The Instigator
cheesedingo1
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
stubs
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

God has commited most of the 7 deadly sins: Part 2

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 2 votes the winner is...
stubs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,519 times Debate No: 22469
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

cheesedingo1

Pro

First round: acceptance.

I look forward to a good debate against Stubs. I will define all necessary definitions in my first argument.
stubs

Con

I accept. In order to fulfill my burden of proof I must negate at least 4 of the 7 and in order for my opponent to win he must confirm at least 4 of the 7. Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
cheesedingo1

Pro

Sloth: Disinclination to exertion; indolence; laziness.
This one of the 7 deadly sins is shown not in the bible, but in life. God is said to answer everyones prayers. He is said to help those who are in need of something. But people will argue that he only gives them what they need, not what they want. But isn't life a necessity? God gave us the basic necessity of life. That isn't questionable. But saying that it's ok to ignore prayers to keep people alive from cancer, TB, and other deadly diseases that STILL CAN BE HEALED? People will then argue that God was calling them to come to heaven. So then, if God gives them life, he can just take it with the whim of his hand. He will say he was calling them. So he is allowing people just to die and not answer prayers?

Greed: excessive or rapacious desire.
One word: Worship. Worship are what powers God. If he had no worship, he would cease to be regarded. He says he allows people to choose and not to choose, yet he greatly influences humanity to choose him. He shows how in the flood, moses was the only one saved, and the rest of the world was just doomed to die. Because they didn't worship him. Therefore, he is greedy for the worship that those give to him.

Envy: A feeling of discontent or covetousness with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc.
God is shown in the bible stating himself as being envyous.
http://www.biblegateway.com...... 20%3A5. He himself admits that he is jelous. If he sees that some other god is getting worshipped, he kills those who apose him. He wishes for no one to worship anyone except himself. He doesnt allow other gods to be worshipped, like in the great flood. He killed everyone because they were turning away from him and decided to kill everyone except one christian family. He was jelous and killed off all that apose him.

Pride:a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.
God was very prideful. He thought of himself as the deity of everything. While that is true, he wouldn't allow anyone to even try to match him.He strikes those down who wish to do so, and in turn blames the pride on them. For example, in the tower of babble story. He destroyed them for trying to meet God, and because of God's pride, he shmited them down and made them speak in different toungues, and blamed them calling them "Arrogant and Prideful".

Gluttony: gormandizing, intemperance, voracity, overindulgence. God is shown overindulging on our love. It ties along closely with greed, because he as an indulgence for our prayers and worship. Without those, he would be powerless.

Vanity/Wrath: strong, stern, or fierce anger; deeply resentful indignation; ire.
This one is shown the most by God. God is said to be "merciful" and "kind", yet he has killed so many. He killed the entire world with a flood. He ruined many people's lives in the old testament. He banished Cain for killing Able after he DELIBERATELY chose Able's offering over Cain's knowing he would kill his brother because of it. He caused disease, hate, and everything awful to happen to humanity, and he then blames all the sin, hate, and all things bad on the 2 beings that he created, Adam and Eve, because they were tempted by the Devil, the most pursuasive and caniving being to ever exist. Adam and Eve didn't know better, but God's WRATH struck them down and made humanity all born with sin.

Lust: Great sexual or objective desire.
This is the one that God did not commit. God is not lustful.

Definitions: http://dictionary.reference.com...
stubs

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate. This is a very interesting topic. I would first like to say that I do not believe God can sin ever. Holiness is part of his intrinsic nature, He cannot do otherwise. What God is, He forever exists as. He cannot break his commands of holiness that reflect his nature. (http://www.letusreason.org...). I also do not agree that there even are such things as "deadly sins." However, that is not up for debate. I will only defend that God did not commit any sin even though I am only required to defend 4 of 7 to fulfill my burden of proof.

Sloth: "God is said to answer everyones prayers."
This is false, God says he does not give people what they want when they ask for the wrong motives (James 4:3). That's why when we ask for God to heal someone of cancer are we asking because that is our will or Gods will? God cannot answer every prayer you want but only those that are in accordance to His will being done on earth. He cannot answer prayers that would do the very opposite of His purposes or go against His good. That is why he tells us to pray according to His will and not ours.

Greed: "Worship are what powers God. If he had no worship, he would cease to be regarded."
This is just a false statement. God would still be God if no one worshiped him.

"He says he allows people to choose and not to choose, yet he greatly influences humanity to choose him"
If he greatly influences humanity to choose him you must explain why so many do not.

Envy: "He himself admits that he is [sic] jelous."

There is a difference between holy jealousy and sinful jealousy. Holy jealousy means that one is appropriately possessive of something that belongs to him or her. Sinful jealousy is the desire to have something that doesn't belong to us; which is what envy actually is"

Pride: "For example, in the tower of babble story. He destroyed them for trying to meet God, and because of God's pride, he shmited them down and made them speak in different toungues, and blamed them calling them "Arrogant and Prideful."

The top of the tower was intended to be in the heavens. It is doubtful they thought they could build a tower to heaven. It is more likely they built the tower as an observation point of the heavens; it was built "unto the heavens." If they really wanted to build a tower to reach heaven, it is unlikely they would start on the plain of Shinar, which is about Sea Level. Common sense says they would start on one of the a nearby mountains. First, he did not destroy them as you claim, he scattered them and confused their languages. Second, it was not because they tried to meet God, for they didn't even try to do that, but it was because of their disobedience. he heart and the materials relevant to the tower of Babel show that it was not only disobedient to God's command to fill the earth (Genesis 9:1), but it also shows man did not believe God's promise to never again flood the earth. A waterproof tower was made to "protect" man against a future deluge.

Gluttony: because he as an indulgence for our prayers and worship. Without those, he would be powerless."
I already showed this to be false.

Vanity/Wrath: "God is said to be "merciful" and "kind", yet he has killed so many."
Pro needs to show that Gods killing was unjustified keeping in mind that there is a difference between killing and murdering.

"He killed the entire world with a flood."
This is false. He saved Noah, his family, and animals.

"He caused disease, hate, and everything awful to happen to humanity, and he then blames all the sin, hate, and all things bad on the 2 beings that he created, Adam and Eve, because they were tempted by the Devil, the most pursuasive and caniving being to ever exist. Adam and Eve didn't know better, but God's WRATH struck them down and made humanity all born with sin."
This is the most theologically unsound argument pro has made. He did not cause evil (all bad things), they were a result of the fall. It was Adam and Eves fault. You claimed Adam and Eve did not know better when God had, in fact, told them never to eat from the tree of knowledge.

Lust: Pro conceded

I have refuted all 7 of the "deadly sins" even though my burden of proof only maintains that I refute 4. I Look forward to hearing Pros next argument.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
cheesedingo1

Pro

I thank my opponent for his strong argument, but I am confused on why he said there is no such thing as "deadly sins", and would appreciate clarification next round. Also, my opponent found a website that has no sources, with only pure opinions with no weight behind it to support it. Therefore, his link will be thrown out.

Sloth: I said God answers every ones prayers, but I never said that God would answer them in the way that they wanted. God does answer our prayers, but not in the way that we want. He says that when someone dies, he was calling them to be with him in heaven. But that just shows sloth, which agrees with me completely. He DOES answer our prayers, but in a way that will require a limited amount of work, as in just letting them die, therefore showing sloth.

That was his only attack on my sloth case, so I assume that the rest he agrees with.

Greed: God would still be God if no one worshiped him.

While he would still be God, my opponent ignores the statement. I never said God wouldn't be God, I said he would cease to be regarded. By that I mean, for example, If someone came up with a good idea for a doughnut, and a group of people knew about it, but then the doughnut didn't sell, and everyone who knew about the doughnut forgot about it, It would cease to be regarded. Or If someone in government was forgotten, like forgotten by everyone, no one would listen to someone they don't know about, and he will cease to be regarded. Therefore, If God wasn't regarded, he would have no power, like the person in government. So he is greedy and needs worship, or his power is gone.

If he greatly influences humanity to choose him you must explain why so many do not .

First of all, my opponent doesn't go against this point, he just asks a question, so I assume he agrees. Anyway, many people do not fallow God because of all the distractions that keep us from paying attention to God, such as TV, video games, the media, our friends, and our jobs.

My opponent doesn't attack anything else on Greed, so I assume he agrees with the rest.

Envy: So, my says with Holy Jealousy, that basically God is possessive of Worship, which belongs to him. Not anyone else. If he thinks that, then isn't that envious?

I assume he agrees with the rest that he didn't attack.

Pride: My opponent states that the point was not to get to heaven, but Babel means "Gate to Heaven",(http://www.emergingtruths.com...) meaning they were going to use the tower to get to heaven. My opponents claim on not wanting to get to heaven isn't backed up by anything, so It remains false until proves otherwise, because of my argument. And that's all he had, so the rest of my argument is still strong.

Gluttony: I already showed this to be false.
I already showed this true. Bam.
The rest of my argument is untouched and still strong.

Vanity/wrath: Pro needs to show that Gods killing was unjustified keeping in mind that there is a difference between killing and murdering.

Killing and murdering are both forms of vanity/wrath, and are both wrong. Unless my oponent proves there is justified killing, I am right. And by the way, my oponent will probably argue about the "death sentence", but it was organized by the government, and since the government doesn't particually fallow God's every will, they are not compatible.

This is false. He saved Noah, his family, and animals.

EXACTLY!!!! He killed everyone except a devoted God-fallowing family and all the animals, which completely ties along with my first argument on envy's point, which he has yet to rebutle, and by saying this, he has agreed with my argument completely.

This is the most theologically unsound argument pro has made. He did not cause evil (all bad things), they were a result of the fall. It was Adam and Eves fault. You claimed Adam and Eve did not know better when God had, in fact, told them never to eat from the tree of knowledge.

Thank you for the first sentence personal attack. I am crying my eyes out. My oponent ingores the fact that I am not necessarily arguing from a completely pro-God side of this argument, and Im not supposed to have a sound argument. As for Adam and Eve, they didn't know any better. They were the first 2 humans, didn't even know what sin was, and along came the Devil, the most influential, diabolical, and pursasive creature in the universe. He tricks Eve into having one, and Adam just accepts it from Eve, not knowing at all what was wrong with it. Satan convinced them to do it, because God didn't tell them what would happen if you did eat from it. Wait a second, why would God even put a "FORBIDDEN TREE OF GOOD AND EVIL" RIGHT SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GARDEN, FILLED WITH DELICIOUS FRUITS THAT ARE PURPOSEFULLY DESIREABLE?!?!?!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!?! God knew that Adam and Eve would do it, so he put it there, and cursed all of humanity for something 2 oblivious people did. God made it so that sin and destruction could be in the world, just because 2 people screwed up, and hurt billions and billions of people with sin because of what 2 people did. If that isn't wrath , I don't know what wrath is.

Basically, my oponent chose a sentence or two from each sin and barely attacked each of them. He must agree with everything else I said, so I win all of them that he supposedly attacked. Therefore, because he win's lust by default, I win 6/7.

Thank you.
stubs

Con

Thanks to pro for his argument. As far as why I do not think there are things such as "deadly sins." If someone is classifying deadly sins as simply a sin that can lead to more sin then I would agree with that, but if someone says there are 7 deadly sins that can keep you out of heaven I do not agree with that. For the simply explanation of that's not a biblical teaching. But again its irrelevant to this debate. My opponent said that the link I used that showed God cannot sin is not reliable.
http://www.gotquestions.org...
http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org...
http://www.revelife.com...
http://www.gotquestions.org...
Maybe he will accept at least one of these. The teaching that God cannot sin is biblical.

Pro said, "my [sic] oponent chose a sentence or two from each sin and barely attacked each of them."
Due to the 8,000 character limit I am unable to point out every thing that is wrong in each of your arguments. That is why I can only pull out a few sentences of each argument and show they are fallacious. I also think it's funny you bring this up because that is exactly what you did with my arguments as well.

Sloth: "He DOES answer our prayers, but in a way that will require a limited amount of work, as in just letting them die, therefore showing sloth."
As a reminder, for this debate we are clearly assuming the Christian God exist and we must also be accepting the bible as true. If God is all powerful and can create the universe ex nihilo, I do not think it is any harder for him to answer a prayer by letting them live rather than them dying. It is absurd to think that the reason people die of cancer or anything else for that reason is because God does not want to do any work. Furthermore I would argue that if God just let everyone live forever on earth that it would be horrible for the human race. The death rate is 100%. Everyone dies, and this is not because God is "too lazy" to keep them alive.

Greed: "Therefore, If God wasn't regarded, he would have no power, like the person in government. So he is greedy and needs worship, or his power is gone."
Again, I do not think this is true because with your doughnut argument, if the doughnut wanted to get back our attention the doughnut could not do anything about it. God on the other hand, since his power is not gone as you claim it is, he could always get our attention again because he is still all powerful even if humans do not think he is. I also would like to point out that I think that the worship is not to help God. God does not need our worship. God does not need anything from us. The worship is more for our benefit. When we worship God we are in communion with him and if we have a relationship with him then we will go to heaven. I would argue that Christians need to worship God much more than God needs Christian to worship God.

Envy: "So, my says with Holy Jealousy, that basically God is possessive of Worship, which belongs to him. Not anyone else. If he thinks that, then isn't that envious?"
In a word, no. Worship does belong to him. He is not jealous of what is someone else's which is what envy is.

Pride: "My opponents claim on not wanting to get to heaven isn't backed up by anything, so It remains false until proves otherwise, because of my argument. And that's all he had, so the rest of my argument is still strong."
If they really wanted to build a tower to reach heaven, it is unlikely they would start on the plain of Shinar, which is about Sea Level. Common sense says they would start on one of the a nearby mountains. Ready any bible commentary, the thought that these people thought they could actually get to heaven is ludicrous.

Gluttony: "because he as an indulgence for our prayers and worship. Without those, he would be powerless."
"I already showed this true. Bam."
God would still have power without our prayers and worship. So no, you did not show this to be true.

Vanity/Wrath: "Killing and murdering are both forms of vanity/wrath, and are both wrong. Unless my oponent proves there is justified killing, I am right. And by the way, my oponent will probably argue about the "death sentence", but it was organized by the government, and since the government doesn't [sic] particually [sic] fallow God's every will, they are not compatible."
You are right when you say that the government does not follow God's every will you are correct, but the bible is not directly opposed to the death penalty. Also, you still have yet to show that if people rebel against God, he is unjustified in killing them.

"EXACTLY!!!! He killed everyone except a devoted God-fallowing family and all the animals, which completely ties along with my first argument on envy's point, which he has yet to rebutle, and by saying this, he has agreed with my argument completely."
First off, killing people for not worshiping him has nothing to do with envy, it would be greed if anything. However, I think again we have to look at it from the perspective of did God do this for him or did he do it for us? I would very much argue that the flood was a good thing. It would have wiped out a lot of non-believers and since there is less non-believers there is a better chance that the next generations of people would have been believers and gone to heaven. Therefore, I do not think the flood was an act of vanity/wrath but rather an act of love for you and me.

"As for Adam and Eve, they didn't know any better."
I did not mean to personally attack you. All I was saying was that the argument you presented was clearly contrary to what was written in the bible. I am sorry if it seemed like I directed it towards you personally. As for this point you are trying to make that they didn't know any better, that is completely false. "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Genesis 2
"Satan convinced them to do it, because God didn't tell them what would happen if you did eat from it."
Argument negated above.

Pro has not been able to show that God legitimately has committed any of the 7 sins.
Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 3
cheesedingo1

Pro

Thank you to con for his strong argument. I am quite impressed, but don't think I won't win!

My oponent sure is commited, he found 4 sites that showed how God didn't sin. Too bad they all go too waist. My oponent is stating that God doesn't sin. But killing is a sin, as stated in the 10 commandments.
http://www.bible-knowledge.com...
In the old testament, he FLOODED THE ENTIRE WORLD! That obviously killed a lot of people. He killed the Egyptions by drowning them in the red sea. He killed lots of people in the old testament, but he didn't sin?!?!?!?! I THINK NOT. The defenition of kill is:To deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.' God has killed, therefore he sinned, therefore my opponent's argument is invalid on that point. Also, this isn't a debate of if God has sinned in general, it is a debate about how God has committed each of the 7 deadly sins.

Due to the 8,000 character limit I am unable to point out every thing that is wrong in each of your arguments.

My opponent says this, but his argument is about 4000-5000 characters long, leaving a lot more characters to attack my argument, so that point means argument.

I also think it's funny you bring this up because that is exactly what you did with my arguments as well.

On the contrary, I attacked every point on my opponents rebutle on my case. I don't know where you see that I don't, but whatever.

Sloth: My oponent is stating in his rebutle that cancer is a way that humans don't live forever on earth. And that God can't allow people to live forever. Wow. That is so stupid, I don't know how to respond. So, God doesn't want us to be immortal, so cancer is a good way just to kill us!?!?!?!?!?!? While its true that we would be miserable if we lived forever, cancer is just a way for us to die?!?!?!?!?!? That is an awful argument! By stating this, the neg is stating that cancer is a good thing, something we should be joyful about because it allows us to DIE. YAY CANCER!!!!!!!!! No. Cancer is not something to be joyful about. It is a painful, and stressful way to die, and it is in no way something to be happy about. I don't understand why my oponent would even say that.

He only covered that sentence, so I assume that the rest he agrees with.

Greed: God on the other hand, since his power is not gone as you claim it is, he could always get our attention again because he is still all powerful even if humans do not think he is.
So, he will use his powers unlike the doughnut to get his worship back? Sounds pretty damn greedy to me. My opponent is now saying that God can use his powers to make people worship him, but then he says God doesn't need worship a sentence later. He is contridicting himself. Then he says we need to worship him because it helps us. Wow. So worshiping us helps us...... how? My opponent doesn't say how, except it makes us closer with God. So, being close to God doesn't benefit him? So, if my opponent is against the resolution, he is saying that God doesn't want to be close to God, because that would show that God wants and needs our prayers and worship, because he needs to be closer to God. No matter where he stands, he go's against himself, or his side of the resolution.

Envy: In a word, no. Worship does belong to him. He is not jealous of what is someone else's which is what envy is.

YES! YES HE IS JELEOUS! If he wasn't, why would he punish those who worship false Gods? Like with the Israelites in the desert who worshipped the Golden Calf (http://www.biblegateway.com...), they were punished. It says in the 10 commandments that You shall have no other gods before me. (http://www.bible-knowledge.com...) Because he says this, he is envyous, and he is most definately "jealous of what is someone else's which is what envy is" which is word for word what my oponent states in his argument. My opponent is agreeing with my case.

He also doesnt cover anything else, only a sentence, so I assume he agrees with the rest.

Pride: If they really wanted to build a tower to reach heaven, it is unlikely they would start on the plain of Shinar, which is about Sea Level. Common sense says they would start on one of the a nearby mountains. Ready any bible commentary, the thought that these people thought they could actually get to heaven is ludicrous.

If they were dumb enough to think they could "could actually get to heaven", then yes, they are ludacrous, like my opponent states. Therefore, they are not smart enough to have a good place to start, so obviously they didn't think things out.

Everything else on my argument for Pride is still strong.

Gluttony:God would still have power without our prayers and worship. So no, you did not show this to be true.

Wow. Must I keep repeating myself? This is getting tiresome. God, without worship, without recognition, would have no power, because he has no influence on anybody, simply put.

Everything else on Gluttony is still strong.

Vanity:You are right when you say that the government does not follow God's every will you are correct, but the bible is not directly opposed to the death penalty. Also, you still have yet to show that if people rebel against God, he is unjustified in killing them.

My oponent says that the Bible is not directly opposed to the death penalty, but, again, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS INSTITUTED BY GOD SAY "THY SHALT NOT KILL". So yes, the bible is "Directly opposed to the death penalty".

First off, killing people for not worshiping him has nothing to do with envy, it would be greed if anything.

HE AGREES WITH ME THAT GOD IS GREEDY. HE AGREES. EVERYONE, READ IT AND WEEP. He agrees that God is greedy, I win greed automatically now, he himself explicitly agrees, I win that.

However, I think again we have to look at it from the perspective of did God do this for him or did he do it for us? I would very much argue that the flood was a good thing. It would have wiped out a lot of non-believers and since there is less non-believers there is a better chance that the next generations of people would have been believers and gone to heaven. Therefore, I do not think the flood was an act of vanity/wrath but rather an act of love for you and me.

Wow. Again, just like the cancer argument, I am left speechless by how outragous this is. But, alas, this is debate, so I must continue. THE FLOOD WAS A GOOD THING?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?! THE FLOOD WAS AN ACT OF LOVE FOR YOU AND ME?!?!??!! WHAT?!?!?!?!?!??!?! Again, my opponent is basically spelling out "YAY DEATH!!!!" The flood killed many, many people, and killing is an example of vanity/wrath, so my opponent agrees with me that the flood killed lots of people, no one really can disagree that, so God has commited Vanity/wrath.

I did not mean to personally attack you. All I was saying was that the argument you presented was clearly contrary to what was written in the bible. I am sorry if it seemed like I directed it towards you personally.

I apoligize first of my my sarcasm and rudeness. I shouldn't have taken it to heart.

"And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Genesis 2

Well, God may have said that, but my opponent ignores the fact that the devil is the most evil, diabolical, and influential being ever to exist. Sin and temptation is much easyer to commit that good. My oponent may say otherwise, but lets bring up doughnuts again, shall we? If you are on a diet, and you know your not supposed to eat the doughnut, just like we're not supposed to sin, your gonna want to eat the doughnut A LOT. Just like sin. The devil influenced them, and God knew that, yet he still banished them to an eternity of sin and screw over all of humanity because they were convinced by Satan, the most influential being ever. This is such wrath, I can't see how it isn't.

Vote for PRO, and thank you for the incredibally interesting rounds!
stubs

Con

Thanks for the debate. It has been fun.

"Too bad they all go too waist. My oponent is stating that God doesn't sin. But killing is a sin, as stated in the 10 commandments."
It says do not murder in the ten commandments which is different than killing. Even in the source you yourself provided it says murder.

Sloth: "My oponent is stating in his rebutle [sic] that cancer is a way that humans don't live forever on earth. And that God can't allow people to live forever. Wow. That is so stupid, I don't know how to respond. So, God doesn't want us to be immortal, so cancer is a good way just to kill us!?!?!?!?!?!?"
In the garden of Eden there was no human death. Human death only entered the world when sin did. I never said that cancer was just a good way to kill us. I did say that if everyone lived for ever we would be miserable.

"By stating this, the neg is stating that cancer is a good thing, something we should be joyful about because it allows us to DIE. YAY CANCER!!!!!!!!!"
I never said that cancer is a good thing.

Greed: "So, he will use his powers unlike the doughnut to get his worship back? Sounds pretty damn greedy to me. My opponent is now saying that God can use his powers to make people worship him, but then he says God doesn't need worship a sentence later. He is contridicting himself."
Saying that God can use his powers to make people worship him is not contradictory to saying he does not need worship.

"Then he says we need to worship him because it helps us. Wow. So worshiping us helps us...... how?"
It helps us become closer to him which is, for a Christian, one of the main goals of life.

Envy: "YES! YES HE IS JELEOUS [sic] ! If he wasn't, why would he punish those who worship false Gods? Like with the Israelites in the desert who worshipped the Golden Calf"
He punishes them because they are disobedient. Not because he is jealous.

"is most definately "jealous of what is someone else's which is what envy is" which is word for word what my oponent [sic] states in his argument."
You did not mention what God is envious of? You can only be envious of something that is someone elses. You did not say what he was envious of.

Pride: "If they were dumb enough to think they could "could actually get to heaven", then yes, they are ludacrous, like my opponent states. Therefore, they are not smart enough to have a good place to start, so obviously they didn't think things out."
They did not think they could actually get to heaven in the fist place.

Gluttony: "Wow. Must I keep repeating myself? This is getting tiresome. God, without worship, without recognition, would have no power, because he has no influence on anybody, simply put."
You can keep repeating yourself if you want. God would still have power without worship.

Vanity: "My oponent says that the Bible is not directly opposed to the death penalty, but, again, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS INSTITUTED BY GOD SAY "THY SHALT NOT KILL". So yes, the bible is "Directly opposed to the death penalty".
The ten commandments say do not murder. God is the one that instituted capital punishment (Gen 9:6). Romans 13:1-7 also says the government has the right to institute capital punishment when appropriate.

"HE AGREES WITH ME THAT GOD IS GREEDY. HE AGREES. EVERYONE, READ IT AND WEEP. He agrees that God is greedy, I win greed automatically now, he himself explicitly agrees, I win that."
I said if anything it would be greedy. I went on to show why it is not greed. I am sorry if the second part of my argument was in a smaller font or something so that you couldn't read it.

"Wow. Again, just like the cancer argument, I am left speechless by how outragous this is. But, alas, this is debate, so I must continue. THE FLOOD WAS A GOOD THING?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?! THE FLOOD WAS AN ACT OF LOVE FOR YOU AND ME?!?!??!! WHAT?!?!?!?!?!??!?! Again, my opponent is basically spelling out "YAY DEATH!!!!" The flood killed many, many people, and killing is an example of vanity/wrath, so my opponent agrees with me that the flood killed lots of people, no one really can disagree that, so God has commited Vanity/wrath."
Again, this debate is from the christian perspective since we are assuming the christian God exist. When we look at death from a christian perspective it is a good thing. Consider Ecclesiastes 7:1 "A good name is better than fine perfume, and the day of death better than the day of birth." I am looking forward to the day I die and go to heaven. Heaven will be much better than here on earth. I do somewhat disagree that the flood killed many, many people. It has been estimated that 2% of people lived before Jesus came to the earth and since the flood happened hundreds of years before that (assuming 7 day creationism. If not even longer than a few hundred years). Which means way less than 1% of people that have lived were wiped out in the flood.

"Well, God may have said that, but my opponent ignores the fact that the devil is the most evil, diabolical, and influential being ever to exist. Sin and temptation is much easyer [sic] to commit that good.

I agree that the devil is the most evil being that exists. That does not show God showing wrath. I also agree sin can be a lot easier to commit but that also does not show God showing wrath. The devil did influence them, but they did still sin. Which should be punished. God did punish them but punishment does not always show wrath and it does not in this case.

Thank you for the interesting debate and your creative arguments.
Pro, feel free to message me if you want to continue this discussion.
Vote for whoever you think won.
Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by stubs 4 years ago
stubs
Chill
Posted by Wallstreetatheist 4 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
THEBOMB, also known as, THEVOTEBOMB.
Posted by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
wtf...my RFDs keep getting deleted well here it is

Pro loses conduct and S&G for his unnecessary use of capitalization and punctuation as well as his sarcasm and he simply was not very respectful.

Arguments go to Con because 1) he showed how God could not sin and 2) he showed God did not commit most of the deadly sins.
Posted by cheesedingo1 4 years ago
cheesedingo1
I had 27 characters left. I feel accomplished.
Posted by cheesedingo1 4 years ago
cheesedingo1
true.
Posted by ConnerRenee 4 years ago
ConnerRenee
God answers all prayers. Sometimes the answer is "No."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Aaronroy 4 years ago
Aaronroy
cheesedingo1stubsTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: Couldn't really decide, but pro had better flow to his arguments, not superior but easier to comprehend. Grammar was better on con as well.
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 4 years ago
THEBOMB
cheesedingo1stubsTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro loses conduct and S