The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
The Contender
Jac925
Con (against)

(Pro) The Christian God is malevolent vs benevolent (Con).

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Jac925 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 766 times Debate No: 98483
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Round one


I will be arguing that the Christian God is evil. My opponent will argue that the Christian God is good.

Definitions

God

""(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being." [0]"

Malevolent

"1. Having or exhibiting ill will; wishing harm to others; malicious.
2. Having a harmful influence: malevolent stars." [1]

Benevolent

"1.
a. Characterized by or given to doing good: "a benevolent philanthropist who donated the funds to found the town library" (Willie Morris).
b. Suggestive of doing good; agreeable: a benevolent smile.
2. Relating to a charitable organization that operates without making a profit." [2]


All other definitions are assumed common definitions unless otherwise agreed upon.


Burden of proof

Burden of proof will be equally shared.


Structure

Round 1 Acceptance and Definitions
Round 2 Arguments
Round 3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two.
Round 4 Defense, respond directly to opponent's round three.


Failure to comply with any of these rules on a first offense will lose the conduct point. A second offense will forfeit the spelling and grammar point. A third offense will forfeit all remaining points.

Forfeiting any round will result in an automatic loss.

Sources
0. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Jac925

Con

I would like to accept this debate challenge. I will be arguing that the Christian God is benevolent rather than malevolent.

Definitions:

God:In monotheism, God is conceived of as the Supreme Being and principal object of faith.[3] The concept of God as described by most theologians includes the attributes of omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), divine simplicity, and as having an eternal and necessary existence. Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving.

Benevolent:Characterized by or expressing goodwill or kindly feelings towards others.

Malevolent:Wishing evil or harm to another or others,showing ill will or to be ill-disposed.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Round 2 Arguments


I'm not sure why my opponent choose to change the definitions slightly but the changes seem insignificant. Therefore, in the interest of a common protocol I accept my opponent's definitions.


I. God's killings in the Old Testament


First, let's establish that Jesus and the God of the Old Testament is one and the same. That Christians believe in only one God and the Old Testament is taught to Christians. Therefore, Jesus Christ committed the killings within the Old Testament.


"Did you know, for example, that God:

Forced friends and family to kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf?

Burned Aaron's sons to death for offering him strange fire?

Burned complainers to death, forced the survivors to eat quail until it literally came out their noses, sent "fiery serpents" to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water, and killed 14,700 for complaining about his killings?

Buried alive those that opposed Moses (along with their families)?

Burned 250 men to death for burning incense? " [3]


Richard Dawkins states

" “The God of the Old Testament is arguably 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, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

R13; Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion " [4]


This means all those same characteristics can be said of Jesus Christ. One of the worst atrocities Jesus commits is Noah's flood. The flood was a genocide of nearly every human, animal, and plant on the planet Earth. To add insult to injury only fourteen humans were left afterwards. Meaning forced incest was the only way to reproduce and for the human race to survive.


II. Incest


" It's certain that Noah's children practiced incest. They had to.

Did God really have to kill everybody except Noah and his wife and children? Don't you love it when your loving god kills all the little laughing children to satisfy his genocidal lust? " [5]

III. Slavery


"""20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he [is] his money." [6]

"“Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;” " [7]""


I argue that God must be malevolent to condone slavery. Not only that but God cannot be the source of all moral authority be allowing slavery.


IV. Eternal damnation


" Matthew 25:41English Standard Version (ESV)

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. " [8]


This is the worst of the worst in my opinion. Making Jesus even more evil than the God of the Old Testament. The Judaism God only had Hell for a finite time, about a year. Jesus the so called merciful extended Hell to all eternity. This is for only finite crimes, most notably not having faith in Jesus Christ.

There can be only one conclusion, that the Christian God is malevolent. Thanks for debating. I look forward to your response.

V. Sources
3. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
4. https://www.goodreads.com...
5. http://the-militant-atheist.org...
6. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
7. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...
8. https://www.biblegateway.com...
Jac925

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for agreeing to use my definitions. They don't differ too much from my opponents definitions and are just an example of me being picky.

Argument (1)
1) The concept of good and bad presuppose God to begin with.

I have a few arguments for this conclusion which, if true would prove that it should s incoherent to say that God is malevolent as he is the ultimate standard of good (if these arguments are sound).

Moral argument:

1) Obligations are contingent on a person.
2) Moral values are obligations.
Therefore moral values are contingent upon a person.
3) Moral values transcend human persons.
Therefore moral values are contingent upon a transcendent person.
Therefore a morally perfect transcendent personal entity exists.

While this is usually used as an argument for Gods existence I believe that it shows that moral values are contingent on God and therefore God cannot be malevolent but rather is essentially benevolent. This argument is often presented by the philosopher Peter S Williams. Regarding this argument he says:

"An objective moral value is a transcendent ideal that prescribes and obligates behaviour; but an ideal implies a mind, a prescription requires a prescriber and an obligation is contingent upon a person. As H.P. Owen argues:
On the one hand [objective moral] claims transcend every human person" On the other hand" it is contradictory to assert that impersonal claims are entitled to the allegiance of our wills. The only solution to this paradox is to suppose that the order of [objective moral] claims" is in fact rooted in the personality of God."

Ultimately I think this argument provides excellent evidence that God could not be malevolent. Many Athiest philosophers have also acknowledged that without God morality cannot exist. Turning to the first premise, many atheists acknowledge that "if god doesn"t exist, then objective moral values and goodness cannot exist". For example, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote that it is:

"extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it."

This is of course not to say that that atheists are immoral. More often than not atheists live lives that put beleivetr's lives to shame in terms of morality.

One point can be made here. If God truly is malevolent then why do atheists make an argument against God based on all the evil and malevolence in the world.

Argument (2)
2) The Christian God sacrificed himself in Jesus Christ to save all humanity from eternal shame and punishement.

This is the gospel message of Christianity. It is found all over the New Testament. In the book of Phillipians chapter one we read of how God gave his beloved son into the world to save the world. Surely this an act of a benevolently God. If God was a malevolent moral moral monster then why did Jesus (who is God according to Philippians 1)dive into the world and sacrifice himself for the salvation of all humans. Nothing we could ever could make us worthy to stand before God. We are also too sinful too stand before him so God gave his only son too die for us all so that we could stand before God. These are not the actions of a malevolent God but of a benevolent God.

Argument (3)
3) All over the Bible God expresses disguise at evil.

This is very evident from the biblical data. In Ezekiel 18 we read "God does not take pleasure in the deaths of th wicked but would rather that they turn from there evil ways and live". We see here that God grieves at the death of those who disobey his laws(biblical definition of wicked) and wishes that they would turn to him and live. This is strong evidence that God is not malevolent.

Some extra bible verses:
In proverbs 8:13 we read "To respect God is to hate evil".
Proverbs 97:10 says "Let all those who live the Lord hate evil".
1 John 4:20 says "If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can[b] he love God whom he has not seen? 21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.
These verses tighter with my above arguments show the Christian God is benevolent and not malevolent at all.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Round three rebuttals


"1) The concept of good and bad presuppose God to begin with." Jac925


I beg to differ. Moral and immoral are often interchangeable with good and evil, benevolent and malevolent. Many animals possess empathy. Furthermore, human altruism can be attributed to evolution. Darwin's theory of evolution is consistent with atheism.

Chickens and rats posses empathy.


"Researchers in the UK have gained new insight into the minds of domestic hens, discovering, for the first time, that domestic hens show a clear physiological and behavioral response when their chicks are mildly distressed. " [9]

"Thus, rats behave pro-socially in response to a conspecific’s distress, providing strong evidence for biological roots of empathically motivated helping behavior." [10]


A person can only conclude that morals can exist without God. Good and evil can exist without God. An atheist living on a remote island who never heard of any religion can understand the concept of good and evil.


"I have a few arguments for this conclusion which, if true would prove that it should s incoherent to say that God is malevolent as he is the ultimate standard of good (if these arguments are sound)." Jac925

You seem to be suggesting God is the ultimate standard of good despite the genocides in the Old Testament, eternal damnation, and condoning of slavery. I am horrified by such a concept, this defies all reason.


"Moral argument:

1) Obligations are contingent on a person.
2) Moral values are obligations.
Therefore moral values are contingent upon a person.
3) Moral values transcend human persons.
Therefore moral values are contingent upon a transcendent person.
Therefore a morally perfect transcendent personal entity exists." Jac925


Let me rewrite this in terms I can understand.

0. Obligations are contingent on a chicken.
1. Moral values are obligations
Therefore moral values are contingent upon a chicken.
2. Moral values transcend chicken persons.
Therefore moral values are contingent upon a transcendent chicken.
Therefore a morally perfect transcendent chicken entity exists.

I could buy that. That one chicken is morally superior to the other chickens. That one chicken is morally perfect. Yet, I don't perceive how this argument gets you anywhere. The same could be made for any animal with morals. Rats, chimpanzees, etc. So, now we have a morally perfect transcendent chicken, rat, dog, cat, chimpanzee, and gorilla.


The next part my opponent makes in his/her arguments is confusing and offers no hard evidence.


"If God truly is malevolent then why do atheists make an argument against God based on all the evil and malevolence in the world." Jac925


Because many scriptures claim God is good.

"Argument (2)
2) The Christian God sacrificed himself in Jesus Christ to save all humanity from eternal shame and punishement.

This is the gospel message of Christianity. It is found all over the New Testament. In the book of Phillipians chapter one we read of how God gave his beloved son into the world to save the world. Surely this an act of a benevolently God. If God was a malevolent moral moral monster then why did Jesus (who is God according to Philippians 1)dive into the world and sacrifice himself for the salvation of all humans. Nothing we could ever could make us worthy to stand before God. We are also too sinful too stand before him so God gave his only son too die for us all so that we could stand before God. These are not the actions of a malevolent God but of a benevolent God." Jac925


This was an evil act. God, the father, committing human sacrifice by sacrificing his one and only son. This is incredibly immoral. This also breaks the six commandment, thou shalt not kill. Not only that but this is scapegoating. Many primitive tribes used scapegoated goats. [11]

Not only is that cruel to the goat, but it takes away personal responsibility.


"Argument (3)
3) All over the Bible God expresses disguise at evil.

This is very evident from the biblical data. In Ezekiel 18 we read "God does not take pleasure in the deaths of th wicked but would rather that they turn from there evil ways and live". We see here that God grieves at the death of those who disobey his laws(biblical definition of wicked) and wishes that they would turn to him and live. This is strong evidence that God is not malevolent.

Some extra bible verses:
In proverbs 8:13 we read "To respect God is to hate evil".
Proverbs 97:10 says "Let all those who live the Lord hate evil".
1 John 4:20 says "If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can[b] he love God whom he has not seen? 21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.
These verses tighter with my above arguments show the Christian God is benevolent and not malevolent at all." Jac925


What this shows is that God is erratic. To kill and then to feel remorse. Most would rather no killing in the first place. Think about it, if a convicted murderer showed remorse, this would be a mitigating factor, but the person would still serve a good ten to twenty years in prison. Showing remorse does not bring the dead back to life.

Furthermore, the Bible is full of contradictions. There is a quote stating that God wants you to hate your family.

"“If any man come to Me and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple." [12]

Thank you for debating.

Sources
9. https://www.sciencedaily.com...
10. http://science.sciencemag.org...
11. http://www.academia.edu...
12. https://www.biblegateway.com...
Jac925

Con

I will begin by thanking my opponent for his response and am now going to refute his arguments.

1)Killing in the Old Testament

My opponent says this:

"Did you know, for example, that God:

1) Forced friends and family to kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf?
2)Burned Aaron's sons to death for offering him strange fire?
3)Burned complainers to death, forced the survivors to eat quail until it literally came out their noses, sent "fiery serpents" to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water, and killed 14,700 for complaining about his killings?
4)Buried alive those that opposed Moses (along with their families)?
5)Burned 250 men to death for burning incense? "

I am now going to address these in chronological order:

1) My opponent must understand the gravity of idol worship. If an infinite God exists then to worship a false god is evidently a sin worthy of infinite punishment. However there is a huge problem with 1). Namely that it never happened. There is absolutely no evidence for this at all. If you read exodus 32 and 33 the only punishement given to the children of Israel is that they have to drink the gold that the calf was made of( a punishement given by Moses alone).

2) Again my opponent needs to understand the gravity of the situation. Arons so did something extremely disrespectful in the presence of the infinite almighty perfect God. They had been warned about what disrespecting God would bring. What they did is arguably a sin of infinite proportions.

3) Once again my opponent fails to see the gravity of the sins committed. While they were by no means mortal sins they became mortal sins because they were committed in the presence of the almighty where a virtues such as humbleness and humility must be respected. The Israelites where also by no means saints. They where a very cruel and pagan peoples and God was quite patient with them.

4) First of all God didn't bury them alive for simply disagreeing with Moses. He buried them for attempting to start a revolution. The leader(Koran) had been planning to take over the whole tribe. According to Bible study tools:

"Presently after new laws given follows the story of a new rebellion, as if sin took occasion from the commandment to become more exceedingly sinful. Here is, I. A daring and dangerous rebellion raised against Moses and Aaron, by Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (v. 1-15). Korah and his accomplices contend for the priesthood against Aaron (v. 3). Moses reasons with them, and appeals to God for a decision of the controversy (v. 4-11). Dathan and Abiram quarrel with Moses, and refuse to obey his summons, which greatly grieves him (v. 12-15). II. A solemn appearance of the pretenders to the priesthood before God, according to order, and a public appearance of the glory of the Lord, which would have consumed the whole congregation if Moses and Aaron had not interceded (v. 16-22)"
God also told everyone to evacuate every where around the rebels tents too save the lives of everyone innocent.

5) This point is related to the last one. The people burned where in fact rebels who would have tried to take over the community as documented in numbers16.

2)Incest

My opponent sites the example of how Noah's children must have practised incest. Well of course they did,they had to. But it was only for a few generations and once it was no longer necessary for the population of the world it was made illegal in the law of Moses in the book of exodus. My opponent then makes this argument:"Did God really have to kill everybody except Noah and his wife and children? Don't you love it when your loving god kills all the little laughing children to satisfy his genocidal lust? "First of all the bible teaches that once children of five and under die they go straight to heaven. But also these people who died in the flood where pagans who practised child sacrifices so it was good that that was stopped.

3)Slavery

Something must be said here in relation to slavery. When we read about slavery in the Old Testament we tend to think about it in modern terms like how blacks were enslaved during the age of exploration. However slavery in ancient Israel is to be understood as indentured servitude. It is a contracted higher for a period of about seven years. If someone was in dept or needed a loan they would go into servitude of the person whom they are in dept to and work off their loan. They tended to work for about seven years as I said.
The theologian Dr.Paul Copan said:
"When the bible talks about people being bought or sold into servitude we tend to the no of this as degrading,as if the bible is just treating these people as property,however this is a wrong understanding of the text. It is referring to buying and selling in the same way we say that football players are bought and sold to different teams. The text does not support the proposition that poorer people are somehow worth less". The type of slavery condoned in the Bible is the Sam as maid servants work. Surlely God is justified in allowing maid servants?

4) Eternal damnation.

Once again my opponent fails to see the gravity of the situation. Just imagine for a minute that God exists. It is evidently a sin of eternal and infinite proportions to reject him. Also he'll is like the inside of a volcano. According to the gospels and epistles it is actually a place of eternal shame not eternal pain and torture.
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

Round four Defense

"Namely that it never happened. There is absolutely no evidence for this at all. If you read exodus 32 and 33 the only punishement given to the children of Israel is that they have to drink the gold that the calf was made of( a punishement given by Moses alone)." Jac925


I can prove you wrong on this above part. See the below quote.

"32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. [13][14]
32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

"New International Version
Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'"
"

"New International Version
The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.
" [15]

My opponent has cherry picked the evidence. Not taking into account the verses further in the Bible that do prove my original claim. Nevertheless, due to the sheer volume of information I think it is best to give my opponent the benefit of the doubt, that he/she simply missed the evidence unintentionally.


"2) Again my opponent needs to understand the gravity of the situation. Arons so did something extremely disrespectful in the presence of the infinite almighty perfect God. They had been warned about what disrespecting God would bring. What they did is arguably a sin of infinite proportions." Jac925

No, I do not understand. I was about five years old when I first saw this story on a cartoon version on television. I didn't understand then, I fail to comprehend the logic of this event now, and I never understood the rational for these homicides ever.

Let's take a common superhero like superman or wonder woman. If a group of teenagers were to curse out these super heroes and give them the middle finger, pull down their pants, moon these two, and spray paint obscene images of these two. How would superman and wonder woman react? After all compared to us mere morals, superman and wonder woman are God-like.

A. Would these use their powers to mass murder the teenagers?
B. Would they mind control the teenagers and force them to kill each other?
C. Or perhaps they would give them a good long lecture about being respectful to others and call the police for illegal spray painting?

I think option C is the most viable. Now why would the God of the Old Testament pick an option other than C? This is the only moral choice. Superman and wonder woman are of superior moral character to the God of the Old Testament.

How is this a sin of infinite proportions? If this is a sin of infinite proportions so must spray painting obscene imagines on a wall. Yet, last time I checked spray painters do no receive the death penalty in most countries.


"3) Once again my opponent fails to see the gravity of the sins committed. While they were by no means mortal sins they became mortal sins because they were committed in the presence of the almighty where a virtues such as humbleness and humility must be respected." Jac925

This makes no rational sense to me. Mortal sin versus non-mortal sin. My interpretation of the scriptures is God watches over all, meaning all sin is committed within his presence and are therefore mortal sins. This seems like blame the victim. Blame the murdered victim as opposed to the murder.


"First of all God didn't bury them alive for simply disagreeing with Moses. He buried them for attempting to start a revolution. The leader(Koran) had been planning to take over the whole tribe. " Jac925

My opponent has once again played the blame the victim card. In fact my opponent has done this for all five points.

"2)Incest

My opponent sites the example of how Noah's children must have practised incest. Well of course they did,they had to. " Jac925

My opponent agrees with me on this point.


"But also these people who died in the flood where pagans who practised child sacrifices so it was good that that was stopped." Jac925

You offer no proof that the pagans committed these awful deeds. Furthermore, what would any super hero/heroine do? He/she would stop the act and tell them it was wrong, killing only in self-defense. By killing unnecessarily you are making a statement that non-essential murders are tolerable. This is an awful precedence.

"3)Slavery

Something must be said here in relation to slavery. When we read about slavery in the Old Testament we tend to think about it in modern terms like how blacks were enslaved during the age of exploration. However slavery in ancient Israel is to be understood as indentured servitude. It is a contracted higher for a period of about seven years. If someone was in dept or needed a loan they would go into servitude of the person whom they are in dept to and work off their loan. They tended to work for about seven years as I said." Jac925


This is a straight out cop out. Slavery should never have been tolerated in the first place. Slavery has been proven to inefficient. "Slave labor was inefficient to begin with, slave productivity did not increase to keep pace with industrialization" [16]

I ask why would a benevolent being allow a brutal and inefficient system? The answer is because a benevolent beig wouldn't, this is the actions of a malevolent being.


""When the bible talks about people being bought or sold into servitude we tend to the no of this as degrading,as if the bible is just treating these people as property,however this is a wrong understanding of the text. It is referring to buying and selling in the same way we say that football players are bought and sold to different teams. The text does not support the proposition that poorer people are somehow worth less". The type of slavery condoned in the Bible is the Sam as maid servants work. Surlely God is justified in allowing maid servants?" Jac925


You are playing at pseudo-lingusitics. Changing the very language of the Bible to suit your desires. The terms employee and employer offer much more clarity. Yet, these are not the terms that are used in the Bible.


"4) Eternal damnation.

Once again my opponent fails to see the gravity of the situation. Just imagine for a minute that God exists. It is evidently a sin of eternal and infinite proportions to reject him. Also he'll is like the inside of a volcano. According to the gospels and epistles it is actually a place of eternal shame not eternal pain and torture." Jac925


I fail to see your point of view. What Bible verse or Gospel are you getting that a sin can be of eternal and infinite proportions? The Bible is too vast for me to guess and would be too difficult to prove a negative. You have not met your burden of proof showing that sins of eternal and infinite proportions exist within the scriptures. Therefore, the default stance must be taken of these eternal and infinite sins do not exist. Just as we do not believe unicorns exist until proven otherwise.

Eternal shame is still infinite. You also introduce another contradiction. This contradiction is between the gospel and the Bible. Why would an all power benevolent God place so many contradictions within the scriptures? The answer is that a benevolent God would not be so cruel, but a malevolent God would.

Thanks for debating, I had to work to defeat your arguments from my point of view.

Sources.
13. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
14. http://biblehub.com...
15. http://biblehub.com...
16. http://www.salon.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"I understand what you are suing however your arguments have attempted to show God to be malevolent from the scriptures While also saying that many scriptures say God is good." Jac925

Correct.
Posted by Jac925 1 year ago
Jac925
I understand what you are suing however your arguments have attempted to show God to be malevolent from the scriptures While also saying that many scriptures say God is good.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"However if are going to quote bible verses then you must concede the debate if you are to be intellectually honest as in response to my point that, if God truly is malevolent then why do atheists make arguments against his existence using all the malevolence and evil in the world ,you said "Because many scriptures claim God is good." So you see you have already conceded that God is good according to the scriptures." Jac

Being canonized as good doesn't make him good. If I was to say that famous villains/villainousness x,y,and z were good without any proof, would you believe me? How about if I say that famous heroes/heroines A,B, and C were evil without any evidence, would you believe me? Of course not, unless you already agreed with me.

Finally, let's put this in mythological terms. If a great beast, an intelligent dragon, was rampaging the country side. Killing innocents at will. Along with the dragon were cultists who would carry out whatever the dragon's malevolent will was. Next, the cultists write a book about the dragon, giving praises to her name. Canonizing the dragon as great and good. Something like "o wise dragon you are the most merciful and greatest."

Would you take this passage at face value? Would you then sing songs to praise this dragon? Yes, you would, because this is essentially what Christianity is. Christians are the cultist, the book is the holy Bible, and the dragon is God. Many believed the holy spirit was female in the past btw.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Jac925 you offer no proof that the tribe in question permitted sacrifices of any kind.
Posted by Jac925 1 year ago
Jac925
First of all I am not cherry picking verses. There are literally thousands of verses I could choose from as well the core doctrines of Christianity to support my case. However if are going to quote bible verses then you must concede the debate if you are to be intellectually honest as in response to my point that, if God truly is malevolent then why do atheists make arguments against his existence using all the malevolence and evil in the world ,you said "Because many scriptures claim God is good." So you see you have already conceded that God is good according to the scriptures. The theologian and philosopher Paul Conan said:"The God of the Old Testament is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. While some dismiss the "angry" God of the Old Testament, favoring the "gentle" heavenly Father of the New instead, New Testament authorities themselves unabashedly identified with Him. For example, Jesus affirmed the Noahic flood (Matt. 24:37-39) and divine judgments against Sodom and Tyre (Matt. 10:15; 11:21-24; Luke 17:26-32), saying judgment would be worse for those who rejected Him. Stephen and Paul affirmed God's command to drive out the Canaanites (Acts 7:45; 13:19)."The tribe you are referring to practised child sacrifices to false gods,idolatry, sexual perversions and beastiality. Not exactly the underdogs in this bible passage.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
I'm going to post part of my argument in the comments since I can't finish the argument right now.

"32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

"New International Version
Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.'"
"

"New International Version
The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died.
"

My opponent has cherry picked the evidence. Not taking into account the verses further in the Bible that do prove my original claim.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...
http://biblehub.com...
http://biblehub.com...
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
I thank my opponent for not forfeiting, most opponents forfeit when they see my arguments or before that in round one.

Second, I have skimmed through your argument, and started re-reading through again. The argument is fairly advanced, using terms I am not yet familiar with, therefore, it will require some time for me to process your argument.
Posted by canis 1 year ago
canis
There never was a god..So you are stuck with humans..
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"I am not a big fan of "Let's debate, here are the definitions we'll use unless we agree on others, and here are the rules" kind of debates. It seems like many disagreements hinge on how certain terms are interpreted; to pull a kind of "in the reality that frames our debate, these are the authoritative definitions" feels like more like a pre-emptive ad dictionarium than a civil agreement." Thoguth

Seems lately the new methods of the creationists and other anti-science movements hinge on changing definitions. Read Bill Nye's Undeniable p.11
"Mr. Ham holds to a fascinating pair of double speak phrase: "observational science" and "historical science."" Bill Nye

continued down the page
"Using the word science in these Orwellian ways is unsettling." Bill Nye

Seems getting everyone to agree on definitions is half the battle these days.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"In my opinion, the Pro is kind of moving the goalposts from the intro to the topic. "Good" vs. "Benevolent" ... because Good and Evil are generally accepted to be inherent moral positions; and without some kind of moral absolutism, the argument for good / evil is opinion at best." Thoguth

I fail to perceive how I am moving the goalposts. This seems to be an argument we cannot have moral absolutism without God. My response, we can have objective morals without God which is close enough.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.