The Instigator
KhalifV
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
ben671176
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

On Average, The God Of Abraham Is Not A Kind Being

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 2 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/29/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 803 times Debate No: 59721
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

KhalifV

Pro

Structure:
1. Acceptance
2. Opening Arguments
3. New points/ Rebuttals
4. Rebuttals
5. Rebuttals and Closing

The God Of Abraham: "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes called "Abrahamic religions" because they all accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham. The theological traditions of all Abrahamic religions are thus to some extent influenced by the depiction of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, and the historical development of monotheism in the history of Judaism."
http://en.wikipedia.org...


On Average: " generally; usually."
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...

Kindness: " Kindness is a behavior marked by ethical characteristics, a pleasant disposition, and concern for others. It is known as avirtue, and recognized as a value in many cultures and religions."

Kindness: " According to Book Two of Aristotle's "Rhetoric" it is defined as virtue).[citation needed] It is defined as being "helpfulness towards someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped".

http://en.wikipedia.org...
ben671176

Con

The first problem is I will openly state that NO, I Am is not a kind being. Because he is not just a loving god, but a judgmental god.
He/she/it of himself is a loving, caring god. He in the bible told the Israelites time and time again that these actions will have these consequences and these actions will have these consequences. All of our strife is caused by our actions not by god's doing. He warned us of the consequences of moving away from him and of course we don't listen and look at how 'perfect' the world is.

Secondly: Are you an Atheist? If yes, then god is nothing in your eyes so there would be no reason to continue.

I accept. With these opening statements.
Debate Round No. 1
KhalifV

Pro

I have to address statements made by con.

Con says: " The first problem is I will openly state that NO, I Am is not a kind being. Because he is not just a loving god, but a judgmental god."

This openly concedes the debate.

Con says: " Secondly: Are you an Atheist? If yes, then god is nothing in your eyes so there would be no reason to continue."
This statement is insane.
I don't believe in the literal existence of Zeus, however that doesn't mean I can't address Zeus's character.
Atticus Finch is a novel character, but I still love him and can say he's a ethical character.

Now on to my arguments.

Unkind Terms Of Salvation:
"Romans 10:9-10
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved."

So not going to hell is contingent upon believing Jesus is lord. Per the previous definition of kindness, GOD is unkind in requiring worship in order to not go to hell.

P1) The truly kind don't require reciprocity
P2) God requires reciprocity
C1) God is not kind

Defense of P1- The definition presented. If one requires reciprocity, one is merely behaving in a rational egotistical way, which is understandable for a human, but not for a god.

" In ethical philosophy, rational egoism (also called rational selfishness) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest"

Humans and other Earthly organisms behave in this way, due to evolution and to meet needs.
It's basic behavorial biology, organisms act to meet three ends:
1. Individual selection
2. Kin selection
3. Sexual selection.

So what's the conclusion?
It's that humans very rarely, if ever, engage in disinterested altruism, thus they are rarely kind in the truist sense.

The problem is that GOD doesn't need to act to meet this end or any ends, thus there is NO excuse to require reciprocity.

P1) Humans act towards ends because they have needs
P2) Humans arn't purely kind because they must require reciprocity to meet needs
P3) God does not have needs
P4) As a result of god not needing anything, god shouldn't require reciprocity
P5) God requires reciprocity
C1) God is not kind

P1 and P2 is well established by behavorial biology.
P3 is true by virtue of god's attributes.
P4 naturally follows.
P5 negates god's kindness.
C1 is the neccesary conclusion.

So I think this proves god isn't kind.
Now con concedes god is not kind, so he makes some off topic comments.

Con says: " He/she/it of himself is a loving, caring god. He in the bible told the Israelites time and time again that these actions will have these consequences and these actions will have these consequences. All of our strife is caused by our actions not by god's doing. He warned us of the consequences of moving away from him and of course we don't listen and look at how 'perfect' the world is. "

Anything that happens to the Israelites is god's fault.

Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):
P1)An omniscient god knows the future.
P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.
P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong.
P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.
C1) You don't have free will.

Hell-
Sending people to hell is unkind, I hope I don't have to explain why.

Is god morally justified in sending people to hell?

Consequentialism:
P1) That which is good, promotes overall well-'being
P2) God sends people to hell
P3) Hell does not promote overall well-being
C1) God is not morally justified in sending people to hell

Deontology:
P1) Act as if your actions will become universal laws
P2) God sends people to hell
P3) A universe in which people are sent to hell is a less favorable universe than in one in which people are
C1) God is not morally justified

Hell is infinite suffering for a finite act. This only renders god immoral and unkind.


http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.biblestudytools.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
ben671176

Con

I stated that god is not only a loving god but a judgemental god is because: He loves us but doesn't allow us to do sins without consequences. Just like my parents. They love me but if I do something stupid, they just don't let it slide.

The case for Hell is not God's fault in all arguments you throw back at me. Did god make Hell? No, Satan did. Did he make it for the sinners? No, in the book of Revelations, doesn't it state that even though god comes to the Earth and shows himself to us and even though the Non-Believers could've chose to follow him, in the end didn't they stay on the Earth with the Anti-Chriest?

God didn't bring evil to this earth either. Didn't he WARN (like I stated in my first argument) to Adam and Eve that if they eat from the Forbidden Tree there will be consequences? Did they do it anyways?

Though in the end didn't god keep them alive because he loved them too much? God has absolutely no reason to be kind to us; even though we are like his characters in a novel, or that we are all his creations (don't you feel special when you make a masterpiece? And you want to help preserve that masterpiece?

It isn't gods fault for our hardships. It is ours. . . Why doesn't he change us? Well because my friend, it has allowed us to do whatever we want. I can become the most selfless, heartful person in the world or Hitler.
Would you like walking around naked in a place full of ripe fruit your entire life without a mind to think and a body to feel, your entire life? Because that's what we would do if we weren't in the situations we are today.
Debate Round No. 2
KhalifV

Pro

Did god make hell? Yeah
'
Hell is a place of suffering originally prepared by God for the devil and his angels (Matthew 18:9; 25:41).
Everything that ever was or is or will be is created by God, including hell (Colossians 1:16). John 1:3 says, “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.”

God did create hell.

Con says: "It isn't gods fault for our hardships. It is ours. . . Why doesn't he change us? Well because my friend, it has allowed us to do whatever we want."

Once again, NO.
Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):
P1)An omniscient god knows the future.
P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.
P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong.
P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.
C1) You don't have free will.

So if there's an omniscient god, then everything we do was determined by god.

P1) God created everything that exists
P2) Evil exists
C God created evil

P1- Defended by aforementioned verses
P2- Fairly obvious. con agrees.


Evil and suffering exists.

C- necessarily follows.

I think con has conceded the debate. The resolution is regarding if god is kind.
We can debate if god is moral, but I think we both agree he isn't kind.
http://www.gotquestions.org...
http://mswara-holocaust.wikispaces.com...
ben671176

Con

God did not create Hell. He created the means to make Hell but even if he did make it for a prison for the Devil and his hordes of demons. Doesn't imply that he created Hell because he was just plain evil.

God is good, and he created the means to produce evil. He knows everything and nothing. He has seen the beginning of times and the ends of times. He knows all and sees all. Thank you for stating that. Especially since it implies that he has no reason to keep us, and he should just kill us. 'He has to show himself for me to believe in him'.

The Bible states that if god showed himself to us that he would burn our good with our evil.

Purity Sin = Corruption

Heaven = Purity

Corruption Atonement = Purity

Hell = Corruption

Blood of Jesus = Atonement

Heaven = Eternity With God

Hell = Eternity without God

Therefore,

Purity = Eternity with God

Corruption = Eternity without God

The key: Atonement by the blood of Jesus.

A universe where people are sent to Hell is less favorable. . . Well Venus is a Hellish world; when space exploration starts isn't that a great place to send criminlas? Hell was made for people that will always never believe in god. Not for people's sins. If you believe in god, Jesus died on he cross for our sins. I mean I'm not stating it will give you a full ride if you killed billions of people, but at that point you don't really believe in a god more you think oyu are god.
Debate Round No. 3
KhalifV

Pro

Yeah Con has definitely conceded.

Con's venus analogy is poor.
No I don't advocate criminals being sent to venus.
Maybe child torturers or childer serial rapists/ killers, but that's about it.
The difference is that hell is FOREVER. That is not just.
I can be a great person, give to charity, solve world hunger and god can still send me to hell?
Yeah this god is not kind at all.

Con acknowledges that if god exists, we have no free will, but he does not acknowledge the implication.
If we go to hell, it's god's fault, because god has known we would go to hell for all eternity, yet he still let disbelievers be born.
This is surely unkind.
ben671176

Con

Con states that God let's us choose wether to go to Hell or not. Or would you rather be blaseted by lightning everytime you sin?
Debate Round No. 4
KhalifV

Pro

"Con states that God let's us choose wether to go to Hell or not."
FALSE

Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods):
P1)An omniscient god knows the future.
P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong.
P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong.
P4)An omniscient god knows your actions.
C1) You don't have free will.

We don't choose anything.

Conclusion:
Con has pretty much conceded. The resolution regards kindness and he has not rebutted my arguments.
Con seemed to be debating if god is morally justified, which is a different debate, but he does not even do that well.
I have shown god is unkind, due to hell,he allows evil to exist and because he requires reciprocity for salvation.
I shall end with one last piece of evidence:
"2 Kings 2:23-24King James Version (KJV)

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

Really? God commanding bears to kill children......

Vote pro
^.^

ben671176

Con

God let's us choose to be good or evil. That was what I was trying to explain, did you ever see Hitler being struck with lightning? No, but he has chosen to go to hell.

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who"ve been called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28

http://rickwarren.org...
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
I challenge anyone and everyone to this debate, as I will defend the side of Con, arguing instead "The God of Abraham is always Kind, and demonstrates no unkind behavior ever."
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Rick Warren is no real help to anybody.
You would be better off reading "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" by Robert Sapolsky.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
BTW: Nobody was told of the consequences, apart from Noah just before he started to build his little boat.

So God did not warn anybody.
The entire story reeks of utter Stupidity.

Though the real origin of Noah's Ark, may very well be the story of a man who when the Tigris River suddenly flooded while he was taking his animals to market, he got washed down by the flood a very long way from his destination and ended up on a hill, where he had to wait for the flood waters to subside before he drove his animals across land to reach the intended city of Ur to sell his animals.
It is believed the man's name was Noah and it is far more probable the true story that the Bible borrowed and twisted into the stupid tale you are arguing about.

The Flood was only a local Tigris and Euphrates Rivers flooding, as a tablet was found on top of a building where it was etched, that water covered the world. Which was more likely just meaning the water was as far as the eye could see or around 10 miles in every direction (horizon).
Though the person survived to write this, so it didn't cover that Temple in Ur.

The other proof that the Flood never took place is that the Persian Empire survived right through the so called Great Flood without being affected by it, same goes for Celtic people and Australian Aboriginals, who don't even have a flood story for the same period. They survived without a single loss due to floods.
Same with many of the strange animals living in Australia and Tasmania which only became extinct in the last 1000 years.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Noah's Ark, Stupid Asenine, Narcissistic Megalomaniac of a God killed all just for Fun and because of his Megalomania. Megalomaniacs get very jealous, bitter and kill people for not giving them attention.

Mark Chapman is an example of this, shot John Lennon because John didn't give him the attention he wanted, same as God killing everybody except Noah's family for not paying attention to it.
Thus God is a Megalomaniac. Though God admitted killing people for Jealousy in "I am a Jealous God" passages which there are a few of them. Thus God admits it is a Narcissistic Megalomaniac.

God had no reason to kill everybody if God is as Christians say, Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent. God was and can never be considered Benevolent, thus Omnibenevolence is a Joke.
If God was Benevolent, if would not have initiated the Flood. Though even Leonardo da Vinci knew the Flood never really happened.

The Two reasons an Omniscient and Omnipotent Being did not need to kill everybody except one family is:

1: If God was Omniscient, it would know every person who was Evil or even was going to turn Evil.
It would know where they lived and slept at night.

2: If God was Omnipotent, it could kill every Evil and Potentially Evil Individual without even scratching an innocent person, nor harming a young child.

So the Flood story proves that God is a Malevolent, Murderous, Narcissistic Megalomaniac.
There is no other answer for it performing such a Stupid, Murderous Plot.
When it could have potentially only gotten rid of the Evil without harming an innocent individual or animal.
The Bible is therefore Dumber than Dog Droppings!
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
No, he wiped out humanity because we were doing the wrong and that even though he told us the consequences. I have other things to do so it will take me a while to post my entire argument.
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
So he basically wipes out humanity for not doing what he wanted...?
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
Or was the humans just going the different direction?
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
Did he do that just because he felt like it?
Posted by KhalifV 2 years ago
KhalifV
Noah's Ark
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
Give me one story where he blasted us humans like it was nothing.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
KhalifVben671176Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided a substantial argument that Con did not rebut. Con only kept the line that God is not to blame, yet, Pro demonstrated clearly that God is to blame, Though God is even to blame for the actions of Adam, thus God brought sin onto itself and God is to blame for the fall of man, not Adam, nor Eve. Pro also provided more and better sources than Con. Con needs to get some better arguments happening for himself.
Vote Placed by YaHey 2 years ago
YaHey
KhalifVben671176Tied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded and Pro used more sources