The Instigator
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Pro (for)
Losing
28 Points
The Contender
DATCMOTO
Con (against)
Winning
72 Points

Biblical accounts prove God is not loving.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/14/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,457 times Debate No: 6920
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (20)

 

Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Pro

For this debate, I will assume that God exists and that the bible is accurate and literal in its depictions of events, but not in its claims about the nature of God.

Christians like my opponent continually make statements about the nature of God as loving with the assumption that it is a common truth.

I argue that the bible makes a very strong case against this assumption. Yes there are statements in the bible proposing that God is love, but there are far more examples of the behavior of God being horrific for humans, many times innocent children.

For my first salvo I would like to introduce the story of the great flood in Genesis 6-7. God being, all knowing, was shocked to find out that man kind had grown violent since he punished Cain for murdering his brother. So he decided to hit the reset button on the great PlayStation in the sky and start over by flooding the earth. In doing so, he murdered countless babies and children, who's only sin was being born in the world God failed to protect. A loving God would have effectively interacted with mankind to lead them into a more moral lifestyle, not destroyed them all and left Noah and his family to start the cycle of violence over again. An all knowing, loving God clearly would have saved the innocents, and at least ensured that future generations spawned by Noah and his kin were well aware of his will. Instead, he remains conspicuously absent, until Abraham comes along, and the world is once again sinful.

Salvo 2.

Pharaoh's hardened heart. In the story of the Exodus of the Israelites in Exodus 7-11 God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh and ask him politely to give up his property (the bible is clear about slaves being property), effectively ridding his country of most of the labor that drives the economy and keeps Egypt in prosperity and dominance from surrounding entities. With slave labor Egyptian men were available as fighting agents and soldiers, effectively doubling the martial force of Egypt at the time.

Not surprisingly Pharaoh was not really keen on the idea of diluting his country's economy, so turned sour on the idea. Of course that's not exactly how the story goes.
In Exodus 7 God makes it clear to Moses and Aaron, prior to sending then to Pharaoh that he will actively harden Pharaoh's heart, in order to create signs and wonders that will convince the Egyptian people that he is a Powerful God. So, being true to his word, God sends various plagues to annoy the Egyptians, and every time Pharaoh is convinced that God is the one behind the fiery hail, or 3 day darkness and repents, God comes along and actively hardens his heart. There are times in the text when another Hebrew word is used, which explains when Pharaoh simply doesn't believe that the plague was a result of God, in those times it states, Pharaoh's heart was hard, or he hardened his own heart. God only steps in when Pharaoh is convinced and about to repent. Yikes.
The story of course culminates in God slaughtering all the first born son's of Egypt, once again innocent children pay for God's need for recognition and the Egyptian people to believe that he is the shizzle. A loving God may have been a little less interactive in both hardening Pharaoh's heart, and in slaughtering children to make a point. Pharaoh of course is heart broken and finally, God stops hardening his heart and he lets the Israelites go. Thank goodness God's appetite for destruction was satiated and he didn't have a go at the Egyptian women. A loving God would never harm women....

Which Brings us to my 3rd salvo.

Numbers 31. A horrific story of genocide and slavery. This accounts starts with God telling Moses "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people." Apparently the Israelite men had been seduced by the Midianite woman and were bumping ugly in tents, to the point where Aaron's great Grandson had to take a spear and run a couple through. God had sent a plague to ravage the Israelites because we all know he doesn't like unmarried heathens and his chosen people touching each others goodies. So God had had enough of the intermingling and false God worship and told Moses to kill the lot of them. The Israelites kill all the men and bring the captive women and children back to Moses. Who is quite up set, because God was clear that he wanted all of them killed. So he orders that the captive mothers and boys be murdered and the virgin girls be divides as spoils of war. Yikes.

Clearly not the actions of a loving God, especially when considering Moses' wife was a Midianite, and her father had joined the Israelite camp with promises of protection. God doesn't abide with other cultural influences, to the point of murdering mothers and sons, and enslaving little girls.

At this point, a very distinctive picture of the nature of this loving God is starting to appear.....don't worry it is confirmed time and time again throughout scripture, and yes even into the New testament and finally culminates with God torturing all those who practice free will for eternity, but I am jumping ahead.

Time for my opponent to give his 2 cents......
DATCMOTO

Con

My opponents contention at once reveals his ignorance of Biblical theology AND exposes mankind's hopeless assertion that it could even begin to 'judge' Almighty God.

His first *ahem* 'salvo' takes us back close to the beginning of mankind's story.. the flood account.
Close but NOT close enough. In order to understand EVERYTHING that follows we MUST understand the 'Fall of Mankind'.
In Genesis 2:16 and onwards we learn how God gave Adam every fruit of the garden EXCEPT fruit from the tree of 'knowledge of good and evil' OR (and this is THE IMPORTANT PART) "for in the DAY that you eat it you will surely die."
NOW, Genesis 5:3 clearly states that Adam lived 130years before having offspring SO Genesis 2 is obviously talking about something OTHER than regular physical death.
"The wages (what we are OWED) of sin (disobedience) is death.." ST Paul later writes. When Adam disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit he, and ALL his offspring (You and I brother) died spiritually.. that is 'separated from God'.
This clearly negates the word 'innocent' as my opponent has defined it (in terms of 'innocent babies' being 'murdered' in the great flood etc.)
No one is 'innocent' in that we are ALL born sinful.
Our very nature is enmity to God purely because we are 'apart' from Him. Mankind got itself into this mess by disobeying the Word of God.
Did God then leave us to our own devices? No. Because God is SO loving He made Adam a promise.. that one of his offspring would inherit the 'promised land' and so the Israelites became the keepers of God's promise.. They 'lived by His Word' or promise again.

Now to the question of God's Omniscience.. (to know everything) and His Omnipotence. (to be all powerful) AGAIN we must go back to the Genesis account.. God GAVE Adam dominion over the earth and all the animals etc BUT by choosing the enemies word over God's Word Adam then GAVE this world to satan who remains the 'god of this world'.. God is bound by His own word because He Is Truth so He cannot just 'press the reset' button.. He either starts again completely or IF He is a loving Father, He patiently settles down to long haul.

The other two examples my opponent uses, Moses and Pharaoh and the accounts of Israel's wars in Numbers MUST be seen in terms of God doing things 'our way'.. The earth was and IS in an continuous state or war and turmoil.. In order that the 'keepers of the promise' not be completely decimated God continually 'sticks up' for them.
But really the old testament is God saying 'Look, I've helped you to win wars, given you riches, great kings and many, many prophets and where has it gotten you? You are STILL as sinful and rebellious as ever.." It is to show that even with all the rules and regulations, the harsh punishments and all the OUTSIDE help from God their 'religion' amounted to a great big NOTHING.

My opponent is clearly several thousand fathoms out of his depth on this topic. I will accept a short apology and an honourable withdrawal.
Debate Round No. 1
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Pro

Blessed-Cheese-Maker forfeited this round.
DATCMOTO

Con

I fully understand that my argument in round one was DEVASTATING but I DO think you might have shown me the common courtesy of showing up! AND I requested a short apology and honourable withdraw.
Debate Round No. 2
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Pro

Blessed-Cheese-Maker forfeited this round.
DATCMOTO

Con

NOW we shall truly see WHO is really objective in their voting! Can anyone is ALL conscience vote for someone who forfeited two rounds?
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
"NOW we shall truly see WHO is really objective in their voting! Can anyone is ALL conscience vote for someone who forfeited two rounds?"
Apparently so; PRO has 21 points.

Defaulted CON
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
Thankyou Sir.
Posted by Yuanti 8 years ago
Yuanti
all votes con - pro needs to finish his debates.
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
Tin_Man.. *ahem*
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
ok..
Posted by Tin_Man 8 years ago
Tin_Man
You offered. No concession from me.
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
No, I'm happy with your polite concession.
Posted by Tin_Man 8 years ago
Tin_Man
Open number of rounds? Not at all. I'm simply saying that agreeing to post a certain number of posts, and then not doing so, does NOT invalidate the other person's argument at all.

If there was a "flake meter" in which you were allowed to rate the user on how badly he flaked out of the debate, then you could certainly use that. But his argument is NOT affected in ANY way by whether or not he decided to respond to your posts. He could have made an excellent argument in one post, and still have beaten your three. Would he be a flake? Sure. Would that make his argument wrong? Not at all.

Feel free to post it in the forums if you'd like.
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
Courtesy would only apply to 'how I debate' (3 rounds!) not 'what I debate'.
Are you advocating then that we have an 'open number of rounds policy' with regards to all debates? How would it work? shall we start a new forum topic on this to gauge the memberships response? :)
Posted by Tin_Man 8 years ago
Tin_Man
Common courtesy is not being debated, and therefore is not a criteria for making a better point than the opponent. It has no effect at all, and this "dangerous precedent" is only that people could know that if they want to risk beating you with only one comment to your three, then they can. I know, it's dangerous because it'd be quite embarrassing for you, but no less valid.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Blessed-Cheese-MakerDATCMOTOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Blessed-Cheese-MakerDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Charlie_Danger 7 years ago
Charlie_Danger
Blessed-Cheese-MakerDATCMOTOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Blessed-Cheese-MakerDATCMOTOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Lexicaholic 8 years ago
Lexicaholic
Blessed-Cheese-MakerDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
Blessed-Cheese-MakerDATCMOTOTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by tsnootch 8 years ago
tsnootch
Blessed-Cheese-MakerDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Clockwork 8 years ago
Clockwork
Blessed-Cheese-MakerDATCMOTOTied
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 Volkov 8 years ago
Volkov
Blessed-Cheese-MakerDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Lunar_Daze 8 years ago
Lunar_Daze
Blessed-Cheese-MakerDATCMOTOTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00