The Instigator
Castaway
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
JohnDoe360
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God as a Biblical Figure is Evil

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Castaway
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 638 times Debate No: 97692
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

Castaway

Pro

God, as a figure in the Bible, is clearly an evil figure by any reasonable form of morality. This is a figure that genocides entire people, a figure that created man knowing they would sin and setting it up so they would fail, supports slavery and supports the killing of people for minor offenses that aren't even wrong like gay sex. This is a figure who is clearly evil.

To begin, he is a mass murderer. Many a time, God has wiped out entire people. The whole world during the time of Noah, the first-borns of Egypt during the time of Moses and many more. He has killed countless undeserving innocents, and for this, he is an evil figure.

Secondly, he has enforced horrible laws. He allows slavery and supports the branding of slaves and having people born into slavery, he supported the stoning of adulterers, the killing of gays and the death of those who refuse to follow him. The laws he had enforced are cruel and sadistic, and for this he is an evil figure.

Third, God is a sadistic torturer. God is so cruel, he has deemed every single human being deserving of being horribly tortured in hell. He has sentenced scores of people to this unimaginably evil torment for crimes as small as not believing in him. This is a despicable and evil thing to do, and he is an evil character for doing so.
JohnDoe360

Con

This is my first debate, so here it goes. To start off, we both must argue from the Christian viewpoint. It is important to distinguish the attitude of God between the old and new testament. In the old testament, everyone was under "the law" The law was a particular set of impossible rules that was meant to show the Jews' need of God. It is impossible to follow to the letter.

The first instance you bring up is the time of Noah. Genesis 6:5-6 says "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart." The people on the earth at this point were not good. There were terrible people. God is a loving, merciful God. He is also just. Evil can only reign for so long. Imaging how grieved God was when he saw his creation utterly evil and against their intended purpose. He decreed that the only way was to wipe the Earth clean. Why didn't he snap his fingers and make everyone good again? God does not forcefully convert people.

Second, you say he enforced horrible laws. For future reference, I would like you to cite sources from the Bible if you will. To clarify, God did not send Jesus to fix the world, but to offer salvation. Yes, sin still reigned and reigns as God is sovereign. If God stopped one type of sin, who would decide which ones he would and would not stop? Notice the difference between civil and moral laws as well. It was a civil law that stoning adulterers was required. The Bible is as much of a history book as well as a moral compass. Just because something happens does not mean God enforces it. This is known as moral vs royal decree.

You third point is based on the fact that you believe God sentenced man. God gave man everything he could want. Man did not worry about what to eat, what to wear, or where to live. Man lived in perfect harmony with the world and with God. That is until Adam and Eve wanted to be equal to God. Their pride caused their downfall. God is loving. he provides redemption for all who would ask. Romans 6:23 says " For the wages of sin is death." God is also a just God. Sin cannot and will not go unpunished. There must be death to atone for sin. That can either be your death or that of Jesus's sacrifice so that we are released from the bonds of sin.
Debate Round No. 1
Castaway

Pro

Terrific, well I wish you the best of luck.

Alright, so my opponent fails to address the killing of the first-borns of Egypt, which I would strongly like him to address. Secondly, when God flooded the world, we have to deal with two prime issues. One, what about everything else on Earth? The vast majority of animals were drowned, as well as all the innocent children that were around at the time. Why would God conndemn these people to drowning? Why didn't he just turn all the sinners to salt so he wouldn't have to do this? Why did he kill indiscriminately? As well as this, the bible claims that God was sorry that he had made man. In other words, he regretted it. An all-knowing, or omniscient being cannot feel regret, seeing as it would know every single consequence of its action. So for God to have wiped out man, he must have had it planned from the start. As well as this, we have many other examples. Numbers 31:17 has the killing of innocents, as does Hosea 13:16 that involves murdering pregnant women and children, 1 Samuel 15:3, Psalms 137:9, Judges 11:30-40 and many more examples have the same killing of innocent children. Care to explain these?

Secondly, to cite a few sources as requested, I'll focus on slavery, and toss out Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21L7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5 and Timothey 6:1-2 all show times where God gives rules and promotes slavery. This is not something happening, this is the word of God enforcing it, this is God giving command to allow it. In Leviticus 20:10, God says that adulterers should be killed. This is not a history lesson of things that were occurring: these are the rules of God. "Leviticus 21:9 is for fornicating priest daughters to be burnt alive, These are just a few examples of not historic rules, but rules given by God.

Thirdly, we have my opponent claiming that God gave man everything he could want. No, that's simply not true. God gave this to two people. Two single people, and for their failure, we are punished. Can you imagine if I were to blame all black people because one black person mugged me? That would be despicable. No, God is still sentencing all men to awful, terrible afterlives. Great, loving men who did loads to help their fellow man are in Gods eyes deserving of burning alive, forever, and if they didn't accept him, that's what they got. How is that fair? Great, loving people sentenced to be burnt forever simply because they believed in a different God, or none at all. To say that they're deserving to be burnt alive is cruel and sadistic.

As well as this, I'd like to further bring up God's omniscience. Man is a curious creature. If scripture is to be believed, this curious nature, or proud nature, led to them eating the apple. When God was designing man, he gave them these features. He made man proud, knowing that if he made them this way they would eat the apple. God designed a faulty product, and blamed it for being faulty. How is that fair?
JohnDoe360

Con

First, to understand the killing of the firstborn, a history must be presented. Exodus 1: 8-11 8 Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, "Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. 10 Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land." 11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses." To start off the bat, this Pharaoh purposely set his people to discriminate against the Israelites. The Israelites were God's chosen people. God specifically set them aside and acted as their personal guard and leader. These people were being subjugated as punishment for turning away from God. Now, God sent Moses to tell the king that the time for subjugation is over, and to let the Israelites go. For added punishment, the Pharaoh set about killing EVERY BOY born to the Israelites. Because of Pharaoh"s refusal to release the Hebrews, God sent 10 plagues that kept getting worse and worse. There are important things to note here. First, this was a last resort. All plagues could have been precluded by the simple act of letting their slaves go. No such luck. Second, this did not happen without warning. The people of Egypt did not randomly wake up one morning to find all their children dead. God not only send nine other plagues, he even warned Pharaoh that if he did not let the Hebrews go, this would happen. Also, in this time and place, it was common for an entire family to be punished for one member's mistake. When Pharaoh killed all Hebrew boys, he implicitly agreed that it is morally okay for his peoples' children to die as well.
Next, the Bible says that the "Earth was corrupted" meaning that the entire Earth that God had made had turned against him so much so that his people, the righteous, were not safe. To show you how corrupt the Earth was, there was only one family, Noah's, that were righteous. Second, the animal's lives do not matter. They do not have a soul, they are not held to the same standard as humanity during any point in time. If you had to shoot a cat or a baby, no mentally sane one would chose to shoot the baby. As for the means (the flood), I cannot speak as to why God chose that way. What I do know is that Noah all this time was preaching to others that the ark was their only means of salvation, but they would not listen. This is another example of people punishing themselves because they would not obey. About regretting man. This assumes that God will not or could not lament over a state of affairs that he brought about. That is neither true in our experience nor His. Second, this also assumes that God cannot lament something He did and at the same time affirming it as the best solution. If I spank my son and he runs away from home, I may feel remorse for the spanking, not because of what I did, but because I felt it a necessary part of dealing with a situation. Looking back, I would spank him again even if it meant a season of alienation. I approve the spanking, and at the same time regret the spanking. This is running long so I will talk about Numbers 31:17. The Israelites began mingling with this group known for their idol worship and harlotry, and are now being punished for it. In this passage, it reads " Now therefore kill every boy, and kill every woman who has had sexual intercourse with a man." A common theme of Ba'al worship is sexual indulgence. The Midianite virgins were those that were obviously not involved in the immorality of Ba'al worship and were therefore spared. As for the boys, I can only assume this was for warfare. Maybe the boys would unite together when they were older and attack Israel for the deaths of their family.

Next I will reference Leviticus 25. "slavery" in that time was different from the recent southern slaves. Many people sold themselves into slavery. If one was in debt, they could sell themselves to the one they are in debt to until they are able to pay it off. Also, many people were bond slaves, which means they pledged to be a slave for live, because their slave life was better than their life as a free man. If you read the verses right before it, you will see that God put safeguards in place to protect the "slaves". In this type of slavery, slavery was used for protection. Also, they were treated as a "hired worker" and not an object. Also, it had a specific time or price. One that stipulation was resolved, the individual was free again. Now, why didn't the owner charge the slave more so that he will be forever indebted to him? Because God said not to! "You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit."

Last, the fact of sin. Sin existed before Adam and Eve and the garden of Eden when Satan rebelled from God. Once Adam sinned, "sin entered the world." The world was corrupted then. All of existence was corrupted. When they sinned, a separation came between man and God that did not previously exist before, as no one or thing prior to this point had rebelled against God. This paved the way first for sacrifice and then Jesus's death. The ethic part of your argument fallaciously equates the circumstances. You are referencing a small sect of humanity instead of an ingrained part of humanity as a whole. It is better to think if you were an all-powerful being and your creation was perfect: not a blemish in sight. Then, they defiled themselves in some way. You forgave them, but they are no longer perfect. These great, loving men have their soul set apart from God. They subconsciously have turned away from Him and rejected Him. They may be good by your standards, but they are not righteous. Righteousness is what absolves you of your sins and grants you everlasting life. All men in heaven are righteous, but not all were good.

For your last point, again, incorrect assumption. You assume that God created men prideful. You also equate curious nature with prideful nature, which is not true. God decreed that pride is one of the seven deadly sins. How then could he make humans prideful? He didn't. Pride was a result of sin entering into the world.

For the last round, I ask that you specifically name one or two passages in the Bible per point, as you can see it takes quite a while to explain it. Also, it is important that you define the words good, innocent, evil, great, bad, and stuff like that. if not, we will be referencing two different meaning and a fallacy of equivocation will occur.
Debate Round No. 2
Castaway

Pro

OK, to begin, yes, you make a fair point that the Pharaoh was a bad person. Sure, whatever. What's your point? The adult egyptians did bad things. The Pharoah did bad things. God didn't kill them. He killed the babies, the innocent children. Murdering someone's kids in response to them being evil is not moral. The children did nothing wrong, and even if their parents were the worst people to ever exist, killing the kids is still immoral. They made no choices in this. You say in this time and place, it was common. I guess so. So what? That doesn't mean if I had a time machine and went to Nazi Germany it was fine for me to murder Jews. Whether it was common or not doesn't stop it from being a despicable act God did. Also, he had other options. He's all powerful. He could've killed the Pharoah instead of the kids. He could've frozen the Egyptians in place while the Hebrews walked away. He could've teleported them out. He had literally infinite options.

You say animals' lives do not matter. Does that mean if I was to just start drowning puppies, you'd be OK with that? That's a moral thing to do? Of course it's not. Animals do deserve rights, and they shouldn't needlessly suffer, and for God to have done so for no reason is despicable. Sure, no one would shoot a baby over a cat, but that's not the question. The question is if you'd kill the cat when you didn't need to, and no sane person would. Also, remorse is to feel regret, to wish to take back doing something. You wouldn't feel remorse about something if you would've done the same thing. For God to have been omniscient, God would've had to plan for the flood to occur as he created the universe.

So you admit that yes, God condones the killing of children, an evil action. Killing children because they might grow up to fight you is not a moral thing. You don't respond to the other examples that show pregnant women and unborn children being murdered either, which remains a great evil God has done.

Some slaves sold themselves into slavery, sure. But as those passages say, people can be born into slavery, never to leave. Women will never be free of slavery, and non-Hebrews can easily be enslaved. God says you can beat your slaves to death as long as they don't die within a few days, and you're allowed to brand them. This is insanely immoral and a horrible act. The fact that some slaves sold themselves into it does not excuse the rest of the attrocities.

So sin in an ingrained part of humanity as a whole? Hence, you're saying it's something we were designed with, IE something that God is responsible for. The fact remains, that God made man proud, knowing they would sin. He created the human race knowing that we would sin. He's as responsible as I would be for murder if I created a terminator to kill my enemies. God created man knowing they would sin, and is thus responsible for it.

These men are most definitely good. Dedicating yourself to helping humanity is good. To say that great champions of charity deserve to be burnt alive forever is a horrible sentence that no loving being could give another. If my child rejected me and told me he hates me, I'd be hurt. I wouldn't track my son down with a can of gasoline and a box of matches. Anyone who did would be despicable.

So what caused Adam to eat the apple? Whatever part of Adam that caused him to do so was designed in him by God, thus making him responsible. When God made Adam, he knew he would sin, yet he didn't change anything about the design. Thus, God is responsible.

I don't think you've refuted any of the bible passages I've made, and my points haven't changed, so they still stand and I don't feel the need to add no ones.

Good are virtuous things, like helping others. Evil is negative things, like hurting others. Innocence is something that has not done anything relative to whats happening to them, although it seems far too late in the debate to be asking for defintions of these things.

To sum up, God is evil. As my opponent admits, he murders the first-born of Egypt for the actions of their parents, blaming them for something they didn't do. That is evil, and my opponent has failed to defend it by claiming it was OK at the time or the parents were really bad, which justifies nothing .

God drowned countless animals during the flood, which again is evil. My opponent attempts to push this aside by acting like drowning animals is not a bad thing, but any rational being can tell it is. He tries to say human lives are more important, which they are, but that's not relevant, as God is all-powerful so he didn't need to kill the animals. God is an animal-abuser.

God encourages slavery in Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Exodus 21L7-11, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5 and Timothey 6:1, in which God says you can beat your slaves to death if they don't die until after a few days, in which he says you can be born into slavery for life, you can be made a slave for life, you can be branded and more. He brings up cases where slavery isn't necessarily bad, as if that somehow justifies all these cases where it obviously is. God is pro-slavery. No child should be born a slave.

God is a child murderer, as shown in Numbers 31:17, Hosea 13:16, 1 Samuel 15:3, Psalms 137:9, Judges 11:30-40, all of which my opponent has failed to refute my dismissing the murder of innocents or ignoring them.

God is a brutal enforcer of horrible rules such as Leviticus 21:9 where fornicating priest daughters are ordered to be burnt alive. These are unjust, horrible rules that should not exist.

God is the cause of all sin. Either through creating the devil or Adam, before he created them, God knew what he would do. God knew Satan and Adam would both betray him, yet made them the way they were with no changes. God designed Adam and Satan knowing they would sin. Imagine you get in a car, but the breaks fail and kill you. Whose fault is it? The car's builders and designers. Imagine if as they were building it, they knew it would fail and kill you. Would that not be evil?

Through these points, I have explained that God is irrefutably evil. My opponent has failed to refute this points, either pushing off the burden of guilt on others such as blaming the Pharoah for God's actions or downplaying the evil such as with slavery, drowning animals, murdering children and knowingly creating that which would create sin. With this, it's evident: God is evil. Thank you.
JohnDoe360

Con

The point is that the firstborns' deaths were a last resort to the atrocities committed by Pharaoh. Firstborns were set aside at birth to be given to God, which is why the firstborns were the ones affected. If you read one or two chapters ahead, you would read that God did indeed kill the Pharaoh and his army. God has moral authority over life that we humans do not have. In Christian theology, no one is good, like you claim. No one is innocent. We are all born into sin and that sin must be absolved in some way or another. Your qualm is the fact that these humans died young rather than died later. Romans reads " I raised you up for this reason so that I may display My power in you and that My name may be proclaimed in all the earth. " God has given each person life for a different reason. These children were given life so that God's power would be shown through their death. If your issue is the fact that they died young, when is a proper age to die? Why does God let anyone die ever? Many churches hold to the doctrine of age of accountability, which states that if a child cannot comprehend the Gospel, God forgives their sin and they are absolved of their sin. God took these children, demonstrated his power through them, and then took them to heaven to be with him. To argue that living on the Earth rather than this would be absurd. God took the lives of those that would come back to him in heaven rather than ending the lives of those that weren't in order to give them one last chance at salvation. I said in this time and place it was common for a whole family to bear the punishment of one member. The Holocaust is a terrible analogy. Most of the Germans had no idea what was going on, making it NOT common. That was a vile act enacted upon the Jews by a small percentage of Germans. He could have done it a different way. He could have forced Pharaoh to kill everyone in Egypt. He could have sent a flying horse to rescue the Israelites. He could have done several things, but he didn't. How do you know that any other solution would have been better? You do not, and neither do I. The old testament has many places where punishment is seen. It was a very much "tit-for-tat" type of society. If you crossed or disobeyed God, you would get punished.

I meant that in this instance the animal's lives did not matter, as the preservation of the entire human race was in the balance. You say the question is whether I would kill the cat if I did not need to. Do you have a better plan? Are you to build a larger boat to fit the millions and millions of animals that were alive there? This was a total restart. All the righteous people were gathered on the boat along with what they would need to repopulate the earth, and no more. The animals" lives did not matter in this instance. If you went and drowned puppies, that would be wrong, as you had no need of doing it. This was a total war against the Earth itself. God brought an animal of each kind, and the animals we see today are a byproduct of evolution. Why did God not teleport animals into the future when Noah's family landed? Who can say. It is not normal for God to supernaturally intervene. Yes, I know there are Many places in the Bible where he does, but if you look at how long the Bible and the Earth have existed, then those times seem insignificant. Most of the time, he allows free will to take its course and punishes those people consequently. Also, it is the parents fault that their children were killed, not only did they have ample warning, but even after God provided a way out. If they sacrificed an animal and covered the doorway with blood, their children would be spared. The parents and Pharaoh himself indirectly killed their children.

The word for regret in this passage translates to "repent." as I have stated, God does not repent like man does. As you have not brought up new points nor refuted my earlier points, I will continue. Second, you do not act as the moral authority. What if God saw that the boys would grow up and kill all the Israelites? Is it better for the Israelites to wait for the boys to grow up then kill them? Would you have them held prisoner until the age of 21 just to be executed? If you are debating morality, that seems immoral.

I did not admit God condones the killing of children. God condones the act of exercising his authority over every living thing on the Earth in order to call many to salvation. The Israelites"' children"s' deaths were the parents' fault. That may seem cruel, but if you were in Egypt and in that time saw all the water being turned into blood, saw frogs take over the city, saw lice take over the city, saw locust take over the city, saw the livestock die, saw boils break out amongst the people, hail and fire reign down from the heavens, saw flies take over the city, and saw absolute and complete darkness engulf Egypt for three days, how idiotic would you have to be to not believe that A. God would punish you more severely, and B. not protect you children? How long did they think this was going to go on? Did they think that God would just bother them until they let the Hebrews go?

I did not respond because you took random verses from the Bible and used them as arguing points without understanding anything about them. It takes too long to educate you on every single one of them, so I focused on two that YOU chose. If you chose them, why are you unable to refute me counterargument against them?

Your next point is a fallacy of Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc. You incorrectly say that because it is ingrained in humanity, we were designed with it. If you read my previous statement, we were not designed with it, rather, after The Fall, it was then ingrained within us. We are responsible for our sin. The fact remains that we were NOT designed to be proud. You cannot repeat your statement after I argued against it and expect that to count as a rebuttal. Another incorrect analogy. If you created some sort of machine that was meant to worship you and live in communion with you, and I came along and reprogrammed it, that would suffice.

What caused Adam to eat the apple? Satan's temptation. Curiosity is not a sin. The act of carrying it out is. God did not change anything about the design because, again, Adam was created perfect. It was only after Satan entered the garden and corrupted them that they were rendered sinful. I realize it was too late to ask for definitions, which is why in round 1 I said you must argue within Christian theology.

I feel I have refuted the 10th plague by demonstrating the murder was indirectly committed by the parents. I did not say that this was okay, I said that it was common for the family to bear the consequence. As for why God chose the enact the flood the way he did, I cannot say. Why didn't he chose a plan where the sea creatures died and the land animals did not?
God saved the righteous, which did not include the animals. I said that the term slavery was used in a much, much broader definition that it is used today. I already talked about Leviticus, but I will choose one more for the fun. Exodus. This verse gives rules as to how slaves are to be treated. Just because God gave rules about something does not mean that He condones it. Exodus 21:12-14 gives rules about murder, but God does not condone murder, as seen in the Ten Commandments.

I will no wrap this up. Through this debate, you have seen my opponent use many logical fallacies, of which I have specifically named. He has chosen a large number of verses of which he does not understand the context or background of and has stood behind them to use as his examples. He cites me not explaining every verse as my inability to do so, which again, is illogical. It is tiresome to do research for both me and my opponent, which is why I responded to a good number of them instead of all. My opponent has no grasp on the historical context of the verses nor does he have a grasp on Christian theology. To argue God without Christian theology is impossible because He does not exist without Christian theology. My opponent quote verses he does not understand. God is absolutely moral. He tells us not to murder, lie, cheat, steal. He tells us to turn the other cheek and not seek revenge. He tells us to quickly forgive those that have wronged us. These morals are ones that we value today. Ones that were passed down from generation to generation. Not only is God moral, but he is the basis for all morality. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
Oh nevermind, I forgot I made that one voted on by judges
Posted by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
I would love for you guys and anyone who sees this comment to vote on my debate over the exact same issue if you would, once it's in the voting period: http://www.debate.org...

Who do you think is winning that one thus far though?
Posted by JohnDoe360 1 year ago
JohnDoe360
Mr master what do you need
Posted by Castaway 1 year ago
Castaway
Vote for me! VOTE FOR ME!

Nah, vote for whoever you thought did better.
Posted by Mr.masterDebator 1 year ago
Mr.masterDebator
can u do me a favor john
Posted by Mr.masterDebator 1 year ago
Mr.masterDebator
can u do me a favor john
Posted by Mr.masterDebator 1 year ago
Mr.masterDebator
i believe in god but it ends i cant
Posted by Mr.masterDebator 1 year ago
Mr.masterDebator
i believe in god but it ends i cant
Posted by JohnDoe360 1 year ago
JohnDoe360
Mr master debator i hope you vote for the best contestant!
Posted by Mr.masterDebator 1 year ago
Mr.masterDebator
whoever answrs first i choose but i hv read the debate pretty good
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
Capitalistslave
CastawayJohnDoe360Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe pro made more convincing arguments since they provided specific instances where God did terrible and inhumane acts. Con tried to defend them, but the argument against the killing of the first born was lacking since they claimed it was a last defense, which doesn't seem believable since pro offered another alternative of killing Pharoah instead of the first born, which would have made more sense to do and was another option. Plus, God is omnipotent apparently, and could have forced Pharoah to comply. It is said God hardened Pharoah's heart to begin with, so Pharoah not complying was God's fault to begin with. In addition, Con's arguments lacked in the case of that they ignored that slaves were still being born into slavery, and even in the case where people went into slavery to pay off debt, that is still arguably immoral and they didn't sufficiently argue how it is moral. Pro also offered perfect examples of evil from God w/ punishing everyone for the actions of two peopl