The Instigator
brett.winstead
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
dairygirl4u2c
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible cannot be "God's Word" due to this:

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 3 votes the winner is...
brett.winstead
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,284 times Debate No: 34827
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (3)

 

brett.winstead

Pro

Note: This is my second attempt to have this debate. The person who accepted the debate before had no intentions of debating the issue at all. Please do not bother to accept if you do not understand the premise and agree to debate based on this premise:

This debate is not about the existence of a higher being or what religion is true. It is only a debate on whether or not the Bible is the word of God. I contend that it is not so I am pro for it "not being the word of God" and I am going to focus on one subject about it.

I would like to say that the Bible has so many problems in it and the God that is represented in it is so evil, you would really not want him as your next door neighbor, much less the object of your eternal affection but will focus on one issue.

1. The Old Testament (OT) God gave laws to mankind that were a code of morality but he himself broke them as in murdering scores of innocent people and punishing children for the sins of their fathers while saying he would not do that and commanding man not to do that. After showing proof of this and debating with other Christians who admitted it was true, the consensus of Christians that I have spoken with was that God did not have to keep them because he is God. He can do what he wants and nothing he could possibly do is wrong. The God of the Bible calls himself a perfect, righteous and holy God and claims to be without sin. This was the whole key to him supposedly becoming a man in Jesus in order to die for mankind's sins. However, the Christians argue that God can do "whatever he wants" like lying or killing as in several cases:

Ezekiel 14:9
And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

Jeremiah 20:7
O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

or more seriously; God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21)

For starters, the Bible states very specifically what a sin is:

"sin is transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).

Now, keep that in mind while law is defined. The law of God is simply the rights and wrongs that God gave to the people. It is not just the 10 commandments but all the laws of right and wrong in the Bible, over 600 of them. Since it has been established that sin is the breaking of any of these laws, then lying and killing innocent people is definitely breaking a couple of those laws. All one has to do is read the OT and see that God killed numerous innocent people, children, babies and babies inside of mother's not yet born in addition to the lies and other sins. This makes God a sinner by his own definition of sin (if he inspired the Bible). How can a sinning God become a man to die for you when he was not without sin himself? I will not even touch on the sins Jesus committed for the sake of space.
To sum up:

1. Sin is breaking the law.
2. God's law are the rules of right and wrong.
3. Lying and killing innocent people are forbidden in God's law of right and wrong.
4. God lied to and killed innocent people beyond doubt.
5. This makes God a sinner and unable to die for your sins and takes precedence over the idea that God can do what he wants because he is God.
6. Since 1-5 are true, the simplest conclusion is that the Bible is not the word of God.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

any example of God requesting people be killed, involves sin. either sin of that person, or sin of the person's father/community. as with God allowing Jesus to be killed, the spirit that killed the first borns unless blood was smeared on the front door, God asking but backing out of having abraham to kill his son. etc. the transferrence nature of sin and its consequnces simply must be accepted as part of Jewish/christian life.

if you could find God having straight up innocent people killed, you might have something. as of now, you dont.
Debate Round No. 1
brett.winstead

Pro

<>

I do not know what this confusing first paragraph of your has to do with my side of the debate so my response to that is ???????????????????????

<>

So you are asking for examples of God having innocent people killed? I was really hoping to debate with someone who had a stronger biblical knowledge than this but I guess it is my fault for not emphasizing that. I guess I will continue.

Every time you see someone getting killed in the Bible who had nothing to do with the crime that led to God's death sentence, you have the killing of innocent people. I already pointed out one in 1 Chronicles so let me hand you a few more:

1. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3)
2. He orders another attack and the killing of "all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses" (Joshua 6)
3. God strikes dead the child of Bathsheba in Samuel 12:18 but killing the 7 day old child was not good enough for God. He made the child sick and suffer for those 7 days...and for what? Because DAVID committed adultery. He punished the child for the actions of the parents. How loving.

I don't know how many examples you would like but I think one is enough. There are numerous examples of God commanding the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child and pregnant woman.

This debate was assuming you already knew this as most Christians admit to knowing this. If you are still unconvinced about God killing innocent people, then there is not much left to discuss. This debate is about the impossibility of God being a sinner and also dying for your sins.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

as i said in my initial post, God only has folks attacked who themselves sinned, or who's parents/communities sinned. it's foundational to christiainty that kids suffer the consequences for their parents sins, God and Jesus, Adam/Eve and their kids, first borns of Jews, Abraham's son almost got it, and further the communities, Sodom and Gamorrah, the great flood, the city where "if there's twenty good will you obliterate it? if there's fifteen, if there's ten" etc etc.

if you dont accept this stuff, then christianity is just not for you.
i actually agree that it's not what id desire, and i'm christian, but i acknowledge my ways are not necessarily the optimal ways.

it's not that im not knowlegeable. even my last post showed some examples. i asked for examples of God blantatntly killing o having killed innocent people. in every example you've shown and that i know of, there was some sort of sins involved, be it from the community or from parents etc.
Debate Round No. 2
brett.winstead

Pro

You said " i asked for examples of God blantatntly killing o having killed innocent people. in every example you've shown and that i know of, there was some sort of sins involved, be it from the community or from parents etc."

Do you understand that God had babies killed? You do recognize that when God had entire cities killed, he did not say "just kill the adults responsible for making me angry" but said to kill everyone, babies born yesterday included. You are trying to say that was because "sin was involved" from the community or from parents. Let's address that.

1. Communities cannot sin. Sin is an act of an individual. There is no such thing as a community sin. A community of people can all commit the same sin but that is a sin from each individual whether it was from one or 10,000 people. This idea of a nation or a community sin is just impossible. A nation cannot commit a murder. A community cannot tell a lie or break the Sabbath. Only individuals can. The Biblical writers never really gave that much thought. Saying that a nation can sin is like saying a chair can sin.

2. Now, you mentioned about the parents sinning. Fine, let's say that parents did sin. What does that have to do with the 5 day old children of those sinning parents? The Bible says:

Deut. 24:16 - Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

I don't see how that could possibly be more crystal clear even if it does contradict other passages that say children were punished for the sins of their fathers as in the case of Bathsheba's child.

Also, the fact that God killed innocent people because sin was involved is a contradiction. Why should the innocent be punished for some sin someone else committed? Imagine if our legal system worked that way. Your family member commits a murder and the judge sentences YOU to death because you are a blood relative or live in the same "community"! Make sense? Do you think God who calls himself righteous and holy is going to do that? Since the Bible clearly defines what a sin is (transgression of the law - 1 John 3:4), what law would you say that a 5 day old baby broke in order to be guilty of a sin? Did they tell a lie? Work on the Sabbath? Covet? Worship another God? Use the Lord's name in vain? Can you give me an example of a sin that a small newborn baby could possibly commit in order to deserve death and I assume that the child would have to go to hell since the child has to accepted Jesus as their savior? Again, you must name a real sin which is a transgression of one of the 600+ laws God gave to Israel. Which one of the laws can a newborn baby break?

This could be a little off topic but when God destroyed the whole Earth with a flood because everyone but Noah's family was "wicked," have you ever asked yourself by what standard of wickedness was God referring to? The people in Noah's day had never been given laws to live by. How would you like to get a ticket on a road while driving when there was no posted speed limit only to find out that you were "speeding?" The whole reasoning behind God destroying the Earth with a flood makes no sense in light of this. There was no standard of right and wrong so how could they be "wicked?" In fact, how could Noah and his family be good? By what standard? Mankind was not given the rights and wrongs until Moses came along, according to the Bible. Have you ever thought about that gaping whole in the Bible?

Aside from the fact that God destroyed innocent people, you have not addressed the fact that God lied by putting lies into the mouths of his own prophets. God says he cannot lie. Over to you.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

not much to say. you can't be the arbiter of truth, in that it's wrong because you say it is. i dont like it either, but it doesnt mean the bible is necessarily contradictory or wrong.

the deuteronmy passage i concede is a very powerful point. id guess that references individual deaths, like stoning someone cause his dad committed adultery. if it's a group sin punishment, that's different. you still can't get around all the examplesthat are inherent in christianity, noah, Jesus and God, adam and eve's kids, sodom an gamorrah etc.

it's possible christianity is true and these passages are false truths, but i see no reason why that necessarily must be so.
Debate Round No. 3
brett.winstead

Pro

I will quote you before I comment to make this less confusing.

"not much to say. you can't be the arbiter of truth, in that it's wrong because you say it is."

I never said I was the arbiter of truth but it is not difficult to recognize what is NOT true which is what this debate is about.

" i dont like it either, but it doesnt mean the bible is necessarily contradictory or wrong."

Except that it is contradictory. I have already shown that God punished people for the sins of others while showing in Deuteronomy that God is not supposed to do that. What exactly about this is not contradictory?

"the deuteronmy passage i concede is a very powerful point."

Exactly.

" id guess that references individual deaths, like stoning someone cause his dad committed adultery."

Which is exactly what God is not supposed to do according to his own law in Deut. 24:16.

" if it's a group sin punishment, that's different."

Again, there is no such thing as a "group" sin. A group is not of one mind. Only one mind at a time can decide to do right or wrong.

" you still can't get around all the examplesthat are inherent in christianity, noah, Jesus and God, adam and eve's kids, sodom an gamorrah etc."

Huh?

"it's possible christianity is true and these passages are false truths,"

With all due respect, did you read what you just wrote? False truths?

You did not answer nearly every issue I brought up from the opening debate to my last post. You have not said how a freshly born completely innocent child can commit a sin. You have not answered how a God who says he cannot lie did lie. You have been ignoring the cental issues of this debate. By me showing that God sinned by his own definition of sin, he cannot be a savior to anyone by being the perfect sinless sacrificial offering. If God cannot do that, then the Bible is untrustworthy and cannot be regarded as God's word to mankind.
dairygirl4u2c

Con

i think you should be giving my arguments more credence. but i admit they are stretching it.

i concede the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
brett.winstead

Pro

Ok, thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by brett.winstead 3 years ago
brett.winstead
Gordon, I would be happy to. Do you want to start the debate yourself and send me the challenge?
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
Yeah... seriously, if you want to actually debate this, I'm down.
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
@brett.winstead

I would love to discuss this topic with you.

Not so much looking for a debate where we try to convince one another,
but I would love to know where your view / questions come from.

I don't think dairygirl4u2c will give you a good debate.
I think she has strong faith and strong feelings, but I think you are looking to ask deeper and more philosophical questions.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
The debate is still not open to accept
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
The debate is still not open to accept
Posted by brett.winstead 3 years ago
brett.winstead
Siege, I changed the settings so you are allowed to debate. I was just trying to avoid the last person who accepted who did not debate the issue at all.
Posted by brett.winstead 3 years ago
brett.winstead
If it is so easy to debate, why not accept the debate? If God decided that a bedtime was righteous and holy to be 8:00 and he calls himself righteous and holy, then he, by his own definition of righteous and holy has to go to bed at 8:00 also. Otherwise, what is his standard of righteousness and holiness? If he already decided it was 8:00, then that is it. Now, see lying and murder. ConservativePolitico, are you trying to say that God can lie to you (maybe about your salvation) and murder your children and you will still sit back and say "well, that is ok because you are God but if I do it, that is a sin. I get it, God. I will do what you say but not what you do. You can do no wrong." That is truly sad if that is what you believe.
Posted by ClassicRobert 3 years ago
ClassicRobert
I'll take this debate.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 3 years ago
ConservativePolitico
-sigh- God made the rules, He made us. Why on Earth would he be held to the same standards? That's absurd. That's like saying, a parent gives their kid a 8pm bedtime then has the nerve to stay up until 11pm. How dare they break rules meant for their children!
Posted by lucidity910 3 years ago
lucidity910
Maybe God is a hypocrite and not bound by the laws he judges his creations with.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
brett.winsteaddairygirl4u2cTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded in addition to basing all arguments essentially upon semantics.
Vote Placed by Rational_Thinker9119 3 years ago
Rational_Thinker9119
brett.winsteaddairygirl4u2cTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. And airmax, try voting on debates that are not forfeits and concessions haha Do you ever vote on even debates, or just clear blow outs?
Vote Placed by airmax1227 3 years ago
airmax1227
brett.winsteaddairygirl4u2cTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.