The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Samson vs Job

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 373 times Debate No: 60682
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Samson is accused of being inferior. Job is presented as superior.

Pro's position, (mine) is that the above is Old Testament nonsense. As always the Bible will be my main source. But Con is welcome to use any source.


1 Samson had an evil encounter. Afterwards Samson did not turn back to his old life style.
2 Job had an evil encounter. Afterwards Job turned right back to his old life style.

(Isn't there a saying about a dog turning again? To his what?)


First of all, your debate resolution ("Samson vs Job") is not a statement which can be viewed as pro or con, or correct or incorrect. Your resolution is invalid. A better resolution would be "Samson was a better man than Job.". Secondly, you did not once in your argument cite the Bible, even after claiming that it is your main source. Bad form, if you ask me.

I shall debate by actually using the Bible, which is the only historical document that talks about these two characters.

As the Con side of this debate, I will argue that Job was a far better man than Samson.



"There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil." Job 1:1

Job did "return to his old ways" as you put it. But his old ways were "blameless and upright", so what was wrong with his returning to his old ways? The fact that he remained "blameless and upright" is beneficial to my side of the argument; thank you for providing that point.

"Then Job arose and tore his robe and shaved his head and fell on the ground and worshiped. And he said, "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return. The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." In all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong." Job 1:20-22

Even after the tragic events of Job 1, Job did not turn away from God or sin. Samson couldn't even look at a beautiful woman without planning to sin.

"Even if these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they would deliver but their own lives by their righteousness, declares the Lord God." Ezekiel 14:14

Even God says that Job is righteous.


Samson's old ways were not as upright as Job's.

Judges 16:1
Judges 14:9
Judges 14:2, 14:8, and Deuteronomy 7:3
and more. Judges 14-16 has so many examples of how Samson couldn't stop sinning.

Judges 16:28 says "Then Samson called to the Lord and said, 'O Lord God, please remember me and please strengthen me only this once, O God, that I may be avenged on the Philistines for my two eyes.'" When Samson finally did something right, he did it not because it was right, not because God called him to, but for revenge. "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord." Leviticus 19:18.

In conclusion of this round: Job was a righteous man, "blameless and upright", but Samson disobeyed God at every possible opportunity.
Debate Round No. 1


The Pro opening argument did cite the Bible, Con just did not sight the citing. The verbatim was avoided so as not to be vulgar. But Con seems to be insisting so concerning Job the Bible verse that applies is-

As a dog returns to its vomit, so fools repeat their folly. (Proverbs 26:11) If you would care for even more vulgarity it can come forth. (Here is an example-Job was not just any old dog. The devil put a lot of heat on Job. So wouldn't that make Job a dog in heat? I don't know. Maybe.) Yeah this here verse in Proverbs was written after Job. And even after Samson. But that does not matter because the truth is the truth no matter when mankind discovers it. Job was a fool because there was no change in his life of sin. Job's sin was so great that America fought its bloodiest war over just such a sin.

Pretty sure the OT in Isaiah 64:6 says all our righteousness is filthy rags, (another citing by me). So yeah I will agree that Job was naked. His sin stands naked before our sight. Slavery is illegal and immoral. Exploiting cheap, (in the case of Job that would be free) labor is illegal and immoral. We just are not going to put up with that vomit any more. Not for Job. Not for Job want-ta-be's and not for christian-want-ta-be's either.

Con seems to be saying that the LORD declares Job righteous. Ah, not so fast their ...Guy. The LORD of the Old Testament had neither the power nor the authority to declare anyone righteous. If the LORD of the OT had the power and/or the authority to declare anyone righteous then it is you Con who needs to cite some Bible. Please list a verse or two that shows that the LORD of the OT had the ability to declare anyone righteous. Just because someone says something, that actually means very little. Show us Con how great the LORD of the OT is. Show us how he could declare Job or anyone for that matter to be righteous.

As for Samson being the better man. Ha. What a joke that is. No one is good. No not one. We are all sinners. We have all of us turned away. If we are saved it has nothing to do with us what-so-ever. (More Bible citations by me. And much more to follow.)


What Pro neglects to provide is how Proverbs 26:11 remotely applies to Job. Pro is attempting to place the burden of proof on Con, which is uncalled for. The burden of proof shall rest on both Pro and Con, as we are each attempting to prove a different point. I will, however, respond to your demands, and show not only that God is perfectly able to declare who is or isn't righteous, but that the "Lord of the OT" as you put it is also The Lord of the New Testament, and The Lord of today.

"God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" Numbers 23:19

If God declares something is righteous, it must be, because he cannot lie. You might try to say that God isn't lying because he doesn't know, but 1 John 3:20 states: "for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything."

God is the judge of all, so of course he judges who is righteous: but it is God who executes judgment, putting down one and lifting up another. (R37;PsalmR36; R37;75R36;:R37;7R36; ESV)

Revelation 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

God is eternal, as shown in the above verse. He is the same God as he had been since the beginning of time and the same God he will be until the end of time. The Lord of the Old Tesament is the same God as he has been and will be, forever.

As for your argument that attacks. Job for having servants; God says through the author of the book of Job that Job was "blameless", see Job 1:1.


free from or not deserving blame; guiltless: a blameless child.


You will probably now say that the bible isn't perfect. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," (R37;2 TimothyR36; R37;3R36;:R37;16R36; ESV)

You will probably try to say God isn't perfect now. Mtthew 5: 48 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

So the perfect omniscient unlying eternal God declared Job blameless and righteous through the words he breathed out. I now place the burden of proof on you.
Debate Round No. 2


Because of the name 'ThatChristianGuy' I take it at face value that Con is a Christian. Now Con you were asked to tell us how the LORD of the OT could declare Job righteous when our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ had not yet made His appearance. You failed to give us an answer to my question even though Job himself said that his Redeemer liveth. But to be sure, Job's Redeemer had not yet made the Sacrifice and this thread is not about credit, which is another form of slavery. We are talking about how the LORD of the OT was able to declare Job righteous back then-

The LAW during Job's time made slavery LEGAL. And Job obeyed the letter and the spirit of the ancient law concerning slavery. More than this the slaves that Job owned also obeyed the ancient LAW of slavery. The way that Job obeyed the LAW of slavery was so good that Job was declared righteous concerning the ancient LAW of slavery. Now maybe Job lived before Moses and maybe Job lived after Moses but the ancient LAW of Moses made slavery LEGAL. So to repeat-

Job was such a good LAW abiding slave owner that he was naturally declared a righteous slave owner by the LAW.

I have a secret to tell you Con. Slave ownership is an immoral act no matter who or what declares it LEGAL. Even if the LORD of the OT says that it is LEGAL does not change the fact that it is IMMORAL. Therefore-

Job was an IMMORAL slave owner. And the ancient LAW of slavery was/is corrupt, including the Mosaic LAW of slavery. That is why American Christian LAW says that slavery in any form including Mosaic LAW is now illegal.

As for the Satanic position in the Book of Job-

It is not immoral to persecute slave owners. It might be illegal to persecute slave owners but it is never going to be immoral to persecute slave owners.

As for the American Christian position concerning persecution of slave owners-

We are looking for you slave owners. And when we find you we will take all your possessions away from you so that you will be bankrupted. And while we don't have you in our sights we are praying that your physical bodies be stricken with corpuscles and that you find yourselves living on a dung hill with no friends. And don't worry because we have employed a bunch of blind strong men helping us make all this persecution possible.


I apologize for being misinformed on your religion. I've never heard of American Christianity, but it is apparently a pseudo-Christian cult that condones torture and murder while denying God's goodness. It most certainly does not abide by the bible, so there isn't really a point of bringing up verses. While you say slavery is a horrible thing, robbing people blind, exiling them, and torturing them to death is worse, which in the last paragraph of your argument in round three you condone. You also act as if the book of Job is all about slavery, while most people who actually have read the book are aware it is about faith even under persecution.

As my final point, I will highlight to the audience that the debate resolution is still an invalid one.

Good game, pivot. I hope you find Jesus and realize that He loves, and doesn't try to torture and kill with a pack of brutes. He endured torture to the point of being unrecognizable so you could live, not so you could destroy others.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro really never made any kind of compelling case for Samson being better than Job. Con, meanwhile, pointed out that Job was righteous, and Samson was generally not. Con cited the bible in support of his position, while, despite Pro's statement to the contrary, Pro used almost no actual biblical evidence. Even as an atheist, it's clear who made the stronger argument.