The Instigator
izbo10
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
ReformedArsenal
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

God is guilty of collusion to sacrifice a child in the case of Jepthah

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,404 times Debate No: 16920
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (151)
Votes (6)

 

izbo10

Pro

This debate will have me arguing like a prosecuting attorney trying to prove that Yahweh is guilty of collusion to sacrifice a human being in the book of Judges. My opponent will defend Yahweh, unlike a court of law this is not beyond reasonable doubt, though I think it will be shown, but who presents a better case and which appears more likely. First round will be acceptence of terms and any questions which I will address in comments.
ReformedArsenal

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this debate and look forward to his opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
izbo10

Pro

Judges 11: 9 Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, 31 then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
32 So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and the LORD delivered them into his hands. 33 And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith—twenty cities—and to Abel Keramim,[a] with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
34 When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it.”
36 So she said to him, “My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon.” 37 Then she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I.”
38 So he said, “Go.” And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. 39 And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man.
And it became a custom in Israel 40 that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.


Ok to start out my argument we must establish there was a deal, a deal being an offer of one hing for another and whethe acceptence of said deal was made or reasonable to assume the deal was accepted. So in this we have a proposed deal between Jepthah and God. Each one does somethng and the other gets something in return:

Yahweh delivers victory over Ammon to Jepthah

Jepthah returns a blood sacrifice of the first person to come out of his house to Yahweh.

So did Yahweh deliver, well if we are to take the passage for its word ,then yes. Yahweh delivers and never says anything about not agreeing. So the question then becomes do we have an idea of what Yahweh would do if he didn't agree to a sacrifice. Well yes we do,In the case of Abrahams son Isaac, god sends down the angel Gabriel to stop the sacrifice as he disagrees eventually. Though being in this case Yaweh made the deal, it seems he is not above the use of sacrifice.


To take things a step further if you go into the new testament, we find that god offers things for sacrifice. He actually apparently offers salvation if his own son is sacrificed.

IN this portion my intentioin is to show tha god accepted the deal, and once th bible says he delivered his end that constitutes an agreement. Much like if you walk up to a hooker, and hand her money after she offers you sex, it makes no sense to say that well since I donate to people all the time i didn't agree to the sex. Especially if I do nothing to stop her from having sex with me. It would be ridiculous to say I didn't pay for sex.

Now how does god feel about burnt offerings well from leviticus we find that

Leviticus 23:18
And you shall offer with the bread seven lambs of the first year, without blemish, one young bull, and two rams. They shall be as a burnt offering to the LORD, with their grain offering and their drink offerings, an offering made by fire for a sweet aroma to the LORD.

Leviticus 8:28
Then Moses took them from their hands and burned them on the altar, on the burnt offering. They were consecration offerings for a sweet aroma. That was an offering made by fire to the LORD.


So I think I have established several things, acceptance of the deal, god would want the smell of burnt flesh and enjoy it, and that Yahweh in no way made an effort to stop it, all leading to god knowing, agreeing to do his part and letting the act occur, this is collusion to sacrifice a person.


ReformedArsenal

Con

Thank you pro for issuing this debate and for presenting your argument.

However, there is something lacking from your opening argument. In order to understand if God is guilty of collusion we must first understand what collusion is.

Dictionary.com defines collusion as
"–noun
1.
a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2.
Law . a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce." [A]

Since it is clear that the second defintion is not what Pro is refering to, we can assume that his resolution refers to the first. Now, I could mount a semantic debate based on the fact that collusion by definition is secretive and this is a very public situation. However, I will not.

My opponent makes several sigificant fallacious mistakes in his opening round. I shall briefly address them before moving onto my primary argument, and will go further indepth later if needed.

1) My opponent seeks to show how "what Yahweh would do if he didn't agree to a sacrifice" and proceeds to use the instance of Abraham and Isaac as an example of how Yahweh would act. However, the situations are not analogous. In the case of Abraham God was the initiator of the sacrifice, and since he later stopped it it is likely that he never intended for the sacrifice to take place at all. Regardless, it is not an equivalent circumstance. Rather, we see people committing child sacrifices throughout the Bible, and Yahweh allows people to exercise their free will to do so.

2) My opponent seeks to show that the sacrifice in the New Testament of Jesus Christ proves that Yahweh is not opposed to human sacrifice. However, Christian doctrine teaches that the Son was pre-existent and willingly sacrificed himself. This situation is also not analogous.

3) My opponent seeks to argue that Yahweh accepted the "deal" that Jepthah suggested. However this does not present itself in the text. Yahweh is markedly silent on the topic. In addition, the fact that the Spirit of the LORD was already with Jepthah prior to his vow is significant. Every other place in the book of Judges that the Spirit of the LORD is with a judge, that judge has already been comissioned to defeat the enemies of Israel. Paradigmatically, it appears as though the LORD already intended to defeat the enemies of Israel and Jepthah made an uneccesary vow. Furthermore, there is no evidence present in the text that indicates that he LORD was pleased by the sacrifice or would have been displeased by it. If I say to a person "If you say nothing I will take it to mean that you hate me" and the person says nothing, it does not mean they hate me. It simply means they are not responding to me for some reason.

4) My opponent makes a comparison to prostitution. However, this again is an unfaircomparison. If it is consistent with my established behavior to give a given type of person money, that person then has sex with me and I give them money it does not logically follow that the money was for sex. This is a hasty generalization based on partial evidence. Perhaps I owed the hooker money for something else. There are many ways that the scenario presented does not equate to a person paying for sex.

5) My opponent seeks to show that Yahweh enjoys the smell of burning flesh. However, the passages he refers to are exclusively animal or plant sacrifices. I enjoy the smell of a good steak (burning fesh), but that is a far cry from saying that I enjoy the smell of burning human flesh.

6) Finally, my opponent appeals to the so-called problem of evil to show that Yahweh was obligated to stop this tragedy. He implies that if Yahweh did not stop the sacrifice he either could not stop it or did not desire to stop it. There are other alternatives. Perhaps the sacrifice served a greater purpose, perhaps Yahweh favors allowing free will over stoping sin. Regardless of the reason, it does not prove collusion, it simply proves that Yahweh had a reason not to stop it.

My opponent has proven nothing in actuality. The facts of the text show that Jepthah made a vow. The text does not indicate that Yahweh was aware of the vow, endorsed the vow, accepted the vow, or interacted with the vow in anyway. My opponent supplies faulty analogies in an attempt to show something the text does not.

Thank you, I look forward to the next round.



[A] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
izbo10

Pro

"1) My opponent seeks to show how "what Yahweh would do if he didn't agree to a sacrifice" and proceeds to use the instance of Abraham and Isaac as an example of how Yahweh would act. However, the situations are not analogous. In the case of Abraham God was the initiator of the sacrifice, and since he later stopped it it is likely that he never intended for the sacrifice to take place at all. Regardless, it is not an equivalent circumstance. Rather, we see people committing child sacrifices throughout the Bible, and Yahweh allows people to exercise their free will to do so."


The first thing that strikes me is the free will excuse, so Yahweh in one case, where it is convenient for my opponent violates free will in the situation of delivering to the judges, but in the other case where it is convenient he wants it to be an excuse, to say the least that is interesting picking and choosing. I stand by my argument that there is a a past precident set by Yahweh on how he will deal with child sacrifices he is involved in a deal with, if he doesn't want that to happen.


"2) My opponent seeks to show that the sacrifice in the New Testament of Jesus Christ proves that Yahweh is not opposed to human sacrifice. However, Christian doctrine teaches that the Son was pre-existent and willingly sacrificed himself. This situation is also not analogous."

Again an example of Yahweh, being in on a sacrifice, the situations do not need to match to show that in general Yahweh does not have issues with sacrifice and if we actually look at the testimony the girl actually appears to be willing to be sacrificed as she says: "My father, if you have given your word to the LORD, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because the LORD has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon" So shall we say I am bewilderment at how being willingly sacrificed makes this different.


"3) My opponent seeks to argue that Yahweh accepted the "deal" that Jepthah suggested. However this does not present itself in the text. Yahweh is markedly silent on the topic. In addition, the fact that the Spirit of the LORD was already with Jepthah prior to his vow is significant. Every other place in the book of Judges that the Spirit of the LORD is with a judge, that judge has already been comissioned to defeat the enemies of Israel. Paradigmatically, it appears as though the LORD already intended to defeat the enemies of Israel and Jepthah made an uneccesary vow. Furthermore, there is no evidence present in the text that indicates that he LORD was pleased by the sacrifice or would have been displeased by it. If I say to a person "If you say nothing I will take it to mean that you hate me" and the person says nothing, it does not mean they hate me. It simply means they are not responding to me for some reason."

Here is what the verse says:

"Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah" so it is clear the lord was there at least before the deal. So now we need to know what our witness, Jephthah has to say about this: “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to the LORD, and I cannot go back on it.”

So, if the lord was not there, our only witness to this seems to be completely unaware of the fact he left. If he didn't think the lord was with him on this deal it seems he would not have done this as he creates a progession of since I gave my word to the lord, I must do as I said. This signifies that he believed the lord was involved in the deal.



"4) My opponent makes a comparison to prostitution. However, this again is an unfaircomparison. If it is consistent with my established behavior to give a given type of person money, that person then has sex with me and I give them money it does not logically follow that the money was for sex. This is a hasty generalization based on partial evidence. Perhaps I owed the hooker money for something else. There are many ways that the scenario presented does not equate to a person paying for sex."

My opponent in this example is realing stretching here. I am not sure if he read the entire example, in my example the John lets the prostitute have sex, symbolizing the acceptance of the terms. Also once a John transfers money to a cop who has offered sex in a deal or if a John offers to pay a undercover cop for sex without being solicitated they will be arrested. The same holds true, once Yahweh delivers his end of the deal he is accountable for the Sacrifice. This is common sense.

5 I really don't feel a need to go into right now,

"6) Finally, my opponent appeals to the so-called problem of evil to show that Yahweh was obligated to stop this tragedy. He implies that if Yahweh did not stop the sacrifice he either could not stop it or did not desire to stop it. There are other alternatives. Perhaps the sacrifice served a greater purpose, perhaps Yahweh favors allowing free will over stoping sin. Regardless of the reason, it does not prove collusion, it simply proves that Yahweh had a reason not to stop it."

Once it is clear that Yahweh accepted the terms and knew about the terms, which all of our evidence suggests, in any legal circumstance he is obligated to stop it. The problem of evil is another debate, but you would really have to jump through hoops to lower your morality and humanity to the point of nothing to believe it is right to sacrifice a virgin girl.


So now that I have addressed those problems lets further look at the character of Good Ole Yah', he has a proven track record of violence and crime.

2 Kings 2:24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys


has god sending she bear to kill 42 boys, using the ESV version since my opponent thinks its accurate.


Genesis 19:26
But Lot’s wife, behind him, looked back, and she became a pillar of salt


Yahweh turns a woman into a pillar of salt after she looks back. This is more interesting considering her crime was looking back at the town she has always lived in. Lot is allowed to live, after offering his own daughters up for rape, to save 2 strangers, who may or may not have been angels.


Throughout the bible god kills 2.5 million people numbered and an estimated 25 million when you factor in the unnumbered people. Including many children, imagine how many new borns would have been killed in the flood. Precision weaponry Yahweh is not.

A being of that character, with our witness seeming to think he knew, and the book telling us he delivered the people which was his part of the deal, seems like my opponent needs to come up with something a little better here.
ReformedArsenal

Con

1) My purpose in this debate is not to defend free will. There is no indication that Yahweh violated free will in handing over the ammonites into the hands of Jepthah. Rather, it is likely that he, as a superior being, simply battled against them along side Jepthah and his army. My propose in this point was rather to demonstrate that if we wish to see how Yahweh interacts with those who commit child sacrifice, we see when we look at the greater picture of Scripture that actively preventing them is the exception to the rule, not the rule. By and large Yahweh allows pepole to carry out whatever sin they chose to partake in, including child sacrifice. Your "example" of how he would handle a sacrifice he did not approve of is not a valid analogy and your red hearing of attacking "free will" is not a valid argument against this point.

2) Again, this situation is not analogous as Christ was in full agreement with his own sacrifice at all points in time. Jepthah's daughter as only in agreement after the vow had been made. Again, when we look at the broader picture that Scripture paints Yahweh is opposed to human sacrifice at all times. The fact that he allows it in certian circumstances does not mean he is in favor of it or not opposed to it.

3) My opponent has set this debate up as a legal prosecution. He argues as though he is convicting Yahweh, and in a court of law the evidence he has is circumstantial at best. The facts we have in front of us is that Yahweh neither agreed to this "deal," endorsed it, or showed any satisfaction at the outcome. Yahweh is entierly silent in this issue and my opponent is putting words, motives, and actions in His mouth. Regardless of if Japtheh believed he was involved or not, the text does not indicate that he was. Futhermore, my opponent characterizes the vow as if it was known ahead of time that the sacrifice would be human. This is unlikely, and it is more likely that Jepthah was expecting an animal to greet him.

4) My opponent has intentionally set up a faulty analogy in which Yahweh looks guilty. Furthermore, I have shown that paradigmatically when the Spirit of the LORD rests on a judge, Yahweh is already intending to deliver the nation of Israel. So if we must draw an analogy involving sex it wold go like this:

A woman at a club sees a man and decides she will take him home and have sex with him. She has no expectation of financial return, nor is she requiring it. The man, assuming she is a prostitute when she approaches him and offers him sex, offers her what he thinks is a fair price. She says nothing but continues to lead him to her car and take him to her appartment. The two have sex and while the woman is using the bathroom he leaves money on the dresser and leaves. We have no account of what the woman did with the money after she discovered it.

In this analogy, which is much closer to what is happening in the text, we do not have enough evidence to say the woman accepted money for sex. We don't even have enough evidence to say she accepted money at all. We only have a man who believed he needed to leave money and left it. While somone looking on may assume that the woman accepted money, however that is not what the evidence states. The evidence simply tells us that the man believed they needed to leave money.

5) My opponent has not responded, please carry my rebuttal into this round

6) "Once it is clear that Yahweh accepted the terms and knew about the terms, which all o our evidence suggess, in any legal circumstance he is obligated to stop it." My opponent has not submitted any actual evidence that Yahweh is obligated to stop anything, nor that Yahweh knew about or accepted the terms. The text does not supply that Yahweh knew about nor accepted the terms.

7) My opponent now turns to add further evidence of Yahweh's character. However, this is irrelevant to this debate. The way he punishes sin is irrelevant to this dicussion. It does not speak one way or the other toward his collusion in the death of Jepthah's daughter. Furthermore my opponent resorts to an appeal to emotion which should not be considered in this debate. If Yahweh didor did not kill millions of infants during the flood is irrelevant to if he participated in collusion in the case of Jepthah's daughter.
Debate Round No. 3
izbo10

Pro

Read these 2 examples and ask yourself do you really think my opponent would be jumping through the same hoops for these gods:

Then the Spirit of the Tricksters came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to Trickster, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, 31 then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be Trickster's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
32 So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and Trickster delivered them into his hands. 33 And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith—twenty cities—and to Abel Keramim,[a] with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
34 When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to Trickster, and I cannot go back on it.”
36 So she said to him, “My father, if you have given your word to Trickster, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because Trickster has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon.” 37 Then she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I.”
38 So he said, “Go.” And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. 39 And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man.
And it became a custom in Israel 40 that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

Then the Spirit of the Allah came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh, and passed through Mizpah of Gilead; and from Mizpah of Gilead he advanced toward the people of Ammon. 30 And Jephthah made a vow to Allah, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, 31 then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the Allah's, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
32 So Jephthah advanced toward the people of Ammon to fight against them, and Allah delivered them into his hands. 33 And he defeated them from Aroer as far as Minnith—twenty cities—and to Abel Keramim,[a] with a very great slaughter. Thus the people of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
34 When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, there was his daughter, coming out to meet him with timbrels and dancing; and she was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter. 35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes, and said, “Alas, my daughter! You have brought me very low! You are among those who trouble me! For I have given my word to Allah, and I cannot go back on it.”
36 So she said to him, “My father, if you have given your word to the Allah, do to me according to what has gone out of your mouth, because Allah has avenged you of your enemies, the people of Ammon.” 37 Then she said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me: let me alone for two months, that I may go and wander on the mountains and bewail my virginity, my friends and I.”
38 So he said, “Go.” And he sent her away for two months; and she went with her friends, and bewailed her virginity on the mountains. 39 And it was so at the end of two months that she returned to her father, and he carried out his vow with her which he had vowed. She knew no man.
And it became a custom in Israel 40 that the daughters of Israel went four days each year to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.


No, didn't think so. My opponent would be the first to persecute trickster or allah. My opponent is being ridiculous, the bible I have in front of me is a 795 page book it spans hundreds of years of stories. There would be no point to this even appearing if all that occurred was Yahweh helped win the war, and Jepthah sacrificed his daughter. I have presented the testimony of the witness Jepthah which supports my claim. My


Further more my opponent tries to hide behind Yahweh may not have known about it. Well get ready for these biblical gems that my opponent seems completely unaware of for a supposed biblical scholar:

Proverbs 15:3

New King James Version (NKJV)

3 The eyes of the LORD are in every place,
Keeping watch on the evil and the good.

Job 34:21-22 (New King James Version)


Job 34:21-22

New King James Version (NKJV)

21 “For His eyes are on the ways of man,
And He sees all his steps.
22 There is no darkness nor shadow of death
Where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves.


So Yahweh sees it, my opponent then goes into free will, well I ask anyone here if a man gave another man a thousand dollars after that man told the other man they would use it to kill buy equipment to kill someone, would the man be able to say, well i gave him the thousand dollars, it was justified because he needed free will. Not a chance, welcome my opponent to special pleading 101. I think from the beginning examples everyone listening knew that already.


He is then ignorant enough to think that character does not matter when establishing probability of guilt. If a person is demonstrated to have character flaws like past crimes, the likelihood they committed the crime is increased in the court of law. Sorry he is completely unaware of character witnesses.

In his example about the woman, which i find amusing as he again appears not to have even read the biblical passage, as yahweh delivers first. So who is using a false analogy. If the man put the money on the table then the woman did not tell him to take it back and had sex with him and he left, she is guilty of prostitution. That is how it works so who is making false analogies. Speaking of women, I am really beginning to wonder if my opponent suffers from a variation of battered women syndrom, he is so in love with his god, yet scared of the punishment of this god that he will rationalize within himself anything to get him through the day.
ReformedArsenal

Con

My opponent has demonstrated that he is not actually interested in debate, only in berating people he disagrees with. As such, I shall keep my closing comments brief.

My opponent presents a passage in which he substitutes the Trickster and Allah into the text in place of Yahweh. He urges you to believe that I would not afford these characters the same analysis I do for the LORD. However, there is no evidence to the contrary, and as such he has wasted several hundred characters. I can assure you that were we referring to Allah or the Trickster I would analyze all the evidence given to me regarding their past behavior, known character traits, etc, and make a decision regarding the situation. My opponent has not provided any evidence to the contrary and since I am a legitimate expert on myself and my own behavior... I urge you to take my word in this manner.

I never implied that Yahweh didn't or may not have known about it, rather I said that we have no indication from the text one way or another. There are entire schools of theological thought in which Yahweh does not know the future because the future is not existent to be known (Commonly called Open Theism). In such a schema God may not have known what would walk through the door of Jepthah's house. Regardless, my opponent seek to insult me and assumes I am not aware of the omniscience passages in the Bible. Irrespective of if Yahweh does or does not know the circumstances, this does not change the fact that no where in the text are we told that Yahweh endorsed or approved of this deal, nor do we see any indication that he is pleased by the sacrifice or would be displeased if it had not occurred.

Furthermore, my opponent fails to realize that in a court of law, character testimony is only valid in the presence of hard irrefutable evidence. The so-called evidence that my opponent has presented is circumstantial at best. I would also like to point out that my opponent appeals to the rules and conduct of a court of law, as it suits him. Rather than place this debate fully in the scenario of a court of law and argue regarding shadow of doubt, he only invokes the court scenario as is convenient. My opponent is fond of addressing the audience with rhetorical questions. Let me ask this question, if YOU were Yahweh would you accept a guilty verdict based on such faulty logic and circumstantial evidence? Would you allow yourself to be convicted for a crime that all the evidence points to you being absent. Let me remind my audience that no where in the book of Judges, nor anywhere else in the Bible, nor anywhere else in extra-biblical literature (Mishna, Talmud, Rabbinical Teachings) does anyone state or imply that Yahweh was pleased with this sacrifice or demanded it. There is zero actual evidence that Yahweh is guilty of collusion in this case.

Next, my opponent seeks to bolster his analogy by claiming that the analogy is false. However, everywhere in the book of Judges that the Spirit of the LORD is with a judge, God has already determined to deliver Israel from her enemies. So in the crude analogy my opponent has constructed, the woman had already decided to have sex with the man with no prior conditions. Just because the man thought he had to pay the woman does not make it prostitution, it simply makes a foolish man.

Finally, my opponent proves his true colors. He created this debate on the premise that he sought to have open and honest debate. His ad hominem attacks regarding battered women syndrom, his sarcastic comments regarding "good ole' Yah", and his general demeanor prove that he is a debater of the lowest caliber in both skill and character. This is the first time I have ever urged the reader to vote in a specific way in the conduct portion, however anything other than a point against my opponent in the area of conduct is irresponsible.

In closing, I would like to outline my defense of Yahweh.

1) There is no indication in the text that Yahweh acknowledged, endorsed, approved of, or accepted the sacrifice of Jepthah's daughter. Since we do not even see Yahweh at the scene, we have no evidence with which to convict him.
2) My opponent's analogy is faulty and should not be used as evidence, for, as shown by his previous action in the book of Judges, Yahweh already intended to deliver the ammonites into the hand of Jepthah (as indicated by the fact that the Spirit of the LORD was upon him) PRIOR to the misguided vow. The fact that Yahweh intended to deliver prior to the vow has not been refuted by my opponent.
3) My opponent has not satisfied the burden of proof for this debate. In a formal debate, Pro has the burden of proof to irrefutably show that the resolution is true. In this case, I have not only shown him not to have fulfilled this burden, but I have shown that there is not enough evidence to convict a person of the crime that Yahweh is accused of.
4) My opponent has shown that his intent in this debate was not to engage in friendly debate, rather it was to use this website as a platform to insult, degrade, and mock religious perspectives other than his own. He has made a mockery of this site and I urge your conduct vote to reflect that.

Finally, I would like to both thank the readers, but also apologize. Thank you for reading this debate and voting according to your judgement, I appreciate the time and energy it takes to read and analyze a debate like this. I would also like to apologize, this debate is a spill over from a hostile discussion in the comments of another debate. I took this hoping Pro would prove me wrong in my assessment of his character, and he did not. I'm sorry that you all had to participate in his debacle.
Debate Round No. 4
151 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Izbo10, then you are trying to fight the "evil" of god. Good...why don't you debate with ReformedArsenal on: "God is evil"....I will be interested in that debate, just as I would be interested in reading your acrimonious comments and attacks, which would merit a report of harassment and insult (hate, as well).
Remember, two wrongs don't make a right. And fire with fire only breeds fire.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
In the bible the character of god is evil in the same sense that soromon in lord of the rings is evil. His followers are mostly good people doing evil due to ignorance, not so much with reformed, if he is as educated as he claims to be that excuse does not fly for him, he is intentionally ignorant and evil.

I create meaning the same way you do, I create it for myself, you create meaning through imaginary friends. Im sorry you aren't capable of skipping that step.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
ReformedArsenal, I agree with Nietzche...Even if God existed/not, he embodies the care, perfection, and to some degree goodness that embraces man's life. Religion has characterized God as a force that determines our human lives and therefore is basically the meaning of our lives (sorry for the redundant sentence)...Without god, life would seem meaningless.

Izbo10, your behavior is lacking. If you continue, I will completely disregard my own manners when posting my responses.
Is God evil or are his followers evil?
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Some of the greatest atheist philosophers in the world have come to the same conclusions. Nietzche most specifically, who rightly pointed out that if there is no God that everything is meaningless and suicide is the most reasonable solution. He also pointed out that most atheists (including himself) don't have the stomach for that answer, so they come up with other reasons to exist.

The fact is, compassion may have an evolutionary advantage right now... but who knows what it will have in the next iteration. There are species of birds who will intentionally push their weaker siblings out of the nest in order to have more food. This is an evolutionary advantage for them. You are inconsistent. If evolution is the directing force for humanity, then compassion may serve to hinder that. We already have lots of genetic diseases that are present in the species because of this compassion, it may be our undoing.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Well, at least religion has some good benefit, izbo10. But once again, I find your behavior lacking.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
see man is good, if you are reading this, this is a concession, religion here is doing something good, it is keeping a compassion-less unethical man like reformed from being completely careless about anyone else, you know from using the very evolutionary trait that has helped all of us live, human compassion and working together. I mean seriously our education,communication and working together has been our best survival trait. Unfortunately people like reformed have not evolved past needing sky daddies to keep an eye on them.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
civil unions are not marriage.
thanks i think we have seen your true colors, your level of ethical behavior is at a low level, reward and punishment you are incapable of moral compassion without your god, sad individual you are. Did you just read what you wrote, without god, all you would be is me, me, me, that says something about your character not evolution.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
If I'm wrong and atheistic evolution is right... then I have no vested interest in my children's children's world. Once I have passed my genes along, and no longer exist... that's all that matters.

The fact of the matter is this: Homosexuals have the exact same rights I have. They have the exact same range of potential marriage partners that I do, and they always have.

Also, if you had taken half a second to look at my profile... you will see that I am FOR Civil Unions.

Pascal's wager states that since there are greater consequences for incorrect disbelief than there are for incorrect belief, that one should opt for belief. This is not at all what I am arguing, because I think that's a load of garbage.

What I am arguing is that if you are right, I have zero consequences. None of this matters. All the money I have spent on schooling. All the time I have devoted to a figment of my imagination. None of it matters once I'm dead. Gay rights, bigotry, child abuse... if you're right, none of it is important. None of it matters at all.
Posted by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
Not accurate, if you are wrong you will have helped to rob your children's children of a world that would have benefited more from the truth earlier. If you are wrong you will have contributed to the cause that has held back the rights of homosexuals for to wrong, But, as you have shown truth and concern for others is not important to you only holding onto your precious little fairy tales. By the way that definitely was a variation of pascals wager, but nobody has ever accused you of being intellectually honest.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
This isn't about some philosophical construct. I don't hold any stock in Pascal's wager.

I am not proposing that this is a reason to believe (which is where Pascal's wager goes bad)... in fact I think that people who become Christians for "what's in it for them" are misguided. It is merely a statement of fact. If you are right, I will have lived a meaningful, fulfilled life filled with hope, joy, love, and purpose. Then I'll die and cease to exist... no negative consequences. If I am right, you will have lived a life fighting something that is true, and will get to live with your choice for all of eternity. Are these facts not accurate?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
izbo10ReformedArsenalTied
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: RA was right in clarifying, and highlighting the actual meaning of "Collusion". Had the word been contributing, or something less nepharious in intent, pro would have had a better case. Pro acted like an ass, and wasn't focused on his argument. Lrn2 spell check.
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 6 years ago
Dimmitri.C
izbo10ReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued irrelevantly while Con showed a greater level of respect. Con refuted all irrelevant arguments and continued to press his case successfully.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 6 years ago
KeytarHero
izbo10ReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro constantly made irrelevant arguments, and Con successfully refuted the arguments Pro made. Pro constantly acted like a jerk, losing him conduct points. Pro was just looking for a fight.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
izbo10ReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that God was not entered into an actual contract (as far as law would be concerned). I felt that this debate would have been best if only a few rounds long, as Pro really was sliding at the end.
Vote Placed by SkepticsAskHere 6 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
izbo10ReformedArsenalTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The spelling was horrible in several places and it was aggrivating to read such a long debate and try to figure out what the words were on Pro's part. Conduct was the same and Pro offered faulty analogies which in the end were shown as faulty.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
izbo10ReformedArsenalTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate started off strong for Pro who then self-destructed with the first rebuttal by Con and resorted to a counter of "that is absurd". It was also not easy to read the later arguments from Pro due to extensive quoting and no formatting. 1 pt though for the trickester substitution as that was at least amusing. I think Pro may have been able to carry this with more effort, but it is likely RA would have rose to that.