The Instigator
Spencersdream
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
InquireTruth
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points

Morals of the Christian God On Killing

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/30/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,334 times Debate No: 9578
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (14)
Votes (14)

 

Spencersdream

Con

Morality has three principal meanings. In its first, descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct or belief which is held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong. In its second, normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of belief and conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to other alternatives by the sane "moral" person, under specified conditions. In its third usage, 'morality' is synonymous with ethics.[1]

I will be debating the questionable moral of the Christian God and attempting to prove him hypocritical to his own principles on the subject of killing.

The first point I wanted to making before beginning that none of these morals I'm about to uses as examples can be definite since according to the bible, "God's written word", these morals were put in place by him and can change at his leisure because he is god. What is moral today can be immoral tomorrow. There is nothing absolute about the morals of the Christian god.
As far as Murder:
The 5th of his 10 Commandments was "You shall not kill" or "You shall not murder" or "Thou shall not kill" depending on your version of the bible your reading. He also says this in other various places in the bible such as Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17. But at the very same time he has given instructions telling how exactly why and how one should kill. He even sometimes even does the killing himself.
A few of many examples are: Leviticus 20:14 reads "And if a man takes a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you."
Samuel 15:2-3 reads "2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
Genesis 6:17 reads "I am going to bring flood waters 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."
The same god who tells us thou shall not kill has told us to kill innocent children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), entire civilizations such as the Amalekites and in various verses throughout the bible people because they have done things as simple as working on Sundays or being born gay. Why was it ok to kill all of these people to be killed with their death on their own hands? (Leviticus 20:13) Because they were evil? (Genesis 6:12-13) Is it ok to disregard morals to kill those who are evil? Why is it ok for people who don't share the same religious freedom to be put to death? (Leviticus 24:16) There are many more verses in the bible god has instructed the murder of people just because they do not follow his standards. Are we follow him blindly without know why its immoral to kill yet moral kill at the same time? What do this constant demand for killing say about god and his morals? I would like to previously thank my opponent on his stance of the debate and if he wishes to continue I would love to continue on a more private setting or anyone interested for that matter.
InquireTruth

Pro

==========
Introduction:
==========

I would like to thank my opponent for starting this rather short, yet nonetheless fascinating, debate.
Since there is no explicit resolution in the title of this debate, I have gone ahead and distilled the resolution that my opponent most certainty intended to affirm (as can be clearly seen in my opponent's second paragraph):

**God is hypocritical according to his own standards.**

==========
Cutting Out the Fat:
==========

"...these morals were put in place by him and can change at his leisure because he is god. What is moral today can be immoral tomorrow. There is nothing absolute about the morals of the Christian god."

It behooves us, before delving into the meat of my opponent's argument, to first eliminate the points that are irrelevant to the resolution. That brings us Spencersdreams' first point – God's morals are not definite.
The fact that morality can change by the will of God only serves to illustrate that God is, according to Christianity and my opponent's understanding, the source, proprietor, creator, and sustainer of morality – not that God is a hypocrite.

In fact, logic dictates that the creator of the universe not only has the right but has the capability of setting the standards for his creation. The verity of this claim is confirmed every day when a programmer creates his own gaming "universe." It would be intellectually insane to assume that a programmer ought to be bound by his own programming. As the quip goes, "His game, His rules."

==========
The Meat:
==========

The meat of my opponent's argument stems from the 5th commandment – thou shalt not murder. Now, as you may have already noticed, I used the word murder instead of kill. This is because the Hebrew word here, ratsach , denotes precisely that – unlawful killing (1). Therefore, any instances in which God commands killing – or He Himself kills – must be shown as unlawful. But, given what my opponent has already said (inadvertently backing himself into a corner), it is impossible to show said killings to be unlawful as the resolution demands.

Now lets put this into a syllogism:

(1)God commanded against unlawful killing
(2)God has killed or commanded killing
(3)According to the Bible and my opponent's paragraph 3, God is the source and determiner of morality (or for the sake of clarity, what is lawful).
(4)According to the Bible, God's ways are perfect and righteous (2).

(C)Therefore, since God is judge and He is perfect, all said killings could not have been unlawful.

Moreover, God and man are not morally analogous, making it impossible for God to be a hypocrite – insofar as we have no supra-divine standard of Good by which God's actions may be judged. In the Christian morality, God is the metric by which morality is known and judged. Just as a scale exists outside of its own measurements, insomuch as it cannot weigh itself, so God exists as not something to be measured, but as the very object by which we measure.

==========
Conclusion:
==========

My opponent fell a mighty distance short of illustrating how God is/was a hypocrite.

Sources:
(1)http://www.tektonics.org...
(2) Deuteronomy 32:4
Debate Round No. 1
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
I'm not sure you fully grasp what I was saying. I never said I cared about the votes. I said they have no relevance to the truth of the matter. If you care more about getting answers to your questions than you do about the questions themselves, then you can PM me and I will be more than happy to answer your inquiries.
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
Oh, I see the vote does not end for this one, my apologies for that error in my previous post. Although the previous point still stands, if it never ends can you lose it? I should think not but am still familiarizing myself with this site. In this which case I wonder why you care about the vote on this one so very much when you can't technically lose it.
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
I'm not as preoccupied with the 'vote' as you are. Perhaps I should have pm'd you the questions so you would not worry about your precious vote (witch only has 30 minutes left anyway, hardly enough time to affect the outcome). I'm asking you a question. How do you justify the concept of a 'divine' standard? How is it necessary, how do you define 'divine', and how is that more important than any human standard? And would not the existence of god have to be proved before one can talk about a divine standard on which to judge the god in question?
Posted by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
Your bias is getting awfully annoying. You may very well go down my debates and vote against me if you wish, it has no relevance to the truth of the matter in question. If you are unable to grasp the prima facie logic of the statement in question, then there is no use arguing with stubbornness. "Devine" is spelled "Divine," fyi.
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
"Unless one can define and prove a supra-divine standard of Good by which God's actions may be judged."

You say this but you provide not justification for it. How do you figure a 'devine standard of good' is necessary to judge the biblical character 'god'? Explain? Also, if you require one to prove there is a devine standard to judge this god, I think one must first provide proof that this god actually exists to be judged.
Posted by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
I am philosophically agnostic on the question of the nature morality - insofar as I'm not precisely sure about its modus operandi. But, I am philosophically certain that If I did not believe in the existence of God, I would equally disagree with the existence of morality. Morality could stem from the nature and Character of God, or it could merely be the divine decrees of a sovereign God - or both. Set principles can be arbitrary, there is no reason to believe to the contrary - making me philosophically exempt from Euthyphro's dilemma. I would say, if forced to choose, philosophically abandoned or not, I would fall more squarely in the former.
Posted by TheSkeptic 7 years ago
TheSkeptic
Relativism brittwaller?! I'd have to attack you on that ;). By the way IT, do you subscribe to the Divine Command Theory or perhaps Natural Law theory? Because from the looks of it, it seems that you support the former which is frankly abandoned in most philosophical and even theological circles.
Posted by brittwaller 7 years ago
brittwaller
"Unless one can define and prove a supra-divine standard of Good by which God's actions may be judged."

We both know that because I don't believe the Christian god exists, and am a moderate relativist, that this isn't possible so I don't think we should waste our time arguing about it. To me, a supra-divine standard isn't necessary - but if I were to judge the character Yahweh's actions, by his own standard, my standard, or (general) modern law, my conclusion would not be very positive. Instead of only by a standard of good, I would also judge with a complete morality in mind.

"Does the Roman Empire constitute a supra-divine standard of Good? If the Roman Empire was responsible for the very existence of morality, the analogy would be acceptable."

In light of my previous response the analogy still stands; again I know and you know that neither of us are going to convince another differently, I just thought it necessary to say so.

"Thank you. Unfortunately I was not aware that it was only one round till after I had already accepted. It would have been nice to see the dialogue progress."

You are welcome. Yes I noticed that also when I was looking at debates in the Challenge area the other day, they should fix that... ha:) Hopefully the next time Spence comes with a topic this promising he will leave room to develop his argument.

Peace
Britt
Posted by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
"So the genocide of Sodom, Gomorrah, Jericho, and the entire world except for Noah and his family were 'justified?'"

Unless one can define and prove a supra-divine standard of Good by which God's actions may be judged.

"So were the murders of Christians (or whoever else happened to be in disfavor) during the Roman Empire justified?"

Does the Roman Empire constitute a supra-divine standard of Good? If the Roman Empire was responsible for the very existence of morality, the analogy would be acceptable.

"Excellent work, IT, as far as the debate went."

Thank you. Unfortunately I was not aware that it was only one round till after I had already accepted. It would have been nice to see the dialogue progress.
Posted by brittwaller 7 years ago
brittwaller
So the genocide of Sodom, Gomorrah, Jericho, and the entire world except for Noah and his family were "justified?"

Oh, wait.
"His game, his rules."

So were the murders of Christians (or whoever else happened to be in disfavor) during the Roman Empire justified? I mean the eating by lions and all. They were (literally) the Emperor's games, so his rules applied...

Refine your argument some, Spence, and have more than one round. Make a clear resolution. Amazing that the only christian with sense (on this site) took this one. Amazing, but unfortunate for you:(

Excellent work, IT, as far as the debate went.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Flame 7 years ago
Flame
SpencersdreamInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by debatingturtle 7 years ago
debatingturtle
SpencersdreamInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
SpencersdreamInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
SpencersdreamInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by drewMurrdotCom 7 years ago
drewMurrdotCom
SpencersdreamInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by heart_of_the_matter 7 years ago
heart_of_the_matter
SpencersdreamInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
SpencersdreamInquireTruthTied
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 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 7 years ago
brittwaller
SpencersdreamInquireTruthTied
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 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
SpencersdreamInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 7 years ago
KRFournier
SpencersdreamInquireTruthTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05