The Instigator
twocupcakes
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Magicr
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

The Christian God is Immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Magicr
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,095 times Debate No: 24939
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

twocupcakes

Con

I will be arguing that the Christian God is moral. My opponent will argue that the Christian God is immoral. I will be defending the Christian God. 3 rounds, 72 hours, 8000 characters. Good Luck.

The Bible describes God as good and loving.

Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is GOOD; for His loving kindness is everlasting (Psalms 107:1)

Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the LORD and to His GOODness in the last days (Hosea 3:5).

John 4:8-10 (God is love; and how God showed His love)

The general consensus among Christians is that God is all good.

The churches describe God as all good. [1] Also, he is all powerful and all knowing.

God does good things for mankind

God gave men enternal life. Giving people enternal life is a nice thing to do. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3-16

God created men. It is good that God created us. He also created us because he loves us. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Genesis 1:26-27

Conclusion

By definition, the Christian God is all good. The churches and the Bible claim God loves mankind and is all Good. God have humans an afterlife and created us. The Christian God is a good moral God.

[1] http://www.sbc.net......
Magicr

Pro

I accept this debate.

Some Rules I would like to add:

1. Drops count as concessions.

2. No new arguments last round.

3. Failure to follow the rules results in a 7-point loss.

Definitions:

Moral- An action is moral if it benefits humanity.

God- The God that performed actions described in the Old and New Testaments.


BoP

The BoP is shared. I must prove that God is immoral, my opponent must prove that God is not immoral.

My case

My argument is this:

Only an immoral being would do X.
God did X.
Therefore, God is immoral.


In my first example, X will represent mass murder and genocide. These actions clearly have a detrimental effect on humanity. Performing these actions is an example of immorality.

God performed both of these actions, therefore, God is immoral.

As the tenth plague in the book of Exodus, God kills every Egyptian first born, merely because they are Egyptian [1]. This is mass murder of mainly children. These children were innocent, their only fault was to happen to be Egyptian.

Now, it may be argued "Well, the Egyptians were enslaving the Israelites, so they deserved it." This logic is extremely unsound.

First, just because the Egyptians were enslaving the Israelites does not justify the murder of their children.

Second, God does not condemn slavery. The Bible is full of references to slavery and, in fact, God sets down rules for owning slaves and gives instructions for properly selling one's daughter into slavery [2]. This initself is an extremely immoral act.

So, the reason God condemns the Egyptians is because they are not the Israelites. What a bigot! "It's all right to kill someone as long as they aren't an Israelite."

Not only does God kill all of the Egyptian first borns, but in 1 Samuel 15:3 God says:

"Now go, attack the Amalgamates and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. [3]"

This is certainly another immoral action: an example of genocide. God wishes to kill all of the Amalikites.

There are so many examples of immorality on the part of God in the bible, that they cannot all be discussed here. Here is a list of murders commited in the Bible. Notice not all of these are from the Old Testament:

http://www.evilbible.com...

Once this list has been digested, be sure to check out the other lists on this website which include Ritual Human Sacrifice, Rape in the Bible, and Slavery in the Bible. Also be sure to cross reference these in a bible you trust in order to see that this is not just stuff that is made up.

Con case

The Bible describes God as good and loving.

Please see the list of highly immoral actions. How is this loving?

The general consensus among Christians is that God is all good.

This does not make it true.

God does good things for mankind

In this section, my opponent makes several claims without justifying any of them. Why is giving eternal life good? Why is it good that God created us?

Conclusion

The massive amount of immoral acts by God contained in the Bible are absolutely astonishing. My opponent has not even justified why the acts he says are good are good. He has his work cut out for him.

God is certainly immoral.

[1]- http://www.biblegateway.com...

[2]- http://www.biblegateway.com...

[3]-http://www.biblegateway.com...

Debate Round No. 1
twocupcakes

Con

Rules

I am okay with a drop resulting in a 7 point loss. I don't think I will have to forfeit a round.

It is probably best not to make any new arguments last round, I suppose. But, can I make new arguments seeing as how you can respond to me?

Anyway, if someone breaks a rule, the voters should just be reasonable. For example, if someone introduces a new argument, just ignore the argument. just be reasonable. No need for a 7 point loss just for breaking a rule.

The 10th Plague

At first glance it seems that God caused all Egyptian first borns to die. However, this is not the case. Moses says “This is what the Lord says: ‘About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.[1]

It seems clear that God killed firstborns, however he did not. Lets get some context. The Egyptians were using the Israelis as slaves and treating them poorly. Since God is moral, he obviously did not want this to happen. God wanted the slaves to go free. The 10 plagues were naturally happening anyway. God/Moses just took credit for them to "scare" the Egyptians into letting them free. The Israelis won their freedom without a fight. A very moral thing to do. [2]

The 10th plauge could be caused by food pollution (locusts or black mold). First borns were given priority, making them more likely to die. Israelites ate quickly prepared food, so were not as affected. Also, first borns often were given the priveledge of sleeping closer to the floor. This could cause them to die of toxic gasses.[2]

It is unlikely God directly acted to cause the plagues. In modern day, there are very view instances of reported miracles/acts of God. Most natural explanations. There is little reason to think that God directly caused all firstborns to die. However, God knew that if Moses claims that God is responsible, the Egyptians will let the Israelites free. And it worked. They won freedom without a fight. Much like Ghandi [3]. And Ghandi is considered a very moral person.


Slavery

There are rules for holding slaves in the Bible. This makes it seem like God is pro-slavery. However, this is not the case. God is against slavery. But, God would rather have people treat slaves well then not. These rules have to do with treating slaves well. For example, giving slaves freedom after 6 years, his wife can go with him, he can stay with his family, care for female slaves.

You may say "Well, why did God just say, no slaves at all". This is a good question. You see, God likes humans to morally reason things for themselves. However, in this case God gave humans a little bit of guidance to treat slaves better. This guidance was interpreted into the Bible. God is very proud of the humans that helped abolish slavery. God likes when people know things without having to be told.

Samuel and Saul

At first glance it seems the request from God is immoral. Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” However, it is not.

The bible describes the Amalekites as extremely evil people that are enemies of God. The Amalekites were cruel and cowardly [4]. Nazis are compared to Amalekite [5]. Amalekites had to go. They were extremely evil. While God wanted all Amalekites to go, this did NOT mean that all children/women must be killed. By "put to death" God meant that the Amalekite ideology must be changed. It is a metephor.

Furthermore, God removes Saul from leadership after the war. Saul is war hungry. Saul does not fight for moral reasons. Saul plunders the valuables of the Amalakites and takes the Amalakite King prisoner. Saul feels powerful having the Amal King as prisoner. The Amalakite king is most responsible for evil and deserving of death,yet Saul does not kill him. Saul fought to "be powerful" instead of Justice. So, God removed Saul as King. God only condones violence for moral reasons. [6]

You may say that some innocents died in the War. Innocents die in every war. Innocents died to defeat the Nazis. God does not like this. However, God rewards the innocents with heaven.

Evil Bible Verses

The Bible cannot be taken literally. The Bible was inspired by God, but written by men. It also has been translated many many times. Things like "put to death" usually just mean something is generally bad. A lot of it probably did not happen or has been exagerated. It is important to have a spiritual relationship with God to help guide you. Not just the Bible. I can't defend all the verses (not enough room), but if you want to highlight a few, I would be happy to defend them.

The Bible describes God as good and loving.

By definition the Christian God is all good. God has not taken an immoral action. All his actions have been justified.

The general consensus among Christians is that God is all good.

While churches disagree on many things. They all agree that God is all good. The Churches are experts at describing God, and one of the most fundamental characteristics of Christianity is that God is all good.

God does good things for mankind


It is good that God created us, so we can enjoy life. If God did not create us, humanity would not have existed. My opponents definition of moral is, Moral- An action is moral if it benefits humanity. Creating life clearlt benefits humanity because it would not have existed otherwise.

Enternal life is great because it is very enjoyable. All pain, suffering, and tears will absent there (Rev. 21:4).Heaven is a enjoyable place where we can look down on the world. [7] Heaven is good because it is enjoyable. Enjoyable things benefit humanity. So heaven is good for humanity.

Conclusion

My opponent claims that God has commited immoral acts. However, he misinterprets the scripture. God did not cause the plaugues, Moses took credit for them to win freedom without bloodshed. God opposes slavery, yet sent a message telling people to treat slaves well. The Amalakites were evil and had to be defeated. However, God did NOt want innocents to die. Any innocents that died get heaven. While some bible passages sound evil, they are not. It is important to interpret correctly.

By definition, God is all Good.He is described this way by scripture, divine feelings, prophets and churches. There are many disagreementsabout Christianity, however it is clear that God is all good. God created mankind and gave us enternal life.

http://www.biblegateway.com...


http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://prorege-forum.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.biblegateway.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...(Christianity)
Magicr

Pro

Rules

That is fine.

The 10th Plague

If my opponent's quote was all that was mentioned about how the Egyptian's firstborns died, then he might be able squeeze by with his argument that it just was already happening and Moses took credit for it.

But this is not all that is said. In Exodus 12:12 God says:

"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn of both people and animals, and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt" [1].

This is not something that can be misconstrued. It is extremely clear what God says he intends to do. So because the 10th plague was not "naturally happening," we can see that it was not just Moses scaring Pharaoh into letting the Jews free. This event was God murdering innocent children.

Obviously the rest of my opponent's babbling about Ghandi is irrelevant because God was clearly directly responsible for the murder.

Amalekite Genocide

Even if we compare the Amalekites to Nazis, this would still not justify a genocide. It would not be right to kill all of the Nazi's children.

This verse is not a metaphor. That is very clear. It says nothing about their beliefs. It says:

"Now go attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep."

"While God wanted all Amalekites to go, this did NOT mean that all children/women must be killed"

That is exactly what God is saying. God says put to death the children and infants. The infants do not have ideals, so putting to death infants has nothing to do with ideals. God very deliberately commands for the children and infants to be killed.

Saul really has nothing to do with it. God called for genocide. End of story.

"You may say that some innocents died in the War. Innocents die in every war. Innocents died to defeat the Nazis. God does not like this. However, God rewards the innocents with heaven."

God is basically commanding the Israelites to do what the Nazis did. This is a highly immoral action.

And if God will just put innocents in heaven, then why does it matter if we kill innocent people at all? Won't they all just go to heaven? Murder isn't all that bad if the killed people just go to heaven.

But the main point is that genocide is bad for humanity, God orders a genocide, therefore God is immoral.

Evil Bible Verses

"It has also been translated many times. Things like "put to death" usually just mean something is generally bad."

Not really. For example, in Exodus 12:12 where God is saying what will happen to the Egyptians, he clearly means that he will kill the children. In fact, in the original language, Hebrew, He doesn't say put to death. In Hebrew he says "smite" [2]. Smite is even worse. That is pretty specific. Not just something generally bad. Smite.

A few of things for you to explain:

Deuteronomy 22:20-12- Kill an entire town if one person is preaching of another religion
Leviticus 20:10- Death for Adulterers
Deuteronomy 22:20- Death for women who are not virgins on their wedding night
Romans 1:24-32- Infidels and gays should die

As much as the words may be bungled about to try and make it seem like God is only saying that ideas should be killed, it really is very clear that this is just a pitiful attempt to cover over the horrendous things that occur in the Bible.

Con Case
The Bible describes God as good and loving

My opponent claims that God has not taken an immoral action. In order to prove this statement, he must explain how commanding a woman to be killed because she was not a virgin on her wedding night is a moral action, as well as all the rest of the examples I gave.

The general consensus among Christians is that God is all good.

Just because everybody thinks something doesn't make it right.

God does good things for mankind

But not everyone enjoys life. So is it still good for God to give someone life and terrible depression and they have to suffer through life wishing they were dead?

Conclusion

I have shown that the plagues were not just an accident that Moses took credit for. The Bible very clearly states that God is responsible. Just because the Amalekites were evil does not justify killing their infants.

"While some bible passages sound evil, they are not. It is important to interpret correctly."

I have shown that these Bible passages were evil. Also, my opponent provides no justification for why his interpretation is the correct interpretation. Nothing from scholars. Just his opinion.

God is obviously not omnibenevolent, as shown through his actions.

Sources:

[1]- http://www.biblegateway.com...

[2]- http://www.mechon-mamre.org...

Debate Round No. 2
twocupcakes

Con

The Bible can not be taken to be 100% literal and true, it must be interpreted. However, if it is taken this to be literal, it shows that God is all good.

My opponent takes passages from the Bible and understands them to be 100% true. The Bible was only inspired by God, but was interpretted and written by men. It also has be translated many times. Furthermore, if the Bible is taken to be 100% literal and true, it proves God is all good, because the Bible says that God is all Good many times. So, the Bible cannot be unsderstood 100% true and literal, but if it is it olny proves my point that God is all good.

If the Bible is taken to be 100% true and literal these passages are all correct.

Oh give thanks to the LORD, for He is GOOD; for His loving kindness is everlasting (Psalms 107:1)

Afterward the sons of Israel will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king; and they will come trembling to the LORD and to His GOODness in the last days (Hosea 3:5).

John 4:8-10 (God is love; and how God showed His love)

You might say that if teh Bible is 100% true than God did all the "evil" stuff so he is not good. This would just mean that the "evil" stuff was somehow good for a reason we cannot see. I will go on to explain what the "evil" verses actually mean.

10th plaugue

The exodus story was not written until after the fact. While historians agree that Moses lived aroud the 7th or 8th century BCE [1], the book of exodus was not written until the 6th century BCE, with revisions up until the 4th century AD. What was said in the Bible was not a clear account of what happened. There are very view modern documented cases of "acts of God". It seems that writers exagerated after the fact for a better story. It is most likely that God never acted, and the Jews just claimed God was responsible to gain freedom.

Furthermore God never says "I killed the firstborns". He says "I will kill them" this is future tense. Then the passage that describes the claims is written in third person. "At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt" [3].God never personally claims that he commited a killing.

The Jews won freedom without a fight. Much like what Ghandi did for India. This was a very moral strategy to gain freedom.

Amalekite Genocide

"Now go attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep."

Destroy andput to death generally just mean to "cleanse" or "liberate". God did not want the Amalekite children dead, he wanted them not to grow up to be Amalekites but good people. this can mean that God just wanted the Amalekites defeated. Not all dead. It is likely that not "every single" Amelekite died in the battle. God was only mad about not killing the Amalekite king, because the King represents the Amalekite ideology.


Also, according to a b Michael D. Coogan, A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament (New York: Oxford, 2009), 197 [4] Saul's soul was replaced with an evil spirit. Saul is the one that carried out the killings. God does not want unneeded death.


This is not like what the Nazis did. God just wanted Saul to win a war to stop evil people. The Nazis primary goal was to kill innocents, while God wanted the Amalekite king dead most, God wanted. God wanted to win a war not kill innocents. God did not order a genocide, but an attack on evil people.


Evil Bible Verses

My opponent says that put to death in original translaton means smite.

Smite- Defeat or conquer (a people or land).[5]

to strike or hit hard, with or as with the hand, a stick, orother weapon: She smote him on the back with her umbrella.
2.
to deliver or deal (a blow, hit, etc.) by striking hard.[6]

Smite does not always mean "kill" or worse than death.

Deuteronomy 22:20-12- Kill an entire town if one person is preaching of another religion
God is often used as an alogory for goodness. By foreign God, it means "foreign evil ideology". For example if people believed in God that commanded "evil" they will have to be "smited" or defeated. By "kill" all God just means to convince everyone to be "good" instead of evil.

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

This just means cheating is bad and cheaters should be punished. Again, this was written by man. The Holy Ghost spiritually told men that cheating was bad. They made a rule to "smite" or "defeat" those who cheat. Cheating is generally an immoral thing to do because it involves lying. The Bible also says that "Thou shall not kill".

Deuteronomy 22:20- Death for women who are not virgins on their wedding night

Again, this just means that it is bad for women not to be virgins. Birth control was not invented yet in the time this was written. If women had premarital sex, they would risk having a child without a father to help care for it. Fathers were more important back then, because most jobs were too labor intensive for women. Also, they risk STDs. This is a good guideline for girls to follow back in the day.

Romans 1:24-32- Infidels and gays should die "Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents."

While these people are also gay and infidels. Being gay/infidel is not the crime, it was just a description of these people. "wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip." are the crimes. It also NEVER says that these people should be killed, it just says God has a penalty for them.

The Bible describes God as good and loving

I have succesfully defended all seemingly "evil" examples of God. God is good and loving.

The general consensus among Christians is that God is all good.

Just because everybody thinks something doesn't make it right.


While just because everyone agrees with it, it does not make it right is true. The message that God is good is the MOST believed Bible passage. It is the only consistently clear passage. This is justificatoin for believing the God is good passagesover others.

God does good things for mankind

But not everyone enjoys life.

Everyone has a chance to find enjoyment through life. Some people do not get to achieve whether it be there own fault or others. However, a lot more pepole enjoy life. Should God cancle life just because a few people don't like it. Some people are born with different cards, however everyone has a chance. If someone lives a "moral" life without happyness, they will get happyness in heaven. Life and eternal life are beneficial to mankind.

Conclusion

My opponent takes the Bible to be "literal", however this cannot be done. Though, if it is done, it proves my case because the Bible clearly states that God is good. There are some seemingly "evil" passages in the Bible. So, either the "evil" passages are true or the good passages (cannot be both).

The "good" passages should be believed over the "bad" ones. The "good passages" are more recent ( most good passages are in the new testement and bad ones int he olds). The more recent a document is the greater chance it is of being true. Also, many good passages come from Jesus, who is God, as opposed to prophets, who are just prophets and can make mistakes. Clearly, the good passages have a greater chance of being accurate.

All "evil" passages my opponent presented have been defended. God is described as all good and he does good things for mankind. I urge a con-vote.
Magicr

Pro

In this final round of the debate, my opponent continues to make ridiculous, unfounded claims saying that words like kill don't really mean kill, they mean change.

He claims that if the Bible is taken literally, then it would show that God is all God. But by his own concession, humans wrote the Bible. So what if they mistakenly said that God was good when in reality he is not. Con provides no reason believe that the parts of the Bible that say that God is good are correct, while other parts that say that God is not good are not correct.

10th plague

"Furthermore God never says "I killed the firstborns". He says "I will kill them" this is future tense."

Saying you are going to kill a bunch of children is almost as immoral as actually killing them. The future tense does not make this a moral action.

"Then the passage that describes the claims is written in third person. 'At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt.' God never personally claims that he committed a killing."

Well, you know what else is written in third person? The parts of the Bible that say "He is Good," "God is love," etc. So when used to promote his position, it is alright for a part of the Bible to be written in third-person, but its not okay when it opposes his position. That's some logic right there. Not.

So if we are allowed to find out things about God from things that are written in third person (i. e. "God is good"), then we can say that God did kill the firstborns. The Bible very clearly lays that out. No nonsense: God struck down the firstborns.

"The Jews won freedom without a fight. Much like what Ghandi did for India. This was a very moral strategy to gain freedom."

I doubt Ghandi would have gone and killed a bunch of English kids so the Indians could be free.

Amalekite Genocide

"Destroy andput [sic] to death generally just mean to "cleanse" or "liberate".

Right. Not. Let's look at some definitions and synonyms:

Destroy-

1. to reduce (an object) to useless fragments, a useless form,or remains, as by rending, burning, or dissolving; injure beyond repair

or renewal; demolish; ruin; annihilate.

2. to put an end to; extinguish.

3. to kill; slay.

4. to render ineffective or useless; nullify; neutralize;invalidate.

5. to defeat completely.

Synonyms include annihilate, annul, blot out, eradicate, exterminate, kill, ravage, slay, and wipe out.

None of these definitions or synonyms even hint at words like "cleanse" or "liberate."

Put to death- to kill; execute.

Synonyms include abolish, do away with, exterminate, kill, slaughter, slay, wipe out.

(Source: Dictionary.com and Thesaurus.com)

Again, we see nothing at all about cleansing or liberating. Voters: Note my opponent's gross misuse of these words and please read the following Biblical passage with the proper definitions in mind.

"Now go, attack the Amalakites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

Nothing more needs to be said.

Evil Bible Verses

My opponent is using the incorrect definition of smite. When God "smites" someone, he is not hitting them, he is striking them down (dictionary.com definition 3).

Kill the entire town- this has already been discussed: Kill means kill, not convert.

Adultery: There is a huge difference between something being bad and something warranting death. Also, my opponent says that adultery is immoral because it involves, lying, but adultery does not have to involve lying.

Killing non-virgins: Something being bad does not equal death. If the holy spirit meant something other than death, he would have been more specific, because God knows what humans will do in the future, so he would know what they would write.

Romans: My opponent ignores the end of the section which says:

Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them" [1]. It's very clear what is being said here.

The Bible describes God as good and loving

"I have successfully defended all seemingly "evil" examples of God. God is good and loving."

Not so.

General consensus

"While just because everyone agrees with it, it does not make it right is true. The message that God is good is the MOST believed Bible passage. It is the only consistently clear passage. This is justification for believing the God is good passagesover others. "

My opponent contradicts himself. He says that the majority does not make the truth, but then he says that the God is good passage should be believe over others because most people like it.

Conclusion

Here is why voters should vote Pro:
In R1 I presented this logic:

Only an immoral being would do X.
God did X.
Therefore, God is immoral.

This logic was never challenged, and drops count as concessions.

In this debate I have shown that X can equal mass murder, and that God committed/ordered mass murder multiple times. Therefore, God is immoral. It is really as simple as this:

Only an immoral being would commit a mass murder of children.
God committed mass murder.
Therefore, God is immoral.

Vote Pro!!

Sources:

Dictionary.com and Thesaurus.com
[1]- http://www.biblegateway.com...


Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by twocupcakes 4 years ago
twocupcakes
(me speaking to God)

God: Hey, twocupcakes, defend me in a debate

Me: I dunno man, you have been accused of some suspect activity, it seems pretty pretty tough to do.

God: Just do your best man, I am God. I promise if you defend me, you will get votes.

Me: WTF God!
Posted by davidtaylorjr 4 years ago
davidtaylorjr
If I were able to vote, I would have to vote for Magicr even though I agree with Con's position, however, Con does not understand the concepts in the Bible and shot himself in the foot when he claimed that the Exodus story is not as written.

The Bible is the same today as it was originally, manuscripts prove this and the meticulous nature of the scribes of old insured a correct copy each and every time.
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
I think cupcakes should start a podcast called "Talks with God." i know I'd listen to it.
Posted by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
I'm surprised cupcakes didn't bring up God's command to rape the wife of some dude or another in the town square :P It would be interesting in his talks to god.
Posted by abstractposters 4 years ago
abstractposters
P: Some of them want to use you.
P: Some of them want to get used by you.

C: Some people want to universalize their terms of use.
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Lol
Posted by twocupcakes 4 years ago
twocupcakes
(me talking to God)

Me: Yikes God! You commanded Saul to wipe out an entire tribe including women and Children

God: Umm...

Me: Okay, Now I see! You then rejected Saul from being King! Good! You did this because he killed people right?

God: Umm...

Me: He disobeyed you because he killed people right?

God: Well...actually he disobeyed me because he did not kill enough people. He let a few people live. I kinda said kill ALL of them, you know. I did say ALL.

Me: WTF God!
Posted by Magicr 4 years ago
Magicr
Exactly my point :)
Posted by twocupcakes 4 years ago
twocupcakes
(me speaking to God)

Me: Don't worry God, I will defend you. I know maybe you have done some stuff in your past like a little sexism here or some slavery there, no big deal. You are still a pretty good guy. It's not like you went around murdering peoples firstborns? haha

God: Yeah, Actually,About that

Me: WTF GOD!!!!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by KRFournier 4 years ago
KRFournier
twocupcakesMagicrTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con undermined his own case with this liberal view of scripture. Instead of reconciling God's actions with scripture, he just arbitrarily selected those verses which were not literal, which means that the verses that mention God's goodness could be wrong also. Interestingly, all of Pro's objections have answers that do not require such strange exegetics, but Con chose the route that ultimately destroyed his own case.
Vote Placed by WMdebate 4 years ago
WMdebate
twocupcakesMagicrTied
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: I feel like Con is trying to have it both ways. If the bible is literal then saying he is going to go kill children is immoral. If the bible is not literal, then how can Con point to passages that say God is good and hold them as accurate? If the bible is not literal, then God might not be good, you couldn't rely on those passages because they are not literal. Also killing women for not being virgins on their wedding night sounds pretty bad. That would kill almost all the women in the US.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
twocupcakesMagicrTied
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: Con seemed to be grasping at straws toward the end. he admits that God would order genecide, then would use things like "The bible said he's good though" and "well, they might not have killed ALL of them". Pro proved that God acts against his own version of morality. I'm just scared that a biased voter is going to vote con just because Pro is saying their god is immoral -_-