The Instigator
Finalfan
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
Lupricona
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Christian God = Loving Father

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 1 vote the winner is...
Finalfan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,073 times Debate No: 43737
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

Finalfan

Con

This should be interesting. There is only one source to lay the grounds for this debate: The bible! We will use the bible to determine the benevolence of the Christian God. (Would argue the Muslim god but I'm pretty sure they are the same dude. You may remember the origin of monotheism: Judaism which spawned the Christians and Muslims alike!!

To my opponent:
The rules for this debate are pretty open but I will not be requiring that we use each chapter and verse as sources unless challenged. I will be using my memory and experiences for most of the debate because researching the bible for information I already know exists seems tedious but if challenged I will make the effort! Also I want to mention that I am not a father, so I will have to go with observation as my backbone in this debate!

"Loving Father": We need to define this concept. Set it in stone. We should come to an agreement on what should be acceptable description of a loving father!

Once when I was 6 my father told not to touch the wood stove, so of course, I did. Hotter than anything I have ever touched since. It blistered my finger badly! My father came back from the bathroom and saw me welling up holding back the tears... He looks at me and says "WHAT!!!!" That was a crossroads for my father... would he get angry for my misbehavior and discipline me to teach me that I should always listen to him or would he have fear for your safety? My dad was never a very affectionate guy. Sometimes I think he had no clue what he was doing, but at that moment when he realized how much pain I was in he jumped into action getting me anything he could think of to make me feel better! Bottom line: When a father sees his child suffering he wants nothing more than to bare the pain unto himself! A loving father does not require that you make sacrifices because he would do it for you! A loving father does not ever stop loving his child no matter which path the child walks!

That is my definition, you can open with yours! Begin your debate in round 1 so we do not waste rounds arguing the definition of a loving father!
Lupricona

Pro

Definitions/Opening

A loving father is equally wise as he is helpful. What I mean by that is, a father who baby's his kid for his/her entire life will not be doing any favors. A father must show the kid love while also correcting his misbehaviors throughout his life. If a father helped his kid every single time that the kid was in trouble, then he/she would never be independent.

Now, I contend that the Christian God is a loving Father, because He gives us the right amount of knowledge of Him with the right amount of care to not make us too dependent on Him but so that we can be strong individuals making a difference in the world.

Argument

My opponent can not objectively say that the Christian God is not loving. Let me explain what I mean by this:

If there is no God, then our universe came to exist on its own, and after some point in time, humans arrived. Before humans, there was no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Morality would be a human invention. Also, two different humans could have two separate ideas of what morality is, and neither person could be more "right" or more "wrong" than the other, because morality is a social construct that is subjective to each person. So if my opponent says that the Christian God is not loving, he is doing so with his subjective opinion vs my subjective opinion. And neither one of us would be right or wrong.

If God does exist, His eternal nature is good. That means goodness is an objective value that we can use as a standard. "Badness" is the going away from God's nature.

If my opponent wants to argue that God is not loving, he must show what standard He is using. If he uses a subjective standard, he will not be right or wrong, and will lose, as I am using an objective standard, which can be right or wrong. However, if he appeals to an objective standard, he must confess a God to do so. Now, he could still do this without philosophically shooting off his own foot- He would just need to use another concept of an eternal God (that would not be the Christian/Judaic/Islamic God).

Conclusion

My opponent must show what standard he is using to validate his idea of a loving and moral father. It must be something above his personal opinion (as if this were just an argument about personal opinions, we may as well be arguing which is better, chocolate ice cream or vanilla ice cream).

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttals. Cheers!
Debate Round No. 1
Finalfan

Con

Gosh your right! I'm in a pickle here! Which "God" do I choose? Zeus? Thor? Vishnu? Jesus? Allah? So many to choose from and they all seem... Mythological!

My definition for God: Everything
All of existence and infinitely beyond our comprehension! All Gods are man made! Even the one I proclaim to be true! You may not agree with Pantheism but it is just as solid if not more so than any religious beliefs! Simply saying God is everything takes all responsibility out of my hands! Not in a way where I carelessly shove my way through life, but in a way that is free from manipulation and agenda! If you cannot accept the validity of Pantheism or truly believe I am kicking pregnant women in the stomach because I do not follow your believes then we are at an impasse but I will not accept defeat! Morality has always come from within! True morality has evolved through the centuries and has become far more important for our society than objective morality due to the entropy of following obsolete morality as gospel! So if we cannot get on the same page about morality (which is secular) Then it will be a discussion about morality instead of a debate about whether our father who art in heaven loves us as we are told! Also I believe subjective morality is exactly the same as objective morality, it is just not written in stone and followed by a cult!

The nature of this debate is just as flimsy when deciding the standards for "good"! You claim I need Objective Morality for debating whether the Christian God is worthy of my love and respect! So here is why that is horse apples!!

I watched a short video that had clips of "Pet Cemetery" Remember the little boy running to the road, with the truck coming? The father sees what is about to happen and runs full speed hoping to be able to throw the kid out of the way and take the truck face on! Now as a father you tell your child about the dangers but a child does not see beyond a narrow scope and cannot recognize the horrifying consequences, even if his father disciplines the child over and over the child might still not understand and run after a squirrel or something out into the street! Now lets see how the Christian God would handle this. God sees the child running out in the middle of a road and sees the truck. Instead of running to save the child (Or using Godly powers) He says "Well I warned you several times, now face the consequences" Watching his child get mangled by the force of the blow he shakes his head in disappointment thinking to himself "why does this keep happening?.. countless people keep throwing themselves into the lake of fire despite my cryptic messages. Maybe this was not the best idea!" The analogy took an artistic turn to show you how horrifying the concept of God allowing eternal torture to exist!

Do you believe that, without a relationship with Jesus, you become Satan's chew toy!? Do you truly believe, that is the "Divine Plan" For Trillions of "Gods Children"? Then you are worshiping a fiendish, malevolent, oppressive, dictator with unlimited power who created parasites and demons to test his children. When the child fails it is tortured eternally! Leaving the worse fathers in history less terrifying than your almighty God. Even the ones who sexually abuse their children because at least the child will not have to suffer the torment for eternity!

One thing that I know is true of both of us and that is we are control freaks. We want to "know" but are denied prophetic abilities despite our ego's demanding otherwise! I tend to be a little harsh sometimes but I am coping with the things I cannot change just like you! So if this turns into a hostile debate I apologize, I am just very passionate about what I believe. I'm sure you can understand!
Lupricona

Pro

Con immediately uses the fallacy of equivocation to assume that every concept of god is the same, and then he uses a faulty generalization to argue that they are all mythological without any valid reasons or evidences to do so. He seems to have missed my point entirely, and then goes on to plead that morality is subjective, showing that he has no valid arguments against the Christian God other than his own subjective view of love.

Con also uses a faulty genereralization to assume the doctrine of eternal punishment from the Christian God. This concept is promoted by many unlearned Christians, when in actuality the Christian God teaches that the wicked will be annihilated. Atheists say that there is no life after death, and God grants their wish. I fail to see how this is unjust- the atheists do not want eternal life and they are not granted it.

In conclusion, con argues from his paradigm of moral relativism. This means that his opinions are not truer than mine. He can not object to my opinions, nor can he show any valid argument as to why his opinions would be better, as there is no such thing as 'good' and 'evil'. However, as I am arguing from a paradigm of objective morality, I can argue that he is incorrect in thinking that the Christian God is not loving, He grants the righteous the promise of a resurrection, and instructs those who are willing on how to be righteous people. How can this God not be described as a loving father?
Debate Round No. 2
Finalfan

Con

So you accepted this debate only to show me that it cannot be debated? Kinda wish you left it alone, but I guess that's my fault for leaving the challenge so open! I know to you it sounds like I'm backed against a wall but to me it looks like you are avoiding the argument. I do accept your arguments about atheists however... made sense, but irrelevant seeing as how I am not an atheist. (Unless you consider everyone to be atheist to a specific God) Yes I am atheist to the Christian God, the Greek/Roman Gods, Hindu Gods... Do you believe that it is possible that Zeus and Vishnu Exists? Do you pass them off as Mythology? Well I do! It is pretty obvious to me that people created those Gods out of their own personal agenda. Like asking the question "Why does it rain"? Followed by some story of the "Rain God" Myth! The only difference between those religions and Christianity is that Christianity only has one made up God. Anyways....

"Con immediately uses the fallacy of equivocation to assume that EVERY CONCEPT OF GOD IS THE SAME, and then he uses a faulty generalization to argue that THEY ARE ALL MYTHOLOGICAL without any valid reasons or evidences to do so. He seems to have MISSED MY POINT ENTIRELY, and then goes on to plead that MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE, showing that he has no valid arguments against the Christian God other than his own subjective view of love."

I Highlighted the most important parts of your opening rebuttal. I want you to consider that Everything you spoke negatively about what I had wrote can be turned on the bible. I find myself to be just as credible of a source (If not more so) than the bible for "objective morality" When the people who wrote the bible gave us their moral code not only was it subjective morality but was completely barbaric and obsolete to today's standards. That is why people cherry pick whatever they want out of the bible, You don't stone your neighbor for working on the Sabbath, you don't allow slavery or tolerate rape (Several passages in the bible condone both) but more than likely you are out there protesting the gays or still follow blood rituals! The true conflict in this debate is the complete opposition to the validity of the Bible. You truly believe with your "heart" that the Bible was inspired by the true mind of God... I don't, unless you consider my theory that all thoughts, ideas, and writings come from God! Like I said not only do I have valid argument, I am actually more reliable than the people who wrote an obsolete book!

"Con also uses a faulty genereralization to assume the doctrine of eternal punishment from the Christian God. This concept is promoted by many unlearned Christians, when in actuality the Christian God teaches that the wicked will be annihilated."

I'm confused, do you go to church in your basement and learn the gospel of Lupricona? So Revelations? Apparently most Christians don't know their bible!

Mark 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe will be condemned
Matthew 13:50 "furnace of fire"weeping and gnashing of teeth"
Mark 9:48 "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched"
Revelation 14:10 "he will be tormented with fire and brimstone"

Everyone will exist eternally either in heaven or hell (Daniel 12:2,3; Matthew 25:46; John 5:28; Revelation 20:14,15).
Heaven or hell is determined by whether a person believes (puts their trust) in Christ alone to save them (John 3:16, 36,)
Hell was designed ORIGINALLY for Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).
Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8).

"Atheists say that there is no life after death, and God grants their wish. I fail to see how this is unjust- the atheists do not want eternal life and they are not granted it."

I assume that atheists cannot believe that the God in the Bible has their best interests at heart. If I were Satan I would do everything in my power to convince you I was God. I urge you to consider that you may be worshiping the wrong guy! The bible does not depict a loving father. It depicts negligence and egotism! Its better to pretend you do not have a father than one who demands your respect without earning it! Then forgets you when you are angry about the life "He gave you"!

"con argues from his paradigm of moral relativism. This means that his opinions are not truer than mine. He can not object to my opinions, nor can he show any valid argument as to why his opinions would be better, as there is NO SUCH THING AS GOOD AND EVIL"

MORALITY IS SECULAR!!!!!!!!! My next round will be nothing but an argument about where morality comes from... lets move on... GEESH!

We had to come to an agreement on the terms of the debate which we were both unsatisfied with! If you cannot recognize my subjective morality as a stable grounds for this debate you should not have wasted my efforts when you should have known that before you accepted. To me it still looks like you do not want to debate because I have the Giant hammer to crack your small nut! The scenario I gave you was pretty vivid and was a simple enough analogy to prove that my current subjective morality is actually superior to the objective morality you would find in the bible. If I were to write a book about morality it would be considered objective because I'm sure billions of people could agree that I am a moral person! My anger towards Christianity comes from empathy for the billions of lost souls wandering this planet! I cannot and will not conceive a God that will obliterate or torture anyone! The God in the bible always chooses drastic apocalyptic solutions when simple guidance would suffice! Show me please. Show me for certainty that you have true reason to believe what you do (That isn't just all in your head.. like a shared illusion) How can your God be the only true God? Do you believe that anyone in a religion outside of yours are "sharing an illusion"? How could people believe in Noah's Ark one minute and deny the story of Hercules the next?

"However, as I am arguing from a paradigm of objective morality, I can argue that he is incorrect in thinking that the Christian God is not loving, He grants the righteous the promise of a resurrection, and instructs those who are willing on how to be righteous people. How can this God not be described as a loving father?"

Weird how you use the bible as a pedestal. Don't see that everyday! Show me evidence buddy! Proof is not in how Christians live their lives to bible standards. No cherry picking there! I gave you an example of how God proclaims to be loving but does not back it up by actions. A book IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!!!! In fact the book illustrates malevolence and sadism in the "perfect" mind of God! The creator? HA!! Great job there.. Although he could have left out parasites, viruses, earthquakes, , toxins, cancer, the fruit of knowledge... You know.. suffering in general. I would have come up with a much better existence.. Me - 2 , God -0

So already You can see: I am actually more benevolent than your God. I provide a better objective morality on this napkin I scribbled down "love everybody unconditionally"! Long story short.. You better start debating man you keep wasting your rounds.. Go on and defend your Father!
Lupricona

Pro

Con, I did not accept this debate only to show you it cannot be debated. Rather, I was trying to establish our basis for morality. Most of your arguments will deal with the Mosaic Laws in the Old Testament. However, if you adhere to moral relativism, that means that each culture or society decides what is right. This means that you have no right to judge the laws of the ancient Hebrews, as their time and culture is different than yours. Those laws may seem unjust to you as a modern day citizen, but back then, those laws may have been the best moral code for people living in that time period. Unless you can point to some basis for an objective moral code (something higher than societal constructs), you cannot win this debate, as I have established my objective moral code which does allow me to prove you wrong.

Con, you again equate different conceptions of God into the same mythological being. The ancient Hebrews attributed their God to the Creator of the universe, while Greek and Roman Gods were created deities that were gods of different natural processes. This is entirely different. The ancient Hebrew God is similar to the ancient Greek philosophers Prime Mover (and it should be noted that those philosophers, like Plato, rejected all of the polytheistic notions of the gods of their surrounding cultures).

Even though Con is arguing from moral relativism (which means he has no right to argue against another culture's laws), I will answer his claims based on an objective perspective. Con argues against the law of the Sabbath, against slavery, and God condoning rape. However, thise are misunderstandings.

In the ancient Hebrew culture, they did not have the privilege of having a criminal justice system. They did not have a police force. When people violated the laws, they were stoned. This was the best way to deal with lawbreaking at that time in history. They did not have jails to send the wicked to, nor did they have an elaborate judicial system- the manpower was seriously lacking.

Breaking the law of the Sabbath was going against a covenant that the Jews made with God. God declared that no one should work on the Sabbath, and if they did, they would be punishable by death. Yes, I'm sure this seems cruel to you. However, only a fool would work on the Sabbath after that law was established. That person was asking for death. If you lived in a culture where it was against the law to work on a Saturday, would you break that law? No, because you value your life.

Slavery in the Bible is not akin to the slavery that took place in America. Slavery in the Bible was akin to being an employee at a job and having a boss. You were treated well. And after six years you received enough money to go free and live on your own. It's actually a wonderful system that allowed almost no poor people.

God did not condone rape. Rape is a horrendous thing. God made laws that, provided the terrible thing of rape having occured, then there were ways to deal with it.

Con quotes from the Scriptures that describe a fiery place for where the wicked will go. But that is it- it described a fiery place. Jesus says "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Jesus clearly says that the soul of the wicked is destroyed in hell. That is, hell is not a place of eternal torment- it is a place that destroys the soul. You become annihilated; nonexistent. This is fair for those who reject God and wish for no afterlife.

Con, I strongly urge you to find some sort of objective morality (that is, something to appeal to that is higher than you and higher than society) to base your argument on. If you continue to use moral relativism, you will contine to render your objections against the Christian culture meaningless, as one society cannot critique another under moral relativism. Please consider this point, lest you lose any chance of winning this debate.


Debate Round No. 3
Finalfan

Con

"You have no right to judge the laws of the ancient Hebrews, as their time and culture is different than yours. Those laws may seem unjust to you as a modern day citizen, but back then, those laws may have been the best moral code for people living in that time period. Unless you can point to some basis for an objective moral code (something higher than societal constructs), you cannot win this debate, as I have established my objective moral code which does allow me to prove you wrong."

I absolutely have the right to judge the Hebrew laws. The problem here is that you think those laws came from God. They came from men which illustrated the ignorance from that time. To say that was the best moral code for them is in the Hebrew texts is a fallacy. It would not be an acceptable morality in any time period that is concerned with ETHICS. That must be a scary word for you. To me ethics trump the objective morality you would find in the mosaic laws. Ethics will be my higher power. If you cannot accept that I will have every right to be frustrated with you my friend. I was racking my brain trying to figure out why I was not getting anywhere with you.. I was using the wrong word. So my objective morality comes from ethics!

Ethic

1.a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral values.
2.The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

"Con, you again equate different conceptions of God into the same mythological being. The ancient Hebrews attributed their God to the Creator of the universe, while Greek and Roman Gods were created deities that were gods of different natural processes."

I just noticed a pattern.. that's all. While Poseidon is the "God of the sea". The Hebrew "God" is just taking that concept further as "God of existence". My belief just takes that one step further. God is not the God of anything... God just is. Also you should notice I was very careful when I made that statement.. I said " it seems that they are the same" not "they are the same"!

"Even though Con is arguing from moral relativism (which means he has no right to argue against another culture's laws), I will answer his claims based on an objective perspective."

From an ethical stand point: Of course I have the right to decide on what is considered intolerable human behavior.. no matter what era you are from. "Do unto others..." never changes! With this debate I put the Hebrew god under the same ethical micro scope and was not happy with what I saw.. hence my emotional reaction that does tend to get me in trouble with these types of debates. It is hard not letting these things get to me, but that is my problem and irrelevant.. moving on!

"In the ancient Hebrew culture, they did not have the privilege of having a criminal justice system. They did not have a police force. When people violated the laws, they were stoned. This was the best way to deal with lawbreaking at that time in history. They did not have jails to send the wicked to, nor did they have an elaborate judicial system- the manpower was seriously lacking."

The man power was the responsibility of the citizen's (as always). and they blew it (as always)! Here are a few examples of why people were stoned! The last one is my favorite!

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:27

"Slavery in the Bible is not akin to the slavery that took place in America. Slavery in the Bible was akin to being an employee at a job and having a boss. You were treated well. And after six years you received enough money to go free and live on your own. It's actually a wonderful system that allowed almost no poor people."

Yeah I did the research too.. First off, seems funny that anyone but the Israelites could be bought and sold into slavery. In fact making an Israelite a slave is punishable by death. Seems like whoever came up with that law had the Israelites best interest in mind! (I'm sure the "Chosen ones" should be privileged.. what a bunch of garbage!) Also the slaves were mostly war victims. Sure seemed nice of them to take in the war torn families.. Would have been nicer to consider them equal instead of farm equipment. The reason they had slaves, was the same reason we had them... It was NOT a charity! Plus what did they do after the seven years of slavery? Go find another master? Either way ethics is ethics and slavery is inhumane and should not be tolerated in any society!

"God did not condone rape. Rape is a horrendous thing. God made laws that, provided the terrible thing of rape having occurred, then there were ways to deal with it. "

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.' 2 Samuel 12:11-14

There really is no other way to interpret these passages. The rape victim often gets punished for being raped! The second verse I added to the examples of reasons to be stone helps with my point as well! You keep making excuses for concepts that should make your skin crawl.. but they do not. Leaving me to suspect that your holy book has left your mind jaded! You will defend your God no matter how despicable he is.. very scary thought!

"Con quotes from the Scriptures that describe a fiery place for where the wicked will go. But that is it- it described a fiery place. Jesus says "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." Jesus clearly says that the soul of the wicked is destroyed in hell. That is, hell is not a place of eternal torment- it is a place that destroys the soul. You become annihilated; nonexistent. This is fair for those who reject God and wish for no afterlife."

You should tell 90 percent of the existing Christians in the world that story. They will say that you are secular and only believe what you want without respect for the integrity of the bible. They are spreading the gospel of eternal torment.. you better let them know they have it wrong. Besides, whether they are tortured or annihilated still not the actions of a "loving father" I tried to explain to you before that you do not forsake your own child.. That is a prerequisite for being labeled "a good father"! From an ethical perspective! If I were going to come up with a God who cares.. he would actually have empathy and compassion. Not act like a child who thinks everyone needs to OBEY him or perish!!!

"Con, I strongly urge you to find some sort of objective morality"

Found it!
Lupricona

Pro

Con, I am glad to see that you understood the importance of having an objective moral standard in which to base your reality off of. However, you only said you based your morals on ethics, which is just a synomym for morals, and it doesn't really solve your problem. Which set of ethics are you basing it off of? Every society has a different set of ethics. For example, it would be wrong for one to say that America has a better set of ethics than Europe. How can one judge which country has a better system of ethics? Without an objective reality, one may end up seeing morality as whatever works best for each society, which would then not allow anyone to criticize the ancient Hebrew society. If my opponent wishes to argue that the Christian Moral Lawgiver of humanity (God) is not a loving Father, then he must use another set of ethics given by another lawgiver of humanity. By which moral standard will you judge the Christian God, other than your own subjective moral views (as this cannot suffice, as every human being has a different set of morals).

My opponent brings up a few laws that lead to the death penalty- those who commit adultery, rebellious children, and those who practive sorcery. I see no problem with a society setting up laws that, when violated, invoke the death penalty. If someone lives in a society where commiting adultery is convicted by death, and that person commits adultery, he had full knowledge of the consequences. How is this unfair?

My opponent informs us how the ancient Hebrews would take slaves from other nearby civilizations (non Hebrews but still Israelites). These slaves were still to be treated kindly; Leviticus 25 "but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly". My opponent is not taking into account how terrible live was for the surrounding nations; how the slaves were already very poor people who, under slavery, were provided with work, food, shelter, etc. Why is this wrong? Why was it wrong for the ancient Hebrews to purchase workers from the nearby nations that they were in war with? Who says that any form of servanthood is objectively wrong?

My opponent brings up the fact that, if a man rapes a woman, his punishment is to pay money and marry that woman. He then claims this is unfair. Now, this is not God condoning rape. This is, once rape happens, the best way to deal with the situation. In those times, men wanted virgins to marry. If a woman was violated, she would never marry for the rest of her life. This method allowed for a solution. Our modern day culture would not approve of this. Fine. But back then, children were gravely important. A woman would do anything to have children, and this is what that law ensured.

My opponent sources a text where God punishes a king for committing adultery. God takes some of the wives of the king and gives them over to a neighbor of his. How is this cruel or unfair? The king was served justly and learned his lesson, and I'm very sure the neighbor was very happy with the circumstances. :)

Con seems to have had many unpleasant encounters with many Chrisians in his past. I am truly sorry for the misunderstandings that people have with Scriptures, and their inability to preach a loving message while instead preaching the fear of hellfire into innocent people. But I don't see why Con would argue that if God exists, He seems to have forsaken His children. The Christian God teaches those who wish on how to live morally objective lives, and their reward is a resurrection to eternal life. He only punishes the wicked by not granting them eternal life, and I see this as completely fair as they do not deserve eternal life.

I see a God who gave Moses a law system for a Jewish society until the messiah came (and they are seemingly harsh laws when viewed through our modern day lense), and these were the best laws for an ancient society with limited resources and people. He judged and corrected the people when necessary, and eventually gave a Messiah to break the Mosaic Laws to enter a new covenant to the world of living righteously to inherit a resurrection to eternal life. I argue that this is a loving Father.




Debate Round No. 4
Finalfan

Con

My conclusion for this debate is that morality is unreliable. It can be manipulated into any form by the powers that be. I tried to find solid ground with ethics, which you passed off as equal to morality. I wanted to find a universally acceptable ethical system that does not change regardless of the time period or culture. My ethical standards are based off of Basic ethical principles like do unto others what you want done to you, or the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The objective morality you would find in the Bible or Quran does not adhere to even the most basic moral guidelines. You have been justifying atrocities to the point that even the holocaust cannot be judged if scripture allows it! I'm saying that is Bovine feces. Man has always made the laws, and man has always pursued his agenda's. Each scripture I used as examples perfectly illustrated the agenda during that time. Again morality has lost all meaning in this debate if I cannot use a simple ethics system to decide whether or not God is a loving father. You have to know how frustrating it is to be told the bible is a reasonable basis for morality when clearly IT IS NOT! You have used your bible to proclaim superiority in this debate. But the bible is what is being scrutinized. I'm saying that your "Objective morality" you are holding on to is subjective. It always has been, always will. Not only is it subjective but is inferior and obsolete. I started this debate with full intention of scrutinizing the validity of the bible. Saying the bible is your objective morality, is conjecture. You have no more proof than I do that you have a moral strength that I do not. I turned that around saying: because you are using the bible for morality you have completely disregarded universally recognized concepts of morality. A morality that actually exists (not just in your head)!

I am empowering myself with the ability to scrutinize any culture in any time period by simply using ethics. If it does not follow certain guidelines (like do unto others) More than likely it is nothing more than something that SOMEBODY wants you to believe. You have placed WWAAAYY too much trust in the laws handed to you by man. We have a responsibility to protect the women and children. We have a responsibility to not allow the abuse or oppression of anyone! Oppression should be reserved for the oppressors (like Muslims mutilating their women) not whatever the king says! It is far more important to question laws than follow them blindly! It is foolish to take the word of a man. Stop leaving it in the hands of our leaders (kings or gods) IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY! That is MORAL!

"My opponent brings up a few laws that lead to the death penalty- those who commit adultery, rebellious children, and those who practice sorcery. I see no problem with a society setting up laws that, when violated, invoke the death penalty. If someone lives in a society where committing adultery is convicted by death, and that person commits adultery, he had full knowledge of the consequences. How is this unfair?"

Sounds like a witch hunt to me. Not one of those laws or punishment came from anything just or superior. Again those scriptures just clearly illustrated the ignorance and gullibility of that time. They would believe anything: even that your son should be killed for not falling in line! Those scriptures were clearly written with an agenda. The agenda's that made it law to marry your rapist, kill your unruly child, own slaves! This was a time nearly void of morality due to the obvious manipulation from the church! We know what is right! We do. If not your biology has failed you! It is instinct not commandments. It is integrity, not obedience! How can I make this more clear.. MORALITY IS SECULAR! That is fact! We did not move past the ridiculous assumption that our societies morality comes from the bible! You have no evidence to keep you glued to your high horse. So you better step off! To me your entire argument has been to distract from the fear you have that I am right. I have never seen someone so eager to claim they are righteous without anything other than personal opinion or conjecture to back it up! While demanding that I finds a moral high horse to follow. Guess what? The reason I couldn't find one is because it does not exist. Not in any book, nor any authority! So lets talk about your God now! Lets see if you are not just trying to sell me a turd sandwich and label it as delicious!

I'm going to let you have the last word about one thing: Show me in the bible where you consider god to be benevolent! Not just claiming to be benevolent! I have never understood the Jesus argument because it hinges on the Lucifer/ Adam and Eve story! If you take that story as a literal interpretation of our actual history then God help us all! The entire concept of Jesus saving us from "our sin" is nonsense! I do not take responsibility for something that does not exist! Why create a blood ritual for something that never had to exist to begin with.

If you are a watch maker and the watch you make doesn't work. You do not blame the watch! So if you created a human with curiosity and give him access to the fruit of knowledge. You cannot blame the human, blame the creator. No need to crucify anyone if you are intelligent! just make it right to begin with. This God has unlimited powers but resorts to annihilation instead of guidance! Again the damaged child was damaged in God's machine. You do not forsake the child you either fix it or create it without flaws! So the burden of all that we consider to be good or bad lies within the limitations and boundaries of the creation.. Still not seeing how we could be responsible for something as innocuous as eating a piece of fruit! If you did not want him to know do not make it so! Leaving that off with a rhyme!

I asked someone where morality came from before the bible was created to guide them! They said that God was involved with creation during that time! He personally guided them through Moses! Giving us the Ten commandments and mosaic laws. So by the time Noah came to be the mosaic laws and commandments were completely disregarded! Even with guidance humans were so flawed God decided to wipe the slate clean! This shows the horrifying failure of God's creation. Even with guidance! If you had empathy you would actually care that people were so violent and disgusting even God did not want them to exist! This is still all part of his "Divine Plan" where countless "children" do not make the cut for being loved by daddy! Then why did you make me? You knew this was coming! Evil!

"My opponent sources a text where God punishes a king for committing adultery. God takes some of the wives of the king and gives them over to a neighbor of his. How is this cruel or unfair? The king was served justly and learned his lesson, and I'm very sure the neighbor was very happy with the circumstances. :)"

You might want to take a test to see if you are a sociopath! Am I the only one who experiences empathy? How can you justify this. You are only proving my point! That is a sorry excuse for morality any way you look at it!

"I see a God who gave Moses a law system for a Jewish society until the messiah came (and they are seemingly harsh laws when viewed through our modern day lens), and these were the best laws for an ancient society with limited resources and people."

I see ignorance and gullibility! I see a set of principles that are not deemed fit to be considered ethical! I see a father who acts with all of the flaws that I see in my fellow humans. Leading me to believe he was invented by humans! I see manipulation and oppression! I see atrocity and darkness surrounding this deity that hopefully does not exist! I see a system where women and children come last if at all! I see selfishness, greed, and narcissism! NOT LOVE! I truly hope your God does not exist!
Lupricona

Pro

Con: My conclusion for this debate is that morality is unreliable. It can be manipulated into any form by the powers that be

This proves exactly what I have been saying from the beginning. If morality is subjective, then the ethical systems of society will contiually change for the rest of time. My opponent does not like the moral system of the Mosaic Law, so he creates is own ethical system, and then based on his own system, argues that the Mosaic Law is not ethical. This is circular reasoning. My opponent continually failed to account for an objective moral system for the entirety of the debate, only showing that, yes, if morality is subjective, then anyone can manipulate it, just as he has.

The Scriptures do not demand the Mosaic Law system for all generations or for all people. The Mosaic Law lasted from around 1500 BC to AD 33, when Christ was resurrected. This system only applied to Hebrews. My analysis still remains- this set of laws was the best ethical system for a tribal community that existed millenia ago. The Mosaic Law ended with Christ, and He stated the ethical system for all people for all ages: "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself". This is the objective moral system that has existed since the beginning of mankind.

My opponent only holds very negative thoughts towards religious people, and exhausts as much space as he can with inherently disingenuous remarks. He criticizes God for not being loving, yet he does not use respect towards religious people. I see this as hypocritical.

I tried my best to make this a rational debate, but my opponent only wanted to use his rounds as an excuse to rant about his distaste for religion. He avoided the important issue of objective morality, but instead used circular reasoning in attempts to discredit God as a loving Father.

My opponent wishes that the Christian God does not exist. If God does not exist, this is reality:

Love and reproduction only cause pain. When humans bring a child into the world, the child comes into it crying. As it grows older, it realizes that one day it will eventually die and cease to exist for eternity, and also that the universe will cease to exist at one point. This overwhelmingly wretched truth is too much for humans- so they go about their monotonous and repetitive lives to forget about the meaninglessness of it all. They create a lie that says they can create their own happiness, even though they will perish one day and be forgotten for eternity. Why bring a child into this wicked world? Love is self-refuting.

But if the Christian God exists, then there can be real love. The righteous will be resurrected to an eternal life. This makes the Christian God a loving Father.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
I went to see a couple of your debates to find out what a "civil" debate looks like. Apparently it means NOT debating considering you have not been a part of one yet. Did you join this website to troll or debate?
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Quait: Very inspiring. You truly touched my soul with your insight into my life. So happy someone out there understands me as much as you. Just one thing.. what the crap are you talking about? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your comment. You look like a "screaming baby" when attacking me for "blaming my problems on others" Which I have yet to find in my argument! Did you make that comment to break my balls? Or did you get upset when you saw how I perfectly represented you in my definition for brick wall!
Posted by Quait 3 years ago
Quait
Finalfan, maybe once your cryptorchidism is taken care of, you will be able to engage in civil debate. Otherwise, you just look like a screaming baby, which you even admitted you are (daddy issues). Are you going to blame your problems on other people for the rest of your life? Grow up.
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Definition: Brick wall- a. morally obtuse
b. Sycophant/ zealot
c. Ego/stubbornness
d. Frustration
e. Evil masquerading as holy
f. arbiter of lies
g. schizophrenic/ neurotic
h. turd salesman
i. cannon fodder for oppressive dictator
j. lemming/sheep
h. high horse general
i. illusion of grandeur
j. false prophets
k. true profits/ capital gain / racket
l. champion for segregation
m. proponent of the stork theory of "where babies come from"
n. oblivious participant for Satan worship
o. ethical ambiguity
p. righteousness = inhumane/sociopath
q. Westborough enabler
r. king of nothing
s. death obsessed
t. hallucination manifestation
u. unnecessary evil
v. Witch hunter
w. supernatural totalitarianism
x. Religion
y. Christianity/ Muslim
z. Lupricona
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
My analysis of this debate: "Finalfan meet brick wall"
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Lupricona: a Christian, accuses me of circular logic! Do you not see the irony? Please tell me you do!
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
Christianity is a system where rapists, pedophile, and murderers can be allowed to redeem themselves on their deathbed while people like the Dali Lama and Gandhi are doomed!
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
I want to sum up a brilliant idea that I had heard from Sam Harris! Lets say the Quran had scripture in it depicting that every 3rd child be born into darkness or some such nonsense! So they started removing the eye's of the 3rd child born to a single mother! When does it cross the line? At what point do you decide when to step in? At what point should they not be allowed their freedom of religion? Our response would be to let it go so it does not affect the house of cards we have built. We do not want to unravel what we have thrived off of for thousands of years! I think it might be time to pull on that thread. Women and child abuse is that line! It is natural to fear change but it is also extremely necessary!
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
I do want to show my appreciation and respect to my opponent. I look forward to any future debates with Lupricona so I will try my best not to sound condescending or disrespectful for the final round! It just comes out that way. Do not take it personal.. I just have some daddy issues :)
Posted by Finalfan 3 years ago
Finalfan
The process of analyzing the bible is different for anyone who cares to read each verse and understand the deeper mean. To each person the Bible can be interpreted differently. Some see it to be allegorical or find literal meaning. There are versus in the bible that have been interpreted to be "love your neighbor" Followed by a verse that has been used to start a war!! Sometimes the same verse that is used to bring peace is used for violence. The main reason I debate the bible is because my father gave me his interpretation (Fundamentalist) so when I try to debate on this website, unfortunately for me, my father never accepts my challenges! I am learning that Every Christian I debate has a completely different idea of what that freaking book is trying to say! I apologize if I offend, but it doesn't seem to matter to Christians or Muslims whether they offend me!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
FinalfanLupriconaTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro changed the topic of the debate in his opening. The crux of his argument is that he is arguing from an objective morality while Con has none to go off, but the debate is about whether God is a loving father, NOT whether he is a moral one.