The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

God Supports Cannibalism, Infancticide and Genocide

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 575 times Debate No: 97408
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




This is a result of an exchange that took place in the comments section of this debate:

- I am against this resolution, RealSpassky will be for it.
- The God talked about here is the God as described in the Bible.
- The Bible will be the only reliable source of evidence for the character of God.

- Round 1 will be acceptance and restatement of the argument and verses as stated in the comments section of the debate aforementioned.
- Round 2 will be continuation of argument and supporting evidence.
- Round 3 will be reserved for rebuttal.
- Round 4 will be continued rebuttal and closing arguments and remarks.
- I would hope this wouldn't have to be said, but civility is the order of the day. No personal attacks or unprofessional remarks (bad language, etc.)

TheRealSpassky will be arguing for this resolution, I will be arguing against. I will leave it open to him to propose definitions for the terms in the resolution (namely Cannibalism, Infanticide, Genocide) minus God, as he has already been defined as the God of the Bible. I reserve the right, however, to question and argue against these definitions if they are unfair for the debate.

RealSpassky, I pray you do not take this the wrong way. This is by no means a personal attack, but instead a defense of the God I love and serve. You have accused him of incredible evils. I pray the truth of his love, mercy, and justice come out today. I will not take this personally and will remain civil and respectful; Jesus is my example.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


Pro's argument:

Cannibalistic: Leviticus 26:29 - You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.

Infanticide: Lamentations 4:4 - Because of thirst the infant’s tongue sticks to the roof of its mouth; the children beg for bread, but no one gives it to them.

Exodus 12:29 - At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well.

Genocidal: Jeremiah 50:21 - Attack the land of Merathaim and those who live in Pekod. Pursue, kill and completely destroy them, declares the Lord. Do everything I have commanded you."

I will address each of these individual charges one-by-one after I provide arguments of my own. We will proceed on the common understanding of the words of the resolution: Cannibalism: People eating people. Infanticide: Killing of children. Genocide: Killing of entire people groups.

I am not arguing that God never did these things. These acts have one thing in common: death. I will argue that instead God’s will is life. If I can show that, then he obviously does not want death, and each of these events must have another motivation.

Premise: God’s Will is Life

Foundation Texts:
1. Genesis 1:9: And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
2. Genesis 1:16-17: And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
3. Genesis 3:15 (Speaking to the Serpent, Satan): And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
4. Genesis 3:22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
5. Romans 5:12: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
6. Ezekiel 18:4: Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
7. Romans 6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
8. John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
9. 1 Peter 3:9: The Lord is not slack (slow) concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering (patient) to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (emphasis added)
10. John 10:10: The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have [it] more abundantly.

Point 1: God Created Life

When God created the world, he ordained life. Death was not in the world, as evidenced by text 5, when it says “as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin...”. Death did not enter until sin.

God created the Tree of Life, which, as evidenced in text 4, resulted in eternal life. This was clearly his will for man until the Fall.

Point 2: Death came from Man

Texts 4 through 7 make this clear.

God did not take away man’s key to eternal life until after he sinned. Why did he do it? Out of mercy. “In mercy, God protected Adam and Eve from the horrible fate of having to live forever as sinners by preventing them from eating from the tree of life.” [1]

Death is the result (wages) of sin. Sin came from man. Therefore, death came from man, and as the verse in Romans 5 states, we are all condemned to death, because we have all sinned. But because this was not God’s will, he provided a way out.

Point 3: The Gospel Restored Life

Look at text 3, which “has been called the protoevangelium, the first gospel. [Martin] Luther said of this verse: "This text embraces and comprehends within itself everything noble and glorious that is to be found anywhere in the Scriptures.” [1]

In this verse, God himself prophesied of the victory that was to come, the Savior. The Lord Jesus Christ, as told about in Text 6. His sacrifice on the cross provided the way to once again access eternal life, so that “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” All one must do to regain that which was lost and escape judgment (death) is to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God and is God; that he has taken our punishment upon himself and paid for our sin when he died; and that he was resurrected the third day and is alive now. (See Romans 10:9)

Conclusion: God’s Will is Life

God created life, and only brings death as judgment when man rebels. He is just. But even in his justice, being not willing that any man should perish, he provided a way out through his Son, Jesus Christ. He took our punishment upon himself so that we could live. (Text 10) Therefore, it is clearly his will that we live.

Therefore, he couldn’t possibly want, as an end in itself, death of any sort. Let’s look at each situation individually.

Here is a quote from one of your debates: "We exist because God exist." ( You believe in God! "What!" You exclaim: "I was quoting the other side!" See how important context is? Let's apply that to the Bible. Context.

1. Cannibalism (Leviticus 26:29)

This is a curse promised Israel if they do not obey God’s law. In this chapter, God makes a covenant with Israel, the people who he has delivered from slavery in Egypt.

Notice verses 18, 21, 23-24, and 27-28. I’ll quote the first: “And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins.”

These verses are interspersed throughout the passage; this is a progressive curse. He’s not destroying them the first time they disobey, he’s punishing to draw them back. If they obey, he blesses (Verses 1-13); if they disobey, he curses. “These verses describe a progression of rebellion. God brought these curses slowly to a disobedient Israel, desiring repentance; but if Israel would not repent, the curses intensified.” [2]

The verse quoted, 29, is a horrific curse that God was by no means willing to bring upon them. Instead it comes at the very end of their disobedience, meant to drive them back to himself, to life. It is not the end – it is a necessary evil; and when considering that justice the first time one sins is death, this is actually merciful; God gives them chance after chance to repent and turn to him.

Note that God, in verses 40 through 46, promises deliverance and salvation – life – if his people repent at any point during this curse. He does not support this cannibalism; he detests it! It is only a means to awaken his people to their sin and bring them back to himself, the source of life. God’s justice with the chance of repentance resulting in life is a common theme, and will be seen often.

2. Infanticide (Lamentations 4:4; Exodus 12:29)

Lamentations: The prophet Jeremiah in this book is lamenting the state of Israel, and he states multiple times (1:5, 8, 18, 20) that it was punishment for sins they had willfully committed, and it important to note in 2:17:

“The Lord hath done that which he had devised; he hath fulfilled his word that he had commanded in the days of old…”

God warned Israel, and they rebelled anyway; he had no choice. He is just. He brought upon them the punishment he had promised.

Exodus: Again, this is judgment, and this came only at the end of the 10 plagues, which only came after the initial plea to Pharaoh by Moses to let God’s people go. After each plague, Pharaoh was given the chance to let the people go and the plagues would cease. Let’s examine why this particular plague was necessary and does not show that God supports infanticide, but rather mercy and justice:

1. This was just: “They had slain the Hebrews' children, and now God slew theirs.” [3]
2. There were many chances to repent before this: “If Pharaoh would have taken the warning which was given him of this plague, and would thereupon have released Israel, what a great many dear and valuable lives might have been preserved!” [3]
3. This prevented a greater loss of life, as this was such a shock that Pharaoh immediately released the Israelites, preventing further judgment.

3. Genocide (Jeremiah 50:21)

This is God’s judgment upon Babylon. “Go up against that land by Merathaim, the country of the Mardi, that lay part in Assyria and part in Armenia; and go among the inhabitants of Pekod, another country (mentioned Eze. 23:23) which Cyrus took in his way to Babylon.” [4] Why would God judge an entire nation?

The phrase, “as she has done, do unto her” appears in verse 14. What did she do? Babylon “sinned against the Lord”.

Babylon was being judged as a nation because, as a nation, they destroyed Israel and rejoiced in it. “God does not afflict his people willingly, and therefore takes it very ill if the instruments he employs afflict them willingly.” [4]

Remember, even if it seems unjust to us to judge the entire nation, no one is in reality innocent, and any life is God's mercy.

As has been shown, God’s will for mankind is life. And when we take these apparent contradictions in context, we find that he is a just God who must punish evil, but who spares us because of his mercy, providing a way out of sin and death through his son, Jesus Christ.







I am going to narrow down what the gist of your argument:

God has a reason for killing people.

Now, using the verses I have shown, I will show why it is immoral for God to do such things.

It is commonly know that:
Eating your children if you do something bad is wrong.
Killing children is wrong.
Killing anyone is wrong.

When God killed people in Noah's floo
Debate Round No. 2


Before I begin my two-point rebuttal and extend my arguments, I would like to point out to the voters that my opponent has committed a “straw man” fallacy. My argument is laid out in round 2 for anyone to see, and it is not, as my opponent has fallaciously asserted, “God kills for a reason.”

I propose that it is more along the lines of “God intends life for man, and does everything possible to save life while holding true to his own just nature. God allows man to choose, and man brought death upon himself by his sin. To show his will for man to live even after this, God took death upon himself in the form of Jesus, providing a way of salvation and eternal life for all who believe.” Any death in this world is a result of man’s sin.

Point 1: God can morally bring Death

God is the creator of man, and gave man his life. Thus, he has power to take it. Death is not something that is out of his control, and is not something that is immoral for him to enact. It is immoral for us to bring death to others, for we do not have control of their life. Matthew Henry, speaking on Ezekiel 18:4:

“God may certainly do what he pleases both with fathers and children, and none may say unto him, What doest thou? He that gave us our being does us no wrong if he takes it away again, much less when he only takes away some of the supports and comforts of it; it is as absurd to quarrel with him as for the thing formed to say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” [1]

Point 2: God Desires Life for Everyone

And note: as I pointed out in round 2, God is merciful to us! He does not desire death, but in his will for us to live wants us to repent and turn to him! Listen to these words from Charles Spurgeon, the great Prince of Preachers, in his book Power in the Blood:

“In this present life, the Lord treats sin as a disease. If He were to treat it at once as sin and summon us to His court to answer for it, we would immediately sink beyond the reach of hope, for we could neither answer His accusations nor defend ourselves from His justice. In His great mercy he looks upon us with pity, and for now He treats our ill manners as if they were diseases to be cured rather than rebellions to be punished.”

This is direct and convincing evidence that God does not want death even though we have chosen it willingly: Listen to Ezekiel 18:23: “Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?” God wants sinners to repent and be saved; he stays his hand from punishment so that men might live.

Explanation: Justice Demands Judgment

Why, then, do we have these grievous examples of death inflicted by God himself, who has stated that he does not want men to die? There is another attribute of his that bears mention here.


Ezekiel 18:20: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” God judges each man by his own actions, in perfect justice.

Let’s look one more time at each of the occurrences brought up by my opponent, and this time let’s look at the two things each of them have in common.

Leviticus 26:29: God would only bring this curse if Israel rebelled, and continued rebelling after many other curses had been laid upon them. Justice. The curses were not all immediate death, and if Israel repented, the curses would cease and blessing would be given. Mercy unto life.

Lamentations 4:4: Punishment for sins the nation of Israel had willfully committed. Look at the verse right before the one quoted! Lamentations 4:3: “Even the sea monsters… give suck to (nurse) their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.” They brought this on themselves! They are the ones denying their children food and starving infants! God isn’t committing Infanticide, Israel is! And yet the promise still applies from Leviticus: if they will repent, the curses will cease, and they will be forgiven. God desires life.

Exodus 12:29: I dealt with this soundly in round 2. God was just, because they had slain the Israelite’s children before this; merciful, because if Pharaoh had let the Israelites go before this (he was given 10 other chances, a lot more than he deserved), this would never have happened. And even when it did, God was merciful.

Which would have caused more deaths for the Japanese: dropping the atomic bomb or carrying out a full-scale invasion that would result in warfare taken to the Japanese continent, with bombings, battles, artillery, tanks, guns, grenades, devastation? In light of this, was the atomic bomb not merciful to them? In the same way, God prevented large-scale death of the Egyptians by only bringing as much as was necessary to show them his power and convince them of their defeat.

Jeremiah 50:21: Again, we see God’s justice. His mercy is self-evident in the very fact that he had allowed them to remain alive and not judged this long; yet, judgment must come, because God is a just judge, and cannot let sin go unpunished.

“It is sin that makes men a mark for the arrows of God's judgments. An abundance of idolatry and immorality was to be found in Babylon, yet those are not mentioned as the reason of God's displeasure against them, but the injuries they had done to the people of God, from a principle of enmity to them as his people. They have been the destroyers of God's heritage (v. 11); herein indeed God made use of them for the necessary correction of his people, and yet it is laid to their charge as a heinous crime, because they designed nothing but their utter destruction.

1. What they did against Jerusalem they did with pleasure (v. 11): You were glad, you rejoice. God does not afflict his people willingly, and therefore takes it very ill if the instruments he employs afflict them willingly. When Titus Vespasian destroyed Jerusalem he wept over it, but these Chaldeans triumphed over it.” [2]

What do we see is common among all these events? Justice and mercy; God is both. His will is that men might live, but in his justice he judges sin if men so choose – not, notably enough, without warning; he is merciful.

My opponent began to bring up the topic of the flood in Noah’s day. I would point out that God’s mercy was evident here as in every other judgment. The scriptures tell us that there was a time period of 120 years between when Noah started to build the ark and when God judged the world. Can we truly think that God would have rejected a man if he had truly repented, saying, “I believe it will flood as judgment for my sin! let me in to thy salvation, O Lord!” God forbid! It is against his nature! Mankind was given chance to repent. This shows, yet again, that God’s will is not death. It is life.

Ezekiel 18:25-27: “Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive.”

Conclusion: God Desires Life

God does not will that man should die. But the punishment for sin is death, and as a just judge, God does not back down from that if we so choose. He does not support cannibalism, infanticide, or genocide. He hates them; they are death in the most gruesome forms! But when necessary, he brings them as judgment as a means to awaken others to life and as justly deserved judgment on sin. Even then, he does not do so without warning. Mercy and Justice. He certainly orchestrated these acts; however: there is absolutely no evidence that he wanted to do it or supports the acts themselves. But to not do it would be to do two things that God will not do:

1. To deny his just nature. God is just, and he will not change or violate this by becoming unjust.

2. To allow mankind to continue in sin, leading ultimately to death. Think of what would happen if these nations had been allowed to continue in their sin. The children that were killed by the destroying angel in Exodus (the children went to heaven I believe, by the way; they were put in a better place) would have grown up in a pagan nation and been in a horrid, savage culture; at the end, they would have to face God at judgment and answer for sin, and many probably be sentenced to hell. God had mercy through their death. His judgment on earth is always to prevent man from traveling further towards death.

And do not forget the Cross; when Jesus died, he took the sting of death upon himself so that it could no longer touch those that believe in him. 1 Corinthians 15:55: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” This is the ultimate sign; even though mankind willingly chose death, God gave up everything so that men might be able to live. Justice was served at the cross; if we choose to, we can accept his mercy and live. It is his will.

It is absurd to propose, in light of all of this evidence for God’s support of life, that he is so depraved and hypocritical as to give his support to cannibalism, infanticide, and genocide. Through the prophet Malachi, in 3:6, God said “I am the LORD, I change not;” “with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17) Spurgeon said: “Whatever his attributes were of old, they are now; his power, his wisdom, his justice, his truth, are alike unchanged.” [3] God is not hypocritical. He either supports death, or he doesn't. Consider the evidence, and choose.






How can you morally kill someone? You say that God gave life, so he can end it. Are you saying that a parent can murder their child because they "feel like it?"

I am not going to bother addressing your other arguments because your reasoning is very circular and there is no point in arguing.

Sorry for the conciseness of this argument, I am trying to be clear and short because I do not have enough time. I look forward to your argument.
Debate Round No. 3


A couple of points, and then you may have the last word.
If we are arguing using the Bible, we must stick to what the Bible says about God. The Bible's standard is what we use; we cannot use God's actions as described by the Bible, compare them to our own standards, and use that to accuse God of wrongdoing. If we accept the Bible as authoritative on the character of God, we must measure God by the Bible.
God is good. He is what defines good. He is what defines righteous. Thus, all morality starts and ends with him. He is our definition of morality and goodness. If we are to use the Bible for a debate, this must be what we accept.
What this means is twofold:
1) God defines what actions are righteous and what are unrighteousness (sinful)
2) God defines (pay attention to this) what is acceptable punishment for sinful actions.
How can we judge God and call his punishments immoral if we are but men?

Does God support Cannibalism, Infanticide, Genocide? Does he support death?

I have demonstrated that God's ultimate will is life. I have shown that any death in this world is because of our own sin. I have shared the story of Jesus Christ's death and how God gives every person a chance to repent and receive eternal life through his name in spite of what we justly deserve. Could we ask for a more definitive answer?


Sorry about the briefness of this argument.

This entire debate, 4 redundant rounds, you were saying that God is good. You said it at least once in every argument. But this debate isn't about whether or not he is good.

Then you started to say that he is too good for genocide, infantcide, and cannabalism. THEN, in an ironic twist, you say that he should not be judged by our standards. Am I the only one who sees this hypocrisy?
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: Quadrunner// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave no evidence and cited no sources even implying that God supports Cannibalism, Infanticide and Genocide. Con used better sources and presented structured responses with less typing errors percentage wise. Con's winning argument When God created the world, he ordained life. Death was not in the world, as evidenced by text 5, when it says ?as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin...?. Death did not enter until sin. God created the Tree of Life, which, as evidenced in text 4, resulted in eternal life. This was clearly his will for man until the Fall. It seems according to Con's interpretation, the Bible states clearly that God always intended man to live forever, but death was somehow a result of sin. This went refuted, and is sufficient for the win.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Sources are insufficiently explained. Merely stating that one side failed to support many of their arguments and the other side used "better sources" is not reason enough to award these points. The voter must compare sources given by both sides. (2) S&G is insufficiently explained. One side having better structure and fewer typing errors is not sufficient reason to award this point. The voter must explain why one side"s writing made it difficult to understand their arguments. (3) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter does point to arguments made by both sides, but it"s confusingly written, with the voter ending off by saying Con made an argument that was refuted, and at times appearing to include his own views of the given Bible quotes. The pieces are there, but this needs to be cleared up.
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
It may have been circular reasoning, but you have to point it out specifically and you have to show how it is circular reasoning. For each one.
Posted by TheRealSpassky101 1 year ago
Circular reasoning.
Posted by Quadrunner 1 year ago
*This went unrefuted
Posted by imjustsomeopinion 1 year ago
lol agreed, god is an immoral thug
Posted by Heirio 1 year ago
Seeing as he committed genocide twice, that one should be easily settled.
No votes have been placed for this debate.