The Instigator
backwardseden
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DNehlsen
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

How many times in the bible does god admit he's "happy"?

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 3 votes the winner is...
DNehlsen
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/16/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 659 times Debate No: 103570
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (3)

 

backwardseden

Con

Its 0 folks. Man what a drag and dregs of the sewer this god guy is. I mean throughout the very bible, god has never mentioned one time, just one fricken time, that he's "happy". No, instead he’s truly dreary and what a downer for something that is supposed to be a positive role model for others. But nah, he's far too convoluted and busy with his deliberate genocides, the killings of innocent babies, children, pregnant women and animals. He's far too concerned and smothered and wrapped up within himself to care about anything else within his self righteous superior ego complex in which he's freely admitted to having anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy, evil. So in reality who would ever want to worship this pile of manure spread and rot?

So your job for this debate as Pro is to ultimately prove, somehow, that god is "happy" and why you think so?



DNehlsen

Pro

I accept this debate and look forward to a good discussion.

I'm curious as to where you get this idea that God isn't happy. The Bible says that God was happy in the past, is currently happy, and will be happy in the future.

Genesis 1 records God saying his creation was good 5 times. A sixth and final time God says his creation is very good. This is satisfaction and thus happiness with what God has made and created.

The Bible indicated that we can and should strive to please God. Psalm 149:4, Ephesians 5:8-10, 2 Corinthians 5:9, and Colossians 3:20 to name a few.

God is happy with those who walk in his ways. Proverbs 11:20, Proverbs 12:22, Proverbs 15:8

Jesus was happy or well please by his son Jesus. Matthew 3:17 and 2 Peter 1:17.

The Bible says that heaven is filled with peace righterousness and joy with which God is satisfied. Romans 14:17, Psalm 5:4.

The Bible says that God will be victorious over Satan, Sin, and Death in the end. His saints will be taken into heaven and celebrate a neverending paradise with their heavenly father. Surely this is cause for celebration today, knowing our destiny is with him. The Bible says that the angels also share in God's delight and happiness.

In conclusion of this round, God is happy and satisfied. He was happy from beginning to end, Genesis to Revelation. He is the Alpha and Omega, and throughout it all he is pleased in himself. This does not mean he has no passion or will not strive for things.
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Con

Where---in---your---bloated---bible---does---your---god---say---he’s---”happy”? I asked you a very specific question. Naturally you being the spoiled teeny bopper little brat that you are you didn’t answer the question in the slightest. But you know what? I will go with the flow and take it back. Ab-so-lu-te-ly YOUR god is happy. He’s happy with his hate and evil. Let’s get started with that.

Indeed god was very happy with his deliberate genocides and thus being far far far worse than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hong Xiuquan combined. Here's some examples... 3,000 EX 32:27-28, 14,700 NU 16:49, 24,002 NU 25: 1-11, 12,000 JOS 8: 1-25, 10,000 JG 1:4, 120,000 JG 8:7-10, 42,000 JG 12:3-6, 1,000 JD 15:14-15, 3,000 JD 16:27-30, 25,101 JD 16:27-30, 1 SAM 4 34,002, 1 SAM 6:19 50,070, 2 SAM 8 65,850, 1 KI 20: 28-29 100,000, 1 KI 20: 30 27,000, KI 19 35 -37 185,000, 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, 2 CHR 28:6 120,000, Esther 9:5-18 75,813 etc etc etc Yeah god is really so moral huh? There’s no such a thing as “love” within any genocide.
And in any genocide as proved here this god of yours must have been extremely happy in killing innocent babies, children, pregnant mothers and animals.

Your god also truly hates children and is also very happy about that. Here’s some examples:
Lamentations 4: 9-11 "They that be slain with the sword are better than they that be slain with hunger: for these pine away, stricken through for want of the fruits of the field. 10 The hands of the pitiful women have sodden their own children: they were their meat in the destruction of the daughter of my people. 11 The LORD hath accomplished his fury; he hath poured out his fierce anger, and hath kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured the foundations thereof."

Matthew 10:37 “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

Judges 21:10 “And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children.”

Matthew 2:16 “Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.”

Numbers 31:17-18 “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”
---- a different translation ----Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Ezekiel 9:5-7 “And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. 7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.”

1 Samuel 15:3 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling , ox and sheep, camel and a$$.”

Hosea 9:11-16 “As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. 12 Though they 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! 13 Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. 14 Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. 15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters. 16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.”

Exodus 12:29-30 "And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died."

Exodus 21:14 -17 "But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. 15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. 17 And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.”

Psalms 137:8-9 "Prayer/song of vengeance “0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

2 Kings 6:28-29 “And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him to day, and we will eat my son to morrow. 29 So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.”

Your god also loves raped women and is very happy about that. Here’s some examples:
2 Samuel 12:11-14 "Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.14 Howbeit, 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. From evilbible.com [The child dies seven days later.] This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

Judges 21:10-16 “And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. 11 And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. 12 And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. 13 And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them. 14 And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabeshgilead: and yet so they sufficed them not. 15 And the people repented them for Benjamin, because that the LORD had made a breach in the tribes of Israel. 16 Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin? Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?

Here is the law on rape: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.” What kind of sick perverted demented animal would make a rape victim marry her attacker? The Mad’s Snappy Answer to Stupid Question’s to that divine question is god the sickened one

Your god is very happy with his evil and freely admitting it. Here's some examples:
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

1KI 22: 22-23 “And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.”

2 Chronicles 18:22,”Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.”

Jeremiah 19:3 “And say, Hear ye the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his ears shall tingle.”

Jeremiah 19:15 “Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will bring upon this city and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pronounced against it, because they have hardened their necks, that they might not hear my words.”

Summary
Sure god is "happy" about hate and evil. You have no outs. Suck it up.

DNehlsen

Pro

Where---in---your---bloated---bible---does---your---god---say---he’s---”happy”?
I just told you where. The word happy itself never occurs in the Bible based upon most translations, but that does not mean that the quality of happiness, expressed through other words such as pleasure, pleased, and joy are not.
http://www.thesaurus.com...

Naturally you being the spoiled teeny bopper little brat that you are you didn’t answer the question in the slightest
What's with you and ad hominem attacks? It doesn't support your argument or position at all. It simply makes you look uneducated and uncomfortable.

Ab-so-lu-te-ly YOUR god is happy.
By my opponents own admission, this debate is over. The question was if God ever admitted he was happy, and indeed my opponent has just said he indeed is happy. Despite this, I will continue on with the discussion, as some good may yet come of it.

Indeed god was very happy with his deliberate genocides
The goal of my opponent here is to prove God is immoral. There are a couple of things to keep in mind though. We're all God's creation, and we all fail to meet his glory, his standard. We have all sinned against him and thus fail to meet his standard. Would a judge be just if he pardoned a criminal, with no reparation for his crime? No he would not. In the same way, would God be a just God if he let his creation run rampant, and turn against him? Who do you think you are to demand that the one who created you put up with your rebellion when he could effortlessly end you right now? It is by his boundless mercy and grace that we're still alive to have this conversation. It is by his boundless mercy and grace that he paid for our crimes against him. If we do not accept that payment, and show honest remorse for said crime, what obligation to us does he have?

Yeah god is really so moral huh?
Who are you to say so? If God didn't exist, which you personally believe, what standard is there for morality? Well really there's no objective standard. If something bigger than us, however, made us, there is someone who is in a position to design objective morality. So in reality, you are in no position to say that my God is not moral.

There’s no such a thing as “love” within any genocide.
But that does not mean there is no Justice.

Your god also truly hates children and is also very happy about that.
My God does not hate children, because he made them and designed them and proclamed them to be "very good." We've already had an entire debate on this subject, and your points hold no water.
http://www.debate.org...

Your god also loves raped women and is very happy about that.
1- Your passage in 2 Samuel is talking about God handing over David's wives to be raped. What my opponent did not include was when David took a mans wife, had sex with her, then killed him to cover it up. David as the head of his household is held responsible for what happens in his household, so because of his sin David's household ran into trouble. This is not God delighting in rape, this is Gode delivering justice on earth.

2- My opponent left out, in his second verse, the conclusion of this passage in Judges 21:25 - In those days there was no king in Isreal, and everyone did what was right in his own eyes. This summed up the entire 21st chapter of Judges. God did not condone what happened here, but man acted on his own will. This was just one of the many bizarre things men did, as recorded in the Old Testament and before there was a King, because it was right in their own eyes.

3- Deuteronomy 22:28-29 quite possibly the most referenced verse used against God. I'm not convinced by this however. The key word here 'lay hold on her.' The Hebrew word here (transliterated) is tapas. This can mean a variety of things. Different translations use different phrases such as: "taking her," "lay hold of her," "and takes her." Now to interpret scripture there is a field called hermeneutics. The essentials is that we intrepret scripture with scripture. Does tapas occur elsewhere in the Bible? Well yes, it does. It's used to refer to handling an insturment, (Genesis 4:21) to weirld a sword, (Ezek. 21:11; 30:21), the sickle (Jer. 50:16), the shield (Jer. 46:9), oars (Ezek. 27:29), and the bow (Amos 2:15). Moses “took” the two tablets of the law (Deut. 9:17). Please note the references from Genesis and Deuteronomy - two books written by Moses, who wrote this passage here. This word, as far as I can tell, is never used to indicate force, but rather a simple grabbing. We use this same type of language today. We say we "take" someone as our bride, or a young man takes someone to be his wife. This is not indicative of force.

Let's also take a look at context which my opponent did not include.

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die. 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

In verse 25 it is very specific. It says that the man forces her to lie with him. A different word is used in the Hebrew too - chazaq - which means to force. This word is intentionally changed in verse 28, because it's not talking about rape.

Let's also look at Exodus 22:16, which reads, “If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.” It says here that he entices the virgin, and this is talking about the same law.

So look at the verse again. There are plenty of different circumstances described, but this one is talking about a virgin having intentional and willful sex with another man. After she has stained her virginity like this, who else would marry her? The Bible says that the man must then marry the women he had consensual relations with.

Your god is very happy with his evil and freely admitting it. Here's some examples:
1- Isaiah 45:7 is an example of a commonly used translation abuse. This came from the KJV. Please take a second to look at other versions which say 'calamity,' (NKJV, ESV) or 'disaster.' (NIV) The Hebrew word can mean many different things, including moral evil.
It is not an intellegent assumption, however, to assume God is refering to moral evil here due to the fact that multiple definitions can be used. The context of Isaiah 45 is God rewards Isreal for their good and punishing them for their bad. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master.” (Isaiah 45:9) That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture. God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.

2- Your verse in 1 Kings sounds like a big deal at first, and there is a lot going on here. The difficulty vanishes if we remember that this is euthropopathic language, and is merely meant to convey that God had "taken the house of Israel in their own heart," because they were "estranged from Him through their idols" (Ezekiel 14:15). Ahab wished to be guided by false prophets, and the justice of God decreed that he should be guided by them to his ruin. This explains everything up until that last phrase 'The LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.' Please understand that the word evil here, just like in Isaiah 45 does not necessarily mean moral evil. Different words are used by different translations.

3- For 2 Chronicles see my notes on 1 Kings. It's a repeat verse.

4- Jeremiah 19:3,15 is clearly not talking about moral evil, but a sort of calamity. This is a common misinterpretation to those uneducated reading the KJV. The original Hebrew word as well as the English word evil, just as in the last 3 verses, do not necessarily mean moral evil, but can be used in a variety of different ways.

Sure god is "happy" about hate and evil. You have no outs. Suck it up.
I've shown God is happy or joyful or pleased by many things such as righteousness and those walking in the fruits of the spirit.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Galations 5:22-23

Those are just terrible things for God to be happy about aren't they?

Unfortunately for my opponent, the only evidence he has been able to provide are verses grossly out of context twisted and contorted to make the God of the Bible, Jehovah, look bad. I encourage him, however, to try again. If there is merit to what he says, I would like to find it.

Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Con

Where---in---your---bloated---bible---does---your---god---say---he’s---”happy”?
Um no, the word “happy NEVER takes place in ANY translation thus far. But then again you do not know that because you have not done any research on the subject as always and yet you try to pretend that you do for something in which you know nothing about so you invent excuses as many christians do. That’s why you are deservedly insulted and if you do that type of s--t to your friends and loved ones, and I’d be willing to bet that you have no genuine friends or loved ones because you do that crap to them without presenting any evidence of any kind, then you will soon have no friends or loved ones. And if you do that type of s--t to your teachers = instant F and they will not even think twice. Try it you flat lump of lard.

I’m well aware of what a thesaurus is you belly flop dimwitted dullard painting of an inside of a black hole ready to explode for scratch and sniff cards. But YOU most certainly do not have the right, nor does anyone have the right to use a thesaurus to change the bible and thus make yet more translations upon translations upon translations etc etc etc AND then who makes the decision of which words to use from these translations and then you have an even bigger problem… how do YOU or ANYONE change what YOUR god, imaginary christ has stated in the bible from different generations of translations and translations etc etc etc. And if you do not understand that, then you understand absolutely nothing because your mind is so convoluted and brainless because you think and act like a teeny bopper little punk kid who truly knows nothing and yet you try to pretend you do.

Oh it even gets worse as no god would ever ever ever ever ever ever ever and let’s say ever again use text form as text is the worst form of communication possible when this god of YOURS can present evidence instead like something as simple as talking to man. Duh. WOW what a concept. But nah, man is left with translation upon translation upon translation with copies upon copies upon copies with absolutely no way to trace your bible back to the original. In other words, absolutely no one interprets correctly. No one. .

“If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors… how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can’t distinguish between the law of Israel and god’s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take figuratively. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter how its translated. It doesn’t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well.” Aron Ra
Actually it wouldn’t be written at all. What’s wrong with your god comin’ down and talking to people? ‘Hey you know some of that stuff that’s in the book? I’m here to correct it.” Matt Dillahunty

“We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there’s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that’s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn’t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?” Matt Dillahunty

“If jesus and Muhammad and abraham and moses had never been born, which in any case I tend to dabble, if all their stories were untrue were suddenly found and everyone had to admit it some people I know would show panic. Now what would we do? We’d have no morals suddenly. What could be more nonsensical than that? As the matter of fact the position that we occupy would---be---precisely---the---same as it is now if none of these texts had ever been written, as if none of these lacerations had ever been made. We would still have to reason together about how how to treat one another, about how to build a just city, and about how to have irony and a sense of humor.” Christopher Hitchens .

Well duh. The opposite of happy is unhappy and can be described as immoral in which your god most certainly is and as you described. Be that as it may, your god is NOT happy.

Whoa there teeny bopper “We're all God's creation, and we all fail to meet his glory, his standard.” Um no ab-so-lu-te-ly 100% no. That in itself is a HUGE fallacy especially when you cannot even prove that your terrorist nuclear warhead god exists. Also with what you have stated you have effectively declared war on me and billions of others that do not believe as you ignorantly and arrogantly do especially without and edumacation and any type intelligence whatsoever and wow does it show.

Um no we… knock it off with the “we” bit because its you, just you. And only you. You are in the bile stomach vomit turn heaving god all on your own. And there’s no such thing as sinning they cancel each other out. But then again you love to live a life of sin because you do not know any better as you twiddle your lips and thumbs, and I since I 100% know your god does not exist without any kind of proof, I do not believe in something as stupid as sin and I believe in happiness and can live a happy life and am filled with peace and joy whereas you since you have god in it are incapable of it. So your god doesn’t believe in happiness according to you after all with sin hanging over your shoulder and with hell beneath also. My composing that paragraph was fun. And now to put you to even furth humiliation…
Does every man sin? Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)

OH PLEASE! Here’s your religion… you have a sicko who has murdered 6 five year old girls and according to your religion if this person finds christ, he is forgiven and gets to go to your so-called heaven whereas I or anyone else for doing nothing wrong and harming no one will not get to go to your heaven simply because we do not believe in your make believe christ. Well goodie for me and the billions of others that do not believe in your christ. But here’s reality… if this person who is caught in this country, no jury would follow those sad ridiculous christian ways and let him go. Nope. They would lock him up and throw away the key and probably give him the chair. So why on earth should god get away with his crimes? After all he creates everybody and 100% knows EXACTLY who will turn out to be who quadrillions of years in advance and that makes this god of YOURS responsible for everybody, that is IF god is god and there’s no two ways around it.

Now let’s get one things PERFECTLY straight and sparkling clear snookums YOUR god who you can’t even prove exists may have POOF created an imbecile like you but not me nor billions of others. Got it? And YOU DO NOT SPEAK OF IT AS HE HAS. Who the flying pregnant barfing insect do you think you are to think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, use logic in which your god, religion, bible has none, for others? Especially when you are WRONG?

When your god commits countless genocides, creates countless children to knowingly suffer, creates wars, hate, freely admits to evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy then damn right I and everybody else on this planet can easily call your god immoral you simpleton twit. Now here’s some vidies for you to watch to show you just how immoral your god is. Don’t flinch. See, unlike you I can back up what I say with rock solid evidence.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

There’s no justice in any deliberate genocide either. You just don’t go around and kill EVERYBODY especially in some cases babies and children and pregnant mothers who were completely innocent. Actually everybody was completely innocent. Worshiping different gods was not and is not worthy of the so-called “justice” that your god slaughtered people with. Now did you look up the verses and see how devastating they were and how unjustified they were? Nope? Just as I thought. Your god is nothing more that a greasy fat pig racist meat wagon.

Summary
Please get a clue and actually present some solid evidence before you open your maw. K?
DNehlsen

Pro

Um no, the word “happy NEVER takes place in ANY translation thus far. But then again you do not know that because you have not doneany researchon the subject
I've already admitted this. But as you've admitted in other debates you don't actually read the majority of the people's arguments, so you wouldn't know that now would you?

But YOU most certainly do not have the right, nor does anyone have the right to use a thesaurus tochange the bible
What I'm about to explain is pretty simple, but it may be a tad fast for you so do try to keep up. There is no such thing as a word for word translation. I've travelled across the world and worked with translators to speak to people for weeks at a time. I've been to several foreign countries with foreign languages that I can only speak to by means of someone translating for me. Some words in english simply do not exist in other languages. The F word, for example, is not in Japenese. It simply doesn't exist. Some languages have multiple words for the same English word. Love, for example, has over four different Greek words, many of which are used in the Bible. This along with grammar rules, dialect, cultural influence etc. all means that you cannot have a word for word translation. Therefore, the use of a thesaurus is required to effectively communicate the meanings and intentions of another text. So for any translation to happen at all, there is interpretation going on here. Pleasure and Joy are synonymous with Happy and Happy is synonymous with a typical definition of the original Greek/Hebrew quoted. Therefore, the expression or state of happiness is recorded in the Bible.

But nah, man is left with translation upon translation upon translation with copies upon copies upon copies with absolutely no way to trace your bible back to the original.
Translations have actually been very well preserved. We don't have sny original texts, but we do have some old copies.

The Dead Sea Scrolls go as far back as 300 BC. This is before the time of Christ. We know from both secular and christian testimony that Jesus supported and endorsed the Bible and Old Testament that was around at the time he lived. (Tacitus, Josephus, Thallus, Emperor Trajan, Lucia, and Valentius just to name a few of our secularsources.) Jesus existed, and no historian would dispute this. We also know he believed some things as well. So we know that Jesus, who we know existed, also teached from his Bible. Well was his Bible the same? The Dead Sea Scrolls were investigated, and there is a 95% consistency rate. The 5% differnce makes up grammatical and spelling/slip-of-the-pen mistakes. In no way is any of our doctrine any different from what Jesus supported.

We have over 25,000 manuscripts of the Bible in partial or whole, far more than any other book or historical document. Many of our originals come as close as just 200 years after the original, which is extremely close if you know anything about manuscripts of old documents. We have enough quotes from the early church fathers (1st-2nd centurty) to recreate our entire New Testament and the majority of the Old Testament. The bible has a record of copy-consistency.

no god would ever...use text form as text is the worst form of communication possible
God did not just use text though. God reveals himself and communicates through nature, (Romans 1:20) by dreams and revelation, (Genesis 15:1, Acts 7) by audible conversation, (Exodus 3, Mark 1:11) by personal experience, and by Scripture. These are several mediums that each occur several times in scripture. I've presented but a few examples of these.

If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well
If you were to speak to any Hebrew speaker, they would tell you that the original text is a masterpiece in regard to literature. Information through translation is always lost. We lose cultural significance, idioms, the beauty of poetry and rythm etc. This doesn't mean the Bible is flawed, it just means we don't get the full package. The primary message, Gospel and Salvation, is still intact though. The reason we can't get a lot of this is because some of it just isn't there to get anymore.

Actually it wouldn’t be written at all. What’s wrong with your god comin’ down and talking to people? ‘Hey you know some of that stuff that’s in the book? I’m here to correct it
Isaiah 55:8-9. Read it. It's a little ridiculous for us, as humans to say that we're going to understand everything God does and his motives. To be honest I don't have much of a response to this, but I don't think we need to know. Take it as a token of faith.

We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there’s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported.....Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?”
We do rely on copies of copies, but we know that what we have is what Jesus intended for us to have. Authors are not anonymous either, as we know who the vast majority of them are. I suppose that's why they call it faith now isn't it? There's evidence, it's in no way blind, but I don't think God wants to show him in the way you're expecting/are wanting him to. There are more than two possibilities and to say there's not is to say you're all-knowing which you could not be. Therefore we are not limited to only two options.

That in itself is a HUGE fallacy especially when you cannot even prove that your terrorist nuclear warhead god exists.
I already believe God exists. In the beginning you said that God is never happy. For something not to be happy it has to exist. Therefore, at least for the purposes of this debate, you've admitted you believe God exists. Please stop trying to change the topic of discussion.

And there’s no such thing as sinning they cancel each other out.
The Bible says that sin exists, and as I've already presented you have to agree God exists, at least for the purposes of this debate, to discuss whether or not he's happy. Therefore, you're contradicting yourself here.

since I 100% know your god does not exist
Bold claim. The only science we can be 100% sure about anything in is mathematics. Therefore, this statement is either fallacious or you possess some sort of inhuman knowledge no one else does. No serious scientist or philosopher would claim they know anything, especially something like the existence for God, for 100% sure.

I believe in happiness and can live a happy life and am filled with peace and joy whereas you since you have god in it are incapable of it
Galatians 5 says that I have a God capable of peace and joy and happiness. Where does your source come from?

Does every man sin?
This is a strawman argument, as you're saying things the bible doesn't say. We are all men and in Adam all sinned. This is scriptural. So yes, we all sin. When we become Christians our Spirit is saved, and we are Children of God Spiritually. Our Soul and Body are still not saved though, to being saved doesn't mean we can't sin and the Bible never claims it does.

1 John 5:1 has many different translations. Some say if you lead a life defined by sin, if you dwell in sin, if you're led by sin. Those are but a few examples. This does not mean we never sin ever again, it means we're not defined by it and it doesn't lead us. We're called to be righteous because God is righteous.

OH PLEASE! Here’s your religion…
1 Peter 2:23, 2 Timothy 4:8, Psalm 82:8 - God will judge justly. That's all I can really say for sure. God says he knows what the right thing to do is, and since he created everything I trust that's exactly what he'll do. The Bible says that with our sin we have a debt we could never repay, because in the eyes of God every sin is just as evil towards him. (lying = murder) Romans 6:23. No matter what the sin is or how much of it there is the punishment is all the same. Either you make the bar or you don't. If you can't make God's standard what obligation does he have to you?

After all he creates everybody and 100% knows EXACTLY who will turn out to be who quadrillions of years in advance
It wouldn't be free will anymore if God just got decided not to create everything that wouldn't do what he wanted. That would be selective design and a violation of what he wanted from his creation.

Especially when you are WRONG?
Apparently I'm wrong, but you haven't said anything. You've said my evidence is insufficient and called me names. You've never once, in this debate or another, addressed my points as I've presented them.

Throughout this entire debate, my opponent hasn't even addressed the actual topic. He consistently goes off topic droning off on how the God that he presupposed for the debate turns out not to exist. Then he goes on to attack me personally. There is absolutely nothing presented by my opponent that supports his original point that God is not happy. In fact he tried to agree with me and say that God was indeed happy about immoral things. So really, no matter how you look at it my opponent conceeded to me and thus forfeited the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
Ugh, sorry about the mistakes, that should say "Reason for non-removal"
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: dsjpk5// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro a"brat" in round two, and "a fat lump of lard" in the third. This is poor conduct.

[*Reason for removal*] While I understand that this particular voter has cast similar votes on several debates that one of these debaters has participated in, that is not sufficient reason for removal. The vote meets the standards, explaining why he decided to award conduct based on what was stated in the debate. If the debater(s) wish to exclude this voter in the future, they may include a rule stating that he may not vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
CORRECTION:

*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Khons// Mod action: NOT Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro a brat and a lump of lard, bad conduct

[*Reason for non-removal*] While I understand that this particular voter has cast similar votes on several debates that one of these debaters has participated in, that is not sufficient reason for removal. The vote meets the standards, explaining why he decided to award conduct based on what was stated in the debate. If the debater(s) wish to exclude this voter in the future, they may include a rule stating that he may not vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Khons// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro a brat and a lump of lard, bad conduct

[*Reason for non-removal*] While I understand that this particular voter has cast similar votes on several debates that one of these debaters has participated in, that is not sufficient reason for removal. The vote meets the standards, explaining why he decided to award conduct based on what was stated in the debate. If the debater(s) wish to exclude this voter in the future, they may include a rule stating that he may not vote.
************************************************************************
Posted by Deathwolf 4 months ago
Deathwolf
The ad hominems are strong with this one...
Posted by dsjpk5 4 months ago
dsjpk5
And once again, you provide no link. And for you to say young people have only recently worried about getting a place to live (for example) is ridiculous.
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
@dsjpk5 - Oh well by golly gosh golly gosh darned gee whiz gosh darned it all gee, gosh golly, you know what lil me just did? I looked it up, just like your lard a$$ can by simply typing in "pew nones" and guess what? Go on? Take one lucky little guess. No young people have NOT in any way in comparison had to worry about the things previously mentioned. And it might be a little bit nice if you'd actually have a little, just a little bit of evidence rather than spouting at the maw. This conversation is finished. You lose.
Posted by dsjpk5 4 months ago
dsjpk5
First, you haven't provided a link. Second, young people have always had to worry about those things, so clearly that can't be the reason.
Posted by backwardseden 4 months ago
backwardseden
@dsjpk5 - We're going in circles. So this will be my final attempt at this. All I can tell you is what the Pew article said. Noones are not getting married because of stress and stress most certainly does not bring them closer to religion when they have other things to worry about, like - life, putting food on the table, getting a place to live, hitting the books, getting to college and making it through college etc etc etc. Religion is on the dumpster.
Posted by dsjpk5 4 months ago
dsjpk5
That also has always been the case. "It's worse now more than ever." has been said by every generation. And if young people aren't getting married and raising a family, that supports my claim concerning the popularity of secular humanism.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Khons 4 months ago
Khons
backwardsedenDNehlsenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro a brat and a lump of lard, bad conduct
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 5 months ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenDNehlsenTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro a"brat" in round two, and "a fat lump of lard" in the third. This is poor conduct.
Vote Placed by Mharman 5 months ago
Mharman
backwardsedenDNehlsenTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor conduct by con. Con calls his opponent a 'brat' and a "fat lump of lard'.