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

The Christian God is demonstrably evil therefore not a reliable source of salvation/afterlife

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2010 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,399 times Debate No: 11209
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (50)
Votes (1)




I propose that the God of the Christian bible is demonstrably evil and as a result shouldn't be trusted for salvation, or an afterlife.

For this debate both must agree to argue within the confines of traditional Christian doctrines surrounding God, Hell, Lucifer, Free will, and Salvation whether via works or grace or a combination of both. In other words no Jehovah's Witness doctrines, no Mormon doctrine and sorry Scientologists, you are out too.

I agree to suspend my disbelief in God and revert back to a state of faithful belief in God, but with an objective opinion of his biblical behavior and nature.

In essence I will be a very naughty boy arguing against God's claims of benevolence, using his own words and claimed behavior from the bible.

To kick things off, I would like to submit the account of Noah and his Gofer wood boat. While God was being very nice to Noah and his immediate family and to an enormous amount of creatures unaccountably housed on a boat without steel support beems, he was simultaneously being quite evil indeed to all those without tickets to the 120 day cruise. Whether half human/half Nephilim toddlers striving to stay afloat as their parents abandoned them in an attempt to find higher ground, or goats tethered to their pen as the torrent rose higher and higher, or Galapagos finches trying to stay on the wing until their little evolved hearts gave out and they plummeted into the ordained flood waters, its hard to argue that God's restart was anything other than evil committed against innocents along with the guilty.

God's over-reaction and attempt to restart the world with a better breed of human, despite his foreknowledge of how the antediluvian would turn out is clearly an indication of his interest in creating suffering and his evil nature.

That evil nature renders his offering of salvation from his notion of justice untrustworthy.

Holy Bible
New International Version
Genesis 6-7
Specifically God's nature expressed in:
Genesis 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."


Genesis 6:7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

I do not see how this would make God "evil." (I think this argument will revert in part to a semantics argument over evil, so I will give a definition to kick it off)

"evil |ˈēvəl|
• (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil : we have been driven out of the house by this evil spirit.
• harmful or tending to harm : the evil effects of high taxes.
• (of something seen or smelled) extremely unpleasant : a bathroom with an evil smell."

First, I would like to assume that you didn't mean the third definition. The 1st definition is ludicrous and would be next to impossible to defend, so I assume that you didn't mean that one either. So what you are saying is that God is "harmful or tending to harm."

"harmful |ˈh�rmfəl|
causing or likely to cause harm : shield the planet from harmful cosmic rays | sugars that can be harmful to the teeth."

If you go by this definition, your point about Noah and his ark is not valid, because as can be seen later in Genesis (6:8) God promises never to do it again:

"I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. 22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

In this sense God is not tending to harm because after doing it once he never intends to repeat it. From your argument one may argue that he is not omnipotent, but not evil. It may also be argued that God WAS evil, before he caused the flood, but now he isn't, because, as you might be able to tell, he has not repeated the flood despite the evil that humans commit today.

Additionally, I would like to take into account that not only were the humans corrupt, but the earth too had become corrupt. To save all species and allow them to live in a world where the very land they tread was not evil He had to destroy the world. It was only Mercy and love (Not a common trait of evil) that made Him allow any of the creatures He created live. He created them, and like destroying the failed clay models in your pottery class, He destroyed the 'bad ones'

"And God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, "I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth"

Finally I would like to end my turn with a bit of a question:
God created earth, he created the universe, he created us and he created our minds. Doesn't that mean that he has a better grasp of morals, of what is better for us in the larger picture then we could ever have?

"First God made heaven & earth 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. 3 "

Now for a few notes:
1. antediluvian is an adjective and you used it as a noun.

2. Thanks for the argument so far, I can tell it will be fun already!

3. Sorry about the weird symbols by the definitions, the pronunciations get changed into those, but I can't really change a quote.

I used many passages from several chapters.
Debate Round No. 1


First of all I would like to thank my opponent for taking up this challenge, its already clear I will learn from his insight, and hope to bring a little bit of knowledge and humor to the table as well. (Who knew I was misusing the poor antediluvian all these years, sorry boys thought you were an adjective).

I would also like to thank my opponent for bringing the definition of evil to the table, its that type of clarity that should make this a fun, informed debate. Con assumes incorrectly that I will be only using the second definition of Evil as 'harmful or tending to harm' In fact I will attempt to apply the biblical God to the first two definitions and might even go for the third if time persists and the audience hasn't been thoroughly bored to death with my reasoning prior to that point. This should be fun.

So let us address God's evil in harm and intent in regards to the flood. My opponent makes the valid point that once God saw the carnage resulting from his water experiment, he vowed never to murder all humans ever again. Almost as if he himself were shocked by his own nature. He then goes on to point out that his inaction in drowning everyone again makes a good argument for God's morality adjustment after the flood, and that either God was likely not omnipotent, but evil no more.

This is a great point, however, God himself refutes it in Malachi 3:6 "I the LORD do not change." So now we are in a conundrum, either God is a liar, which is evil, or he doesn't in fact change and was omnipotent all along. That omnipotence of course dictates that he was in fact committing acts of evil, primarily due to His foreknowledge of how things would turn out.

My opponent also brings up a great point that the evil in mankind and the Nephilim was physically corrupting the earth, so God used the same earth to destroy them all. This is a very interesting point, however it must be noted that he chose to keep sinful humans and animals to carry on the tradition. God didn't create a new version of human that was more apt to be less naughty. In fact as soon as Noah and family get of the big boat, Noah precedes to get drunk and naked, causing his son Ham to sin egregiously by making fun of his tiny naughty bits. Clearly not a superiority righteous pick on behalf of the Lord Almighty. The other problem with the notion that God was forced to destroy almost everything is seen in the great lengths that he went to, to get all those animals onto that ship. Hopefully the audience takes note that during the first round, I made a specific point to note that toddlers were destroyed. If God had the ability to cram billions of tons of animal into a skip, it is reasonable to believe he had the ability to make a few divine for the little one's he ultimately chose to drown.

God was clearly behaving with intent to harm, behaving with evil in his heart.

Now lets get to the first definition of evil, that my esteemed opponent mentioned was " ludicrous and would be next to impossible to defend".
- (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil : we have been driven out of the house by this evil spirit.

For this definition I would like to submit a good friend of mine named Job, and more to the point his original family. I have another example that will prove a little more poinent, but will save that for the next round, don't want my barrel to overheat from firing too much ammunition.

Job was a good man who lived in UZ, he had 7 son's and 3 daughters. His kids loved to party and enjoy life, which Job worried about, but were otherwise good kids. They had hundreds of servants among which were assuredly good people.


Some angels decided to pay a visit to good God, and Satan came skulking behind them. God asked Him where he had been, which must have been some sort of joke, God being omnipotent and all and being the one who banished the devil to the earth in the first place. No one can ever say that God doesn't have a sarcastic sense of humor. Anyhoo, God has a sit down with the devil, 'associating' with him. God gets a little boastful and tells the devil to take a good look at his good servant Job. Satan takes a gander and says, well of course he worships you, you guard all he has. God gets that old gambling twinkle in his eye and bets that if he lifts his protection over Job, that Job would remain faithful to him. God basically bet all of Job's possessions, children and wife, that he would not turn away from God. He then gave Satan cart blanche to have at Job's family and servants and even his poor camels for christ's sake.

Long story short Job's happy kids pay the price, his servants go from peacefully mending his sandals to - Job 1:16 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The fire of God fell from the sky and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!" Apparently God decided that Satan was taking too much time to finish the job and took matters in his own hand sending a fireball to roast a delicious leg of lamb, and a few sandal makers in turn. Not really the behavior of a just, good God, but rather the nature of an evil being, who spends some of his time gambling with Satan.

The ending of my friends story is much better thank goodness, God rewards him with a new set of kids and servants and even an upgraded wife, good for Job.....not so good for his original family or servants.

The scariest part of the story, is that God doesn't even end teaching Satan an important, sell I told you so lesson. He simply doesn't even address it. Satisfied with the destruction of hundreds of people to make a point that according to his biblical nature he already knew the outcome of, God simply allows Satan to carry on.

God made a deal with the devil, spoke with him and bet against him, knowing ahead of time that Job would remain faithful. He then didn't even use the lesson for gain against Satan at all. He simply allowed and caused great harm to Jobs family and servants because of his association with with the forces of the devil. Association with evil.

God's behavior in Uz fulfils the first definition of evil rendering it indicative of his nature, and neither ludicrous nor impossible to defend.

Clearly a being associated with the devil cannot be trusted for salvation from his own notion of Justice.

p.s. lets all agree to give the spell checker a big hand, as I put the poor guy through its paces this round. I think I spent more time watching poor SC correct my ignorance than actually typing it out.... ;-)


Kenostic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


It is a shame that my opponent was not able to respond last round. Life has a way of catching up with us, I am hoping he is able to respond in the next as his arguments are well thought out and interesting.

For this round I had planned on countering any rebuttals posed by con, didn't expect the silent treatment so in response I guess I will just keep prattling on.

I would like to further solidify the first definition of evil in this round.

Evil - (of a force or spirit) embodying or associated with the forces of the devil : we have been driven out of the house by this evil spirit.

Now we come to the crux of the problem. Association with evil. The bible in many places establishes that God is the creator of all things. He created the universe, the galaxies the solar system and the earth. He created humans and animals. He also created the angels, and more specifically, the head of the choir, the most beautiful angel. Lucifer.

Before creating Lucifer, God knew he would rebel, knew he would pull 1/3 of the angels down with him, knew he would be allowed to temp humans without the ability to discern good from evil, knew that it would result in a world full of sin and evil and death and suffering and pain and sorrow.....

Yet, he folded his harms, and nodded his head and 'wink'...created Lucifer anyway. At this point most Christians lean heavily on free will to explain this away. It doesn't work. God had the option of creating any number of angels in Lucifer's place. All with free will, and all with a destined future of non rebellion. The gift of free will doesn't require rebellion or bad behavior.

When God considered inviting Lucifer into the universe, he committed the greatest evil known. It was the single greatest harmful act ever committed, an 'embodiment' of evil.

The other counter to God's knowing creation of the evil one is that perhaps God has a greater, more benevolent plan that makes all the sorrow created worth it. This is a lovely idea, and we can certainly all hope so, but it doesn't negate the evil that he created. Perhaps a faithful few will pass the Jesus test and make their way past the pearly gates to sing Amazing Grace for eternity as the bible predicts. However, it also states that simultaneously, Lucifer and 1/3 of the angels and a bunch of naughty humans and my grandfather will be roasting in eternal torture. God himself plans on maintaining the existence of evil with his preparation of hell.

When you break down the actions of God it quickly becomes clear that he is incredibly unreliable for salvation.
1. He knowingly creates the being who will bring sin and evil into existence.
2. He then allows that creature to temp mankind, even though they have no knowledge of good vs evil and couldn't defend themselves against a lie.
3. He then creates a law "the wages of sin are death"
4. He then comes up with an escape plan that includes the death of innocents to pay for that sin and satisfy his own law.
5. He creates a Son and sends him to earth to be brutally slain, in order to fulfil his plan and satisfy the need for innocent blood.
6. He then creates a place of eternal torture, where he plans on imprisoning all his creations that don't accept his notion of innocents paying for the sin he created.

God created evil and plans on maintaining it for eternity, he is clearly not trustworthy in regards to salvation.

P.S. I am hoping my opponent will have the time to continue on and agree to negate the second round of the debate so he is not at a disadvantage continuing this debated.

In the next round I hope to address the third definition of evil for a bit of sport.

Evil - (of something seen or smelled) extremely unpleasant : a bathroom with an evil smell."

Isaiah 14:12-14 - Lucifer rebels
Ezekiel 28:12-19 the role of Lucifer
Genesis 3:1-6 Lucifer deceives a helpless Eve.
Hebrews 2:14-15 God's plan for the death of innocents to pay for sin and the devil he created
Revelation 12:7-9 God gives Lucifer the boot out of heaven
Genesis 1:1 God creates all things, heavens and earth.


Kenostic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Ok just for fun I am going to play with the third definition of evil....

Evil - (of something seen or smelled) extremely unpleasant : "a bathroom with an evil smell."

This should be an interesting hypothesis because in order for it to stand one must establish that God is accompanied by an 'evil' smell. For this I will once again consult his most true and holy word.

First of all lets establish what the Lord considers a sweet smell surrounding him. The first mention of smell in the bible is in Genesis 8:20-21 -
Then Noah built an altar to the LORD and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. The LORD smelled the pleasing aroma.

Apparently the smell of charred dead animals is delish to the Lord. Can this be true?

Exodus 29:18 Then burn the entire ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the LORD, a pleasing aroma.

Burning wool and dead Ram?? While the Ram flesh might smell ok while cooking for a time, the smell of burning wool is horrendous and would overpower the smell of the burning flesh until it charred which smells positively evil....

Is there more?

Leviticus 1:9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the priest is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.

While I must admit to never have actually smelled burning bull's private businesses, I can imagine that after they reach an inevitable char the smell coming from the crispy naughty bits can't be pleasing to a human nose.


Leviticus 23:13 together with its grain offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with oil—an offering made to the LORD by fire, a pleasing aroma—and its drink offering of a quarter of a hin of wine.

At first glimpse this sounds like a baking a loaf of bread, but allowing grain and oil and wine to come in contact with bare flame, doesn't result in the pleasing aroma of the wonder bread factory at all. It results in a putrid smell of char once again.

So we have established that the Lord likes surrounding himself with the smell of burning death. But what about the new and improved version of God. The New Testament God, surely his updated olfactory will be improved from the God of Moses and Noah?

Ephesians 5:2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

Surely the smell of blood running down a cross, a body buried without embalming, culminating in a three day old corpse buried in the heat of the desert, isn't a smell that most of us would consider pleasing or good. In fact I venture that it would actually be the very smell that every human would associate with evil. The smell of death is rarely associated with thoughts of goodness. Notice that Paul doesn't say the smell of the newly re-animated Christ was fragrant to God, but the smell of the sacrifice. Clearly Paul was merely plagiarizing Moses (or whoever really wrote Genesis and Leviticus) but if we are to believe the new Testament is divinely inspired, it is apparent that God likes and surrounds himself the smell of death. A smell we all associate with evil.

The bible makes it clear that God enjoys the smell of death and even savors it. That smell surrounding God is one that humans most often associate with evil. God's got a funky evil smell.

In conclusion, its a shame that my opponent didn't stick with the debate, it would have been fun to hear a response. I guess I win by default, which is a shame, because I believe that I succinctly established that God, causes harm, associates with evil, and surrounds himself with smells like death. All three definitions of evil, which conclusively prove that God is Evil and therefore not a reliable source of salvation/afterlife.

Thank you.

The holey Bible.
Genesis 8:20-21
Leviticus 1:9
Leviticus 23:13
Ephesians 5:2


Kenostic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BlessedCheesemaker 6 years ago
Looks like this debate died a slow uninterested death....
Posted by BlessedCheesemaker 6 years ago
Demo - don't feel set apon, keep in mind that this is only a philosophical argument. I would make the claim that the doubt that your express is exactly what keeps the rest of us a little safer from your religion. Allot of people wonder why Islam happens to have so many violent proponents right now as compared with Christianity, when the messages in thier books are so very similar. The answer is doubt.
Islamic terrorists are basically people who have been indoctrinated through doubt to a point where they believe in a tangible God who actively wants them to give thier lives for him. Its VERY real to them, thier faith far exceeds their reason or doubt. This ferver is praised in the Muslim world, until it starts causing death, then it is pitied by reasonable muslims.
Its important to remember that the Christian world used to be EXACTLY the same. We tortured people for ommisions of guilt in the name of christ, went on Crusades destroying towns and villages for Jesus, murdered entire sects of Christianity in order to maintain doctrine...Christianity was a horror for hundreds of years.

The difference now is that Christianity is largely represented in the western world where the scientific principal has been largely adopted as beneficial. That adoption casts enough doubt on religion to the point where most of its proponents, like yourself, love Jesus, but won't kill for him.

Your doubt is a good thing.
Posted by Demosthenes 6 years ago
Hey if I had a better answer than "The Man decides" I'd have given it to you, I'm not a religious scholar.
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
But babies aren't capable of fulfilling the requirements.
Posted by Demosthenes 6 years ago
The same way everyone else does.

The Man decides you're in, or you aren't.
Posted by Korashk 6 years ago
I'm a bit late to this comment debate but I have issue with this statement:
Posted by Demosthenes 1 hour ago
None of us are sin free.

This was in response to a statement about killing babies. If ven babies have sin how do children get to heaven?
Posted by Demosthenes 6 years ago
I don't accept it. I don't even know that it for sure happened.

Look guys I'm not a rank and file Catholic, I don't just stand in line and regurgitate what I got spoonfed on Sundays in Catechism. I have questions about EXACTLY the same thing you guys are saying, but I'm prepared to surrender the rest of what my religion gives me until I actually ANSWER the questions.
Posted by BlessedCheesemaker 6 years ago
Demosthenes - you are absolutely correct, life is tough....however using that reality as an excuse to the acceptance of the destruction of children or the genocide of entire races of people, shows exactly how incredibly harmful and damaging your religious philosophy truly is.

That is why I am trying to save you from it. I am already free of the horrific ideology forced on humanity through Christianity, hang in there, you may one day be free yourself.
Posted by Demosthenes 6 years ago
Alright, that's all I needed to know.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 6 years ago

"I just need to ask, does your belief system "Pantheism" mean that if you were arrested tomorrow for whatever reason, that you would actually say "I do not submit to your authority" to the officers arresting you?"

Pantheism has nothing to do with the political stance of anti-authority. It simply states that the Universe is God (Hence the word: Pan = All, Theos = God).

Regarding my anti-authority stance, I most definitely do not acknowledge the police as my authority. I probably will tell them that I reject their authority, however, I won't resist simply because it would cause me further trouble.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BlessedCheesemaker 6 years ago
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