Jesus is still loving and pure even when he had all those innocents killed in the OT
Debate Rounds (3)
First of all I'd like to point out that whenever the Israelites came across another race, God didn't automatically be like "Israel, Destroy them!" He only had certain people annihilated and of course He had His reasons.
A lot of the time humanity uses excuses of various kinds so they can live independently of the bible and seek their own unrighteous desires.
Just because we can"t seem to solve a problem or understand something or because it seems contradictory to us does not means it is unsolvable or not true.
The slaughter of Israel"s enemies at the command of God may seem inconsistent with a loving God, but it was really an act of love for Israel and others due to the moral condition of these nations which included child sacrifice as archaeology has clearly shown. The degradation of these people was horrible.
Further, God, who knows the hearts of men and what they will and will not do, was acting on the basis of that knowledge. Thus, God ordered their judgment in order to protect Israel and their development as a nation, for it was through them that God would give the Savior of the world, the Lord Jesus Christ. Further, God had waited some 400 years before ordering their destruction until their iniquity became complete.
Bible.org needs credit for their help in the making of my argument
Love - the absence of hate.
First your claim about people living independently of the bible is misleading. What you say is true but you indicate it's a BAD thing. It's not. When we lived in accordance with the bible, it was quite a bit like the Middle East today (more stonings, less dirty bombs) and it's not some hypothetical that has yet to be tried, it's BEEN tried. It was called The Dark Ages. It is a BAD THING when society is based on the bible, history has made that OBJECTIVELY true.
Next, you actually make an interesting argument about the fortitude of the nations that your God struck down. Most interesting was that you mentioned that they did child sacrifice, citing science as your proof.
I didn't see any reference-so that reference ("archaeology has clearly shown") is rejected as adding anything to your argument. But that's not what concerns me. What concerns me is that in the same breath you explain the loving God is only murdering to seek vengeance for immoral behavior, and that the behavior of child sacrifice is the unrefutable evidence you offer.
Because, I'm baffled how a Christian is so unaware of the Biblical side of this argument.
Exodus 12:29 "At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt..."
Child Sacrifice like that?
Now to your free will impossibility:
If your God already knows all that men will do, then they cannot possibly have a will free from His control. Otherwise, if it were free, the God couldn't possibly know the outcome until each decision was made by each will free of his control and therefore knowledge. You cannot have free will AND an all knowing god. Nor can you have a free will, a form of power with an ALL powerful god.
This means man can only be blamed for a folly out of the god's power and knowledge. Which means man can only be blamed if he has independence from that god which requires a NON all knowing and NON all powerful god. You cannot have it both ways-BLAME=POWER, POWER=GOD WITHOUT ALL POWER.
or GOD WITH ALL POWER=GOD WITH ALL BLAME
Lastly you argue that because he waited extra time before murdering them that he's good or loving or something else implicit and I assume positive.
So a rapist that lets his victim heal up between rapings must be loving too.
Also, consider this. Man often wants to know how to harmonize God"s "justice, holiness and truth" with His "love, mercy, and compassion," We seldom reverse this, however, and want to know how to harmonize His "love, mercy and compassion" with His "justice, holiness and truth." Instead of wondering why a loving, merciful, and compassionate God destroyed the Canaanites or the Amalekites, why not wonder why a just, holy and true God was patient with them for such a long time considering their totally degraded behavior. Indeed, in view of the absolute holy character of God as presented in the Bible, why does he bear with any of us? Why was He willing to send His Son to die for our sin so that they who believe on Christ might be saved? This is the mystery which finds its answer in God"s love.
Furthermore, I find it strange that men and women today who challenge Christianity, using as one of their reasons the slaughter of men, women, and children, are often supportive of abortion which is nothing less that the true slaughter of innocent children by the millions.
The book of Revelation teaches Christ will come to earth and literally destroy millions because of the rebellion and unbelief of man"s heart. In fact, the tribulation period, which is described for us in Revelation 6-19, will among other things, demonstrate the true nature of man and just what lengths he will go to in his sin and rebellion when left to himself. Christ spoke of this time in Matthew 24. So the Old Testament is not alone in demonstrating God"s wrath and judgment against sin.
Next, you drag abortion into it? My stance there isn't even stated on my page, much less relevant to this debate. Shall I bring in Hitler? You know the SS all wore belt buckles that read "God is with Us." He meant your god, a god of hate. Even today the bible teaches Hate of the Jew, Hate of the Woman, Hate of the Black, Hate of Children. It's a hateful book and that is precisely why it is the one book that has led to the murder of more people than any other. And Hitler quotes that book quite a lot in Mein Kampff.
Now, shall we get back to the debate or did you wish to discuss the morality of bombing abortion clinics or the preponderance of christians in prison...
PEACE OUT WORLD!
VOTE #1 FOR ME!!!
p.s. you're a pretty good debater but I stand by my side of the argument
Christian love is undefinable due to the simplicity, shallowness, and fallacy at the heart of the doctrine and throughout. Whatever it is, it is self depricating and hateful of others, at best.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by aburk903 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: While conduct was less then professional on both sides, the virtual forfeiture of Pro in the final round was definitely influential when making this ultimate decision. Additionally, many of Con's arguments seemed to go unaddressed.
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.