The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
53 Points
The Contender
bthr004
Con (against)
Losing
32 Points

Given the Bible, God is Morally Repugnant and Undeserving of Praise

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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: 11/25/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,544 times Debate No: 6046
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (14)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

I could have simply phrased this debate "God is Morally Repugnant and Undeserving of Praise" but then I remembered a debate I was just in where the person who accepted the debate gets to define God. This is not the case here - for purposes of this debate, we shall defer to the Judeo-Christian sense of God, and if it pleases my opponent, we may use the same version of a "mainstream" Bible - I would suggest the New American Bible, for it is the one I shall present my opening arguments from.

The resolution, while two-part, only has one requirement to fill, unless my opponent can make a brilliant argument for why a morally repugnant entity would be deserving of praise. Satisfaction of the first conjoin entails satisfaction of the other. It is a classic [(A -> B) -> (A & B)] argument.

**********************************

Obviously it would be easiest to start with showing that God is morally repugnant. To this end, I will illustrate several examples of the evils this entity has perpetrated, including infanticide, slavery, genocide, unjust retribution, homocide (killing homosexuals), social dissent and familial destruction, killing of non-believers, filicide (killing of one's children), and condemnation for those who do not believe in God.

Slavery:
"Let peoples serve you, and nations pay you homage; Be master of your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you" (NAB Gn. 27:29a).

Genocide:
"When the LORD, your God, brings you into the land which you are to enter and occupy, and dislodges great nations before you… you shall doom them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy" (NAB Dt. 7:1a, 2b).

Unjust Retribution:
"If you are not careful to observe every word of the law which is written in this book, and to revere the glorious and awesome name of the LORD, your God, he will smite you and your descendants with severe and constant blows, malignant and lasting maladies… until you are destroyed" (NAB Dt. 28:58-59, 61b).

Homocide:
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Those Who Do Not Seek God:
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Infanticide:
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

Social Unrest and Familial Destruction:
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Tempting Abraham to Commit Filicide:
"Some time after these events, God put Abraham to the test. He called to him, "Abraham!" "Ready!" he replied. Then God said: "Take your son Isaac, your only one, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah. There you shall offer him up as a holocaust on a height that I will point out to you." Early the next morning Abraham saddled his donkey, took with him his son Isaac, and two of his servants as well, and with the wood that he had cut for the holocaust, set out for the place of which God had told him. On the third day Abraham got sight of the place from afar. Then he said to his servants: "Both of you stay here with the donkey, while the boy and I go on over yonder. We will worship and then come back to you." Thereupon Abraham took the wood for the holocaust and laid it on his son Isaac's shoulders, while he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two walked on together, Isaac spoke to his father Abraham. "Father!" he said. "Yes, son," he replied. Isaac continued, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the sheep for the holocaust?" "Son," Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the sheep for the holocaust." Then the two continued going forward. When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. Next he tied up his son Isaac, and put him on top of the wood on the altar. Then he reached out and took the knife to slaughter his son." (Gn 22:1-10 NAB).

God Does Nothing to Prevent Filicide in His Name:
"Jephthah made a vow to the LORD. "If you deliver the Ammonites into my power," he said, "whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites shall belong to the LORD. I shall offer him up as a holocaust." Jephthah then went on to the Ammonites to fight against them, and the LORD delivered them into his power, so that he inflicted a severe defeat on them, from Aroer to the approach of Minnith (twenty cities in all) and as far as Abel-keramin. Thus were the Ammonites brought into subjection by the Israelites. When Jephthah returned to his house in Mizpah, it was his daughter who came forth, playing the tambourines and dancing. She was an only child: he had neither son nor daughter besides her. When he saw her, he rent his garments and said, "Alas, daughter, you have struck me down and brought calamity upon me. For I have made a vow to the LORD and I cannot retract." "Father," she replied, "you have made a vow to the LORD. Do with me as you have vowed, because the LORD has wrought vengeance for you on your enemies the Ammonites." Then she said to her father, "Let me have this favor. Spare me for two months, that I may go off down the mountains to mourn my virginity with my companions." "Go," he replied, and sent her away for two months. So she departed with her companions and mourned her virginity on the mountains. At the end of the two months she returned to her father, who did to her as he had vowed. She had not been intimate with man. It then became a custom in Israel for Israelite women to go yearly to mourn the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite for four days of the year." (Jg 11:30-40 NAB).

**************************************

It's fairly clear from reading these passages that God is not a moral entity and is also clearly not deserving of praise.
bthr004

Con

If given the bible,.. and assuming the Christian God as taught, I accept.

Since we are arguing within the realm of the bible, than we are obviously assuming a Christian world view.

It makes no difference which version of the Bible we choose, however, I prefer the King James version,.. its the most graphic.

My opponent is going to obviously attempt to portray God as immoral according to the Bible. His verses quoted in his opening give good example of not so much why God deserves praise, but why he deserves fear. We should all be God fearing.

Now I will provide you meanings behind the verses, and why according to the Bible God is biblically moral in the realm of Christianity, and deserving of praise.

****************************
If the Christian world view is considered, there are a variety of approaches to the question of God and suffering. Biblical convictions include
(1) suffering does not originate with God and will be eliminated at some point;
(2) God works good in the midst of suffering;
(3) not all pain is suffering in the moral sense;
(4) and physical, transient suffering and death are relatively inconsequential compared to spiritual, eternal suffering and death.

God is all-powerful, meaning He can accomplish anything that can be accomplished with power. He cannot use power to do "non-power" kinds of things, such as the logically impossible. He cannot make two plus two equal five, violate His unchangeable nature, make Himself go out of existence and come back into existence, and He cannot make morally responsible persons without allowing for the possibility of those persons making wrong choices. The Bible says that suffering is the consequence of the wrong choice (sin) of morally responsible persons. If God always prevented people from sinning, or always prevented the consequences of sin, then human goodness would be mere programming, not true goodness. We do not pat a computer on its head when it executes its program -- it is a determined function, not an exercise of moral responsibility. Suffering, the consequence of human sin, is not caused by God, but by the sin of persons with moral responsibility. Also, God has not abandoned the world to eternally suffer the consequences of sin. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to provide ultimate freedom from the consequences of sin. It is wrong to indict God because suffering is not yet eliminated, just as it would be wrong to indict a doctor who treats a gunshot wound he didn't cause, simply because the wound is not healed instantly.

Our assurance that God will eliminate suffering is not the only comfort God gives us. While God did not cause suffering, he has given it purpose. It became the vehicle for our salvation when "Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame" (Hebrews 12:2). Complete avoidance of suffering is not an option for any of us. Our option is to waste our experience or realize God's purposes in the midst of suffering. Through suffering we can learn patience, self-discipline, trust, and many other "virtues." When we suffer we can experience the love, compassion, and self-denial of those who help us. When we help someone who is suffering, we find significance in our own lives as well.

Not all pain is "bad" in the moral sense. God created us with nerve endings that use pain to protect us. Pain keeps us from burning our hands in a campfire, bending our legs back until the joint breaks, neglecting nourishment until we starve, etc. Suffering can also be a direct, just consequence of our own actions. Our sense of justice says that it is "good" when an exploiter loses his friends, even though loneliness is "painful." It is good when a mugger is locked up, even though he "suffers" the loss of his freedom.

All humans have a moral conscience, even corrupted by sin and often ignored. Our conscience should not rejoice in sin, suffering, and death. When we see innocents suffering, we should experience moral outrage and seek to rescue the sufferer. When we see someone suffer death, we should experience loss and sorrow. Sin, suffering, and death are not the destinies for which God created us. He created us to enjoy perfect, good, loving fellowship with Him for eternity. Despite our moral betrayal, he continues to offer eternal life.

The skeptic has it partly right -- suffering should offend our sense of goodness and justice. Sadly, he misses the rest of the argument: Because suffering violates goodness and justice, there must be an all-good, all-powerful God whose remedy restores the perfection he created. This is the hope that the Christian offers in the midst of suffering:

I consider the that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. [Romans 8:8]

Suffering and death in this sinful world are not without remedy. The only reasonable response to the existence of suffering is confidence in God's promises for eternity:

Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. . . . Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. . . . Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. [Matt. 5:3-10]

**********************

A universal barometer of morality does not exist,... But "Given the Bible," as the resolution calls for,... we are to assume the Christian world view in this debate,... even outside the realm of Christian views,... it is understandable that universal morality does not exist,.... it differs from person to person, society to society,.. it differs much to great.

The resolution calls us to define our morality in context of a Christian view. We are to give accord to the Bible, ergo to assume a God, a Christian God, necessary to satisfy the resolution of either position. If we are to meet the requirements as put fourth by my challenger in assuming the Bible,... well than its most obvious that any governing factors over morality in regards to the doings of God and how we determine its repugnant or otherwise are only determined by the Bible itself.

To re cap,,....

The resolution calls for us to give accord to the Bible to determine morality. But obviously the Bible has its own definitions of morality in which God is determined to held in high regards, and deserving of praise.

Those that are not Christian, of course would not offer praise to the Christian God no matter what, morals aside. So the only way to argue this debate is to assume the Christian view. Of course the Christian view and those that follow the teachings of the faith, and of the Bible really would have no choice in determining morality, as morality is pre-determined by God. God and the Bible as the word of God could not be contradictory , ergo, any actions of God would be in the bounds of morality as it is determined in the Bible.

My opponents is required to prove that according to the Bible, God is morally repugnant, thus undeserving of praise.

Of course, when assuming the Christian God, the Bible itself becomes the guideline of morality, and any action of God described in the Bible couldn't be contrary to its own guidelines. If Gods actions don't oppose the moral guidelines of the Bible, than claiming "repugnance" is void. Since God can not oppose his own morality, ruling repugnance void, He is worthy of praise, or at least if determined undeserving of praise, it is not due to his morals.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

My opponent begins with a statement that the verses I have posted show that God deserves fear... When one asks oneself, "WHY does God deserve fear?" I believe the viable answer that can come from that question is "Because this entity delivers terrible retribution for silly rules and acts immorally."

I will also briefly address my opponent's 4 points on the approach to God and suffering...

(1) suffering does not originate with God and will be eliminated at some point;

Seems to me that in most of these cases, God delivers terrible suffering and even death to people, mainly the enemies of Israel. I'm curious as to how the pain and suffering of their death will be eliminated at some point, given that if they are non-believers, they will be cast into the fiery pits of hell (assuming God passes judgment on the enemies of Israel).

(2) God works good in the midst of suffering;

Again, what about the enemies of Israel? Where is the good for them? Or in the case of Job... when God inflicted terrible suffering upon Job for a period of time only to make a point to Satan? Regardless of the fact that God restored what was taken to Job, he still DID the acts. That's like saying it's moral for me to break your favorite toy as long as I fix it later.

(3) not all pain is suffering in the moral sense;

Um... ok? I'm not sure what moral suffering consists of. Perhaps my opponent will elaborate?

(4) and physical, transient suffering and death are relatively inconsequential compared to spiritual, eternal suffering and death.

Yes, this is correct. So it's clearly possible that God will punish someone for their transgressions on Earth for a period of time, and then punish them eternally. And what about the moral, non-believers that God sends to hell for this eternal suffering? Again... sounds like an immoral deity to me...

*******************************

>> "Suffering, the consequence of human sin, is not caused by God, but by the sin of persons with moral responsibility... He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to provide ultimate freedom from the consequences of sin. It is wrong to indict God because suffering is not yet eliminated, just as it would be wrong to indict a doctor who treats a gunshot wound he didn't cause, simply because the wound is not healed instantly."

The consequence of human sin is that they are punished according to God's rules. If the rules are inherently unjust (i.e. disproportionate punishment to the offense), then God is still liable for the suffering beyond that proportionate to the offense. The analogy is much more akin to a doctor who shoots someone for not taking their medication and then heals them later.

>> "Not all pain is "bad" in the moral sense. God created us with nerve endings that use pain to protect us. Pain keeps us from burning our hands in a campfire, bending our legs back until the joint breaks, neglecting nourishment until we starve, etc. Suffering can also be a direct, just consequence of our own actions."

Ah - I see now... but this has no bearing on the fact that God has caused or instructed others to inflict suffering upon people, justly or unjustly.

>> "When we see innocents suffering, we should experience moral outrage."

THANK YOU. Such as Job? Such as the men, women, and children that God orders killed in his name? Such as the thousands of Egyptian babies?

My opponent references Romans 8:8 as a justification that "creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed" However, Rm 8:8 reads "and those who are in the flesh cannot please God." I'm not sure what he's referring to, but the entire book of Romans is one of the epistles... Paul writing to people about his thoughts, not God himself speaking.

He also references the Beattitudes (Mt 5:3-10). It seems that they should include: Blessed are they who murder in the name of the Lord, for they shall be rewarded with lands and virgins aplenty. The Beattitudes are all well and good, but they don't apply to the people that God ordered to do heinous acts in his name. And what about their application to God himself? Blessed is he who advocates Genocide? Blessed is he who advocates killing homosexuals?

***********************

>> "A universal barometer of morality does not exist..."

Tell that to Kant - if we all act as though our action were to be a universal maxim.... (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals).

My opponent tries to present a weak argument at the end of his response that since we have accepted the Bible's guidelines for what is moral, and the Bible states that the actions of God are moral, that God cannot be immoral. However, this argument has a fatal flaw unless we consider hypocrisy to be a moral attribute: God does many things himself, mostly infanticide and genocide, that would be morally repugnant according to the view of morality presented in the Bible.
bthr004

Con

"It seems to me,"

- It seems to you, is as concrete in proving evidence as seems to me proves mine. My opponent offers up nothing to back his claim other than "it seems to me."

Non the less my opponents premise is that according to the Bible, God is morally repugnant, thus ruling him undeserving of praise on grounds of morality.

This premise of my opponents requires 3 assumptions.

1.) The Bible is presumed true
2.) The Christian God is presumed true
3.) Opponents resolve can only be determined accurate in a Christian view point because of 1, and 2.

1.) The Bible is presumed true
a. My opponents resolution states "given the bible."
b. We must derive our judgment considerations from the Bible, ergo, assuming truth.
c. The Bible is the guide for Christian morality.

2.) The Christian God is presumed true
a. We must assume the existence of God in order to cast our judgements upon

3.) Opponents resolve can only be determined in a Christian view point of morality due to 1 and 2.
a. If we can only reach my opponents resolve giving 1 and 2, the Christian views are inherent.
b. The opposing resolutions call for either one to give praise as proven, or not to give praise as proven.
c. Obviously an atheist for example, would not offer praise wether or not the bible says God is immoral or not, ergo the resolution requires a Christian theist to determine the resolution as shown in the 3 assumptions required to prove my opponents resolution.

***********

"And what about the moral, non believers that God sends to hell for the eternal suffering?"

--> GIVEN THE BIBLE, non believers are immoral and deserving of eternal suffering, ergo God is morally "good" (given the bible.)

As Christian, the assumed view point required to satisfy my opponents resolution, It is believed the Bible is the ultimate truth. The Bible is basically a set of rules we live our lives by. What is morality? Morality is the way we live our lives and we act towards other people. These are set out as rules in the Bible and Christians follow these rules as the basis of living.

As per the book of Job,.. the meaning of Gods actions turned out to be bases of Christian morals, as well as jewish and islam for that matter. Jobs devotion to God despite the torture of the Devil and without Gods protection showed the correct way to unwaivering devotion to God.

*******

Assuming the Bible is true, and God true as well,... judging God according to the Bible, requires the context in which God is depicted in the Bible and morality only defined in the Bible. The Bible, as the moral guide, and God as in the Bible are inescapably and inherently related.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

I'm a little puzzled as the the relevance of my opponent's structured list of the implications of the resolution. They stipulate (incorrectly) that a Christian theist is the only person capable of determining the resolution. This is obviously incorrect, as the only thing required is a rational answer to questions such as:

Is an entity that murders babies in Egypt morally repugnant and undeserving of praise?
Is an entity that ____________ morally repugnant and undeserving of praise?

****************
>> "GIVEN THE BIBLE, non believers are immoral and deserving of eternal suffering, ergo God is morally "good" (given the bible.)"

Actually, given the Bible, Jesus came to save Gentile AND Jew, so non-believers are clearly capable of being saved. However, according to the Bible, the believers and non-believers will be separated out and judged accordingly. However, the Bible seems to suggest that non-belief is in and of itself a sin deserving of eternal punishment, regardless of the fact that it's impossible for all people to have heard of God at the time of the Bible... But that's a whole different argument. Read Romans 1:18-20.

>> "What is morality? Morality is the way we live our lives and we act towards other people."

My opponent delivers this useful (?) definition of morality. Do we follow the acts of God in the above verses in our daily lives? Endorse slavery, genocide, filicide, kill babies? I think not. Ergo, by your own definition, God is immoral.

>>"The Bible, as the moral guide, and God as in the Bible are inescapably and inherently related."

Yes they are... and I have shown that the relationship is that God is a hypocrite, immoral, and undeserving of praise in the above Bible verses.
bthr004

Con

I am sorry for you puzzlement,..

I will try to elaborate further.

"Is an entity that murders babies in Egypt morally repugnant and undeserving of praise?"

This is wrong,... that is not the question at all. The question must read like this,..

Given the Bible, is GOD when murdering babies in Egypt morally repugnant and undeserving of praise.

--This puts the resolution in context of the Bible. My opponent wishes to take God, as depicted in the Bible, out of context and offer him up for judgement out of the context he was plucked from.

-- The Bible is the required truth for believers in God. The Bible is the word of God,... since my opponents resolution requires the assumption we believe in God, and Bible which would become inherently true as the word of God, becomes inescapably the barometer of morality to all believers. Thus, God operated in the realm of his own morality and it is us as believers to adhere to his morals as the most correct.

-- In other words, if you feel it is morally wrong to kick a puppy, yet you believe in God, and God says it is morally permissible to kick a puppy, than you as a believer would be expected to adhere to his ways,.. thus ruling it morally permissible to kick puppies. Even if you believed in God, but felt it still wrong to kick puppies, you would be the one considered immoral for feeling it wrong to kick puppies.

*****

"Actually, given the Bible, Jesus came to save Gentile AND Jew, so non-believers are clearly capable of being saved."

-- Yes, saved and permitted to heaven given they repent for the sins committed, and accept God. If they die as non believers they obviously did not repent, and given the bible (resolution) it is morally permissible for God to sentence them to eternal suffering. Ergo, ruling God morally in the good, for said action, given the Bible.

"My opponent delivers this useful (?) definition of morality. Do we follow the acts of God in the above verses in our daily lives? Endorse slavery, genocide, filicide, kill babies? I think not. Ergo, by your own definition, God is immoral."

-- Haha,.. nice try,.. Need my opponent be reminded that the resolution calls into question God's morality, not ours, in the context of the Bible? The actions of God listed by my opponent are to remain in context of the Bible, the meaning behind the actions,.. or result of the actions proved said action to be morally permissible given the Bible.

**************

"Yes they are... and I have shown that the relationship is that God is a hypocrite, immoral, and undeserving of praise in the above Bible verses."

-- The above verses were taken out of context,... thus, ineligible for stipulation in judging ones actions being immoral,.. in fact the resolution states given the Bible,.. so arguments should be held in context of the Bible in which said actions are written. So given the bible, Gods actions were ultimately permissible. (morally)

My opponents resolve is that one assumes given the bible, God is a hypocrite and immoral, thus resulting in the consensus he is undeserving of praise. That is the path required to reach that correct resolve of my opponent.
This obviously rules out atheists for example, since they would feel God is undeserving of praise regardless of my opponents resolution. This is why the only way to reach my opponents resolve of God being undeserving of praise do to his biblical morality, requires the belief of a God, the Bible, and be subject to the opposition that God could be praise worthy.

So if one concedes to believing in God, and the Bible, they are inherently subject to laws of morality as governed by God and his word the Bible. And like the puppy analogy, if you assume God is real, and the Bible is true, as my opponents resolutions calls for, you would be subject to to the laws of morality governed by God and written in the Bible, thus ruling any contradicting views of morality from Gods views, wrong.

If we assume the Bible is correct, then God operates in his realm of morality, and it is us that must adhere to that realm,... any contradicting views of morality we may have would be the ones that are considered repugnant, not his.

**************
Debate Round No. 3
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Very well... then I ask the reader...

Given the Bible, is God's action in murdering babies in Egypt morally repugnant and undeserving of praise?

The answer? OF COURSE IT IS!! My opponent has conveniently skipped over the notion that God cannot be his own arbiter of morality. That's like asking the suspect to sit as judge and jury at his own trial. There is no context of the Bible to remove God FROM when considering the question of morals - God is not the arbiter of morality. Morality is authority independent - If god made a rule that raping babies was morally permissible, it would still be morally repugnant to rape babies.

With the puppy example... this just goes to show that a my opponent's definition of a God that would expect one to behave a clearly immoral imperative is an argument in and of itself for why that deity is immoral!

***********************

See - the problem with the Bible granting God the ability to morally condemn nonbelievers is that there are ways that it is physically impossible for people to have heard of and believed in God, yet he is able to condemn them anyway according to Romans 1.

>> "Need my opponent be reminded that the resolution calls into question God's morality, not ours, in the context of the Bible? The actions of God listed by my opponent are to remain in context of the Bible, the meaning behind the actions,.. or result of the actions proved said action to be morally permissible given the Bible."

That's another problem - the moral code outlined by the bible includes rules like "Thou shalt not commit murder" and "you shall not boil a kid goat in its mother's milk" - rules like these carry penalties, yet God's penalties are greatly disproportionate to the offense. In addition, God has broken several of these rules himself - again, I ask the reader... is a God the murders babies deserving of praise?

*******************

I'm not sure why my opponent is so reluctant to address the verses I have mentioned... perhaps he is aware that they reveal the nature of the immoral deity he is trying so hard to defend. I can defend the context of the verses if he cares to address them... but then again, he hasn't, and as this is the last round, I'm not going to be ABLE to defend them. However, they have been defended in my other debates on this subject.

>> "So if one concedes to believing in God, and the Bible, they are inherently subject to laws of morality as governed by God and his word the Bible."

So I have said... and so I have demonstrated that God has violated his own edicts of morality on numerous occasions.

>> "If we assume the Bible is correct, then God operates in his realm of morality, and it is us that must adhere to that realm,... any contradicting views of morality we may have would be the ones that are considered repugnant, not his."

My opponent states that moral views that oppose God's are repugnant. Therefore, I submit, that according to God's actions, the code of morality that my opponent views repugnant would include things like permissible genocide, infanticide, deceit, etc...

I'm curious how he can defend this position when it is clear that God's actions are contrary to his own moral code.

God states: "Thou shalt not commit murder." And yet...
God murdered thousands of babies in Egypt.
bthr004

Con

The question,..

"Given the Bible, is Gods action in murdering the babies in Egypt morally repugnant and undeserving of praise."

Answer- NO. Given the Bible God is Omnipotent, omniscient, giving him unlimited authority, awareness and understanding. This, in regards to the Bible, gives God all the power to be his own authority (arbiter) on moral judgement and opinion. In fact, given the Bible, he the only arbiter of morality to any of those subject to give praise, which would be anyone, as required to prove my opponents resolve.

Given the Bible, God is justified in killing the babies because God himself is justice. Nothing God ever does is unjust.

Given the Bible, God killed those Egyptian kids because God owns all human life, and he has every right to take it away.

Given the Bible, For us human beings to murder is unjust because we were not given that right to do so. But because
God has the full right to take anyone's life, for him to kill anyone is not unjust at all.

Given the Bible, Can be, and is, his own and our, arbiter of morality. (Given the Bible that is.)

******

"That's like asking the suspect to sit as judge and jury at his own trial."

-- Arguing this outside the realm of Christian theology, which is what you wish, would make it like O.J. Simpson as the suspect on trial and the Brown family being the Judge and Jury. A judge would have to be neutral, and Jury of his peers. lol.

********

My opponents resolution implies 2 results are possible. If A and B are opposites,.. and 'A' is my opponents resolution.
A= God is morally repugnant therefore undeserving of praise.
B= God morally correct and deserving of praise.

- To an atheist for example, neither premise is logical as praise wouldn't be offered regardless of 'A' or 'B'. Ruling my opponents resolution illogical. Again, an atheist doesn't offer praise to God not because of God's morals in accord to the Bible, an atheist doesn't offer praise because they think God doesn't exist.

Or, an atheist views God as a figment of story,... My opponent would still fail because Gods actions would still require justified within context of the story. Gods character values were determined by the story line or plot, the Bible story being the arbiter, and the story saying God is morally good and praise worthy.

Another way to look at this is Harry Potter. A character in a book,... when taken out of context or away from the story line, some would consider Harry immoral for practicing witch craft and casting spells onto people. However, putting Harry's actions back into context of the storyline, and his action were morally permissible do to the greater good as the outcome given the story. Much like taking Gods actions of sacrificing his son out of context; when you put it back into context, you see this action resulted in salvation for mankind, ergo, morally correct.

However you look at it,.. the resolution fails.

My opponents resolve is not reached with his premise. But rather the premise that God is not worthy of praise because he does not exist. A point that requires no regard to Gods morals in accordance with the Bible.

The point I put forward is this,..

My opponents premise requires 3 assumptions.

1.) The Bible is correct/ true.
a. In accordance to the Bible, God is his own authority on morality and it is us that are subject to his moral guidelines
b. In accordance to the Bible, Gods actions resulted in greater outcomes, thus it can be argued that Gods actions were just and morally permissible

2.) God exists
a. According to the Bible, God is worthy of praise

3.) God is either praise worthy or not
a. Given 1 and 2, God is considered worthy of praise, and opposing views in accordance to the Bible would be morally repugnant.

SOOO,.. to satisfy my opponents resolution we must first make the above 3 assumptions. If God is presumed real, and the Bible is correct, than moral intrinsic value is inherent to the Bible and God as arbiter of morality.

In other words, this is like if at your own home you are allowed to wear shoes inside, but at your friends house you cannot. At your home, shoes in doors is permissible, at your friends they are not. This concept applies here, if we assume the above Christian Theology is correct, (putting us in "GODS house" if you will), it is Gods rules we would have to adhere to. Or like going to another nation, for instance a German 18 year old can legally drink in Germany, but if he were to go to the U.S. he could not. His own laws Germany are extrinsic once he assumes residence in the USA.

*********

"I'm not sure why my opponent is so reluctant to address the verses I have mentioned"

--> I addressed these verses in my R1 points of the Bible's stance on God and Suffering.

http://answers.org...

******

Closing,

Point 1.) My opponents premise is not proved logical, rather illogical given that his resolve of "undeserving of praise," is reached in disregard of the his premise, Given the Bible, God is morally impugnant. God would be found undeserving of respect not due to his morals in accordance to the Bible, but rather because he is believed to not exist.

Point 2.) My opponent attempts to take the Bible verses out of context and offer them up to be judged out of context. Not only is this going against what his own resolution calls for, but It is illogical given point 1. Those judging in an outside context obviously would not offer praise regardless.

Point 3.) My opponents resolution calls for the 3 assumptions given above.
3a. The Bible is true
3b. God exists
3c. God is either praise worthy or not
>> If we adopt the assumptions as our own, holding them true, as my opponents resolution calls for,... Then we by default adhere to Christian Theology, which states given the Bible, moral intrinsic value is inherent to the Bible and God as arbiter of morality.

So it would be presumed that:

1. God is fake, therefore unworthy of praise despite PROs premise.
2. Given the Bible, God is true, and is the arbiter of his and our morality.

Either way, my opponents premise does not satisfy the resolve, the key component in assuming it the most correct.
I believe that my position in this debate was satisfied in that I showed a more logical premise to reach the same resolve, and that I kept a Biblical character in the context of the Bible as required to satisfy the topic of the debate.

Thank you readers, and Thank you to my worthy opponent.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lunar_Daze 8 years ago
Lunar_Daze
No offence DATO, but I never saw reason for someone (Christ) to have to die for everyones sins, past and present. and Christ was going to go to heaven anyway. I was raised Christian, and no one ever gave me a solid reason. As Man was cast out of Eden, they were cursed to toil the earth and suffer. So life is a lot of suffering, and it still is after Christ died. I see no purpose for Christ at all. And as for miracles he performed...in every religion, there are miracles.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
OMG - I have new fodder for my idiot fundamentalist website ---v
Posted by DATCMOTO 8 years ago
DATCMOTO
SIMPLY PUT.. the old testament is God saying "Ok, your all spiritually dead (separated from God) and innately rebellious and sinful BUT I'm not going to leave you to yourselves and your murders and wars ( All HUMAN inventions) , I'm going to 'take sides' and 'pick favourites'. " -Because God is determined to have a relationship with us at any cost..
The new testament is God saying "Ok.. I've done things your way, to no avail.. NOW WATCH THIS.. and He enters human history personally and tackles the problem HEAD ON..
So I say..
PRAISE THE LIVING GOD who alone is worthy of honour and glory! Who sent His only begotten Son to die that we might live.. You Father are the source of all goodness, mercy and truth.. OH YES!
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
either way, both are inconsistent.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
It is unfounded to seperate the fact of God's action from the fact of God's character. Either both are fact, or both are opinion.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I didn't pick up on the defense about the Bible containing information stating God is moral soon enough... I have a good argument against it, just didn't make it soon enough.

Basically, we have "fact" about God's actions, and the contention that several people are of the opinion that God is still moral... the basic form of argument there is that recorded opinion trumps recorded fact, which is of course somewhat laughable.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
Conduct - Pro - Con introduced new arguments in the final round, so Pro had no chance to refute.

Spelling and Grammar - Tie - Both sides were easy to read and follow.

Convincing Argument - Con - Pro wanted to analyze God's actions outside of the debate's assumptions. Con convincingly argues that if the Bible is true, then God makes the moral rules. Pro tried to argue that God should not break his own moral laws, but that in itself is an appeal outside the Bible.

Sources - Tie - The Christian Bible was the same source for both parties.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
Tarzan, I have great respect for your debating skills,... I recently read one of your debates in which you argued evidently on the side of theist theory, and I was very impressed. Particularly given you are an atheist. I almost want to challenge you to this same debate we just did, only switch sides of the spectrum. Good job.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
if he accepts....
Posted by solo 8 years ago
solo
This ought to be good.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by loudetune 7 years ago
loudetune
JustCallMeTarzanbthr004Tied
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 pitz004 7 years ago
pitz004
JustCallMeTarzanbthr004Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Lunar_Daze 8 years ago
Lunar_Daze
JustCallMeTarzanbthr004Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
JustCallMeTarzanbthr004Tied
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 mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
JustCallMeTarzanbthr004Tied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
JustCallMeTarzanbthr004Tied
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 Evakian 8 years ago
Evakian
JustCallMeTarzanbthr004Tied
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 jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
JustCallMeTarzanbthr004Tied
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 bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
JustCallMeTarzanbthr004Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzanbthr004Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40