The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
MrJosh
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points

God does not love you

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 7 votes the winner is...
MrJosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,965 times Debate No: 56813
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (89)
Votes (7)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

My position as Con is against the idea that God does not love you. I say God does love you.
Please, No atheistic or agnostic arguments. If you say you do not believe in God, that's ok. If you say there is no God to believe in, that is atheism. If you say you cannot be sure if God is there or not, that is ok. If you say nobody can be sure if God is there or not, that is agnosticism. If you say God is not God or God is less than God, that is an atheistic argument and forbidden for this debate. If you say God is a force or an impersonal presence in everything or any such distraction from God simply being who He is, God, who is the LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, creator of all and of every thing, then you are playing semantics in an attempt to make an atheistic or agnostic argument and that is forbidden in this debate. I will not post any arguments if my opponent in any way insinuates that God is not God. If my opponent does not understand the word "God" and insists He is undefined, then there is no way to know what this debate is about and I will consider my opponents approach to be nonsensical and not worth my time to argue against.

If you must challenge the definition of "God", please decline this challenge. I will not be bothered in the debate to argue the definition of "God". The word is a proper noun and the first letter is capitalized as a proper noun. The meaning is understood at a third grade reading level. I do not want to argue with anybody who seems confused about a word that is easily understood at a third grade reading level.


If you need the word "love" defined, I ask that you decline this challenge. If you love somebody, you know what love is. If you know somebody loves you, you know what love is. If you think it is possible that you could love somebody or that somebody could love you, you know what love is.

No semantics, no atheistic arguments, no agnostic arguments.

I find myself funny. I'm serious. I hope this debate will be enjoyably thought provocative if not funny for all. Please keep it civil and honorable in respectful manners.

To my opponent.......God does love you. I'm against the idea that God does not love you. Whoever told you God does not love you was not telling you the truth. God loves you. What could possibly make you think God does not love you?
MrJosh

Pro

I would like to thank CON for setting up this debate. In the comment where I showed my interest in debating this topic, I wrote, “I can show from scripture, that God does not love me” [1]. This is what I will be demonstrating in this debate. As CON has made the claim that “God does love you [me],” he has accepted the burden of proof; however, I am happy to share the burden. If CON can demonstrate that God loves me, he has met his burden. If I can show, by scripture, that God does not love me, I have met my burden.

God Does Not Love Me

Quran 3:31-32 says, “Allah does not love those who refuse to obey Him and His Messenger” [2]. Since I am not a Muslim [3], I refuse to obey Allah (God), and his messenger (Muhammad). Therefore, God does not love me.

Sources:

[1] http://www.debate.org...
[2] http://www.islamicstudies.info...
[3] http://www.debate.org...

Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

I'm sorry, Islam believes in a false God who they refer to as "Allah" Allah is not God. God is God. God is not Allah.

If you think Allah is God, we cannot have a debate.

God loves you.

MrJosh

Pro


I am confused by CON’s response to my argument. In the first round, CON wrote, “I will not be bothered in the debate to argue the definition of "God," and he goes on to say that this word is “easily understood at a third grade reading level,” and yet he seems to be unable to address my claim based on the particular God I am discussing. Also in the first round, CON wrote, “I will not post any arguments if my opponent in any way insinuates that God is not God.” It seems that CON is violating his own rules.


CON has also made the claim that, “Islam believes in a false God,” which is a claim for which he needs to offer evidence.


CON also makes the confusing comment, “Allah is not God. God is God. God is not Allah.” Perhaps CON is not aware, but the Arabic word, ‘Allah,’ translates to English as ‘God’ [1]. In fact, if you were an Arabic speaking Christian, you would use the word Allah.


I have demonstrated my resolution, and I await CON’s comments in the following rounds.


Sources:


[1] http://translation.babylon.com...




Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

The debate here was me taking the position of saying God loves you..........I argued contrary to the statement that God does not love you. You are saying God does not love you, I'm saying God loves you. I guess you win, you want to believe God does not love you, go ahead, If you call that a win, you can have it. I still say God loves you.


You have violated the terms of this debate. Islam is murder. God is not Allah. Muhammed was a liar. Jesus Christ is God. The Quran is a book of lies. All lies are spawned by the father of lies who is Satan.


The debate here was me taking the position of saying God loves you..........I argued contrary to the statement that God does not love you. You are saying God does not love you, I'm saying God loves you. I guess you win, you want to believe God does not love you, go ahead, If you call that a win, you can have it. I still say God loves you.
MrJosh

Pro

I would like to ask CON to refrain from accusing me of violating the terms of the debate, unless he is going to give specific examples. I would also ask CON to refrain from making unsupported, inflammatory comments toward Islam, especially when their connection to the resolutions being debated are dubious at best. Finally, I repeat that I have demonstrated my resolution; I will wait to see what CON will bring the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

You are trying to change God to Allah. God is God. Allah is not God, I don't care if it is the Arabic term for God. Allah is the god of Islam and is not THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY. This debate is not about Allah. God is God. If you have to reduce God to something less than THE LORD GOD ALMIGHTY you are making an athistic arguement. God loves you or He would not tolerate you. He wants you to believe Jesus is God and He died in your place to pay for your sins, the price you cannot pay by following Islam except by paying in the fire of Hell. If God Himself did not pay for your sins, your sins can never be paid for because Muhammed was a sinner the same as you and the Quran rejects God's payment for your sin when He died in your place on the cross. God loves you, but you are simply saying you will do as you please and expect God to honor you when you have rejected Him though He died in your place on the cross 2000 years ago. He loves you and offers you pardon based on the fact that He paid your price so He can pardon you if you will repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ who is God and stop trying to reduce God into Allah.
MrJosh

Pro

I would like to thank CON for another round of interesting comments. While the vast majority of CON"s points are irrelevant to the debate, there is one I want to address.

CON has made the claim that any argument that uses a definition of God other than Jesus is an atheistic argument. This is just not so. CON did not define God as such in his opening statement, and he is now trying to redefine God.
Debate Round No. 4
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Con

"God", captiized as a proper noun being the name of a specific person, is a third grade English word, easiily understood by a third grade child. It is my opponent who is trying to redefine God into a being lesser than God suited for Islam. This redefinition of God denies that God is God and is atheistic in that is says God, The LORD GOD ALMIGHTY, is not there, and the complicated lesser god is given the name "Allah".

I made a mistake in allowing this opponent to accept this challenge. The debate was not supposed to be about the definition of "God". I stricty forbid in the rules any challenges to the definition of the word "God". My opponents assertion that Allah is God is a violation of the rules. The voters of course will give points to my opponent saying my opponent wins the argument showing God does not love him. If my opponent and the voters want to believe God does not love them, I'm sorry for them, they are wrong.

God loves you. That is the theme of this debate.......the argument was not supposed to be God does not love you VS God's name is Allah. Next time, I will specfically excude changing God's name to Allah for this debate, and no quotes from the Quraan alloweed as it is an unreliable source penned by a desert robber who molested chidren as his wives and hid in caves too much, afraid of the people he had offended, and many times changing his own writings in order to keep his tail frm being cut off.

God shows His love in that He gave His only Son to die in our place, The Son of God is God the same as the son af a man is a man. He died for my opponent even though my opponent insists Jesus is not God and He does not love him. He does love my opponent and wants my opponent to beleive on Him in His resurrection and be saved from the fire of Hell.

To say God did not die in my place and I do not believe on Him is an atheistic argument which leaves you with no way to be reconciled to God from the death your sin has caused you. If you don't care that God took your death in Jesus Christ, you are rejecting His love and you will be rejected by Him if you finalize your death in sin. He will always love you, even if He can do nothing for you but let you have the punishment you deserve. He wants you to accept His offer of forgiveness through His resurrecion, He wants you to brust Him and believe on Him and be saved from the fire of Hell. He loves yo uunconditionally. Don't blame Him if you reject His love.......you can't blame Him if you are rejected by Him after you reject His love.......you can try to blame Him, but it won't do you any good.
MrJosh

Pro


I would like, once again, to thank CON for providing his comments this round. As in the previous round, most of what CON has written need not be addressed. I will only address one point, and then move on to my overall closing thoughts for the debate.


God vs god


It seems that CON is trying to claim that the Christian God is senior or superior to the Muslim God, when he accused me of trying to redefine God to something “lesser,” which would be “suited for Islam.” I would like to make it clear once and for all, that I am not trying to redefine anything. CON failed to define God at the beginning of this debate, so if anyone is trying to redefine a term, it is him.


CON is correct that the capitalization of the word “god” is done as if a proper noun, but he is mistaken if he thinks it only applies to his preferred deity. It is appropriate to capitalize the English word “god,” whenever we are talking about a specific god, be that God YHWH, Allah, or Odin [1]. Following this convention, when CON used the capitalized version of god, he was not specifying a particular god, leaving me free to argue about any deity I chose.


Closing Thoughts


This has been an interesting debate, and I thank CON for making it so. Unfortunately, CON was not able to move past his complaint that I was redefining a term which he failed to define in the first place. I freely accepted a share of the burden of proof, and fulfilled my burden. CON failed to fulfill his burden, so I leave this debate in the hands of the voters.


Sources:


[1] https://owl.english.purdue.edu...


Debate Round No. 5
89 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
hello?
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
I don't know
Posted by MrJosh 2 years ago
MrJosh
Is there a way to stop getting updates on this thread? This is getting ridiculous.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
well, sir, let me try to help you out a little here.........The Bible is mostly a book of history........that's His Story, God's story, and it includes history of the future which God will bring to pass. The Bible does touch on science and teaches against "science so-called". All facts the Bible gives about science are accurate and many were given as facts to be believed and in some cases to make rules of hygiene accordingly.

You have been brainwashed by the television and public schools and modern media to think you are smart for denying God. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the living God........we are all fallen, where will you fall? Will you fall under God's mercy or will you fall in denial of Him under His judgement?
Posted by ldow2000 2 years ago
ldow2000
This is hilarious! I apologize if this insults anybody, as you are entitled to your beliefs, but the instigator of this debate has now resorted to quoting the Bible, and is referring to it as the truth. Unfortunately, he has shown no evidence for this, and has instead only challenged others for "scientific errors" in the Bible. To that I say, the book as a whole is a scientific error.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
rewards have been offered for anybody to prove an error in the Bible and never been claimed. Fortunes have been spent trying to discredit the Bible. The Word of God will stand forever, like it or not.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
It is a fact that Jesus Christ is coming back and He is going to rule the world from Mt. Zion. It is a fact that all of the nations of the world will come up against Israel and God will defend Israle. It is a fact that a terrible time of judgement called the Great Tribulation will come. It's hard to read the Bible prophecies of the coming tribulaiton and the coming battle of Armageddon and say it is not talking about nuclear war........but with or without nuclear war, what's coming will be far worse than WWII.

It is a fact that a world dictator will rise.

It is a fact that the arab nations are allignign with Russia and China, whichever they prefer, as the Bible said they would two thousand years ago.

You cannot well understand history, and especially the Jewish people and their foretold return to their homeland apart from the Bible.

The Bible is God's love letter to mankind, His promise that through Israel all the nations of the earth will be blessed as Israel is God's chosen people through which to bring all of His promises of blessing to mankind. All who fight against God are going to lose........but they won't stop fighting untlill their loss is proven to them. All who fight agaisnt Israel are fighting against God. God will bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel.

The Bible always has been right, always is right, and all of it's prophecies and all of God's promises will be fullfilled....
believe it or not.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Show one scientific error in the Bible.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
you don't know the Author of the Bible, that's why you look at it wrong and believe liars who hate God.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Every book in the Bible conflicts with every other book in the Bible, even the Gospels are in disagreement on major points like the final words of Jesus.
If God authored the Bible they would be consistent, not conflicting.
The thousands of stupid conflicts in the Bible proves that no single author existed, they were all authored individually by people who had no idea what people after them were going to write.
If God authored it, being omniscient, it would know what future writers were going to write.

The thousands of conflicts and hundreds of chronological and scientific errors demonstrates no Omniscient mind had anything to do with the writing of The Bible.
That is a Fact.
God did not write the Bible, Nutjobs did.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
LifeMeansGodIsGoodMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's conduct is rude, cancels out Pro's semantic invasion. The rest of Con's argument regarding baseless claims are a slight informality, which doesn't really gives up any conduct points. However, S & G was horrible for Con, the format looks like a mumbo jumbo, it is incomprehensible to voters such as me. Pro provided a well structured explanation for his semantic arguments, along with proper sources. S & G pro.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
LifeMeansGodIsGoodMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Bad conduct, no sources, bad responses.
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 2 years ago
ArcTImes
LifeMeansGodIsGoodMrJoshTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Baseless and sourceless claims, arguments from ignorance, and fail to meet the BoP, easy win for Pro.
Vote Placed by Manastacious 2 years ago
Manastacious
LifeMeansGodIsGoodMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: A priori voting obligation to vote down hate speech proliferated on DDO. See other debates that Lifemeansgodisgood has participated in to see evidence of this. In the mean time, all points awarded to MrJosh.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
bsh1
LifeMeansGodIsGoodMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's bigotry and assault of the Islamic faith--a faith which is perfectly valid, and certainly is no less valid than Christianity--is disgusting. His unwillingness to engage in debate, his curt responses, and his hateful comments warrant conduct being awarded to Pro. Inasmuch as Con effectively concedes the debate, Pro gets arguments. Pro offers sources, whereas Con does not. Con's comportment in this debate was atrocious--certainly not loving, nor Christian in nature. Vote Pro.
Vote Placed by Mikal 2 years ago
Mikal
LifeMeansGodIsGoodMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LifeMeansGodIsGoodMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was the only one to provide relevant sources and the only one to provide a good argument. Pro pointed to the Islamic God, which technically is the same God, thus still relevant to the debate as the title does not depict which God is to be used. Con did not provide sources and made false Accusations towards Pro of violating the subjective rules Con set. Con did not set that it was the Christian God to be discussed, and technically, both are the God of Abraham, so Pro was not in violation as Pro did not state that God/Allah did not exist. Thus Con gave a conduct point to Pro for false accusation of violating the rules.