The Instigator
FuzzyCatPotato
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Yehoshua
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

God himself has intentionally killed people

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...
FuzzyCatPotato
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/8/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 716 times Debate No: 101817
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Both debaters must assume the standard Bible is correct.

I will defend the statement that "God himself has intentionally killed people".


Con must defend the statement that "God himself has not intentionally killed people".

No ridiculous interpretations or troll arguments.
Yehoshua

Con

First, to make sense of the debate, "intentionally" refers to one intending on doing something when having done it as well. This is not even how death itself began. We must remember that God and His purposes do not change. Adam and Eve were created originally to live forever. They however, disobeyed God thus killing all who have died, even though not directly. This means that God carries no blame for any of the deaths that have ever happened.

Put simply, the child of a parent for example, plays with a snake after being taught to stay away from the danger. It is then not the parent's fault when the child gets bitten. In fact, the parent would definitely mourn over the event regardless of who was right. Similarly, long before Adam and Eve ate the fruit, God taught Adam, who in turn taught Eve. Obedience would have protected them, but ultimately they died, not because God killed them, but when they disobeyed Him they suffered the consequences. God no doubt felt very sad to lose them, but they made their decision to ignore Him.
Debate Round No. 1
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

Con begins with an explanation about intent and responsibility. However, my examples should make it clear that God kills regardless of responsibility.

EXAMPLE 1: The Great Flood (Genesis 6:1-9:17): between 5 and 17 billion deaths (http://www.ldolphin.org...)

Scripture too long for inclusion here.

God killed every living thing on Earth. This included between 5 and 17 billion humans. Let's assume 5 billion humans. In the Bible, God argues that every single one of these 5 billion people were guilty and deserved death. However: nowhere between Genesis 3:23 (God sends Adam from the Garden) and Genesis 6:1 (God starts the Flood sequence) does God actually lay down a code of morals -- such as the Bible. The only moral rules up until that point are:

1: Don't eat from the tree of knowledge.
2: Don't kill people.

Unless *every single one* of the 5 billion people was a murderer, then they cannot possibly be considered guilty. Moreover, there are several classes of people who couldn't possibly have murdered another person (or sinned in general):

1. Unborn people
2. Newborn people
3. Congenitally paralyzed people

In particular, the unborn cannot possibly have commited any sins.

Therefore: God almost certainly killed some non-murderers, who were innocent of all crimes, for no reason.

Therefore: God almost certainly intentionally killed innocent people.

EXAMPLE 2: All the Firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:29)

And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

God wanted to "set his people free" from Egypt. As one of the punishments against the Pharaoh, God killed every firstborn in Egypt. Given that Egypt probably had a population of 3-6 million, this -- like the Great Flood -- again suggests that a substantial number of the people God killed were innocent.

EXAMPLE 3: Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God.
The Ark of the Covenant was about to fall over because oxen shook it. Uzzah put his hand on it to prevent it from falling. God immediately killed him. Why?

EXAMPLE 4: David and Uriah's baby (2 Samuel 12:14-18)

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died.

David had sinned. God, however, decided to spare him. Instead, God killed his (presumably sinless) baby. As such, as far as we know, this baby was innocent, and God used them as a pawn. Why?

EXAMPLE 5: Jeroboam's baby (1 Kings 14:10-18)

Arise thou therefore, get thee to thine own house: and when thy feet enter into the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him, and bury him: for he only of Jeroboam shall come to the grave, because in him there is found some good thing toward the LORD God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam. Moreover the LORD shall raise him up a king over Israel, who shall cut off the house of Jeroboam that day: but what? even now. For the LORD shall smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of this good land, which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the river, because they have made their groves, provoking the LORD to anger. And he shall give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, who did sin, and who made Israel to sin. And Jeroboam's wife arose, and departed, and came to Tirzah: and when she came to the threshold of the door, the child died;

Jeroboam had sinned. God planned to kill the entire family of Jeroboam as punishment. However, he decided to kill this (presumably sinless) baby first, so that the baby would be spared from this later killing of the entire family. As such, as far as we know, this baby was innocent, and God used them as a pawn. Why?

EXAMPLE 6: Ezekiel's wife (Ezekiel 24:1-24)

Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down. Son of man, behold, I take away from thee the desire of thine eyes with a stroke: yet neither shalt thou mourn nor weep, neither shall thy tears run down. So I spake unto the people in the morning: and at even my wife died; and I did in the morning as I was commanded.

God commanded Ezekiel not to cry when God killed Ezekiel's wife. God then killed Ezekiel's wife. Ezekiel didn't cry. God doesn't explain WHY he's going to kill Ezekiel's wife, other than to make a point to Ezekiel. As such, as far as we know, Ezekiel's wife was innocent, and God used her as a pawn. Why?

To me, these are the strongest instances of God killing people for an unclear purpose, even if the person themselves is innocent. I should note: this debate isn't about whether it was acceptable for God to kill these people, but whether God has intentionally killed people himself. It should be obvious by the examples and scripture above that God chose to kill people and followed through on his choices.
Yehoshua

Con

The first point I made is that it is the rebellious individual who brings calamity upon themself, God shares no blame.

My second point is that God always holds out mercy to those who truly want to turn around and repent. With the flood, God held out every opportunity for everyone to repent and cease their sinful course. Noah not only built the Ark to save himself and his family, but was directed by God to also preach and tell everyone what he had been told. The others however, took no note and thus once again the people killed, and God shares no blame. This is the same with the case of the firstborn in Egypt, Uzzah, and David. With Ezekiel's wife, though it is never stated, she brought it upon herself with adultery. It is shown by what it prophesied. God knew of this and how happy Ezekiel was to have her and thus consoled Ezekiel by telling him not to mourn.
Debate Round No. 2
FuzzyCatPotato

Pro

I remind the judges that this is the final round and it is impossible for me to respond to Con's argument. If Con brings up any new arguments, you must ignore them.

---

Con extends their arguments. They create two criteria for a killing to be "wrong":

1: God isn't at fault if people bring punishment upon themselves.
2: God isn't at fault because he always holds out mercy to those who want to repent.

Let's see if those two criteria hold up to the six examples I've provided:

EXAMPLE 1: The Great Flood (Genesis 6:1-9:17)

God killed all the world's population to cleanse the Earth of sin.

1: Justified: Millions of babies, young children, unborn people, and congenitally paralyzed people who were incapable of intentionally commiting sin were killed. These killings were NOT justified.
2: Merciful: Con asserts that Noah was told to tell everybody that the flood was coming and to allow them to repent, but not a single person did. This [1] ignores the fact that, as noted above, many of the people killed were babies, children, unborn, or congenitally paralyzed; and [2] it would be impossible for Noah to tell *5 billion people* that the flood is coming. This killing was NOT merciful.

As such, this killing was NOT justified and NOT merciful. This is strong proof against God.

EXAMPLE 2: All the Firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:29)

God killed all Egypt's firstborn to make a point to the Pharaoh.

1: Justified: All Egypt's firstborn included many babies and young children who were incapable of intentionally commiting sin. These killings were NOT justified.
2: Merciful: God decided to kill all the firstborn because of the actions of the Pharaoh -- rather than the firstborn themselves. The firstborn couldn't have repented if they wanted to, because only the Pharaoh mattered. This killing was NOT merciful.

As such, this killing was NOT justified and NOT merciful. This is strong proof against God.

EXAMPLE 3: Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

God killed Uzzah because Uzzah tried to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling to the groun.

1: Justified: Uzzah was trying to preserve God's earthly presence via the Ark. This killing was NOT justified.
2: Merciful: Uzzah was IMMEDIATELY killed and had no chance to repent. This killing was NOT merciful.

As such, this killing was NOT justified and NOT merciful. This is strong proof against God.

EXAMPLE 4: David and Uriah's baby (2 Samuel 12:14-18)

God killed David's baby to make a point to David.

1: Justified: David's baby was a baby and was incapable of intentionally commiting sin. This killing was NOT justified.
2: Merciful: God failed to give David's baby any chance to repent -- and how could a baby repent, anyway? God also failed to give David any chance to repent. (David, in fact, repented -- and his baby was killed anyway.) This killing was NOT merciful.

As such, this killing was NOT justified and NOT merciful. This is strong proof against God.


EXAMPLE 5: Jeroboam's baby (1 Kings 14:10-18)

God killed Jeroboam's baby to make a point to Jeroboam.

1: Justified: Jeroboam's baby was a baby and was incapable of intentionally commiting sin. This killing was NOT justified.
2: Merciful: God failed to give Jeroboam's baby any chance to repent -- and how could a baby repent, anyway? God also failed to give Jeroboam any chance to repent. This killing was NOT merciful.

As such, this killing was NOT justified and NOT merciful. This is strong proof against God.

EXAMPLE 6: Ezekiel's wife (Ezekiel 24:1-24)

God killed Ezekiel's wife to make a point to Ezekiel.

1: Justified: Con asserts that Ezekiel's wife was guilty of adultery. Finally, someone who's actually guilty of their crimes!
2: Merciful: God failed to give Ezekiel's wife any chance to repent. God also failed to give Ezekiel any chance to repent. This killing was NOT merciful.

As such, this killing was NOT merciful. This is proof against God.

SUMMARY

I've cited scripture six times over. Con hasn't cited scripture once.

I've provided five examples which pass both of Con's criteria: the people killed were innocent & god gave them no chance to repent.

I've provided one example that passes Con's second criteria: god gave the people killed no chance to repent.

Moreover: this debate is only about whether God has intentionally killed people. It doesn't matter whether God was justified! The question is only whether God intentionally killed people. Con doesn't contest this whatsoever.

It is obvious from my six examples that God intentionally killed people. It is also obvious from my six examples that God intentionally and mercilessly killed people who were innocent. As such: whether you think Con's arguments make sense or not, you MUST vote Pro.

---

I remind the judges that this is the final round and it is impossible for me to respond to Con's argument. If Con brings up any new arguments, you must ignore them.
Yehoshua

Con

Since I cannot make any new arguments, I will simply refute my opponent's arguments instead.

In the example of the flood, my opponent asserts that there were 5 billion people on earth at the time of the flood. The problem with this statement is that no record exists that has come down to our day that states this and thus my opponent's assertion is completely baseless, without evidence of any kind. However, there is evidence that the people of the Earth were warned as it states at Matthew 24:39 that they "took no note." Also, this is not an assertion made by Matthew long after the fact, as we have both accepted the Bible as God's Word as was stated at the beginning of the debate, "Both debaters must assume the standard Bible is correct." This is also based on 2 Timothy 3:16.

With the example of the firstborn of Egypt, there was clear warning made to Pharaoh, the one in responsibility of all of Egypt. Pharaoh ignored God's warning and Pharaoh was thus guilty of murdering all the firstborn of Egypt. (Exodus 4:22,23) If one were to take the medication away that a doctor had given to a patient, and that patient dies of not having correctly taken their medication, is it the doctor's fault?

As far as the killing of Uzzah is concerned, the mercy of instruction was given not only to him but all of God's people of the time. Thus he knew better, but handled it carelessly anyway. (2 Samuel 6:7)

In the baby of David's case, David is to blame for his sins of adultery and murder. (2 Samuel 12:13)

With Jeroboam's baby, Jeroboam is to blame for the death due to his ungodly course. (1 Kings 14:9)

When it comes to the last example of Ezekiel's wife, yes she was guilty of her crime and wasn't extended mercy. However, God knows the hearts of humans and if there were any kind of hope left for her, He would have extended mercy for her if she had any remorse left just as Sodom and Gomorrah had no remorse left. (Proverbs 21:2, Genesis 18:22-33)
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: blamonkey// Mod action: NOT Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com...... Good debate

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter gives more than sufficient analysis of the arguments given by both sides.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: samsun01// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: I think that pro is wrong

[*Reason for removal*] This is not an RFD. The voter is required to evaluate the debate, not merely to provide his own generalized views of one of the debater"s arguments.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: samsun01// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were good

[*Reason for removal*] The voter is required to do more than simply restate the decision. An RFD requires explanation, which includes specific comparison of arguments from both sides in the debate. That is absent in this RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by Yehoshua 1 year ago
Yehoshua
Justified killing is different from killing as murder as my opponent refers to. A debate cannot exist that debates whether he has actually killed or not because he clearly has. The point of the debate is to prove that on my part, God has never actually murdered and is free from any blame.
Posted by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
Isn't justified killing still killing?
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
John_C_1812
The Bible only openly accused GOD of killing. Leaving a religion or none religious representation opportunity to defend itself of the criminal accusation publicly or within a Court of law.

The issue held by any Court of law, law can be used both legally and illegally.
When a Court holds a trial of separation by a public request, in the form of accusation, there has been some crime committed, GOD is accused that requires a test of separation.

Or

GOD has been challenged to appear as character witness, for or against a religion accused or principle publicly misunderstood. Beliefs can hold standards of moral value that can be compared before a Judicial Court or people.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by blamonkey 1 year ago
blamonkey
FuzzyCatPotatoYehoshua
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s8EKEV163EIlEVUfC37VWywjx8iynAq4FIeqXKkY860/edit?usp=sharing Good debate