The Instigator
InnovativeEphemera
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
Jesusfan
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

The Judeo-Christian 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
InnovativeEphemera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,204 times Debate No: 56892
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (31)
Votes (5)

 

InnovativeEphemera

Pro

I will be contending that the Judeo-Christian God Yahweh is immoral.
I do not believe in God, however this will not be used to contend that you must first prove God exists; for the sake of this debate I will be satisfied by arguing that the 'character' of God is immoral.

I will argue that you are more moral than your God.

I anticipate this debate degenerating into a definition-slinging contest (by both of us) but I sincerely hope we can avoid that and define quickly in order to focus on the issue. Of course, we will probably disagree over subjective vs. objective morality, etc, but hopefully we can quickly get to the issue.

I will accept your use of scripture, as I intend to do the same, in making arguments about what the bible says about morality, but I will otherwise profusely object to your use of the scripture to attempt, for example, to make factual historical proofs, etc. We are debating whether or not the character of the Abrahamic God is moral. As there are a number of translations and version, I will simply cite (e.g. King James) after each quotation. For this debate, with the exception of other external sources, I think in-line referencing of the text will be neater than footnoting.

3 rounds, 72 hours, 5k characters, 10 day voting period.

I'd like to add that given the obviously sensitive nature of this topic, I will endeavour to the absolute best of my temperament to keep the discussion civil, respectful and on topic.
Jesusfan

Con

I'm a little nervous to be defending my God in my first debate, but we'll see how this works out. But first , do you mean by"god is immoral" that God is bad? I'd like to start now, but I need to clear things up a bit. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

Jesusfan, thanks for accepting. Not to worry chief, there are lots of theists on DDO and I'm sure you'll get plenty of support!
What I mean by "God is Immoral" is the subject of this debate! So stay tuned.

Firstly, I'll try to define morality, although obviously this is going to be the most contentious part of the debate. To start with I'll use the broad definition of "conformity to the rules of right conduct."(1) Ok, so what's "right conduct"? Right and wrong are notoriously difficult concepts to define, let alone apply to decision making.
I contend that "right conduct" and "morality" refer to the application of social norms and standards of behaviour which govern the interaction between people in a particular society; that is, morality in one society might differ in certain ways from other societies, but there are certainly common codes of conduct between cultures and societies. The key here, though, is that where two or more people share a relationship, whether that's cultural, geographical or even in a household, the behavioural standards between one another must be reciprocal (to avoid hypocrisy and double-standards). For instance, people might agree not to murder each other, but this falls apart if one party breaks the social contract.

Of course, society (or a person) could claim that a thing is moral (e.g. female genital mutilation in certain nations, or antisemitism in Nazi Germany) and another could claim that it is immoral (most of the West would tend to hold a position that mutilation is unaccaptable, it is now universally accepted that mass genocide is wrong). And this is where we come to be at loggerheads; I can claim that according to my value system, God is immoral. You can then claim that according to your value system, God is omnibenevolent and any decision he makes is moraly perfect, so it doesn't matter what I consider to be moral. However, what I CAN argue is that where God has arbitrated to a group of people a code of conduct as outlined in my opening paragraph, and a member of that group violates the rule, they have then conducted an act of immorality. God ascribes to us rules, and then tells us to break His rules and breaks them himself.

So, I will argue that God contradicts himself in His instructions to us, which causes immorality amongst us, and is itself immoral. I will then argue that by any standard, regardless of whether you adhere to God's word or not, the acts carried out by God cannot be defined as those of an all-loving, morally superior God.

Firstly, the bible contends God created everything, do we agree?
Secondly, we know that God created all the people before the exodus from Egypt, the Flood, etc.
Thirdly, being omnipotent, he knew, when he created all the people, that he was going to kill them all.
Thus, God demonstrates a tendency to kill, despite it being objectively wrong, right? Sure, because he's God so it's fine.
"Thou shalt not kill" - Exodus 20:2-17 (New International Version)
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34 (NIV)

While to me that is immoral, it won't inherently prove immorality to you, because the fundamental basis of God's morality is special pleeding, which, of course, is fallacious but incombatable. So instead what I said I would do is argue that you are more moral than God. This is, of course, a matter of subjective morality, however, my point is that you make decisions that are subjective because you recognise the biblical instructions as being immoral.

Do you think that a person who dashes children's heads against rocks ought to be blessed? If you don't, you're more moral than your God:
"Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" Psalm 137:9 (Standard English Version.)

If a child misbehaves, should it be killed?
If you think he or she shouldn't be killed, you are more moral than your God:
"[...]And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Should a rapist and murderer who atones for his sins be saved and sent to heaven, and a man who steals bread for his starving daughter but does not repent burn for all of eternity for feeding his child? Is this all loving? Infinite punishment for finite crime, Infinite reward for finite deed? If you don't think this is fair, you are more moral than your God.

I have more to say, however I think it might be prudent to try to get through definitions first (as I predict contention and rebuttals along the lines of "God can tell us not to do something but he can do whatever he wants because he's the ultimate moral arbiter") to which I'll obviously disagree, plus you'll probably want to contend some of your own arguments as well so I'll pick up on the rest of my stuff next round.

Have fun!

(1)[http://dictionary.reference.com...]
Jesusfan

Con

You have defined morality as "the application of social norms and standards of behavior which govern the interaction between people in a particular society." However, as you pointed out, standards of behavior change with different cultures. For your definition to work, everyone everywhere must agree. But, we don't. If your definition is true, then absolute morality doesn't exist; morality is completely subjective. What we think is wrong may be considered right to someone else and therefore may not be inherently bad. For example, using your definition, whatever God did in the Old Testament may have been the social norm for that time and therefore be moral. If there is no absolute standard of morality, it is hard to judge whether actions done in the past are immoral or not. Biblically, I would describe morality as a set of rules given by something other than us which everyone everywhere must follow. I say "something other than us" because if morality came from our personal convictions it would be ever-changing and of no value.

But you are arguing that God, from whom morality comes, disobeys his own rules of morality and is therefore immoral. To prove it you used several examples when God has done seemingly shocking things.

You said that God commands us not to kill (Exodus 20:13), yet there are examples throughout the Old Testament (such as the Flood) where God did kill. However, when I looked up the verse you cited, Exodus 20:13 (NIV), it does not say, "Thou shalt not kill;" it says, "You shall not murder." The definition of kill is, "Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing)." The definition of murder is, "Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation" (Oxford Dictionaries). One of the examples where God killed is in the Flood. This was not murder, however, because it was not unlawful"the people truly deserved punishment. "The Lord saw how great man"s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." Genesis 5:5-6 (NIV). Because of his justice, God cannot let sins go unpunished. Romans 6:23 reads, "23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

You gave us Psalms 137:9 as an example of immoral cruelty. It reads, "Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!" In context, the Jews had just had been taken away from their land, and their children had just been dashed against the rocks by their captors, the Babylonians. They were wishing for justice.

You gave us another verse about a child being stoned for rebellion. However, if you look at the passage, it actually never says child; it says son. This son is a drunkard and will not listen to discipline. His parents have done everything they can. God had to show his people that the consequences of sin are real.

As for your last two examples about the poor thief and the murderer, I'd like to know exactly what verses you used, because often in context things become clearer.

You have given me these verses to prove that I am more moral than God, but I'd like to show you one of the many examples where God has been kinder than we as humans would ever be.

The most obvious one is Jesus. Would you give your only child to be killed in place of a bunch of sinners? That's kindness at its extreme.

Here are a couple other examples from the Old Testament showing God"s patience and compassion:

In Isaiah 55 he says, "Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous his thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts neither are your ways my ways. " (Isaiah 55:7-8 NIV )
"Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea." (Micah 7:18-19 NIV)

Enjoy!
Debate Round No. 2
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

Thanks for your response, which, thankfully, is stronger than some of the arguments I've been experiencing in the comments section. However, it is still subject to flaw, and I hope to illustrate that is the case in this, my closing round.

Firstly, I'd like to open with asking whether this is fair (emphasis added): "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NIV). Is that not the most horrendously, heinously, abhorrently atrocious thing that a woman would have to suffer? MARRYING her rapist and never, ever being able to be free of him? And please don't use "oh yeah but the context, otherwise they'd never get married, it was different then..." bull*hit, he's a rapist, and if God's morals are absolute, then this is still what is 'moral', and he doesn't even get done for sinning, it's just a civil crime.

I will attempt to respond briefly to your initial points.
While you are mostly correct in interpreting what I said, I must point out that not everyone everywhere must agree, only those party to the convention, that is, to which society they belong or are currently in. For example, in the United States one is permitted to carry firearms in many states for the purpose of self-defence. In most other western countries, however, this is not the case. Therefore, an American in, say, England, would be expected to abide by the customs of that nation, insofar as it does not conflict with their morality through positive action. If the American was in another country and asked if they wanted to sever the genitals of the firstborn child of a family of sinners, it is likely that they would decline to do so because that would conflict with their moral code. In this sense, I agree that my contention is the absence of absolute morality.

On to your second point, that if it is only objective, without absolute standard, then it would alter over time. However, I reject your assertion that this makes it valueless. The reason we have a legal system based on precedent, followed by new judgements, re-written laws and continual development is because we don't have all the answer to the moral questions, and as we proceed in time and new situations arise, we learn more about what the "right thing to do" is. Women's suffrage, the abolition of slavery, and stoning anyone to death are good examples of where we have learned and grown. If absolute morality was the case, how is it possible, then, that God arbitrated for these things to happen then but not now?

Thirdly, you refuted Exodus 20:13 based on the translation I provided, which of course is fair, however it again illustrates the point that if it is absolute, why is there so much lee-way and ambiguity? A cursory Google search lent me the King James version, which is the one I think I was supposed to be citing the first time(1).

May I just point out that where you say "The Lord saw how great man"s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain." that God knew that's what was going to happen before he even created them. Why is he so surprised and saddened that they did what he was making them to do?

Again, as a factor of morality, I dispute God's justice. How is it just if a repentant rapist goes to heaven and a charitable apostate goes to hell? Is that really better?

Again with the justice, if a person bashes a baby's head on a rock, it is not the fault of the other person's baby. How can you justify punishing an innocent child, for a crime of their parents which they did not commit? This is obviously immoral by all of the standards we have discussed, except God's, which I contend is immoral.

Oh, sorry, you're right, it's much more moral to kill your drunkard son.

Ok, so about Jesus, yes I would give my only son if I knew that that's what was going to happen, my son was magic, and also my son is me, so I'm sacrificing myself, not my son, although he is my son, who is really me. Also, it is absolutely NOT kind and fundamentally immoral to absolve criminals in that way. Criminals should be brought to justice, not absolved for absolutely no reason. If someone on death row had a nephew, and the nephew swaps places with his uncle, so the nephew sacrifices himself and dies in his place, does that absolve the crimes of the inmate? Should he now be permitted to re-enter society? Of course not! That would be fundamentally immoral.

This has been an interesting topic and I'm really glad we've done it from a cleaner angle. Good luck at the polls!

(1)[https://new.biblegateway.com...]
Jesusfan

Con

We are still at odds over the definition of morality, and since this is the central point of the debate, it is necessary to clear it up before we move on. Since your definition of morality is relative to society, you cannot judge God"s actions 5,000 years ago by today"s western standards. Right and wrong are words with absolute meaning, and if morality is subjective, the words right and wrong cannot be used. "Currently approved of" is more correct. However, we understand that there is such a thing as right and wrong. Since God is the source of everything, he is also the source of absolute morality.

You had a valid point about the woman who was forced to marry the man who raped her. However, a parallel passage, Exodus 22:16-17, further expounds on the situation. It explains that the father can refuse to give his daughter to the man and demand the bride price as payment.

You implied that it was a given that since God foreknew man"s sin, he caused them to sin. Yet knowing something is going to happen is not the same as causing it to happen. God created us perfect, wanting us to choose to love him. In this, he also had to give us the option of disobedience; without this option, our forced obedience would be worthless. He wanted to have a parent-child relationship, not one of a master-slave.

And although we chose disobedience and separation from God, he still wanted the father-child relationship. The only way for this to work was for us to be restored to our our perfect state, which is impossible without the sacrifice of Jesus. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." 2 Corinthians 5:21 (ESV). Your point that criminals should be brought to justice is exactly right"they should. No one has loved God or their neighbor as they should; all men have turned away and disobeyed God. No one should be allowed eternal life with a perfect God. Jesus, however, is the epitome of God"s justice and grace combined. If a normal man were to be killed for another man, the sacrifice would not be sufficient, which you pointed out in your example of the nephew dying for the uncle. However, this is the eternal perfect Son of God dying for all mankind.

"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace." Ephesians 1:7 (NIV)

You have been trying to prove that God is not moral, yet the example of Jesus shows that he is not only moral, he is also overflowing with love and kindness.
Debate Round No. 3
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
The holy war against evil played out in the Bible was as Pro stated, immoral.
Like the US removing the perceived Evil in Iraq, do they take the preferred leadership out on a jet, totally bomb Iraq and leave no life at all surviving and then ship the preferred leader and his family to start Iraq again. Well that is the Genesis Flood played out in modern times.

Such an act would automatically be considered by the United Nations as Mass Murder of Innocents.
The United States would be considered entirely Immoral and likely have all privileges and status of being a high ranking nation removed completely.

Yes, the Genesis Flood was exactly that Mass Murder, thus God defied it's own Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Murder.
You cannot do the apologetics trick of Obfuscating that to make The Noachian Flood appear Moral.
Because Christian Theology and Apologetics can simply be defined as "Making Up Nonsense".
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
You know what? I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but that is literally the most arrogant thing I have ever heard. As if when my "search for greater understanding[...]giving it real thought" returns a different result to you, I am inherently wrong. Is my position indefensible because it doesn't rely on faith? Or, as you so eloquently put it, is it invalid because lots of people make the same argument? Guess what, lots of people are Catholic and lots of people believe that Christ is the saviour. That in and of itself doesn't invalidate Catholicism or Jesus. What the hell do cliches have to do with anything? And don't sit their spouting "40 days and 40 nights" and talking about Icarus as if that's anything new either. Religion is the definition of cliche, brother.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
You say you do not take it literally then in the very next passage you argue a point from a literal interpretation. Your opening remarks to me seemed as if you were truly on a search for greater understanding and giving the matter real thought. However as I said before unfortunately it has degenerated to cliches. That is too bad.

Well, good luck to you my friend.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Haha, typical creationist response to having their own logical fallacy illustrated to them. Yes, it is a cliche that atheists employ frequently. Guess why? Because your argument is invalid. Please don't tell me that a 19-year old Australian has to explain to an more than three times his age how syllogisms work? Sit down, I'll give you a lesson.

Bro. I am not disputing scientific evidence for a glacial sea-level rise. What I'm saying is, people writing about the flood who do NOT have scientific understanding of glacial floods are naturally going to attribute such an event to a supernatural deity, and write it down in a book less internally consistent than Dumb and Dumber which unfortunately got taken too seriously and germinated in the generations of posterity.

I do believe you can read it into the bible. I can read what I'm having with my cereal tomorrow from the bible. Certainly won't be shellfish, though.

You do know that I agree the bible can't be taken literally, right? Like you don't actually have to go out of your way to prove that...? It's a collection of stories which are nice and poetic and kept people in line before rules of law were established because there was no other way to do it. The Catholic Church set a precedent for making sh*t-tonnes of money out of it + lots of power.

Also, just for clarification, how can you focus on not taking it literally, except then suddenly when it comes to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, intervening super-deity that after hundreds of thousands of years of roaming around the desert finally reveals himself to one person and somehow that's more believable than "slaves obey your masters" as being literally true? Again with the syllogisms, why isn't this special pleading?

Listen, mate, while this has been entertaining and a great warm-up for some real debates, I think I'll let you have the last word on the next one and leave it be; you're only arguing my position anyway. I know it's not true already!
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
The link to Icarus journal doesn't seem to work. I'll post it again here but if it doesn't work just type Icarus journal into the search engine.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(journal)
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
Without first knowing that 7 was the number of fulfillment used then, like we might use a "million" or a "billion" ("I could have eaten a million of those donuts.") then the passage makes no sense. Without understanding that Paul did not attempt to write "Scripture" but simply letters to people or Churches of his day about issues they were facing, such as how should a slave who is a Christian behave or how women of the day should behave, then you miss the point. Neither of these are an endorsement of slavery nor a statement about women's inferiority to men.... they were speaking about the society as it existed THEN, not making edicts as to how society should be for all time. The style of writing was different. And some things, like Revelation, were NEVER meant to be taken literally. You cannot consider figurative language as being literal.

I hope this clears things up for you.
Posted by WileyC1949 2 years ago
WileyC1949
Whoa.... your arguments have degenerated to just mouthing atheistic cliches. I never spoke of "God of the gaps" or anything like that. The end of the Ice Age and the raising of water levels is history. I gave you one link.... there are many more. Look it up. Secondly the Icarus journal is hardly the home of "pseudo-science". Carl Sagan was editor of the journal from 1968 to 1979. http://en.wikipedia.org...(journal). I don't recall saying anything about Pangea (although, believe it or not, that too can be seen as being referred to in the Bible). I never said one word about anyone not being able to speak about their beliefs, whether they believe in God or not.

The reason why the Bible, especially the OT, cannot be taken literally is because of the combination of the way things were written down. The stories existed in oral form throughout the entire region. Genesis 1 was a poem or a song. Genesis 2 was a morality play. The editor tried to form a continuous narrative but did not do a good job in as far as modern editing would say. When you try to combine stories that had been spoke orally for thousands of years you are going to have trouble in details. The Bible states that Ishmael was 14 when he and his mother were driven away. In the very next chapter he is an infant. Obviously details like that were not important to the writer. He was explaining how different groups of the region came to be. Muslims today claim their roots trace back to Ismael. In the story of Lot and his daughters the "nations" that came from their union were all the enemies of Israel. It was the writer's way of insulting their enemies. When Peter asked should we forgive our brother 7 times and Christ responded "Not seven times but seventy times seven times." Literally then he is saying 490 times, a figure which would be passed in some families in less than a year.
<page 2>
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
I had l'esprit d'escalier!!!!

Rev 1:19: "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later"

So you DO have to take it literally....unless rev 1:19 wasn't literal :P
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
(2) alright so we have a long personal anecdote appealing to several fallacies that I don't want to get into. Long story short you committed an immense combination of god of the gaps and appeal to ignorance, with a dash of argument from incredulity. How could this blade of grass possibly be so perfect? Therefore god. As it happens you live in a western society so obviously Christianity is the most easily accessible to you, plus you had childhood ties so it felt comfortable. By the way, I'm glad we can agree it has NOTHING to do with randomness and chance :)

Ok long story short you're a deist now so you think god doesn't intervene, so I guess Jesus never existed nor did the plagues and the flood?

Oh wait, here we go, pseudoscience. Okie doke.

Yo!!! Yo buddy bro!! You don't get to go LOOK POLAR ICECAPS MELTED NSHSIWODJDJSPSNF GOD!!!11!1!!!(one)11!!(one)!!!

Of course you can write a book after-the-fact and go "god did it". Qualified and substantial tv personalities do it errday = legit!

Next, that was a European event (which I grant when you're writing a book in the desert and have no idea about the rest of the world that's exactly the type of thing you're likely to think).
Next, you're talking about Pangea and the previous supercontinent where everything was effectively connected and then by a process of tectonic shifting it all moved, plus melting polar caps (climate change is bulls**t, right?) by the way all these things STILL happen naturally. Or you reckon god' smelting them now to test us?
In my country, the native population also has genesis stories which they collectively call The Dreamtime. The stories are beautiful and poetic and spiritual and as you hear an Aboriginal elder tell them to you you can't help but feel a deep sense of connection to the earth we stole from them. This doesn't make them literally true.

I'm really sorry but I do need to study for this wretched exam now. Thankyou for the stimulating conversation, if I get a chan
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Oooooookiedoke this is a lot to respond to and while I do have an exam to study for I understand how much time this must have taken you so out of respect I'll do my best to address everything you said.

First up you're wrong again on this whole bible thing. I could totally use Mein Kampf to illustrate that Hitler was a d-bag and he doesn't have to be correct in his assertions for me to do that, in the same way that I think god was wrong about some things in terms of morals.

I'd like to take a second to make this point. Your fervent, effectively febrile defence of god is automatic and without hesitation which is surely admirable. But...you don't even know what you're defending him from. Not once in this entire conversation, I'd like to point out, have you asked WHY I think god is immoral. If you're so secure in your belief system then why are you arguing with me before I've even made my case to you? The debate itself isn't even half over. I gave some quick, pre-loaded shotgun versions in the form of questions earlier but those don't really represent my position. Instead you've decided to quibble about the only authority to which anybody has access. So because I'm a non-believer I'm not allowed to talk about god, is that right? Or religion at all? It's an elitist dogma for the enlightened and even before converting, apostates aren't allowed to discuss it because they don't know the true word of god? Whose "interpretation" is correct, and whose is constructed in a deliberate attempt to manipulate?

Friend. Bodies of scientific knowledge change with the introduction of new evidence. Historical bodies of knowledge change with new evidence. But what actually happened, factually, is incontrovertibly true. If you're telling me that god never said thou shalt not kill, bible or not, well that's up to you, but I don't see how you can find any truth in your religion or scripture from there.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Samreay 2 years ago
Samreay
InnovativeEphemeraJesusfanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources, conduct and grammar all tied. I believe Pro made the best arguments, by showing that the actions of God, put in a modern context, would be seen as abonimal. I find Con's refutation of this point to be self contradictory, first claiming that right and wrong are absolute values, and then claiming that we cannot judge God's actions by modern standards. Having provided no alternate standard, this is equivalent to simply asking the reader to disregard Pro's argument without justification. Continuing this, I found Con's comment about Jesus being loving off topic, as that does not imply consistent morality (indeed many abusive relationships stem from a mix of the two). I think Pro and Con would have been able to talk directly to each others points better if definitions were agreed prior to the debate. Thanks for the read.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
InnovativeEphemeraJesusfanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forgets that the Flood can definitely be defined as Murder, by God, thus making Pro Correct, God Murdered nearly all innocent people on Earth, there was no war against them, only against the few evil dudes that God being omniscient would know their names and being omnipotent could have ridden the world of them only and left all innocents, including the babies and yet to be born without any harm. Con's arguments are fallacious. Pro actually posted Sources, while con made Biblical references that are a pain to look up, but were not really good evidence against Pro's argument anyway.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
InnovativeEphemeraJesusfanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: showed hypocrisy and pschopathy
Vote Placed by Phoenix61397 2 years ago
Phoenix61397
InnovativeEphemeraJesusfanTied
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: Better arguments by con
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
InnovativeEphemeraJesusfanTied
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: Poor arguments by Pro.