The Instigator
RaveScratch
Pro (for)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
Pennington
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

If God is Real He's Unfair and Unjust

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 9 votes the winner is...
Pennington
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,055 times Debate No: 31630
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (29)
Votes (9)

 

RaveScratch

Pro

Christianity says that God is "just", "fair", and "benevolent",but this list evidence completely contradicts that.

A.The Killings of God

God has killed a little over 2 million people and the Devil, the embodiment of evil, has killed a mere 10. [1] Not only that, but That's against Gods sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." [2] Also, God orders many people to kill in his name. [3]

B.God Endorsed Slavery

God, the "benevolent", says, "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." [4]

C.God Is Not Just, Nor Does He Have A Heart

In the Bible, it states, "the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell." [5] So I'd like to raise the question, who could truly feel good living in "eternal bliss" while others, that may have acted better than you morally but didn't believe in God, must "burn in eternal hellfire".

D.What's The Point of Hell?

The only logical use of discipline, is to either use someone as an "example", or to teach someone/something not to do something. We can not see people in Hell from Earth, only after death when it does not matter, so being an example is illogical, and we are never released from Hell, making any possible lesson taught pointless because the disciplined are stuck forever in Hell.

Sources:
[1] http://www.religico.com...
[2] http://biblescripture.net...
[3] http://www.evilbible.com...
[4] http://www.evilbible.com...
[5] http://forums.catholic.com...
Pennington

Con

Resolution revised: If the Christian God is Real He's Unfair and Unjust


My opponent gave us no rules or structure to go by therefore I will provide one. The only rule is that the Last Round be only for closing arguments and rebuttals no new argument can be added.


My opponents claims that the list provided shows that God is unjust and unfair but it does not show that quite yet.


A. The Killings of God


My opponent must approach this with a realistic amount of choice verses here. I would say that three examples of killings by God with Pros choosing would suffice this argument.


B. God endorsed slavery


God really never endorsed slavery but simply put rules and regulations on it for Israel. Slavery was a world-wide practice in those days of the Bible and standards needed to be set.


C. God is not just, nor does He have a heart


My opponent offers us here a quote from the Bible with no book, verse and source. I have never read this verse so I am interested in reading it. Living morally or not is not the ultimate factor to Jesus Christ. The ultimate goal is finding Jesus and asking Him to forgive you.


D. What's the point of hell?


The point of hell is giving those who do not want to serve God their place without God. I think hell-fire and lake of fire is just a description of the feeling and appearance it will be without God your Creator.


I hope my opponent gives us three examples from 1A and offers us more in Round 2.


I await my opponents response!

Debate Round No. 1
RaveScratch

Pro

In my round 1 argument, at the bottom are a list of sources that correspond to brackets. I say this because it seems my opponent did not see this.

A.The Killings of God


I would like to state that my sources give a plethora of verses, but he still says, "I would say that three examples of killings by God with Pros choosing would suffice this argument." In my sources I not only give more than what is asked, but I also give a graph that counted the amount of people killed by God.

B.God Endorsed Slavery
God basically says that you can beat and own people as long as they're not your race, which in this case was Israelites. We know today that slavery is morally wrong, so why would would God allow it in the first place?
(Again my sources are all in the round 1 argument).

C.God is not just, nor does He have a heart
My opponent says, "Living morally or not is not the ultimate factor to Jesus Christ. The ultimate goal is finding Jesus and asking Him to forgive you." This is just plain illogical, no offense, if Jesus did not care about "living morally", than why does he teach the word of God, this includes what Gods finds morally fit. Besides it isn't Jesus who decides Heaven or Hell, its God's.

D.What's The Point of Hell?
I would understand, if God released them after a certain amount of time because this would teach them to believe in God, even if it was through pure fear. Sadly, this is not the case, it's kind of like me saying, "A teenager smoked so he gets life in prison." The teenager knows he has done wrong, but he can never apply these teachings. My opponent says, "I think hell-fire and lake of fire is just a description of the feeling and appearance it will be without God your Creator." I don't disagree with this I think the Bible does mean I will feel and see eternal Hellfire if I don't believe.

Pennington

Con

I appreciate my opponents direction of her links but I did see them.





A.The Killings of God


NOTE: I gave the very clear instruction for my opponent to choose three specific verses for us to debate about here but she did not do this. The reason this is necessary is because we have character limits and only four rounds to fully discuss this topic of 'God killing people.' We have no room to discuss a plethora of examples and common practice in debates is to choose a few topics to discuss not a plethora of them. It gives a unfair burden on myself to fulfill and many experienced debaters here will see what I am saying. Regardless I will go about this section in a manner of just talking about God's supposed killing of humans in a whole.

First off, can someone destroy what they make if it does not do what they made it for? If someone creates something can the creation ever be equal to the creator? And Would the creator be held in any immoral action if He destroyed what is His?

The point is God is not held to the same standard as humans place on themselves. God flooded the earth and destroyed everything but sets of everything but is God held to being called a killer? He created the earth and man and therefore can flood the earth and drown man. My opponent should just show how God is held to the same standard as man.

God told His people to kill others. The Bible clearly says that the price of sin is blood or death. This the reason for sacrifice, to cleanse the sin, and why Jesus came and a God was sacrificed for all. We no longer need to sacrifice or to follow old law because Jesus fulfilled it for all-time. The Bible gives the reason why these people are killed and there is more then one instance. They were killers, rapist, slave drivers, village raiders and generally terrible people. This goes into the next section about slavery also. God gave instruction for slavery because of people like these took everyone they could as slaves.

My opponent needs to show people that God and Israel had no right to kill.

B.God Endorsed Slavery

My opponent continued on in this section without addressing my comments in Round 1. God never made slaves or slavery and my opponent has the burden of showing He did. We will never find in the Bible that God started slavery. I will refer back to my last rounds comments and say that slavery was around in that time and Israel was exposed to it. God simply gave instructions to His people on a societal norm which was slavery. I guess my opponents is saying that God should stop slavery because it is wrong but then He should stop everything then, right? He should stop you from doing that thing that your parents did not want you to do back then, right? By taking away humans choice to make slaves takes away freedom of decision and that is truly wrong.

Furthermore my opponent needs to show that slavery is the harmful in all circumstances. There is no doubt instances of slavery that are harmful but there are also instances of slavery that is helpful. Is the situation of a person who is homeless, starving and clothless but free somehow better than being a slave with a home, food and clothes? No it is not. Slavery is not a word with a meaning that is all negative. Are we to make the claim that all slaves actually did not choose to live, love and serve their masters? Is all masters bad? Is not government and law our masters?

C.God is not just, nor does He have a heart

My opponent has obvious flaws in her understanding of scripture and the person and God in Jesus Christ. She also totally drops her scripture from last round therefore conceding it was not Biblical.

According to the New Testament one can not fully live morally without Jesus Christ and therefore it is most important to find Jesus Christ and a higher moral living will follow through Him. It is also each person's decision if they go to heaven or hell, not Jesus' or God's. My opponent also needs to explain this section here much further. Are we searching for a heart like humans? Is God supposed to have a pumping heart like humans? Is he supposed to view us as His equal and our deaths make Him a murderer? Is He not free to destroy His creations that do not do what He created them for?

D.What's The Point of Hell?

As I said last round, hell, is just a description of what eternity without God will be like. I think we can agree that everything we do has consequences in life. We often see consequences as punishment as we see hell as punishment. In fact consequences and punishment is the expression of freedom. When we freely choose to do something then a consequence will result. This therefore is the point of hell. Hell is for people who do not want to worship God as God, people who are selfish and chooses to rather live without God's righteousness. Therefore the description of burning and lake of fire is what this area outside of God will be like. I do not know the point of this section as well, is it for just explaining hell?

Debate Round No. 2
RaveScratch

Pro

A.The Killings of God

Note:
I sincerely apologize about not giving my opponent what he asked for, I did not see the reasoning and believed he did not see my citations. So here are three main ones that I strongly disagree with:

1. You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

2. From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

3.Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

The reasons I do not like these are that they are completely illogical. (1)Sorceress, as you should know, don't exist and if they did why put them here in the first place if you just wanted people to kill them. (2)Killing children for name calling is, for any sane people, completely over punishment. (3) This is unfair to the child which has no control over what there parents do. Besides, since every father has "guilt", doesn't that mean everyone should just drop dead?

About the challenge my opponent has given me about "to show people that God and Israel had no right to kill." This is quite simple. About the Israelites, in the Bible it states, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:28 NIV)" This means that all people are equal, but you say the Israelites had a right over all others. God will be a little harder to explain but I'll do my best. Let's take Noah's arc/The Great Flood as an example. God gave us free will, which includes free thinking and the freedom to commit sin. We used this free to question him because of lack of proof, this was counted as sinning. Mass amounts of sinning is thought to be the cause of The Great Flood, God wanted a "clean slate". So let me straighten this out, God made a giant flood to kill everyone for using what he gave us this seems unfair. Also about the "creator destroying his/her creation." I personally would not kill my creation for simply using what I gave it unless it was causing harm to me, which sin was not causing any harm to God.

B.God Endorsed Slavery
My opponent states that, "God never made slaves or slavery and my opponent has the burden of showing He did. We will never find in the Bible that God started slavery." Although, I never said God created it, I simply said that he allowed it.
Next, my opponent states that, "I guess my opponents is saying that God should stop slavery because it is wrong but then He should stop everything then, right? He should stop you from doing that thing that your parents did not want you to do back then, right? By taking away humans choice to make slaves takes away freedom of decision and that is truly wrong." The only problem with this is that God has outlawed many things, such as murder, but instead God says its okay if you do.
Lastly, I'd like to talk about the "good and bad in all." My opponent challenges me to say that slavery is "bad in all circumstances." This is impossible with everything, everything has good and bad effects. In this case though, the bad effects greatly out-weigh the good. Also why didn't God make slavery optional for the slave, doing this would allow people who were starving, homeless, and dying an easy way out.

C.God is not just, nor does He have a heart

First off, I don't believe in Jesus or God, yet I "fully live morally", in my opinion. Anyway, my opponent says the if someone goes to Hell it's there fault not God or Jesus'. For this point, I would like to ask a series of questions:

1. Who controls everything?
God
2. Who made Hell?
God
3. Who made criteria that I must meet to go to Heaven?
God
These string of questions can easily be used to help us believe that God sends us to Hell, we may have sinned, but he is the one who chooses to send us to Hell, not us.

This last part is me explaining to my opponent what I mean by "heart" and how I believe we should be viewed by God. I'm speaking of the theoretical heart and having qualities, such as empathy, compassion, and forgiveness. About God's view, I believe that if he does exist he should see us as if he was a mother and we are his baby that is learning to walk and that even though we mess up and have doubt, he should be there to support us and help us understand what we did wrong and let us try again.

D.What's The Point of Hell?

First let me start by explaining to my opponent what this section is for. I made this section to argue about the reasoning of Hell eventhough it helps nobody. I would understand Hell if God sent us back to mortality, to try again, or into Heaven after a certain amount of time, but he doesn't. He does not give a second chance and because of this Hell's one purpose is to torture those who did not believe, but as I said in an earlier comment, a punishment is used to teach, that's why we have discipline and we don't make it enable for the person to "put there teachings into play."

The only time this isn't the case, is during a life sentence or death penalty. These put into play the second use of punishment, making an example. When you "make an example" out of someone, this shows other people that "they shouldn't do this or this is what's going to happen." Although this doesn't apply to to Hell either for we cannot see people in, what you say is, "the feeling and appearance it will be without God your Creator" on Earth. We can only see when we are already dead and there are no rooms for "do overs".
Pennington

Con

A.The Killings of God

Thank you Pro!

1. (Exodus 22:18 NAB)

(1)Sorceress, as you should know, don't exist and if they did why put them here in the first place if you just wanted people to kill them.


If there had been no witches, such a law as this had never been made. The existence of the law suggest the existence of the thing. Even if witches did not exist then that leaves this law as killing no one because there is no witch. In every form of witchcraft there is an appeal to a power not acting in subordination to the divine law of God. The practice of witchcraft was therefore an act of rebellion against God.[1]

2. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)

(2)Killing children for name calling is, for any sane people, completely over punishment.

Perhaps it was necessary to show, at the outset of his career as a prophet, that he too, so mild and peaceful could, like Elijah, wield the terrors of God's judgments (

1 Kings 19:19 note). The persons really punished were, not so much the children, as the wicked parents 2 Kings 2:23, whose mouth-pieces the children were, and who justly lost the gift of offspring of which they had shown themselves unworthy.[2]

3. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

(3) This is unfair to the child which has no control over what there parents do. Besides, since every father has "guilt", doesn't that mean everyone should just drop dead?

This command seems to be directed to the Medes and Persians, and denotes that they would thus cut off his children. For the iniquity of their fathers - On account of the crimes of their ancestors - the pride, haughtiness, and oppression of the kings of Babylon. This is the statement of a general principle of the divine administration, that the consequences of crime often pass over from the perpetrator, and impinge on his descendants (see

Exodus 20:5).[3]

My opponent still did not show us that Israel as Gods people did not have the right to kill. She gives us a verse from the N.T. but this topic is in the O.T. which has significant differences. Before Jesus Christ and His ministry the Israelites were God's people and it was they who God used to punish other nations. As so other nations punished them for turning away from God. God did not create man with the knowledge to sin or intended it. Therefore once man sinned against God, then God, had every right to destroy His creations. Also God did not destroy man by the flood for just sinning but because angels came and were manipulating mans seed with theirs. As we see it was very much just to kill all people because they were tainted by angels except Noah who was perfect in his generations. Also my opponents opinion of what she would do helps us none in determining if God is just or unjust.

B.God Endorsed Slavery

My opponent has yet to show that God endorsed slavery but instead regulated it amongst His people. My opponent also suggest that murder and slavery are the same crime. One ends life forever and one doesn't. It is agreed that the bad effects out-weighed the good effects in slavery. None of this shows God endorsed slavery but that men started slavery for superiority issues.


C.God is not just, nor does He have a heart

1. Who controls everything?

I again challenge my opponent to show that God controls everything and that individuals do not control themselves.

2. Who made Hell?

God does not throw out disobedient angels or men. They chose to separate themselves from him. The choice to oppose God is the very essence of hell. For humans this choice is made at death. What this means is that God did not create hell, he only allows for its possibility as a consequence of his choice to give angels and humans the gift of free will.

3. Who made criteria that I must meet to go to Heaven?

God did.

4. Heart

My opponent keeps inserting how she feels and what she views as if everything evolves around her opinion. My opponent also wants God to allow His creations to do their own will without punishment. I can say that Jesus Christ showed alot of compassion, forgiveness and empathy. We can find many instances of these same traits throughout the O.T. and N.T. We see spoken throughout scripture from God to man. My opponent ignores the vast amounts of hints of what to do and God's kindness to allow us to try again. What my opponent wants is eternal chances to try again and accept there is consequences.

D.What's The Point of Hell?

My opponent is still confused about the purpose and reason for hell. Hell is not made by God but those who choose to be without God. This is not punishment but freedom to be without God so therefore God has no need to teach any further. Because the description of hell through the Bible makes people think it is punishment but instead it is freedom to those who want to be without God. Your life and heart is all that is needed to know were your place is. I can not help if my opponent does not believe in hell to be scared about it but for those that do it is very much a reason not to sin. My opponent is committing a fallacy to assume that because she does not believe in God that she shouldn't be without God(or in hell) but that is incorrect.

Sources:


[1]

http://bible.cc...

[2]

http://bible.cc...

[3]

http://bible.cc...

Debate Round No. 3
RaveScratch

Pro

A.The Killings of God
1. The only interpretation I can get is that my opponent believed there was witches. If that's not what my opponent is saying, then I'm sorry.

2. My opponent says that it was to, basically, show the power of a prophet and to punish the parents. Killing an animal than eating that animal, so that the killing has two purposes and making it more efficient, would have been just as affective with more benefits. About punishing the parents, this is unfair to the children. Why not just punish the parents and take in the children and teach them "God's way."

3. There are two things I'd like to address. The first being that my opponents says, "This command seems to be directed to the Medes and Persians," but it never says so in context. Because of this I'd like to say that this is undecided due to lack of evidence of both sides. The other thing I'd like to address is, "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." (Exodus 20:5) This is god admitting to being jealous, which against one of the seven deadly sins but that's not relevant. So I see this as God punishing people because of his jealousy, which doesn't seem very "just" of God.

Note: My opponenet claims that only the Old Testament is valid, which is a comman claim. I don't see why we should disclude the New Testament because both Testaments were written by or with the influence of God. Maybe his point is that the Old Testament and New Testament have nothing to do with each other, but again I'd like to say that both were written with the influence of God so I think they both should be thought of as a intertwined to each other.

B.God Endorsed Slavery

"Endorse - Declare one's public approval or support of". Is God not approving slavery? Is he saying that it's okay to own a slave? Yes. I've given a Bible verse already showing that God approves it. That's all I have to say to end this topic.

C.God is Not Just, Nor Does He Have A Heart

1. God says he's almighty himself. (almighty - Having absolute power; all-powerful)

2. I believe I know what you're saying now, if I do, I'm perfectly fine with that Hell. I was basing my argument off the fundamental thought of Hell. (this statement is going off what you say in "D.What's the point of Hell")

4. My opponent says,"My opponent keeps inserting how she feels and what she views as if everything evolves around her opinion", but I never stated anything even remotely close, I'm saying I can't conceive why a God would be so, in my opinion, cruel. My opponent also says, "My opponent also wants God to allow His creations to do their own will without punishment.," even though I satated, "I made this section to argue about the reasoning of Hell eventhough it helps nobody. I would understand Hell if God sent us back to mortality, to try again, or into Heaven after a certain amount of time." In this quote I'm saying that would seem much more useful if we gave people a chance after Hell to put what they've learned into affect or giving them a timed punishment, not that no punishment should be issued. (This statement is directed to the fundamental thought of Hell and I'm okay with no response to this subsection.)

D.What's the point of Hell
As I said in C-2, I'm perfectly fine with you definition of Hell.


Note: Thank you for debating, I hope I had you feeling and/or thinking about something I said during this debate.
Pennington

Con

A.The Killings of God

:1. The only interpretation I can get is that my opponent believed there was witches. If that's not what my opponent is saying, then I'm sorry.:


That was very well what I am suggesting. My opponent never gives any reason to believe that witches don't exist other than her appeal to assumption. On top of the fact that if witches do not exist then the laws made to kill them are not going to harm anyone.



:2. About punishing the parents, this is unfair to the children. Why not just punish the parents and take in the children and teach them "God's way.":


Children automatically go to heaven upon death. Now with that in mind, what if the only way to open the eyes and humble the parents is by the death of their child? Maybe the only way to turn the parents to call on God was to take their children(BTW were gifts of God.) This also goes into laws of that day that children who did not respect elders were killed. The reasons the children acted this way was because of the teachings or lack thereof by the parents. Which is why the Bible refers to this punishment as intended for the deeds of the parents.



:3. "This command seems to be directed to the Medes and Persians," but it never says so in context. Because of this I'd like to say that this is undecided due to lack of evidence of both sides.:

It very much says so in the context. My opponent should read the chapters before and after this verse. In chapter 13 it refers to Babylon, Medes and Arabia. In chapter 14 it also adds Lebanon, Assyria and Palestine.

:The other thing I'd like to address is, "You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me." (Exodus 20:5) This is god admitting to being jealous, which against one of the seven deadly sins but that's not relevant.:

Jealousy is not one of the seven deadly sins, my opponent confuses jealousy with envy. There can be good and bad jealousy. EX. A husband is jealous over his wife and a parent is jealous over their child.



Note: The N.T. and O.T. are intertwined but for different messages. The O.T. is the establishment of the law and future prophecies. The N.T. is the fulfillment of the law and more prophecies. Therefore laws that were commanded in the O.T. are no longer valid to followers in the N.T. because Jesus Christ fulfilled them. EX. O.T. followers had to sacrifice animals and kill sinners to rid the sin amongst them. The price of sin is death. Once Jesus Christ came and died for men , that sacrifice was for all-time and there was no longer need for man to sacrifice for the sin.



B.God Endorsed Slavery



:"Endorse - Declare one's public approval or support of". Is God not approving slavery? Is he saying that it's okay to own a slave? Yes. I've given a Bible verse already showing that God approves it. That's all I have to say to end this topic.:


The verse my opponent gives never says God endorses slavery or God wants slavery. God simply gives judgements on slavery. My opponent never shows us that men did not cause slavery. Furthermore she never shows that God wasn't simply giving His people restrictions on having slaves. She never rebuttals about slavery being a major part of society back then. She never connects slavery to the N.T., showing that the Biblical message requires slavery. Pro has alot more to show then what has been given to prove God actually endorsed slavery instead of just putting restrictions on it for Israel.



C.God is Not Just, Nor Does He Have A Heart



:1. God says he's almighty himself. (almighty - Having absolute power; all-powerful):


Yes, God is all-powerful and by being all-powerful, He has the power to allow you to make free choices to determine your own fate.



:4. "I made this section to argue about the reasoning of Hell even though it helps nobody. I would understand Hell if God sent us back to mortality, to try again, or into Heaven after a certain amount of time." In this quote I'm saying that would seem much more useful if we gave people a chance after Hell to put what they've learned into affect or giving them a timed punishment, not that no punishment should be issued.:


To make this reasoning valid, my opponent had to show that people would change after hell. We see all throughout society of people receiving punishment for their crimes and still they do them. Punishment does not necessarily deter criminal behavior. It is clear from the Bible that God hates rebellion against Him and this is what hell is for, for those who would rather not serve God and rebel against His will. My opponent did not offer us a better deterrent for those who wish not to serve God.

Conclusion:

My opponent never shows us conclusive evidence that God is unjust. She simply is uneducated from a Biblical standpoint. This debate turned into more of a education of Biblical theology than a debate. My opponent had all the BOP and did not fulfill it.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate.

Debate Round No. 4
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by tulle 4 years ago
tulle
I got halfway through round 4 and my brain checked out. Adding to favourites in order to vote later.
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
A standard of no slavery. Slavery was not considered as bad back then. You force your thoughts of slavery in the situation. There were Patriarchs who ruled over lands and people, still is today. All were slaves to them. If they were not then they would be vulnerable to any people, they would be alone. I guess you would rather them have to be slaves to another people and be treated worse by them. Or that the Israelites leave them free and they be took by another people who would probably kill or mistreat them. You simply force your societies norms on ancient societies.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 4 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"God really never endorsed slavery but simply put rules and regulations on it for Israel. Slavery was a world-wide practice in those days of the Bible and standards needed to be set."

How about a standard of no slavery? Was God not clever enough to come up with that back then lol
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
I was the 666th view. Now I feel evil.
Posted by PeaceByJesus 4 years ago
PeaceByJesus
"atrocities are committed daily and if god did exist crime, corruption and other "undesirable" features of the world would cease to exist."

That is a superficial reasoning, as it presumes there is no valid reason for allowing evil. See here: http://www.conservapedia.com...
Posted by Pennington 4 years ago
Pennington
@Rave, your comments forgives all. I was not offended.
Posted by RaveScratch 4 years ago
RaveScratch
I would like to apologize to everyone including Pennington. I was reading the votes and comments and a few were about my ill composure. I read over my arguments again and see that I was quite rude. I'm very sorry and I hope that nobody was offended.
Posted by Mysterious_Stranger 4 years ago
Mysterious_Stranger
The simple answer is that there is no God, atrocities are committed daily and if god did exist crime, corruption and other "undesirable" features of the world would cease to exist. One could argue that God gave humans free will, however free will is itself a mistake and thus for is the catalyst that causes crime and other wrongdoings. So if there is a God he would almost certainly be a malevolent entity that appears to enjoy causing people to die and suffer, or on the other hand one could just simply choose the logical decision, that there is no God
Posted by PeaceByJesus 4 years ago
PeaceByJesus
I would like to add that I do not think it is best to limit voting only to those who can receive text messages, which excludes landline only customers. Debate.org could employ a service that will send text messages to landlines, but apparently does not, as i never received any sent to my Verizon number Debate has.
Posted by PeaceByJesus 4 years ago
PeaceByJesus
<i>D. What's The Point of Hell?
The only logical use of discipline, is to either use someone as an "example", or to teach someone/something not to do something. </i>

This is a false premise, as it mistakes reformative discipline for purely punitive justice, and disallows the latter. Contrary to the Pro polemic, punishment is not simply used to teach, but it also can be, and ultimately is, to render the punishment one deserves correspondent to his/her actions and the grace given, and there are differences in the degree of everlasting punishment. (Lk. 10:13,14; 20:47; Rv. 20:12-15)

And the wicked are an example of God's ultimate justice, without which existence would be unfair, whether one can see them or not.

And contrary to the Con response, eternal punishment in the Bible is not simply that of negative deprivation, but the positive realization of just punishment, in contradistinction to the reward of the righteous in Christ. (Lk. 16:19-33; Mt. 13:42; 25:41,46; Rv. 14:11; 20:10)

And yes, God does send souls to Hell, (Mt. 13:4o-42) though they are there because they loved darkness over light. (Jn. 3:19-21)

Other comments: "god admitting to being jealous, which against one of the seven deadly sins," this is a typical atheistic perversion, as the command to worship God is not due to God needing anything, because He does not, (Acts 17:25) and instead He is sacrificial toward man and would spare himself grief without us, and the type of jealously here is not because God selfishly wants something, or is somehow insecure, but it is akin to a dedicated parent or teacher being jealous for the attention of his/her kids who are being led astray by delinquent peers. It is driven by love and what is right, and thus is best for man, contrary to following idols, which will fail and misled. And sin will cost you more than you wanted to pay.

All in all, i find the atheistic arguments to be shallow and uniformed, and lacking objectivity.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
RaveScratchPenningtonTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I have seen Pro act rudely to Con, by saying how some of Con's points are illogical. It's just an insult to his arguments. True, Pro said no offense, but why even bring such a word up in the first place? I also give points for reliable sources to Con because Pro used a source from a FORUM THREAD. Is that reliable? Pro also used sources from "evilbible.com", which is a site that slanders Christianity (I checked the website) instead of maintaining civility. I did not have enough time to look over convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
RaveScratchPenningtonTied
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: Countering the retard
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
RaveScratchPenningtonTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: We agreed
Vote Placed by lannan13 4 years ago
lannan13
RaveScratchPenningtonTied
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: Conduct goes to Con for him being more patient and not being rude. I will finish the rest of the vote after work.
Vote Placed by annanicole 4 years ago
annanicole
RaveScratchPenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought Rave (Pro) was a little deceitful at times - maybe not on purpose, but I'll give an example: "My opponent says, ?Living morally or not is not the ultimate factor to Jesus Christ. The ultimate goal is finding Jesus and asking Him to forgive you.? This is just plain illogical, no offense, if Jesus did not care about ?living morally?, than why does he teach the word of God, this includes what Gods finds morally fit." That last sentence or sentences, depending upon how one counts, is quoted exactly and is an example of spelling/grammar for Pro. Alright, Con (Pennington) said, ?Living morally or not is not the ultimate factor to Jesus Christ ?? Agree or not, that is standard Christian doctrine preached all over the land. Notice the reply: ? ? plain illogical ? if Jesus did not CARE about ?living morally? ?? If the statement is illogical, that doesn?t prove it. Con never stated nor implied that, even remotely. Just an example. Sources even, but I gave to Pro.
Vote Placed by Darong 4 years ago
Darong
RaveScratchPenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall this debate was very close, conduct and spelling and grammar were very close to being equally matched, if not being equally matched. I do believe Ravescratch made a more convincing argument, in pointing out the different things god had done. Rave also used more diverse sources than Pennington.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
RaveScratchPenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
RaveScratchPenningtonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm sorry, but when your best sources are "evilbible.com" and you don't use much else, you need to diversify your sources. Pro also did not use the verses in context. At all.
Vote Placed by Sola.Gratia 4 years ago
Sola.Gratia
RaveScratchPenningtonTied
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: I stand with con on this topic. And I give points to him for better conduct because he seemed a bit more polite and patient.