Is God(Christian) a standard of morality to follow
Debate Rounds (3)
Com says that Yahweh of the Bible isn't a good standard for morality. I will investigate this claim, and then show otherwise.
Yahweh is a Hebrew form for God the father. So Con claims God the Father is not a good moral standard, even making absurd claims of throwing his followers in prison. Let's look at the definition of "standard" per . "generally accepted and used because of high quality." Con claims that morals of the Bible and God the Father shouldn't be widely accepted due because it is not high quality. Morals per : "proper ideas and beliefs about how to behave in a way that is considered right and good by most people." Now that we've explored the definitions we can summarize Cons thesis thoroughly: "The Ideas and teachings and morals of the Bible, and of God the Father, shouldn't be widely accepted as right because they are not of high quality."
Now to show why this statement is incorrect. God is a personal and loving god. He created man and loved man (Genesis 1). Man then disobeyed and sinned. God was disappointed in man, but he is a God of love, and grace and compassion. "The Lord is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The Lord is good to all: he has compassion on all he has made." Psalms 145: 8,9. God has forgiveness for man, even though man disobeyed. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." God is offering forgiveness, and eternal life to all the earth, because he loves the earth so much. So far we've learned God has grace, compassion, love, mercy, and forgiveness. Those are all widely accepted and good morals. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:23-24. God is also Holy: "I am the Lord your God; consecrate yourselves and be holy, because I am holy." -Lev. 11:44. "Exalt the Lord our God and worship at his holy mountain for the Lord your God is holy." - Psalms 99:9. And for the nail in Con's coffin, God is perfect. "Be perfect, therefore as your Heavenly Father is perfect." - Matthew 5:48. "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will." Romans 12:2.
We see God is gracious, compassionate, loving, kind, forgiving, holy, sovereign, and perfect. These are widely accepted as good morals, and seem to be a wonderful standard for us to also strive to live by. Thank you.
 Merriam Webster's (http://i.word.com...)
The Holy Bible.
1. I did not say that his followers should be thrown in prison. I clearly said that if any human displayed the same behavior as Yahweh is depicted in the bible, that he or she would be put to death or thrown in prison. On grounds of mass murder, genocide, infanticide, and human rights violations for promoting slavery.
2. The authors of the Bible would indeed say gratuitous things about this character Yahweh out of fear of what would happen to them if they did not. I propose that positive statements made about this Yahweh god were made under duress and not to be taken seriously, just as we Americans don't take seriously the statements of North Korean citizens when they are forced to say what a loving, good, fatherly like, nurturing, and caring kind man Kim Jon Un is.
Now that that is cleared up lets focus on the grievances against this Yahweh character.
Lets start with Genesis:
1. THE FLOOD- ESTIMATED MURDERS- 2,000,000 "Every living substance that I have made will I destroy." 7:4
God repeats his intention to kill "every living substance ... from off the face of the earth." But why does God kill all the innocent animals? What had they done to deserve his wrath? It seems God never gets his fill of tormenting animals.
"All flesh died that moved upon the earth."
God drowns everything that breathes air. From newborn babies to koala bears -- all creatures great and small, the Lord God drowned them all. 7:21-23
2. Sodom and Gomorrah- "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."
I guess God couldn't find even ten good Sodomites because he decides to kill them all in Genesis 19. Too bad Abraham didn't ask God about the children. Why not save them? If Abraham could find 10 good children, toddlers, infants, or babies, would God spare the city? Apparently not. God doesn't give a damn about children. 18:32
3. God orders Abraham to kill Isaac as a burnt offering. Abraham shows his love for God by his willingness to murder his son. But finally, just before Isaac's throat is slit, God provides a goat to kill instead. 22:2-13
Abraham shows his willingness to kill his son for God. Only an evil God would ask a father to do that; only a bad father would be willing to do it. 22:10
These are but three of an estimated 100 moral grievances I file against this Yahweh character as depicted in a book called the holy bible. I submit that this characters actions are divorced from any morality whatsoever and in fact are completely on the other end of the spectrum of a sociopathic, evil, genocidal, maniac with a thirst for blood that is never satiated.
"The authors of the Bible would indeed say gratuitous things about this character Yahweh out of fear of what would happen to them if they did not."
Con completely disregards all the verses I brought forth. He casts them away because they don't fit his argument. This a very unfair assumption to make towards the Bible. The Bible is estimated to have been written by 40 different authors over a period of around 2000 years. For every single author to have the same fear and assumptions of God is not very likely. 40 authors, 2000 years, yet consistency with hundreds upon hundreds of verses extremely similar to the ones I quoted in my first entry into this debate. All of them from all over the Bible point towards a loving, forgiving, and gracious God. Con has not touched the point of God offering forgiveness. "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." - John 3:16.
Rebuttals towards Con's arguments:
The Flood. Con's point is very concise in that God "murdered" every living animal, person, and living being.
I will start from the very beginning to make sure I am clear in my rebuttal to this point made by Con. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (R37;GenesisR36; R37;1R36;:R37;1R36; NIV). We can see clearly God created the earth and heavens, giving him authority over them. Secondly, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."(R37;GenesisR36; R37;1R36;:R37;27R36; NIV). We can also see after creating the heavens and earth, God created man, giving him authority over them. Next is when the servant (Satan), is tempting Eve. "The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, "You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die." " (R37;GenesisR36; R37;3R36;:R37;2-3R36; NIV). Eve tells the serpent that God had commanded her nor Adam to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. This explicitly clear that both Adam and Eve knew of the consequence's of disobeying God. That they will surely die. Disobeying God is sin, and sin leads to death. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (R37;RomansR36; R37;6R36;:R37;23R36; NIV). God laid down the rules, no disobedience or it will lead to sin and death. The wages of sin is death. Let's recap: God created heavens, earth, everything on the earth, and man, giving him authority over all. He then warned Adam and Eve about the penalty for sin. Now we all know what happens next. Adam and Eve sinned and brought sin into the world. God addresses Adam on the topic at hand when he comes back to the garden. "To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, "You must not eat from it," "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." (R37;GenesisR36; R37;3R36;:R37;17-19R36; NIV). God cursed the ground (the earth and all in it) which means it was filled with imperfections and sin (death, thorns, etc). Everything was perfect until sin came into the world and then nothing was perfect any longer. God with authority, stayed true to his word (which is a good moral), and punished Adam and the earth for the sin committed. Why condemn the earth you may ask? Because Adam was commanded to tend to the earth, the plants, and the animals God punished the earth as well due to Adam's irresponsibility. Just a side not, God didn't command just Adam himself to care for the earth, but Adam and all his descendants, which would be all of mankind. So now to bring this rebuttal together. All of mankind has become incredibly sinful and wicked and corrupt. "The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time." (R37;GenesisR36; R37;6R36;:R37;5R36; NIV). The only followers of God where Noah's family. So God decided to destroy the earth and all in it. "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."(R37;GenesisR36; R37;6R36;:R37;17R36; NIV). God commanded Noah and his family to build an ark and fill it with two of every living creature, one male one female. Noah did so and after 150 days approximately the waters were gone. God then made a covenant to never bring forth another flood to destroy the earth. "The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." (GenesisR36; R37;8R36;:R37;21R36; NIV). God was justified in what he did. He warned Adam and subsequently mankind through Adam of sin and its consequences. Mankind ignored God and disobeyed and filled the earth with wickedness. Because of this God decided to wipe it out and start a new with Noah, but the evil inclination was still within man's heart. God was justified because he had authority over man, and the consequence of disobedience and sin is death.
Sodom and Gomorrah. "Then the Lord said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." (R37;GenesisR36; R37;18R36;:R37;20-21R36; NIV). God tells Abraham of his plan to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham then pleads for the Lord not to destroy it, and God says, "For the sake of ten I will not destroy it." (Genesis 18:32). Now, we know that God does destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because he was unable to find 10 righteous people. Lot and his daughters where the only ones of the whole city. The city was filled with people committing detestable acts and sinful crimes, the most noted one from the scriptures was the practice of homosexuality by the young and old. God decided destroy this city, because it was filled with nothing but sin, and remember the wages of sin is death. God was justified in this, because man was aware of the consequences, but continued on disobeying anyways, and the wages of sin is death. We are sinful at conception, so even when we are but babies, we are sinful, and I hate to say it again, but the wages of sin Is death. The babies may not have been able to make a choice of whether to follow God or not, but it was the parents responsibility to love God and obey him, and they failed to do so.
Isaac and Abraham. God commands us to put Him first in our lives, to love and obey him above all. We are to trust his perfect character and will. God tests Abraham by requesting him to sacrifice his only son, to show his loyalty and trust in God. God spares Isaac because Abraham showed his willingness to set aside earthly things, and trust God. "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." (R37;GenesisR36; R37;22R36;:R37;12R36; NIV). Abraham respected God, and obviously God could've let Abraham kill Isaac but he didn't. This is a lesson in putting God first.
Con disregarded all of my verses I presented as fake, but didn't hesitate to believe the ones that helps his accusations. Also, the main theme of all of Con's points is that God murdered man. I refuted this showing God's authority and justification. One thing Con may not realize is that his one bad moral he is trying to show God commits, is actually one of the Ten Commandments. Do not murder. The moral Con is attempting to use against God actually contradicts his all three of his arguments. In the Bible God tells commands not to murder. The moral Con is claiming is wrong, was taken from God himself. Thank you. Back to you.
The Holy Bible.
When we talk about this Yahweh character most of the subject material is derived from the Old Testament. Which is full of the stories of mass death, carnage, and slavery that Yahweh inflicted and promoted amongst us humans. Even though Jesus did come along to clean up Yahweh's horrible actions, but it is to no avail because in that book called the Bible we read the passages which state that Yahweh can never change. He is always the same, today tomorrow and forever everlasting. So in essence we can distal from this that Yahweh is pathological, devoid of any hope of rehabilitation and will continue to forever be a bloodthirsty, pathological serial killer, murderer, genocidal, infanticidal maniac, who kills, tortures, and obliterates human lives, no matter whether it is a man a woman, the elderly, the children, infants, newborn babies, or even animals who could in no way be imputed of crime. What crimes did the newborns and animals commit to deserve being killed in one of the most horrible ways imaginable. Drowning to death as accounted for in the biblical Flood story. Or being burned alive by fire and brimstone in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? BoggyB....please answer for humanity what an infant or a baby animal did to deserve being horribly murdered this way by a entity(Yahweh) which you have asserted to be the standard of morality?
And you take issue with my statement that scribes who wrote down these words which praise this sick monstrous entity did so under duress of divine punishment from Yahweh, or corporal punishment by the tribes in which they reside. Well, I'm sorry to tell you BoggyB but fear of punishment and death whether by divine or human hands can actually persuade people to praise bad people. Like I stated before...one must only watch a documentary of North Korean citizens who are shaking and hands trembling as they tell the camera crew that Kim Jon Il is the most gracious ruler of their country and they love him. But statements under duress are not to be taken seriously. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to read a script which states that I am a lovable human being and everything I do I do out of kindness. You will read that script and swear to the truth of it or else. This is called statements being made under duress.
And speaking of statements made under duress, I claim that all of your statements you make in defending this sick monstrous, genocidal maniac of an entity are made under duress as well. Out of fear of eternal flames. Therefore I assert that anything that comes out of your mouth by statement or by pen, is too be taken with no seriousness whatsoever, on grounds that you are making these statements out of an inborn fear of eternal flames that you were told awaits you if you do not defend the faith. Therefore I condemn your fear and cowardliness to take a brave position against this immoral entity called Yahweh, which by biblical depiction is by far the most evil thing the universe ever has produced, yet you snivel in fear for the safety of your soul, over your imagination and you sell your soul to a fictional serial killer in return, and you have done all this to save your own hide at the plight of your fellow human beings. And Shame on you for that. No statue has ever been erected for a coward.
The ultimatum that you as a Christian have swallowed and then attempt to push on the masses is comparable to the ultimatum given by the mafia boss. Either accept my protection or else. And this is not love. You pervert the word love itself by even associating it with this scenario. So I don't care which verses you cherry pick out of the bible to make a claim that god really is just protecting us and loves us. Because in that very same book it delineates what the punishment is for not accepting the ultimatum and loving Yahweh back. Eternal torture by hellfire. Agreements to this ultimatum are not born out of love, they are born out of fear. The same fear that law abiding citizens have of the mafia boss who is running a racket on the surrounding community. How could you defend this as a standard of morality to follow. Once again shame on you.
Christians believe their God is all-good and all-loving. Atheists counter that, according to Christian"s own Bible, God is instead "the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, felicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.
In Genesis 7:21-23, God drowns the entire population of the earth: men, women, children, fetuses, and animals.
In Exodus 12:29, God the baby-killer slaughters all Egyptian firstborn children and cattle because their king was stubborn. In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.
In 1 Samuel 6:19, God kills 50,000 men for peeking into the ark of the covenant.
In Numbers 31:7-18, the Israelites kill all the Midianites except for the virgins, whom they are allowed to rape as spoils of war.
In 2 Kings 2:23-24, some kids tease the prophet Elisha, and God sends bears to dismember them. And the atrocities go on and on.
BoggyB says that because God is God, he can do whatever he wants. So, if he wants to violently destroy an entire nation of innocent people, he is morally allowed to do so. But what kind of "morality" is this? How awful!
BoggyB really seems to believe that even things like genocide and rape can be moral if God feels like it.
BoggyB made statements to this effect. "God gave us life, and he can take it away when he wants."
How atrocious. When scientists are able to create new living beings that have desires and can feel pain, will we then be morally permitted to torture, rape, dismember, and murder them if we feel like it? This seems to be what BoggyB is arguing.
This debate in which BoggyB defends a genocidal maniac as the most morally perfect being who ever existed, is a perfect example of how dogma can twist even the most hopeful of human minds.
"My contender BoggyB seems to be confused as to the topic here which is...Is the Christian God Yahweh a role model of morality to follow or not." - Con.
I am beginning to be confused now. I was inclined that to believe that your thesis was that the morals and teachings of God (Yahweh) are flawed, and that God doesn't have good morals. I was under the impression this was your point, and I even said this in my first round argument.
"Now that we've explored the definitions we can summarize Cons thesis thoroughly: "The Ideas and teachings and morals of the Bible, and of God the Father, shouldn't be widely accepted as right because they are not of high quality." - Myself.
Con didn't directly oppose my assumption which I clearly stated, and argued against it by trying to show that God's actions against humans are immoral. Now Con appears to be saying that God was just in what he did, but that humans shouldn't attempt to use his morals. If this was your real statement, the I agree, no one Here on earth is God so they shouldn't try to play God, but Con never explicitly stated this. Con was unclear to what his real argument was, so that's why I made that assumption, (which I have just quoted). Con didn't deny it and began to argue against it. If you wanted to argue a different subject you should have explicitly stated in your first entry.
Let's summarize the what Con said: Con says that every verse I quoted in my arguments shouldn't be taken seriously, because they are all said under duress. Obviously, this is a possibility, but Con has no proof. I'll say what I said previously, the Bible has 40 authors over a span of 2000 years, yet it is consistent, which is evidence against Con's point. Thirdly, Con is completely disregarding everything I presented based off a claim that it was under duress, but doesn't hesitate to use the same Bible, written by the same men, for his arguments. This is a fallacy on Cons part.
Paragraph 3 is a red herring and ad hominem. A red herring is something that is irrelevant to the debate , and an ad hominem is personal attack . Con rambles on about how I'm a coward and many other irrelevant things. He has strayed from the subject at hand and committed two fallacies.
Con compares God's principles to a mob boss. I think this is an unfair comparison. God created man (giving him authority), and a mob boss is merely a contemporary human.
"You pervert the word love itself by even associating it with this scenario."
God created man, and the earth and it was perfect. God did this out of love, and gave but simple commands to man. Man refused this and accepted the consequences willingly.
There isn't anything for me to rebuttal as it is merely a comparison of a christians view of God, and an atheist's opinion of God.
"BoggyB says that because God is God, he can do whatever he wants. So, if he wants to violently destroy an entire nation of innocent people, he is morally allowed to do so. But what kind of "morality" is this? How awful."
I'm not even sure how to respond to this. This is not even close to what I said. I have already stated clearly how God was perfect forgiving and just. I showed how man is not innocent, which Con ignorantly claims, and I have showed how since God laid down the rules and consequences, he has the right to take the lives of the sinners who knowingly broke them, in every example Con brings forth.
"BoggyB made statements to this effect. "God gave us life, and he can take it away when he wants."
How atrocious. When scientists are able to create new living beings that have desires and can feel pain, will we then be morally permitted to torture, rape, dismember, and murder them if we feel like it? This seems to be what BoggyB is arguing."
Another unfair comparison. I showed the difference between God and how he has authority, because he created everything. I'm not saying that scientists would have authority over anything they create. This is another red herring on Cons part.
Con accuses me of cherry picking verses but is guilty of this himself.
Con disregards all verses I brought forth but doesn't hesitate to pick his own from the very book by the same authors "under duress."
Con used numerous Red Herrings and ad hominems.
The verses I brought forth supported claims that God is moral, and that he is forgiving. Con didn't address this other than say they aren't "serious."
Con uses Murder as one of his only reasons as to why God is immoral, but he contradicts himself yet again by taking this example of "murder is immoral" from the Bible itself.
Con thoroughly ignored my examples throughout of how God has authority, and kept saying the "genocide of innocent people" and unjust killings after I clearly showed with verses how God was just in what he did.
Please vote Pro. Thank you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Raisor 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.