The Instigator
RyanV
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
brontoraptor
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

God (Yahweh) Is Immoral Based On The Book Of Job

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 5/1/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 352 times Debate No: 90460
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

RyanV

Pro

To begin with let me tell you a story.

"A boss makes a bet with a psychopath, to test an exemplary employee's loyalty.

Giving in to the temptation by the psychopath, the boss stops the security system in place to protect his employee's property and friends and lets the psychopath destroy the employee's life. The psychopath burns down the employee's tower and slaughters his family.

If only the security system was on, none of this would have happened. Despite this, the employee does not blame the boss.

Still unconvinced, the boss allows the psychopath to test the employee further. The boss denies heath care to Bob. The psychopath poisons his food, making him very sick.

Yet, the employee still does not blame the boss.

Finally, when the employee asks the boss why he let the nightmare happen to him. The boss answers, "Who are you to tell me what to do? Did you start the company? Did you help everyone I've helped? Were you born before I was? You should not question me."

The employee asked the forgiveness of the boss, for questioning him."

Lets look at this story from objective morality. I think we can all agree on the "Golden Rule" is the basic back bone of all morality.

Golden Rule

1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.
3. What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself.

The Bible obviously agrees with the Golden Rule also.

Luke 6:31 "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

Now here is the question.

Is this boss moral or immoral? If as I think we can all agree, he is immoral. He made a bet with a psychopath, allowed the psychopath to kill others, and once asked for an answer spins it where the victim is blamed for questioning him.

But this story is from the Book of Job. Replace: Boss with God, psychopath with Devil, and employee with Job.

Agree with God? Is God just in this situation? If the answer is yes, then you shouldn't mind your boss making the same test.

If you disagree with God and don't think he was just in this then the morality of God (Yahweh) is something, at the very least, we shouldn't be following. Let alone get our morality from it.

Because that story isn't moral. It's tragedy.
brontoraptor

Con

Morality-

Nearly 2 billion people on Earth are Muslims. Sharia Law is the law of the religion of Islam. Under Sharia Law, if you are caught stealing, your hand is chopped off. If a woman is caught in adultary and has 4 witnesses come against her, she is to be stoned to death.

Travel centers give the following advice to Westerners who plan on traveling to Dubai.

1)NO sex.

2)No alcohol.

3)No holding hands.

4)No dancing.

Why? Because Islam deems sex as an act that you have only on your own property. Alcohol is forbidden. And holding hands and dancing is forbidden. They have "Morality Police". Who's morality? Islam's.


*

5 billion people of Abrahamic faith view morality differently than Pro. 750 million Hindus view morality differently than Pro. The Chinese are a secular state who monitor religious activity and censor the Internet and their people. Moral? Depends who you ask. The Spartans left their children in positions to die, and if they survived they saw them as fit to live, and then turned them into fighting machines. Moral? Depends who you ask? ISIS and the Saudi government behead people for what Pro might deem minor offenses or non-offenses. They see violence as an end to a means. If you visciously punish the "immoral", it will keep their version of morality in place in their view.

*

Navy seals go through a 6 month trial period referred to by practicing Navy Seals as "Pure Hell". Why? To prepare them for battles in the future that they currently know nothing about. Once they graduate, they are covered with honors. Once they face battle, they are covered with honors. Those tests and battles are a part of their accomplishments and who they are. If we could see the future, could we "morally" take their training and accomplishments away to prevent them from the discomfort their trials and battles awarded them? Do we morally have the right to keep them from getting their stripes? Can we prevent someone from their trophies, medals, and proven honor in the name of preventing them from tragedy, pain, or loss knowing eternity in paradise lies before them?

*

There is a different dimension to "omniscient morality". To an omniscient God, He sees the end result to every action. It could be deemed "immoral" for Him to remove your pain or suffering knowing you will overcome it, prove who you are, and be able to hold onto that fact for eternity, forever and ever and ever. It becomes a logical fallacy to judge an omniscient being.

*

Pro must answer some questions in this debate.

1)What is morality?

2)What is it based on?

3)Why should we adhere to his definition?

*

God is omniscient, meaning He knows the future. This means He knew Job would survive the test. He knew Job would reap a harvest from the event. We have proven with this event that Job was faithful to God no matter what.

(1 Corinthians 10:13)

"No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bare. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."

And Job did bare the burden and came out victorious in the end.

*

The Bible is clear that we will face trials, and we will be tested.

(1 Peter 4:12)

"Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you."

*

So Job could easily ask the Lord, "Why Lord? Why the suffering? Why does evil exist? Do you love me Lord?"

I imagine the Lord smiling at Job thinking,"You don't even know..."

God resolves one specific question with every single one of us. Here is that question:

(John 21:17)

"Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.

Job proved that he was loyal to and loved God.

There was one more step to this relationship that would be defined after Job's life was passed on.

*

Job:"Lord, I love you. Do you love me?"

(Isaiah 53:5)

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

(Isaiah 53:6)

"..the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all."

(Isaiah 53:7)

He was oppressed and afflicted... he was led like a lamb to the slaughter..."

The Lord expected from Job what He expected of Himself.

(Short video)


(1 John 3:16)

"This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us."

Only in darkness and hell was the love and relationship between the Lord and Job defined and established. If we could see the future and the final product of these dark events, could we "morally" take this experience away from them? Would we even have such a right?
Debate Round No. 1
RyanV

Pro

How to define morality?

You are absolutely right that a lot of places in the world infringe on human rights. Sadly everyone can be corrupted. There are quite a few people who sadly, still act like animals.

~

"If you visciously punish the "immoral", it will keep their version of morality in place in their view."

I would say that this is absolutely what a lot of people in power love to do. When you break it down, they say, "This is "moral". Obey."

You get a sense of what they want there. They don't want you to question their morality. They only want you to "obey" and by definition obeying is the good side of morality.

The problem with this is if you accept by definition something is moral, you cannot prove that it is moral.

This is what the Euthyphro dilemma is all about. It asks the question:

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

If Yahweh told you that he wanted you to murder every unbeliever you came across, would you do it? Because if it comes from "god" it must be moral right?

A. If your answer is yes, then you are just like the extremists in Isis, who you condemn.

B. If your answer is no, then you are questioning the authority of "god" to determine what is moral or immoral.

Video for you:

https://www.youtube.com...

~

Of course, there is a way out of this yes or no question, which is simply, "My "god (Yahweh)" wouldn't do that."

But then that is you who are judging "god" on your own morality. You say he wouldn't make you kill someone, because you define your morality against it.

But you say you can't judge an omniscient being. Yet you are.

~

"He hasn't told me to kill you, thus it's okay." Then you go back to agreeing with A. (the extremists), who kill because their "god" commanded it.

Questions Con must answer:

How can you judge the extremists with your morality? They are only following what "god" says to them.

Wouldn't you be willing to kill for your "god" if he told you to? After all, he's the authority of moral code.

~

"No, I won't kill even if "god" told me to do it." Ta da. You are now making your own moral code.

How do you make your own moral code?

I've heard a lot of "Christians" ask, "If there is no "god" is murder, or rape wrong?"

This quite honestly, scares me. Because what they are implying is if they didn't think I had a supernatural Daddy to say, "I'm going to torment you forever if you murder or rape." they would murder and rape people.

That's just sad and I'll explain why.

Because, if this is a question to you, you don't have empathy yet. You are still a child who wants does anything you want, regardless of others, but only doesn't because your parents will punish you if you do so.

Most humans once growing to an adult begins to realize they are not the center of the universe. Others have thoughts and feelings, just as you do. You begin to have the emotion known as empathy. Caring for the other.

~

You talk about Navy Seals. Basically condoning putting them though "pure hell" to prepare them for battle. There are a few things that are differ from the Job story.

A. Soldiers choose to go to war. Job did not choose to have his family slaughtered.

B. The military doesn't kill soldier's families.

Illogical comparison already. But we'll see if we can make it work.

Working for something is completely different than being punished for something that you didn't do.

If the Army killed a soldier's family to put him though a "test" then they would be absolutely wrong. Much like my statement with the boss doing that to the employee.

In fact, that's almost my exact scenario except change it to suit the army.

Questions Con Must answer?

If the Army murdered a soldier's family to put him though a test would they be: right or wrong? Why?

~

"It becomes a logical fallacy to judge an omniscient being."

Basically because he's "god". Or to put it bluntly, because... "REASONS".

That's not an answer. You're saying, "We can't judge someone we don't understand because we don't understand."

I contend that we do understand, we just don't agree. Yahweh wanted to torture Job even when he obeyed him. Why did he do this? To make sure Job still feared him.

When Job begins to use his mind and question if what Yahweh is doing is right or wrong, Yahweh immediately states that he is morality by definition, because he is so powerful you can not judge him.

That is exactly what extremist groups believe. Don't question if this is right or wrong. Only, obey.

~

Question's answered:

1. What is morality? It's empathy. Caring for the other.

The Golden Rule.

A. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
B. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.
C. What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself.

How did we get this golden rule? After all, if we evolved and our only goal was to further our genes then we should all rape and kill each other! Right?

Wrong. Society evolved over time, realizing that if we work together then we have a better chance at surviving.

Thus empathy evolved the basic idea, "I don't kill you, you don't kill me and we both live." That goes for rape, stealing and everything else. If I don't like it, they probably wouldn't either.

2. What is it based on? Evolution.

We are all trying to survive, thus the better we socially interact the better our chances are for survival.

Oh and by the way, Evolution is not a "religion" it's just common sense. I can get along better with you, if I don't hit you over the head and take your stuff.

3. Why should we adhere to this definition? Because it makes sense.

If you went out and started killing everyone and raping everyone, then that would be irrational. Because you wouldn't like it if someone killed you or raped you? Right?

Plus, you have a better chance of surviving if you don't do that, because others would undoubtedly stop you because you were acting like a crazy person.

It all goes back to empathy.

Video for you:

https://www.youtube.com...

Questions Con must answer:

Do you care for other people? Or do you just not want to be tormented forever?

~

Even if Yahweh knew the future, (Which why would he ask the questions of where the Devil was if he already knew? Is God just going though the motions of being not omniscient? If so, why?) how does it make it just to murder people and torture someone just because you know he'd make it though your persecution?

Question Con must answer:

If I'm a doctor and I want to conduct an experiment of how well a soldier can withstand torture and push him to his very limit, but don't kill him, is that moral?

~

You start talking about Jesus Christ, which is not what we were discussing. Also it's kind of silly because it's trying to distract us from the point of: is Yahweh immoral?

It's an attempt to say this: "Jesus saved us and taught a much more liberal message of love and stuff, so don't pay attention to his father, cause Jesus loves us!"

Yahweh forced Jesus to be tortured and die. This is fact if you look at the text.

Luke 22:42

"Saying, Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done."

To put it into understandable English, "Dad, have you thought this through? They are going to torture and kill me. I don't really want to get tortured or killed. I know you'll resurrect me but still being tortured and killed is kind of a lot to ask. But if this is asking too much, that's fine, I'll do it."

Jesus didn't want to be crucified. Just like everyone else.

But he just followed Yahweh because he was completely indoctrinated. Yahweh makes up the rules and by definition they are good.

~

Yahweh had to hit the redo button several times on saving humanity, so I'm not sure how much he sees into the future.

Mainly because he doesn't exist. He is just a means for evil people to hold power.
brontoraptor

Con

Pro:
"Golden rule"


And God, in Christ, went through the same fiery trials to prove what He really was.


Let's look through the eyes of God.


God: "Looking back would I want to be tried and tested and found faithful and true, even unto death?"


Answer: Yes.


*


Pro:
"Dad, have you thought this through? They are going to torture and kill me. I don't really want to get tortured or killed."


Christ wasn't forced to do anything.


"No one can take my life from me. I sacrifice it voluntarily. For I have the authority to lay it down when I want to and also to take it up again."
(John 10:18)


*


"Soldiers choose to go to war. Job did not."


I disagree with this statement. He did go to war. It wasn't a physical battle, but it was a battle He chose to fight.


*


If the Army murdered a soldier's family to put him though a test would they be: right or wrong? Why?


God didn't exact murder on anyone in the story. Pro is ignoring one of the agents in the story. God saw the final outcome beyond this life. The final outcome was good, thus it was allowed to happen. This is where omniscience comes in. If you know the eternal outcome of a loss is good, are you morally obligated to stop the loss, or are you morally obligated to allow the loss?


In the movie "Bruce Allmighty" God tells Bruce that "if you want to paint pictures like this, sometimes you have to use dark colors". If there is no darkness, there is nothing to overcome. If there is no darkness, there is no proof that we are good without facing darkness. Without darkness, there would have been no way for us to watch God prove that He loved us.


I believe Pro adheres to a black and white version of reality.


1)Just make everyone good.


Then they don't have a choice. They do not love you.


2)Make life easy.


Then we don't know that we even love one another. We've never had to sacrifice for one another or prove the depth of our love.


*


Pro:
"Wrong. Society evolved over time, realizing that if we work together then we have a better chance at surviving.


Thus empathy evolved the basic idea, "I don't kill you, you don't kill me and we both live." That goes for rape, stealing and everything else. If I don't like it, they probably wouldn't either.


What is it based on? Evolution."


-


I disagree. There are almost 2 billion Muslims who believe in Sharia Law. This is why Europe is having an "immigration crisis". The values of Islam and the values of the West conflict. Sharia and Democracy are completely inconsistant with pne another. Every Western nation was nearly 100% Christian as of less than a century ago. What Pro is relating morality to is the cultural views of the historically Christianized area he lives in. If he had been born in Saudi Arabia, beheadings, mutilations, and rape would take on another dimension in his thinking.


*


Pro:
"Mainly because he doesn't exist."


There is good reason to believe otherwise.


-The equations used to describe the universe are binary error self correcting Hammin's code.




-A bright flash of light marks the incredible moment life begins when the sperm meets the egg.




-Fermi Paradox
-Drake Equation
-Kalam Argument
-Unmoved mover philosophy
-Regresses of infinite causality


*


Pro:
"Why would he ask the questions of where the Devil was if he already knew?"


It's a rhetorical question. I see you watching football. I ask,"What are you doing?" I already know what you are doing. I have engaged you with a rhetorical question.


*


Pro:
"You start talking about Jesus Christ, which is not what we were discussing."


I think Pro may have me confused with a Jehovah's Witness. There is no "daddy". There is just God Himself.


The Father and the Son are the same being. Jesus IS Yahweh.


(John 14:9)
"Jesus answered: "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."


The Father is God. The Son is God in human form tempted, tried, and refined just as are all men. This is why He is given the crown. He had to prove worthy of it even according to Himself.
(Isaiah 9:6)
(John 1:1)
(John 1:14)
(John 5:18)
(John 10:30-33)
(Collosians 2:9)
(Phillipians 2:5-11)
(Hebrews 1:8)
(Matthew 28:9)
(Acts 7:59)
(Isaiah 44:6)
(Revelation 1:17)


*


Pro:
"If the Army murdered a soldier's family to put him though a test would they be: right or wrong? Why?"


Pro is welcome to give us the chapter and verse where God killed Job's family.


*


"It's an attempt to say this: "Jesus saved us and taught a much more liberal message of love and stuff, so don't pay attention to his father, cause Jesus loves us!"


The Lord is the same in the Old Testament.
Deuteronomy 10:12
What does the Lord your God require of you, but to fear the Lord your God, to walk in all his ways, to love him, to serve the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.


Deuteronomy 6:5
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.


Proverbs 8:17
I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me.

Isaiah 65:24
Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear.


Psalm 34:18
The Lord is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit.


Isaiah 55:6-7
Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.


Psalm 9:10
And those who know your name put their trust in you, for you, O Lord, have not forsaken those who seek you.


God has preached the same message from then until now .


*


Pro still has the burden of telling us what morality is, what he bases it on, and why we should adopt it as the definitive version of morality.
Debate Round No. 2
RyanV

Pro

"What do we all base our morality on?"

~

"Christ is Yahweh"

You maintain Yahweh became Christ so that he could be tested in every way that he tests everyone correct?

I know a lot of people believe that, but to me it's kind of silly because if so, Yahweh talks to him self.

Matthew 3:17 "And a voice from heaven said, "This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy."

You're going to bring up that the Trinity and "god" is like a triangle with the Father, Son, and the Spirit being separate but together.

That already is an illogical, when you say separate but together. Then you say, "It's beyond human comprehension."

So I can't understand it, but I should believe it, because I can't understand it. That makes no sense.

Example Bob says, "I rode my pink unicorn to work." Alan sees Bob's car right there and replies, "No you didn't." Then Bob says, "Alan, you can't comprehend my pink unicorn, that's why you can't see it. You just have to believe."

Question's the Con must answer:

Who is the crazy one in pink unicorn analogy? Bob or Alan?

~

Looking though the eyes of Yahweh.

Yahweh: "Looking back would I want to be tried and tested and found faithful and true even unto death? Answer: Yes.

Where are you getting this scripture? I don't think it's from the Bible. I think you made that up.

Plus we can't understand the mind of Yahweh remember? Thus we can't look though his eyes, according to you.

~

Con: "Christ wasn't forced to do anything."

Then you don't believe in Luke 22:42 "Saying, Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me. Nevertheless, not my will, but yours, be done."

It's very clear he didn't want to be crucified.

~

Con: "Job chose to fight."

You're referring to fighting evil, sin or the Satan right?

Well, Satan couldn't attack Job before because:

Job 1:10 "You have always put a wall of protection around him and his home and his property. You have made him prosper in everything he does. Look how rich he is!"

He has a wall around him. When Yahweh lifts that wall of protection the horrific problems start.

If Job was fighting a battle, Yahweh started the war and let the enemy come in to "test" him.

That's not a good commander, let alone "god".

~

Con: "God didn't exact murder on anyone in the story. Pro is ignoring one of the agents in the story. God saw the final outcome beyond this life. The final outcome was good, thus it was allowed to happen. This is where omniscience comes in. If you know the eternal outcome of a loss is good, are you morally obligated to stop the loss, or are you morally obligated to allow the loss?"

The ends justify the means or utilitarian philosophy.

Definition of Utilitarian Philosophy: "Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility in maximizing happiness or pleasure as summed among all people. It is, then, the total utility of individuals which is important here, the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."

Video about the Trolley problem:

https://www.youtube.com...

What you contend, is Yahweh is a utilitarian believing if we are tested, we will learn something from the test thus be follow him.

The problem is he is the one causing the problem. He allows Satan to murder Job's family and workers. If Yahweh was a true utilitarian, he would realize that he is causing others grief as well, not just Job. What about all the families of all the workers?

They can't live without their provider. But of course this is a test to them too right?

Wrong. It's murder if you invite someone to commit murder. You are an accessory.

Job 1:12 The Lord replied, "All right, Satan, do what you want with anything that belongs to him, but don"t harm Job." Then Satan left.

Yahweh chooses to let bad things happen. I'm not saying to have him interfere with human's doing bad things to each other here.

All I'm saying is, if he hadn't have lifted the wall from around Job, basically leaving him alone, his workers and his family would still have been alive.

~

Con: " If there is no darkness, there is no proof that we are good without facing darkness. Without darkness, there would have been no way for us to watch God prove that He loved us. "

So if I don't try and drowned my kid every week, then at the last second save him, he won't know to love me?

Being mean to someone isn't preparing them. It's just being mean. We go though enough bad stuff without Yahweh saying, "I need to put you though more bad stuff, so you can love me!"

Maybe, this is just too simple for Yahweh, but how about being nice, then we might love him?

Just a thought.

~

Con: "I believe Pro adheres to a black and white version of reality."

I'm shocked any religious person would say this, to answer the question, I don't. I know there are varying degrees of good and evil in everyone including Yahweh.

I'd say that this passage is pretty messed up,

Deuteronomy 22:28 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

But then this is really good,

Mark 12:31 "The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."

It all comes down to the base of morality. Empathy.

~

I don't want Yahweh to "Make everyone good" or "Make life easy". When did I ever say that?

Not wanting Yahweh to send Satan to kill our families or destroy our lively hoods is different than saying he should "perfect" us.

~

"There are almost 2 billion Muslims who believe in Sharia Law."

The Catholics at one time oppressed people. How is it different? Religion makes monsters out of us all. Thanks for proving my point.

Democracy is a relativity new idea. A lot of it coming from the enlightenment age. Most religions tell you not to question authority.

Mark 12:17 "Jesus said to them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar"s, and to God the things that are God"s." And they marveled at him."

Of course Sharia is against Democracy so is every religious totalitarian society. Even in our own country, we had Jim Crow laws which treated minorities as second class citizens. Half the population was also oppressed until the women's rights movements.

Democracy is a form of secularism. It's not Christian. Christians have nothing to do with it. In fact they have been fighting against it. Christians agreed with slavery, oppressing women, and mistreatment of minorities. No not all do, but it's taken a long time to get there.

This proves my democratic values have nothing to do with being Christianized.

~

Because we are in "gods" computer?

How do you know it's Yahweh?

Flashes of light must be "god". Riiight.

You can't prove aliens! I never said I wanted to. All we say is it's a possibility. We even say "god" is a possibility. However improbable.

~

Yahweh allows Job's family to be killed,

Job 1:12 The Lord said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger."

You ignored my bases for my morality because I already gave it to you.

The Golden Rule.
A. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
B. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.
C. What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself.

You didn't answer this:

If Yahweh told you that he wanted you to murder every unbeliever you came across, would you do it? Because if it comes from "god" it must be moral right?

A. If your answer is yes, then you are just like the extremists in Isis, who you condemn.

B. If your answer is no, then you are questioning the authority of "god" to determine what is moral or immoral.

Religious people do what ever "god" tells them. Human beings use empathy to see another person's point of view.

What is your morality?
brontoraptor

Con

Pro:
"That already is an illogical, when you say separate but together. Then you say, "It's beyond human comprehension."

Not really. God transcends our sense of time because He put it in motion. If I went back in time and came upon my 5 year old self, I could watch over him, talk to him, even watch him go live his own life. Are we the same being? Yes. 2 individual entities. One being.

*

Pro:
"Plus we can't understand the mind of Yahweh remember? Thus we can't look though his eyes, according to you."

I've not made any such point in this debate.

*

Pro:
"It's very clear he didn't want to be crucified."

I don't particularly want to get up and take my daughter school in the morning, but I still willingly do it.

*

Pro:
"That's not a good commander, let alone "god".

Pro looks like he would have very undisciplined children.

*

Pro:
"Utilitarianism"

God never promised an easy or even happy life in this world, but in the next. Christ is referred to as a man of sorrow.

*

Pro:
"Yahweh chooses to let bad things happen."

That's what happens with free will. If you figure out how to get free will and no bad things, you let me know.

*

Pro:
"All I'm saying is, if he hadn't have lifted the wall from around Job..."

Pro is assuming God cannot possibly know or see something that he does not. God is omniscient. Job and his family are doing great now. Pro can tell us how this is a problem seeing Job and God know exactly where they stand with each other.

*

Pro:
"Being mean to someone isn't preparing them. It's just being mean."

This is semantics. It depends what you are being prepared for.

*

Pro:
"Maybe, this is just too simple for Yahweh, but how about being nice, then we might love him?"

The story of Satan is provided to show it doesn't work. Spare the rod, soil the child. This mentality begats nothing but spoiled, ungrateful brats.

*

Deuteronomy 22:28
Which is a punishment to the man, not the woman. He still had to have her father hand her over. It was a betrothing system. Pro is entangled with thoughts of modern romance. This is how agreements were made at the time. God protected the woman from being left to die by a man who ditched her after he took what he wanted. Society put no value on women. God did.

*

Pro:
"Not wanting Yahweh to send Satan...."

This life is temporary. Satan's power is temporary. The final outcome is being tried and refined.

*

Pro:
"The Catholics at one time oppressed people."

So have atheists. It doesn't reflect Christ. It reflects on the oppressor if their actions are contrary to God's commands.

*

Pro:
"Even in our own country, we had Jim Crow laws which treated minorities as second class citizens. Half the population was also oppressed until the women's rights movements."

And these things were over come by appeals to Christianity. Martin Luther King argued rights from our creator. Women's sufferage appealed to Christianity. Guess what? Secular man was not appealed to. Secular man acts like Stalin, Mussolini, and Mao Tse Tsung.

*

Con:
"This proves my democratic values have nothing to do with being Christianized."

False. "Rights endowed by our creator." - Decleration of Independance

http://www.ushistory.org...

*

Pro:
"How do you know it's Yahweh?"

http://www.debate.org...

*

Pro:
"If Yahweh told you that he wanted you to murder every unbeliever you came across, would you do it? Because if it comes from "god" it must be moral right?"

I don't subscribe to the Quran which says to kill you. Our Lord said turn the other cheek, love our enemies, and do not return evil with evil. It would be inconsistant with His nature and mine.

*

Pro:
"If your answer is no, then you are questioning the authority of "god" to determine what is moral or immoral."

This is a false dichotomy. This assumes God and myself as some kind of absolute zero. Everyone questions things. We choose whether we obey or not. The imaginary scenario is just that. Imaginary. God did not command Satan. Satan chose to do what he did, God allowed it to justify condemnation of Satan, and Job's family was fine in the end.

*

Besides. The story is obviously an allegory to give us strength and comfort during adversity understanding that there is a reason for everything. Most of God's stories are not literal.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: princearchitect// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources), 1 points to Pro ( S&G). Reasons for voting decision: I must tip my hat to both Pro and Con. This was a very spirited debate, I truly enjoyed it, I thank you both. Who had better conduct? I had to leave that as a tied because both had good clean conduct in the debate. I give the slight edge to spelling and grammar to Pro. Pro asked a lot of good solid questions, but I think done a superb job answering them. I was going to leave reliable sources as a tie as it was a few youtube videos, but Con did use a few other sources in the debate so I give him the edge in that. In my final conclusion a slight advantage to Con. But it was a solid debate.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G, just restating the point allocation. (2) Asking and answering questions may be a part of evaluating arguments, but the voter does have to specifically assess points made by both sides and explain how they contributed to the overall debate. (3) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than dismiss Youtube videos off-hand and reference some unknown "other sources" as a reason for awarding these points. The voter has to establish their quality and relevance to the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by Blastcat 9 months ago
Blastcat
I LOVE the boss analogy.

The Con side doesn't seem to notice it.

Invisible pixels?
Posted by Dicernment 9 months ago
Dicernment
Job is about pride. Job had pride in thinking he was righteous. Job prayed, gave money, sacrificed animals daily in case his kids committed sin. God hates pride which is why God allowed the devil to mess with job. God wanted to test jobs faith all ready knowing job would pass the test. Job lost everything and job was mad with God because he though he was the best and most religious person ever to exist. But gob wanted to remind job he needed to help the needy, the poor, the widows and fatherless children. And before the story end God doubled everything job had before.
No votes have been placed for this debate.