples provides evidence in support of the empty
tomb.
One could go on, but perhaps enough has been said to indicate why the
judgment of scholarship has reversed itself on the
historicity of the empty tomb. According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of
the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may
be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that
he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical
fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical
grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions ." But assumptions
may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.
tag
Craig 89 [William Lane Craig, “ON DOUBTS ABOUT THE RESURRECTION”, Modem Theology,
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5718e8b7f85082df1d53dd09/t/
58de3d5737c58106c9cefab8/1490959719232/William+Lane+Craig
%2C+On+doubts+of+the+resurrection.pdf, 1989, imp]
3. The presence of the empty tomb pericope in the pre-Markan passion story supports its historical
credibility. That the empty tomb story was part of the pre-Markan passion story is evident from the fact
that (i) the empty tomb pericope is bound up with the immediate context of the burial account and the
passion story; (ii) verbal and syntactical similarities bind the empty tomb story to the burial narrative;
(iii) the passion story would probably not have been circulated without victory at its end; and (iv) the
correspondence between the events of the passion and the formula of I Cor. 15:3-5 confirms the
inclusion of the empty tomb account in the pre-Markan passion story. From the nature of the events
themselves, such a conclusion makes good sense: there was no continuous, running account of the
appearances because the appearances themselves were unexpected, sporadic, and to different people
at various locations and occasions, whereas the empty tomb story related a fact which was, so to speak,
"common property' of the Urgemeinde
According to Pesch,9 geographical references, personal names, and the use of Galilee as a horizon all
point to Jerusalem as the fount of the preMarkan passion story. As to its age, Pesch argues that Paul's
Last Supper tradition (I Cor. 11:23-25) presupposes the pre-Markan passion account; hence, the latter
must have originated in the first years of existence of the Jerusalem Urgemeinde. Confirmation of this is
found in the fact that the pre-Markan passion story speaks of the "high priest" without using his name
(14:53, 54, 60, 61, 63). This implies (nearly necessitates, according to Pesch) that Caiaphas was still the
high priest when the pre-Markan passion story was being told, since then there would be no need to
mention his name. Since Caiaphas was high priest from A.D. 18-37, the terminus ante quern for the
origin of the tradition is A.D. 37.
Now if this is the case, then it seems futile to attempt to construe the empty tomb account as an
unhistorical legend. It seems astounding that Pesch himself can try to convince us that the pre-Markan
empty tomb story is an unhistorical fusion of three literary forms from the history of religions: door-
opening miracles, epiphany stories, and stories of seeking but not finding persons who have been
translated to heaven.10 Make no mistake: given the age (even if not as old as Pesch argues) and the
vicinity of origin of the pre-Markan passion story, it seems very unlikely that the account could, at its
core, be an unhistorical legend.
4. The use of "the first day of the week" instead of "on the third day" points to the primitiveness of the
tradition. The tradition of the discovery of the empty tomb must, it seems, be very old and very
primitive because it lacks altogether the third day motif prominent in the kerygma, which is itself
extremely old, as evident by its appearance in I Cor. 15:4. If the empty tomb narrative were a late and
legendary account, then, as Bode points out, it could hardly have avoided being cast in the prominent,
ancient, and accepted third day motif.11 This strongly implies that the empty tomb tradition ante-dates
the third day motif itself. Again, the proximity of the tradition to the events themselves seems to make it
idle to regard the empty tomb story as a legend. It seems quite probable that on the first day of the
week the tomb was indeed found empty.
5. The nature of the narrative itself is theologically unadorned and non-apologetic. The resurrection is
not described, and later theological motifs that a late legend might be expected to incorporate are
wholly lacking. Comparison of Mark's account with those in later apocryphal gospels like the Gospel of
Peter underlines the simplicity of the Markan story. This suggests the account is primitive and factual,
even if dramatization should occur in the role of the angel.
6. The discovery of the empty tomb by women is highly probable. Given the low status of women in
Jewish society and their lack of qualification to serve as legal witnesses, the most plausible explanation,
in light of the gospels' conviction that the disciples were in Jerusalem over the Easter weekend, why
women and not the male disciples were made discoverers of the empty tomb is that the women were in
fact the ones who made this discovery. This conclusion receives confirmation from the fact that there
seems to be no reason why the later Christian church should wish to humiliate its leaders by having
them hiding in cowardice in Jerusalem, while the women boldly carry out their last devotions to Jesus's
body, unless this were in fact the truth. Furthermore, the listing of the women's names again weighs
against unhistorical legend at the story's core, for these persons were known in the Urgemeinde and so
could not be easily associated with a false account
7. The investigation of the empty tomb by Peter and John is historically probable. Behind the fourth
gospel stands the witness of the Beloved Disciple, who is most probably to be identified with John the
son of Zebedee, whose reminiscences fill out the traditions employed. The visit of the disciples to the
empty tomb is apparently therefore attested, not only in tradition, but by John himself. His testimony
has therefore the same first hand character as Paul's letters and ought to be accorded equal weight.
Entirely apart from that, however, the historicity of the disciples' visit is also made likely by the
plausibility of the denial of Peter tradition, for if he were in Jerusalem, then having heard the women's
report he would quite likely check it out. The inherent implausibility of and absence of any evidence for
the disciples' flight to Galilee render it highly likely that they were in Jerusalem, which fact makes the
visit to the tomb also very plausible.
8. It would have been virtually impossible for the disciples to proclaim the resurrection in Jerusalem had
the tomb not been empty. The empty tomb is a sine qua non of the resurrection. The notion that Jesus
rose from the dead with a new body while his old body lay in the grave is, pace Keller, a purely modern
conception. Jewish mentality would never have accepted a division of two bodies, one in the tomb and
one in the risen life. Even if the disciples failed to check the empty tomb, the Jews could have been
guilty of no such oversight. Moreover, even if the burial story were false and Jesus had been buried in
the criminal's common graveyard, it is not at all obvious that the Jewish authorities could not have re-
located a recently dug dirt grave, even after several weeks. When therefore the disciples began to
preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, and people responded, and the religious authorities stood
helplessly by, the tomb must have been empty.12 The fact that the Christian fellowship, founded on
belief in Jesus's resurrection, could come into existence and flourish in the very city where he was
executed and buried seems powerful evidence for the historicity of the empty tomb
9. The Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. From information unintentionally furnished by
Matthew, we know that the Jewish opponents of the Christian Way did not deny that Jesus's tomb was
empty.13 Instead they charged that the disciples had stolen Jesus's body. From here the controversy
over the guard at the tomb sprang up. The entire polemic presupposes that the tomb was empty. The
fact that the Jewish polemic never denied that Jesus's tomb was empty, but only tried to e
10. The fact that Jesus's tomb was not venerated as a shrine indicates that the tomb was empty. We saw
earlier that it was customary in Judaism that the tomb of a prophet or holy man be preserved or
venerated as a shrine. But this was so because the remains of the prophet lay in the tomb and thus
imparted to the site its religious value. Of course, if the body were not there, then the grave would lose
its significance as a shrine. Now in the case of Jesus's tomb, we find, in Dunn's words, "absolutely no
trace" of any veneration of Jesus's burial place.14 In light of the disciples' peculiar reverence for Jesus,
the reason for this absence of veneration for his burial place is most probably due to the fact that Jesus's
body was not in the tomb — his grave was empty.
Taken together these ten considerations seem to furnish good evidence that the tomb of Jesus was
actually found empty on Sunday morning by a small group of his women followers. As a plain historical
fact this seems to be amply attested. As Van Daalen has remarked, it is extremely difficult to object to
the fact of the empty tomb on historical grounds; most objectors do so on the basis of theological or
philosophical considerations.15 But these cannot, of course, change empirical facts. And interestingly.
New Testament scholars seem to be increasingly recognizing this: according to Kremer, "By far, most
exegetes hold firmly... to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb...," and he
furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of 28 prominent scholars in support.16
Explaining the Historical Fact. But if the tomb of Jesus was found empty on the first day of the week, the
question must be, how did this situation come to be? Although the empty tomb may have proved at first
ambiguous and puzzling to the disciples, today we know that most alternative explanations for the
empty tomb are more incredible than the resurrection itself (for example, the disciples' stealing the
body, Jesus's not being dead, the women's going to the wrong tomb, etc.). The old rationalistic
explanations have thoroughly failed to provide plausible historical explanations that fit the facts without
bruising them.17 The fact is that there is simply no plausible naturalistic explanation available today to
account for the empty tomb of Jesus.
2NC---AT: Hallucination Theory
Tag
Habermas 01 [Gary R. Habermas, Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy,
chairman of the department of philosophy at Liberty University, “Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection:
HALLUCINATION The Recent Revival of THEORIES”, Christian Research Journal,
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=lts_fac_pubs, 2001, imp]
Collective Hallucinations One of the central issues in this entire discussion concerns whether a group of
people can witness the same hallucination. Most psychologists dispute that possibility. A rare attempt
suggesting that collective hallucinations are possible, without any application to Jesus’ resurrection, is
made by Leonard Zusne and Warren Jones. They point to phenomena such as claimed sightings of the
Virgin Mary and other accompanying reports from groups of people. In cases such as these,
“expectation” and “emotional excitement” are “a prerequisite for collective hallucinations.” In such
groups, we see the “emotional contagion that so often takes place in crowds moved by strong emotions.
…”25
The idea of collective hallucinations, however, is highly problematic on several grounds:
1. The chief examples of “collective hallucinations” provided by Zusne and Jones were religious group
experiences such as with Marian apparitions. These examples simply beg the question whether such
experiences could possibly be objective, or even supernatural, at least in some sense. In other words,
why must a naturalistic, subjective explanation be assumed?26 This approach seems to rule out the
apparitions in an a priori manner, before the data are considered.
2. Furthermore, the collective hallucination thesis is unfalsifiable. It could be applied to purely natural,
group sightings, simply calling them group hallucinations, too. Concerning this thesis, crucial epistemic
criteria seem to be missing. It can be used to explain (away) almost any unusual occurrence. How do we
determine normal occurrences from group hallucinations?
3. Even if it could be established that groups of people experienced hallucinations, it does not mean that
these experiences were therefore collective. If, as most psychologists assert, hallucinations are private,
individual events, then how could groups share exactly the same subjective visual perception? Rather, it
is much more likely that the phenomena in question are either illusions — perceptual misinterpretations
of actual realities27 — or individual hallucinations.
Moreover, the most serious problems result from comparing this thesis to the New Testament accounts
of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. Here, the explanatory power of this hypothesis is severely
challenged, since much of the data not only differs from, but actually contradicts, the necessary
conditions for “collective hallucinations.”
4. For instance (more examples will follow below), Zusne and Jones argue that “expectation” and
“emotional excitement” are “prerequisites” before such group experiences can occur. In fact,
expectation “plays the coordinating role”;28 but these necessary elements contradict the emotional
state of the early witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection appearances. The early believers were confronted
with the utter reality of the recent and unexpected death of their best friend, whom they had hoped
would rescue Israel. As those events unfolded in a whirlwind of incidents that included Jesus’ physical
beatings, crucifixion, and seeming abandonment, the normal response would have been fear,
disillusionment, and depression. To suppose that these believers exhibited “expectation” and
“emotional excitement” in the face of these stark circumstances would require responses on their part
that would scarcely be exhibited at a funeral! All indications are that Jesus’ disciples exhibited the very
opposite emotions from what Zusne and Jones assert as being necessary for such hallucinations.
By comparison, the disciples’ experience was totally unlike those cases where pilgrims expressly traveled
long distances, exuberantly gathering with the explicit desire to see something special, as in the Marian
cases. There would seem to be extremely meager grounds for comparison here with Jesus’ disciples.29
Many other crucial problems plague the thesis of group hallucinations, and we will pursue several more
below. For now, we repeat that Zusne and Jones never even attempt to apply their approach to Jesus’
resurrection. Rather, they incredibly close their examination with the admission that group
hallucinations have a “dubious status” because it is not possible to ascertain whether these individuals
were actually hallucinating!30
Tag
Many other issues remain regarding the hallucination hypothesis:
1. Even individual hallucinations are questionable for believers who felt despair at the unexpected death
of Jesus just hours before. Their hopes and dreams had suddenly been dashed. Extreme grief, not
exuberance, would have been their normal response.
2. The wide variety of times and places that Jesus appeared, along with the differing mindsets of the
witnesses, is another formidable obstacle. The accounts of men and women, hard-headed and soft-
hearted alike, all believing that they saw Jesus, both indoors and outdoors, provide an insurmountable
barrier for hallucinations. The odds that each person would be in precisely the proper and same frame
of mind to experience a hallucination, even individually, decrease exponentially.33
3. Generally, hallucinations do not transform lives. Studies indicate that even those who do hallucinate
often disavow the experiences when others present have not seen the same thing.34 Critics
acknowledge that Jesus’ disciples were transformed even to the point of being willing to die for their
faith. No early text reports that any of them ever recanted. It is highly unlikely that this quality of
conviction came about through false sensory perceptions without anyone rejecting it later.
4. If the appearances were hallucinations, then opponents should have located Jesus’ body safely and
securely in His grave just outside the city of Jerusalem. That body would undoubtedly be a rather large
disclaimer to the disciples’ efforts to preach that Jesus was raised! Because the hallucination hypotheses
do not even address the historical arguments for the empty tomb, another naturalistic thesis is required
in order to do so. Still more issues weaken the hallucination hypothesis. While they are perhaps not as
weighty, they nevertheless count:
5. Why did the hallucinations stop after 40 days? Why didn’t they continue to spread to other believers,
just as the other hallucinations had?
6. The resurrection was the disciples’ central teaching, and we usually take extra care with what is
closest to our hearts. This is what drove Paul to check out the nature of the gospel data with other key
disciples on at least two occasions to make sure he was preaching the truth (Gal. 1:18–19; 2:1–10). He
found that they were also speaking of Jesus’ appearances to them (1 Cor. 15:11).
7. What about the natural human tendency to touch? Would not one of them ever discover, even in a
single instance, that his or her best friend, seemingly standing perhaps just a few feet away, was not
really there?
8. The resurrection of a contemporary individual contradicted general Jewish theology, which held to a
corporate resurrection at the end of time. So Jesus’ resurrection did not fit normal Jewish expectations,
and most of the witnesses to Jesus’ bodily resurrection were Jewish.
9. Finally, hallucinations of the extended sort required by this naturalistic theory are rare phenomena,
chiefly occurring in circumstances that militate against Jesus’ disciples being the recipients.35
2NC---AT: No Archeological Record
No archeological record is irrelevant – there’s numerous historically credible written
accounts
Archeological record irrelevant
Klein 21 [Christopher Klein, Historical Journalist, “The Bible Says Jesus Was Real. What Other Proof
Exists?”, https://www.history.com/news/was-jesus-real-historical-evidence, March 24, 2021, imp]
Archaeological evidence of Jesus does not exist.
There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus . “There’s nothing conclusive,
nor would I expect there to be,” Mykytiuk says. “Peasants don’t normally leave an archaeological trail.”
“The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and
place,” says University of North Carolina religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman, author of Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for
Jesus of Nazareth. “The lack of evidence does not mean a person at the time didn’t exist. It means that she or
he, like 99.99% of the rest of the world at the time, made no impact on the archaeological record.”
2NC---AT: Conversion Disorder Theory
tag
Kent has suggested that Paul experienced a “conversion disorder,” a psychological condition
characterized by such physical symptoms as blindness or paralysis in the absence of specific neurological
or medical causes. This was brought about by his inner turbulence, conflict, doubt, and guilt. Goulder
agrees about Paul, but adds that Peter and others, including perhaps James, were also suffering from
the same problem.
Again, when we align their hypotheses with the known facts, multiple problems with their interpretation
emerge:
1. Initially, only Paul is known to have manifested any such symptoms. Goulder’s inclusion of the others
is not factually grounded.
2. The psychological profile provided for conversion disorder also strongly opposes an application to
Paul, James, or Peter. It most frequently occurs in women (up to five times more often), adolescents and
young adults, less-educated persons, people with low I.Q.s or low socioeconomic status, and combat
personnel.31 Not a single characteristic applies to Paul and it would be difficult to prove them for the
other two apostles.
3. A major problem is that no evidence exists to posit the preconditions for such a disorder from what
we know about Paul, and about James in particular. Critics agree that James was an unbeliever during
Jesus’ earthly ministry (John 7:5; cf. Mark 3:21). We have no indication that James experienced the
slightest inner conflict, doubt, or guilt concerning his previous rejection of Jesus’ teachings. Paul’s
skepticism is even better known, since he persecuted early Christians (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13, 23). We do
not know of any guilt on Paul’s part either, for he considered his actions to have been both zealous and
faultless (Phil. 3:4-6). In short, there is no indication of any prior desire for conversion by either of these
men. To suppose otherwise is groundless. Paul and James are thus exceptionally poor candidates for this
disorder.
4 and 5. Here, we have two separate critiques, due to very different sets of circumstances. While the
same cannot be said of Peter, there is no indication that either James or Paul longed to see Jesus. Their
unbelief is a poor basis for producing hallucinations! James the skeptic and Paul the persecutor are
exceptionally tough obstacles for the hallucination thesis. To say otherwise is mere conjecture apart
from historical data. Not only are these two individuals poor candidates for hallucination, but we need
both visual and auditory hallucinations, which stretches the case even further. These two phenomena
are relatively uncommon occurrences.32 These two apostles, therefore, fail to qualify for the disorder in
the first place, and even apart from this malady, they were additionally not predisposed to experience
hallucinations.
6. Neither does this hypothesis normally account for what would otherwise be considered delusions of
grandeur — in this case, the apostles’ belief that God had imparted to them a global message that
others must accept. It is unlikely that other delusions were involved here, occurring at precisely the
same time. So the case is further weakened in that the thesis fails to explain all of the known data.
Charging that these apostles were victims of conversion disorder simply does not fit the facts. It is clearly
an overreliance on a hypothesis apart from the data, a theory not anchored to reality. It would be highly
improbable for all of the necessary factors to converge simultaneously. Like the charge of mass
hallucinations, it spawns more difficulties than it tries to solve.
2NC---AT: Keller Interpretation Theory
tag
Keller's analysis of the historical reliability of the NT evidence concerning the resurrection is
characterized by what can only be described as an astounding naivete. After laying down a few
historiographical generalizations, Keller's approach to the documents seems to be simply throwing up
one's hands in despair because we have no eyewitness account of the resurrection. He seems to know
nothing of "the historian's craft," to borrow a phrase, nor of the tools used by NT scholarship in probing
the NT documents for their historical core. His typical procedure is to cite a few NT critics holding
various sceptical views and to conclude from "this diversity of expert opinion"2 that the NT evidence
cannot be confidently regarded as historically reliable. One is tempted simply to respond, "Well,
welcome to the world of NT criticism, Mr. Keller!" As anyone who has worked in this field can testify,
one can find scholars to cite in support of virtually any opinion, no matter how implausible or weakly
supported.3 Playing off opinions against each other is a worthless procedure unless one examines the
arguments undergirding those opinions.
What then can be said with regard to the historical credibility of the NT evidence concerning the
resurrection?4 The principal historical basis for belief in the resurrection of Jesus consists in the
evidence for the empty tomb, for the appearances of Jesus to the various witnesses, and for the origin
of the Christian Way. If the evidence for these facts is strong and cannot be plausibly accounted for by
alternative explanations, then the resurrection of Jesus would seem to be the historical hypothesis that
most suitably fits the facts of the case. Keller endorses Marxsen's view that the resurrection is merely
the apostles' inference from or interpretation of the facts, an interpretation not binding on us today,
since no one actually witnesses the resurrection. But this objection, if sound, would land us in nearly
absolute scepticism. In fact, if one were to find empty the grave of a friend who had recently died and
thereafter on repeated occasions one encountered him again, talked with him, and ate with him, then,
as Bode dryly remarks, the "interpretation" that he had been raised from the dead would not seem to
be either unwarranted or merely subjective.5 The question is, is the historical credibility of Jesus's
resurrection sufficiently high to warrant our belief?
2NC---AT: Legend/Mythical Jesus
1 – The Gospels are too recent to Jesus’ death to be myths
(a) There was insufficient time for legend to accrue significantly. Ever since D. F. Strauss broached his theory that
the gospel accounts of Jesus's life and resurrection are the products of legendary development, the unanswered difficulty
for this conception has been that the temporal and geographical distance between the events
and the accounts seems to be simply insufficient to allow for the extent of development
postulated. Roman historian A. N. Sherwin-White has underlined the importance of this consideration. He remarks that in
classical historiography the sources are usually biased and removed at least one or two
generations or even centuries from the events they narrate; but historians still reconstruct with confidence
what happened.20 In the gospels, by contrast, the tempo is "unbelievable" for the accrual of legend;
more generations are needed.21 The writings of Herodotus enable us to test the tempo of myth-
making, and the tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the
mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of oral tradition.22 Such a temporal gap
with regard to the gospel traditions would land us precisely in the period when the apocryphal
gospels were beginning to originate.
2 – Testimony of Paul proves

Hurtado 17 [Larry Hurtado, “Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars”,
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017/12/02/why-the-mythical-jesus-claim-has-no-traction-with-
scholars/, December 2, 2017, imp]
But, in a sense, the “mythical

Jesus” focus on the Gospels is a bit of a red-herring. For the far earlier references
to an earthly/mortal Jesus are in the earliest Christian texts extant: the several letters that are
commonly undisputed as composed by the Apostle Paul.[xiii] These take us back much earlier, typically
dated sometime between the late 40s and the early 60s of the first century. So Carrier’s final claim to consider is
whether Paul’s letters reflect a view of Jesus as simply an angelic, “celestial” being with no real historical existence.
Unquestionably, Paul affirms and reflects a “high” view of Jesus, as the true Messiah, the unique Son of God, and the exalted Lord to whom
now God requires obeisance by all creation.[xiv] After his initially vigorous opposition to the young Jesus-movement, he had an experience that
he regarded a divine revelation, which confirmed to him Jesus’ exalted status and validity as God’s unique “Son” (Galatians 1:14-16), after
which he became a trans-national exponent of the claims about Jesus. Corresponding to this, and still more remarkable in light of Paul’s firm
Jewish heritage and continuing self-identity, his letters reflect a developed devotional pattern in which the resurrected and exalted Jesus
features programmatically along with God as recipient and focus.[xv]
But for Paul and those previous Jesus-followers whom he had initially opposed prior to the “revelation”
that turned him in a new direction, Jesus was initially a Jewish male contemporary. It was what they took to be
God’s resurrection and exaltation of the crucified Jesus that generated their view of him as having a
heavenly status. And, in keeping with ancient apocalyptic logic (final things = first things), God’s heavenly exaltation of him as Messiah
and Lord generated the conviction that he had been “there” with God from creation, as “pre-existent”.[xvi] So, there are two major corrections
to make to the claim espoused by Carrier.
First, Paul
never refers to Jesus as an angel or archangel.[xvii] Indeed, a text such as Romans 8:38-39 seems to
make a sharp distinction between angelic powers and the exalted Kyrios Jesus. Moreover, although Paul shares
the early Christian notion that the historical figure, Jesus had a heavenly back-story or divine “pre-existence” (e.g., Philippians 2:6-8), this in no
way worked against Paul’s view of Jesus as also a real, historical human being.
3 – consensus
The overwhelming body of scholars, in New Testament, Christian Origins, Ancient History, Ancient
Judaism, Roman-era Religion, Archaeology/History of Roman Judea, and a good many related fields as
well, hold that there was a first-century Jewish man known as Jesus of Nazareth, that he engaged in an
itinerant preaching/prophetic activity in Galilee, that he drew to himself a band of close followers, and
that he was executed by the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate.
These same scholars typically recognize also that very quickly after Jesus’ execution there arose among
Jesus’ followers the strong conviction that God (the Jewish deity) had raised Jesus from death (based on
claims that some of them had seen the risen Jesus). These followers also claimed that God had exalted
Jesus to heavenly glory as the validated Messiah, the unique “Son of God,” and “Lord” to whom all
creation was now to give obeisance.[i] Whatever they make of these claims, scholars tend to grant that
they were made, and were the basis for pretty much all else that followed in the origins of what became
Christianity.
The “mythical Jesus” view doesn’t have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars
working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their
personal stance. Advocates of the “mythical Jesus” may dismiss this statement, but it ought to count for
something if, after some 250 years of critical investigation of the historical figure of Jesus and of
Christian Origins, and the due consideration of “mythical Jesus” claims over the last century or more,
this spectrum of scholars have judged them unpersuasive (to put it mildly).
The reasons are that advocates of the “mythical

Jesus” have failed to demonstrate expertise in the relevant data,
and sufficient acquaintance with the methods involved in the analysis of the relevant data , and have failed to
show that the dominant scholarly view (that Jesus of Nazareth was a real first-century figure) is incompatible with the data or less secure than
the “mythical Jesus” claim. This is true, even of Richard Carrier’s recent mammoth (700+ pages) book, advertised as the first “refereed” book
advocating this view.[ii] Advertisements for his book refer to the “assumption” that Jesus lived, but among scholars it’s not an assumption—it’s
the fairly settled judgement of scholars based on 250 years of hard work on that and related questions.
2NC---AT: Richard Carrier
Carrier has no qualifications
McGrath 17 [James F. McGrath, “Richard Carrier as a False Prophet”,
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/religionprof/2017/12/richard-carrier-false-prophet.html, December
10, 2017, imp]
Despite Carrier’s evangelistic prophecies that the scholarly world will come to see that he, though now a voice in
the wilderness, is correct in judging Jesus of Nazareth to be a mythical invention , there is in fact no sign of
fulfillment. He is a paid advocate of his views (having been hired to produce these books), not a disinterested or dispassionate assessor of
things. He is not expert in the very subjects on which he writes in these books, and his mishandling of the
evidence shows this all to clearly. I conclude that, in so far as scholarly judgment of the matter is concerned,
Carrier’s often-strident efforts will be judged as the last hurrah of the “mythicist” claim , although
internet die-hards are likely to remain doggedly committed to it.
And nobody credible agrees with him

Andi 15 [Rob Andi, “Accusing Richard Carrier of bias is a shallow fallacy”,
https://atheistforum.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/accusing-richard-carrier-of-bias-is-a-shallow-fallacy/,
March 30, 2015, imp]
Carrier’s academic views are extremely contrary to the prevailing opinion of academic scholarship .
Carrier’s Jesus myth views are rejected by virtually all academic scholars. Even skeptic Bart Ehrman is
highly critical of Carrier’s work. Now, I’m not trying to diminish the soundness of Carrier’s academic work solely because of his
personal life. Yet it is interesting that he is about the only academic promoting the Jesus myth view in the weight
of overwhelming consensus to the opposite. We can assess his arguments, but given that they are so unconvincing to
the majority of the academy, we must ask why does he come to that view?
2NC---AT: Carrier---Other Cults
Tag
Now let’s consider his second claim, that “all similar savior cults from the period” feature “a cosmic
savior, later historicized.” All? That’s quite a claim! So, for example, Isis? She began as a local Egyptian
deity and her cult grew in popularity and distribution across the Roman world in the first century or so
AD, but she never came to be treated as a historical woman. How about her Egyptian consort Osiris?
Again, a deity who remained . . . a deity, and didn’t get “historicized” as a man of a given date. Mithras?
Ditto. Cybele? Ditto. Artemis? Ditto. We could go on, but it would get tedious to do so. Carrier’s
cavalier claim is so blatantly fallacious as to astonish anyone acquainted with ancient Roman-era
religion.[vii] There is in fact no instance known to me (or to other experts in Roman-era religion) in “all
the savior cults of the period” of a deity that across time got transformed into a mortal figure of a
specific time and place, such as is alleged happened in the case of Jesus.[viii]
2NC---AT: No Eyewitness Accounts
Wrong – evidence cites multiple eyewitnesses including the testimony of Paul
tag
Licona 10 [Michael R. Licona, Professor in Theology @ Houston Baptist University, “The Resurrection of
Jesus A New Historiographical Approach”, ISBN-10: 0830827196, pp x-x, 2010, imp]
5.7.2.4. Deficient sources. Ehrman argues that the canonical Gospels are poor sources that prevent
historians from discovering what actually happened to Jesus. He supports his position by contending
that they were not written by eyewitnesses, were late since they were written thirty-five to sixty-five
years after Jesus’ death, and contain propaganda that itself was altered during various stages of
transmission, resulting in numerous differences. Furthermore, no extrabiblical sources mention Jesus
until approximately eighty years after his death. In short, Ehrman argues that the Gospels are neither
contemporary, disinterested nor consistent.418
There are numerous problems with Ehrman’s contentions. He complains that the New Testament
Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Bracketing the fact that a number of scholars have taken a
contrary position,419 this challenge is not unique to the New Testament literature. No surviving account
of the life of Alexander the Great was written by an eyewitness. Tacitus and Suetonius were not
eyewitnesses to the majority of the events they reported. Nevertheless, historians remain confident that
they are able to recover the past to varying degrees without ever knowing who their sources were.420
Moreover, while virtually all agree that Mark and Luke were not written by eyewitnesses, many scholars
hold that they preserve eyewitness testimony to varying degrees.
Ehrman complains that all of the canonical Gospels were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus and that Jesus does not appear in “any
non-canonical pagan source until 80 years after his death. So clearly he didn’t make a big impact on the pagan world.” However, Josephus
mentions Jesus within sixty to sixty-five years.421 Moreover, when compared with written sources of other
historical figures and events, thirty-five to sixty-five years is a relatively short period. Augustus is
generally regarded as Rome’s greatest emperor. There are nine chief sources that historians use when
writing their histories of Augustus. Three of the nine are contemporary with Augustus: two cover Augustus until age nineteen to
twenty, while the third is a funeral inscription that may have been composed during Augustus’ lifetime. A fourth source writes from 50-110
years after the death of Augustus and the final four write from 100-200 years after his death.422 Therefore, it
is remarkable that four
biographies of Jesus were written within 35-65 years of his death.423 Furthermore, oral tradition is peppered
throughout the New Testament writings, including the Gospels. For example, creeds, hymns, oral
formulas and the Acts sermon summaries contain very early tradition, some of which goes back to the
earliest stages of the post-Easter church.
The lacking plethora of non-Christian contemporary sources on Jesus is not unique. Only three sources on Augustus have survived that are
contemporary with him, and only one that offers reports pertaining to his adulthood.424 The
Roman emperor Tiberius was a
contemporary of Jesus. The number of non-Christian sources who mention Tiberius within 150 years of
his life is equal to the number of non-Christian sources who mention Jesus within 150 years of his life . If
we add Christian sources, the Jesus:Tiberius ratio goes from 9:9 to at least 42:10.425 In addition, the purpose of writing heavily influences what
authors do and do not write about, and they write according to where their interests lead them. Christian
writers said very little
about their Roman lords, and the Romans said very little about the Christians. Moreover, if the early church
believed that Jesus’ eschatological return was imminent, we might expect a lack of motivation at that
time for writing more on his historical life.
2NC---AT: Inconsistencies
Inconsistencies in irrelevant peripheral details fail to disprove resurrection
It is important to note that allof the discrepancies between the Gospels usually cited appear in the peripheral
details rather than at the core of the stories.454 Moreover, discrepancies between accounts do not require
that they are all mistaken. Recall that Titanic survivors offered contradictory testimonies pertaining to
whether the Titanic went down intact or broke in two just prior to sinking. Until recently, historians were warranted
in having only limited confidence in their conclusions concerning this detail. However, none of them doubted the core of the
story itself that the Titanic had sunk.455 Thucydides was aware of differences in extant reports pertaining
to the Peloponnesian War. He wrestled with these. However, since Thucydides himself had participated in
the War, the discrepancies would never have suggested to him that the war had not taken place or that
the outcome was different.456 There are discrepancies among our primary sources pertaining to the
burning of Rome. Did Nero openly send men to torch the city, as Suetonius reports, or did he do it
secretly, as Dio Cassius reports, or was he not at all responsible, as Tacitus suggests is possible?457 Did Nero watch the city burn
from the tower of Maecenas, as Suetonius reports, or from his palace roof, as Dio reports, or was he thirty-five miles away in Antium, per
Tacitus?458 Despite these differences, we
would be hard-pressed to find a historian claiming that Rome may not
have burned since the discrepancies among the accounts cast doubt on the event.
Luke Timothy Johnson draws attention to the challenge of knowing thehistorical Socrates even though we have reports about
him from three of his contemporaries. Aristophanes was a critic of Socrates while Xenophon and Plato
were personal students who wrote of him shortly after his death. Xenophon recalled his table talk, his
teachings and his defense. Yet his reports of Socrates’ table talk and defense differ from those provided
by Plato. We probably will never know with assurance the precise details.459 However, this does not prevent historians from
arriving at broader conclusions pertaining to Socrates.
Historian Paul Maier offers the following comment concerning discrepancies in the Gospels:
It is no service either to Christianity or to honesty to gloss over these discrepancies, or, as is incredibly
done in some circles, to deny that they exist. . . . On the other hand, some critical scholars are equally mistaken in
seeking to use these inconsistencies as some kind of proof that the resurrection did not take place, for
this is an illogical use of evidence. The earliest sources telling of the great fire of Rome, for example, offer far more serious conflicts
on who or what started the blaze and how far it spread, some claiming that the whole city was scorched while others insist that only three
sectors were reduced to ash. Yet the fire itself is historical: it actually happened.460
In agreement is historian Michael Grant:
Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because
pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.461
According to Ehrman, historians look for desirable witnesses that include eyewitness accounts, multiple independent accounts, consistent and
corroborative accounts, and unbiased or disinterested accounts. In
his debate with Ehrman, Craig noted that Ehrman’s
“wish list is so idealistic as to be practically irrelevant to the work of the practicing historian .”462 He adds
that Compared to the sources for Greco-Roman history, the Gospels stand head and shoulders above
what Greco-Roman historians have to work with, which are usually hundreds of years after the events
they record, usually involve very few eyewitnesses, and are usually told by people that are completely
biased. And yet Greco-Roman historians reconstruct the course of history of the ancient world .463
2NC---AT: Inconsistent---Angels
Wrong
What did they see upon arriving at the tomb: a man (Mark), two men (Luke) or an angel (Matthew)? This
is also easily resolved when one considers that an angel was sometimes referred to as a man.447
Indeed, we observe this in Luke’s resurrection narrative. He first refers to the “two men” at the empty
tomb, then eleven verses later calls them “angels.” White or shining clothes in the New Testament are
often the mark of a heavenly visitation.448 Whether there were one or two angels at the tomb has
some difficulty but can possibly be resolved by understanding that the focus of the Evangelist is on the
one speaking at the moment, as we just observed regarding the initial visits to the tomb by Mary and
Peter. Although not mentioned by Ehrman, we may note that the angel speaks while sitting on the large
stone he moved away from the tomb (Matthew), speaks while sitting inside of the tomb (Mark), two
speak while standing inside of the tomb (Luke), and while no angels are there on the first visit, there are
two sitting inside the tomb at the second visit (John). Time compression may account for the one visit
reported by the Synoptics,449 and they may have altered details for economy, convenience or due to
faulty memories. As we discussed earlier, the Greek term for standing (evfi,sthmi) can simply mean to be
present or remain stationary and need not be in conflict with sitting. 450 However, historians need not
devote much attention to such differences, since discrepancies among peripheral details do not
necessitate wholesale invention.451 It is also possible that the angels were added as a literary device on
the part of the Evangelists, indicating their belief that a divine activity had occurred.452 Such a move
would be acceptable within the conventions of ancient biography. Accordingly, if the angels were a
literary invention, arguing over their number misses the point the authors may have been making.
2NC---AT: Falsifiability
tag
Choi 07 [James J. Choi, Professor of Finance, https://faculty.som.yale.edu/jameschoi/whychrist/, 2007,
imp]
Christianity is falsifiable
MANY RELIGIOUS CLAIMS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE OR FALSIFIABLE
Claim: Religious Figure X received a divine revelation
On what basis would you confirm or deny that claim?
CHRISTIANITY IS DIFFERENT
It makes a claim that an event happened in space and time: Jesus Christ died and then was raised from
the dead. And it says, if this didn’t happen, you should dismiss the entire religion.
From the Bible: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” (1
Corinthians 15:14)
This is an empirical claim that is in principle falsifiable. If we don’t rule it out by assumption, then we can apply
common methods of rational inquiry to judge whether the event really happened .
Bayes’ Theorem, a foundational result in statistics, was derived in the context of thinking about how rational
people should update their beliefs about Jesus’ resurrection in response to empirical evidence
2NC---AT: Church Cover Up Recantation
Unlikely
Choi 07 [James J. Choi, Professor @ Yale, “Why I am a Christian”,
https://faculty.som.yale.edu/jameschoi/whychrist/, 2007, imp]
But could there be no record of recantation because there was a cover-up by the church?
Probably not. The Bible is not shy about recording the apostles’ failures.
The big one: Judas betraying Jesus to His death (Matthew 26:14-16)
One of your leader’s 12 closest followers decided to turn against him
If you were to cover up anything in order to bolster your religion’s credibility, this would be a prime
candidate
If the early church didn’t cover up Judas’s betrayal, why would it cover up other apostles’ betrayals?
When Jesus was under arrest, Peter (the leader of the apostles) disowned Him three times (Matthew 26:69-75)
2NC---AT: Jesus Fainted
Fainting theory does not explain historical evidence for Jesus
McDowell 92 [Josh McDowell, “Evidence for the Resurrection”,
http://php.scripts.psu.edu/faculty/j/m/jmc6/Evidence_for_the_Resurrection.pdf, 1992, imp]
DID JESUS SWOON? Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory,
which says that Jesus didn't die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated
and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. SkepticDavid Friedrich Strauss--certainly no believer in the
resurrection--gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon : "It is impossible that a
being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical
treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His
sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the
grave, the Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a
resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in
death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have
elevated their reverence into worship."
2NC---Licona
tag
---Prophecies---
This provides evidence beyond a reasonable doubt – math proves!
Making Life Count 21 [Making Life Count Ministries, Christian Educational Non-profit, “Indisputable
Proof the Bible is True”, https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.cloversites.com/fc/fcdcda31-90dd-4d9e-
8256-2b8bc499f91b/documents/Proof_the_Bible_is_True.pdf, 2021, imp] **Peter Stoner = Christian
writer and Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College
Jesus fulfilled more than 300 prophecies in the Bible. Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Chicago: Moody Press, 1963)
calculated the probability of one man fulfilling 48 prophecies to be one in 10 to the 157th power.
1 in 10,000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000
This could not have happened by mere chance. Only a supernatural God could have inspired and
fulfilled the prophecies in the Bible. The evidence is so compelling that it should convince you beyond a
reasonable doubt. God left His fingerprints on these prophecies so that you could “figure out” that He is real and the Bible is true.
Bible predicted Cyrus

Springer 14 [Jim Springer, worked for over 30 years for Caltrans as a civil engineer and was an elder in
the Church of God, https://lifehopeandtruth.com/god/is-there-a-god/proof-of-god/fulfilled-prophecy-is-
evidence-of-gods-existence/, 2014. Imp]
For instance, God

prophesied of the Persian king Cyrus by name more than 100 years before he was even
born! God said that Cyrus would issue a decree for Jerusalem to be rebuilt and for the foundation for the
temple to be built (Isaiah 44:28). God also prophesied of the Greek ruler Alexander the Great and his
successors. For more on these prophecies, see the article “Fulfilled Prophecy.”
Tag
Williams 15 [David Williams, Computer Systems @ the University of Newcastle, “Mathematical
Probability that Jesus is the Christ”, https://www.dannychesnut.com/Bible/Prophecy/Mathematical
%20Probability%20that%20Jesus%20is%20the%20Christ.htm, 2015, imp] Peter Stoner = Christian writer
and Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College
The reason why prophecy is an indication of the divine authorship of the Scriptures, and hence a testimony
to the trustworthiness of the Message of the Scriptures, is because of the minute probability of fulfillment. Anyone can
make predictions. Having those prophecies fulfilled is vastly different. In fact, the more statements made about the future, and the more the
detail, then the less likely the precise fulfillment will be. For example, what's
the likelihood of a person predicting today the
exact city in which the birth of a future leader would take place , well into the 21st century? This is indeed what
the prophet Micah did 700 years before the Messiah. Further, what is the likelihood of predicting the
precise manner of death that a new, unknown religious leader would experience , a thousand years from now - a
manner of death presently unknown, and to remain unknown for hundreds of years? Yet, this is what
David did in 1000 B.C. Again, what is the likelihood of predicting the specific date of the appearance of
some great future leader, hundreds of years in advance? This is what Daniel did, 530 years before Christ.
If one were to conceive 50 specific prophecies about a person in the future, whom one would never
meet, just what's the likelihood that this person will fulfill all 50 of the predictions? How much less
would this likelihood be if 25 of these predictions were about what other people would do to him, and
were completely beyond his control?
For example, how does someone "arrange" to be born in a specific family?
How does one "arrange" to be born in a specified city, in which their parents don't actually live? How
does one "arrange" their own death - and specifically by crucifixion, with two others, and then "arrange" to
have their executioners gamble for His clothing (John 16:19; Psalms 22:18)? How does one "arrange" to be betrayed in
advance? How does one "arrange" to have the executioners carry out the regular practice of breaking the legs of the two victims on either side,
but not their own? Finally, how does one "arrange" to be God? How does one escape from a grave and appear to people after having been
killed?
Indeed, it
may be possible for someone to fake one or two of the Messianic prophecies, but it would be
impossible for any one person to arrange and fulfill all of these prophecies.
John Ankerberg relates the true story of how governments use prearranged identification signs to identify correct agents:
David Greenglass was a World War II traitor. He gave atomic secrets to the Russians and then fled to Mexico after the war. His conspirators arranged to help him by planning a meeting with the secretary of the Russian ambassador in Mexico City. Proper identification for both parties
became vital. Greenglass was to identify himself with six prearranged signs. These instructions had been given to both the secretary and Greenglass so there would be no possibility of making a mistake. They were: (1) once in Mexico City, Greenglass was to write a note to the secretary,
signing his name as "I. JACKSON"; (2) after three days he was to go to the Plaza de Colon in Mexico City and (3) stand before the statue of Columbus, (4) with his middle finger placed in a guide book. In addition, (5) when he was approached, he was to say it was a magnificent statue and
that he was from Oklahoma. (6) The secretary was to then give him a passport.
These six prearranged signs worked. Why? With six identifying characteristics it was impossible for the secretary not to identify Greenglass as the proper contact (John Ankerberg, John Weldon and Walter Kaiser, "The Case for Jesus The Messiah", Melbourne: Pacific College Study Series,
1994, 17-18).
How true, then, it must be that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, if he had 456 identifying characteristics well in advance, and fulfilled them all! In fact, what does the science of probability make of this?
The science of probability attempts to determine the chance that a given event will occur. The value and accuracy of the science of probability has been well established beyond doubt - for example, insurance rates are fixed according to statistical probabilities.
Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one
man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve
different classes representing some 600 university students. The students carefully weighed all the
factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might
indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative
enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students. However,
Professor Stoner then took their estimates, and made them even more conservative . He also encouraged other
skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for
review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his
calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner,
Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4).
For example, concerning Micah 5:2, where it states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, Stoner and his students determined the average population of BETHLEHEM from the time of Micah to the present; then they divided it by the average population of the earth during
the same period.
They concluded that the chance of one man being born in Bethlehem was one in 300,000, (or one in 2.8 x 10^5 - rounded),
After examining only eight different prophecies (Idem, 106), they conservatively estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling all eight prophecies was one in 10^17.
To illustrate how large the number 10^17 IS (a figure with 17 zeros), Stoner gave this illustration :
If you mark one of ten tickets, and place all the tickets in a hat, and thoroughly stir them, and then ask a blindfolded man to draw one, his chance of getting the right ticket is one in ten. Suppose that we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They'll cover all of the
state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting
the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would've had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote them in their own wisdom (Idem, 106-107).
In financial terms, is there anyone who would not invest in a financial venture if the chance of failure were only one in 10^17? This is the kind of sure investment we're offered by god for faith in His Messiah.
From these figures, Professor Stoner, concludes the fulfillment of these eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of the prophecies (Idem, 107) - the likelihood of mere chance is only one in 10^17!
Another way of saying this is that any person who minimizes or ignores the significance of the biblical identifying signs concerning the Messiah would be foolish.
But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation, Stoner used 48 prophecies (Idem,
109) (even though he could have used Edersheim's 456), and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the
probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is the incredible number 10^157. In fact, if anybody
can find someone, living or dead, other than Jesus, who can fulfill only half of the predictions concerning the Messiah given in the book
"Messiah in Both Testaments" by Fred J. Meldau, the Christian Victory Publishing Company is ready to give a ONE thousand dollar reward! As
apologist Josh McDowell says, "There are a lot of men in the universities that could use some extra cash!" (Josh McDowell, Evidence that
Demands a Verdict, California: Campus Crusade for Christ, 175).
How large is the number one in 10^157? 10^157 contains 157 zeros! Stoner gives an illustration of this number using
electrons. Electrons are very small objects. They're smaller than atoms. It would take 2.5 TIMES 10^15 of them, laid side by side, to make one
inch. Even if we counted 250 of these electrons each minute, and counted day and night, it would still take 19 million years just to count a line
of electrons one-inch long (Stoner, op. cit, 109). With this introduction, let's go back to our chance of one in 10^157. Let's suppose that we're
taking this number of electrons, marking one, and thoroughly stirring it into the whole mass, then blindfolding a man and letting him try to find
the right one. What chance has he of finding the right one? What kind of a pile will this number of electrons make? They make an inconceivably
large volume. This
is the result from considering a mere 48 prophecies. Obviously, the probability that 456
prophecies would be fulfilled in one man by chance is vastly smaller. According to Emile Borel, once one goes
past one chance in 10^50, the probabilities are so small that it is impossible to think that they will ever
occur (Ankerberg et. al., op. cit., 21). As Stoner concludes, 'Any man who rejects Christ as the Son of God is rejecting a
fact, proved perhaps more absolutely than any other fact in the world (Stoner, op. cit., 112).' God so
thoroughly vindicated Jesus Christ that even mathematicians and statisticians, who were without faith,
had to acknowledge that it is scientifically impossible to deny that Jesus is the Christ . our thanks to David
Williams, a mathematician who believes in the Lord Jesus Christ.
---Pascal’s Wager---
2NC---AT: Not Genuine
Wager solves
Meyer 20 [Benjamin Meyer, Lawyer, “RECLAIMING PASCAL’S WAGER”,
https://conciliarpost.com/philosophy/reclaiming-pascals-wager/, 2020, imp]
Many objections might be raised to my argument, and space only permits me to address one: “Doesn’t
the Wager produce
mercenary Christians, who are more interested in hedging their bets than glorifying Christ?” This is a
common attack on the Wager, and I don’t doubt that the Wager can generate this attitude in the human heart. Yet a response remains. My
claim is that the Wager can serve as a useful means of sparking interest in faith for a nonbeliever, and
primes the pump for continued thinking on these topics. I don’t contend that it should serve as the ultimate foundation for
faith in Jesus; rather, it should operate more as an alarm clock, waking unbelievers out of complacency in their
attitudes toward death. Pascal himself did not see the Wager as the end of the road, and expressed a clear preference for concrete
evidence for his faith, like the Resurrection.[6]
Choosing belief simply to cover one’s bases and ensure maximum utility runs counter to Christ’s example and is antithetical to His call. But
expecting an unbeliever to grasp this in an unrepentant state seems unrealistic . Appealing to self-
interest doesn’t strike me as any worse a starting point than an appeal to nature’s beauty, the cosmos’s
orderliness, or our idea of deity.[7] None of these necessarily draw the nonbeliever’s heart to the Lord, but each has long
served as a portico through which a believer first begins a wrestling match with the Holy Spirit . Further, the
Wager has been useful in my own life in moments of doubt and despair; I do not rest on the Wager for
sustaining my faith long-term, but it does help me cling to Jesus in seasons where I do not sense the
Lord’s presence and peace.
2NC---AT: Many Gods
No
Rota 16 [Michael Rota, Professor of Philosophy at the University of St. Thomas, “A Better Version of
Pascal’s Wager”, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, Vol 60. No. 3,
https://www.pdcnet.org/acpq/content/acpq_2016_0090_0003_0415_0439 2016, imp]
What a consideration of other existing religions does bring to light is that the reasoning of section II provides no way to choose among
competing religions. That’s true enough. But it
hardly follows that there is no way to choose among competing
religions. The way seems clear: practice the religion that seems to you most likely to be true, which will
be Christianity for the typical person who assigns Christianity a credence of one-half or more. This policy is recommended on two
counts: it follows from a proper regard for truth and the desire to avoid self-deception, and it is the policy
that, in all but the most unusual circumstances, maximizes one’s chance at contributing to a supremely
valuable outcome.36
---No Athiest Morality---
2NC---AT: Sam Harris
tag
Smith 20 [Robert S. Smith, “The Amorality of Atheism”,
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-amorality-of-atheism/, 2020, imp]
Nevertheless, the neuroscientist cum philosopher, Sam Harris, is unwilling to concede the point. In fact,
he claims he has little time for “the overeducated atheistic moral nihilist” who refuses to regard
atrocities like female genital mutilation as being objectively wrong.34 So how does he build his case? In
a manner akin to Rosenberg, Harris begins by arguing that homo sapiens have developed and refined a
sort of “herd morality” that effectively serves to perpetuate our species. But he is aware that this
doesn’t provide a foundation for affirming objective moral values. For if atheism is true, we are (as
Dawkins has famously put it) “machines for propagating DNA”,35 and machines, needless to say, do not
have ethical obligations!
What, then, is Harris’s solution to the “value problem” inherent in his worldview? Typical of
consequentialist approaches to ethics, he simply redefines the terms “good” and “evil” in a
transparently non-moral way: “good” is that which supports the flourishing of conscious creatures,
“evil” is that which does not.36 “Questions about values”, then, “are really questions about the well-
being of conscious creatures.”37 What’s more, because human well-being depends entirely on states of
the human brain, it can be measured neuro-scientifically.38 In such a way, Harris believes, science can
provide objective answers to our moral questions.39
The problems with Harris’s proposal are essentially the same as those that afflict all forms of ethical
naturalism. First of all, he runs blithely into the “Is-Ought Problem” (otherwise known as “the
naturalistic fallacy”). As David Hume (1711–1776) long ago pointed out, because there is an
epistemological chasm between every “is” and every “ought” (often called “Hume’s law” or “Hume’s
guillotine”), we cannot coherently move from descriptive statements (about what is) to prescriptive
ones (about what we ought to do). Therefore, what is usually happening when people claim that a
scientific “is” entails a moral “ought” is that they’ve smuggled in values from somewhere else.40 That
doesn’t mean that science can tell us nothing about human flourishing. Clearly it can—just as it can tell
us about the flourishing of cane toads and cancer cells! There’s just no “ought” embedded in such
findings. To assume an inherent bridge between “brute facts” and ethical values is to fall headlong into
the naturalistic fallacy.
A second set of problems may be highlighted by the following questions: What exactly is well-being?
What is the right way to measure it? How is it to be maximized? Why should it be maximized? Whose
well-being matters most? Does the well-being of the individual trump that of the group? Or is some kind
of aggregate the ideal? If the former, who counts as an individual—human beings only or animals too? If
the latter, are human beings more important than animals? Are some human beings more important
than others?41 Most of these questions, on principle, cannot be answered by scientific means. Harris
concedes this, yet insists that “none, however, proves that there are no right or wrong answers to
questions of human and animal wellbeing.”42
Where, then, might such answers be found? In the end, Harris is forced to appeal to “intuitions”. This
enables him to simply assert that “we are right” to “care more about creatures that can experience a
greater range of suffering and happiness . . . because suffering and happiness (defined in the widest
possible sense) are all that can be cared about.”43 But what is the ontological basis for such intuitions?
Why “ought” we to care for others? Indeed, why not pursue the kind of ethical egoism advocated by
Ayn Rand?44 More importantly, why, in an atheistic universe, would anyone have a “moral obligation”
to maximize anyone’s (or even their own) well-being?
Harris’s atheism can provide him with no answers. For if the “laws” of the universe are impersonal and
the existence of conscious creatures is just the accidental byproduct of some chance combination of
mindless mutation and natural selection, then Dawkins’s conclusion cannot be gainsaid: “There is at
bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference.”45 Thus, concludes
William Lane Craig:
Harris has failed to solve the “value problem.” He has not provided any justification or explanation of
why, on atheism, objective moral values would exist at all. His so-called solution is just a semantic trick
of providing an arbitrary and idiosyncratic redefinition of the words “good” and “evil” in nonmoral
terms.46
3. The Folly of Atheism
So is objective morality an illusion? Are our moral intuitions utterly groundless at the end of the day?
Given an atheistic evolutionary framework, the philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, believes such a
conclusion is unavoidable. He writes:
The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an
awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and
teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is
illusory.47
2NR---AT: Atheists Are Good People
This argument conflates the claim that atheism is amoral with the claim that atheists
are immoral – our argument is not that atheists act immorally but rather that absent
god there is no logical justification for believing or feeling obligated to follow any
system of ethics which means if they win their god fake arguments you can vote
negative on presumption
2NR notes
Ext – if no god presumption – If reason is simply a mental construct in our purely
naturalistic monkey brains there is no reason to believe it maps to any sort of external
truth – only
Ethics Core
2NC---AT: Problem of Evil
Free will explains why humans suffer.
Strobel 12 [Lee Strobel, evangelism and apologetics ministry co-director at Cherry Hills Community
Church in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. “Why Does God Allow Tragedy and Suffering?” Delivered Sunday,
July 22 at Cherry Hills Church. Christian Post. July 22, 2012.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/colorado-church-sunday-service-notes-why-does-god-allow-
tragedy-suffering-78737/pageall.html //imp]
This answers the question you hear so often: "Why

didn't God merely create a world where tragedy and suffering
didn't exist?" The answer is: He did! Genesis 1:31 says: "God saw all that he had made, and it was very
good."
But if God is not the author of tragedy or evil or death, where did they come from? Well, God has existed from eternity past as the Father, Son
and Spirit, together in a relationship of perfect love. So love
is the highest value in the universe. And when God decided
to create[d] human beings, he wanted us to experience love. But to give us the ability to love, God had to
give us free will to decide whether to love or not to love. Why? Because love always involves a choice.
If we were programmed to say, "I love you," it wouldn't really be love . When my daughter was little, she had a doll
with a string in the back, and when you pulled it the doll said, "I love you." Did that doll love my daughter? Of course not. It was programmed to
say those words. To
really experience love, that doll would need to have been able to choose to love or not
to love. Again – real love always involves a choice.
So in order for us to experience love, God

bestowed on us free will. But unfortunately, we humans have abused
our free will by rejecting God and walking away from Him. And that has resulted in the introduction of
two kinds of evil into the world: moral evil and natural evil.
2NC---AT: Utilitarianism
The universe has a flat topology which undermines util calculation. All actions would
have equal and infinite value.
Bostrom 2
<Bostrom, Nick (2002) Are Cosmological Theories Compatible with All Possible Evidence: A Missing Methodological Link. >
In the standard Big Bang model, assuming the simplest topology (i.e., that space is singly connected), there are three basic possibilities: the
universe can be open, flat, or closed. Current data suggests a flat or open universe, although the final verdict is pending. If
the universe is either open or flat, then it is spatially infinite at every point in time and the model entails that it
contains an infinite number of galaxies, stars, and planets. There exists a common misconception which
confuses the universe with the (finite) ‘observable universe’. But the observable part—the part that could
causally affect us—would be just an infinitesimal fraction of the whole. Statements about the “mass of the universe” or the
“number of protons in the universe” generally refer to the content of this observable part; see e.g. [1]. Many cosmologists believe
that our universe is just one in an infinite ensemble of universes (a multiverse), and this adds to the
probability that the world is canonically infinite; for a popular review, see [2].” Recent cosmological evidence
suggests that the world is probably infinite. Moreover, if the totality of physical existence is indeed infinite, in the kind of way
that modern cosmology suggests it is, then it contains an infinite number of galaxies, stars, and planets. If there are an infinite
number of planets then there is, with probability one, an infinite number of people. Infinitely many of
these people are happy, infinitely many are unhappy. Likewise for other local properties that are plausible candidates for
having value, pertaining to person‐states, lives, or entire societies, ecosystems, or civilizations—there are infinitely many democratic states, and
infinitely many that are ruled by despots, etc. Suppose the world contains an infinite number of people and a corresponding infinity of joys and
sorrows, preference satisfactions and frustrations, instances of virtue and depravation, and other such local phenomena at least some of which
have positive or negative value. More precisely, suppose that there is some finite value ε such that there exists an infinite number of local
phenomena (this could be a subset of e.g. persons, experiences, characters, virtuous acts, lives, relationships, civilizations, or ecosystems) each
of which has a value ≥ ε and also an infinite number of local phenomena each of which has a value ≤ (‒ ε). Call such a world canonically infinite.
Ethical theories that hold that value is aggregative imply that a canonically infinite world contains an
infinite quantity of positive value and an infinite quantity of negative value. This gives rise to a peculiar
predicament. We can do only a finite amount of good or bad. Yet in cardinal arithmetic, adding or subtracting a
finite quantity does not change an infinite quantity. Every possible act of ours therefore has the same
net effect on the total amount of good and bad in a canonically infinite world: none whatsoever. Aggregative
consequentialist theories threatened by infinitarian paralysis: they seem to imply that if the world is canonically
infinite then it is always ethically indifferent what we do.
Bible
2NC---AT: Homophobia
No impact – even if they win it’s a sin, that’s not the same as justifying homophobia
Even if it’s a sin, so is judgment, which is reserved for God
Sin is inevitable for everyone – saved by faith alone
We’ll answer specific readings of the text – if they didn’t cite any they don’t have a
link
1 - History proves their interpretation of the bible is a modern distortion
Boswell 79 [John Boswell, History Professor @ Yale University, “The Church and the Homosexual: An
Historical Perspective, 1979”, https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/1979boswell.asp, 1979, imp]
As late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there appears to be no conflict between a Christian life
and homosexuality. Gay life is everywhere in the art, poetry, music, history, etc. of the 11th and 12th centuries. The most popular
literature of the day, even heterosexual literature, is about samesex lovers of one sort or another. Clerics
were at the forefront of this revival of the gay culture. St. Aelred, for instance, writes of his youth as a
time when he thought of nothing but loving and being loved by men. He became a Cistercian abbot, and incorporated
his love for men into his Christian life by encouraging monks to love each other, not just generally, but individually and passionately He cited
the example of Jesus and St. John as guidance for this. 'Jesus himself," he said, "in everything like us. patient and compassionate with others in
every matter, Transfigured this sort of love through the expression of his own love. for he allowed only one - not al l- to recline on his breast as
a sign of his special love; and the closer they were, the more copiously did the secrets of their heavenly marriage impart the sweet smell of
their spiritual chrism to their love."
After the twelfth century Christian tolerance and acceptance of gay love seems to disappear with
remarkable rapidity. The writings of St. Aelred disappeared because they were kept locked up in
Cistercian monasteries until about eight years ago, when for the first time Cistercians could again read them. Beginning
about 1150, for reasons I cannot adequately explain, there was a great upsurge in popular intolerance of gay people.
There were also at this time violent outbursts against Jews, Muslims, and witches. Women were suddenly
excluded from power structures to which they had previously had access-no longer able, for example, to attend universities in which they had
previously been enrolled. double
monasteries for men and women were closed. There was suspicion of
everyone. In 1 180 the Jews were expelled from France.
The change was rapid. In England in the 12th century there were no laws against Jews and they occupied
prominent positions, but by the end of the 13th century, sleeping with a Jew was equated with sleeping
with an animal or with murder, and in France Jews, according to St. Louis, were to be killed on the spot if they questioned the
Christian faith. During this time there are many popular diatribes against gay people as well, suggesting that
they molest children, violate natural law, are bestial? and bring harm to nations which tolerate them. Within a single
century. between the period of 1250 and 1350, almost every European state passed civil laws
demanding death for a single homosexual act. This popular reaction affected Christian theology a great deal. Throughout
the 12th century homosexual relations, had, at worst, been comparable to heterosexual fornication for
married people, and, at best, not sinful at all. During the 13th century, because of this popular reaction, writers
like Thomas Aquinas tried to portray homosexuality as one of the very worst sins, second only to
murder.
It is very difficult to describe how this came about. St. Thomas tried to show that homosexuality was opposed to nature in some way, the most familiar objection being that nature created sexuality for procreation and using it for any other purpose would violate nature. Aquinas was much
too smart for this argument. In the Summa Contra Gentiles he asks, "Is it sinful to walk on your hands when nature intended them for something else?" No, indeed it is not sinful, so he shifted ground. This is obviously not the reason that homosexuality is sinful; he looks for another. First
he tried arguing that homosexuality must be sinful because it impedes the reproduction of the human race. But this argument also failed, for, Aquinas noted in the Summa Theologica, "a duty may be of two sorts: it may be enjoined on the individual as a duty which cannot be ignored
without sin, or it may be enjoined upon a group. In the latter cases no one individual is obligated to fulfill the duty. The commandment regarding procreation applies to the human race as a whole! which is obligated to increase physically. It is therefore sufficient for the race if some people
undertake to reproduce physically." Moreover, Aquinas admitted in the Summa Theologica that homosexuality was absolutely natural to certain individuals and therefore inculpable. In what sense, then, could he argue that it was unnatural? In a third place he concedes that the term
"natural" in fact has no moral significance, but it is simply a term applied to things which are strongly disapproved of. "Homosexuality," he says, "is called 'the unnatural vice' by the common people, and hence it may be said to be unnatural." This was not an invention of Aquinas'. It was a
response to popular prejudices of the time. It did not derive its authority from the Bible or from any previous tradition of Christian morality, but it eventually became part of Catholic theological thought. These attitudes have remained basically unchanged because there has been no
popular support for change in the matter. The public has continued to feel hostility to gay people and the church has been under no pressure to reexamine the origins of its teachings on homosexuality.
It is possible to change ecclesiastical attitudes toward gay people and their sexuality because the objections to homosexuality are
not biblical, they are not consistent, they are not part of Jesus' teaching; and they are not even
fundamentally Christian. It is possible because Christianity was indifferent, if not accepting, of gay people and
their feelings for a longer period of time than it had been hostile to them. It is possible because the founders
of the religion specifically considered love to transcend accidents of biology and to be the end, not the
means. It may not be possible to eradicate intolerance from secular society, for intolerance is, to some extent ineradicable; but I believe the
church's attitude can and must be changed. It has been different in the past and it can be again. Plato observed of secular society nearly 2,400
years ago that "wherever it has been established that it is shameful to be involved in homosexual relationships, this is due to evil on the part of
the legislatures, to despotism on the part of the rulers and to cowardism on the part of the governed."
2 – the argument from silence

Witt 95 [Rev. Clay Witt, “Homosexuality and the Bible”,
https://archive.ph/20120802131304/http://www.hrmcc.org/Resources/StudyDocuments/bibleand.htm,
1995, imp]
First of all, something needs to be said about terms. As Furnish points out, "homosexuality" is a fairly modern term and there
are no Hebrew or ancient Greek equivalents. The word was not even coined until the second half of the
nineteenth century. Even then, it was coined by a Hungarian writer. It did not come into English usage until
toward the end of that century. "In fact, the first use of the term "homosexuals" in an English Bible did not
come until 1946, with the publication of the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament." Certainly, there was no
understanding of the term in the modern sense, informed by careful scientific study, of a person whose
inherent sexual orientation is toward another of his or her own gender. Many of the writers on the
subject of "homosexuality" and the Bible use the term loosely to mean same-sex genital activity in some
context. Various quotations in this paper should be understood in that light. I have also used the term in that sense in some places as a
matter of convenience.
It is also important at the beginning to place the topic in prospective. Victor Paul Furnish, Professor of New Testament at Perkins School of
Theology, recounts having received an urgent telephone call from a television host scheduled to interview a "gay rights leader." The host
wanted to confront the leader with biblical injunctions against homosexuality, but had been unable to find any. Furnish states that "[t]hat
interviewer had already discovered something important although he scarcely realized it: Homosexuality is not a prominent biblical
concern." Another author says it this way: "The first point that must be made … is that the current intense interest in the issue of homosexuality
and the Bible is our interest; it does not reflect the biblical priorities."
Out of the thousands of passages in the Bible, only a handful are usually used by those espousing biblical condemnation of homosexuality. The
prophets, who’s office often involves cataloging sin, do not condemn same-gender sexual relations. At
least in recorded Scripture, Jesus said nothing at all on the subject. There is not one mention of same-gender
sexual relations in any of the gospels. While one must be cautious about arguing from silence, I agree with
Spong that this "does suggest that those who consider this ‘the most heinous sin’ must be terribly
disturbed that our Lord appears either to have ignored it completely or to have said so little on the
subject that no part of what he said was remembered or recorded."
2NC---AT: Homophobia---Passage Key
Deuteronomy 23:17 = AT: Sodomite
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13-14 = AT: Levitical Law
Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1 :10 = AT: New Testament
Romans 1:26-27 = AT: New Testament + AT: “Against Nature”
2NC---AT: Homophobia---Sodom
The story of Sodom was not about homosexuality – best scholarship
Most serious biblical scholars now recognize that the story of Sodom was probably not intended as any
sort of comment on homosexuality. It certainly was not interpreted as a prohibition of homosexuality by
most early Christian writers. In the modern world, the idea that the story refers to the sin of inhospitality rather
than to sexual failing was first popularized in 1955 in Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition' by D.S. Bailey, and
since then has increasingly gained the acceptance of scholars. Modern scholars are a little late: almost all
medieval scholars felt the story of Sodom was a story about hospitality. This is indeed, not only the most
obvious interpretation of it but also the one given to it in most other biblical passages. It is striking, for
example, that although Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in about two dozen different places in the Bible (other than Genesis 19 where the
story is first told), in none of these places is homosexuality associated with the Sodomites.
2NC---AT: Homophobia---Levitical law
Levitical law is not a divine biblical mandate
The only other places that might be adduced from the Old Testament against homosexuality are
Deuteronomy 23:17 and Kings 14:24, and-doubtless the best know in places Leviticus 18:20 and 20: 13, where a man's sleeping
the asleep of women" with men is labelled ritual impurity for Jews. None of these was cited by early Christians against
homosexual behavior. Early Christians had no desire to impose the levitical law on themselves or anyone
else. Most nonJewish Christians were in fact appalled by most of the strictures of the Jewish law and were
not about to put themselves under what they considered the bondage of the old law . St. Paul says again
and again that we must not fall back on the bondage of the old law, and in fact goes so far as to claim
that if we are circumcised (the cornerstone of the old law), Christ will profit us nothing . The early Christians
were not to bind themselves to the strictures of the old law. The Council of Jerusalem, held around 50 A.D. and recorded
in Acts 15, in fact took up this issue specifically and decided that Christians would not be bound by any
of the strictures of the old law except for which they list - none of which is related to homosexuality.
Homophobic readings are misinterpretations

1995, imp]
There are two passages in the "Holiness Code" of Leviticus, at 18:22 and 20:13-14, which seem to be
fairly clear-cut condemnations of same-gender sexual relations among males. Sexual relations between females is
not mentioned here, or anywhere else in the Hebrew Testament.
The "Holiness Code" is a comprehensive series of ethical and ritual laws found in Leviticus at chapters 17 through 26. Holiness is a term in
Hebrew "probably meaning separate from the ordinary or profane."
Spong notes that Israel’s call was to be different. They were to be a people distinct from the Canaanites among whom they settled. This
uniqueness preserved them over the centuries in times of trial and exile and kept them from being absorbed by the peoples around them. It is
in this setting of a need to be different from those around them that same-gender sexual activity is condemned, together with other sexual
activities including having intercourse during menstruation.
Leviticus was also written during the Babylonian exile, a period when there was a passion to reproduce to guarantee the future of the
nation. Spong notes as well that these passages reflect pre-modern understandings and prejudices. For example, other portions of the Holiness
Code in Leviticus 21 forbid any person with a physical "blemish" from serving as a priest, reflecting a mentality that assumed that physical
abnormalities were sign of God’s judgment and rejection.
England argues that these prohibitions should be seen as being directed against sexual practices of fertility
cult worship. As with the earlier reference from Strong’s, he notes that the word "abomination" used here is directly
related to idolatry and idolatrous practices throughout the Hebrew Testament. Edwards makes a similar
suggestion, observing that "the context of the two prohibition in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 suggest that what is
opposed is not same-sex activity outside the cult, as in the modern secular sense, but within the cult
identified as Canaanite."
It’s also a condemnation of incest, not homosexuality
Mathews 20 [Carly Mathews, “The Bible isn’t anti-gay and should not be read as such”,
https://horizon.westmont.edu/1811/oped/the-bible-isnt-anti-gay-and-should-not-be-read-as-such/,
March 4, 2020, imp]
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 both say “If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a
woman, both of them have done what is detestable.” These two chapters discuss sins relating to sexual relations, and all of
them have to do with either incest or beastiality, except this one. When looking at the Hebrew, the passage translates directly to
“you shall not lie with another adult man as one lies with womankind.” The words “as one lies” as in this
passage and in Leviticus 20 only appear one other place in the Bible; Genesis 49:9, when Rueben sleeps
with his father’s wife, and should be understood to indicate an incestuous act. The context of this verse and the
precise Hebrew language used actually translate this verse to say “you shall not sleep with male relations as you do with women.” This
verse condemns incest, like all the other verses in the chapter.
2NC---AT: Homophobia---“Malakos”
Their argument is based misreading Greek
**AT: I Cor. 6:9, Tim. 1:10, Romans 1:26-27
In the New Testament we find no citations of Old Testament strictures. We do, however, find three places-I
Corinthians 6:9, I Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:2627 which might be relevant. Again, I'll be brief in dealing with
these. The Greek word malakos in I Cor. 6:9 and I Tim. 1 :10, which Scholars in the 20th century have
deemed to refer to some sort of homosexual behavior, was universally used by Christian writers to refer
to masturbation until about the 15th or 16th century. Beginning in the 15th century many people were
bothered by the idea that masturbators were excluded from the kingdom of heaven. They did not,
however, seem to be too upset by the idea of excluding homosexuals from the kingdom of heaven,
so malakos was retranslated to refer to homosexuality instead of masturbation. The texts and words remained
the same, but translators just changed their ideas about who should be excluded from the kingdom of
heaven.
Malakoi describes rapists & pederasts

Mathews 20 [Carly Mathews, “The Bible isn’t anti-gay and should not be read as such”,
https://horizon.westmont.edu/1811/oped/the-bible-isnt-anti-gay-and-should-not-be-read-as-such/,
March 4, 2020, imp]
The last two passages (1 Timothy 1:8-10 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) are both vice lists, written to detail the ways in
which people were sinning. Both use the words “arsenokoitai” and “malakoi” to describe homosexuality; these words
describe male prostitution, a male owner sleeping with a male slave, a man sleeping with a young boy,
or even rapists of people who are not able to defend themselves. None of these “forms” of homosexuality are the
generally accepted definition when the term is used today.
2NC---AT: Homophobia---“Against Nature”
Not about homosexual people
The remaining passage - Romans 1:26-7 - does not suffer by and large from mistranslation, although you
can easily be misled by the phrase "against nature." This phrase was also interpreted differently by the
early church. St. John Chrysostom says that St. Paul deprives the people he is discussing of any excuse. observing of their women that "they
changed the natural use. No one can claim, Paul points out, that she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or that
because she was unable to satisfy her desire.... Only those possessing something can change it. Again he points the same thing out about men
but in a different way? saying they 'left the natural use of women.' Likewise, he casts aside with these words every excuse, charging that they
not only had legitimate enjoyment and abandoned it, going after another but that spurning the natural, they pursued the unnatural." What
Chrysostom is getting at, and he expounds on it at great length, is the idea that St. Paul
was not writing about gay people but
about heterosexual people, probably married who abandoned the pleasure they were entitled to by
virtue of their own natures for one to which they were not entitled . This is reflected in the canons
imposing penances for homosexual activity, which through the 16th century were chiefly directed
toward married persons. Little is said of single people.
Perhaps the most significant element of the passage is that it introduced into Christian thought the notion
that homosexual relations were "against nature." What Paul, however, seems to have meant
was unusual not against natural law, as it is so often interpreted The concept of natural law was not fully
developed until almost 1,200 years later. All that Paul probably meant to say was that it was unusual that people should have
this sort of sexual desire. This is made clear by the fact that in the same epistle in the 11th chapter, God
Himself is in fact described as acting "against nature" in saving the Gentiles. It is therefore inconceivable that this
phrase connotes moral turpitude.
2NC---AT: Homophobia---Non-procreative sex
Wrong
There are some reasons for the hostility toward homosexuality which now seem characteristic of the
Christian community, and I want to mention them. First of all, I want to dispose of what might seem the most likely primary reason for hostility
toward homosexuality-namely, general opposition to non-procreative sexuality . There was indeed on the part of
many early Christians a feeling of hostility toward any form of sexuality which was not potentially
procreative. This cannot, however, be shown to stem from Christian principles. Among other things, there is not a word within the Old
Testament or the New about non-procreative sexuality among married persons, and, indeed, most Jewish
commentators have agreed that anything was licit between husband and wife . It is a well-established principle in
several social science disciplines that there is, however, a classrelated prejudice against non-procreative sexual acts, and one would expect to find this among lower
class Christians as among any lower class group of the society. Among theologians, explicit rejection of all non-procreative
sexuality, does not relate directly to attitudes toward gay people. The theologians of the early church were
attempting to impress on all Christians that they had to see every act of heterosexual intercourse as the
potential creation of a child. No effective means of birth control was known in this world (except for abstinence)-
not even the rhythm method. The only way to avoid having children was to kill or abandon them . Theologians therefore
wished to persuade Christian parents that they had to be responsible for the creation of a child every time they had sexual pleasure. The only other
alternatives in their world-the world in which the early theology of the church was formulated-were
morally unacceptable. Now the original aim of this approach, it appears, was only to protect children. It
was not to attack homosexuality. Indeed, it was a very long time before this notion spilled over into
homosexuality, but it eventually did.
2NC---AT: Homophobia---“Sodomites”
Wrong
1995, imp]
Furnish notes that Sodom

did not become an unambiguous symbol of same-sex sexual relations until the
second century C.E., that it then applied to the exploitation of a youth or young man by an older male,
and that although there are some English translations which use the word "sodomite," " no Hebrew or
Greek word formed on the name ‘Sodom’ ever appears in the biblical manuscripts on which those versions are
based. In every instance in the King James Version where the term ‘sodomite’ is used, the reference is to
male prostitutes associated with places of worship." "It is important to notice that our Old Testament
texts attack the male prostitutes not because they engage in sexual relationships with other males; they,
like the female prostitutes, are attacked because they serve alien gods."
The foregoing accounts for misleading translations like the King James version’s rendition of Deuteronomy
23:17: "There shall be
no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel," and similar mistranslations at
I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46 and II Kings 23:7. As one author points out, it is difficult to see how anyone could make this kind of
mistake, since the words of Deuteronomy 23:17 translated as "whore" and "sodomite" are masculine and
feminine forms of exactly the same Hebrew word. The New Revised Standard Edition uses the more accurate "temple
prostitute" in these passages. Scroggs even suggests that it is a strong possibility that the male temple
prostitutes spoken of here serviced females, rather than males.
2NC---AT: Homophobia---Ham’s Sin
Wrong
Gnuse 15 [Robert K. Gnuse, James C. Carter, S.J./Bank One Distinguished Professor of the Humanities in
the Religious Studies Department @ Loyola, “Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn
Homosexuality”, Biblical Theology Bulletin Volume 45 Number 2 Pages 68–87,
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146107915577097?journalCode=btba, April 22, 2015,
imp]
Ham also committed an act of incest. Dominating rape and incest are sufficient to warrant the curse that
comes upon Canaan; we do not have to conclude that it is homosexuality. Thus, this passage does not address the
issue of homosexual love between two free adults, even if it does describe homosexual activity. But it may not actually do
even that.
Critical scholars often maintain that Ham did not actually rape his father. When Shem and Japheth came in
backwards to avoid looking at Noah, we suspect that inappropriate looking was the actual action of Ham. If simply
covering Noah was the solution to the problem, then the offensive action must have been viewing
Noah’s nakedness. The use of the verb “to see” in this passage is not the usual way of speaking about sex. More likely we would read,
“uncover the nakedness” (Lev 18:6; 20:18) or “lie with” (Lev 20:11–12). So sexual activity may not be the sin. The sin may be twofold: viewing a
close relative naked, which is a purity violation, and failing to help a parent in distress, a social violation, which for a kinship society was an
extremely egregious sin (Westermann: 484, 488–89; Wenham 1987: 198–200; Vervenne: 49–50; Embry: 417– 33). The second millennium bce
Aqhat Epic states that it is the responsibility of the son to tend to his father when the old man is drunk: “Who takes him by the hand when he’s
drunk, Carries him when he’s sated with wine” (Pritchard: ANET, 150). This is what Ham failed to do, and perhaps he even made fun of his
father’s condition. If this is the case, this passage should not be discussed at all in regard to homosexuality
2NC---AT: Pro-Slavery
The Bible is not pro slavery
Becker 19 [Doug Becker, Pastor of Theology, “DOES THE BIBLE CONDONE SLAVERY?”,
https://emergencenj.org/blog/2019/01/04/does-the-bible-condone-slavery, January 4, 2019, imp]
In order to present an accurate picture of slavery in the Bible, we must delve in some detail into all of
the most relevant passages. By the very nature of the beast, this requires a somewhat lengthy treatment. Though I have been as brief
as possible, I realize that not every reader will want to read this entire treatment. For those simply looking for a brief overview, I offer the
following points that will be fleshed out in the following essay: In both the Old and New Testaments, the words used to denote slaves did not
necessarily carry the same connotations that we associate with slavery today. Only by understanding the biblical texts and the cultures that
produced them can we understand what is being referred to in the Bible. The
stealing and selling of human beings, such as has
been common throughout human history, is a capital offense according to Old Testament law. The return of fugitive
slaves to their masters was also illegal. In almost every instance, the kind of slavery governed by Old Testament
law was debt-slavery, where an individual would offer labor in exchange for an outstanding debt that he
could not pay. The laws that govern such transactions are given to protect the rights of such slaves, who
could only serve for a maximum of six years. Early Christians had to work out their treatment of one
another under Roman law, which they lacked the political influence to change. The Christian community was a
counter-cultural movement in which social distinctions were all but erased. Jesus is the true Lord, and masters and slaves were expected to
treat each other as beloved brothers and sisters and equal members of the body of Christ.
Slavery in Old Testament Law
Out the outset, we must make an important distinction between the Old Testament passages on slavery and those found in the New
Testament. The passages in the Old Testament that we will be considering are found \ in the laws of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. One
of the primary purposes of these laws was to govern ancient Israel—a nation that enjoyed a special covenant relationship with God and lived
under kings and rulers who were supposed to govern in accordance with these laws. The New Testament passages, by contrast, are written to
Christians who lived in the Roman Empire, where slavery was an important, socially-embedded institution. In other words, while the Old
Testament law was given by God to be the law of the land, the admonitions in the New Testament are given to people living under someone
else’s law. Accordingly, we will treat them separately
Getting the Terminology Straight
A major cause of confusion for contemporary readers is the assumption that the word “slave,” as it is
found in Old Testament legal passages, meant the same thing in ancient Israel as it does for us today.
The Old Testament was written in Classical Hebrew, and so it is not surprising that certain words do not
have perfect equivalents in modern English. The difficulty felt by Bible translators in rendering the Hebrew terms relating to
slavery is fairly well-publicized.[1] Strictly speaking, the Old Testament does not call an individual bound to the
service of another a “slave;” it calls him an ʿebed (pronounced eved), and a woman in such a role is called an ʾāmâ.
While these terms can connote very harsh slavery, comparable to that which was found in the Antebellum South (e.g., the Hebrews as Egyptian
slaves), it often does not, as is the case in most of the words’ appearances in the so-called Old Testament “slave laws.” The most that can be
said about in general about these two terms, especially the first, is that they are used to denote a social class that is relatively lower than
another. Thus,
it is common in Old Testament speech for people to refer to themselves as “your servant”
(Heb. ʿabdekā) when addressing someone submissively.
General Observations
So just howsimilar was Israelite slavery to our conception of the institution that bears the same name?
Not much. Consider first that Israelite slavery was voluntary. Exodus 21:16 says, “Whoever steals a man and sells
him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” Found among the earliest cluster of slave laws,
this speaks directly to the issue of slavery, and forbids anything resembling a slave trade among the
ancient Israelites. This verse alone should make it clear that “slavery” in Old Testament law is vastly different than
anything that we commonly associate with slavery. By contrast, Leviticus 25:39 and 47 speak of the poor Israelite as “selling
himself” into servitude, suggesting what we will soon discover—that Israelite slaves were debt-servants, not human chattel
deprived of freedom and basic rights. The fourth commandment even requires that slaves enjoy the Sabbath along with their
masters (Exod 20:8–11). Thus, any passage that speaks of masters as “buying” Hebrew servants should be
understood as referring to a voluntary act, in which the slave was not sold by another, but sold his own
labor to another Israelite.
Another important law that should inform our understanding of what was legal in ancient Israel is
Deuteronomy 23:15–16: “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to
you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your towns, wherever it suits him. You shall not
wrong him.” According to the law of Moses, it was actually illegal to return a fugitive slave.[2] In fact, this passage commands his fellow
Israelites to allow him to dwell wherever he pleases. Effectively, Israelite
slaves could break their service contracts simply
by leaving. Slavery in Israelite law was entered into voluntarily and could be ended voluntarily. This stands in
stark contrast to other ancient Near Eastern law codes of the day, such as the Law of Hammurabi (ca. 1792–1750 BC), which gives a drastically
different perspective on runaway slaves:
2NC---AT: Philemon
tag
Cleaver 19 [Brandon Cleaver, “How Can I Trust the Bible When It Was Used to Justify Slavery?”,
https://web.archive.org/web/20191231153944/https://www.rzim.org/read/rzim-global/how-can-i-
trust-the-bible-when-it-was-used-to-justify-slavery, 2019, imp]
Though many times the tension of understanding slavery in the Bible is bound up in Old Testament
texts, there is also much debate that circulates around some New Testament texts, such as the book of
Philemon.
This short letter is of particular concern because it is written by New Testament writer Paul, to a slave
owner, Philemon, about a slave, Onesimus. Paul writes the letter from jail but had a previous encounter
with Onesimus where he became a Christian. Paul is writing this letter to Philemon, who is also a
Christian, to receive Onesimus back as a brother in the faith, and not simply a slave.
Pre-Civil War pro slavery advocates used this letter as leverage for their cause. Philemon became a
representative for the modern day so-called “Christian” slave owner, and it was used as political
propaganda and motivation in such cases as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, which mandated that all
escaped slaves be returned to their masters.
The argument is sometimes made that since Paul did not explicitly condemn slavery and demand
Onesimus’ freedom, he therefore must be pro slavery. But this conclusion has several issues.
The argument is sometimes made that since Paul did not explicitly condemn slavery and demand
Onesimus’ freedom, he therefore must be pro slavery. But this conclusion has several issues: For one
thing, an argument from silence isn’t an argument of complicity. Secondly, Paul’s use of language is
overtly establishing a bond of familial love, or a type of family love, between Philemon and Onesimus.
He uses words like son, child, father, and brother all during his pleas to Philemon. For example, in
Philemon 1:15-16 Paul states, “For this perhaps is why he was parted from you for a while, that you
might have him back forever, no longer as a bondservant but more than a bondservant, as a beloved
brother—especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.” This kind of
language was never used to characterize a “relationship” between a slave and master during pre-Civil
War slavery.
Finally, although Paul does not explicitly condemn slavery, he implicitly denounces it through his
appeals. You see, Paul made it clear that he could have asserted his authority with Philemon, but he did
not think the best way was through coercion: “Therefore, although in Christ I could be bold and order
you to do what you ought to do, yet I prefer to appeal to you on the basis of love.” Love is not truly love
when forced. Paul had a bigger goal in mind, and that was the transformation of Philemon’s heart... and
the transformation of his heart, and the heart of other slave owners, would cause systems like slavery to
crumble.
Paul had a bigger goal in mind, and that was the transformation of Philemon’s heart... and the
transformation of his heart, and the heart of other slave owners, would cause systems like slavery to
crumble.
Yet Philemon was not the only New Testament text used to corroborate the pre-Civil War institution of
slavery. Howard Thurman, an African American philosopher, theologian, and civil rights leader, wrote a
book called Jesus and the Disinherited. In it, he details a conversation with his grandmother, former
slave Nancy Ambrose, in which she recalls painful memories in which the words of the New Testament
writer Paul were used as reinforcement for her enslavement:
“During the days of slavery... the master’s minister would occasionally hold services for the slaves... At
least four or five times a year he used as a text: ‘Slaves, be obedient to them that are your masters...’ I
promised my Maker that if I ever learned to read and if freedom ever came, I would not read that part
of the Bible.”[13]
Ambrose is likely referring to Colossians 3:22 or Ephesians 6:5: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with
respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” Like Philemon, this verse
was used as further support for slavery and to create a docility among the enslaved. When read in
isolation, it seems to support the pro slavery advocate’s cause. But reading in isolation does not provide
clarification. This method yields faulty interpretations and therefore, faulty conclusions. Context is key
to coherent and consistent biblical interpretation. When this principle is applied to this example, we find
contrary information only several verses later. In verse 9, masters are commanded to treat slaves in the
same way slaves are told to treat their masters and to not threaten them. Paul then uses language
reminiscent of Job’s statements on equality: “...since you know that he who is both their Master and
yours in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.”
2NC---AT: Transphobia
tag
Markham et al. 15 [Myles Markham, Master of Arts of Practical Theology @ Columbia Theological
Seminary, Michael Vazquez, Master of Theological Studies @ Duke Divinity School, Stan Mitchell, Master
of Theological Studies @ Vanderbilt Divinity School, Josh Scott, Master of Arts in Religion @ Western
Kentucky University, “What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?”,
https://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality, December 10, 2015,
imp]
While gender complimentarity is indeed rooted in passages from Genesis 1 and 2, it is worth noting that
these stories say God began by creating human beings of male and female sex (defined as the complex
result of combinations between chromosomes, gonads, genes, and genitals) but there is nothing that
indicates in Scripture that God only created this binary. This account says little to nothing about gender,
(the social and cultural norms and practices corresponding to what is considered masculine and
feminine.) Two dimensions of the text that become important in considering the biblical affirmation of
intersex, transgender, non-binary, and other gender diverse people, discussed at more length here. To
further complicate the argument against same-sex relationships, Scripture doesn’t suggest that
respecting biblical authority means Christians should reject experience as a teacher. In fact, what Jesus
said in the Sermon on the Mount about good trees bearing good fruit and bad trees bearing bad fruit
(Matthew 7:17-18) indicates experience should inform how we learn God’s truth. This was what allowed
the first Christians to decide to include gentiles who were not keeping the Old Testament law in the
early church (Acts 15:1-19). It also was the basis for the Christian arguments that put an end to slavery
and has supported movements for women’s equality throughout church history as well.
2NC---AT: Sexist
2NC---AT: Canaanites
tag
Morrow 14 [Jonathan Morrow, “Questioning the Bible: 11 Major Challenges to the Bible's Authority”,
ISBN-10: 0802411789, August 1, 2014, imp]
Second, the divinely given command to Israel of herem (Yahweh War) concerning the Canaanites was
unique, geographically and temporally limited, and not to be repeated. On this point Old Testament
scholar Christopher Wright is worth quoting at length because the historical context he develops is
imperative to grasp:
The conquest was a single episode within a single generation out of all the many generations of Old
Testament history. Of course it spans a longer period than that if one includes the promise and then
completion. The conquest of Canaan was promised to Abraham, anticipated as the purpose of the
exodus, delayed by the wilderness rebellion, accomplished under Joshua, and brought to provisional
completion under David and Solomon. Even including all this, though, it was limited in the specic
duration of the warfare involved. Although the process of settling and claiming the land took several
generations, the actual invasion and destruction of key fortied cities took place mostly within a single
generation. And it is this event, conned to one generation, which constituted the conquest. … Some …
other wars also had God’s sanction—especially those where Israel was attacked by other nations and
fought defensively to survive. But by no means are all the wars in the Old Testament portrayed in the
same way as the conquest of Canaan. Some were clearly condemned as the actions of proud and greedy
kings or military rivals. It is a caricature of the Old Testament to portray God as constantly on the
warpath or to portray it as “typical” of the rest of the story. … So the conquest of Canaan, as a unique
and limited historical event, was never meant to become a model for how all future generations were to
behave toward their contemporary enemies. (italics added)
Third, genocide and ethnic cleansing are inaccurate terms for the conquest of Canaan. The long list of
Canaanite depravity— idolatry, incest, temple prostitution, adultery, child sacrice, homosexuality, and
bestiality (Leviticus 18:24–25; 20:22–24; Deuteronomy 9:5; 12:29–31) have been well documented, but
let’s limit our discussion to their despicable practice of child sacrice: “Molech was a Canaanite
underworld deity represented as an upright, bull-headed idol with human body in whose belly a re was
stoked and in whose arms a child was placed that would be burnt to death. It was not just unwanted
children who were sacriced. Plutarch reports that during the Phoenician (Canaanite) sacrices, ‘the whole
area before the statue was lled with a loud noise of utes and drums so that the cries and wailing should
not reach the ears of the people.’”
The conquest of the land of Canaan “is repeatedly portrayed as God acting in judgment on a wicked and
degraded society and culture—as God would do again and again in Old Testament history, including
against Israel itself.”11 God had given them 430 years to change their ways, but their wickedness nally
reached the tipping point for God to judge (cf. Exodus 15:6). In the biblical narrative, the actions of the
Israelites are “never placed in the category of oppression but of divine punishment operating through
human agency,”12 Wright notes. God as the creator of life has the right to take life and during this
unique occasion of judgment, that prerogative was temporarily extended to the people of Israel since
Yahweh was their king (e.g., a theocracy). While Israel carried out this judgment against a specic people
—the Canaanites—their actions were not motivated by racial superiority or hatred. Therefore the
language of ethnic cleansing and genocide is inaccurate. Idolatry, not ethnicity, is the issue here.
Fourth, we must allow for the possibility of rhetorical generalization in ancient Near Eastern “war
language.” When it comes to the destruction of Canaanites, there are two main interpretive options.
First, as we have seen, Canaan was a wicked nation that God had graciously given over four hundred
years to repent. They did not repent and clearly deserved God’s judgment. The second option is very
similar, but rather than the total destruction of everything that breathes, the main targets were the key
military centers. They were to be destroyed in the region with the goal of eradicating the Canaanite
religion. On this view, it is very likely that many if not most of the women and children would have ed
these cities as the warriors fought. Judgment was still occurring but exaggerated language was used in
the biblical text as a common literary convention of the day: “Texts from other nations at the time show
that such total destruction in war was practiced, or at any rate proudly claimed, elsewhere.” “But we
must also recognize that the language of warfare had a conventional rhetoric that liked to make
absolute and universal claims about total victory and completely wiping out the enemy … which often
exceeded reality on the ground.”13 Accordingly this ancient Near East rhetorical generalization allows
for exaggerated language and “enables us to allow for the fact that descriptions of destruction of
‘everything that lives and breathes’ were not intended literally.”14 This is certainly a legitimate
possibility. Again, the goal here is not to make it more palatable. The goal is an accurate understanding
of what the biblical text teaches.
2NC---AT: Capitalism
The only holy war going on is that against capitalism – the pope agrees
Polon 2016 (Tal – prestigious writer for the arutz sheva, Pope equates capitalism with terrorism,
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/215809, LB)
In an interview on his flight back from World Youth Day in Poland, where he also visited the Auschwitz death camp, Pope Francis related to the issues of
terrorism and capitalism in the world today, even implying a comparison between the two, as reported by NBC News.He said that it is "unfair" to
equate 'Islam' with terrorism, claiming that every group has its extremist factions: " "I don't like to talk about Islamic
violence. Not all Muslims are violent. In every religion there are small groups of fundamentalists." "We [Catholics] have them, too. So it's not fair to identify
Islam with violence and terrorism. It's not fair, and it's not true." Further attempting to downplay a connection between Islam and terrorism, the Pope
implied that capitalism, if anything, is a type of terrorism. "When you place at the center of the world
economy the 'God of Money,' that's terrorism against all humanity ."
2NC---misc
3 – homophobia is a sin
Bartels 94 [William J. Bartels, Protestant Chaplain @ Rhode Island University, “Are Homophobia and
Heterosexism Sins?”, https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1017&context=academic-history, March 1994, imp, some of the words are fucked up because of
ocr]
So are homophobia and heterosexism sins? How can they not be? Christianity teaches that all people are
created in the image of God and are worthy of respect and dignity. Christianity teaches that God loves all
people equally Christians are also called to love all people. This mearrs that, according to some of the most basic beliefs of
Christianity, to make fun of homosexuals, to put them down, to make them the brunt of jokes, to condemn
them, ridicule them, carry out violence against them or to discriminate against them in any way is to act
nnlovingly toward them and is wrong. Yes, in religious language it is sinful. Furthermore, if these actions are sinful, then the refusal of
Christians to speak out against them is also sinful, and the refusal to actively try to put an end to such actions is also sinful
2NC---AT: Evolution
wrong
Reuters 7 [MSNBC.com news services, contributed to by Reuters. “Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an
‘absurdity’,” July 25th, 2007. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-
creation-vs-evolution-clash-absurdity/#.UMpyt2882So //imp]
Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his
native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can
coexist with faith.
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution,
the theory could not exclude a role by God.
“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much
scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as
such.”
He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘ Where does
everything come from?’”
Benedict also said the human race must listen to “the voice of the Earth” or risk destroying its very existence.
Miscellaneous Links
Link---Util
Tag
Gresz 18 [Gabor Gresz, “Utilitarian Christianity”, https://medium.com/@gresz67/utilitarian-christianity-
c508120c04b1. December 12, 2018, imp]
Today’s Christian
thinking is deeply saturated with and trapped by utilitarianism. We’ve adopted our society’s
moral normative of maximizing happiness and good (money, time, resources, opportunities) for the greatest number of
people. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill’s moral code completely saturated our thinking and our decision-making process. Today
churches, mission organizations and donors widely operate based on utilitarian principles as they seek how to maximize every invested dollar
with other resources and turn them into the most number of saved souls. Utilitarianism
created a deformed version of
Christianity where EFFICIENCY and NUMBERS are the two idols by which the will of God is decided and
by which stewardship is measured. Most times — out of good intention — decision-making processes in the churches and missions
are only considering utilitarian aspects: where can we get the greatest return for our investment and resources? (Efficiency to maximize results
is the mantra of our whole society.) And at many cases that could be the wise and good thing to pursue.
The Word of God encourages us to maximize our God-given resources as good stewards (see Mt 25:14–30 —
The Parable of the Talents). However, this “maximizing” doesn’t always carry the utilitarian meaning of the word —
which is maximizing the resources to benefit the greatest number of people. As we’ll see below, simply
following utilitarian aspects in our decision-making processes might lead us far away from the heart of
God.
In the following two stories from the life of Jesus we can observe how he addresses that spending money and time (two very valuable assets)
should NOT only be decided by simple utilitarian aspects.
“Wasting” money — Mark 14:3–9; John 12:1–8
These stories in the Gospels are recording the anointing of Jesus. Mary
poured a very expensive ointment on Jesus. The cost
of that in today’s money is app. $40,000. The
disciples — being (seemingly) so concerned for the well-being of the
poor — immediately outraged and scolded Mary. They’ve used a utilitarian argument : “this resource
could have been used much better to benefit the many most needy”. With this argument they’ve placed
themselves to a morally superior position and subtly they’ve judged Jesus who allowed and supported
such waste of a potentially valuable resource. (See how pure utilitarianism can place us in the judgment seat even over God.)
They have a strong moral argument: a lot of people for a long time could be fed from this money that was just wasted.
Mary was isolated, bullied, judged, misunderstood and misrepresented for her costly, loving sacrifice just because it didn’t fit the disciples’
utilitarian thinking. There are times when our obedience and sacrifice doesn’t make sense and it comes with a cost.
The disciples were very much like us: they knew how someone else should spend her money. They made moral judgement on her sacrifice. It
was not their money, they didn’t work for it, it was not given to them to make a decision about it, yet they were bold enough to place
themselves in the judgment seat just because it didn’t fit into their utilitarian “superior morality”.
Jesus not only rebukes them and corrects their false thinking, but makes a promise to Mary as well: “wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the
whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her”.
She was the only person who has captured the moment and understood what will happen to Jesus. She was the only person who were so
intimate and close to the heart of Jesus that she understood what she needs to prepare Jesus for. It’s ultimately more important to prepare
Jesus for his saving death than to feed the poor.
But simple utilitarianism failed to understand the heart of God and to reveal such secret . Simply listing pros and
cons and prioritizing needs do not always lead us to the heart of God. This only could be discovered in the intimate solitude
with God by someone whose heart is deeply connected to Jesus.
The number one question is not what benefits the most, but what glorifies God.
What is the will of God and how can I express my love for him the best way? — those are more important questions and
motivations than the utilitarian aspects.
Link---Pollution Taxes
Taxation sells the unsaleable – it functions as an environmental indulgence which
subverts the proper relationship between humans and nature
Goodin 94
Robert Goodin (Professor of Philosophy, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University). “Selling Environmental
Indulgences.” KYKLOS, Vol. 47 - 1994 - Fasc. 4, 573 – 596. JDN.
http://hec2010.wiki.usfca.edu/file/view/Goodin_Selling_Environmental_Indulgences.pdf
There is, however, a variation on that objection which applies with peculiar force to the sale of indulgences
- to the indulging of wrongful behaviour for reason of money. The objection there is not (or not just) that the impermissible is
permitted. It is instead that the impermissible is permitted for a peculiarly sordid (pecuniary) motive. The
objection is to the sale of the unsaleable, more than (and, indeed, often instead of) to the permitting of the impermissible. The
spiritual analogy is again illuminating here. It is not unreasonable to suppose, someone like Luther might say, that
God forgives people their sins. It is not even unreasonable for those versed in God's words and His ways
to second-guess (in a way that is of course utterly non-binding on Him) the circumstances in which he might do so. What is
unreasonable, however, is to suppose that God's grace can be bought. What counts with Him is the purity
of the heart, not the size of the purse (LUTHER, 1517, prop. 27). By the same token in the environmental case, it might be thought
that there are indeed circumstances in which it is perfectly proper for the environment to be despoiled. Suppose that were the only way of
securing a decent life (or, indeed, life at all) for a great many people who would otherwise lead miserable lives or face even more miserable
deaths. Then chopping down large portions of the Amazonian rain forest might well be forgivable, if nonetheless unfortunate. But what makes
it forgivable has nothing to do with (or, as in the case here sketched, may even be negatively related to) the size of the purse of those chopping
down the forests. Certainly
permission to chop down the forests should not be publicly auctioned to the
highest bidder, any more than should remission of time in purgatory for sins committed. A religious indulgence
is granted upon condition of the indulged feeling true contrition for their sins. The environmental indulgence may be granted, by the same
token, upon condition of the indulged showing that they have no other choice and that they have made good-faith (albeit unsuccessful) efforts
to avoid damage to the environment. The objection here in view is not to conditionality as such, but rather to making the granting of the
indulgence conditional upon payment of hard, cold cash. God may grant His favours freely and simply; but God cannot
be bought. By the same token, we might forgive people who despoil the environment for certain sorts of reasons - but the pursuit of pure
profit (as represented in 'willingness to pay' green taxes) is not one of them.
There’s an independent ethics impact—granting indulgences violates equity which is

fundamentally unethical
Goodin 94 [Robert Goodin (Professor of Philosophy, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian
National University). “Selling Environmental Indulgences.” KYKLOS, Vol. 47 - 1994 - Fasc. 4, 573 – 596.
JDN. http://hec2010.wiki.usfca.edu/file/view/Goodin_Selling_Environmental_Indulgences.pdf ]
The whole point (in religious, if not necessarily pragmatic terms) of buying a religious indulgence was backward-looking, to wipe one's slate
clean of past sins. The whole point of buying an environmental indulgence is forward-looking, to secure
permission to despoil the environment now and in the future. Whereas the religiously indulged are
seeking merely forgiveness for things past, the environmentally indulged seek permission to for future
actions. If buying an environmental indulgence is tantamount to buying a permission to commit a wrong, it is continuing permission
(conditional on continuing payment) to commit continuing wrongs. The reason the wrong remains wrong, even after
payment, is simply that the wrong done to the environment and to people using it is not an economic
wrong. It is not as if it (or we) are 'poorer' for those acts, at least not in any way that can be made good
by any transfer of financial resources. Yet while the wrong remains, even after payment of taxes, that wrong is nonetheless
permitted on a continuing basis, on continuing payment of the taxes. I return to these themes in section II.6. below. 5. Indulging Some But Not
All Ingranting indulgences there is a further problem of fairness to confront. Crudely put, it might be
thought unfair, somehow, to indulge some but not all sinners. If not all can be (or, anyway, not all will be) indulged, then
perhaps it is wrong - unfair - to indulge any at all. And that unfairness might be felt to be especially strong when
indulgences are being sold in situations in which some but not all are willing or able to pay the asking
price. Less crudely put, it might be thought a matter of elementary fairness that if any sinners are to be indulged, then all with relevantly
similar characteristics should be. Of course not all sinners should be indulged: some are unreconstructed reprobates who really ought be
punished. But all who are in the same boat ought, in fairness, be treated similarly . In the religious case, the issue of fairness arguably does not
arise. There, indulgences merely reflect God's grace, understood as His purely discretionary whimsy. He can choose to indulge whomsoever He
pleases, without a thought for constraints of consistency (although few would be attracted to a vision of so purely capricious a God, perhaps).
Insofar as we are making a social practice of granting indulgences (environmental or otherwise), however, the practice surely ought be
grounded in principles that are more regular and publicly defensible than that. The
particular problem of fairness arises, in the
environmental case, from the fact that we can often afford a few - but only a few - environmental
renegades (KENNAN, 1970). A few countries can continue to hunt whales, for example, without causing the extinction of any species, just so
long as not all do. A few countries can continue generating greenhouse gases or emitting CFCs without altering the climate or destroying the
ozone layer, just so long as most countries do not. In short, nature can tolerate' some but not all misbehaving (GOODIN, 1995, chap. 18). In
such cases, the question immediately becomes how to choose who gets to play this role of
environmental renegade. Advocates of green taxes suggest that these slots should be sold to the highest
bidder: others suggest other ways in which this determination might be made (TAYLOR and WARD, 1982). Behind all such schemes, however,
is an unspoken assumption that we ought make sure that all those slots are taken - that we ought allow just as many renegades as nature itself
will tolerate. Critiques couched in terms of fairness query precisely that proposition. The root idea there is that if we
cannot allow everyone to do something, then we ought not allow anyone to do it. That may not appeal much as a general principle: it seems
perfectly reasonable that I should be able to allow some people to share my house without allowing everyone to do so. But that
principle
seems considerably more apt when it comes to the exploitation of genuinely collective goods; it seems
far less reasonable to allow some co-owners of a common property resource to use it in certain ways,
without allowing all co-owners to use it similarly.
Weird K stuff
Alt card
Framework card
Perm card

God Core File 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

God Core File 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wipeout

1NC---Turn---IN THE NAME OF THE LORD

For one thing, Christians believe that life

If death my portion be,

Hell causes suffering which is INFINITE in both DURATION and SEVERITY

THE BIBLE GIVES THE LOCATION OF HELL

YES! THERE IS A PLACE CALLED HELL!

HELL IS A PLACE OF TORMENT

WHAT IF JESUS IS RIGHT?

AND YOU ARE THERE — FOREVER!

BUT FRIEND I HAVE GOOD NEWS!

YOU CHOOSE HELL!

DON'T BE CAUGHT DEAD WITHOUT JESUS!

NOTHING IS WORTH TAKING THE CHANCE!

THE BIBLE GIVES THE LOCATION OF HELL

YES! THERE IS A PLACE CALLED HELL!

HELL IS A PLACE OF TORMENT

WHAT IF JESUS IS RIGHT?

AND YOU ARE THERE — FOREVER!

BUT FRIEND I HAVE GOOD NEWS!

YOU CHOOSE HELL!

ONE DAY YOU WILL BE IN HELL! What

DON'T BE CAUGHT DEAD WITHOUT JESUS!

NOTHING IS WORTH TAKING THE CHANCE!

For example, how does someone "arrange" to be born in a specific family?

The Bible also predicted Cyrus

For instance, God

There is credible evidence for Jesus’ death and resurrection

JESUS’ POST-RESURRECTION APPEARANCES WERE UNLIKELY TO BE HALLUCINATIONS Hallucinations are

Truth and reason require a belief in God

Presumption goes NEG

Reasons for Rejecting the Many-universes Hypothesis

In the case of the fine-tuning, we

To further illustrate this response, consider

No contemporary scholars questioned the existence of Jesus

What did non-Christian authors say about Jesus?

Did ancient writers discuss the existence of Jesus?

But the ancient

The idea of collective hallucinations, however, is highly problematic on several grounds:

Many other issues remain regarding the hallucination hypothesis:

Archaeological evidence of Jesus does not exist.

2 – Testimony of Paul proves

But, in a sense, the “mythical

The reasons are that advocates of the “mythical

And nobody credible agrees with him

In agreement is historian Michael Grant:

Claim: Religious Figure X received a divine revelation

On what basis would you confirm or deny that claim?

One of your leader’s 12 closest followers decided to turn against him

Bible predicted Cyrus

For instance, God

For example, how does someone "arrange" to be born in a specific family?

3. The Folly of Atheism

This answers the question you hear so often: "Why

So in order for us to experience love, God

2 – the argument from silence

Homophobic readings are misinterpretations

Malakoi describes rapists & pederasts

Furnish notes that Sodom

Slavery in Old Testament Law

Getting the Terminology Straight

“Wasting” money — Mark 14:3–9; John 12:1–8

There’s an independent ethics impact—granting indulgences violates equity which is