The Instigator
wush
Pro (for)
Losing
40 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Con (against)
Winning
45 Points

God Was A Bad Father

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 9/28/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,299 times Debate No: 13235
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (26)
Votes (15)

 

wush

Pro

I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate
CLARIFICATIONS
I am referring to the god of the bible and i am referring to human standards of fatherhood when i am calling god a bad father.
This debate will be held on the assumption that the Bible is accurate.
PRO ARGUMENTS
1) God did not speak to Jesus until Jesus was almost 30 years old
[matthew 3:17and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.] God had the means to make communication with Jesus at any time, yet he only did so when Jesus was at roughly the age of thirty. By human standards, this would be negligence.

2)God allowed his sinless son to die a tortured death for a crime he did not commit. Jesus was crucified and god did not do a single thing to intervene despite having the power to do so. This would also be negligence by human standards.

Once again i thank my opponent for accepting this debate
Itsallovernow

Con

My opponent refers to the God of Christianity.

Jesus was a Jew. In Christianity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost comprise of our God, but we worship Jesus for he was our Savior and show us to God.

Since the God of the King of the Jews and the God of Christianity is totally different, this can not be the interpreted meaning. I will disprove your case with one point I fear you over-looked.

1) JESUS WAS BIRTHED BY A VIRGIN! He can't have a father!
Debate Round No. 1
wush

Pro

I once again thank Itsallovernow for accepting this debate.

"My opponent refers to the God of Christianity.

Jesus was a Jew. In Christianity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost comprise of our God, but we worship Jesus for he was our Savior and show us to God."
>>>I stated i was referring to the god of the bible which can be interpreted as referring to both the god of the Jews and the Christians. I did not not refer to the god as the god of Christianity so my opponents claims that i was referring to the holy trinity are irrelevant. He in fact called the holy trinity "the >FATHER< the >SON<, and the Holy Ghost" which contradicts his argument that Jesus can't have a father.

"JESUS WAS BIRTHED BY A VIRGIN! He can't have a father!"
>>>> my opponent himself refers to Jesus as the son and to god as the Father. One could argue that is impossible to make something out of nothing, yet according to the bible that is what god did. Surely the issues of virgin birth would not get in the way of gods master plan.

My opponent has failed to refute a single of my arguments and instead presented a point that he himself refuted.
Itsallovernow

Con

Thanks for the debate.

The primary definition for father is thusly:

1. •a male parent

As for you matter of "I stated i was referring to the god of the bible which can be interpreted as referring to both the god of the Jews and the Christians.", you can not back-track like that, sir, for the Bible is of Christianity. The Torah is the religious text of the Jews. Also, you say Jesus died on the Cross, yet Jew do not believe Jesus has had his Coming yet. So, no, you could not refer to two seperate religions.

As for the names of the Holy Trinity, it is merely a proper noun. He is not my biological father, and that I can prove. It is merely a name and not a title. "Daddy" or "Da-da" is the title of my father, but his name is Brian Ticknor. "Father" is the title of the Father. In Christianity, the Father signifies the creator of things and a wiser, more powerful enitity and protector than all us mortal men. It's describing Him, just as little children give themselves codenames like 'Snake' or 'Wolf' to appear a certain way by their names.

You stated, "my opponent himself refers to Jesus as the son and to god as the Father. One could argue that is impossible to make something out of nothing, yet according to the bible that is what god did. Surely the issues of virgin birth would not get in the way of gods master plan."

Like I said, the Father is a noun, not a title. I can prove this because Father is capitalized, indiciating a proper noun. However, if it were known in the English langugage to call him 'father', then it would be a title. Even in pronouns, we capitolize His name! Also, you give "...my Son" in which the Father addresses the Son. This is not a title.

When I said, "JESUS WAS BIRTHED BY A VIRGIN! He can't have a father!" The lower cased 'father' signified a title by birth. If I said, "Jesus can't have a Father", you would have been correct, for that is identifing our Father.

One more thing, "Surely the issues of virgin birth would not get in the way of gods master plan." That is blashpemy. Do not pretend to know God's master plan, please. It is written and religious fact that she was a virgin. Below is an excerpt from the Holy Bible:

"How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"

Even Mary did not see how it was possibile to have a son without a father.

If we are going to judge 'father' by human standards, we must first establish a father, and there was none.

Conclusion

There is conclusive evidence in the Bible that I have presented and I have established my case and answered my opponents 'contentions' thusly. I did not contradict myself or my religion, though my opponent did when he tried to pin Christianity and Judism together by saying they are under one text and giving quotes and referances to the Holy Bible of Christianity.

I arrest my case, govenor!
Debate Round No. 2
wush

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate
"for the Bible is of Christianity."
>> The old testament was largely written by Jews. While the Bible may be the spiritual scriptures of Christianity, a large part of it was written by Jews. Judaism and Christianity also worship the same god.

"Also, you say Jesus died on the Cross, yet Jew do not believe Jesus has had his Coming yet"
>When I was referring to Judaism and Christianity I was talking about God[Father] and not about Jesus. Jesus as seen in the bible is a Christian concept and I acknowledge that.

"Father" is the title of the Father. In Christianity, the Father signifies the creator of things and a wiser, more powerful enitity and protector than all us mortal men."
>>So why is Jesus called son? You have provided a rather dubious explanation for why god was called father yet failed to mention why Jesus is called son.
John 3:17 For God did not send HIS son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
why would god refer to Jesus as his son? Surely son is both a noun and a title in this case. the presence of the word "his" indicates that Jesus belongs to god and as stated Jesus belongs to god as a son.

"It is written and religious fact that she was a virgin. Below is an excerpt from the Holy Bible:
"How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
Even Mary did not see how it was possibile to have a son without a father."
>>> Wouldn't you saying that god is incapable of something be blasphemy as well? While Mary could not comprehend virgin birth herself, it still happened and that implies that god must have had a role in the birth. How else could a virgin give birth to a baby? Unless Mary is some form of hermaphrodite, which I am sure is not mentioned in the bible, God must have caused Mary to have a virgin birth effectively making God the father of Jesus.

"If we are going to judge 'father' by human standards, we must first establish a father, and there was none."
>>>> As I have pointed out, God must have been the father of Jesus Christ in some unconventional manner. Also, a father need not be the biological father. There are multiple bible references of Jesus being the son of god, so even if Jesus did not have any biological father, God was his father in some other form.

==Conclusion==
Although this debate did not turn out as I expected it to, I still firmly stand by the statement that God was a bad father. There are a multitude of bible references that support my case of god being the father of Jesus Christ. I am also backed by logic. Mary could not have given birth as a virgin unless there was divine intervention in the form of god, so god must have been the father of Jesus in some form. God was a bad father by human standards because God did not speak to Jesus until he was almost thirty years old, and because God allowed Jesus to die a tortured death when God had the power to intervene.
I thank my opponent for an excellent debate and I thank the reader for taking the effort to read this debate that I instigated.
Good luck.
Itsallovernow

Con

Thanks for the debate.

1) "The old testament was largly written by Jews." That doesn't mean they use the same text to worship Jesus! Lest they would be Christians! Even so, the Bible wasn't even in existance while Jesus was alive, so he could not even have the definition of Father or father in question. If you are now referring to the Father in Christianity (which you are) in the Bible, then you must know that there was no such thing while Jesus was alive.

2. You may have been talking about God[Father] or Jesus and I'm glad you acknowledge they are different things, but in Judism, Christ never came to die on the Cross and the Father could not have even been involved.

3. Because he was born by God's command. If you've been to a church, you'd know we're "all God's children".

4. I didn't say God was incapable, and at first, no, she didn't comprehend virgin birth. Thusly, the question she uttered.

5. "As I have pointed out, God must have been the father of Jesus Christ in some unconventional manner." But you did not refute my definition of father for the Father! And just because he commanded His birth, does not make him a biological son by definition

Conclusion

For the reasons above, I heavily urge you to vote CON. Furthermore, I had to hurry. Good-bye!
Debate Round No. 3
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by daley 6 years ago
daley
The idea that God was a bad father is based on the premises that God didn't talk to Jesus till he was 30 years old. However, the Bible teaches that te Father and te Son were in communication in heaven long before Jesus' birth of the virgin Mary. It was the Son to whom God said "let us make man in our image," sharing his work with the Son. (Gen 1:26; John 1:1-3, 14; Heb 1:2). Also, the 4 Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke ad John do not discuss Jesus childhood in great detail, so we cannot deduce from these passages wheather God spoke to him or not. But we do know that Jesus had a personal relationship with his Fathe from an early age (Luke 2:46-52), Christianity holds that all such beievers can hear the voice of God. So we have no real reason to think God did not speak to Jesus before he was 30 years old.

It was also said that God allowed Jesus to die a cruel death and did not intervene and is therefore a bad parent. By thisreasoning, God should not allow firefighters to risk their lives in burning buildings to save people, or should not allow lifeguards to risk their lives trying to save drowning people, or should not allow soldiers to risk thir lives in battle to protect innocent citizens in times of war. The Bible says that Jesus died to save us from our sins. God therefore, as the best Father, had good reason for allowing Jesus suffering. I certainly don't expect God to wave a magic wand and make all my problems go away. Jesus faced his challenges in life head on, he had guts, that's a good example fo us. Servants of God are not cowardly cop-outs who ask God to remove every obsticle that comes their way, but we face them and overcome them in the name of Jesus, for we are more than conquerers. Jesus conquered death by means of his resurrection to eternal life; showing that death is not the end.

So no, God is not a bad Father. He's the best.
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
Close debate ;)
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
Prove he doesn't exist.
Posted by Ste93 6 years ago
Ste93
I think god was not a bad parent; he was no parent at all. Existence is a prerequisite of being a father.
Posted by devinni01841 7 years ago
devinni01841
By modern standards of parenting, though, if God's name was Tim and Jesus's name was Liam, (hypothetically speaking, of course) and Tim did the same things as God, then he would have been considered a "bad father" and probably been served with a very large child support bill.
Posted by Nemersarlis 7 years ago
Nemersarlis
I feel this debate is an important one, or it takes the ideals of "The Bible" and places them into an environment of "Modern Times". As Itsallovernow said we are all god's children, if I were to become Christian I believe I would agree with this argument. I also agree with wush saying that "if" God "was" Jesus' father than he was irresponsible. So my reasoning has lead me to believe that "God" if he exists is a terrible father/guardian to all of humanity.
-But this is just coming from a person who at a young age believed that the world was created by i giant musoom god who lived on the moon...
Posted by Itsallovernow 7 years ago
Itsallovernow
mcc1789, I am not going to argue something so petty. I clearly understood his meaning, and I did not neglect to remember that. In the resolution, God is definate, and is the center of the debate. His existance in the resolution is absolute, and I detest people that twist the resolution into something that is not a real contention of a debate. I'm arguing that he was not a bad father, not his existance.
Posted by mcc1789 7 years ago
mcc1789
People often neglect the possibilities that God if such exists could be 1) Not all-wise 2) Not all-good and most important 3) Not all-powerful. That said, if we accepted the Biblical God as true, I'd agree with Pro. The idea that the gods could be bad, or at least not good, is known as Maltheism. http://en.wikipedia.org... While leads to Misotheism, or hating them. http://en.wikipedia.org... And no, I don't hate god. To hate something you'd have to feel it existed. I'm not overly fond of the god concept however.

@wjelements Ah, but what is the Good?
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
God is, by definition, the Good Father. Resolution negated.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
"To Mearza: Then he let jesus what kind of father kills their son ? if god was put on trial he would be enstated as a psychopathic murderer and rapist."

I clearly said I want to argue for God being "Protector" not "Father" (whereas Jesus is His Son). I will prove that God, as a Protector, did save Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). Wush will challenge me to a debate soon, and you can read it if you are interested.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
wushItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Epic win for Contender. Jesus was born of a virgin! Pro's entire definition behind the Resolution was invalidated and no amount of rewording could win that.
Vote Placed by PrvnMthws 6 years ago
PrvnMthws
wushItsallovernowTied
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 shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
wushItsallovernowTied
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 TayJay13 6 years ago
TayJay13
wushItsallovernowTied
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 mrs.Squarepants 6 years ago
mrs.Squarepants
wushItsallovernowTied
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 oridinaryaverageguy 7 years ago
oridinaryaverageguy
wushItsallovernowTied
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 devinni01841 7 years ago
devinni01841
wushItsallovernowTied
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 
Vote Placed by alyssa_16 7 years ago
alyssa_16
wushItsallovernowTied
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 mjalal100 7 years ago
mjalal100
wushItsallovernowTied
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:52 
Vote Placed by mcc1789 7 years ago
mcc1789
wushItsallovernowTied
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