Debate Rounds (5)
http://www.evilbible.com... for more information my friend. Let the games begin!
Misotheism = hatred of god(s)
Christian = belief in the God of the Bible and that He loves us
We agree to these definitions. Basically, I will argue that God loves us and this is justifiable, and Pro will argue that Misotheism is the right way to go. I will let Pro take the first arguments to be fair.
Basically, Albert Einstein proves why there is evil (but God is not evil) from a scientific perspective. Since this is a topic of science and philosophy I will include this in my argument. https://www.youtube.com...
You might be mixing up 'God' with 'religion.' Remember, since I am arguing FOR the Christian God, you are arguing against the claim that the Christian God loves us. According to the Bible (and, for that matter, what I believe in), God is a Trinitiy: God the Father, Jesus/God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These websites explain what the Trinity exactly is.
If you don't know how different 'religion' is from Jesus, I encourage you to watch this video. https://www.youtube.com...
The concept of free will is much more plausible than saying God is the reason for all evil. If you're going to believe what is said in Zephaniah and such, you can't just pick out the violent events that might've happened in the Bible. In the Beginning of this earth there was 6 days that God created all things. The point is that when he created human kind, it was straight out.
"These are good reasons so far I hate the Creator of the Universe because he destroyed the entire human race and he's only going to do it again along with the rest of the world."
You are misunderstanding God's Word, God's character, and God's creation by saying this. Free will is the reason for the horrible things in this world. And as a side note, do you honestly believe that the entire human race is "destroyed"?
Taken from the website [http://www.gotquestions.org...] I will show you why your "evil bible" source is innaccurate in a lot of ways. It makes two major assertions:
1) the Bible is full of horrible atrocities, and 2) the Bible is full of contradictions.
Look at what "got questions" website says about "evil bible's" argument:
"...It focusses on the command of God for Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. Obviously, they claim, since God initiated this request, and human sacrifice is abhorrent, surely this proves the Bible is not anything produced by a loving and good God. But where evilbible.com"s argument in this area fails is that the web site"s writers don"t understand that God never intended for Abraham to sacrifice his son to Him; the story is a powerful narrative typology of God Himself sacrificing His own Son Jesus for the sins of mankind. And whereas Abraham was stopped by God from going through with his act, God Himself did not stay His own hand when it came to His Son, and the end result was salvation for all who would believe in Him."
It also says, quote, "The Bible is a spiritual book, and while it exhibits what is called perspicuity (clarity of expression) in regard to its core teachings, there are spiritual significance and lessons for much of what the Bible speaks about, and only those who have been quickened by God"s Spirit will arrive at their true meanings (1 Corinthians 2:14). For example, Leviticus 19:19 says, "Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." Critics look at this obscure Old Testament passage, laugh, and reach the conclusion that God doesn"t want people to wear wool and polyester blends. However, in this case God was using physical things to act as reminders of spiritual principles. He was telling Israel not to mix their pure religion with the pagan religions that literally surrounded them; they were not to be syncretistic, but instead they were to be devoted to the one true God and not assimilate other pagan teachings."
Here are my only rebuttals:
Pro says "He is my sworn Arch-Enemy respectively my friend and to state otherwise would make me a hypocrite to my own beliefs."
Use commas in between "respectively" and 'and' otherwise your sentence doesn't make much sense. ;) But anyways, misotheism doesn't make sense anyways because you believe that you have a Creator who knows your heart yet you choose to believe against Him. It's actually a bit risky, don't you think?
At any rate, Round 2 was interesting. Thank you for the arguments! I look forward to the next!
First, I would like you all to know how I am a skeptic. I question everything on TV, and I do not believe everything I hear in church unless it agrees with what the Bible says (although I trained myself to do that the hard way). The point is, there are facts that support both Creationism and Evolution, and my sources can prove that. Also, I would like to see you (Pro) disprove some of the claims of Creationism from your stance as a misotheist. Wouldn't you, if you believe that there IS indeed a God, also believe that Creationism is correct? You can't just choose to believe what the Bible says about God being evil and then ignore the words explaining how old the earth is and how God created the earth and everything within.
Quoting Pro: "Now with or without God evolution did happen that's why public schools teach it so to deny the evidence is to deny reality which means you are flat out denying the truth."
I am not denying evidence, I am merely choosing not to ignore the evidence that actually goes AGAINST the theory of evolution. To believe everything you hear the teachers say "is fact" without doing research is ignorance. You are claiming that evolution is "truth" before attempting to do your own fact-finding.
"Not that I give a da.mn about science because it is a different issue then being a believer or nonbeliever in the Creator of the Universe."
This is true, because the point of Christianity is salvation and a relationship with God. But knowing the truth about our Creator and the science behind creation is along the same lines as Christianity. Denying the facts of God's Word yet believing in God is basically contradicting your beliefs.
You said you would provide a rebuttal for the Albert Einstein video but all you ended up doing was describing it in words of annoyance and dislike, which is a waste of time for all of us. The video I gave link to proved two things:
-that a highly-recognized and intelligent person believes God is not evil and evil is not God
-that evil is matter opposite to God and the video explains why.
Isaiah 45:7 does not prove Misotheism. There are two key facts that need to be considered. The word translated "evil" is from a Hebrew word that means "adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery." Notice how the other major English Bible translations render the word: "disaster," "calamity," and "woe." The Hebrew word can refer to moral evil, and often does have this meaning in the Hebrew Scriptures. However, due to the diversity of possible definitions, it is unwise to assume that "I create evil" in Isaiah 45:7 refers to God bringing moral evil into existence. We must observe the context of Isaiah 45;7 before asserting anything. It is actually just God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. My case stands.
I am still confused about you arguments for misotheism. Not a lot has been presented from Pro besides criticism so I have nothing to refute. I must ask some questions:
-Is there a specific God (from a certain religion) you believe exists?
-Why do you believe in any Creator God if you don't agree with Creationism, which is supposed to prove that God created matter (and us)?
-What is your reason for belief for: "...God did wipe out every living thing, including all of mankind, well most of the humans and beasts!"?
-Matthew 5:17-18 proves what?
Belief in the Creator of the Universe but belief against him = Belief in the Creator of the Universe but rejecting him.
Same difference. You have yet to prove why you believe in a Creator and why you so hate Him because every Bible verse you've quoted has been out of context and confusingly rejected without reasoning.
Definition of skeptic 'a person inclined to question or doubt all accepted opinions.' http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I am not a total skeptic, obviously, because I express belief in an "accepted" opinion, whatever that is. As I alluded to last round, I am more of a skeptic-of-anything-except-the Bible, and yes, this sounds laughable, but it is the truth about me that I cannot deny. What I am trying to say is that the Bible is considered an "accepted" opinion and it's the only thing I don't doubt. I am not particularly religious (I am Christian though I focus more on the relationship with God than the "Christian"/religious actions), and this makes it so that the only "opinion" I believe is what the Bible says. Other than the Bible I like to think that I question everything.
"The whole point of the debate is defend your religious belief system, nothing more, nothing less."
Earlier I thought we were both defending our belief systems. I have defended mine and there wasn't an argument presented for Pro's R4 thus there isn't much to rebuttal. Pro you did not answer any of my questions for your beliefs. If you had, we would've had a lot more to talk about, but instead we've gotten off topic and wasted time saying what the topic is. Please read my arguments before writing yours, pro, thank you! Hopefully the last round can end well.
My case that misotheism is false stands.
"You must accept the whole "End Times" craziness thing which is in the Holy Bible."
Pro, your argument is flawed because you are picking certain words out of the Bible, calling them truth, ignoring other parts of the Bible, and taking other parts and calling them "craziness" and lies. If these prophesies (most-likely in Revelation, although Pro did not cite it) are false, then how do you know that those verses in Zephaniah and the story of the flood isn't false too?
Say I am going to assume EVERYTHING in the Bible is true. Don't get me wrong, my belief system is that the entire Bible is true and viable, but for this I am simply trying to figure out and unravel Pro's complicated system. In this state I will refute the verses that Pro wrote about asserting it makes God evil. Although I have already explained the obvious concept of "free will" that shows why God does not prevent the evil that tends to happen in our lives, I will go deeper into the story of Noah and of the Bible to eradicate why God is, in fact, not evil.
First of all, the Bible says in James 1:13 that "when tempted, no one should say 'God is tempting me,' for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone." http://biblehub.com... Next, Genesis says that when He completed creation, he saw everything and declared it "very good." The King James Version of the Bible (Isaiah 45:7) says that God "creates evil" but this has been proven to be a false translation. The New American Standard Bible shows that the word was just that God "creates calamities." Also, Corinthians 10:13 promises us that God will not permit a greater trial than we can bear. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10). But God's role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28). http://www.gty.org...
John Calvin wrote this wisely when putting it this way:
' . . . the Lord had declared that "everything that he had made . . . was exceedingly good" [Gen. 1:31]. Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God's predestination.' [Institutes, 3:23:8]
Pro states: "You must admit that either it would of been better had I never been born or been exposed to any form of religion whatsoever if Judeo/Christianity is the truth."
I do not admit that. Your life happened; it has a purpose, and you must admit that the truth will be told that the Bible is valid and God is love, not evil!
"Being "Iconoclastic" and always open to new ideas and being "nontraditional" isn't easy." after saying "My religious preferences as a Misotheist are fully justifiable and correct."
This is slightly hypocritical because it's claiming that his beliefs are fully correct yet he's supposedly open minded.
The Flood had warning. During the 120 days of preparing the ark, Noah told the people what God was warning them, and God's vengeance was because of the horrific sin that the people committed every day without respect for the Lord. A passage in Jude says 'And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.' Since Christ announced the doom of those in chains of darkness awaiting their judgment, the identification of them as disobedient angels who did not keep their proper abode is certain. Remember, there is no such thing as "probably innocent". The fallen nature of all humans since Adam means that we are guilty and deserving of condemnation from the womb on. That God could wipe out all humanity in the way he did helps us understands God's disposition towards sin and gives us a reference point for man's sinful nature. The NT echoes this as it affirms that there are NONE righteous on their own apart from God's intervention. The pre-flood people of earth are used as a reminder of this and the flood stands of a warning of the future judgment we will all face.
In conclusion I would like readers to ask themselves: after seeing the arguments in each of the sides of this debate, is misotheism logical? Is it good or bad? Who did a better job debating? Through the interesting conversations, Pro and I have agreed to disagree mannerly. Thank you to anyone who read until here; I congratulate them. Hopefully some of it made sense.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 1 year 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||6|
Reasons for voting decision: 1. Conduct. Instead of responding to Con's arguments, pro spent time merely criticizing his opponents sources and calling them dumb without providing any analysis at all. Which leads me to 2. More convincing arguments. Con provided analysis and sources in a reasonable manner, while Pro basically just ranted the whole time providing no analysis or rebuttal. 3. Reliable sources. The only source pro brought up was evil bible, and it was discredited by Con effectively, and was basically dropped by pro, and silence is consent. I saw no glaring spelling or grammar, so I'll keep that tied. Good job to both sides! :)
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.