The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
59 Points
The Contender
Galiban
Con (against)
Losing
35 Points

The Biblical Actions of the Christian God are Inconsistent with Its Biblical Attributes (et al)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 15 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,479 times Debate No: 6408
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (105)
Votes (15)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that the biblical actions and statements of the Judeo-Christian god are inconsistent with attributes ascribed to this entity in various parts of the same document. This includes inferences based on the proscriptions and orders of this entity. Also, it is impossible to know the character of God based on the Bible, as the document is inconsistent on some attributes of God's character.

For example:

Psa 103:8 - "The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy."
Lev 25:17 - "Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God."

From these two passages we would ascribe the following attributes to God:

1. Merciful
2. Gracious
3. Slow to anger (calm, rational, reasonable)
4. Against slavery and oppression.

*********************************

The following are five examples of inconsistencies between God's actions and ascribed attributes:

1. Opinion of Slavery

Lev 25:1, 17 - "And the LORD spake unto Moses in mount Sinai, saying... Ye shall not therefore oppress one another; but thou shalt fear thy God:for I am the LORD your God."

Gen 25:27a - "Let peoples serve you, and nations pay you homage; Be master of your brothers, and may your mother's sons bow down to you"
Lev 25:44 - "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."

2. Righteousness

2 Pet 2:7-8 - "And [God] delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;) "

Gen 19:8 - "Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof. "

3. Perfection of God's Law

Psa 19:7 - "The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple."

Heb 8:7-8 - "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:"

4. Merciful

Psa 103:8 - "The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy."
Exo 34:6 - "And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth,"

Jer 13:14 - "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."
Lam 3:43b - "Thou hast slain, thou hast not pitied."
1 Sam 15:2a, 3 - "Thus saith the LORD of hosts... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$."
1 Sam 6:19 - "And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

5. Warlike / Peaceful

Heb 13:20a - "Now the God of peace..."
2 The 3:16 - "Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all."
Rom 15:33 - "Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen."

Exo 15:3 - "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."
Psa 18:34 - "He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms."
Psa 144:1 - "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

**********************************

A short commentary on theses five subjects...

On Slavery.

It is held by Christians that one should treat others as you would wish to be treated, and that it is wrong to oppress, enslave, or discriminate against another person. In this set of verses, we see God state that oppression is wrong, yet tell the Hebrews that they "shalt have" slaves that are from the foreign nations they conquer. Obviously inconsistent.

On Righteousness.

Before the "God of Peace" smites Sodom, he has an argument with Abraham concerning finding righteous people in the city (Gen 18). Somehow God fails to find 10 righteous persons (babies, perhaps?) in the entire city, yet chooses to spare Lot and his family... Lot offers his virginal daughters to a lustful mob to be raped, and then later commits incest with both of them. Yet Peter calls Lot righteous, and God saved Lot from destruction... Obviously inconsistent.

On Perfection of God's Law.

Christians hold God's law to be infallible - some sects (Catholicism) hold the Vicar of Christ (the Pope) to be infallible in church teachings as well. Psalms states that the law of God is perfect, yet in Hebrews, we see God finding fault with the "first covenant" and being in need of a second... if the law of God is perfect, what was wrong with his law in the first covenant? Obviously inconsistent.

On Mercy.

Psalms states over and over again that God is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and full of kindness. However, in Jeremiah, God says, "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them." It is inconceivable to me how this can be seen as any brand of consistency. Furthermore, God occasionally instructs the Hebrews to commit genocide (1 Samuel 15), even including the women, children, and animals who cannot fight. This is not a merciful being. Obviously inconsistent.

On War and Peace.

Again, God is referred to repeatedly as the "God of Peace." But he is also referred to as a "Man of war." These two statements are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconcilable. Furthermore, the same God that preaches peace with one's neighbor somehow manages to teach the Hebrews how to kill their neighbors more effectively according to Psalms... Obviously inconsistent.

*********************************

Readers, this stems from a statement of Galiban's concerning the statements of the Bible and the assertions of Christianity:

"Would you then concede that Christians, though *they may be*… ignorant of the veracity of their Bible, they are not ignorant of the "Character" of their God as the Bible states it.... as you continue to suggest?"

I submit that without knowing the veracity of the Bible, it is impossible to know the character of God. And since the Bible is inconsistent, it is not possible to know its veracity. My opponent may attempt to explain away these inconsistencies as my construction of a straw man argument, but this is simply nonsense. These books are included in the Christian Bible = ergo, the consensus must be that they represent the views of Christians. Different sects of Christianity use different Bibles - this is good evidence for the fact that the inclusion of the books represents an endorsement of what the books say.

As we can see from reading the above quotes, the actions ascribed to God in the biblical books that Christian theologians have endorsed are inconsistent with the attributes Christians usually assign to God. If my opponent attempts to argue that BOTH these attributes are assigned to God, he has simply conceded the debate, because the verse pairs are obviously inconsistent.

The biblical actions of the Christian God are inconsistent with the biblical attributes ascribed to this entity. Thus, it is impossible to know if God is truly warlike or truly peaceful, and thus impossible to know God's character.

AFFIRMED.
Galiban

Con

Tarzan!
I see with all of those examples a belief that God completely contradicts himself and that we Christians are fools because we do not see it.

Well that "raises the question". Why have we all Christians throughout History who read the Bible in far more detail than people who do not believe, come to a different conclusion!?

It contradicts itself! Why for 2,000 years has the vast majority of Christianity not realized this? I mean some people who have studied and even memorized this Bible did not have a problem with this? So rather than go to people that clearly hate God and have no knowledge about Him, I went and asked God.

Now I realize in your first summation that you state: "My opponent will try to explain away these contradictions" However, by the very concept you and I are here to debate is a call for a response to an accusation. You are making an assertion that the Bible contradicts itself. If I can show you in these 5 things that God is not contradictory then I show that any other contradiction you put forth is more than likely out of context and without understanding. I asked for your 5 strongest.

Definition (Allowances) = God makes provisions for humans that are by nature sinners with systems that keep the sins from getting worse. God setup marriage so we do not run around raping women, small boys...etc.
First – There are three groups of people God is talking to. Jews, Gentile-Believers, Unbelievers.
Second – The Jews were given many laws and many "allowances" in the "Law" that was specifically for them and not reflective of the Character of God. (Example: You allow a Dog to eat on the floor out of bowl. He is a Dog. You will sit at a table eat with a fork and eat from a plate. With the Jewish nation, God was setting apart a people as special so that He could show all nations how to be good. However, He had to make allowances for their sinful nature.
Justin Martyr ( 2nd Century AD) said it great. Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 21:1-Ch 23:1) http://www.bombaxo.com...
The entire text brings out the reason for the Jewish Laws and why they appear to contradict God. Because of their constant rebellion they were "allowed" certain sins that were against the Character of God. I trust that one of the most revered men of all the churches will be sufficient for a credible source.
So At this point there is never a contradiction in the Bible. God is not talking out of both sides of his mouth… because we sin and he knows there are certain ones we could not overcome.

1.On Slavery!
We know from Exodus that it was not just going somewhere and kidnapping someone.
<"He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16)>
The same book of Leviticus you quote from gives rules on how those people sold themselves to pay a debt and the Hebrews were to be redeemed and foreigners could be kept until death. The Hebrews had to allow a fellow Hebrew free at Jubilee (7 year period).
Oppression, God was severely against. Slavery due to avoid starvation and poverty he was not. It was a viable option for that society and a source of provision for the conquered. It is wrong to lump in the sins of our fathers in this nation with the God of the Bible.
Slavery was allowed and God built a way to redeem from slavery. The Kinsman redeemer, is the way in which God pointed to his freeing all man from slavery. It is a spiritual precept brought out in the History of Israel. Please go here for full definition of the reason God used slavery to point to His Character.
http://www.hopeofisrael.net...
You will see that this concept is even pre-Israel and the Law being stated in the Book of Job. Everyone has a Redeemer and that type is brought out in Slavery and Israel.

2.On Righteousness
Just some clarity on this point… righteousness = pleasing obedience. This involves sinlessness but we all fall short of it. Only one man reached sinlessness. That was Jesus. You can be righteous and have failures. Jesus had no failures. It is the reason he could make the payment for everyone's failures (The Cross). It is the basic concept of Christianity. We trust in Christ for the payment of those failures. We then become obedient to His will for us. Hebrews 4:14-16 is a brief synopsis on the concept of Jesus, what He came to do and how we approach him and the reason we can approach God the Father now.
Babies do not count because everyone was born into Sin. It is the reason that Jesus was to be born of a Virgin so that He would not have the sin nature of Adam handed down to him.
http://therefinersfire.org...
3.Perfection of God's Law
We can again see in Jeremiah 31:31 that the Old vs. New Covenant was not because of God's inconsistency but because of "peoples". This relates to the above reasons of the Law. Ezekial 33:13 teaches that if you make a commitment to God and God promises to prosper you and you then turn and trust in that promise from God and do evil… He will not keep that promise because you did not keep your promise to him. As Justin Martyr pointed out, Christians understand the meaning of all of these things, Jews should have. They performed the acts of the Law but did not learn from them as they were called to do. Those "Laws" were perfect to "teach". That is how God's Law is perfect. Every context of God's Law being perfect is learning and teaching.
Points 4 & 5
You have a child. You are patient with his mistakes, forgiving him and teaching him with your rules how to do better, slow to anger and gentle in your dealings. But despite raising him well, to the best of your ability, that child grows to choose to do evil things. He steals, rapes, bullies, and takes from you to feed his own evil lusts. What relationship can you have with such a child? You must do all that you can to turn him from his evil; you cannot have mercy for his sins.
God is our Father, he is merciful and abounding in love for us when we follow his rules and are pleasingly obedient. But when we murder, rape, and generally wrong the people around us, he will stop us. He will deal with us accordingly.
Pointing back to Ezekiel 33 again. We see in that chapter a picture of an evil person that turns to good will live and be blessed by God. But a person who spent their entire life living good but then turns to evil will die. God will kill him, because he at some point started to disagree with God. All that person has to do is agree with God on the good things and start acting according to the Character of God.
< Luke 2:14"Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to men on whom his favor rests.">
We see again that God only came for those who had his favor. At this point you might ask who had God's favor? Those who are obedient, which we saw in Ezekiel 33, had peace with God. Not peace with the world but peace with God. Those who are obedient and good are at peace with God.
God is at war with those who are bad. He continues to discipline them and when they are really bad, God will wipe them out. The below link speaks directly to the Amalekites and several sub points.
http://www.christian-thinktank.com...
We see an example of God's patience in Genesis 15 but also of His judgement in the same verse. He waited a long time for those in Canaan to become fully evil and then used the future Generations of Abraham to wipe them out, 430 years later.


There are inconsistencies to God's Bible because God's standards (which He holds himself to) and those standards, which He holds us to, are in conflict. You have to read the full context of the Bible to understand. Those verses as you have seen are not backed up with understanding.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

First, it is necessary to rectify a few of my opponent's opening statements, as they are simply incorrect...

>> "If I can show you in these 5 things that God is not contradictory then I show that any other contradiction you put forth is more than likely out of context and without understanding. I asked for your 5 strongest."

CORRECTION - you asked for 10; I gave you 5 - I reserve the right to continue with 5 others... ("You challenging me will allow you to layout the top 10 things that you believe have the most weight towards our God being a "bad" God.").

>> "So rather than go to people that clearly hate God and have no knowledge about Him, I went and asked God."

Obviously, this is inadmissible as evidence because God is not an objective source by any means. Furthermore, God provided no recorded material, so any quotes from God are inadmissible.

**********************************

Additional Responses:

>> "God setup marriage so we do not run around raping women, small boys...etc."

This seems to be a ludicrous notion - monogamous relationships have been around for a very, very long time.

>> "The Jews were given many laws and many "allowances" in the "Law" that was specifically for them and not reflective of the Character of God."

None of which are the subject of this debate. I'm talking about "laws" and "allowances" concerning things like killing homosexuals and committing genocide, not things like eating only "clean" animals.

>> "Justin Martyr ( 2nd Century AD) said it great. Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 21:1-Ch 23:1 - The entire text brings out the reason for the Jewish Laws and why they appear to contradict God. Because of their constant rebellion they were "allowed" certain sins that were against the Character of God."

This makes no sense... just because some people have sinned it's OK to commit genocide? That's simply nuts. Furthermore, your own source highlights the contradictory nature of God's character - "Therefore, we must conclude that God, who is immutable, ordered these and similar things to be done only because of sinful men, and at the same time we confess Him to be sympathetic toward all men, prescient, needful of nothing, just, and good."

>> "God is not talking out of both sides of his mouth… because we sin and he knows there are certain ones we could not overcome."

So... in other words, God lays down laws he knows we will break and then punishes us for breaking them. Contradictory to a moral and just god...

*****************************
>>>
On Slavery.
>

My opponent's source on this issue has nothing to do with the actual issue - it talks about redemption of sins, not slavery. Furthermore, my opponent concedes that god was "severely against" oppression, yet not against slavery due to "avoid starvation and poverty." For some reason, he seems to think that conquering a nation and enslaving the people is not a form of oppression. The contradiction stands.

>>>
On Righteousness.
>

My opponent references Heb 4:14-16 as having to do with righteousness and the concept of Jesus.

The passage reads: "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need."

I see no mention of righteousness in this passage. The issue of God's righteousness revolves (for one point) around the fact that God spared Lot from the destruction of Sodom because he was a righteous and just man, even though he offered his virginal daughters to an angry mob to be raped, and then later committed incest with them. My opponent's argument on this section is a complete red herring.

>>>
On Perfection of God's Law.
>

My opponent has apparently not read Hebrews 8, as he completely misunderstands the quote. Here is a brief summary of Hebrews 8:

The writer is speaking of Jesus and how he fulfills the prophecies of a high priest that now "is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" and replaces the tabernacle that Moses constructed to honor the first covenant. Then the writer explicitly states that the second covenant is "a better covenant, which was established upon better promises."

God makes these covenants and the promises therein... if a better covenant is required, the first covenant was flawed in some sense. Regardless of who broke the covenant, if the law of God was perfect, a newer covenant could not be made on better promises because the first covenant would have been perfect by its nature of being God's law. Clearly, the contradiction remains.

>>>
On Mercy and War/Peace
>

My opponent makes the analogy of God:Man :: Parent:Unruly Child. However, he completely fails to address the issue that sometimes (by his analogy) the parent INSTRUCTS the child to do evil things. Was there something about the following that my opponent did not understand???

1 Sam 15:2a, 3 - "Thus saith the LORD of hosts... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$."
Exo 15:3 - "The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name."
Psa 144:1 - "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"
Exo 12:29 - "And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle."

God commands genocide, is explicitly referred to as a "man of war," teaches the Israelites how to kill people, and smites all the firstborn, even the little babies. What a merciful and peaceful god... Obviously this contradiction remains.

************************************

I would like to call the reader's attention to my opponent's following statement:

"There are inconsistencies to God's Bible because God's standards (which He holds himself to) and those standards, which He holds us to, are in conflict."

I thank him for conceding the debate.
Galiban

Con

"There are *perceived inconsistencies to God's Bible because God's standards (which He holds himself to) and those standards, which He holds us to, are in conflict."

You reposted in three hours. I feel kind of dirty. I must confess I do not believe that you read all of that information in a meaningful way. I wish to encourage you to reread all of that information and take some time doing so. To prove to you that you did not read= the quote you gave from Justin Martyr shows you did not understand the words that preceded the statement. He was teaching Jews in that they were contradictory.
The entire context showed that an intensely knowledgeable group of Jews did not respond because Justin made a great point. Why did they not pick that apart as you did? Please reread and take the statement in the context of the entire work. I realize some of this material is incredibly new to you.
I will try to summarize your rebuttal and point you in a direction that will aid you in restudying the information.
1.I said 10 but you choose 5 – Fantastic!
2.Marriage has been around for a very long time – The "allowances" are necessary for you to understand. We are not contesting the validity of the Bible, only the perceived inconsistencies that come from a lack of knowledge about the Bible.
God created Marriage as the Bible teaches. We are looking at how the Bible teaches the information that you need clarity on, not whether you agree with the content. God created systems that allow us to sin but stop us from the really bad sins.
See the story of David in the Bible. David raped BethSheba the wife of one of His mighty men. He then tried to trick him. Failed. Murdered him and seventy thousand others in the army just to cover up his sin. God called him out on it. God then stated you had so many wives, I would have given you more. Having more than one wife is a sin. God would have given David more wives to sate his lust to avoid him from doing a really bad sin, like rape which then led to murdering thousands. Hence God "appears" to contradict if you do not have knowledge of the situation.
3."The Laws and allowances are not a part of this debate" – As I just pointed out in the readdress of 3 that "allowances" for sin if you do not understand appear to show an inconsistency with God. It is not God who is inconsistent but rather man.
4."This makes no sense... just because some people have sinned it's OK to commit genocide? That's simply nuts." – The website should have clarified much of the information. Here is the flow of logic as an excerpt.
1.1. The biblical God CANNOT commit any unjust act (Authority: theological tradition)
2.2. God ordered the killing of children (Authority: biblical text)
3.3. The killing of children can never be a 'just' act, regardless of competing ethical demands in a given situation. (Authority: someone's personal moral intuition)
4.4. God, therefore , ordered an 'unjust act'. (authority: substitution of terms)
5.5. The ordering of an 'unjust act' is itself an 'unjust act' (authority: not sure--this is somewhat controversial in ethical theory, but I will grant it here for the purposes of illustration)
6.6. The biblical God, therefore, committed an unjust act. (authority: substitution of terms)
7.7. Therefore, the biblical God CAN commit an unjust act. (authority: from the actual to the possible)
You see in this a failing in the Logic of point 3. It is personal moral intuition you are pointing to. First, the Bible never commands Genocide in the true sense of the word. The link addresses that. Second, you are assuming that all of the acts of wiping out a people was a bad thing. You again did not look at the content to see the evilness of the people. God was patient in Genesis 15. He waited 430 years until they were completely evil i.e. so far gone they never would have repented.
To address Children you will see that God has no problem sending them to heaven. He just brings them home. Again, according the teachings of the Bible and not your personal belief system. http://therefinersfire.org...
5."So... in other words, God lays down laws he knows we will break and then punishes us for breaking them. Contradictory to a moral and just god..." - When you understand the principles in the Bible you come to understand that the letter of the Law was not the important thing but the spirit behind the Law was. Hence Jesus could summarize the Old Testament in two commandments. "Love God with all your heart mind and soul." And "Love others as yourself".

Though this next part summarizes your rebuttal to the content of my last post, I do not concede in any way that you understood a bit of the information I posted.
1.On Slavery – You did not understand the Website. Hopefully I can clarify for you. You who are unbelievers are "enslaved to sin". Redemption of Jesus Christ is redemption from Slavery. That is the purpose of the Kinsman Redeemer Laws. You will have to study up on the topic for rebuttal. What you posted lacked any knowledge on the subject.
2.On Righteousness – I "performed" a red Herring. I wish to point you back to the passage and the entirety of the book of Hebrews in the Bible. The passage in Hebrews 4 was meant to show you there are levels of Righteousness according to the Bible that you may have missed the first time you read the Bible. Jesus was without sin and had…perfect righteousness. Anyone else will inherently only be able to obtain a level of righteousness that is below that.
Your assertion that this is a contradiction comes from a lack of understanding not a problem with a discrepancy in the Bible as your other points do. Also it should be noted that God did not allow the daughters to be so molested.
3.On Perfection of God's Law – you did not address My point. I could be wrong but I think you dodged the point on the fact that people made the Old Covenant invalid and not God. That is what Hebrews the entire book is teaching. We now have a New Covenant that we cannot make invalid. Please reread the information and ask for clarity if I spoke in a confusing manner.
4. On Mercy and War/Peace – You did not address any of the content. I believe an issue would have been that you may have needed more than 3 hours to understand the information and website content. I would restate but I only have 8000 Characters. Please Reread.

All in all I desperately want you to understand my points not just pick them apart. You picking them apart only shows that you do not understand anything I said. You spoke without knowledge.
We have seen that:
1.Slavery is not an issue for God. God is concerned with your eternal welfare first and will use bad things to save you. Then He turns his attention to this life and your relationship with him. Basically get right with God or Bad things happen to you so that you will get right with God.
2.You do not have a clear understanding of righteousness. Lot was an "afflicted" righteous man. You did not know prior to this debate that the Bible teaches levels of righteousness and Lot was not accurate in desiring to send out his daughters to the mob.
3.You did not understand that People invalidated the Old Covenant by not keeping it. It is not an inconsistency in the Biblical teaching but a prepared New Covenant being laid out. Hebrews is teaching the Jewish people please remember the language will be directly suited to them.
4.God is merciful and patient, He waited 430 years for the Land of Canaan to become so destitute it needed to be wiped out. We see also that God wipes out all the Bad people. We also saw it is better for children to die and go to heaven and never reach the age of understanding to choose the evil the parent nations were doing. We saw also that a nation wiped out for its evil is a Just thing. God even wiped out the Jews for their evil though he did always maintain a small number of people to rebuild the population.
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Again, I call the reader's attention to my opponent's concession:

"There are inconsistencies to God's Bible because God's standards (which He holds himself to) and those standards, which He holds us to, are in conflict."

******************************************
Some responses:

>> "You reposted in three hours. I feel kind of dirty. I must confess I do not believe that you read all of that information in a meaningful way."

I'm not convinced you did either, as the information is obviously logically inconsistent and heavily biased with an apologetic tone.

>> "To prove to you that you did not read= the quote you gave from Justin Martyr shows you did not understand the words that preceded the statement. He was teaching Jews in that they were contradictory."

Actually, I'm pretty sure you're misreading the text. Regardless of how Justin Martyr explains the contradictions away, he still recognizes they are there. Here's more context...

"If we do not accept this conclusion, then we will fall into absurd ideas, as the nonsense either that our God is not the same God who existed in the days of Enoch and all the others... or that God does not wish each succeeding generation of mankind always to perform the same acts of righteousness. Therefore, we must conclude that God, who is immutable, ordered these and similar things to be done only because of sinful men, and at the same time we confess Him to be sympathetic toward all men, prescient, needful of nothing, just, and good."

Obviously, this logic is egregiously flawed. It basically says, "There is a conflict if we assume that God is righteous and murderous, so we'll just assume that our sins are the reason God wants us to commit genocide."

>> "The killing of children can never be a 'just' act, regardless of competing ethical demands in a given situation. (Authority: someone's personal moral intuition)... You see in this a failing in the Logic of point 3. It is personal moral intuition you are pointing to. "

God's moral intuition apparently includes the notion that it is morally acceptable to kill children.

>> "To address Children you will see that God has no problem sending them to heaven."

Oh - I see now... the fact that they'll go to heaven makes it all right to kill them... Right...

>> "When you understand the principles in the Bible you come to understand that the letter of the Law was not the important thing but the spirit behind the Law was."

What was the spirit behind the law to kill homosexuals? What about boiling a kid goat in its mothers milk? Or the spirit behind God's orders to commit genocide?

************************************************

1. On Slavery

My opponent asserts I didn't understand his source. As though there is something hard-to-grasp about the fact that God opposes oppression and orders people to conquer other nations and keep slaves. It seems I am not the one with any misunderstanding on this point. The notion that I need to study apologetic propaganda appalls me - the average Christian, whose notion of God we're dealing with, has undoubtedly not read OR understood this material. Furthermore, understanding of heavily biased works does not even answer the questions of the debate topic. The appeal to this kinsmen redeemer nonsense is simply a way of saying "God ordered them to sin and they sinned, but Jesus died for their sins, so it's all even in the end." This is ludicrous.

2. On Righteousness.

My opponent asserts components of righteousness present in a passage that talks about Jesus fulfilling a prophecy... Obviously he has not read the passage he references, or draws some bizarre understanding of the passage that is not supported by the actual language of the Bible. Furthermore, we're not talking about Hebrews - we're talking about God sparing Lot as a just and righteous man who offered his virginal daughters to a mob to be raped and the committed incest with them.

3. On Perfection in God's Law.

My opponent obviously does not understand the notion that God creates these covenants with man. It is immaterial who breaks them. If the covenant was perfect, there would be no need for a new one formed on "better promises." If the first one was perfect, there COULD BE no better promises. Ergo, the first covenant was not perfect; ergo, the law of God is not perfect.

4. On Mercy in War/Oeace.

My opponent asserts that I did not address any of his content in his source. Consider that his source explains away the notion that the outrageous butchering of the Amalekites was not genocide because it was not "ideological, retributive, developmental, or despotic." However, it is quite clear that an order from God commanding genocide is ideological in nature. Furthermore, the article attempts to get God off the hook by claiming that there is no moral absolute preventing killing of children - as though this has any import for the genocide of the Amalekites... If genocide is wrong, God commanded evil.

On top of this, the article states that "God was outraged at Egypt's infanticide, at Canaanite and Israelite child sacrifice, and at the abandonment of unwanted newborns in the desert by wandering nomadic tribes" - an unusual position for a God that kills babies and is supposedly "slow to anger" to take.

The article's conclusion states:

1. "The case of Amalek does not conform to known patterns of genocide, and therefore cannot legitimately be so called."
2. "The Amalekites had a long and violent history of aggression against early Israel (and other nations as well), raiding, plundering, and kidnapping them for slave trade."
3. "The only two choices were leave them to die slowly/agonizingly or kill them quickly/violently."

The first statement is nonsense considering the fact that an order from God qualifies as ideological genocide. The second statement qualifies the action is retributive genocide, and the third statement simply reinforces the notion that this was indeed a slaughter... a slaughter that included the women and children, right down to the last ox and a$$.

Clearly not genocide by any means...

********************************
More Responses:

>> "You picking them apart only shows that you do not understand anything I said. You spoke without knowledge."

My opponent keeps stating this without any evidence for it - I understand his reasoning perfectly. It just happens to be egregiously flawed, which is why I pick apart his points.

>> "Lot was an "afflicted" righteous man. You did not know prior to this debate that the Bible teaches levels of righteousness and Lot was not accurate in desiring to send out his daughters to the mob."

What the deuce is an "afflicted" righteous man?? This doesn't even make SENSE. Lot was inaccurate in sending his daughters to the mob? Inaccurate? Again - this is just nonsense.

>> "You did not understand that People invalidated the Old Covenant by not keeping it."

Yes I did - I explicitly addressed this point.

>> "Slavery is not an issue for God. God is concerned with your eternal welfare first and will use bad things to save you."

Obviously if he uses "bad things," he commits evil.

>> "God is merciful and patient, He waited 430 years for the Land of Canaan to become so destitute it needed to be wiped out."

Oh I see - God waited around till genocide was as bad as it COULD have been. How considerate.

******************************

My opponent has done utterly nothing to refute my claims - he simply asserts I don't understand and offers flawed logic for an explanation. Ladies and Gentlemen, the debate is clear.

AFFIRMED.
Galiban

Con

You went through each of the points and just stated you did not like what I had to say or did not understand it. That so called "propaganda" shows that I am in line with Christian beliefs. The "propaganda" is the direct teachings from Christianity that shows you are taking Bible quotes out of context.
To quote you below:
"The notion that I need to study apologetic propaganda appalls me - the average Christian, whose notion of God we're dealing with, has undoubtedly not read OR understood this material."
At least you concede you did not read it and understand it. As well I have a Degree in Biblical Theology pending a Masters Graduation. I assure you I understood it.
All of those teachings show that for 2000 years Christians have been able to understand what the Bible teaches and there is no real contradiction. So I'm supposed to believe that in your relative few years of study, less than two probably, you have undermined all Christianity? While confessing that you didn't even adequately study it? You did not read the Christian "propaganda". You do realize that you are confessing knowledge without study. You are saying you somehow inherently know that Christians are wrong. You have not read the bible or Christian teaching to even be able to adequately defend against my address of your points. Do you see the problem with what you are suggesting?

Listen to what you are suggesting about the context of Justin Martyr.
1.Somehow for 2000 years Justin Martyr was misunderstood until this very debate. If only you had come sooner…
2.The Jews he was dialoguing with were silenced cause Justin was stupid? rather than spending two chapters making a great point.

Lets look at what really happened here.
1.Just like the Bible you did not understand, you did not understand what the 2 chapters leading up to the statement you posted.
2.You took Justin Martyr out of context just like the Bible.
3.You spent another 5 hours and "figured out" Justin Martyr was wrong.
4.Justin spent two days quoting scriptures to Jews and showing them* that they were inconsistent. Justin Martyr was a Greek Philosopher and wraps up with a rationalized argument, showing that the Jews thinking was contradictory, which you did not understand.
5.That argument is what you were supposed to read in the two chapters… it is showing the contradictory appearance was due to the JEWS, Not God. The Jews understood this and had no response! You are just trying to win a debate by using bad tactics at this point.

You are just saying you disagree with what the Bible teaches and that makes him a Bad God.
I have shown that there are teachings in the Bible that show God is not contradictory. I have used an outside text with Justin Martyr to point to the failed understanding of the Jews for centuries.
You are doing the same thing they are. At least Trypho realized it.

St. Paul teaches the same concept as Justin Martyr, in the Book of Romans.
Rom 2:23-24
23 You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24 As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you(Jews)."

The Bible is speaking to different people at different points in time.

Let me sum all of that information up for you with a storyline.
Your father loves your mother the day the are married. They make a vow to be together always. He says to her. "I will love you forever, if you love me forever."

20 years later your mother leaves your father. You do not know why but she is gone. Your father states to her. "Return to me and I will forgive you."

25 years later your mother murders "you" the spawn of your father because she hates him so much. Your father states, "You will be punished for your evil."

The Husband was not the problem. If you do not know the whole story and only quote the first and last statement from the husband you miss all that happened. Get it?

This is that linking verse that shows God is abounding in love but also punishes the guilty.

Ex 34:6-7
6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."
I want you to realize that you are deliberately being obtuse. You do not want to admit that you are forced to concede in all the 5 points. Each one showed that the God of the Bible is not** inconsistent with His attributes. Your lack of knowledge as in the case of the Jews is the inconsistency. I used an author who has a great understanding of the Bible and the time and history in which it was written.

The above concept (the concept of misquoting and taking out of context) solves all of your personal arguments save 2:

God allows slavery. This is oppression.
God orders the death of Children. This to you is always morally wrong.

Realize you are not addressing the content that addressed the assertion. You are just boiling it down to saying I am ludicrous for believing what the Bible is teaching. This does not prove that the bible is not teaching what I am saying it does. You would have to refute all of those sources including Justin Martyr.

First of all, God uses the bad things that people do to each other. The bad situations cause people turn to him, to turn to God is ultimately the end result God is shooting for. God commanded Babylon to conquer Israel because of the utter depravity of Israel (The book of Habakkuk) God then restored Israel (Pslam 126) and that restoration evangelized the nations. Everyone knew God's glory and justice.
God wants people to do good things, but when they are evil and do bad things, He will command a bad situation as punishment and use it to teach all people about Him. It worked out for the good. (Restoration of Israel and the evangelization of all the nations in Babylon) This was the summary of the "propaganda" you did not read.

Second, Christians are slaves of God.
"1 Cor 6:19-20 You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."
We have no problem being considered slaves. God owns us. He bought us for a price. If it does not feel like oppression and gives me immense joy and peace… then maybe I am accurate whereas you fail to have a clear perspective.
You are linking Oppression with Slavery. You are sadly mistaken that slavery could be ONLY a bad thing. In the same way Daniel served Nebuchadnezzar as second in command of the whole Kingdom, I serve Jesus Christ. That might make me an idiot but that Shows you are wrong on your point.

To quote you on the Death of Children:
"God's moral intuition apparently includes the notion that it is morally acceptable to kill children."
"Oh - I see now... the fact that they'll go to heaven makes it all right to kill them... Right..."

Exactly. You do not have to agree with it. You simply must concede that the teaching in the Bible no way detracts from God's character…as the Bible states His Character. He wants to really save them for all of eternity. It is better that they should die as babies than to grow up and become evil as the Amalekites were. That was also addressed in the "Propaganda". The bible teaches that God prefers that Children die, go to heaven rather than be born into a horrible society to then perpetuate even more evil.
Why is that a Bad God? I would totally prefer the death of my son as a child then have him spend an eternity in hell for raping 30 women.
The topic of debate did not state the Bible was subject to your OWN moral standards. Only that the Bible was inconsistent in those morals that were already stated in the Bible.
I have reconciled all of your points here again and restated it in a different way.
Perhaps this has guided you more clearly?
Debate Round No. 3
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

Some Initial Responses:

>> "You went through each of the points and just stated you did not like what I had to say or did not understand it."

This is blatantly false - I went through your points and showed the logical flaws and semantic loopholes your sources attempt to use to explain away contradiction.

>> "At least you concede you did not read it and understand it."

Again - blatantly false. I never said I didn't read it. In fact, I did read it and found it full of nonsense and logical flaws.

>> "As well I have a Degree in Biblical Theology pending a Masters Graduation. I assure you I understood it."

But apparently not a degree in English... Your credentials are completely immaterial.

>> "All of those teachings show that for 2000 years Christians have been able to understand what the Bible teaches and there is no real contradiction."

A creative, but deliberate misinterpretation. The fact that Christians, even unilaterally, believe something does not indicate that it is correct.

>> "So I'm supposed to believe that in your relative few years of study, less than two probably, you have undermined all Christianity?"

Christianity undermines itself. Nothing I'm positing is new information.

>> "You have not read the bible or Christian teaching to even be able to adequately defend against my address of your points."

Funny story about how you have not provided any original argumentation, yet continuously rehash the same nonsense for all points.

>> "Somehow for 2000 years Justin Martyr was misunderstood until this very debate. "

Except that the points that Justin Martyr talked about have been a source of contention for 2000 years... it's only Christians that view them as true.

>> "it is showing the contradictory appearance was due to the JEWS, Not God. "

This is a silly notion, as Christian understanding of God stems from Jewish understanding. Jesus simply replaced many of the contentions of the Old Testament with new phrases. If there is a difference between Judaism and Christianity in the nature of God, that proves the resolution - that there ARE inconsistencies!

>> "I have shown that there are teachings in the Bible that show God is not contradictory. "

False - you have given poor explanations that rely on bizarre understandings of passages and ignore diametrically opposing texts.

>> "You are doing the same thing they are. At least Trypho realized it."

A wonderful ad hominem. Congratulations - your argument is still uncompelling.

>> "This is that linking verse that shows God is abounding in love but also punishes the guilty."

Were the firstborn in Egypt guilty? The babies in the city of Sodom? The babies washed away by the flood? What were they guilty OF??

>> "I want you to realize that you are deliberately being obtuse. You do not want to admit that you are forced to concede in all the 5 points."

I show diametrically opposing passages that you explain away with bizarre understandings and logical fallacies, yet you consider my understanding to be obtuse? How strange...

>> "God allows slavery. This is oppression."

CORRECTION - God mandates slavery. Leviticus says "SHALL" and not "MAY."

>> "God orders the death of Children. This to you is always morally wrong."

Apparently it is not to God...

>> "Second, Christians are slaves of God. 1 Cor 6:19-20"

That passage is about willing obedience, not slavery... Besides - I thought God created us - who did he buy us from? This passage is a complete non sequiter.

>> "You simply must concede that the teaching in the Bible no way detracts from God's character…as the Bible states His Character."

You mediocre dunce! The Bible is obviously inconsistent in its statement of His Character!!!! Is there something confusing to you about this:

2 The 3:16a - "Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means."
Psa 144:1 - "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

>> "Why is that a Bad God? I would totally prefer the death of my son as a child then have him spend an eternity in hell for raping 30 women."

Why is that a "Bad God?" He teaches the Israelites "to war" and their "fingers to fight" yet gives "peace always by all means?" One of these passages is wrong, or the author is a liar.

>> "The topic of debate did not state the Bible was subject to your OWN moral standards. Only that the Bible was inconsistent in those morals that were already stated in the Bible."

And it is obviously inconsistent even by those standards. Again - is there something difficult to comprehend about a God that abhors oppression, yet commands slavery? Obviously inconsistent.

>> "I have reconciled all of your points here again and restated it in a different way."

Actually, you haven't really addressed any of the points in a meaningful way.

******************************************

Readers, it is with only cursory examination that my opponent's main sources (Justin Martyr and the piece concerning genocide) are revealed to be heavily biased and dancing around the issues like a shaman around a festival blaze. My opponent has provided no meaningful argumentation on the topics at hand, which are briefly outlined again below:

On Slavery.

It is held by Christians that one should treat others as you would wish to be treated, and that it is wrong to oppress, enslave, or discriminate against another person. In this set of verses from Round 1, we see God state that oppression is wrong, yet tell the Hebrews that they "shalt have" slaves that are from the foreign nations they conquer. Obviously inconsistent.

On Righteousness.

Before the "God of Peace" smites Sodom, he has an argument with Abraham concerning finding righteous people in the city (Gen 18). Somehow God fails to find 10 righteous persons (babies, perhaps?) in the entire city, yet chooses to spare Lot and his family... Lot offers his virginal daughters to a lustful mob to be raped, and then later commits incest with both of them. Yet Peter calls Lot righteous, and God saved Lot from destruction... Obviously inconsistent.

On Perfection of God's Law.

Christians hold God's law to be infallible - some sects (Catholicism) hold the Vicar of Christ (the Pope) to be infallible in church teachings as well. Psalms states that the law of God is perfect, yet in Hebrews, we see God finding fault with the promises of the "first covenant" and being in need of a second... if the law of God is perfect, what was wrong with his law in the first covenant? Obviously inconsistent.

On Mercy.

Psalms states over and over again that God is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and full of kindness. However, in Jeremiah, God says, "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them." It is inconceivable to me how this can be seen as any brand of consistency. Furthermore, God occasionally instructs the Hebrews to commit genocide (1 Samuel 15), even including the women, children, and animals who cannot fight. This is not a merciful being. Obviously inconsistent.

On War and Peace.

Again, God is referred to repeatedly as the "God of Peace." But he is also referred to as a "Man of war." These two statements are diametrically opposed and cannot be reconcilable. Furthermore, the same God that preaches peace with one's neighbor somehow manages to teach the Hebrews how to kill their neighbors more effectively according to Psalms... Obviously inconsistent.

*********************

The biblical actions of the Christian God are inconsistent with the biblical attributes ascribed to this entity. Thus, it is impossible to know if God is truly warlike or truly peaceful, and thus impossible to know God's character.

AFFIRMED.
Galiban

Con

Please be patient with me and allow me to summarize how I view your response:
Two men are walking. One picks up a stone and throws it up in the air, accidentally smacks himself on the head and states "Should have seen that coming, what goes up must come down!"
The second man guffaws "What the heck is that supposed to mean?"
The first rubs the now large bump "Its called Gravity."
The second responds sarcastically "suurre."
The first asks with a queer overcast look "You never heard the definition what goes up must come down?"
The second responds, "That simply isn't true. There is no such thing as Gravity and not everything that goes up must come down. I can point to birds. They go up but they do not have to go down. The Moon is always in the sky. So is the sun! Heck even clouds go floating by! You are a silly person."
The first is aghast "It's a simple definition to explain a much larger concept. Do you not know about Stellar Bodies Gravitational pulls, aerodynamics and how birds fly? Do you not know the earth's water cycles?"
The Second "You do not know what you are talking about. Silly Gravitational propaganda."
The first stutters "But, wait I will explain all of these things to you." And the first proceeds to attempt to explain.
The Second man states "Riiight. There is no proof, prove the mystical "stellar forces" that keep the moon in the sky."
The first gets excited "Well you see…." He then details the mathmatics and detailed information.
The second replies in an obtuse fashion. "That is so ridiculous all of that is unverifiable!"
The first states with a "But you did not even try to research what I just told you. You did not do the math for yourself. Others have done tons of studies! If you actually try to verify gravity you will see it exists!"
The second states "You are not worth talking to silly man."

Can you guess which of the two you fall in line with? You have not even researched the understanding I have displayed.
We Say "Jesus Loves you"
We Say "Jesus Paid for all the bad things you have done"

You have no idea the bigness that is inherent in those simple definitions.

1.On Slavery
You state things like "Kinsman Redeemer what a Silly Concept!"
(I say this with no malice but with a pleading tone)
But it's a biblical one. Did you know that?
Lev 25:48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. One of his relatives may redeem him: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself.
This applies to slavery in the biggest way.

2.On Righteousness
You state "Lot was not Righteous for what He did!"
People can be more righteous than others… Did you know that?
Matt 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
(Again begging, pleading)
There is a righteousness that does not come from sin but from faith…. Did you know that?
Rom 9:30-31 "What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith"

1.Perfection of God's Law
You state "God had to do away with the first Covenant. It could not have been perfect!"
The first perfect covenant stated it would go away and the second one would be coming, the first was perfect because it pointed to the second…. Did you know that?
"Jer 31:31"The time is coming," declares the LORD,
"when I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah"

2.Merciful Warlike/Peaceful
You state things like "God said he was merciful, but demands war!"
God is abounding in mercy for those that stop doing the bad things and start doing the good things, but He will always punish the guilty…. Did you know that?
Ex 34:6-7 "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished"

You state things like "God states He is a God of peace but He also states He is a God of war."
God is only at peace with those who do good things… Did you know that?
Luke 2:14 "Glory to God in the highest heaven," they sang, "and peace on earth for all those pleasing him."

You state "God ordered the women to be killed, heck everyone was wiped out!"
Rahab was a woman, in fact a prostitute, she chose God and not the evil people she was living with, choosing God is what saves you… Did you know that?
Josh 6:17 The city and all that is in it are to be devoted to the LORD. Only Rahab the prostitute and all who are with her in her house shall be spared,

You state "God kills off Children!"
So do we when we reject God… Did you know you are personally responsible for the result of your Children's lifestyle; children are punished corporately for the choices of their nation?
Ex 34:7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

You state "yeah but no matter what you say God ordered* the death of Innocent Children!!! What is more innocent than a naked Baby!!!"
You have no idea that God punishes the Innocent for the sake of the Guilty. It is what Jesus did for us. He was completely innocent but He paid the price for us. What is more innocent than a Holy Righteous God?
Every Christian is swayed by this statement: If the innocent cannot die for the sake of or under the punishment of the guilty under God's justice, then the sacrifice of Christ could not be permitted either.

God also ordered the Death of Christ. He did this so we all may live.

You have sinned. You have stolen, lied, lusted after bad things. Do you think, if you were judged by the standards of a Holy God do you think you would go to heaven or hell?
Imagine that you stand in front of a Judge.
You have committed a horrible crime. The Judge levies a fine of 1 million dollars.
There is no way you can pay that fine. You are going to jail for a very very long time.
You say to that Judge "Your Honor, because you are a good man I know you will forgive me and let me go."
The Judge will respond to you "Because I am a good man, I have to serve justice. You must pay for your crime! I cannot let you go. You committed a horrible act. You must pay."
Just then your Older Brother comes into the room. He is your kinsman and states: "I will pay that fine sir!
Just anyone the Judge could ignore, but your innocent older brother will pay your fine.
That is what Jesus did for us. The Judge will listen

In conclusion: You stated I "performed" an ad hominem in regards to your lack of knowledge like Trypho. Ad hominems are always invalid in syllogistic logical arguments.

However we are making judgments from evidence. That invalidity does not apply.

In the weight of the evidence placed in the debate all you have rested on are supposed "logical arguments". You keep shooting out "logical" terms as though I am performing all of these supposed invalid tactics. I am just showing you one where you are wrong.

On the evidence, I did not rest on my degree that was stated for clarity.

I rested on the most reliable source in Christianity in regards to biblical interpretation, Justin Martyr.
Justin Martyr lived in Greece in the same era as Christ. There was not an exegetical debate in his time as to what the Greek meant. His interpretations of Scripture have stood the test of Time. Christians throughout History have affirmed his understanding.

You quoted no source for your understanding. I am certain I can find a website that would agree with you, but they are not held as an authority on Biblical interpretation.
Debate Round No. 4
105 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I'm not sure what you mean by moral theory... I'm not putting forth a moral theory here - just showing inconsistent actions with ascribed anthropomorphic traits...
Posted by Valtarov 6 years ago
Valtarov
Tarzan, care to debate this? Your moral theory is seriously flawed.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
BTW Tarzan you still have not responded to all of this content that shows you did indeed take all of those scriptures out of context.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Psa 144:1 - "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

Ps 144:11 Deliver me and rescue me from the hands of foreigners whose mouths are full of lies, whose right hands are deceitful.
-Deliver me? What didn't the first verse say He was going to teach me to fight?
-Verse 8 and 11! Oh It is my enemies God will teach me to subdue.
-The whole psalm teaches me to rely on God and let God fight for me in the proper way. When I do as verse 2 states and take refuge in God my enemies in verse 8 and 11 are subdued by God and verse 11-14 shows I have peace.
-Wow that was context! This verse is not talking about actual war but reliance of a nation on God to aid them in dealing with surrounding nations. Directly applied to a personal application.

2 Cor 10:3-5 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
-Wow, hear we are not warriors but we war against false arguments! Our weapons are knowledge, reason and logic.

Eccl 3:1-8
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

The Bible states there is a time for war. God gives rules on war, and peace. Now that we understand the context that the Bible is talking about different things at different points in the Bible what should our conclusion be?
That you are right or did you understand all of that "knowledge"?
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Matt 10:34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace , but a sword.
-Violent God?
Luke 12:51-52 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
-Luke 12 is the parrellel passage in the Gospel of Matthew we see above. Oh the sword is not him but the message! It will split people apart even families! This is a completely different teaching than what John is contextually referencing.
-God does teach us to fight when he wills it but these verses are not talking about that. A whole different concept being relayed with an analogy of cleaving with a sword.
-Another verse that backs up this understanding is below.
Heb 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword , it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-The bible is the message and the Word of God is the Bible. I see now. It will cleave like a sword.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Tarzan
I will use your "inconsistent" contextual statements. It will take a couple of posts.
2 The 3:16 - "Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all."
Psa 144:1 - "Blessed be the LORD my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:"

OOOO Damning! Outright Idiot God. Now watch this. You gave us the first verse below and Ps 144:1

2 The 3:16 - "Now the Lord of peace himself give you peace always by all means. The Lord be with you all."
-Hmmm.

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
-Uh oh, He gives peace that is not like the worlds?

John 16:33 "I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace . In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."
-Ah! I am beginning to understand. I will still have trouble but be content in it? So in the same book two chapters apart John is teaching that we will still have trouble but have a different kind of peace. So when Paul is stating Lord of peace He is not referencing the Lord of no war.
Interesting.
God does say you will have peace (cessation from war) but this is not talking about that. Interesting.
Posted by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
Tarzan,
>> "All things being equal we must go to those who are held as an authority on biblical interpretation."
"So in other words, when all else is equal we must listen to people that say there is no contradiction in diametrically opposite statements?? Wow..."
Exactly, you do not listen to your 10 year old sister on how to handle a marriage. Even though she is quite certain men and women cannot get along. She has never seen a successful marriage in her 10 years of life.
If we apply your logic then she must be as good as say a marriage counselor? That is the definition of appealing to an authority. I am showing we cannot appeal to the interpretation of people who have no knowledge.
I am blown away that you are NOT conceding, understanding and agreeing on such a basic logical premise.
You can agree with the Ten year Old Marriage Savant all day long but no one you try to convince will agree.

"Which is not what was said - you argue that my interpretation skills are not equal to Justin Martyr's"

That is exactly the same thing and more. I am arguing your interpretation skills are not equal to Justin Martyr's...BECAUSE you do not have knowledge. Noone is a good resource to go to who only has "snippets" of the Bible. When you say," I see contradictions". I respond to you stating, "Did you know, this and this and this and that?"
You do not say "wow I did not know that. Let me consider."
Instead you just cry foul, I am a fool and state you did not have to know that.
Posted by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
"> Infinite singularity is not a stable state, the universe cannot exist in infinite singularity therefore it will expand again: Big Bang"

Evidence?
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> ""People say that time began when the Big Bang started." > It did..."

Not exactly - time is just a type of measurement, just like meters. Can one say that meters began when the Big Bang started? Not really, I don't think...
Posted by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
"People still didn't think that there was a previous universe before the Big Bang."
> Which people? Einstein thought that there was a previous universe before the Big Bang and many other scientists hold the same views... most other people could care less.

"People say that time began when the Big Bang started."
> It did...

"When a universe collapsed, it would become a Black hole singularity for eternity, not a Big Bang one."
> Infinite singularity is not a stable state, the universe cannot exist in infinite singularity therefore it will expand again: Big Bang :).
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 
Vote Placed by SeekandDestroy 8 years ago
SeekandDestroy
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by xylosma 8 years ago
xylosma
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 
Vote Placed by jess_ily 8 years ago
jess_ily
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 
Vote Placed by mastajake 8 years ago
mastajake
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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 
Vote Placed by Daniel18 8 years ago
Daniel18
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
JustCallMeTarzanGalibanTied
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