The Instigator
nickthengineer
Con (against)
Losing
36 Points
The Contender
GeoLaureate8
Pro (for)
Winning
62 Points

As the Bible describes God, He is inconsistent in His nature

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 18 votes the winner is...
GeoLaureate8
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,810 times Debate No: 10573
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (18)

 

nickthengineer

Con

Quite simply, although certain recorded actions of God in the Bible may appear to the untrained eye to be contradictory, an understanding of God's nature and attributes will show that God has done nothing contradictory that one can find in the Bible.

My opponent need not agree with a single word in the Bible or that God exists, but we will not be debating such issues. As the written Bible exists today, I expect my opponent to cite examples of God being contradictory, and I will explain the alleged contradiction as NOT a contradiction.

We shall keep strictly to the topic of GOD being contradictory; any issues of the Bible making contradictory statements with regards to science, geography, the sign above Jesus' head on the cross, how many times the rooster crows during Peter's denial, etc., fall under a different topic of possible contradictions that I plan to address in a future debate challenge.

If my opponent chooses to defer first arguments to me, I can begin with an explanation of God's attributes and cite some examples of God being consistent in His nature. As I feel this will bore most readers, I encourage my opponent to bring his arguments first, citing specific examples from the Bible. Multiple translations of the Bible can be accessed from a site such as www.youversion.com for reference.

Thank you in advance for engaging in this debate and good luck!
GeoLaureate8

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent, nickthengineer, for instigating this debate. I agree to the debate parameters that he has proposed.

I will now demonstrate that the Christian God is contradictory in nature according to the Bible.

===========================
The Christian God is Inconsistent in Nature
===========================

The God of the Bible self-proclaims that he is synonymous with love (1 John 4:8) and the God of peace (Romans 15:33). However, the Bible describes him committing countless atrocities that could hardly be considered peaceful, loving, or good. Not only are his actions contradictory to his self-proclaimed nature, but his own words are inconsistent. He says he is the God of peace, yet he also proclaims himself "a man of war" (Exodus 15:3). Peace is clearly antithetical to war, and he also calls himself a man, which is contradictory to his claim that he is God.

=====================
Atrocities Committed by Yahweh
=====================

I will list some of the notable atrocities by Yahweh. He has killed (directly and indirectly) 2,391,421 people as specifically described in the Bible, and including the flood, around 33,000,000 total.

- Yahweh destroys the entire global population.

"Every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." - Genesis 7:4

- Yahweh kills 50,070 men for looking into the ark of God.

"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." - 1 Samuel 6:19

- Yahweh sends an angel to kill 185,000 sleeping men.

"The angel of the LORD went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses." - 2 Kings 19:35

- Yahweh destroys 1,000,000 starving Ethiopians.

"The LORD smote the Ethiopians" - 2 Chronicles 14:12

Given all of these atrocities, it would be be absurd to proclaim that Yahweh is peaceful, loving, and good. And if you claim that he is only peaceful and loving sometimes, then that negates that he is omnibenevolent, a common attribute of the Christian God.

If one is to say that God is good because he declares himself the moral standard and because all that he does is good, then that is circular reasoning. Merely asserting that everything you do is good, is not enough to make such a claim true, even within the confines of a Biblical framework.

=========
Closing Quote
=========

I will leave you with this closing quote which eloquently describes the Christian God's contradictory nature.

"... A God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him!" - Mark Twain

=======
Conclusion
=======

In conclusion, I have affirmed the resolution that the God of the Bible is inconsistent in nature. Yahweh clearly is not the all-loving, perfect God that he proclaims to be given all of the horrific atrocities he has committed.
Debate Round No. 1
nickthengineer

Con

==========
INCONSISTENT IN ACTIONS VS INCONSISTENT IN NATURE
==========

I believe an example is needed in order to explain what my opponent has done with his opening arguments.

Let's say that Derek Jeter of the New York Yankees professes to always do what is best to help his team win. Offensively, doing what is best to help his team win usually means trying to get a hit, although not always. There are times when the situation demands the smart baseball decision of laying down a sacrifice bunt to move a runner into scoring position. In this case, remaining consistent in always trying to get a hit would not be doing what is best to help the team win. For his career, Derek Jeter only gets a hit in 31.7% of his at bats [1], while a sacrifice bunt is pretty easy to do.

Clearly, in order to remain consistent in one's NATURE, one must exercise DIFFERENT ACTIONS IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. Consequently, always remaining consistent in ACTIONS regardless of the circumstances will ultimately result in being INCONSISTENT IN NATURE.

In my opponent's opening round, he showed some of the examples of the God of the Bible claiming to be loving and peaceful, followed by some of the examples of Him killing people. The only conclusion that can be drawn from my opponent's argument is that he thought I was naive enough to think that God never killed anyone.

I of course am aware of God's killings, although I can't help but wonder how my opponent arrived at the oddly specific count of 2,391,421 plus an approximate 31M more without the use of any sources. My opponent apparently possesses a photographic memory of the entire Bible and a calculator for a brain. Congratulations! Nonetheless, he has ignored the resolution at hand.

I will grant to my opponent that the numbers he has provided without citation are correct, just to demonstrate that they do not matter in this debate. My opponent has presented absolutely nothing so far about the nature of the killings.

Were they arbitrary? Were they warranted? Were they necessary to keep the peace? Were they just judgments? Pro has said nothing at all concerning the context of the killings he chose to refer to, and has thus completely ignored the distinction between actions and nature that I maid painstakingly clear in my opening argument.

So that we are not confused, I have not restricted the topic of this debate to only killing, although I sense this will be my opponent's main focus, which is fine. Let us not forget that the simple opinion of any and all killing being wrong that my opponent or some readers may hold to is of no value to this debate. God declared that the taking of life is right when the situation justifies it [2]. Clearly, God explained that JUSTIFIED killing is not in contradiction with His nature, as it is a teaching of God Himself. My opponent has the burden of proof to show that any of God's killings should logically be considered UNJUSTIFIED according to the context and circumstances provided by the Bible.

To further clarify the distinction of actions and nature, I would like to use as an example a comment posted by my opponent to this debate:

"A quote, by definition, is out of context. You can't quote the whole book. Just because it's out of context doesn't mean that it means something different.
For example, I quoted: "Every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth." - Genesis 7:4
Show me how the meaning changes by putting it back into context. Does it now mean that God shines rays of love on everyone? Or does it still mean that he committed global genocide. Answer me that."

My opponent has correctly clarified that an understanding of the context does not change the ACTION that is quoted; God still killed millions in the Flood. HOWEVER, the importance of putting the quote back into context is so that we can determine whether the action was warranted and justified, as such a case would not be in contradiction to God's NATURE of punishing evil.

When Pro decides to attempt to describe how any of God's killings or other actions were unjustified and thus inconsistent with His professed nature, I will address them.

[1] http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com...
[2] Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:19-21, Deuteronomy 19:21
GeoLaureate8

Pro

======
Sources
======

I apologize for leaving out the sources. I posted my argument before I realized I left them out. I shall post them this round.

Sources for number of kills committed by Yahweh: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com...

Sources for Bible verses: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...

======================================
Unjustified and Inconsistency of the Christian God's Murders
======================================

{*Were they arbitrary? Were they warranted? Were they necessary to keep the peace? Were they just judgments? Pro has said nothing at all concerning the context of the killings he chose to refer to, and has thus completely ignored the distinction between actions and nature that I maid painstakingly clear in my opening argument.*}

My opponent insinuates that all of Yahweh's killings were justified or in someway necessary to keep the peace. I have two objections to this:

1. Yahweh is omnipotent, and as God he can do anything. If he were a peaceful and loving God, he would be able to correct bad behavior in a peaceful and intelligent manner, rather than ruthless killing of entire nations. If my opponent claims that killing is the only way Yahweh can correct sinful or bad behavior, then this contradicts the notion that he is omnipotent. Because he is all-powerful and all-good, killing should not be the first option when dealing with sinful people.

As Mark Twain pointed out in the quote I provided, he is a God "who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all." Nothing could be more inconsistent or hypocritical than that.

2. The things that Yahweh considers to be sinful or bad, are from it, and in most cases absurd. Many of the killings are arbitrary, unwarranted, and not even necessary to keep peace, granted that there was no other form of corrective action.

Unjust Punishment, Actions Unworthy of Death, and Absurd Sins

- Yahweh will smite anyone who works on the Sabbath. If you agree that this is a just reason for killing, then I expect that you would kill everyone who works on the weekend (Sabbath is Saturday, but considered by most as Sunday) to fulfill God's laws.

- Yahweh says that it's ok to smash babies against rocks to make you happy. "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:9) [1] This is just ruthless and careless killing.

- Yahweh prohibits men with damaged or severed genitals to enter the congregation of the Lord. (Deuteronomy 23:1,2) [1]

- Yahweh kills Lot's wife for looking the wrong direction. Another action clearly unworthy of death. "But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt." (Genesis 19:26) [1]

- Yahweh suggests killing a child as a sacrifice for when God gets hungry. "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me." (Exodus 22:29)

- Yahweh commands the killing of women, babies, and animals. If my opponent would like to demonstrate that killing babies and animals who are not capable of sin, are worthy of death, please do so. "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$." (I Samuel 15:2-3) [1]

- Yahweh commands the sons of Levi to kill 3,000 men for dancing. Again, dancing is not an act worthy of death. (Exodus 32:27,28) [1]

My opponent must also realize, that when the Christian God commits mass genocide of nations and even of the world, it can never be just. These are extreme generalizations of a group of people. Many innocent and undeserving people and animals are killed. Even babies are killed as a consequence of global genocide. This is out just ruthless and relentless killing and completely unwarranted. In fact, it is my opponent who should have the burden to prove that each and every one of his murders were just.

=============
More Contradictions
=============

- Yahweh's 10 Commandments state, "Thou shall not commit adultry," yet Yahweh orders adultry in II Samual 12:11: "This said the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun."

- Another inconsistency of the Christian God is that he claims to be Holy, yet he spreads feces on the faces of people who don't give him glory.

"If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread DUNG upon your faces, even the DUNG of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it." (Malachi 2:2-3) [2]

Another verse shows Yahweh forcing children to eat human "dung" as "barley cakes" and "defiled bread." Another very unholy act.

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them." (Ezekiel 4:12-13) [3]

If my opponent would like to demonstrate that spreading fecal excrements on other's faces or forcing children to eat fecal "barley cakes" are Holy acts, he may do so.

{*God declared that the taking of life is right when the situation justifies it [2]. Clearly, God explained that JUSTIFIED killing is not in contradiction with His nature, as it is a teaching of God Himself.*}

This is circular reasoning. I already refuted this in my first round. Just because he declares himself just and that killing is not contradictory in his nature, does not make it so. Clearly his own moral standards state that killing is strictly prohibited in all circumstances, yet he seems to do it all the time.

=========
Closing Quote
=========

I'll leave you with another closing quote which eloquently describes Yahweh's atrocious and contradictory behavior.

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

=======
Conclusion
=======

In conclusion, I have demonstrated that the Christian God is clearly inconsistent in nature. My opponent thought he had a case because I failed to explain why the killings were unjust or inconsistent last round, but I have now fulfilled that burden.

Sources:

[1] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
[2] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
[3] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Debate Round No. 2
nickthengineer

Con

==========
INTRODUCTION
==========
As it is considerably less space consuming to simply list and briefly describe numerous incidents of potential inconsistencies than it takes to fully address them, I will do my best to address as many as possible. I ask that voting be based on the cases raised that I am able to address, and if my opponent wishes we can continue this debate as many times as needed to address all of his cases.

==========
UNJUSTIFIED AND INCONSISTENCY OF THE CHRISTIAN GOD'S MURDERS
==========
1. I disagree with my opponent's assertion that "If [God] were a peaceful and loving God, He would be able to correct bad behavior in a peaceful and intelligent manner" (presumably my opponent means that a truly good God should ALWAYS be able to correct evil without doing any harm to anyone). However, to simply wave His hand and cause someone to stop what they are doing would be taking away that person's free will, something that no one would consider to be "good." God made it clear from the beginning that He would not interfere with the free will of man, as He gave Adam and Eve the CHOICE to obey (Genesis 2:16-17) so that their obedience would be real, not robotical. If God were to change the actions or thoughts of man against their will, He would not be a good God.

Thus, just as judges in our legal system strive to do, God institutes punishments that fit the crime. Certainly no one would consider the criminal justice system "good" if it made no attempt to punish wrongdoings.

2. As I believe I have established that punishments are necessary for crimes, I will begin to address some of the cases presented by my opponent.

THE FLOOD

As Genesis 6:5 tells us, "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Clearly, "every intent" of every person on earth being "only evil continually" is more warranting of the death penalty than any circumstance described in the Bible. If not even a single good thought existed in men, just imagine the atrocities they were committing. As the Bible sets the scene, God's punishment was just and appropriate.

KILLING 3000 FOR DANCING

I will address this one next just to point out to the readers the blind faith my opponent is putting into his sources without even reading the verses he is "referring" to.

"Yahweh commands the sons of Levi to kill 3,000 men for dancing. Again, dancing is not an act worthy of death. (Exodus 32:27,28)"

Here are the verses my opponent claims to be drawing this conclusion from (plus the verse before it for context):

"Then Moses stood in the entrance of the camp, and said, "Whoever is on the Lord's side— come to me!" And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. And he said to them, "Thus says the Lord God of Israel: ‘Let every man put his sword on his side, and go in and out from entrance to entrance throughout the camp, and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.' " So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day."

First off, this text says NOTHING about killing people for dancing. Secondly, this text says NOTHING whatsoever about dancing. Clearly, my opponent is seriously lacking in his research abilities. I listed an online site in R1 that offers free reference to the entire Bible. My opponent has obviously not included the wrong reference, as Exodus 32:27-28 does refer to the sons of Levi killing 3000 men. However, the reason for this judgment is clearly stated. After speaking directly with God, Moses told Israel that God told them to make up their minds about Him, and those who were on the Lord's side were to go stand by Moses. 3000 men willingly and physically chose to stand in opposition to the Lord. Once and for all, they confirmed their stance and suffered the punishment clearly spelt out for the willful and complete hardening of the heart against God, regardless of whether they were friends or family of Moses or of the sons of Levi.

KILLED FOR WORKING ON THE SABBATH

If my opponent wants to present a specific example of this and its context, I will address it.

SMASHING THE HEADS OF BABIES ON ROCKS

"Yahweh says that it's ok to smash babies against rocks to make you happy. ‘Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.' (Psalms 137:9)"

Once again, my opponent is obviously irresponsibly asserting that he understands the meaning of a verse without describing its context. First of all, this statement is from an unknown Psalm writer who is clearly not even quoting God. As this is NOT a statement of God, my opponent's argument on this issue fails completely, as we are debating the actions and nature of God, not the statements of men. However, as smashing the heads of babies sounds pretty serious, I will clarify what can be understood by reading a few verses before.

"O Lord, remember what the Edomites did on the day the armies of Babylon captured Jerusalem. ‘Destroy it!" they yelled. ‘Level it to the ground!' O Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy is the one who pays you back for what you have done to us. Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!"

This Psalmist was crying out to God for reparations for what the Babylonian army did to the people of Jerusalem, asking for a punishment equal to the suffering they had endured. The purpose of this Psalm is to demonstrate that it is okay to share your emotions with God in hard times, but it in no way implies that the actions requested were actually carried out by anybody, let alone God. The assertion that God said to smash babies against rocks for fun is so egregious, I can only assume my opponent wanted to be embarrassed on this issue, and I am more than happy to oblige.

JUSTIFIED KILLING

My statement: God declared that THE TAKING OF LIFE IS RIGHT WHEN THE SITUATION JUSTIFIES IT. Clearly, God explained that JUSTIFIED killing is not in contradiction with His nature, as it is a teaching of God Himself.

Pro's statement: This is circular reasoning. I already refuted this in my first round. Just because He declares Himself just and that killing is not contradictory in His nature, does not make it so. Clearly His own moral standards state that killing is strictly prohibited in all circumstances, yet he seems to do it all the time.

I agree with my opponent's assertion that all killing by God in the Bible is not contradictory to God's nature simply due to the definition of God saying that He is always good. However, my statement above is not circular reasoning. My opponent has misunderstood my meaning GREATLY. First off, God did not declare that ALL killing is not contradictory to His nature and that it is also strictly prohibited in ALL circumstances (which would void this whole debate), and I never claimed this. Rather, I pointed out that God instituted that the punishment must fit the crime, meaning that serious crimes require serious consequences [1]. There is a difference between justified killing and unjustified killing. God states that He justifies killing for the punishment of certain acts [1]. Given the conditions that God has set forth, my opponent has the burden to find an example in the Bible in which the description of the circumstances does not fit the circumstances that God previously declared justifies the punishment of death.

==========
CLOSING QUOTE
==========
My opponent seems to have a fascination with cleverly worded quotes with fancy adjectives, lots of commas and semicolons, and no supporting sources or explanations to back up the insults they spew. If such insults are pertinent to this debate, Pro certainly has the upper hand.

[1] Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:19-21, Deuteronomy 19:21
GeoLaureate8

Pro

======================================
Unjustified and Inconsistency of the Christian God's Murders
======================================

Last round, I suggested that if Yahweh were a just God, he would correct bad behavior in a peaceful and intelligent manner. My opponent responds with this:

{*However, to simply wave His hand and cause someone to stop what they are doing would be taking away that person's free will, something that no one would consider to be "good."*}

This is a strawman on his part because I never suggested that Yahweh should "wave his hand" and force people by taking away their free will. Since my opponent claims Yahweh refuses to interfere with our free will, how does he reconcile that with killing? Is he not violating people's free will by killing them? They didn't choose to die, Yahweh certainly violated their free will. It's also ironic that Yahweh punishes people for exorcising their free will. If he gave us free will, why should we be punished for using it?

THE FLOOD

My opponent contends that the flood was just because "every intent of the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil continually" as stated in Genesis. This is an absolute absurdity and the complete definition of big brother dictatorship. Yahweh destroyed every single man, woman, and child for THOUGHT CRIME!! Killed for thinking. I deem that the epitome of unjustness. Not only that, he failed to address my point that innocent infants and animals were killed in the global genocide. My opponent must explain to me HOW INFANTS DESERVED to drown to their painful death. How animals, NOT capable of sin, are deserving of genocide. These are just more reasons why Yahweh is in unjust God.

KILLED 3000 FOR DANCING

In reference to the chapter of the Bible that describes Yahweh killing 3,000 men for dancing, my opponent denies this fact:

{*First off, this text says NOTHING about killing people for dancing. Secondly, this text says NOTHING whatsoever about dancing. Clearly, my opponent is seriously lacking in his research abilities.*}

My opponent accuses me of bad research skills for having "blind faith" in my source's claim that people were killed for dancing, yet he missed the part in Exodus 32:19 [1] which says "as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses' anger waxed hot." The text continues for several more verses talking about how it's sinful and how angry it makes God and Moses. Dancing around the golden calf made Yahweh's anger "wax hot" and he thus commanded, in Exodus 32:27[1], the death of 3,000 men. This is an unjust killing, bottom line.

YAHWEH KILLS THOSE WHO WORK ON THE SABBATH

My opponent asks that I bring up a specific instance, so here is an example in Numbers 15.

"they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day." - Numbers 15:32 [1]

"And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses." - Numbers 15:35,36 [1]

===========
Unjustified Killing
===========

{*I pointed out that God instituted that the punishment must fit the crime, meaning that serious crimes require serious consequences. There is a difference between justified killing and unjustified killing. God states that He justifies killing for the punishment of certain acts. Given the conditions that God has set forth, my opponent has the burden to find an example in the Bible in which the description of the circumstances does not fit the circumstances that God previously declared justifies the punishment of death.*}

My opponent has mistakenly put the burden on me to demonstrate that Yahweh's murders were unjust, when in fact, he should demonstrate how each murder was just. When an offender is on trial (in this case, I am convicting Yahweh) for killing multiple victims, we don't just assume it was an ok act until proven otherwise. We say, guilty until proven otherwise. So my opponent must defend Yahweh's acts of murder and genocide. Also, he claims that his reasons for killing are just after I just got demonstrating that they're not. THOUGHT CRIMES AND WORKING ON THE SABBATH ARE NOT CRIMES PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. BOTTOM LINE.

=========
Closing Quote
=========

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine (Age of Reason)

=======
Conclusion
=======

In conclusion, I have contended all of my opponents contentions in favor of the resolution that the Biblical God is inconsistent in nature.

[1] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
Debate Round No. 3
nickthengineer

Con

============================================
Unjustified and Inconsistency of the Christian God's Murders
============================================
The point was not whether God would have to waive His hand to fix the problem. The point was that Pro stated that God should always be able to peacefully reconcile any situation if He were truly good and would thus never have to kill. I'm sure that my opponent will agree that in general it is okay to punish wrong actions. We are trying to determine whether God was inconsistent in His nature by examining His actions and the circumstances provided and comparing them to God's laws and standards.

THE FLOOD
Pro's argument on thought crime is misguided and not applicable. Even if the text had stated "every intent of the thoughts of man's heart was only evil continually, although he never actually DID anything wrong", Pro STILL would not have a point here. I am reminded of Jesus' teachings of harboring sinful desires being a sin in one's heart. Jesus taught that if an action is sinful, so is the desire to commit that action. According to the Bible, "thinking only evil continually" is also "constant sin", so Pro's argument is void. If any of God's judgments were warranted, the Flood is first on the list as it was to punish CONSTANT sin by all humans. And as I have already stated, if every intention of men was continually evil, we can only imagine the atrocious acts they were committing. My opponent's belief that God was only punishing the evil intentions and not any evil actions is incredibly na�ve. Thinking nothing but evil for even a short period of time will lead to committing evil, and the people of earth had been thinking nothing but evil for approximately 100 years before the Flood began (Genesis 5:32, 7:6).

The issue of "innocent infants" being killed in the Flood is a bit more troubling on the surface. However, we should remind ourselves that we are looking only at the circumstances presented in the Bible to determine if any of God's recorded actions were inconsistent with His nature. Given the statement that the intentions of the people of earth were constantly evil, it is entirely possible that abortions and child sacrifices were extremely common. This means that it is entirely possible that there weren't any infants on earth at all at the time of the Flood. Am I claiming that we can determine from the Bible that without a doubt there were not infants on earth at the time of the Flood? No. I am simply pointing out that from the circumstances described in the Bible, we CANNOT say that infants were killed. The Bible does not give enough details to determine this, which means God's judgment in this case cannot be said to be inconsistent with His nature.

I will grant to my opponent the assumption that there were more than just two of every kind of animal on earth at the time of the Flood, so what are we to think of all those "innocent animals" that died? The answer comes from God's command to Adam and Eve to "fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Genesis 1:28). God placed humans at the top of all Creation and gave it to them to rule over. As such, when sin entered the world through man's sin (Genesis 3:6-7), ALL of Creation (even the animals) began to suffer (Romans 8:22). Clearly, God did nothing inconsistent in the Flood judgment. He punished all of Creation at the first sin of man, and He punished all of Creation again for the constant sin of man.

KILLING 3000 FOR DANCING
I am well aware of Exodus 32:19 that describes the Israelites dancing around a golden calf idol that they made, as Pro should be well aware that this is NOT the verse he cited when he claimed God killed 3000 people for dancing! The verses Pro listed said nothing of the dancing. That was the first mistake and it deserved to be pointed out. Pro's second mistake, the major one, which was repeated in R3, is that the REASON for the killing was dancing. I reproduced Exodus 32:27-28 in its entirety in R3, which readers can now refer to. If the reason for the killing was simply the dancing that was already done (verse 19), why did Moses ask who was on God's side and who was opposed? Of ALL those who danced around the idol, ONLY those who did not come stand by Moses when he asked who was on God's side were the ones that were killed.

UNJUSTIFIED KILLING
Pro is cleverly trying to confuse the topic by his statement that he is putting God on trial and that because God has already admitted murder, He is guilty until proven innocent. This is false. Rather, God was acting as the judge and executioner, not the defendant. According to the sins committed, God decided on punishments and carried them out, and Pro is claiming that the punishments were too harsh. This can be likened to a person claiming that a criminal who was given the death penalty did not deserve such a severe punishment. Every time someone claims that a punishment was too harsh, do we expect the judge to remind that person of all the evidence and defend his ruling? Of course not. If someone believes a punishment was unwarranted, they have to bring the evidence to prove it in an appeal. As such, Pro does in fact have the burden of proof to demonstrate that any of God's actions were unwarranted by the circumstances the Bible describes in accordance to the standard by which the people were being judged (God's laws, not our opinions).

"THOUGHT CRIMES AND WORKING ON THE SABBATH ARE NOT CRIMES PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. BOTTOM LINE."

My opponent has now gotten completely off topic. What Pro professes above is his OPINION of what does not warrant the death penalty, and he accuses God of being too harsh or unfair. However, we are not debating whether any of God's actions were fair by our individual opinions, but whether they were INCONSISTENT with His nature. God set forth guidelines and laws for what constitutes the death penalty, and He then carried out these judgments. The resolution is not affirmed unless the circumstances described in the Bible make it clear that God punished someone too harshly according to the guidelines and laws He has instituted (NOT according to our opinions of what the punishment should have been).

============
CONCLUSION
============
My opponent has been repeatedly using phrases in his arguments such as "These are just more reasons why Yahweh is in unjust God" and "This is an unjust killing, bottom line", and tries to cleverly summarize his arguments with the statement "In conclusion, I have contended all of my opponents contentions in favor of the resolution that the Biblical God is inconsistent in nature."

A fair assessment of the arguments presented and the resolution at hand will show conclusively that Pro has been airing his distaste for the Christian God by calling Him "unjust" without actually addressing God's CONSISTENCY in the least. A perfect example is the killing of animals in the Flood, as my opponent called this unjust and ignored that God was being completely consistent because He also punished the animals when Adam and Eve sinned.

I have entertained some of my opponent's accusations about God being unfair by pointing out the false statements of his sources and explaining how the actions were consistent with God's laws and God's nature to punish evil, even though my opponent never attempted to explain in the first place how they were contrary to God's laws or God's nature.

I regret that this debate did not turn out to be what I hoped it would, and I hope to pick it up again in the future. I thank the audience for their attention to this debate and for the comments (both for and against me), and I politely request a vote in favor of the instigator of this debate. Thank you.
GeoLaureate8

Pro

========
Introduction
========

My opponent claims that I haven't shown how the Christian God is inconsistent, however, I must remind him of the definition of "inconsistent."

Inconsistent: Not consistent in principles, conduct; acting at variance with professed principles. [1]

This has been essentially what I have been trying to demonstrate this entire debate.

======================================
Unjustified and Inconsistency of the Christian God's Murders
======================================

{*We are trying to determine whether God was inconsistent in His nature by examining His actions and the circumstances provided and comparing them to God's laws and standards.*}

I have provided reasons why his murders were inconsistent. Yahweh is omni-benevolent and I expect him to correct bad behavior in a benevolent manner. Global genocide =/= benevolent. Especially when considering that the reason for genocide was thought crime.

You also failed to refute any of my previous arguments about God punishing those who exercise their free will, free will that was granted to them. You don't give someone a gift and then punish them for using it. You say that forcefully stopping bad behavior is violating free will and suggest that killing them is the best way to do so. However, killing is violating their free will and corrective action could be done in a much more sophisticated and benevolent way, especially for an omnipotent God. To deny that he can't find a better way to correct bad behavior is to contradict his omnipotence.

I know you think that he is consistent given the laws he put forth, but his own laws are contradictory and even commits the very crimes that he forbids. He forbids killing, yet kills people. He condemns evil, yet proudly admits that he sends evil upon his people (I Kings 14:10 [In this verse, he sends evil because a man urinated on a wall. What a terrible sin.]). [2]

THE FLOOD

{*Thinking nothing but evil for even a short period of time will lead to committing evil, and the people of earth had been thinking nothing but evil for approximately 100 years before the Flood began (Genesis 5:32, 7:6).*}

My opponent is trying to defend Yahweh's decision to slaughter people for thought crime, but it's not withstanding. He also tries to conclude that: evil thoughts, therefore evil actions. This is not true at all nor does he have any basis for such claim. People think many things and don't actually follow through. Many people probably have the desire to kill those who have wronged them, but don't actually commit the act. A just God would never punish a man for thinking.

Con attempted to show that it was possible that there were no babies on earth given the abortions and child sacrifices (sacrifices probably demanded by God; he demanded child sacrifices with a side of ripe fruits and liquor in Exodus 22:29 [2]) and therefore infants may have been spared. There's two problems with this. First of all, it's highly unlikely that the entire globe was void of any infants, and even if that were so, that still doesn't change the fact that God kills babies. Con is using this to defend that God doesn't kill sin-free babies, yet he does it all the time as I pointed out in previous rounds.

"Now go and smite Amalek, and UTTERLY DESTROY all that they have, and spare them not; but SLAY both man and woman, INFANT and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$." (I Samuel 15:2-3) [2]

This is one of the most inconsistent things Yahweh could do. He demands that we don't sin and thus, he will have mercy on you. However, infants who are not capable of sin get slaughtered anyways, so what happened to having mercy on those who are sin-free?

{*As such, when sin entered the world through man's sin (Genesis 3:6-7), ALL of Creation (even the animals) began to suffer (Romans 8:22).*}

I should not be born guilty for someone else's sins. I should not be responsible nor punished for the sins of another man. This is the epitome of immorality.

KILLING 3000 FOR DANCING
{*The verses Pro listed said nothing of the dancing. That was the first mistake and it deserved to be pointed out.*}

It wasn't a mistake. I didn't feel the need to quote the part about dancing, I just quoted the verse that stated the slaughter of 3,000 men and told the readers why they were killed as described several verses earlier.

Con asserts that I made the mistake of citing the wrong reason for killing the 3,000 men. He claims that "Of all those who danced around the idol, only those who did not come stand by Moses when he asked who was on God's side were the ones that were killed." However, the verse implies that they were killed for dancing. The people were dancing around the golden calf, and Moses interrupted them and asked who is on the Lord's side. However, if the people weren't dancing around the calf, Moses wouldn't have condemned them in the first place. That was the primary reason for the whole incident. Moses' sole reason for asking "who is on the Lord's side" was because of the dancing, and thus God commanded them to be killed.

UNJUSTIFIED KILLING
{*According to the sins committed, God decided on punishments and carried them out, and Pro is claiming that the punishments were too harsh.*}

His cruel punishments were contradictory to his claim that he is a merciful God.

--->An inconsistent act committed by Yahweh summed up in one verse.<---

"God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." - (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12) [3]

He forces people to believe in lies and then condemns them for believing the lie.

=========
CONCLUSION
=========

In conclusion, I have clearly demonstrated that the Christian God is "not consistent in principles and conduct and acts at variance with professed principles," the very definition of inconsistent. My opponent has also left many of my arguments uncontested.

I believe Mark Twain summed up the inconsistency of Yahweh perfectly when he stated that he's a God "who mouths justice and invented hell - mouths mercy and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules, and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all."

Thank you for reading.

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
[3] http://quod.lib.umich.edu...
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Yes, thank you for your RFD as well. I appreciate it.
Posted by SexyLatina 7 years ago
SexyLatina
III had an RFD. I even gave constructive criticism!
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Thanks for the RFD, Maikuru.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Hmm...11 votes, no RFD's, and at least two 7-point drops. Must be a religious debate =)

C: Tie - Con's tone was at times a bit harsh and condescending, but I don't feel as though anything crossed the line.
S/G: Tie
A: Pro - Quite a few of Pro's points led to dead-ends that did little to affirm the resolution. However, given the topic, he needed only one example of inconsistency to earn this vote. I believe he provided such an example in the issue of infant slaying, which was poorly defended by Con.
S: Pro - Pro's sources were more numerous and relevant than those of his opponent.
Posted by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
Haha well someone was itching to give you 7 then. I must have made some enemies already. Jk.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 7 years ago
GeoLaureate8
Nah, haven't voted yet.
Posted by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
I assumed that was you Geo who voted since it was so early? I gave myself 7 also.
Posted by SexyLatina 7 years ago
SexyLatina
Round 1: Pro plays into Con's hands.
Round 2: Con puts forth arguments that probably made sense, though I didn't thoroughly read this debate. Pro gets creative.
Round 3: Con loses. Pro dispels Con's refutations.
Round 4: Con keeps losing. Pro hasn't posted an argument but really doesn't need to say much.

The problem with Con's resolution is that it is very easy to prove something absurd, but very hard to prove something real. He should have thought this through better, but being an engineer, I wouldn't expect him to have much experience debating, so that's alright.
Posted by Kinesis 7 years ago
Kinesis
'The God of the Bible self-proclaims that he is synonymous with love (1 John 4:8) and the God of peace (Romans 15:33). However, the Bible describes him committing countless atrocities that could hardly be considered peaceful, loving, or good'

The problem here, is that if we are assuming the God of Christianity exists, then concepts like 'love' and 'good' are standards set by him. So denying that he is loving and good is practically a contradiction in terms.
Posted by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
True. But we're commenting on the debate so mongeese and I just wanted to make sure that you remembered so the debate itself wouldn't get sidetracked. I hate having to waste space putting the debate back on the track it was intended, especially as the last round is coming up. That's all.
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Marader 7 years ago
Marader
nickthengineerGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
nickthengineerGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Wewanttruth 7 years ago
Wewanttruth
nickthengineerGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Demauscian 7 years ago
Demauscian
nickthengineerGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
nickthengineerGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 7 years ago
rougeagent21
nickthengineerGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by MrHardRock 7 years ago
MrHardRock
nickthengineerGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 7 years ago
kingofslash5
nickthengineerGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
nickthengineerGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
nickthengineerGeoLaureate8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03