The Instigator
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Pro (for)
Winning
32 Points
The Contender
CiRrO
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

The Christian flavor of God is immoral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,290 times Debate No: 4844
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (13)

 

Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Pro

I argue that the God presented to humanity by a majority of Christians is immoral.

For this argument 2 points must be assumed.

1. God exists
2. Hell exists

I argue that the omniscient creator of all things cannot coexist with Hell and be considered Loving, Just or Moral.
CiRrO

Con

I negate: The Christian flavor of God is immoral.

[Definitions]

God: The authoritative omniscient being over morals. The creator of the universe.

Immoral: deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong.
=================================================================================

Topical Negation:

1. Since God is the being behind morals, the authoritative being, and totally good, then God cannot be immoral. Therefore, the resolution has a flaw.

[Contentions]

Contention I: The Christian God is one of love.

The God posed by Christians emphasizes love over all. Jesus said: "Love your enemy as yourself." No thing is more moral then this. Love is the greatest of all virtues. Since the Christian God is love, then the Christian God is moral.

Contention II: Morality

God created morals. Morals is what is right and what is wrong. God cannot be immoral on the fact that God is morality. Morality derives from him/her. He is the fountain from which right conduct comes from. Anything opposite to God is immoral. Therefore God cannot be immoral for he is morality.

Contention III: Hell is necessary for morality

If hell did not exist, i.e. only heave existed, then there would be no check on morality. If the deterrence of hell did not exist, then there is no need for morality. If there is no hell, then humans could do whatever they wanted and still go to heaven. People like Osama Bin Laden could still make it into heaven without an repercussions of his earthly actions. I.e. terrorist attacks. Hitler would not suffer for making the holocaust and killing more then 6 million people. Stalin would not be held accountable for killing 15 million of his own people. Now, all this happened with the existence of hell. Think of what would happen with no hell. People on earth would not be held accountable for immoral actions. so essentially, if there was no hell then immorality would be rampant. Thus, God would be acting immoral without hell.

[Rebuttal]

I concede his 2 given premises about God existing and Hell existing.

"I argue that the omniscient creator of all things cannot coexist with Hell and be considered Loving, Just or Moral."

My Response:

I will go through each adjective my opponent has set up.

1. Loving: He believes that hell cannot coexist with a loving God. This is a faulty premise. That is like saying that a parent isn't a loving parent if they punish their child. God is the father of us all. A father is loving but must be stern. Also, would he have to punish if we did his word? Essentially, the evil people send themselves to hell. It's by their actions that they are punished. It is acting immorally that sends them to hell.

2. Just: Justice is giving each their due. Hell exists to hold people accountable for their immoral actions on earth. If you do the crime, you do the time. For a life time of immoral acts, hell is your punishment. You have betrayed that of which created you and gave you life. Because of this, he is giving each sinner their due. This makes him just.

3. Moral: Link my contention that hell is necessary for morality. I'll explain further. God would be immoral by not having a place where sinners have their due. God would be making sinners and good people equal. He would be making immorality morality. For morality to be in it's purest form, then hell is necessary.

I urge a negation.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 1
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and especially for his reasoned response in round 1. It is clear that his position is well thought out.

I do believe, however that his argument rests on assumptions that need to be addressed. Namely that God is the authoritative being behind the existence of Morals and God is totally good.

I will address his contentions in the order he presented them.

Contention I: The Christian God is one of love.

My opponent conveniently forgets to mention that the Christian God also told Moses to 'take vengeance' on the Midianites which led to the genocide of captive mothers and male children as documented in Numbers 31. So while Jesus implores followers to love their enemies, his Father implores Moses to murder them in cold blood. One should also note the drowning of the children during Noah's flood, innocents killed because of God's rejection of the actions of their parents. At this point most many Christians seek a way to distance themselves from the God of the Old Testament, even though they claim trinitarian unity between him and Jesus.

So lets take a closer look at the other words of Jesus, just to cover our bases.

Matthew 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. 35 For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -36 a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'

37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."

In this passage we can clearly see that Jesus did not intend to bring peace and harmony to the earth, in fact he states that his presence with actually create enemies out of family members and implores his followers to disregard love for parents and relatives when it supersedes their love of him. If his proposed actions were beneficial towards mankind, one might excuse that statement however it is important to explore the use of the word Sword in his claim.

In John's vision in Revelations, Jesus is seen returning to earth on a white horse, bearing a fiery sword, destroying all those who didn't believe in or accept him as lord, a direct reference to his claim in Matthew. The destruction of those who don't believe in Jesus, because of a lack of evidence or because they are compelled by other humans to adopt another God is immoral and exactly the same as his fathers destruction of innocent children during the flood.

Contention II: Morality

Morality does not come from God. This can be proven in the evolution of human understanding of the nature of God, and changes to our interpretation of his Law. For instance, If my opponent was to murder his parents because they were trying to convince him to adopt the teachings of Buddha, most people in the world would consider his actions immoral. They would be correct, however God told the Israelites to do exactly that in Deuteronomy 13:6-10. God's notion of the right thing to do, is wrong compared with our evolved sense of morality.

Most Christians will attempt to distance themselves from the Old Testament God again in this case, with claims of Jesus abolition of God's law due to fulfillment. However that ignores the fact that at one time it was the law of God and is in fact immoral.

Morality is a result of human empathy and reason and clearly changes over time as society adopts new information and incorporates it into our sense of right and wrong. It is not emanating from a God who stopped the earth from rotating for a day, so that Joshua could kill the rest of the Amorites, documented in Joshua 10.

Contention III: Hell is necessary for morality

The existence of Hell is not imperative for the existence of moral behavior. That is an unsubstantiated claim. In fact, the opposite is actually true. I argue that Osama Bin Laden did what he did precisely because he was following his interpretation of God through faith, and wanted to avoid Haawiya, or Hell. The same can be said of Serbian Christians participating in the genocide of Bosnians or the actions of Catholic crusaders.

Justice requires punishment for bad behavior, but hell is designed to punish non believers, not naughty folks. As proof, I submit the story of Jesus and the thieves on the crosses next to him. One believed before he died and went to heaven despite a life lived poorly. The other did not believe and as a result is in hell. So Hell is not in fact a judgement of behavior as my opponent claimed, it is actually a form of punishment for rejecting Jesus or God irrespective of the life a person lives.

Hitler, being brought up Catholic, likely thought about God and sought forgiveness right before pulling the trigger. So could be in heaven while Gandhi is being tormented in hell, because he rejected Christ as divine.

The same could apply to Stalin, a seminary student, who could have sought forgiveness at the end of his life. The Christian doctrine of salvation by grace negates my opponents claims of hell buffering morality.

Finally God cannot be Loving and submit humans to eternal suffering. Even the lives of men like Pol Pot and Hitler and Osama bin Laden do not equate to the requirement of an ETERNITY of suffering, let alone the life of a man like Gandhi or Buddha.

God, being the creator of all things, including the decision of what the wages of sin would be, had the option to choose a more fitting punishment for sin and the rejection of his son. He was not forced by something greater than himself to accept hell as a punishment. He chose it, which based on the disproportionate amount of suffering involved was an immoral decision.

God is not Just, because of his involvement in creating man's sinful nature. If necessary I will expound on this in round two, but keep in mind that God created Lucifer, and allowed him to enter the garden with Adam and Eve. Justice requires an unrelated third party to judge a case, God, being omnipresent, omniscient and the creator of all things cannot be just as he is intimately involved in everything on earth, therefor he is only serving his own interest with absolute power.

More morality discussion coming in round 2.

Thank you for your attention as I urge you to consider the actions of God and how they really relate to morality.
CiRrO

Con

"I do believe, however that his argument rests on assumptions that need to be addressed. Namely that God is the authoritative being behind the existence of Morals and God is totally good."

My Response: This debate will be full of assumptions. E.g. That God actually exists and that Hell actually exists. Therefore, some assumptions must be made for the sake of this debate. Furthermore, since my opponent has claimed this statement: I argue that the God presented to humanity by a majority of Christians is immoral. From this statement we can infer that this debate will revolve around the majority Christian belief, which fits my definitions of God. Therefore, this definition will be extended for the remaining rounds.

"My opponent conveniently forgets to mention that the Christian God also told Moses to 'take vengeance' on the Midianites which led to the genocide of captive mothers and male children as documented in Numbers 31..."

My Response: My opponent has immense knowledge on the Bible. However as an overview for the round, I argue that the majority of Christians do not take the whole entire bible literally. With this, let me continue. The God presented in the old Testament portrays the just side of God. The New Testament God and Jesus portray the loving side. Both necessary for a moral being.

"In this passage we can clearly see that Jesus did not intend to bring peace and harmony to the earth, in fact he states that his presence with actually create enemies out of family members and implores his followers to disregard love for parents and relatives when it supersedes their love of him."

My Response: My opponent misses the contextual meaning behind these passages. The message behind them is that your love for earthly possessions and earthly loves cannot supersede that of your father creator. Also, my opponent takes specific passages without looking at the: A) Contextual Message or B) Opposing passages. Furthermore, do not look at arguments from my opponent that the Bible must be taken literally for the majority of Christians do not believe this (Key: majority is what we are debating)

"In John's vision in Revelations, Jesus is seen returning to earth on a white horse, bearing a fiery sword, destroying all those who didn't believe in or accept him as lord, a direct reference to his claim in Matthew."

My Response: My opponent makes a very big flaw with this. Jesus would destroy those who followed the anti-Christ and the devil. This shows that they must be punished for worshiping immorality and the devil.

"Morality does not come from God. This can be proven in the evolution of human understanding of the nature of God, and changes to our interpretation of his Law. For instance, If my opponent was to murder his parents because they were trying to convince him to adopt the teachings of Buddha, most people in the world would consider his actions immoral. They would be correct, however God told the Israelites to do exactly that in Deuteronomy 13:6-10. God's notion of the right thing to do, is wrong compared with our evolved sense of morality."

My Response: Morality coming from God is what the majority of Christians believe. So extend this point. He then brings up a killing analogy. This example is flawed because it is saying that your parents deserve death because they tried to convert you. You could just say no, you have the right to believe what you wish. He then says that this is waht God did. I have 2 responses:

1) We don't know if that actually happened or if it was just a story.
2) He misses the contextual message: God punishes those that act immorally.

"Most Christians will attempt to distance themselves from the Old Testament God again in this case, with claims of Jesus abolition of God's law due to fulfillment."

My Response: My opponent seems to like to quote Scripture, however he has a biblical flaw. Jesus specifically said he would not abolish the law, but to fulfill it. I.e. fulfilling the two sides of God: justice and love.

Since I do not have enough room, I will just respond to my opponents attack on my contention 3.

My Response: He brings up Osama. Fundamental Islam is a twisted view of Islam itself. The majority of Muslims are not in favor of blowing themselves up to escape hell. They know this is wrong. He then says that hell is there to punish non-believers. This is totally in accurate. The purpose of hell is to punish a persons immoral acts on earth. Not believing is a sin, but its not the only sin that warrants punishing. My opponent then brings up the Cross Example. He fudges the story of this. The reason that the bad thief went to hell was because he refused to ask for forgiveness for his sins. The good thief did, he was truly sorry for his sins. Therefore, he was let into Heaven.

He then brings up Hitler and Stalin. Turn this turn. Hitler and Stalin were Christians, yes. However both rejected religion. Both believed that their acts did not warrant punishment. Extend this as an argument for my contention 3.

He then argues that God didn't have to make hell. Hell is the separation of a person with God's love. They are totally alone. The majority of Christians don't believe that you burn in fire. The doctrine of hell is that you are separated from God's love because you have broken his moral laws and have denied his love.

"God is not Just, because of his involvement in creating man's sinful nature. If necessary I will expound on this in round two, but keep in mind that God created Lucifer, and allowed him to enter the garden with Adam and Eve. Justice requires an unrelated third party to judge a case, God, being omnipresent, omniscient and the creator of all things cannot be just as he is intimately involved in everything on earth, therefor he is only serving his own interest with absolute power."

My Response: god didn't create sin. He gave us free will, which in turn made sin. It was humans that made sin, not God. God just loved us so much that he wanted us to be free on our time on earth. Except every action has a consequence. That consequence is hell. Also, justice does not require a third part to judge. This is a narrow view of Western Justice. God is the judge, he decides if you warrant hell or heaven. You then make him sound like a human. God doesn't serve his own interest by putting people in hell. We send ourselves to hell, God judges our own actions. So essentially God is the third party. It is us and God. We do the actions, God judges those actions. Be it good or bad. Hell is the final punishment for a life of immorality.

Round Overview: My opponent has essentially failed in his attacks because a lot of what he said isn't what the majority of Christians believe. Christianity is dominated by Catholicism and Liberal Protestantism (i.e. protestantism that doesn't believe in literal interpretations or pre3desitnation). Since my opponent has established the beginning premise of the majority of Christians, then any attack my opponent makes which goes outside the realm of Catholicism and Liberal Protestantism can be dropped.

Extensions:

1) Extend my Topical Negation
2) Extend Contention 1 on the fact that his attacks were bibically literally. *Refer to Round Overview.
3) Extend Contention 2, for the same reason, i.e. overview.

Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
Debate Round No. 2
Blessed-Cheese-Maker

Pro

Once again I would like to thank my opponent for his spirited defense of the Christian God. I do take issue with his categorization of my rebuttals as attacks. While effective in swaying the emotions of the reader, lambasting my points as attacks, does not serve to support the argument on either side of the issue, and I would politely ask my opponent to refrain from utilizing aggressive rhetoric while debating this highly charged issue.

Onto the discussion at hand.

"This debate will be full of assumptions" I concur, but believe that the point of debate is to discuss the merits of those assumptions?

Majority Christian belief. It is my understanding that a majority of Christians live in the third world and still maintain a very literal interpretation of scripture. But for the sake of my opponent I agree to adopt his adapted interpretation of some literal and some allegorical interpretation, and hope that he agrees to define clearly what parts are literal and what are allegorical and by what authority he makes that delineation.

Lets start with the book of Numbers. It is my understanding that a majority of Christians view the story of the Israelites wandering in the desert as literal, especially in light of their adoption of the 10 commandments, a document purportedly given to moses literally during that time. I believe that my opponent would have a hard time finding a majority of Christians willing to state that Jewish theology and belief in the Torah as historical and literal is mistaken? Therefore the utility of the numbers 31 documentation of events is valid as an indication of the immoral nature of God the father.

"The God presented in the old Testament portrays the just side of God. The New Testament God and Jesus portray the loving side. Both necessary for a moral being."

The categorization of the murder of thousands of captive mothers and children as just is not tenable with evolved human morality. God's consistent tendency to punish the children of naughty parents is immoral. We see this in many cases in the old testament including the ten commandments themselves.

For example I submit Exodus 20:4-5:
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me."

Clearly Christians utilize a literal interpretation of the ten commandments, yet here in the middle of the second is God claiming that he will punish the children for the sins of their parents for generations. If God literally requires that Christians don't bow down to graven images, then it is logical to believe that he will punish the children of those who disobey.

I am sure this will be interpreted liberally as allegory, but one still should ask why God tends to utilize allegory in such inhumane and immoral ways? In every culture, the destruction of the innocent is deemed abhorrent unless associated with religious practice, and the God of the Old Testament is no exception.

The use of the allegory or metaphor claim is liberally applied to absolve God of behavior that we all as humans find immoral. This point should be included in the reader's summation of this debate.

"My opponent misses the contextual meaning behind these passages. The message behind them is that your love for earthly possessions and earthly loves cannot supersede that of your father creator."

And that he will return bearing a sword, the inclusion of the sword statement was no accident, and my opponent conveniently ignores it and utilizes metaphor to absolve Jesus of the statement of violent intent. But, once again even with metaphor in full swing, why does Jesus refer to the promise of death through a sword that he holds to drive a point home?

"Morality coming from God is what the majority of Christians believe. So extend this point."

A majority of Christians believe that God is moral, which is what this debate is all about, so why not ask the reader to extend the entire debate? The point of the argument is that Christian belief is flawed, especially as it relates to morality and its origin. A majority of German's thought Hitler had their interests in mind, even through the end of WW2, that didn't make it the case.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 is not a story, but a directive from God, it is a part of his covenant with his people. Furthermore, the contextual message isn't that God punishes those who act immorally at all. The contextual message is that the believer should punish those who act immorally. The Law requires the believer to stone his family members, not to wait for God to take vengeance on the naughty Buddhists.

My opponents rebuttal to my response to contention 3 is proven incorrect by the Christian doctrine of salvation by grace, a doctrine held by a majority of Christians. God clearly didn't create hell to punish immoral behavior, he created it to punish unrepentance and non belief. The story of the thief on the cross DOES highlight this point, and I submit that the Christian belief in instant forgiveness irrespective of a how a life is lived is further proof of the immorality of their flavor of God.

I will concede that neither of us know what Hitler or Stalin did during their last minutes on earth, but not that Christian doctrine allows for them to enter heaven with true repentance. This is what salvation by grace is all about.

"Hell is the separation of a person with God's love."
This is not a view held by a majority of Christians, it is a new doctrine created to absolve God of the doctrine of hell as a place of eternal suffering. Most Christians still believe in Hell as the lake of fire described by Jesus in Matthew 3:12, Matthew 25:41, Matthew 25:46 and Luke 16:23-24.

Gods inclusion of the serpent in the garden of eden, and his allowance of the temptation of Adam and Eve without a knowledge of good and evil, shows a complicit involvement in the introduction of sin to mankind. Free will cannot be argued if there is no knowledge of good and evil. Also God's knowing creation of Lucifer resulted in sin, therefore he created it.

This supports my contention that God was complicit in the creation of sin, therefor not just in judging humans for being tainted by it.

Final statement.

First of all I would like to once again thank my opponent for his participation in this debate, religion and faith are always a tough subject to delve into. His honest open approach is to be commended.

I contend that his continued utility of metaphore and allegory to excuse God of His stated law and actions proves the initial contention that the Christian flavor of God is immoral. Basically his defense boils down to, the bible shouldn't be read literally, therefor God isn't accountable for his actions listed in the bible that resulted in the death of the innocent or laws compelling followers to kill others.

My opponents claim that liberal protestantism and liberal catholisism is the majority view within Christianity, is false based on simple demographics. It is definitely the majority view of the western world, so given that, I still argue that the liberal view of the Christian God is immoral, based on his use of metaphor and allegory that utilizes violent imagery. I contend that a moral Deity would not utilize violence and allegorical threat to display love. The behavior is counter productive to the act of love.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
CiRrO

Con

Apology: I do apologize for using aggressive rhetoric. I was not aware of this, however if you see it this way, I do hearty apologize.

[Rebuttal]

"Majority Christian belief. It is my understanding that a majority of Christians live in the third world and still maintain a very literal interpretation of scripture. But for the sake of my opponent I agree to adopt his adapted interpretation of some literal and some allegorical interpretation, and hope that he agrees to define clearly what parts are literal and what are allegorical and by what authority he makes that delineation."

My Response: Ok, my opponent has conceded this idea. Extend it.

"Lets start with the book of Numbers. It is my understanding that a majority of Christians view the story of the Israelites wandering in the desert as literal, especially in light of their adoption of the 10 commandments, a document purportedly given to moses literally during that time. I believe that my opponent would have a hard time finding a majority of Christians willing to state that Jewish theology and belief in the Torah as historical and literal is mistaken?"

My Response: I say that I do take this story literally and contextually. I believe that God did indeed give the Jews the 10 Commandments, plus others. I do not believe, however, that some historical aspects are indeed false, and only used to advance the entire message.

"The categorization of the murder of thousands of captive mothers and children as just is not tenable with evolved human morality. God's consistent tendency to punish the children of naughty parents is immoral."

My Response: Take the story of Jericho, for instance. God had the Israelites destroy the city. God did however save a prostitute. The reason was that the prostitute was repentant of her sins. The city was not. Therefore, the city deserved punishment. Again, the message is clear, those that are truly sorry will be forgiven. Those that are not sorry are punished. My opponent takes the killings literally. However, I have 2 responses:

1) There is no historical record that these killings ever took place.
2) The killings is just a message of punishment for sins committed.

"I am sure this will be interpreted liberally as allegory, but one still should ask why God tends to utilize allegory in such inhumane and immoral ways? In every culture, the destruction of the innocent is deemed abhorrent unless associated with religious practice, and the God of the Old Testament is no exception."

My Response: The examples you do show are indeed only contextual. you do ask, why would that be used then? Simple. Back in the time of the creation of the Old Testament, the messages had to be shown in the time period of that time. People understood harsh retribution as justice. E.g. Hammurabi's code. The message was understood not from a literal meaning, but from a contextual meaning.

"The use of the allegory or metaphor claim is liberally applied to absolve God of behavior that we all as humans find immoral"

My Response: Again, the reason is not what you state, but for people of that time to understand the message. Link my response above to this one.

"A majority of Christians believe that God is moral, which is what this debate is all about, so why not ask the reader to extend the entire debate? The point of the argument is that Christian belief is flawed, especially as it relates to morality and its origin. A majority of German's thought Hitler had their interests in mind, even through the end of WW2, that didn't make it the case."

My Response: I think they should extend this entire debate against you. The initial premise you gave, about the majority of Christians, has not been fulfilled on the Affirmatives side. You have failed to meet this criteria. Therefore, this will be my 1st voting issue.

"Deuteronomy 13:6-10 is not a story, but a directive from God, it is a part of his covenant with his people. Furthermore, the contextual message isn't that God punishes those who act immorally at all. The contextual message is that the believer should punish those who act immorally. The Law requires the believer to stone his family members, not to wait for God to take vengeance on the naughty Buddhists."

My Response: You are missing a big point. Non-believing is a sin. However this is not the only sin that warrants punishing. E.g. In the Old Testament, adultery was considered a sin that warranted hell. Also, killing warranted hell as well. E.g. Cain and Able. The contextual message remains the same: Hell is a punishment for a life of sins that were not forgiven by true sorrow.

"My opponents rebuttal to my response to contention 3 is proven incorrect by the Christian doctrine of salvation by grace, a doctrine held by a majority of Christians. God clearly didn't create hell to punish immoral behavior, he created it to punish unrepentance and non belief. The story of the thief on the cross DOES highlight this point, and I submit that the Christian belief in instant forgiveness irrespective of a how a life is lived is further proof of the immorality of their flavor of God."

My Response: My opponent now concedes the idea of punishment for more then just non-believing. He then says well, instant forgiveness still shows immorality. This is untrue. First off, someone cant just be forgiven. The just be truly sorry for their actions. E.g. A parent will forgive their child when the child admits his guilt and that what he has done is wrong. He doesn't warrant forgiveness if the child just blows off a quick I'm sorry then wants an ice cream cone. God knows if you are truly sorry.

"I will concede that neither of us know what Hitler or Stalin did during their last minutes on earth, but not that Christian doctrine allows for them to enter heaven with true repentance."

My Response: Well, let's see. Hitler shot himself in a ritual killing with his wife and right hand man. Obviously against Christianity. Stalin, was a devoted Marxist who promotes atheist in it's largest form. So, the readers can infer that they did not look for forgiveness, and are now in hell for their horrible crimes on earth.

"This is not a view held by a majority of Christians, it is a new doctrine created to absolve God of the doctrine of hell as a place of eternal suffering"

My Response: Take Catholicism and liberal protestantism. Catholicism has approximately 1.31 Billion members. This is the doctrine given out by the Church. Catholicism alone has more members then any other sect of Christianity. Therefore, this belief of hell can be seen as the majorities view.

"Gods inclusion of the serpent in the garden of eden, and his allowance of the temptation of Adam and Eve without a knowledge of good and evil, shows a complicit involvement in the introduction of sin to mankind. Free will cannot be argued if there is no knowledge of good and evil. Also God's knowing creation of Lucifer resulted in sin, therefore he created it."

My Response: If you wish to debate this literally. Adam and Eve had a choice to eat from the apple. They choose to take on sin themselves. god didn't force them to, it was by their own free will.

[Voting Issues]

1) My opponent conceded my topical negation. I.e. that the majority of Christians view God as the moral authoritative being.
2) My opponent has failed to actually prove that the majority of Christians actually take the bible literally. I have proven that they do not. My opponents arguments are based solely on the idea of specific passages being literal. Therefore, my opponent has not proven that the majority Christian view of God is immoral.
3) My opponent doesn't really make a case himself of why God and Hell cannot coexist. He never fully warrants it. He just asserts it in the first round. Furthermore, he has the burden of proof, which has not been fulfilled.

For these reasons I urge a negation.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 9 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Heh,

Thats why they are assumptions.
Posted by jason_hendirx 9 years ago
jason_hendirx
I just found the basic presumptions to be a bit too, well, presumptuous.
Posted by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
Jason Hendirx: Pro established in R1 that for the purpose of this debate "God exists" is presumed true- So yes, since you agree that in the context of Christianity God would be morality, and nothing can be opposite of self, you are agreeing with Con's stance. I am assuming that you read the debate and are aware of that, so I am confused by your post?
Posted by jason_hendirx 9 years ago
jason_hendirx
Within the intellectually limited context of the Christian faith, yes. Which says nothing of morality in general.
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
That was simply an overview statment. If you read my morality argument, I argue that God is morality. Therefore, something cannot be opposite to itself.
Posted by jason_hendirx 9 years ago
jason_hendirx
The Christian God is the being behind morals, and therefore can do no wrong? That is circular thinking at its worst.
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
I learned a lot from you as well. ^^ I thoroughly enjoyed this debate. Can't wait for another one in the future.
Posted by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 9 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Wonderful debate CiRro, I learned allot from your perspective, thanks.

Xera, I think you will find that a majority of Atheists are actually very reasonable, its the Atheists who were harmed by religion, that tend to be on the rant and repeat cycle. A large majority of Atheists are happy to just live life and don't feel the need to even discuss religion.

Thank you both very much for the compliment. My intentions in life are to learn, debate is a wonderful tool to do just that, because it allows one to fortify their position and learn from opposing views.

I am looking forward to learning from you both.

Thanks
Posted by CiRrO 9 years ago
CiRrO
I agree totally with Xera. you are indeed the most reasonable atheist I have debated. I look forward to a future debate with you. ^^
Posted by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
BCM, you are without a doubt, the most reasonable atheist that I have ever spoken with. Most feel the need to ridicule, berate, harrass, and put down believers. You are a refreshing type. I want to say thank you for your delicacy and tact in dealing with those who differ in oppinon from you.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Blessed-Cheese-Maker 9 years ago
Blessed-Cheese-Maker
Blessed-Cheese-MakerCiRrOTied
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 Paradox 9 years ago
Paradox
Blessed-Cheese-MakerCiRrOTied
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 jmlandf 9 years ago
jmlandf
Blessed-Cheese-MakerCiRrOTied
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 
Vote Placed by GreyGeeses 9 years ago
GreyGeeses
Blessed-Cheese-MakerCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Casiopia 9 years ago
Casiopia
Blessed-Cheese-MakerCiRrOTied
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 
Vote Placed by Xera 9 years ago
Xera
Blessed-Cheese-MakerCiRrOTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rosbif 9 years ago
Rosbif
Blessed-Cheese-MakerCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Puck 9 years ago
Puck
Blessed-Cheese-MakerCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by liberty 9 years ago
liberty
Blessed-Cheese-MakerCiRrOTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Dr_Harvey 9 years ago
Dr_Harvey
Blessed-Cheese-MakerCiRrOTied
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