The Instigator
autodidact
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
KroneckerDelta
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

If the god of the Bible exists as described in the Bible, then he has commited child abuse.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
KroneckerDelta
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,243 times Debate No: 29759
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

autodidact

Pro

If the god of the Bible exists as described in the Bible, then he has committed child abuse.

R1 acceptance, definitions, clarifications only

I, Pro will have the BoP. I will prove that the god depicted in the Bible, if real, is a child abuser.

Child Abuse:
  • "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"
  • "An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."[1]

[1]https://www.childwelfare.gov...

KroneckerDelta

Con

First, I am assuming that all evidence must come from the Bible since if we both accept the premise (If the god of the Bible exists as described in the Bible), then the Bible is the only reliable source of information about the god of the Bible (from here out I will refer to this entity as God).

I am assuming that to find God guilty of child abuse that Pro must reasonably show that a court would find him guilty of child abuse as defined in [1], specifically:
  • "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"
  • "An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."[1]
Furthermore, [1] defines "child" as:
  • A "child" under this definition generally means a person who is younger than age 18 or who is not an emancipated minor.

For Pro to win this debate they must do the following:
  1. Present at least one case where God was indeed either the parent or caretaker of a child (as defined above). If no cases can be found where God can be shown to be the parent or caretaker of a child, then God has had no children to commit child abuse against.
  2. If Pro can find a case that satisfies the legal definition of parent or caretaker, then they must present evidence that shows God committed child abuse as defined in [1] (although multiple cases would strengthen the argument).

Con holds that there are three possible cases that might satisfy the first condition. Con argues that in none of these cases does God qualify as the parent or caretaker and that, even in the 3rd case, if Pro can show that God was the parent (or caretaker), that no abuse occurred.
  1. Adam - Adam was created as an adult and thus was never under the age of 18.
  2. Eve - Likewise, Eve was never a child.
  3. Jesus - Jesus might be considered God's son. First, Con does not concede this and so Pro must still prove Jesus would be considered God's child. Although God might have been Jesus's biological father, Jesus was essentially adopted by Joseph and Mary and thus they became Jesus's legal guardians absolving God as the parent/caretaker. Similarly, if foster parents abuse a child, the biological mother and father are not held responsible. Furthermore, there is no evidence of child abuse perpetrated against Jesus in the Bible.
Debate Round No. 1
autodidact

Pro

I would like to thank KroneckerDelta for accepting this debate. I do admit I would have preferred a theist over a fellow atheist. On the other hand it seems KroneckerDelta has indicated that he enjoys correcting people when they are wrong. I do as well. Perhaps one of us will have a different view at the end of this debate.

I would like to start by addressing con's assumptions. I see no reason to limit con's evidence to just the bible as long as the hypothetical remains as considered true. As for the second assumption, con is mostly right. I would ask the voters put themself on the jury. If the voter is biased against me I ask them to consider if I would have done the acts I am about to put forth would I be guilty?

So what makes God a caretaker to us all? There are many passages where God is called heavenly father [2] or some derivative of this. There are also other passages where God is depicted in metaphors as a shepherd tending his flock.

1 pet 5:6-7

Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

John 10:25-30 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[a]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

1Kings 8:15-16 Then he said:

“Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who with his own hand has fulfilled what he promised with his own mouth to my father David. For he said, 16 ‘Since the day I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city in any tribe of Israel to have a temple built so that my Name might be there, but I have chosen David to rule my people Israel.’

I feel that between the bible calling God father and shepherd and the passages noted that I have established god as a caretaker.

Now on to the actions, While there are many cases where God orders the deaths of children there are 3 that come to mind where God does the work himself.

I will list them in order from weakest case to strongest case.

Noah’s flood:

God drowned an unknown number of kids

Gen. 6:13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.

The first born of Egypt:

The Bible indicates God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. And then kills all the first born that are not marked with blood on their doors. God’s actions lead to countless deaths of children that in no way are involved in the conflict.

Exodus 11:4-6 So Moses said, “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again.

The son of David and Bathsheba:

God makes the child ill for seven days making it die on the 7th day.

2 Sam 12 15 & 18 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill.

18 On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.”

All 3 of these cases God causes the death of children. In one he causes suffering beforehand.

If I were to drown kids that are under my care, I hope I would be found guilty. If I would kill a child because their parent is a slave at the mill and has nothing to do with the affairs of the pharaoh, I hope I would be found guilty. If I would make a child suffer in illness for 7 days leading to its death because I am mad at the father, I hope I would be found guilty.

"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"

I have established that God meets the definition of caretaker.
I have presented 3 cases where God’s direct actions has resulted in death of children.

There are other cases as well where God’s actions in the form of orders has caused the death of even more children.

1 Sam 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

Does con wish to entertain the deaths of children by God’s orders also?


The bible quotes are short due to post limits. I ask if you need more detail please read the chapters the verses come from.

once again I thank con for accepting and look forward to the challenge










[2]http://www.biblegateway.com...
KroneckerDelta

Con

Con does not feel that Pro has proved that God would be considered either a father (in the sense of one's actual parent) or a caretaker. There are two arguments Pro presents: 1) that God is referred to as "the Father" and 2) God is referred to as a shepherd to his flock (which would be people). First, these are clearly metaphors and not to be taken literally. God is referred to as father and shepherd for a very good reason: he is the "leader". Secondly, this notion of God being "the Father" is suspiciously absent from the Old Testament. Con challenges Pro to find a passage in the Old Testament where God is referred to as a father. All of Pro's source verses are from the New Testament and this makes sense: Jesus considered himself the son of God, so when he or the apostles refer to "the Father" they really mean the father of Jesus. Furthermore, in the Catholic sect (and some others, I believe), priests are referred to as "Father"--surely Pro does not intend to argue that priests are literal fathers to their congregation.

Con is confused by Pro's inclusion of the verse from 1st Kings:

1Kings 8:15-16 Then he said:

“Praise be to the LORD, the God of Israel, who with his own hand has fulfilled what he promised with his own mouth to my father David. For he said, 16 ‘Since the day I brought my people Israel out of Egypt, I have not chosen a city in any tribe of Israel to have a temple built so that my Name might be there, but I have chosen David to rule my people Israel.’

This seems to support Con's claim that God is not a father or caretaker. In fact, this verse is basically saying that God allowed the Israelites to govern over themselves (by allowing kings).

As for the shepherd metaphor--it's just that, a metaphor. It does not mean that God is necessarily the caretaker of all men, rather he is the one that herds them such that they will do his will.


The passage from 1 Peter is closest to proving Pro's point. However, Con believes this is taken somewhat out of context:

1 Peter 5:5-7 http://www.biblegateway.com...

5 In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because,

“God opposes the proud
but shows favor to the humble.”[a]

6 Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7 Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.


This passage is addressing young people and urging them to not be proud, yet respect their elders. Casting their anxiety aside, Con argues is not saying that they should fall down and wait for God to do everything for them (like a child does towards their parent), rather trying to comfort them. Saying, do not be afraid because God is "on your side" (so to speak). This is sort of like me being confident on the school playground because I friend's with the biggest guy.


I want to remind voters that Con does not believe Pro has proved that God can be considered a parent or caretaker, however for the purposes of the rest of this rebuttal, we will assume that part has been met.

The first two cases, Noah's flood and killing the first born in Egypt, are clearly murder and not child abuse. For instance, Andrea Yates [1] drowned her five children in a bathtub. There is no doubt that she was the mother of these children and that they were under her immediate care, yet she was not indicted on child abuse charges, rather on murder charges. She did not commit child abuse--she committed murder. Likewise, God did not commit child abuse, he committed murder.

Likewise, in the last case of God killing Uriah's child with sickness, God acted with the intent to murder (kill) the child. Again, this elevates from child abuse to murder.

At this point, I think we should get some clarity on the definition of child abuse:

"Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation"

Pro is clearly using the terms recent act and results in death to make the case that God was a child abuser. But I think we need a little more context on what juries tend to see as child abuse and what they do not. So first, I refer back to the case of Andrea Yates: when there is an intent to kill, it is murder not child abuse. On the other hand, consider the case of Mr. Hu, who left his child in a car and resulted in the child's death [2]. In this case Hu was charged with child endangerment (although less than child abuse, it shows that death does not necessarily mean murder). I would challenge Pro to find a case where a child was killed intentionally and the defendant was charged with anything less than murder.

At this point, Pro has not proved God can be considered a parent (legal guardian) or caretaker of any children. Furthermore, while Pro makes a very good case that God is a psychopathic murderer, he fails to show evidences of child abuse.


Sources:

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.kxan.com...

Debate Round No. 2
autodidact

Pro

To be honest I was expecting a stronger argument from Con. I will now quote Con and talk about the problems I find with his reasoning.

“First, these are clearly metaphors and not to be taken literally.”
Yes, they are metaphors. So is this
"Men's words are bullets, that their enemies take up and make use of against them."
(George Savile, Maxims)[3]

Words are not actually bullets but like bullets they can cause pain.
“A figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common.”[3]
God in the bible is compared to a father and shepherd for a reason. They are both caretaker roles. Con wishes us to believe that the bible uses these icons to only indicate leadership. I rhetorically ask Con why does a real life shepherd lead his sheep. Shepherds protect their sheep from predators, lead them to green fields and cool water. Yes a shepherd leads but he leads as a caretaker. Looking at the role of a father, 2000 plus years ago, we see the father is the head of the house hold and completely responsible for those under his roof. A leadership and caretaker role.

About 1Kings 8:15-16

“This seems to support Con's claim that God is not a father or caretaker. In fact, this verse is basically saying that God allowed the Israelites to govern over themselves (by allowing kings).”
….Ummmmm….. did Con miss where it says god picked the king? That is hardly letting them govern themselves. Self-governance is where the people pick the rulers. According to the Bible, God is the one who took care of picking a leader.

About 1 Peter 5:5-7

“This passage is addressing young people and urging them to not be proud, yet respect their elders. Casting their anxiety aside…
There is a directionality to the casting of anxiety. Why put your worries on God if he is not in some sort of caretaker role willing to take care of them?

“I want to remind voters that Con does not believe Pro has proved that God can be considered a parent or caretaker, however for the purposes of the rest of this rebuttal, we will assume that part has been met.”
I want to remind Con that without a convincing argument to support ones merely stating your beliefs is an argument from authority, and not a good reason to buy into Con’s view.

“The first two cases, Noah's flood and killing the first born in Egypt, are clearly murder and not child abuse. For instance, Andrea Yates [1] drowned her five children in a bathtub. “
I am dropping the Egypt charge. After thinking about it Con is right in this one case. God was actually quite humane in this case of child murder. The difference between Andrea Yates and God is Andrea was insane (postpartum psychosis) while the bible does not note God to be as such.

“She did not commit child abuse--she committed murder.”
She was found not guilty by mental disease or defect.
The important difference between Andrea and God is mens rea
if one is playing kick ball with their kid and they accidently kick the ball into their child’s face this is not child abuse. If they intentionally kick the ball into their child’s face, it is child abuse. Andrea lacked the ability to understand what she was doing was wrong.

The way God kills children in Exodus 12 does not indicate suffering. God could have decided to kill in this humane way. Andrea drowning her children is like a person who thinks the rules in kick ball are to kick the ball at other people’s faces. While God drowning countless children is like the guy who kicks the ball at his child intentionally.

“Likewise, in the last case of God killing Uriah's child with sickness, God acted with the intent to murder (kill) the child.”
2 Sam 12:15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill
Bible indicates it was David’s child from Uriah’s wife. If it was God's intent to kill then why 7 days of sickness and suffering? Death was not the only intent. If we look at chapter 12 light of Munchausen by Proxy we do find startelign similarities.

"1. This kind of abuse and/or neglect – including its sub types/labels – is not currently an officially recognized mental health diagnosis by the American Psychiatric Association - it is a recognized kind of maltreatment. There is no mental health test or evaluation that can determine whether a person is or is not a perpetrator of this kind. However, this is a recognized kind of abuse and/or neglect."[4]

“Pro is clearly using the terms recent act and results in death to make the case that God was a child abuser.”
Actually, while this is part of it I am also arguing “serious physical or emotional harm” as well. Inflicting Illness is an example of serious physical harm. The terror of drowning is an example of serious emotional harm.

In conclusions there are many metaphors in the bible that compare god to classic caretaker roles, and the bible indicating that he has picked leadership in the form of kings also shows a level of care in regards to his people. Furthermore God could have killed in a humane way but instead there are examples where he caused children suffer physically or emotionally before death. Both conditions are met

[3] http://grammar.about.com...
[4] http://www.mbpexpert.com...


“I would challenge Pro to find a case where a child was killed intentionally and the defendant was charged with anything less than murder.”
Not 100% what Con is looking for, but most if not all people in a caretaker role are able to be sane while murdering their ward in a manner that would fit child abuse as well.
http://www.lasvegassun.com...

I put this after my source section because it is a red herring. The fact that the vast majority child abusers don’t intend for the abuse victim to die, does not prove that one can not be charged with both murder and child abuse.
“while Pro makes a very good case that God is a psychopathic murderer,”
Most psychopathic murderers who have a care taker role don’t torment then kill their wards.

KroneckerDelta

Con

Ultimately, this debate is likely to come down to whether or not God can be considered either the parent (legal guardian) or caretaker of any child. Pro's previous rebuttal does nothing to help make the case that God would indeed be considered as such.

Pro concedes that when the God is referred to as "the Father" or "our shepherd" that these are metaphors. Allow me to quote Pro's definition of a metaphor:

“A figure of speech in which an implied comparison is made between two unlike things that actually have something in common.”

In particular, the line: two unlike things. Conceding that "the Father" and "shepherd" are metaphors concedes that, in the Bible, God and being a father is not the same thing (I don't think anyone questions that God is not literally a shepherd). Instead, the Bible is comparing God to a father and shepherd. Just as a family looks to their Father for leadership, God is to be looked up to as a leader of men. The shepherd analogy only solidifies this notion. Pro is attempting to make the argument that a role model would be considered a caretaker. If my childhood role model showed up to my house unexpectedly and murdered me, they would not be accused of child abuse--again they would be accused of murder.

Let's look at a real scenario. If I hire a babysitter, then while I'm gone and my children are under the babysitter's care, the babysitter mercilessly beats one of my children (perhaps even until they die), then this is grounds for child abuse. It is grounds for child abuse because I, the parent, left my children under the care of the babysitter. I do not think Pro can produce an instance where someone in the Bible left their child alone with God under the auspices that God would look after the child in the parent's stead.


The passage from 1st Kings (about picking kings) is not helpful for either Pro's case or Con's. Con concedes that God did pick the kings so it is incorrect to assert God allowed them free reign, however, choosing a leader hardly suggests God is a caretaker either. In the United States, the states vote for the president (through the electoral college), so the states choose the president, but this does not mean that the states are its citizens' caretakers. No doubt the states have a responsibility to voters, but it is not a caretaker role.

1 Peter 5:5-7

Pro writes: "Why put your worries on God if he is not in some sort of caretaker role willing to take care of them?"

Con has already answered this question which Pro did not rebut. Here is Con's response from Round 2:

"Casting their anxiety aside, Con argues is not saying that they should fall down and wait for God to do everything for them (like a child does towards their parent), rather trying to comfort them. Saying, do not be afraid because God is "on your side" (so to speak). This is sort of like me being confident on the school playground because I [am] friend's with the biggest guy."

Con (R2): “I want to remind voters that Con does not believe Pro has proved that God can be considered a parent or caretaker, however for the purposes of the rest of this rebuttal, we will assume that part has been met.”
Pro (R2): "I want to remind Con that without a convincing argument to support ones merely stating your beliefs is an argument from authority, and not a good reason to buy into Con’s view."

I don't understand the purpose of this statement. Con has made arguments for why God should not be considered a parent or caretaker. If Con has made this point (which I believe I have), then there is no reason to even rebut any of Pro's examples. So for the purpose of the rebuttals that followed, Con assumed God could be considered the parent or caretaker. The whole point was to show, even if God acted as the caretaker, that the charges would have been murder, not child abuse.


"She [Andrea Yates] was found not guilty by mental disease or defect."

She was accused of and indicted on murder charges. Whether or not she was found guilty is somewhat of an aside. Assuming we did not think she was insane, she would have been convicted (and was) of murder. Later, in appeals, it was overturned due to insanity [5].

I think it's less about what she was found guilty of and more about what she was accused of. If she had not been found insane, she would have been guilty of murder and not child abuse. Likewise, if God was found to be insane, we would absolve him from the deaths he caused, but as it stands, Con agrees, God did act with intent (mens rea) and is thus guilty of murder (but not child abuse).


Con is actually surprised that Pro would drop the Egyptian plague. Con believes the great flood is actually the weakest argument. This is akin to using a weapon of mass destruction. To say that God is a child abuser because the flood killed many innocent lives is to say that Harry Truman is a child abuser because he caused many innocent children to die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki--surely no one will make that claim?

Even so, the Egyptian plague of killing the first born, is exactly that: murder.

Still, the strongest evidence, Con agrees is the killing of Uriah's child. There are two things:

1) "If it was God's intent to kill then why 7 days of sickness and suffering? Death was not the only intent."

Psychopaths do some very strange and morbid things. Even so, why do some countries execute prisoners in horrific ways?

"Methods of torture used by Hussein's regime included assault with brass knuckles and wooden bludgeons; electric shocks to the genitalia; scorched metal rods being forced into body orifices; the crushing of toes and removal of toenails; burning off limbs; lowering prisoners into vats of acid; poisoning with thallium; raping women in front of their family members; burning with cigarette butts; the crushing of bones; the amputation of ears, limbs, and tongues; and the gouging of eyes.[12]"
[6]

(the [12] is the source that Wikipedia uses)

Why go through this trouble when a simple bullet to the head or even hanging would often times be far more humane? The reasoning is obvious: to inflict suffering and to send a message. Indeed this is exactly what God was doing to David by killing the child born to Uriah's wife: God was punishing David by murdering one of his children.

2) It is clear that God committed 1st degree murder in this case:

first degree murder - although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner) ..."
[7]

Was God's actions deliberate and premeditated? Obviously yes:

1 Samuel 12:13-14

13
Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”

Nathan replied, “The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.”
[8]

It is clear that God tells David that he will kill the child (through the prophet Nathan). This is clearly premeditated murder, not child abuse. Furthermore, was God taking care of the child? No, it is clear that it was not God that was caring for the child, rather David and his attendants:

1 Samuel 12:18
18 On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.”
[8]


Sources:
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org... (this is really the same Andrea Yates source as before)
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Iraq#Other_atrocities
[7] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
[8] http://www.biblegateway.com...
Debate Round No. 3
autodidact

Pro

I would like to thank KroneckerDelta for accepting this debate.

“Pro concedes that when the God is referred to as "the Father" or "our shepherd" that these are metaphors”
…. Ummmmm. It’s not a concession.

I originally said “So what makes God a caretaker to us all? There are many passages where God is called heavenly father [2] or some derivative of this. There are also other passages where God is depicted in metaphors as a shepherd tending his flock.”

To concede I would have to change to a point of view other than my original and admit my original view was false. I have not wavered. Voters, I hope you view this as I do, as dishonest conduct.


“Pro is attempting to make the argument that a role model would be considered a caretaker.”
That’s funny I never suggested generic iconic roles like fathers and shepherd were to be looked at as role models. Some thing I did say was “a shepherd tending his flock.” Leadership requires no regard for the followers. Being a caretaker does. Shepherds tend their sheep. Fathers protect their families. I am not saying one should or should not admire these qualities. I am saying this is the qualities that make someone a caretaker.

When you think of the iconic shepherd, you think of him as a caretaker. Shepherds tend their sheep. Farmers tend their crops. To tend is a thing caretakers do.[5]



“I do not think Pro can produce an instance where someone in the Bible left their child alone with God under the auspices that God would look after the child in the parent's stead.”
What does alone mean when we are talking about an intangible being? Do you know what I can do I can think of an instance where God took the wellbeing of a child out of the control of the parent. The parent begs and begs for the child’s life. If I had to guess he may have even prayed to switch fates with the child. The end result the child suffered for 7 long days and died. 2 Sam 12.
The David depicted in verse 16 and 17 I imagine was in a similar emotional state as the husband in the third verse of this song
https://www.youtube.com...



"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"
Benjamin Franklin
“In the United States, the states vote for the president......”
The guy on the $100 says God played a part.

“Con has already answered this question which Pro did not rebut. Here is Con's response from Round 2:...”
Sorry if you feel my rebuttal was insufficient. Your metaphor is poor.
...because I [am] friend's with the biggest guy."
See I was that biggest guy, but I was not the ultimate authority on that play ground. It was the teachers who policed recess that had the ultimate power. Funny thing about teachers they are in a caretaker role and they can be charged with child abuse.when we correct Con's metaphor we get a caretaker.



“I don't understand the purpose of this statement.”
I was indicating that Con’s beliefs on the care taker issue are not well reasoned and the fact that Con notes his belief is poor reason to accept it as true. If you didn’t understand I was really addressing the first half of the quote Con is talking about.

“Con agrees, God did act with intent (mens rea)”
well at least we agree on something.
“Later, in appeals, it was overturned due to insanity”
From Con’s own link
“On January 6, 2005, a Texas Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, because California psychiatrist and prosecution witness Dr. Park Dietz admitted he had given materially false testimony during the trial
Can you at least get the fact strait?

“I think it's less about what she was found guilty of and more about what she was accused of.”
Hey I agree with this too. Why Con doesn’t actually focus on what she was accused of is a good question. It seems con wants to focus what she was not accused of instead.

Con is talking about no child abuse charges. Lack of a charge does not mean child abuse didn’t happen. Mrs. Yates drowned her 5 children. If Con is going to fuss about what she was not charged with perhaps Con should note what she was charged with, like the quote says is important. Mrs. Yates was only charged with 3 murders. It is clear she could have been charged with more so Cons claim is a wild speculation. Furthermore had she the mens rea she could have been convicted of child abuse as well. It is common for prosecutors to not charge a person with all the crimes they could be charged with. Con’s argument that because Mrs. Yates was not charged with child abuse neither should God is poorly thought out.

“Con is actually surprised that Pro would drop the Egyptian plague.”
After further considerations the Bible does not indicate a physically or emotionally painful death. Best I can tell god magic-ed every first born painlessly to death. Mrs. Yates didn’t have that option.


“To say that God is a child abuser because the flood killed many innocent lives is to say that Harry Truman is a child abuser because he caused many innocent children to die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki--surely no one will make that claim?”
Like Mrs. Yates, Mr. Truman had limited options the Bible pins God as all powerful. He could have done like he did in Egypt and magic-ed everyone to death in their sleep. He could have magic-ed them to sleep as prep work too, genesis shows this ability as well. Basically that is how the lethal injection is done. Sadly God chose the emotionally traumatic drowned the children with everyone else method.

I am so glad Con tried to answer my question.
1) "If it was God's intent to kill then why 7 days of sickness and suffering? Death was not the only intent."

“Psychopaths do some very strange and morbid things....”

Do you know what I find most telling about Con’s answer of all these morbid thing listed? Never is it said that these actions are not abuse or if directed at a child, child abuse.

This is clearly premeditated murder, not child abuse. Furthermore, was God taking care of the child? No, it is clear that it was not God that was caring for the child, rather David and his attendants:
Neither David nor his attendants had sway over the welfare of the child in its last 7 days. You nor I have actually put down verse 16 till now.
16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground.

There is precedent in everyday legal cases. If you cause a car accident you are put in charge of certain caretaker roles. You are put in charge of the medical bills that are generated by the process of mitigating damages. Legally this is looked at as making the other party whole. By injuring the child in the form of sickness God take on a responsibility. It is David’s responsibility to do all that he can to make sure God mitigates said injury. The injury being the illness and suffering.

If Con cares to argue God had standing in seeking retribution in Uriah's death then it is only as a caretaker that God would have standing. But such standing would not warrant the abuse and death of a child who is not at fault and therefore it is not excused.
Pro notes “The reasoning is obvious: to inflict suffering and to send a message. “In trying to make David suffer God intentionally made a child suffer. That is child abuse.
When you take the life of a child in your hands you incur a legal responsibility for the wellbeing of that child. God chose to let the child suffer day after day, child abuse.

Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation is child abuse. Events accredited to God fit this definition.

I ask voters to vote Pro.

[5] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

KroneckerDelta

Con

I think there is little said in Pro's Round 4 response that hasn't already been addressed, so mostly I would refer readers to the previous rounds. Con will now go through R4 rebuttals (keep the previous rounds in mind where these arguments are better spelled out).

Pro accused Con of bad conduct by stating that Pro made a concession. Frankly, Con finds this extremely misleading. So first, I will quote Pro from Round 3:

Pro Round 3:
“First, these are clearly metaphors and not to be taken literally.” - Con Round 2
Yes, they are metaphors. So is this...

Con Round 3:
"Pro concedes that when the God is referred to as "the Father" or "our shepherd" that these are metaphors."

I just leave it up to the readers as to whether or not Pro actually did agree (concede) that these are metaphors. Indeed, as Con argued in R3, Con does see that as a concession that God was not a parent/caretaker. But Con did not just state this, instead, in R3 explained why, as the definition of metaphor is stated, God must not literally be a father or a shepherd.

Pro makes the claim that there are many passages where God is referred to as heavenly father. I refer readers back to R2 where Con stated that in fact this is actually only in the New Testament. Con challenged Pro to find passages in the Old Testament where God was referred to as a father and Pro was unable to provide any examples. Furthermore, Con argued that "the father" really means "the father" of Jesus. Reread John 10:25-30 to see that Jesus refers to God was "my Father" and then finally "the father" (which Con argued means "the father" of Jesus).

The role model argument Con made in R3 is really dependent on accepting that the metaphor of "the Father" and shepherd are really metaphors for being the leader. I don't see that Pro offers any Bible passages to support his analysis of the metaphor as a caretaker. The closest passage is 1 Peter 5:5-7.

Now the next line of argument, Con finds extremely interesting in regard to my analogy of a child on the playground:

Sorry if you feel my rebuttal was insufficient. Your metaphor is poor.
“...because I [am] friend's with the biggest guy."
See I was that biggest guy, but I was not the ultimate authority on that play ground. It was the teachers...

There are two things of interest here. The first is the absurdity of this rebuttal (for which there was none in R3). Pro claims that teachers are the ultimate authority. So are we to believe that the teacher's pet or teacher's snitch is the least picked on at recess??? I merely ask readers what makes more sense: that children are afraid of the biggest bully (which I think is implied by my analogy) or by the child who is best friends with the teacher?

The second thing of interest, is that Pro attacks my "metaphor" (I think it's more of an analogy rather...but same difference). So we see that metaphors are inaccurate often times because people start attacking the metaphor/analogy rather than the actual situation. Rather than attack the purpose of my analogy--that God is a benefactor/protector not necessarily a parent/caretaker in the sense of how a child would see it, refer you to Con's R2--Pro attacks the analogy for not being exact. Sounds familiar right? We have a metaphor in that God is a "father" and shepherd, perhaps how Pro sees this is not exact either!

In regards to Pro's accusation that I was making an argument from authority, Pro writes:

"I was indicating that Con’s beliefs on the care taker issue are not well reasoned and the fact that Con notes his belief is poor reason to accept it as true." - Pro R4

For full context, I suggest rereading this section in Pro's R3 and Con's response in R3. No, I was making an assumption to aid further debate, since if I had assumed that God was not a caretaker then it would have been pointless to attack any of Pro's examples.

“Later, in appeals, it was overturned due to insanity”
"From Con’s own link..."

Whether or not it was insanity or a mistrial is totally irrelevant to this debate. The point is that she was indicted on murder chargers, not child abuse.

"It is common for prosecutors to not charge a person with all the crimes they could be charged with." - Pro R4

Then we can safely assume that God would not be charged with child abuse, rather murder.

The attack against the analogy of Truman is pretty irrelevant as well. At this point Pro is only stating that to be child abuse, there needs to be suffering. Con doesn't care about this point, either way is fine. The real purpose is to distinguish child abuse from 1st degree murder.

On the argument that suffering does not entail child abuse:

"Do you know what I find most telling about Con’s answer of all these morbid thing listed? Never is it said that these actions are not abuse or if directed at a child, child abuse." - Pro R4

It also never states that it is child abuse either. In fact it, again, seems clear to Con that these are either torture or tortuous ways to die--the latter would still be 1st degree murder.

In regards to Uriah's child:

"Neither David nor his attendants had sway over the welfare of the child in its last 7 days. You nor I have actually put down verse 16 till now." - Pro R4

This is irrelevant to my argument. Yes, we know that neither David or his attendants could reverse God's decision to murder the child with disease. But who was actually watching over the child? Was it God? No, obviously not. Was it David, maybe maybe not, I'll accept that it wasn't, but then his attendants certainly were. It was not God that was babysitting the child so the argument that he is the child's caretaker is incorrect.

"If you cause a car accident you are put in charge of certain caretaker roles." - Pro R4

No, you take on the role of the person that is financially liable for the accident. So are we to believe that if I get into an accident and there is a child in the car I hit, that I am guilty of child abuse? I think not.

"If Con cares to argue God had standing in seeking retribution in Uriah's death then it is only as a caretaker that God would have standing...When you take the life of a child in your hands you incur a legal responsibility for the well being of that child. God chose to let the child suffer day after day, child abuse."

So if you decide to murder your neighbor's child, then while you were in the act of killing the child, you were the child's caretaker, therefore this counts as child abuse. No, not even close. God was never the caretaker of Uriah's wife's child, before, during, or after God infected the child with a disease that slowly killed the child.


In conclusion, Pro has failed to prove that God was ever in a caretaker role of a child (anywhere in the Bible). His arguments relies on metaphors used in the New Testament. Second, all three example, Egyptian plague, great flood, and killing Uriah's wife's child, are incidents of murder. Recall from R3 that 1st degree murder requires premeditated though or planning. God clearly did this in all three case and thus is definitely a murderer, but no child abuse (because he was never in a caretaker role).
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
Well I still think the ten plagues are pretty indirect. I mean, the US (up until the 80s) was the main producers of greenhouse gases. So they indirectly caused famine in Africa. Are US industries child abusers?

Also, yes, if God could be classified as a caretaker then there would be an argument for child abuse (I don't think he can ever be considered the parent except in the case of Jesus and possibly Adam/Eve).
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Kronecker, what if he used the example of the ten plagues? While they may have killed some, for the survivors the loss of all crops and livestock would've led to physical harm from malnutrition and vitamin/mineral deficiencies. Some of these can be quite nasty--

Wikipedia description of Scurvy - "a person with the ailment looks pale, feels depressed, and is partially immobilized. As scurvy advances, there can be open, suppurating wounds, loss of teeth, jaundice, fever, neuropathy and death."

If God were classified as a parent/caregiver, wouldn't taking away a kid's food and subjecting them to severe malnutrition in a non-lethal way generally be classified as abuse?
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
@autodidact - reframe the resolution as "God has committed murder" or even more specifically "God has committed 1st degree murder". I would NEVER argue against that point but I suspect some theist would (which is what you wanted anyway). I think you can win that debate.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
"the fact that the bible depicts a god with foreknowledge makes such direct comparisons impossible."

I still don't get this point. All foresight tells us is that God definitely committed 1st degree murder. How does this entail child abuse. Your arguments seem to suggest that if you intend to kill a child, but do so in a way that causes undue suffering that it's child abuse. I do not see how that makes it child abuse vs. just sadistic murdering.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
autodidact, supposing we agree that both torture and murder occured, there's still the problematic question of whether God meets the definition of "parent or caretaker".
Posted by autodidact 4 years ago
autodidact
It is my view that Con wants you think you are comparing apples to apples. the fact that the bible depicts a god with foreknowledge makes such direct comparisons impossible. In the death of David's child killing the child was not the only intent. there was the intent to make David suffer by making the child suffer as well.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Yes, after reading the debate, I agree "on the part of a parent or caretaker" wasn't demonstrated.
Posted by KroneckerDelta 4 years ago
KroneckerDelta
I think I pretty well destroyed the resolution in R1. The debate isn't over whether or not God had murdered children, it was over whether or not he committed child abuse. The only possible way to vote Pro is if you equate child murder with child abuse. I think it's obvious there is a difference.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
> "If the god of the Bible exists as described in the Bible, then he has committed child abuse."

Before reading the arguments, I'm surprised anyone would take the Con side of this, with child abuse defined as--"An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm."
Posted by joosmit116 4 years ago
joosmit116
Nevermind. I was on the wrong debate. My bad
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
autodidactKroneckerDeltaTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "On the part of a parent or caretaker" wasn't demonstrated, so no child abuse occured, per the definition Pro proposed in round one. Prosecute again, this time either with a different definition of child abuse or for first-degree murder. "[I]f you decide to murder your neighbor's child, then while you were in the act of killing the child, you were the child's caretaker, therefore this counts as child abuse. No, not even close."