The Instigator
Black-Jesus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
xxmanguyxx
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

God, as depicted in the Holy Bible, is not benevolent

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 1 vote the winner is...
xxmanguyxx
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 1/8/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 98791
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Black-Jesus

Pro

I just want a simple, easy and polite debate about religion, which I'm aware is akin to trying to get clean hands washing your hands in a mud pit, but I'm gonna try anyway. And yes, I am aware that this debate has been done hundreds of times.

I am going to argue that God, the almighty creator depicted in the Holy Bible, is not benevolent, or malevolent.

Four Rounds:
-1st round: Acceptance/Opening statements
-2nd round: Opening arguments
-3rd round: Rebuttals/More arguments
-4th round: More Rebuttals/Closing statements

Definitions:
Benevolent (adj) - kind, generous or organized for the good of others
Malevolent (adj) - cruel or selfish
xxmanguyxx

Con

Greetings. Ill debate this with you.
Debate Round No. 1
Black-Jesus

Pro

I thank xxmanguyxx for accepting the debate and wish him good luck in the following rounds.

Wanton disregard for life:
Throughout the stories depicted in the Bible, especially in the Old Testaments, God is depicted as a character who has a blatant disregard for the value of human life, which has lead to his more heinous crimes against humanity. I shall summon three stories as examples:

1) The Flood (Genesis 6:5-8): God, as he witnessed evil in the heart of every human, regretted the decision to make them, so he decided to kill each and every single animal on Earth, except Noah and his family. Later, he made the rainbow reappear after every rain as a sign of his covenant with the Earth to never again kill them all with water again.

Not only does regretting making the people of the Earth give the impression that God is not all-knowing because he lacked the knowledge that he would one day regret making man, but it fails to mention why. Of course, the Bible says that it is because there is now evil in the hearts of mankind, we had become corrupted and the world was full of violence, but these accusations are quite vague, certainly when we later see such things that God calls "evil," except violence, but the world with mankind has never seen a day without violence, yet God only killed us all once? This also raises the question of why the animals and what about the Earth? Could you not strike down every human outside Noah's family, and spare the animals and plant life? What about the children? Can children truly be evil? Not by today"s standards. Why save Noah"s family? The Bible only states that Noah himself was faithful and walked with God, why save his children and wife? Why not make him another wife out of his rib to repopulate the Earth?

2) The Egyptian Plagues (Exodus 11:1-5): After Moses implores the Pharaoh of Egypt at the time to release his people, the Jews being enslaved by the Egyptians, and the Pharaoh stubbornly refuses. God punishes the Pharaoh until he releases the Jews with many horrid plagues including but not limited to: turning the water in the Nile into blood, locusts, darkness, death of livestock and the death of the first-born children of all Egyptians, even of the cattle.

This instance is my personal favorite because these attacks are not on the Pharaoh personally, no. These plagues, though directed at the Pharaoh, punishes ALL Egyptians indiscriminately. The children of the citizens of Egypt are not culpable for the actions of the ruling class in Egypt; the citizens are not culpable. The majority people that died directly by God's hand were completely innocent; they were not, at all, responsible for the enslavement, mistreatment and prolonged imprisonment of the Jewish people.

3) The Conquest of Canaan (Deuteronomy 7:1-5): When God orders the Jews to go into the land of Canaan that he promised them and allowed them to lose, he orders them to kill each and every single person in the seven nations that have now claimed Canaan without mercy and to not intermarry with them, because he is jealous that they will turn the children to other gods and then God anger will "burn against you and will quickly destroy you."

The people of the land of Canaan, again, are innocent of any real wrongdoing, consisting of the young and mentally handicapped, and simply guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. God ordered the Jews to kill all of them for the simple reason that he did not want the people of Canaan to "corrupt" the minds of the Jews and get them to worship other gods for-- reasons.


Arbitrary/Pointless Rules:
Leviticus is the third book of the modern bible and the main feature of Leviticus is a huge number of absurd rules and edicts that God gives to the Israelites, that include and by no means are limited to the restriction of the following:

1) Burning yeast or honey offerings to God (Leviticus 2:11)
2) Women must wait 33 days to go to church after giving birth to a boy or wait 66 days after giving birth to a girl (Leviticus 12:16)
3) Men having sex with men as with women, punishable by death (Leviticus 20:13)
4) Cursing any of your parents, punishable by death (Leviticus 20:9)
5) Blasphemy, punishable by death (Leviticus 24:14)

These are but a small handful of the many rules of Leviticus and Leviticus is nothing but the tip of the iceberg.

Narcissism:
1) God outlaws misuse of his name. (Exodus 20:7)
2) God outlaws the worship of another god. (Exodus 20:3)
3) God seems to only care about his followers based off of several occasions, some of which I've already covered.
4) Heaven is described as a place where celestial beings praise his name eternally. (Revelation 4:1-8)
5) Heaven can only be populated by people that love him.
6) God commands his followers to love him more than anything else. (Matthew 10:37 and 22:37)

God has a classic case of narcissism: he demands all around him like, nay love, him, not talk bad about him (blasphemy), and praise him endlessly or he will lay waste to them and send them to eternal torture in hell; he is selfish, egomaniacal and shows complete disregard for anyone or anything else, except the few who do everything he says.

Source(s):
The Holy Bible - https://www.biblegateway.com......
xxmanguyxx

Con

Black Jesus, Ill seek a win starting round two by reminding you that the argument is that God is not Benevolent or Malevolent.
Your case argues he is Malevolent with most arguments against his caring for life, thereby destroying your thesis. At this point I dont see a need to respond to ensure victory but, in the spirit of debate, I will respond concerning his Benevolence, to counter your points.

Since this is in essence, an attempt to understand the mind of God, which, I believe, may literally be impossible for a creation to ever truly understand its creator.. we often cant even understand the minds of other men, I will simply try to paint my picture of how I perceive God.
You may have heard in the past, that math is the language of God. All things around us are based off fractal math, generally, unable to be ploted or otherwise described using Euclidean geometry.. the way plants grow, the bloodvessels in our body, river systems, pretty much all things natural. One of the most easy to spot fractals which is around us every day is a tree. It starts from a seed, a central point, and begins to fractal out in opposite directions, each small branch very similar in look to the entirety of the tree itself, though having its own distinct differences. One of the intresting things about fractal algorithms, which is part of what makes fractal art so unique and interesting, is that many of these equations are infinite by nature, and, without the restrictions of reality, such as paper size lol, they could in fact, go on forever. This matters because if I am to flatter the idea of God, I have to give him credit as the creator of all of nature. The following quote is from Genesis, the Christian creation story.

"And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants[e] yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so."

This quote speaks not to a micromanaging God, who took part in the individual creation of life, but rather reflects on a God who created within each thing, the ability to grow and survive in its given environment. Which makes since now with the discovery of DNA, and fractals. Each thing being coded if you will, for survival on this planet, based off a massive fractal algorithm. Even Stephen Hawking, in his book, "The Grand Design", though coming to a different conclusion using the same data, discovered in a sense, the existence of God mathematically. He states " Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will, create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Stephen hawking is refering to quantum gravity here, which requires the existence of a timeless wave function of the universe, which Hawking labels Phi. So, Phi, is a non physical principle, which is timeless, and according to his colleague Roger Penrose, Phi is a mind, as is dictated by its existence as a self collapsing wave function, which is pretty much by definition, a mind. Inother words, mathematical proof of the existence of a consciousness responsible for spontaneous creation.
Another very important principle which will come into play in this debate, is that God granted free will. This is a very important concept, for without free will, we would have slavery, which, Im sure we can all agree is in essence, very evil.
This free will however, and our ability to choose to be evil, would mean that this new creation must be left with some guidance. Though I do believe that God attempted to guide early man through religion, which brought ethics to the planet in a precise way, he also built this guidance into men, via the creation of our conscience. A foolproof way, that would stand within each individual, even if the written word was corrupted, or otherwise lost to history.
Now, to address your points.
1) The Flood (Genesis 6:5-8): God, as he witnessed evil in the heart of every human, regretted the decision to make them, so he decided to kill each and every single animal on Earth, except Noah and his family. Later, he made the rainbow reappear after every rain as a sign of his covenant with the Earth to never again kill them all with water again.

As we are created in the image of God, (Though I believe this is a metaphorical mathematical principle, which also includes the design of our conscience.) we can assume that we would have to be similar in some ways. I would bring to you this article http://arstechnica.com...
We all remember this story, "Microsoft Terminates its Tay AI chatbot after she turns Nazi." Just because you identify with other humans, does not mean that God did not initially view the evil in men as a failed attempt ad 3d Artificial intelligence. Do you believe the people at Microsoft were evil for not wanting to spread an evil artificial AI? Of course not. Its only your personal feelings of attachment to humanity that halts us from being able to view this from an objective stance. If you created an environment for artificial AI, and shortly after their creation they became immoral and bloodthirsty for whatever reason, and you did not want this mentality perpetuated in your petri dish from its inception, is it then immoral to push the delete button? I think not, you may disagree, love to discuss it.

2) The Egyptian Plagues (Exodus 11:1-5): After Moses implores the Pharaoh of Egypt at the time to release his people, the Jews being enslaved by the Egyptians, and the Pharaoh stubbornly refuses. God punishes the Pharaoh until he releases the Jews with many horrid plagues including but not limited to: turning the water in the Nile into blood, locusts, darkness, death of livestock and the death of the first-born children of all Egyptians, even of the cattle.

Gods methods of trying to teach us, obviously changed from the beginning, to what we encounter in the new testament. Notably, after God manifested himself through Jesus. Rather than stating all men were evil, and simply wiping the slate clean to start over again, as in the Flood story, He had the wisdom to realize, if he truly wanted to understand us and why leaders of the time were so evil, the best way would be not to view from above with disdane our actions as humans, but to literally manifest as a human, and live the experience of being human first hand. I can imagine if we had a civilization of artificial intelligence, which was behaving horribly, but we realized this was already round two, and we didnt want to again, start over, a good alternative would be to manifest in their world, and attempt to offer guidance. Ill remind you that Exodus, which contains the story you refer to, is old testament, this in between the time before Jesus had come, but after the flood. In this period, before gaining true understanding of the love in mens hearts, having not yet been manifested as a man himself, I can see how a truly good being in the universe would have viewed the behaviors of those in ancient Egypt as utterly appalling, while still being somewhat detached, possibly wondering if this was yet another failed attempt at a kind and just intelligent creation of free will. Mankind at this point, was still possibly viewed as an experimental creation, which was not having the desired outcome. In this vein of thought, while as a human you consider yourself to be important, God could have viewed humanity as our scientists view lab rats, with an emotional detachment seeking a desirable outcome moreso than instant perfection, see, instant perfection becomes tricky when beings have their own free will, yet this principle could not be disregarded lest he would have created mindless robots instead, which was not his goal.

Concerning your thoughts on Leviticus. Firstly, many Christians consider old testament to be trumped by new testament after the coming of Jesus, in which these things are not repeated. Secondly, just because something is printed in the Bible, does not mean it is in fact, the word of God. Many of the things described were simply the way aincient jews conducted things within their society and social structures, and can be considered a historical evidence of the way social behavior had developed up to that premidevil time in human history. There may be reasons we dont even consider because we are so used to modern conveniences. For instance, Pork was frowned upon, probably because of the existence of trichinosis, a fatal disease from pork, which people were at the time before modern understanding, dissuaded from for their own safety. If everyone who ate pork was becoming sick and dying, abstaining would be the proper direction for the time. Is this truly from God, or simply Jewish law after elders noticed the connection? The same could be said for sodomy, and homosexuality, as staph infection could kill man easily at this time in history. Im not saying this is true, Im simply implying that everything may not be so black and white as many people view it. They are often told, this is the word of God, not, this book contains some of Gods actions, but is a historical account of ancient society, and therfore put every word on a pedestal, which may not have been intended.
Conclusion, I do believe that with the existence of conscience, the development of ethics, guidance of the 10 commandments, the selfless sacrifices of Jesus, and the destruction of those he deemed to be evil, that it is in fact the intention of the Lord, to be Benevolent to his creation. I believe the respect he demands, which you consider Narcissism, is actually warranted, and owed to the creator of all existence. However, I can also see how at the inception of man he had a more detached view of his creation, before having walked in our footsteps, however, the fact that he did do this later shows his love outweighed all.
Debate Round No. 2
Black-Jesus

Pro

Rebuttals
In my opponent's first argument, he attempts to accuse me of destroying my own thesis by accusing God of malevolence, which is not true. My thesis, as stated in the title of the debate is, "God... is not benevolent" and, as stated in my opening statements, is "God... is not benevolent, or malevolent." When my opponent quotes my second thesis, he leaves out the comma between "benevolent" and "or" which is grammatically pertinent in understanding that, by seeking to prove that God is not benevolent, I'm seeking to prove that he is malevolent and am not seeking to prove that he is neither.


My opponent claims that this debate is an attempt to understand the mind of God, which is not true. This debate is concerning whether or not the Biblical God is kind, generous or organized for the good of others, so we don't have to understand his thoughts, just his actions, from a mortal perspective anyway.

In my opponent's next three paragraphs, he attempts to prove God mathematically. This has nothing to do with the debate as this debate is not whether or not a God exists but rather if the one depicted in the Bible is benevolent, so I'm not going to rebut it.

Then he goes on to explain that God gave us free will and conjectures that he instilled us with his ethics so we may avoid evil behaviors even if his written word is corrupted or lost to history. He does not cite any biblical reasons to believe this, nor does he demonstrate what this is supposed to mean to the debate. God obviously could've done a better job by guiding us morally, especially since we can already see what happens when his "word" or religion is stripped from us by observing atheists, who have nothing but the innate ethics that God "built into men." As we can learn from them, their human ethics differ very much from God's as God resents many things that secular humanists don't, such as homosexuality for example.

Rebuttals for rebuttals
I now want to point out that my opponent has begun his rebuttals, which were reserved for Round 3. Even though I was going to reserve "rebuttals for rebuttals" for Round 4, I'll go ahead and rebut the rebuttals he's already offered as I'm sure he'll provide more for me to do in Round 4 in his next argument.

The Flood:
My opponent claims that God has no moral culpability in this situation since we are his creation and had become evil in the story of the flood and the only reason that seems immoral to us is because we are looking at it from a human perspective. I'll give him this one since the Bible does state that humankind was evil (though it fails to explain exactly what that means) and we are arguing from the Bible, but I just want to remark that I thought we were arguing from the perspective of the creation seeing as I defined benevolent as "kind, generous or organized for the good of others" and there is only "others" and God in the Christian universe. I also want to add that, from the vast majority of contemporary ethics, children cannot be evil or at least cannot be capitally punished for evil deeds, and there were children on the planet when God massacred them all.


The Plagues
My opponent attempts to write off the actions of God in the Old Testament with "Rather than stating all men were evil, and simply wiping the slate clean to start over again, as in the Flood story, He had the wisdom to realize, if he truly wanted to understand us and why leaders of the time were so evil, the best way would be not to view from above with disdane our actions as humans, but to literally manifest as a human, and live the experience of being human first hand." which implies that God gained wisdom which doesn't make sense.

Then he goes on to explain that he conjectures that God likely looked upon mankind with abject detachment at this time, which just helps my case that he is not benevolent and that he is malevolent.


Then he excuses God's many failed attempts at creating the "perfect" mankind are a result of perfection being tricky with creatures that have free will, ignoring the fact that God is perfect, all-knowing and omnipotent, which means that makes no sense at all. This also doesn't make sense because a benevolent God, even a God that isn't perfect, wouldn't try again and again to make a perfect mankind, then slaughter all of them, even the innocents (which are most of the Egyptians in this case by the way as only the ruling class were responsible for the Jewish slaves), when he inevitably fails.

Leviticus
"Firstly, many Christians consider old testament to be trumped by new testament after the coming of Jesus, in which these things are not repeated."

This debate is whether or not God's actions in the Bible are benevolent. God, having passed these laws at any point, is going to have to be answered for by my opponent, something my opponent refuses to do because it's impossible. This is the second time I've done this debate: the first time was
with a Jew who refused to defend God in the New Testament and now I'm debating a Christian who refuses to defend God in the Old Testament. My opponent must defend both as both are included in the Holy Bible.

"Secondly, just because something is printed in the Bible, does not mean it is in fact, the word of God."

Leviticus is the word of God. Leviticus is God's instructions for his people to follow according to the Bible. It doesn't matter if the Bible is inaccurate in describing this as, just as I conceded the flood to my opponent because we are arguing from the Bible even though I think the Bible is completely inaccurate instead of just inaccurate in some places, we are arguing from the Bible, the same Bible that is held, everyday, above ministers' heads and called "the word of God for the people of God"



Further Arguments

The Sins of the Father
The sins of the father being visited upon the son is a recurring theme throughout the Bible, though most prevalently in the Old Testament. Regardless, this is yet another example of God’s deplorable sense of morality. The sins of the father are just that: the sins of the father. Not the sins of the son, not the sins of any of his children, and not the sins of his children’s children.

Yet God found it necessary to curse Canaan and each and every single one of his descendants because Noah, probably drunk, cursed him for seeing him naked. In fact, God directly admits to Moses in Exodus 34:7 and then to Moses when creating the ten commandments in 20:5 that he visits the sins of the father upon his children and his children’s children for many generations. Until he recants this later when he says to Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31: 29-30, “‘In those days people will no longer say,‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge.’” But it is too late, and all damage that he has done had been done, and God does not care to reverse it: God is malevolent.

The Inferno
Yet the most damning of all evidence I have brought forth against the biblical God’s benevolence is what comes next: the inferno, hell, the pit, the lake of fire, the absence of God, his love, and any sort of comfort whatsoever. Hell is the epitome of all things pain and horror. Imagine getting burned on a stove top, now imagine your entire finger was on fire, now image your entire body was on fire, now imagine having that feeling for a day, then a week, then a year, then ten, the rest of your life, one hundred years, a thousand, a million, multiply that by another hundred and it still isn’t enough because Hell is forever.

Hell can be found in the Bible at:

Matthew 13:41-42: “The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather from his kingdom everything that causes sin as well as all lawbreakers and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

and Revelation 20:13-15, 21:8: “The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged according to his deeds. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death – the lake of fire. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire. But to the cowards, unbelievers, detestable persons, murderers, the sexually immoral, and those who practice magic spells, idol worshipers, and all those who lie, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. That is the second death.”

Imagine all the atrocities that Hitler or Stalin committed. Is it not fair and moral to punish them to suffer equal pain as their victims for as long as the compounded experience of their victims or perhaps even more? Sure. That comes out to way less than an eternity because an eternity is forever. One must know that hell is much too harsh of a punishment if even the most evil human beings to walk the Earth are seen as too good for the fate of eternal damnation.

And still yet, there is no medium ground, except perhaps limbo in some Christian canon. If you die without accepting and loving Jesus Christ and God, if you die angry or gluttonous, if you worked on a Sunday one time and didn’t ask for forgiveness, hell is your punishment. Allow that to sink in, reader.

I rest my case.

Source(s):
The Holy Bible: https://www.biblegateway.com......
xxmanguyxx

Con

I will start by addressing your claim that you were only arguing for a malevolent God, with a copy and paste from your original post.
"I am going to argue that God, the almighty creator depicted in the Holy Bible, is not benevolent, or malevolent."
If you had said, (..is not benevolent, BUT malevolent.) it would be a different story, your comma however, does not change the meaning of this sentence, which would firmly establish you arguing for Gods neutrality. This being the case, you failed to establish Gods neutrality, and have lost, which is a steep penalty for poor reading comprehension, and speaks to a possibility that your reading comprehension concerning other texts, much more difficult to understand, such as the Bible, may also be skewed.

My opponent denys that understanding Gods overall intentions as Benevolent, or Malevolent, is an attempt to understand the mind of God. I hold that an attempt to understand ones intentions, is an attempt to understand their mind.

My opponent Claims that math which could show Gods existence, would have no bearing on the topic, concerning either his malevolence, or benevolence. I would counter that a conscious mathematical mind which is part of, and forms all of nature, would almost certainly have the best intentions for his creations, as they would technically only exist within himself.

My opponent states:
"Then he goes on to explain that God gave us free will and conjectures that he instilled us with his ethics so we may avoid evil behaviors even if his written word is corrupted or lost to history. He does not cite any biblical reasons to believe this, nor does he demonstrate what this is supposed to mean to the debate.

I hold that my reasons for including this are relevant to the debate, and Here I will offer a biblical example, as you desired to see.

Romans 2:14
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.

2 Corinthians 1:12 ESV / 6 helpful votes
For our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience, that we behaved in the world with simplicity and godly sincerity, not by earthly wisdom but by the grace of God, and supremely so toward you.

Proverbs 28:26 ESV / 4 helpful votes
Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.

Accordingly, the Apostle John declares to the believers of all ages, "Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things:" All things that are needful to your having a "conscience void of offense toward God and toward man."

My opponent then goes on to state:
"God obviously could've done a better job by guiding us morally, especially since we can already see what happens when his "word" or religion is stripped from us by observing atheists, who have nothing but the innate ethics that God "built into men." As we can learn from them, their human ethics differ very much from God's as God resents many things that secular humanists don't, such as homosexuality for example."

I disagree. Though we have differing views on spirituality, or the lack thereof, I know many Atheists, who conduct themselves as good and caring people, and I am sure they too, have a conscience, feeling bad when they hurt others intentionally, lie, cheat, ect. The point that they may not agree on every point of morality in a Christian sense, or believe that conscience is something God given, does not exclude them from having an overall built in guidance toward good.
Also, You cannot know rather or not God could have done a better job of guiding us morally, as you are not God. Nor have you spoken to him on the topic.

My opponent points out that I began rebuttals, early. I would point out that format no longer matters when he already forfeited by failing to define God as neutral, and therefore my response is simply in the spirit of overall debate.

My opponent claims that Gods destruction at times also included children, as they had to be present on the earth at this time as well, and that this is evidence of his malevolence. Verses like the ones below, show that the sins of children are pre-forgiven, and that the day of our death is actually better than the day of our birth. To Christians, death is passage to a second life, one in which children are guaranteed happiness and paradise. Flattering this vein of thought, God taking the children from the toxicity of growing up an in environment full of evil men, who could have been doing only God knows what to small children, was truly an action of supreme benevolence. You only take this physical husk so seriously because you believe that may be all you have, this is not in line with Christian thinking, so, I do understand the difficulty with the subject.
Ecclesiastes 7:1 "A good name [is] better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth."
I am writing to you, little children, because the sins have been forgiven you for the sake of His name.
1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them..

You recall my statement "Firstly, many Christians consider old testament to be trumped by new testament after the coming of Jesus, in which these things are not repeated."
And then argue, "God, having passed these laws at any point, is going to have to be answered for by my opponent, something my opponent refuses to do because it's impossible."
First off, I never refused to argue this point, I actually clarified my point with other examples which you have not covered. However, It is relevant, because the Bible is an inclusive book. Jews however, do not believe in the New testament, and also have other religious texts. Them omitting part of the story, has nothing to do with the Christian viewpoint, which includes the entire book. If God gave men at one point, a set of rules, and then many years later, gave a new set of rules, the new rules are the ones applicable. Just as if they change any rules in the NFL, those are the ones teams will have to abide by. The same for changes to the stock market, or any other similar situations. When authority makes new rules, those are the new rules.. fairly easy concept to understand. I dont think it requires further explanation.

You dispute my comment "Secondly, just because something is printed in the Bible, does not mean it is in fact, the word of God." by giving an example of (...the same Bible that is held, everyday, above ministers' heads and called "the word of God for the people of God.") I already pre clarified any confusion in that same paragraph, where I was sure to state, after giving several examples which additionally help clarify my point "They are often told, this is the word of God, not, this book contains some of Gods actions, but is a historical account of ancient society, and therefore put every word on a pedestal, which may not have been intended."

You refer to the Story of Ham, not seeing the severity of his crime as warranting such harsh punishment.
Ancient Hebrew commonly speaks of a man"s nakedness to refer to sexual intercourse with the man"s wife. As Moses wrote in Leviticus, "The man who lies with his father"s wife has uncovered his father"s nakedness" Some difficult to understand passages in the Bible may well seem so, because we no longer use the same terms to describe certain actions. More information concerning this seemingly confusing story here. http://kgov.com...

According the the Bible, there are different versions of hell, described well here. http://www1.cbn.com... The Key differences being one of infinite loneliness, and one refering to the refuse dump outside of Jerusalem. Even a third, the most popular in pop culture, specially reserved for the Devil and his fallen angels, along with those who at the end times reject God and side with Satan.
One thing I consider, is that if we can flatter the existence of a soul. We can also flatter that this intangible thing must be comprised of energy. From science, we understand that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. Different modalities if you will. For instance, in magnetic field theory, you will find this conversion type relationship between Dielectric, electric, and magnetism. Also, a similar modal idea when we see water, ice, and steam, essentially the same thing, manifested in different modalities. If a soul is energy, and energy cannot be destroyed, this evil energy must be kept away from the good correct? And, if you have control over micro and macro in the universe, would you minimize, or expand this evil energy? If you wanted the energy of the universe to remain as good as possible, you would in fact attempt to minimize it. With your knowledge of science, when energy is compressed into a smaller and smaller space, the necessary result is heat. Is Hell therefore the Malevolence of an evil God, or could it be a Benevolent God, sheltering the good energies of the universe from contamination?

In this modern age, I think of the bible often in terms of how science would play out in the metaphysical. Its feasible, that for God to have revealed complex details to the first people at the cradle of civilization, could have been too much for them to comprehend, or, may have accelerated the human race to an unhealthy extent. Not to mention there could be 'X" number of reasons we will never be privy to, or even be able to comprehend the actions of a God. IQ 147 vs IQ infinity. For instance, just as your dog will never have the comprehension in this life to add 2+2=4, how do we know we are also, not similarly limited in comprehension?
Debate Round No. 3
Black-Jesus

Pro

Rebuttals
My opponent continues to make the erroneous claim that my thesis states that God is morally neutral. Additionally, my opponent tries to excuse his own breach of
format by citing my nonexistent breach of format, which wouldn't excuse his breach of format anyway. If my opponent disagrees about the significance of the comma in my thesis, then there's no point in pursuing that any further short of hiring a professional editor.

My opponent claims that a conscious mathematical God would intrinsically be benevolent, which is also erroneous and patently false.

Intrinsic human morality
My opponent was able to produce biblical quotes to support his belief that God supposedly installed humans with an innate ethical code successfully and continues to hold that this is pertinent to the topic of the debate, but not really explaining why. Then he goes on to restate my premise that God did not instill a moral code in humans that completely coincides with God's moral code as evidenced by atheists but also says he disagrees which is erroneous because what he explains that he believes is precisely what I said.


Killing Children
My opponent goes on to defend murdering children


New vs Old Testament
My opponent repeats himself in explaining that the new testament trumps the instructions from the old testament for Christians. He seems to think I disagree with him, which I don't really, but he still then fails to defend the rules laid out in the old testament, claiming he already did which he did not because he claims that the Bible instead of being the "word of God" which it professes to be is a description of ancient society. My opponent fails to address the fact that, regardless of what he thinks the real meaning is, the Bible explicitly says that Leviticus is the word of God, not a description of ancient society and we are arguing from the Bible.


Sins of the Father
My opponent addresses an example put forth by me: the story in which Ham and all of his ancestors were cursed because Ham saw Noah naked. He explains that "seeing another man naked" is Bible speak for "sleeping with another man's wife." Firstly, I want to point out that the Bible says "saw him naked" not "slept with his wife": perhaps they should put some better translators on the case before they call the Bible "the word of God." Secondly, this still doesn't justify cursing all of Ham's ancestors. Ham's children have just as little control over whether or not their father slept with Noah's wife as they do with him seeing Noah naked. Thirdly, why, then, does Ham proceed to fetch his brothers after "seeing his father naked" so they can throw covers over their drunken father, is, "throw covers over drunken father's naked body" code for "apologize to Noah for Ham sleeping with his wife so their children and their children's children won't be cursed"?


Inferno
"One thing I consider, is that if we can flatter the existence of a soul. We can also flatter that this intangible thing must be comprised of energy."

No, we can't. Just because something isn't matter doesn't make it energy, especially when we're talking about something as foreign to science as a soul. Thus, my opponent's paragraph where he equates souls to energy in null. Even considering, I'm not sure how to refute it because it sort of refutes itself. His argument is basically that God, the omnipotent and all-powerful creator of the universe suddenly doesn't have the power to destroy energy (souls), so he keeps the bad energy away from the good for some reason and must keep them in a small space so the bad energy can't spread and the heat built up by all of the energy from the bad souls is comparable to a lake of fire. That is some of the more strange mental gymnastics I've ever seen.

My opponent wraps up his attempted refutation of my "Inferno" argument by stating that God hasn't revealed himself to us perhaps due to us being unable to comprehend, which I suppose has a minute possibility but so very minute it is.

Conclusion
My opponent has done a lot of things: he's played silly semantical games with me, he said he disagrees with me, then goes on to explain that he believes precisely what I believe, only helping my point, he has created a strange paragraph of metaphysical science fiction, but one thing he has not done is demonstrate that God is not malevolent.


I would like to thank the voters for reading and considering this debate. Vote PRO.
xxmanguyxx

Con

My opponents final rebuttals pretty much just clinch the stances we both previously had. I dont think there's any need for me to dispute the same points again. I feel both our arguments are soundly laid and ready to meet the chopping block. For those who care to participate, I hope you find my stances unique and enjoyable to flatter. To my opponent, thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 12 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
You should attend this debate:
Atheism- A lost reality! A hopeless, helpless cause!
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
Yes/ No....But does it matter ..?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Mharman 1 year ago
Mharman
Black-Jesusxxmanguyxx
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Although pro did use solid Biblical evidence, con was able to defend his position on every single point in this debate, using Biblical evidence as well.