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

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

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
NotBenShapiro has forfeited round #3.
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: 1/11/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 365 times Debate No: 98886
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
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."

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."


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.

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

Con

I accept your challenge. I will be arguing that the Christian God is benevolent. As of this moment I do not have any further definitions to clear up. Please be advised that I am naturally concise and may not express my points as clearly as may be needed. If this happens, just ask for clarification and I will be happy to oblige. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

I. God's killings in the Old Testament

First, 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 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...
NotBenShapiro

Con

Before I begin with my points there is something I must establish: if we are to have this debate we must assume the existence of God; otherwise there would be no point and many of our arguments would be invalidated. I would also like to mention that I am much better with rebuttals than I am with arguments, so if any of these seem incomplete then just ask for clarification and I’ll elaborate.

1. God is omnibenevolent by definition

The Christian God is, by definition, omnibenevolent [1]. If he were malevolent, he could not be omnibenevolent, and if he were not omnibenevolent then he would no longer be the Christian God. Saying that God is not omnibenevolent is illogical for the same reason that saying cat is not a feline is illogical; it goes against the definition. It is possible to argue the malevolence of some other god, but because this argument is about the Christian God in particular my point stands.

2. God is not good, good is God

In the Christian religion, God is not considered good because he exhibits the qualities of goodness, he is good because goodness exhibits the qualities of Him [7]. Because, as I showed earlier, we must assume the validity of the Bible, this belief is an entirely valid argument.

3. God gave up his only son for an undeserving world

This has been pointed out many times but it is a very important proof of God’s benevolence.
According to Christian belief, Jesus is perfect [6], in contrast with a world full of rapists, murderers, and all manner of despicable people. The fact that God would give Him up for humanity because of his love for us [5] is possibly the most benevolent act in history.
The most common counterargument to this claim is that no loving God would put to death their only child, which leads into my next argument:

4. Jesus willingly went to the cross

This negates any objection to my previous point, since the only real counterargument is the one I already mentioned.
Jesus died on the cross willingly [4]. Since he is a part of the Trinity [2] this is proof of God’s benevolent love.

Conclusion

My last two points outline God’s love for humanity. His love is proof of his benevolence, since He doesn’t have to bother with us. But instead of sitting idly by He offered us a way into heaven [3].
That sounds pretty benevolent to me.

Sources
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[4] http://www.reformation21.org...
[5] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[6] https://www.compellingtruth.org...
[7] https://books.google.co.jp...;
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Round three rebuttals

"Before I begin with my points there is something I must establish: if we are to have this debate we must assume the existence of God; otherwise there would be no point and many of our arguments would be invalidated. " NotBenShapiro

The existence of God is irrelevant to the debate. If God exists we can debate about God's character. If God is fictional, we can still debate God's character just as we can debate about the moral integrity of fictional characters in Harry Potter and Doctor Who.

I. The definition of God

My opponent tries to change the definition of God, yet we already agreed upon the definition of God in round one. "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]"" stupidape round one.

Furthermore, if you read your link it says "Many theologians also describe God as being omnibenevolent (perfectly good) and all loving." wikipedia

Theologians get their knowledge of God from the Bible. Yet, the Bible claims God exists and is good. This is circular reasoning.

"Explanation

An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion." [9]

Just because the Bible claims that God is benevolent doesn't mean God is. There have been mistranslations of the Bible just for starters. The Bible could all be the ravings of a mentally ill person or persons.

If Darth Vader said "I am good", would you believe him? What about if Darth Vader wrote a book and claimed the book was holy and that Darth Vader is benevolent? No, you wouldn't, you would have to see Vader's actions not his words.

The next argument of my opponent's seems like a redundant and confusing version of the last. Therefore, the same rebuttals can be used for the "2. God is not good, good is God" part of my opponents debate.

"3. God gave up his only son for an undeserving world

This has been pointed out many times but it is a very important proof of God’s benevolence.
According to Christian belief, Jesus is perfect [6], in contrast with a world full of rapists, murderers, and all manner of despicable people. The fact that God would give Him up for humanity because of his love for us [5] is possibly the most benevolent act in history.
The most common counterargument to this claim is that no loving God would put to death their only child, which leads into my next argument:

4. Jesus willingly went to the cross

This negates any objection to my previous point, since the only real counterargument is the one I already mentioned.
Jesus died on the cross willingly [4]. Since he is a part of the Trinity [2] this is proof of God’s benevolent love." NotBenShapiro

I put these together, since it seems impossible to address one without the other. Jesus sacrifice was human sacrifice. Human sacrifice is immoral, regardless if the victim is willing or not. Just as slavery would still be immoral if you gave the slaves health insurance and nice food.

This also runs into the problem of multiple Gods, despite the Bible claiming there is only one. How could God both be on the cross as the Son and yet be present as the Father? Since evil tends to deceive, the fact that the Bible is so confusing indicates a malevolent presence. This is not a new argument since my opponent brought up the trinity. I am only responding to a point my opponent made.

Finally, Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was scapegoating. Some primitive tribes perform a ritual where they put all the sins onto a goat and then execute the goat. This is called scapegoating. Not only is scapegoating immoral, it is illogical.

"Description: Unfairly blaming an unpopular person or group of people for a problem, or a person or group that is an easy target for such blame.

Logical Form:

Nobody likes or cares about X.

Therefore, X is to blame for Y.

Example #1:

I know I got drunk, slapped the waitress on the behind, then urinated in the parking lot... from inside the restaurant, but that was Satan who had a hold of me.

Explanation: The person is avoiding personal responsibility and blaming “Satan” for his actions. Satan is an easy target -- he does not show up to defend himself and a surprising number of people believe he exists, and actually does cause immoral behavior."[10]

Scapegoating is not unique to Christianity. [11] Scapegoating is incredibly immoral.

"The holocaust indeed provides the greatest example of the dangers scapegoating and oversimplifying has in pointing out villains. "[12]

Christianity survives by scapegoating gays, blacks, females, Satan, demons, and witches. Once people accept that scapegoating is moral, you could easily add another group of people to that list.

"Conclusion

My last two points outline God’s love for humanity. His love is proof of his benevolence, since He doesn’t have to bother with us. But instead of sitting idly by He offered us a way into heaven [3].
That sounds pretty benevolent to me." NotBenShapiro

Good deeds are a mitigating factor for evil deeds, but do not completely overwrite bad deeds. A murder who donates to charity is still a killer. I'm not sure humans can trust a God that punishes people so severely. Perhaps Heaven is a ruse or trap. That God is a soul devouring malevolent being that lulls us into a false sense of security. Think of a pitcher plant and flies, humans are the flies and God the pitcher plant. [13]

Sources.
9. http://www.logicalfallacies.info...
10. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com...
11. http://www.academia.edu...
12. http://www.blex.org...
13. http://www.carnivorous--plants.com...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
"As I said before, I can only give you the truth, it's your responsibility to investigate that truth. If you choose not to that's completely on you my man.

Your consequence." FollowerofChrist

The same could be said of you. Religion is poison, Christianity has done much harm.

"Ancient Pagans

As soon as Christianity was legal (315), more and more pagan temples were destroyed by Christian mob. Pagan priests were killed.
Between 315 and 6th century thousands of pagan believers were slain.
Examples of destroyed Temples: the Sanctuary of Aesculap in Aegaea, the Temple of Aphrodite in Golgatha, Aphaka in Lebanon, the Heliopolis.
Christian priests such as Mark of Arethusa or Cyrill of Heliopolis were famous as "temple destroyer." [DA468]
Pagan services became punishable by death in 356. [DA468]
Christian Emperor Theodosius (408-450) even had children executed, because they had been playing with remains of pagan statues. [DA469]"

http://www.truthbeknown.com...
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
As I said before, I can only give you the truth, it's your responsibility to investigate that truth. If you choose not to that's completely on you my man.

Your consequence.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
God sacrificing another God, his one and only son was an immoral act. First, it was human sacrifice, and second it was scapegoating.

As for you remarks about wasting time. How am I wasting time trying to figure out the character of God?

"The social role of scapegoats in societies seems timeless. In early tribal cultures, a magical ritual was performed in which all the sins of the tribe were symbolically transferred into a goat. The goat was then killed." Gary Gemmill

http://www.academia.edu...
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 1 year ago
FollowerofChrist1955
What a sad Waste of time;
1.Mankind sins almost constantly, for this man is destined for death and separation from God. That's not malevolence that's judgement.

2. God though great kindness and personal suffering, created a way for man to be restored to right standing through the personal sacrifice and death of His son, Jesus Christ. That's benevolence in the extreme.

3. Man need only seek and believe in the Son of God, accept Him as his personal savior to escape , Hell, death and the grave.

But instead of doing that man goes on these boards and debates on ignorant subjects all the while he steps one step closer to death as time ticks away.
Make no mistake gentleman;
Your eternities is only a heartbeat away!
- A car crash
- A stray bullet
- An unexpected stroke
- You have an appointment and you are going to die on time!
- No accidents in Gods kingdom
- Where will you find yourself?
- How sure are you?
- What is the basis of your conviction?

Your right to CHOOSE ends upon your death. I KNOW. Can you truly say the same?
The responsibility is yours, as is its consequence. People want to make it someone else's job to "prove" Gods existence too them. Wrong my friend I have no such requirement. Mine is to tell you as is required in Ezekiel 3:18-19

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

You have been so warned. Seek Him while you are still able..... sup to you.
This debate has 2 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.