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

The God of the Bible is Not Consistent and is Not a Desirable Role Model

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  
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: 5/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 622 times Debate No: 54796
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




I am sure this will be a very interesting debate. The first round is reserved for acceptance only. We will be debating using only the Bible as a source, as that is the only tool by which to observe the biblical God. Both Old and New Testaments are equally credible, as we will be judging the Bible's credibility in an all-or-nothing manner.


Hi, nice idea of a debate, I accept your debate.
Debate Round No. 1


I'd like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate and truly look forward to it. That being said- I'll jump right in. I make two claims today, and both are somewhat codependent. Those claims are:

I.The God Of The Bible Is Not Consistent

II.The God Of The Bible Is Not A Good Role Model

I offer these definitions for ensured clarity:

A.Consistent: Of a person, conduct: constantly adhering to the same principles of thought or action. (Oxford English Dictionary)

B.Role Model: A person looked to by others as an example to be imitated.

This being said, I begin my argumentation.

I.The God Of The Bible Is Not Consistent

A.The Old Testament Father vs. The New Testament Son

In the beginning, we are reduced to a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing God. However, this God is a jealous God. I will not waste anyone's time by listing the full verses, but instead reference the more extreme laws presented by God in Leviticus. If my opponent claims that these laws do not exist, I will insert direct quotations in my rebuttal. Nevertheless, God justifies slavery, genocide, sexism, and extreme death penalties (death by stoning for crimes as seemingly innocent as adolescent rebellion).

This is followed in 30 AD by Jesus Christ, the self-proclaimed Son of God (completely human, and yet completely God). Jesus offers us only two rules: Love God, Love your neighbor. He tells the pious men following the Old Testament law of God that "he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". But when did the vengeful jealous God of the OT become the humble forgiving man of the NT? It is entirely unclear. In fact, as God is fundamentally perfect and never changes, Jesus was sinning to instruct these men not to follow God"s laws. Therein lies the problem.

B.God Himself Is Full Of Fallacy

I'll keep this short and simply list a few. God is the creator of everything in existence today. God (by his divine nature) cannot comprehend sin. Somehow sin is introduced (who created it?). God never wanted men to sin. God knew that men would sin. God is all powerful and as such could have prevented sin (claimed desire vs. action). God knows everything. God cannot know of sin. God does not know what it is like to sin, so man knows something that God does not.

II.The God Of The Bible Is Not A Good Role Model

Man Cannot Morally Act Like God

I think given most of the points in my previous arguments, this can already be assumed. Unless my opponent truly shows
that we as a society would be better off slaughtering individuals who did not believe as we do or those who break certain laws, my argument stands. Additionally, to follow God's example- self-fulfillment is more important than human life. If God truly did create our species for the sole purpose of self-glorification than to replicate that would be catastrophic. As convenient as it would be to have "love me or die" relationships, it is simply not feasible. God (as he presents himself in the Bible) is a tyrant.

Conclusion: I have shown the gross inconsistencies in both the character of God (Father vs. Son) and in the claims of God's motives. I have also shown that God is not a role model for an ethical person to emulate. Simply, wrath and selfishness are not desirable character traits- and crushing those who refuse to love you and are weaker than you is a heinous crime.


Longline forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


As my opponent has forfeited round two, I extend all arguments. I hope my opponent is well and remind him that there is more than sufficient time left in this debate. However, at the risk of the remaining three rounds being forfeitures as well, I am compelled to point out to potential voters that my opponent has had 3 days time to construct an argument and is currently online. Anticipating your next round, Con.


I'm not gonna go into a lot of details from start, but this debate is very weird. Because how can we say that God is not a desirable role model?
The god your talking about created the ideal of role model, you cannot possibly come up with a better way that he has not thought of already.

His actions cannot be calculated by a human, who is limited to the amount of knowledge given to him, you cannot creat your own knowledge of role model.

We know that in the Bible God said that no man have seen him and live, and Mose talked to him from a burning tree, when he came out his appearance changed, God is a spiritual being, for the fact that he is able to tune in to human emotions , that is a task we must give him credit for.

He send Jesus to example what it means to be a human, for he was to great for that task, if your argument was Jesus is not a desirable role model it would be soundable.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has failed to address my first contention about the consistency of the Bible in any way, and therefore has conceded half of this debate. That being said, I will move on to address the argument he did acknowledge: whether God is a role model.

My opponent makes a false conclusion. He claims if God is definitively perfect and as such intrinsically cannot be flawed, then he must by those standards be the perfect role model. I remind my opponent that the only offered definition of role model thus far in this debate is someone whose actions we can morally emulate. This contention in no way addresses whether God is a moral being, but whether or not we can morally emulate his actions. I suggest that we cannot. My opponent has already partially conceded this point as well: he states that man cannot comprehend God's moral code. Therefore, man could not properly emulate it. However, taking God's actions prima facie, my opponent will be hard pressed to present a moral framework in which torturing and killing the innocent over simple differences in lifestyle or personal belief is desirable to be carried out by any man.

Simply put, my opponent has failed to address the continuity of the Bible, and has failed to present compelling evidence that God is a role model. He has only offered the vague idea that although we may see God's actions as immoral, as he knows everything and is perfect he must also be moral. My opponent has in essence presented an argument similar to Peter Griffin's "Ghost Who Cannot Lie" that only he can see or hear. It has no legitimate impact.


Take it easy buddy your too hard on yourself, your confuse about a lot of things, and sorry I miss some time, I was just living my life. Anyways let me tune into your crazy little mind for a sec.

"My opponent has failed to address my first contention about the consistency of the Bible in any way,"

Yes yes, and I'm sorry.

"My opponent makes a false conclusion."
False? You really didn't reason on what I said, sorry I sometime leave out details. So let me show you using the Bible.

Ps. 104:24: "How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions."
You are a work, done by the hands of God. Let's reason on that on a human level. If you make a toy robot, let's say you give this toy robot free will, it can do anything it wants, but you will know absolutely everything about that robot, nothing it can do will shock you, but simple amaze you, now that robot you also put inside it Programmes so that it can function and process its environment. That robots world will only contain what you included in its programme. If you programme it to see water as water it will see water as water, in order for it to see its own programme it need to look at itself from your knowledge, which of course it's impossible for it to do.

Rom. 1:20: "His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world"s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made.

" I remind my opponent that the only offered definition of role model thus far in this debate is someone whose actions we can morally emulate."

First you have to keep in mind that In order to imitate something you need some information about it.
There are only two ways to imitate something.
2) mentally
A child can perfectly imitate his father because he grow up with his father, he have verbal conversation with his dad, he felt his dad, he knows how his dad walks talks, and looks. That is the physical part, this part the only human who had the chance to experience that was Adam and Eve. We as humans today cannot possibly have that physical imitation. The only imitation that human can persevere from God is the mental type, which he left in his Book, now this type of imitation can be define differently with each individual human. Why? Take a look at religion today, all coming from one Book, but different understanding.

So your ideal of a role model God will have to be define again and again, and incase you have not notice, you did not show me what this perfect role model of yours is. Tell me what it means to be a "PERFECT or DESIRABLE ROLE MODEL" and I will look for that quality suggested by you in God to see if he suits your perfect and flawless idea.

"This contention in no way addresses whether God is a moral being, but whether or not we can morally emulate his actions"

Once again how?
Of course we can imitate his actions, but remember, the book he give us, that book tells us about him, and the qualities he has, everyone today have different understanding of this book. I am not a critic person, but if you notice, you did not even mention which God we were suppose to be debating about. You set this Debate wrong, my mined is open to all options, when you used the term "God"
That is not a name buddy, that is a Title, it's like saying the "President" is not a desirable role model, and everyone is like who? Which president?

"my opponent will be hard pressed to present a moral framework in which torturing and killing the innocent over simple differences in lifestyle or personal belief is desirable to be carried out by any man."
If we are focusing on the Christian part along.
Number one the whole idea of burning people In fire came from, guess who? Humans not God.
Clearly you have a very poor understanding of the Bible.

This place Gehenna, or the valley of the sons of hinnom you will read in the Bible is a place right outside of Jerusalem. Dead bodies where put in it to burn.and Jesus used the name of that place to describe how horrible the end will be, that is where the ideal of hell is coming from.

Just to prove that God has no interest in burning human or torturing humans.
Read JEREMIAH 7:31
They have built the high places of ToR42;phet, which is in the Valley of the Son of hinR42;nom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, something that I had not commanded and that had never even come into my heart."
Debate Round No. 4


No lies Voters, I've made the fatal mistake of consuming a bit too much alcohol before composing my final round. I rest assured, however, that my arguments will be as strong as before when I was sober and everything. Please ignore my opponent's outbursts about my "crazy mind"...

My opponent still has not addressed the consistency of the Bible, and cannot introduce it in this last round as I have no chance for rebuttal. So half of my resolution remains uncontested- making it impossible for my opponent to win points on argumentation. 50% concession leaves me with only one task: the "role model-ness" of God.

I used to eat at McDonald's, but now I go to Burger King because their motto is "have it Yahweh". No, but seriously. Even if my opponent defends the intrinsic moral high ground of some omniscient being, that in no way allows us to view him as a roll model. My opponent says there are certain points in God's character which they can draw out for us to emulate. I could, however, say the same thing for Adolf Hitler or almost any inhumane monster. A role model is someone who we seek to model our entire lifestyle after, an example is someone we learn certain select character traits from.

In the end my opponent hasn't touched the continuity of the Bible, and has offered no real evidence for God being a role model. Perhaps God is omniscient-ally good, but we could certainly not emulate that? Perhaps certain traits of God are desirable, but not all? Voters, the resolution does not involve whether God is moral or has some desirable character traits. My resolution stands and therefore, you must vote Pro. It's been a fun debate, Con.


Longline forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by daltonslaw 2 years ago
I want to debate this but I have absolutely no arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cold-Mind 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: 1) Con forfeited 2 times. 2) Pro had better arguments 3) Con insults pro at beginning of round 4.