The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

God is good despite evil.

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,084 times Debate No: 45272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (2)




The world contains much suffering and moral corruption. Yet, the God of the Bible is morally pure and kind. Some have argued that when one considers the full nature of God; then both cannot exist. Some things about evil. One, God did not create evil. Evil is not a thing. It is a state of being that a thing might find it self in. It is a disposition. The possibility of the existence of evil is the logical necessity of the greater good known as freewill. God can be sovereign and yet limit himself. When he gives us a real choice in something, once we make a choice we have limited His choices by logical necessity. If our choice is evil then evil is now in the world. It's not God's fault, it's ours.

People have argued that God and suffering cannot simultaneously exist. But living in a state without suffering is not the highest state of well being. That is really the test here. Is God acting in our best interests? The highest state of well being is to be free to choose or to choose otherwise. The reason is because God is love. Love is always understood in the context of a relationship. Love is always by choice.


I happily accept Pro's challenge and I look forward to what I'm sure will be a lively debate about the nature of the god of the Bible, namely Jehovah.

As a former fundamentalist Christian, I also believed at one time the god of the Bible was the source of all morality and that his nature was absolute perfection and purity. However, I began to question what the Bible had to say about the nature of Jehovah to the point that my faith died and I became an agnostic. This was a long, painful process for me, full of internal struggle. My opinion of Jehovah is now the opposite of what it was seven years ago.

Throughout our discussion, I will show that Jehovah is anything but a moral being and is nothing more than a war god from the Canaanite pantheon, and that even if he did exist, he would at least have some degree of responsibility for the existence of evil.

I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


I'm grateful for my counterparts participation in this discussion. First I feel I need to address the use of the name "Jehovah". I consider it inappropriate. It was introduced into English based on a German corruption of the text. God's proper name is YHWH. We would pronounce it approximately Yah Way. There are no J's in the Hebrew language. The Tetragramaton or the YHWH spelling of God's name means something like I am, I am. In the story in the text we see God speaking to Moses telling him that His name is I am that I am.
It is impossible to accuse God of immorality of any kind; nor is He responsible for it. All of what is truly good is defined by God. It is measured by His own nature. Good is also that which is consistent with God's will. Evil is that which is not consistent with God's will. If God was to actually direct a morally evil thing to happen to someone, something i doubt, He would not be stained by that. It is not evil for Him because it is His will. If we participate in the morally evil thing then we are guilty. It is not God's will for us to do what is Morally evil. Another example of this principle is revenge. God has a right to take revenge while we do not. One difference between us and God is that God owns us and everything else. Doesn't He have the right to do what He wants with His own things? We do not own ourselves or other people.
It's true that God's name turns up among the ancient Canaanites as EL. But just because human beings here of God or borrow and misuse His name doesn't mean that He is not real or He is defective. God's name also turns up as partnered with pagan Goddesses in ancient Israel. The Bible itself mentions this and explains that at times the people fell away and associated YHWH with foreign gods. This obviously doesn't make YHWH a pagan god.


“Faith is cold as ice, why are little ones born only to suffer for the want of immunity or a bowl of rice? Well, who would hold a price on the heads of the innocent children if there’s some immortal power to control the dice?” – Neil Peart, Roll the Bones, 1991

Thanks to my opponent for his thoughtful opening. I would like to begin my response and counter-arguments by addressing Pro’s statement regarding the name of YHWH. First, I realize that many may be offended by the fact that I use a lower case “g” when I refer to Yahweh. And I respectfully say that it makes no difference to me if one prefers YHWH, Yahweh, or Jehovah. To me they are one and the same. His name could be Drake Tungsten and we would still be talking about the same deity. I want to make it clear that if there is a God, I don’t want to equate him to YHWH.


As a secular agnostic, it is clearly evident that the morality of secular humanism is superior biblical morality. While there are good tidbits of wisdom in the Bible, it is so laden with nightmares and brutalities that any unbiased reader wouldn’t be able to take it seriously as a moral guide for living.

While my opponent says that it is impossible to accuse YHWH of immorality of any kind, if one reads the Bible from an unbiased perspective they will be convinced that he is a fabrication by ancient Jewish ancestors as a way to justify their violence against neighboring nations. My opponent says that, “All of what is truly good is defined by God.” With this in mind, I would like to critically examine this statement in light of YHWH’s commandments, many of which are inane, but many of which command slavery, rape, and infanticide. I think it would be safe to say that my opponent would agree with me that these actions are highly immoral.


Most people would agree that slavery is wrong. It continues to be a topic that is hotly debated as non-believers confront the faithful with verses that clearly illustrate that YHWH commanded the Israelites to take slaves regardless of gender or age.

Christians try to soften the image of slavery by using terms like "servant" or "bondservant". Even if a passage refers to a slave as a bondservant, such a concept is still immoral and inexcusable. Let's look at a few verses on slavery and examine if these passages truly come from the mind of a good, loving God.

“Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.” – Leviticus 25:44-46

“And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.” – Exodus 21:7-8

While these verses are troubling for believers, perhaps the most egregious passages regarding to slavery is Exodus 21:20-21. “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property."

This passage is very clear; you can legally beat another human being to death so long as they survive a few days. What difference does it make if the slave dies within 24 hours or 48? Every time I read this passage, I think of the author who beats a slave death and fabricated a law in order to evade a death sentence himself. No matter how many ways or how vigorously believers try to defend this passage, it's just another example of YHWH's failure as the author of morality. Note that it draws no distinction between slaves and so-called indentured servants. Also note that the passage refers to a human being as "property".

Another horrifying and heartbreaking example of YHWH's moral depravity is Exodus 21:2-6. In this passage, if a male slave has a wife who bears him children during his six years as a slave, the male is free to leave, but his wife and kids are forced to remain with their master. Is this a presentation of freedom? I'd like my opponent to imagine himself in such a situation where he would choose personal freedom over his loved ones.


Another topic that I think my opponent would agree is heinous is rape. Try as Christians might to justify the Bible, it depicts YHWH as commanding rape and even death to rape victims. As such, I would like my opponent to justify passages like Deuteronomy 22:23-29, 21:10-14, Zechariah 14:1-2, Judges 21:10-14 and Numbers 31:7-18.


Christians pride themselves for being pro-life, often scorning and humiliating pro-choice advocates. However, the god they worship commanded the ancient Israelites to kill children, infants, and even pregnant women. Hosea depicts such scenarios. In 9:13-16 we read, “Though they [Ephraim] bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them… O Lord…give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts…though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Hosea 13:16 says, “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

Numbers 31:17 says, “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him."

If Pro considers himself pro-life, does he feel a sense of digust when he reads these verses, or will he justify them, insisting that these commandments are somehow moral because they are defined by God?


Popular belief says that YHWH is the one true God who created the universe. The truth, however, is that YHWH is worshiped by Christians today who have little to no idea that he was first worshiped as a war/storm god from the ancient Canaanite pantheon. Therefore, Christians are actually worshiping a pagan god [1][2].

Moreover, though Christians believe that YHWH is not the source of evil, even if he does exist, he is guilty of creating evil by default since, if he is omniscient, then he knew that evil would enter the world as soon as he created Lucifer who supposedly fell from grace due to pride.

Other horrifying passages include Deuteronomy 22:20-21, Romans 1:24-32, 2 Kings 2:23-24, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Isaiah 13:15-18, Exodus 21:15 and 22:18, and the Book of Joshua, among many others.


Contrary to my opponent’s personal beliefs, Scripture clearly indicates that YHWH is anything but a moral God. The passages I mentioned are abhorrent and should offend anyone with even an ounce of decency. So, if he truly believes that if YHWH is a moral being, I would like to ask Pro these questions:

Why would a moral being give such horrible commandments to his followers?
Would he be willing to obey the commandments of YHWH that include killing homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), witches (Exodus 22:18), and children who strike their parents (Exodus 21:15)?
Would he practice slavery?
Would he kill a rape victim because no one could hear her call for help (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)?
Does he think it's morally acceptable to beat a slave to death?
If he has a daughter(s), would he sell them into sexual slavery?


[1] Wikipedia. Yahweh. Retrieved February 8, 2014.
[2] Wikipedia. Canaanite religion. Retrieved February 8, 2014.;

Debate Round No. 2


Con invokes the age old Documentary hypothesis in attempting to discredit the god of the Bible. This 19th century fossil has long since been rejected by serious Bible scholars. The Torah is considered to be a literary whole with the exception of Deuteronomy. I would disagree with them on that. The terminology is still used but the heart of the theory is long dead. The concept of YHWY evolving from a Canaanite deity is a product of this bygone canard. The earliest mention of YHWY is found in a 14th early 13th century century Egyptian document by Amenhotep the 3rd. He is mentioned in relationship to a people called the Shasu. The statement is specifically "The land of the Shasu of YHWH." The Shasu were a Semitic group of semi nomadic shepherds. These people either are the Hebrews of the Bible or are close genetic relatives. Another mention which is copied from Amenhotep's list is Ramsey's the 2nd's list who mentions the same people. Another Egyptian list mentions YHWY which is ostensibly a reference to the Shasu as well.
The next reference to YHWY is on the Moabite stone that mentions YHWY as an enemy of one of the Canaanite gods Chemosh not as being a Canaanite god Himself. In the Wikipedia article on Canaanite religion they point out the same thing in their list of the Canaanite pantheon
The artifact that depicts YHWH associating with a goddess is not until the 8th century BC. I mentioned this falling away by the people in my OP. The Bible mentions it as well. If this is an evolution of a Canaanite war god evolving into YHWH then the evolution ran backward. Con's case on this point falls flat on it's face.
Let's understand something about these Canaanite's that Con spends a considerable amount of time weeping and wailing over. Their pagan religion included things like the slaughter of newborn babies on the alters of some of their gods. These people were very violent. When Abraham had first come to the land God told him that he could not yet posses the land because the sins of the people had not come to a full. What that meant was that God gives people an enormous amount of latitude and time when it comes to repenting and stopping their evil behavior. When Joshua and the Hebrews entered the land it was 400 years later and these people were still at it. When God tells Joshua or others to wipe out this or that group God is usually trying to prevent one or two things from happening. One God doesn't want their ideas and religion to spread to his people. Second if you don't kill everyone you have to deal with people growing up and taking revenge on you later. You can end up in a cycle of revenge and violence that could last for hundreds of years. God did not make these people evil the way they had become. These people left God with very few choices due to their own free will. Blaming God won't do.
The Hebrew people of the late Bronze age were like other people of their time. The kept and bought slaves. They viewed women and daughters as property. God wrote laws that put limits on their behavior at that specific time and place. Again, people have REAL FREE WILL and as long as they do God will have REAL LIMITATIONS on what he can impose on us. Jesus pointed out this disparity and God's recognition of peoples unreadiness for the true morality. Matthew 19:8 "He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way." After the great flood the rules God gave us were exceedingly simple and libertarian: Genesis 9: 1-7 "And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. "The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. "Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man. "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. "As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it." There's basically three rules: Get married and have kids, Don't be cruel to animals, and If someone commits murder execute them. So, you see the laws He have to His people in the ancient time were not His idea of ideal laws. He was taking people where they were at and trying to mold them toward where they were to go. For us to insist not that God should have done it otherwise is arrogant in the extreme. We weren't there and we aren't Him. We didn't have to deal with millions of ignorant, stubborn, primitive people who believed allot of backward things. Now to deal with some specifics, there are somethings Con says that amount to outright lies. Let's deal with those.
"Would he kill a rape victim because no one could hear her call for help (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)? " This is NOT what the passage says.
23 "If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her," 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death"the young woman because she was in a town and DID NOT SCREAM for help, and the man because he violated another man"s wife. You must purge the evil from among you."
So what does this mean. It means, if they get caught fooling around and all of a sudden she says "Wait! I was raped" then all you need to ask is "Then why is it that you didn't call out for someone to help you?". It was to keep an adulteress from lying her way out of a situation. And noticed SHE DOESN'T DIE ALONE. That's something Con leaves out.
Here's one of the skeptics favorite modern tactics the HOMOPHOBE card. Con whines about God ordering the killing of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13). And then forgets to mention that you'd be executed for adultery and bestiality too. Any form of sexual immorality was severely censured in ancient Israel. He brings up the execution of witches and then forgets to mention the execution of false prophets right along side them. Any teacher of a false religion was dealt with swiftly and harshly yes. But then again, these people had personally or had been told by relatives that had seen personally the Red Sea parted, manna in the wilderness, water from a stone, the 10 plagues of Egypt, the stopping of the river Jordan, the speaking of YHWH from mount Sinai etc. They would experience other miracles through future prophets as well. God had a right to expect more from them. Not to mention the fact that you could pretty much do what ever else you wanted, smoke pot, drink etc.
Ezekiel 9:5-7 "Pass through the city, through Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations that are committed in it." Con apparently didn't read the entire passage. He failed to noticed that repentance was an option here. Con also fails to notice why God did what He did:
"Then he said to me, "The guilt of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great. The land is full of blood, and the city full of injustice. For they say, "The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see." 10 As for me, my eye will not spare, nor will I have pity; I will bring their deeds upon their heads." I'm out of space, so I can't answer the rest of Con's objections. YHWH values freedom above compulsion which is why He takes us where we're at. That explains the laws to his ancient people. True morality comes from love and that requires freedom.


"An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." - Mahatma Gandhi

As I begin my final round I want to take a moment to sincerely thank Pro for this debate. Although I may have caused some friction between us, I truly enjoyed this discussion.

I want to stress that throughout this debate it was not my intention to infer that Pro is a homophobe, nor was I suggesting that he should commit acts of violence. Rather, I was trying to get Pro to accept the obvious moral shortcomings in the Bible. After reviewing his arguments, I still think that his defense of the crimes against humanity found in the Old Testament is weak. Apologists often try to defend the savagery of the Bible by making statements like, "It was a brutal civilization back then, so the Israelites had to act brutally against their neighbors" hoping that this argument is enough to distract skeptics from pressing the argument.


Notice that Pro barely addresses the horrifying passages regarding slavery. He acknowledges that slavery is in the Bible, but he doesn't make the leap to say that it's wrong. Rather, he seems to defend slavery in the Bible when he writes, "The Hebrew people of the late Bronze age were like other people of their time. The kept and bought slaves. They viewed women and daughters as property. God wrote laws that put limits on their behavior at that specific time and place."

But what are those limits? As I illustrated, the Bible clearly states that Israelites could beat slaves to death so long as they lived at least one day, as if one minute more would make such a horrible action any more acceptable and moral?

Also notice that he did not address the passages in which YHWH commands the Israelites to destroy children, infants, and pregnant women. My opponent is pro-life, but why didn't he take some time defend these passages as he did the passages like Exodus 22:23-24?

With regard to Exodus 22:23-24, I appreciate Pro's defense of this verse and I on a certain wavelength I can understand it. I also understand that the verse doesn't directly state that rape victims should be killed. At least not in so many words. While I appreciate Pro's defense, there are two very big problems with his defense. First, it makes no distinction between a woman who is caught in the act of adultery and a woman who is under duress.

For instance, what if a woman's assailant held a knife to the her throat and threatened to kill her if she screamed? What if he gagged her so that she couldn't make a sound? But let's suppose for a moment that Pro's defense is airtight. Is adultery worth the penalty of death? If so, I ask again, does Pro think it's okay to kill a betrothed woman caught in the act of adultery?

My opponent goes on to write, "Con whines about God ordering the killing of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13). And then forgets to mention that you'd be executed for adultery and bestiality too. Any form of sexual immorality was severely censured in ancient Israel. He brings up the execution of witches and then forgets to mention the execution of false prophets right along side them."

It seems to me that Pro is destroying his own argument for YHWH's morality by adding to the list if biblical crimes that are punishable by death. The Bible says, if you're gay you should die, if you hit your parents you should die, if you're a witch you should die. As if this weren't enough, Pro gives more reasons why you should die. Die, die, die, die, die! It seems that this is all the Bible calls for when it comes to YHWH's paper-thin ego and moral shortcomings.


I find it interesting that Pro mentions that the Canaanites sacrificed babies to their pagan gods. He's absolutely right, but what Pro doesn't mention is that the ancient Israelites also sacrificed newborns to YHWH. In Exodus 22:28-29 we read, "Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me."

Apologists insist that this verse has nothing to do with infant sacrifice; that it simply means to consecrate an Israelites' firstborn to God. But if that's true, why does the command to consecrate the firstborn oxen or sheep so early in its life? This argument by apologists is inherently weak.

The point is that child sacrifice was a common practice, even among the Israelites. As John Loftus writes, "Child sacrifice was probably only considered evil when it was done in the name of a foreign god, and doing so was punishable by death precisely because it was offered to another deity. [1]."


Pro states that there are passages which I didn't read in their entirety. In truth, I have read them in their entirety, which is one of the many reasons why I no longer believe accept Christianity. But I don't have to read them in their entirety. While I don't accept the verse as true, Romans 2:15 says, "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another." Believing this to be absolutely true, William Lane Craig states, "God’s moral laws are written on the hearts of all people so that everyone has an innate sense of our moral responsibility before God and of our failure to live up to the demands of the moral law. [2]"

If it is true that God's moral laws are written on everyone's heart, then Pro and WLC should know that slavery, rape, and infanticide are wrong, and no amount of apologetical gymnastics will make them right, even if these acts are done by YHWH's people.

Thank you for your time.


Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AgnosticRadar 2 years ago
You need to grow up JonathanDJ, your 42, act like it
Posted by JonathanDJ 2 years ago
Sorry man, I just wanted to add one thing. It's a video clip. It's the power of the Christian faith in a persons life and how it effects others and it's amazing. I don't know of any other belief that has this kind of effect on people.
Posted by JonathanDJ 2 years ago
The passage means danged if you do and danged if you don't. You say the Moabite King is sacrificing to YHWY, I correct you and say no, no, no, it was a pagan god Chemosh. Then you complain "Well it looks like Chemosh is more powerful then because..." It seems no matter what I point out you find another objection. That passage by the way is simply telling what really happened. It's not endorsing something. Before that it's talking about how the prophet Elisha's adivce caused the slaughter of the Ammonites and Moabites and also made them turn on each other. The Moabite stone tells this same story with a pro Moabite and Chemosh spin. Forgive me for how long this post was.
Posted by JonathanDJ 2 years ago
Genesis does not necessarily indicate that the earth is young. I'm aware there are those who dogmatically assert that it does. I don't believe Genesis is primarily trying to describe how God created the Cosmos at all. If it is it is only in a very broad way. At this point I'm interested in Frame Work Theory. I also believe that Genesis was intended by God to prepare His people to face pagans who were going to bombard them with lies about their pagan gods. It is vital to consider the audience when we approach the text of the Bible. It's true that there are things that are for future readers too. Judeo/Christian Cosmology is utterly unique in all the ancient world. Only it describes God as the starting point. Hebrew Cosmology stands out in the ancient near east because instead of man being depicted as a slave for the gods or a byproduct of a slaughter, we were lovingly, intentionally, purposefully created with dignity with the intention of having us relate with and live with our Creator. I've read the Qur'an cover to cover, it's not even on the same planet when it comes to a Holy book that the Bible is. I've read the Dammapada and it's good but it doesn't compare either. I've read Tao Te Ching and if you can find someone who can teach you what it means it's got wisdom but to me it's allot of pretense and mumbling. It's a book trying to sound wise and mystical. When you read the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes they are much clearer and a whole lot more practical. It might help if you think of God as an anthropologist living among a primitive tribe of people. He tries to help them along and improve things but He has limited success. Some things He can only take existing rules and modify them. I would counsel you against one thing; Jesus said: Luke 7:32 "They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, 'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep." continued ~
Posted by JonathanDJ 2 years ago
I'm sorry I've been edgy. My first instinct is to argue. It's a bad habit. I'm wondering what happened that you stopped believing that God's word was God's word? When people tell me that has happened to them; I think it's because they may not have had a proper foundation. It's starts with Jesus' gift of eternal life as a totally free gift. No earning it, no commitment, no keeping it by not doing things or doing things. It's trusting Him for real, to the best of our ability. The importance of knowing the difference between doubt and unbelief. Doubt is something all fallen people go through, unbelief is something a person chooses. The first is passive the second is active. God is love. Love is about relationships. Relationships require freedom. God really does start with us where we are: Matthew 19:8 "Jesus replied, Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to your hard hearts, but it was not what God had originally intended." This is something I've been sharing with you from the beginning of our discussion. God's prescriptions for His people weren't always ideal. His people were a backward ,superstitious, and often unfair people. I know that some of things that God ordered His people to do were very harsh. One, they lived in an extremely harsh world and we can't really understand what that's like, we are safe. Secondly as I pointed out, the people God had His people wipe out had been making their choices for a long time, they put God and themselves in that positions. If God didn't make a clean sweep of it He and His people would be contending with a new generation of those people looking for revenge in about 20 years. God's word is divine and human. I believe that it is inerrant and infallible but I also believe that the texts reveal the idiosyncrasies of the human authors. Christians aren't Muslims. We don't believe the Bible was dictated word for word. Continued above ~
Posted by Cygnus 2 years ago
Your point is taken, but the point remains that the man making the sacrifice was getting his tail kicked in battle until he offered his firstborn son as a burnt offering. Verse 27 seems to suggest that God's wrath was turned toward the Israelites and they ended up fleeing to their home.

If what you say is true, is this to suggest that Chemosh is superior in battle to YHWH?

I'm not trying to insult you either. Like I said I can tell that you're a decent guy. But after all of the verses we have gone over, everything from slavery to destroying entire cities including men, pregnant women, boys, girls, and infants (yet leaving virgin girls alive for the Israelite men to "marry"), I don't understand how anyone can look at the Bible as the inspired word of God.
Posted by JonathanDJ 2 years ago
Again, the passage in Kings 3:26 would have cleared up with a closer reading. The man making the sacrifice was the King of Moab not Israel and likely to Chemosh not to YHWH. I already talked about the passage in Judges. The Jews have a saying "God never told anybody to be stupid." The father in this passage was being stupid. You'll notice God didn't endorse it or bless it. It's unfair to blame God for it. The difference here between you and me is that I'm willing to look past this verse having found a reasonable answer though not an absolute one in terms of clarity, you are not despite having received a reasonable answer. For you the unclarity has become a reason to reject the Bible. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to point out that you seem to have a rather strong cognitive bias.
Posted by Cygnus 2 years ago
Bah! Sorry about the double post. Off to work.
Posted by Cygnus 2 years ago
Quickly before I go to work.

"And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not. Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land." 2 Kings 3:26-27

Are we not supposed to take this literally? Are we not supposed to take Judges 11:29-40 literally?
Posted by Cygnus 2 years ago
Quickly before I go to work.

"And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not. Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land." 2 Kings 3:26-27

Are we not supposed to take this literally? Are we not supposed to take Judges 11:29-40 literally?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed more convincing to me than Con although Con did well.
Vote Placed by dawndawndawndawn 2 years ago
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: well-played