The Instigator
flor
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
JustCallMeTarzan
Con (against)
Winning
78 Points

God exists, and loves you.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,831 times Debate No: 3359
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (28)

 

flor

Pro

God loves you!!!!!!!
He exists
and i have proof.
just look at the bible!!! you can look at the gospel of john!
jesus exists too.
and loves you.
debate?
yeah.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

There are a couple ways to come at this... I'll go after the loves you part first. I will assume she means that God loves each of us, not me specifically. We may address existence later, since the topic is a conjunction. However, in a conjunction, Con only needs to refute one part of the conjunction to be the clear winner.

My opponent introduces the Gospel of John as evidence that God loves all of us. I will introduce various texts from the Old Testament showing that God does not love all of us - in fact, he destroys some people...

A loving god would of course not kill people - an omnipotent and omniscient god could surely find some solution to a situation wherein people might "need" to be killed that involved no bloodshed, or at the very least, no suffering. Therefore, I submit that a destructive and murderous god does not love that which he destroys and kills.

"Let peoples serve you, and nations pay you homage; Be master of your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you" (NAB Gn. 27:29a).

"When the LORD, your God, brings you into the land which you are to enter and occupy, and dislodges great nations before you… you shall doom them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy" (NAB Dt. 7:1a, 2b).

"If you are not careful to observe every word of the law which is written in this book, and to revere the glorious and awesome name of the LORD, your God, he will smite you and your descendants with severe and constant blows, malignant and lasting maladies… until you are destroyed" (NAB Dt. 28:58-59, 61b).

Three examples wherein god condones slavery, genocide, and promises terrible retribution for the smallest offenses, including ridiculous things like boiling a kid goat in its mother's milk. Then there's the whole thing with killing the first-born Egyptian children... These actions are clearly not the actions of a loving god, if indeed such a god does exist.

Speaking of these laws... let's examine the laws handed down by a loving god..

Kill Homosexuals -
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

Kill Those Who Do Not Seek God -
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Kill Bratty Children -
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

So as we can see, if this God exists, he's rather UN-loving. Now, of course, my opponent will claim that God loves us all based on text like John 3:16. However, that is a reference to what Jesus said. Actually, Jn 3:16 isn't a quote from Jesus, but rather John's paraphrasing of what Jesus said in his sermon to Nicodemus in Jerusalem. The quotes I've displayed above are not only also things that have been paraphrased from Jesus' teachings, but also biblical history about what God has done in the past.

Therefore, I submit that regardless of what Jesus says and what is paraphrased from his teachings in the gospels that God's prior historic action proves he does not in fact love all of us.

And of course, this is all independent of whether or not God actually exists, which I will be happy to argue as well if my opponent introduces good argumentation on the loving claim.
Debate Round No. 1
flor

Pro

alrighty then.
questions for tarzan:
1) Can you differenciate between right and wrong?? Do you have morals?
2) Have you ever experienced a miracle? I've experienced 3 major ones!

Ok so. Old testament.
the old testament is an example of how UNloving the world was in the past. a pretty awful place right? killing left and right!!! never the less, the people thought that what they were doing was right. they thought they were killing for god.
God was on certain people's sides for many wars.
I have one explanation for this.
In the early ages, god communicated with many people, and needed them to believe in him. What a better way then to help them win a war??
at least thats my theory.
now that christians are a majority of our earth, he uses us to communicate to others.
like right now!!
that is his will.
anyway, AFTER the OLD testament, there was jesus.
the perfect example of love.
YOU tarzan have made mistakes in your life. (assuming. forgive.)
i'm going to say that at some point in your life, you've made fun of someone. you hurt their feelings. this is where jesus comes in.
he loves you sooooo much (and YES!! YOU IN PARTICULAR!)
that he forgives you of that sin.
idk if you are in favor of Bush, but
jesus is better than bush.
jesus is a strong leader that gave up his life because he loves each and every one of us.
even the ones that killed him.
Matthew 26.39:
"My father, if it is not possible, let this cup pass from me, yet not what i want, but what you want."
here he is sacrificing his life, because god wants his only son to die, so that you could be forgiven for calling sally fat in third grade.
besides john 3.16, look at john 15.9-john 15.11
"As the father has loved me, so i have loved you; abide in my love. if you keep my commandments, you will abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete."

see, jesus just wants happiness!!
ok so you advocated for the killing of children. yeah....
ok well what about when the old creepy pharisees wanted to kill the children for trying to talk to jesus?
yeah who came to the rescue?
jesus did!!!
yay!!!

ok intermission for a quick song...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE GAME WAS PLAYED ON SUNDAY, IN JESUS CHRIST'S BACK YARD!!!!
JESUS WAS THE QUARTERBACK, AND MOSES WAS THE GUARD!
THE ANGELS IN THE GRANDSTAND,
LET OUT A HOLY YELLL, WHOOOOOOO!!!!!
JESUS SCORED A TOUCHDOWN, AND SATAN WENT TO..........
GO WITH GOD! STAY WITH GOD!
RA RA SIS BOOM BAH
YAAAAAAAAAAAY GOD!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
k cool.
god does not want to kill homosexuals
the world back then in the OLD TESTAMENT was not ready for a large reform like jesus.
they had customs.
homosexuality was looked down upon.
jesus loves allllll.
even homos!!!!
you should too.
they are still people.
as long as homo sexuals love god, and strive for him,and love their enemies (you!) :(
they can be admitted into heaven also.
**********************
also these things you addressed as "ridiculous religious stuff"
yeah it was all a form of sacrifice to god.

in conclusion,
yes tarzan god loves you specifically.
as an individual
even though you called sally fat in third grade :)
ps. we cant evaluate love upon a book (bible)
look to my 2nd question.
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

I suppose I'll answer these two questions that really have nothing at all to do with this topic..

1) Yes I can and yes I do, but that has nothing to do with god.
2) No - miracles are only miracles for theists. The rest of us call it unusual

>> "the old testament is an example of how UNloving the world was in the past. a pretty awful place right? killing left and right!!! never the less, the people thought that what they were doing was right. they thought they were killing for god. God was on certain people's sides for many wars. I have one explanation for this. In the early ages, god communicated with many people, and needed them to believe in him. What a better way then to help them win a war??"

What happened to love your enemies? Sounds like God certainly doesn't practice what he preaches. If he was on one side in a war, he clearly doesn't love the other side. Thanks for the contribution to my argument.

>>"now that christians are a majority of our earth, he uses us to communicate to others."

That's simply false. Christians are about 33% of the planet. 53% of the word that is part of a major religion (Islam, Hindu, Jewish, Indigenous, Trad. Chinese, Buddhist) is not Christian at all. Not sure where you got that from. There are more than twice as many non-Christians (counting apathetics, atheists, agnostics, etc..) as there are Christians.

>>"anyway, AFTER the OLD testament, there was jesus. the perfect example of love."

Excellent, so the people God killed in the Old Testament feel lots better now, don't they?

>>"YOU tarzan have made mistakes in your life. (assuming. forgive.)i'm going to say that at some point in your life, you've made fun of someone. you hurt their feelings. this is where jesus comes in. he loves you sooooo much (and YES!! YOU IN PARTICULAR!)that he forgives you of that sin."

Whether or not I've made mistakes in my life has nothing to do with whether or not god exists and loves people.

>>""As the father has loved me, so i have loved you; abide in my love. if you keep my commandments, you will abide in his love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.""

How compelling... note that it doesn't say "As the father has loved the people of Sodom and Gammorah, so I have loved you." Once again, what Jesus says has no bearing on the actions that God has already taken.

>>"see, jesus just wants happiness!! ok so you advocated for the killing of children. yeah.... ok well what about when the old creepy pharisees wanted to kill the children for trying to talk to jesus? yeah who came to the rescue?
jesus did!!!"

Jesus wants happiness? Lets see what he says about peace and happiness...

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

And the "creepy pharisees" with the children that Jesus "saved?" - Where was Jesus when God killed hordes of Egyptian children? I suppose maybe Jesus' power wasn't all that great...

>>"god does not want to kill homosexuals"

Was there something about "if a man lies with a male as with a women...they have forfeited their lives" that you didn't understand?

>>"also these things you addressed as "ridiculous religious stuff" yeah it was all a form of sacrifice to god."

Could you point to these things I addressed as "ridiculous religious stuff?" I can't seem to find that quote... And what a loving god he must be to ask for sacrifice. My mistake. A truly loving god asks people (Abraham) to prepare and altar and to kill their children (Genesis 22).

>>"ps. we cant evaluate love upon a book (bible)"

Then why on earth are you introducing language from John?

*************************************************

My opponent has done nothing other than spat nonsense that has nothing to do with actual refutation of my claims. And apparently my calling Sally fat in the third grade has something to do with the existence of god and whether or not he loves us.

All in all, the bible gives an account of a God who is jealous, vengeful, unjust, murderous, and judgmental. It also gives an account of God's Son, who is loving and just. So which are we to believe? If we look at the world, it is easy to see that nature itself is jealous, vengeful, unjust, murderous, etc... It would seem that the true nature of god can be seen in his creation.

As for god's existence... There is no argument that can give reasonable expectation for the existence of God. The teleological arguments all fail. The ontological arguments of Anselm, Descartes, Leibniz, Avicenna... all useless. My opponent has said we can't rely on revealed theology to determine love. We can't rely on revealed theology for existence either. Natural theology produces conditions that lead reasonable people to non-belief.

We seem to have a quandary on our hands. Perhaps my opponent will address the underlying issues in the next round instead of focusing on my calling poor Sally fat.
Debate Round No. 2
flor

Pro

alrighty!
so.
its like almost midnight.
and guess what?
i have to be awake at like 4 tomorrow so i can go to chicago.
and i only have like, a few hours left to write a response.
i didn't even know what debate.org is, but yeah now i do.
i know how it works!
and i'm actually a really good debater.
i do LD and... yeah well i won't brag.
anyway!
uuuugggghhhhhhh
ok so in my last rounds i probably seemed really crazy and radical! yay.
now i'm sleepy.
yay.
btw(i probably will "forfeit" this debate because i will be out of town for a while)
but here is my single argument: faith.
one thing that CANNOT be refuted.
at all.
sure go ahead and use all your technicality.
pull out your bible verses.
how do you know so many bible verses if you are so atheist? your loaded dude.
but anyway, every person that chooses to accept god must have faith.
they build a relationship with god, so that they wont have doubts when they see bible verses like the ones that you've presented.
they know that god is their shock absorber, stress reliever, antidote for pain.
and for one reason.
because he loves you.
no, i'm not going to adress the technical problems or existense of god.
people find god through faith that he exists, not numbers or science.
if it was proven scientifically that god exists, everyone would believe it.
but god doesn't want that. god wants to see who will acutally listen to the things he says.
without discovering jesus' dna somewhere in the east.
also, going back into the miracles thing,.. those miracles are some of the ways that god expresses to you that he exists. and loves you.
so you agreed that you do have morals.
if god doesn't exist, why do we feel bad for calling sally fat?
why do we know when we did something wrong, then appologize for it?
if god didn't exist, i would totally screw up my life to the point where i'd probably die from a drug overdose. because i would have no conscience, and nobody could guide me.
everyone would be doing bad things. and we'd all die.
god made consciences, aka the holy spirit for us. because why? because he loves us.
even fat sally.
anyway faith presides over all.
if people vote that you win this debate,
then high five.
but i won in my heart.
i hope you learned something from what i said though.
just a different perspective.
adios!!! tchuss! aloha!
goodbye!
JustCallMeTarzan

Con

>> "but here is my single argument: faith. one thing that CANNOT be refuted. at all."

There is of course a difference between blind faith and reasonable faith. Whether or not faith is valid is a function of whether that faith has been instilled by generational socialization or if that faith is a result of the examination of the world and reason. In any event, your faith that god exists and loves us has nothing to do with whether or not he actually does. If I have faith that unicorns exist and love us, it does not follow that they actually DO exist and love us.

>>"how do you know so many bible verses if you are so atheist? your loaded dude."

It's pretty widely known that many atheists can quote the bible better than a lot of theists.

>>"they build a relationship with god, so that they wont have doubts when they see bible verses like the ones that you've presented."

That's not really a good thing... blind faith blinds one to the horrors of the verses I present.

>>"no, i'm not going to adress the technical problems or existense of god."

Why not? Your debate is about existence in part... Simply acknowledging there are problems is enough to being to undermine your position.

>>"if god didn't exist, i would totally screw up my life to the point where i'd probably die from a drug overdose. because i would have no conscience, and nobody could guide me."

Quite simply not so. Conscious, morality, guidance... all independent of god. Morality is a function of social contract and biology, not god. We don't call Sally fat because it's not acceptable behavior. Why? Because it makes people with connections to Sally mad at us, and that's an existential threat.

*************************************************

Throughout this debate my opponent has refused to engage in debate concerning the problems of the existence of god. The problem of evil, in particular is enough to demonstrate that an omnibenevolent god and the evil present in the world is at the very least highly unlikely, if not impossible. The bible verses I have produces clearly show instances of an un-loving god.

Read and vote.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chuckles 8 years ago
Chuckles
Me & Flor's disagreement ratio is 66.67%. As 666 is part of this number, i must vote against her.

jk
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Yeah, I want to take another debate like this.

Except, screw the exists part, just the "Assuming the Christian Bible is True, God loves every human being individually and as a whole."

I'll go pro. Challenge me
Posted by Agent_D 8 years ago
Agent_D
Challenge Me. If you may. God really exist. :)
Posted by bobsatthepub 8 years ago
bobsatthepub
Ah, poop, decisions.
Can you give me a topic?
just challenge me, I'll say yes or no, nobody is hurt, everyone is happy.
You know what we disagree on, if anything.
Posted by Agent_D 8 years ago
Agent_D
In what argument/topic you want me to have a debate on you?

I will lay the table on you.(make sure its all about religion, life and freedom hehehe:)
Posted by bobsatthepub 8 years ago
bobsatthepub
hehe, thanks =)

"Life doesnt make sense?"
no
"The question itself doesn't make sense."
yes

debate anytime
Posted by Agent_D 8 years ago
Agent_D
Life doesnt make sense?

Well, welcome back bob, I hope this would be a good topic for debate.
Posted by bobsatthepub 8 years ago
bobsatthepub
asking what the meaning of life is is like asking what the meaning of tree is.

The question itself doesn't make sense.
Posted by Agent_D 8 years ago
Agent_D
I agree with you mangani. Science deals more on creation(process) Faith deals more on Creator.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.

7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles.

As a child I understood this story to mean that somehow man was an animal not cognizant of the obvious (right and wrong, nakedness, guilt, remorse, etc.)- this is a direct scriptural reference to evolution from animal to human, even if you argue that it was only in mind it is still a direct reference to true science (homo-erectus to homo-sapiens, or whatever evolutionary geneology you believe in, were different only in cognizance). Science and religion do not contradict each other, they support each other. You just have to know how to interpret what you are reading and apply it to the level of scientific knowledge in those days, and how would you write a 4000 year old comic book (not trying to offend anyone's religious beliefs, just giving an example while suggesting that even in those days it wasn't just the ultra religious who could write).

"We're animals at the core, not the spontaneous creation of some deity."

-No religion asserts that we were a spontaneous creation. I have already rebutted the first half of this statement.
28 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by mizzouvetmed 6 years ago
mizzouvetmed
florJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
florJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
florJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
florJustCallMeTarzanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by austinrsell 8 years ago
austinrsell
florJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RequireTruth 8 years ago
RequireTruth
florJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
florJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by numa 8 years ago
numa
florJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
florJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HellKat 8 years ago
HellKat
florJustCallMeTarzanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03