The Instigator
captainamericatheavenger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
purpleduck
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Resolved: God is loving

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 1 vote the winner is...
purpleduck
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 400 times Debate No: 72763
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

captainamericatheavenger

Pro

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Constructive, (logical premise and starting evidence)
Round 3: Sources and evidence
Round 4: Rebuttal and final remarks

My resolution is that God, (YHVH), loves each and everyone of us and works all things together for good.
purpleduck

Con

I accept. Good luck to pro


(can anyone tell what this "Resolved" thing is supposed to mean)
Debate Round No. 1
captainamericatheavenger

Pro

First off, to answer the question the con posed, Resolved is the adjective of the noun resolution.
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
Romans 8:28
God is loving. In this first round I will present the logical reasoning behind this conclusion in a two point format. I will call these points, contentions.
Contention 1: God cannot be un-loving.
We are mortal, no one can deny that. We do not think on the level of a God. I need no proof for this, because if there is a God, we are not that God. Now, if we are not an all-powerful God, than our standards are irrelevant. If a piece of plastic tells its maker that he is in sin, what proof does it have. Did the creator not create you? Is the creator not god? By very definition God MUST be loving. God is love, and the second he becomes unloving, he becomes un-God. Why is this so? Because if God is unloving, that means it is not his standard that proceeds. It means someone else out there has a standard that is more powerful than God's. If someone has more power than God, he is not God. God, by very definition MUST be loving; nay, must be love itself.
Contention 2: There is good.
Human kind is evil. Murder, rape, theft. If man was good, why do babies immediately sin, and hate their mother. They cry, and look out only for themselves. Now, if humankind is evil, why do they do good. What reason is there for sacrificial love, and good deeds. It is because of God's goodness. God's goodness, can stem only from love. Now inevitably, my opponent will claim that God created hell and is therefore full of hatred and evil, but I must contest this. If God did not love us, why would he care. Why would he provide a moral compass? Why would he reveal himself in the Bible? Most importantly, why would he send his only son over two thousand years ago to save a wretch like me.
God loves each of us, and it is my prayer that everyone looking at this will come to realize it.
purpleduck

Con

What I meant by my first question was that why people occasionally put "Resolved" in front of their debate topics. I was not asking for the definition, I know what it means.

Anyway

God is a subjective being. No one has observed God/a god before, and therefore we all have different definitions of one. In fact, those within a religion cannot even agree on who God is despite the fact that they are all of the same religion. Take for example, Christianity. There are countless individual factions of Christianity, which is evidence for the fact that these people can't even agree on something as fundamental to them as what God wants. There are billions upon billions of people on this Earth, and not one of them can fully agree on what God is, and this conflict has been escalated to violence many, many times. Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, English Civil War, the Trojan War, the Pelloponesian War, the Great Schism, the Sunni Shi'ite split, etc. all were either results of or justified by religion. Would a kind and loving God really allow so many divides among his children, divides so entrenched that they escalate to war?

Bad things happen to good people. There is really no denying this. Even of these people have some private sins that don't make them perfectly good, they are still overall good people. Why is it, then, that such major tragedies happen to these people? Was everyone who got killed in 911 a bad person? Were all the Jews who were slaughtered like pigs in the Holocaust all bad people? Are all the children who starve to death in the slums in India and China all bad people? Were all the people who were vaporized or poisoned by radioactivity during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings bad people? Are the people born defected or disabled somehow bad people? How could a kind and loving God so many people advertise stand by and let such atrocities occur to his supposed children? And if this God is kind but is unable to stop all this misery, why worship him?

Many things shape history. Wars, conflict, people, natural disasters, etc. all shape the course of history. But the biggest factor that single handedly changes the course of all history is disease. Disease is the biggest agent of history, but disease is not kind to its victims.
The Black Death, one of the most famous pandemics in World History, was one of the most painful and gruesome ways to die. Your stomach aches, you vomit constantly, you cough blood, and your fingers and toes turn black. 30% to 70% of Europe perished to this plague, and this is not counting the people who survived.
During the 19th Century, a tuberculosis outbreak claimed a fourth of the adult European population, and in 1918, one in six deaths in France were from tuberculosis. Symptoms are also rather undesirable , and include massive fits of coughing, chest pain, and severely weakened lungs. Tuberculosis affects 8 million people a year, 2 million of which die.
Cholera is a rather old disease from India that spread during India's colonization during the 19th century. Symptoms include vomiting, diarrhea, cramping, and severe dehydration, which eventually leads to death if the victim cannot stay hydrated. This disease infects 3 to 5 million people a year, 120,000 of which do not survive.
There are millions, quite possibly billions of known and unknown diseases out there today, and a large majority of them are not pretty. Why would a loving God do such a thing to so many of his supposed children?

I personally do not believe in a god/gods, but if they existed, the would most certainly not be loving.
Debate Round No. 2
captainamericatheavenger

Pro

captainamericatheavenger forfeited this round.
purpleduck

Con

i will not post any arguments until my opponent comes back
Debate Round No. 3
captainamericatheavenger

Pro

captainamericatheavenger forfeited this round.
purpleduck

Con

Oh well, vote Con!
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
God is perfectly loving

God knows that human beings would be happier if they were aware of the existence of a loving God

So if such a God existed, he would make sure that everyone knew it

There are lots of people who aren't aware of the existence of a loving God. Therefore such a God does not exist
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by salam.morcos 2 years ago
salam.morcos
captainamericatheavengerpurpleduckTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff. I vote con. Also, Pro's arguments presupposes that God exists, but he didn't clarify that in his challenge. He also quotes the bible (which I also do), but you are not allowed to prove that God exists or that God is loving because the bible said so. That's a circular fallacy (Con failed to challenge him for this).