The Instigator
Torvald
Pro (for)
Losing
25 Points
The Contender
JustinAMoffatt
Con (against)
Winning
30 Points

The character of God in the Bible is essentially Adolph Hitler

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 14 votes the winner is...
JustinAMoffatt
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,273 times Debate No: 35301
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (14)

 

Torvald

Pro

This debate will address the morality or lack thereof of 'God' as described in the Bible. I as the Pro will be demonstrating how, as portrayed by the Bible, God is similar to Adolph Hitler. The burden of proof will accordingly be on me. My opponent will rebut and make any complementary case he or she wishes to make.

Strictures:
- Videos as evidence will be dismissed
- Sources are to support points, not make them
- Preaching, evangelism, and irrational appeals to emotion are discouraged

Thank you.
JustinAMoffatt

Con

I accept this challenge. I will be representing Con, and will be defending the point that God is NOT "essentially Adolf Hitler".

I wish my opponent luck, and hope for a great, fun, and enlightening debate round.
Debate Round No. 1
Torvald

Pro

Thank you, JustinAMoffatt, for accepting this challenge. I wish you good luck.

The Garden of Eden
From the very beginning of the Bible, God has been portrayed as possessed of heavy double-standards, as well as a cruel sense of overlordship. The earliest example of this of which I can think is the story of the Garden of Eden. God built a sequestered kingdom of perfection for his picture of elite existence. Those that he apparently considered substandard did not live in his utopia. While the Bible makes no specific mention of anything outside the Garden, it is heavily implied. After all, when Cain and Able are mentioned, it is stated that Cain moved far away and married. This illustrates God's vision of favoritism and elitism, the ideal of the perfect humans versus the impure creation. Furthermore, that God created a tree in the center of the Garden, apparently for no purpose except to serve as a test of blind faith, instructing Adam and Eve to never eat from it, though giving no reason, seems to me to be cruel: like placing a dish of a child's favorite candy on the table in front of them and instructing them to never touch it. You may say that this is a test, an opportunity to prove themselves to God. If this is so, it is a cruel test! The human psyche works such that it would be far too tempting not to taste; it is the torment of Tantalus. This illustrates that God has a sense of elitism, of the ideal human, and that humans are not necessarily valuable to him, even, as he protects them from outside only to torment them within.

Noah's Ark
Noah's Ark seems to me to be the best example of all of the silliness of the Bible. In the beginning of the story, God has apparently grown tired and displeased with his creation, and resolves to destroy all life on Earth. However, Noah convinced him to spare a select few, and God changed his resolution. He decided to create a perfect, new world order, with his ideal model of humanity being spared from the genocide used to purge the 'impure.' God proceeded to kill every living thing on Earth except for what Noah brought on the ark. I won't go into the logistic impossibility of the ark, merely the moral implications; God apparently had no scruples about killing millions for the sake of creating his perfect human race to repopulate his reformed Earth. This vision of genocide to purify the human race was one of Adolph Hitler's most prominent features, and that for which he lives in infamy.

Job
Many people, perhaps most people, are familiar with that poor unfortunate fellow, Job. For the sake of experimentation, God put Job through some of the most intense misery thinkable, it is unthinkable. Job watched as his whole family was killed, his property lost, his friends turned against him, and his health, deteriorated. When Job cried out to his protector, his All-Father, his leader for help, he got no response, and fell into despondency. God rewarded Job for never faltering by showering him with anything he could want: more objectified wives and children, more livestock, better health, more land, more respect, more friends, etc. Regardless of the reward for his suffering, that Job ever experienced it is appalling. This is for the sake of an experiment, mind you, that God was willing to see Job inflicted with such pain. This indifference to the pain of his subjects is yet one more parallel between God and Hitler; Hitler often sanctioned psychologically and physically excruciating experiments on his subjects as well.

Sodom and Gomorrah
Another famous story of God's wrath would be the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham's cousin Lot was given an opportunity: God, apparently once more apt to purge humanity of 'undesirable elements,' resolved to gas the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, in one of which Lot resided. Why? Because they allegedly had large populations of homosexuals. That's right, God was gassing them for gay sex. While he didn't round them up and lock them in gas chambers, he did essentially bomb their cities with burning chunks of pyroclastic material releasing poisonous gases, a slow, painful death. This is remarkably similar to Adolph Hitler, who also loathed homosexuals (largely because homosexuality isn't condoned by the Bible), and who gassed them for gay sex just as God did.

Lady Love
God is not often portrayed as a pedophile or otherwise sexual miscreant, but the story of the Holy Virgin always bothered me. Historical estimations place Mary at about age 14 when she had her firstborn. Now, pause for a moment to consider how she got pregnant: either she did or did not have sex. If she did have sex, then she's no longer the Holy Virgin. If she did not, then the conclusion is that God magically impregnated Mary. So, God magically impregnated a fourteen- or thirteen-year-old virgin in a society that, at God's bidding, would readily execute an unmarried non-virgin. Later, after Mary gave birth to God's baby, God, he returned and killed he and Mary's baby, himself, and then three days later, while dead, changed his mind. Excepting the obviously ridiculous nature of this story, this shows us two things about God's personality: he has a bit of a dirty fetish, and he doesn't stay for breakfast. Yes, I said God has a fetish; that is what it is called, usually, when a person has a sexual preference that defers from normally accepted parameters. In this case, God likes them young. Complain all you will, but it remains that God impregnated a virgin. I only know of one way babies are made, and if the Con can supply another, so be it. Furthermore, God practically vanished from this poor girl's life after impregnating her, not to return until she gave birth to him. Anyway, all of that to lead to the point that God, like Adolph Hitler, had a twisted sex life and few scruples about it.

Revelation
The final point that I shall cover for now is the final point in the Bible, the book of Revelation. I will not attack all of the extremely trippy facets that make it seem like John the Beloved discovered peyote several thousand kilometers from its place of origin. I will merely deal with the apocalyptic prophecies. Revelation speaks of a coming doom for the human race. Once more, it seems, God resolved to purify the human race, killing every living thing on Earth except for a select few that represent God's version of the ideal human race. Once more, this is genocide for the sake of racial purity, Adolph Hitler's claim-to-fame.

Conclusion
I conclude that, because God is represented by the Bible as unscrupulous and quite ready to commit genocide for the sake of racial purity, as of this point in the debate, I conclude that my point is upheld: God is essentially Adolph Hitler, on a grander, mythological scale. I now incline the floor to the Con.

Sources
  • The Holy Bible, New King James Version
JustinAMoffatt

Con

I will be responding to, and refuting, my opponent's arguments.

The Garden of Eden
Here, my opponent seems to be a bit confused about actual Biblical events. That is understandable, otherwise he probably wouldn't be comparing God to Hitler. To benefit the round, and my opponent, I will clarify. By the time of Cain and Abel, all of humanity was already living outside of Eden. While Eden was still accessible to humans, Adam and Eve (the only two humans on the Earth at this time) lived inside of it. So there was no "preferred line of people" living in Eden at any point in time. God banished Adam and Eve for breaking the rules, just like you'd get kicked out of your neihgborhood pool for urinating in the deep end.
Also, my opponent would be correct about the tree being a cruel test, if not for one thing. God gave humans no desire to sin against Him. They were completely unaware of good and evil. However, according to the Bible, Satan came down and tempted Eve to take the fruit and eat it. God wasn't tormenting them. Besides, even if He was testing loyalty, instructing a human not to eat one thing in the entire world is a pretty easy one. But, I digress. Again, human's had no desire to sin against God at this time.
I would also like to point out here, that my opponent made no connection to Hitler and God in this story.

Noah's Ark
Actually, a minor correction if I may. God was greatly grieved by all of the people sinning, and resolved to remove humanity except for Noah (who didn't convince God of anything), because Noah was a righteous man. Ah, and here we go, a comparison to Hitler and the infamous ethnic "cleansing". However, this is a loose comparison. Noah was chosen, as I just stated, for his actions, not race. And not only did God want others aside from Noah and co. to turn to Him, He even had Noah build the ark where they could all see his progress day by day and here what it was goign to save them from. God wanted them to be spared, but He also knew that humanity would never recover with such awful acts being committed by so many people. So, again, this was a matter of actions, not race.

Job
Here we have another fragile comparison, and more misrepresented scripture. The story of Job is a very riveting one, and one of my personal favorites. I will give a summary. Satan brags to God about being able to turn any man away from Him. God points out Job, a truly devout follower of God. Satan essentially says, "Oh yeah? Give me 5 minutes with this guy.". He wreaks havoc. Job stays true to God. Repeat 3 times. But on the third time, Job (who is absolutely miserable at this point) starts telling God how unfair He is for taking all this away from Him. God teaches Job just how alimighty He really is. Job apologizes and decides to trust God no matter what. In the end, God restored all that Job had, and multiplies it by tenfold. My opponent tries to compare this to Hitlers expiremental testing done on his captives.... and it doesn't really add up.

Sodom and Gomorrah
The Bible doesn't state why God chose to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. However, we are told that it is because they are wicked cities. Homosexuality was hardly the worst thing going on in them. The two angels, sent to Lot's family to warn them to leave the city before it was destroyed, at first decide to sleep in the city square. Lot, seeing them there, knows that they'll be dead by morning if they sleep there. He takes them to his house and lets them spend the night, but during dinner a group of men start banging on the door. They demanded the angels be given to them so they could rape them. So, not only does this link between Hitler and God fall due to the fact that we don't even know God's reasons, but also because there were many other things going on that are even considered crimes today.

Lady Love
My opponent here seems to be merely pushing buttons for a reaction. I'm sad he thinks of this story this way, but oh well. Yes, God impregnated Mary. At that time, and in Israeli culture, women were married at Mary's age (hence why Joseph was already engaged to her). No, He did not have sex with her. And He planned to come to Earth as a sacrifice for mankind, He didn't change his mind about being dead. So God did not have a fetish, He simply chose Mary, a virgin, to be the mother of Jesus. Since we arguing from a Biblical context, God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, He can do anything. Therefore, He can impregnate a woman without having sex. And in the end, we're left with an already shaky, and now utterly nonsensical, attempt to prove God and Hitler equals.

Revelation
Revelation is about the end of the world, yes. But again, it is nto about race, merely about those who follow Christ. In fact, it's the opposite. Christians will be hunted and killed. God will send plagues, yes. The immunity to such plagues will be by choice, not race. God doesn't care if you're black, white, Asian, or martian. He only cares about faith and actions. Hitler didn't care about actions, only race.

Conclusion
So I think that pretty much sums it up. After clearing up a lot of misrepresented scripture, and shattering the already brittle comparisons between God and the leader of Nazi Germany, I believe that I have negated the resolution as it stands right now. However, my opponent will have another chance in the upcoming third round. Back to Pro.

Sources
Bible, English Standard Version
Debate Round No. 2
Torvald

Pro

The Garden of Eden
I believe my opponent may have misunderstood the extent of my point. I am aware that, chronologically within the Bible, Adam and Eve are the only humans, living in the Garden, they eat from the forbidden tree, they are exiled, and outside of the Garden they have three children (Cain, Able, and Seth). However, my opponent explicitly states that Adam and Eve were at least at one point the only humans on Earth. This either disagrees with the passage about Cain's wife, or suggests he brought a younger sister with him, or married a non-human. Regardless of whom Cain married, it is irrelevant.
My opponent states that God gave humans no desire to sin against him. This seems to be at crossed purposes with giving them free will, since this would mean designing them with an inbuilt 'firewall' against a specific branch of freedom. My opponent also mentions that according to the Bible, Satan 'came down' and tempted Eve who then tempted Adam. If my understanding is correct, what tempted Eve was actually a talking snake with legs, that was ambiguously referenced in such a way that it can be inferred to have been Lucifer, God's greatest angel. Even if this is the case, God would have designed and created Lucifer, and if truly omniscient, would have known everything that Lucifer would do, thus meaning he designed Lucifer to do those things, also meaning that Lucifer would have no free will. The sum of this is that whether directly or indirectly, God is the one who tempted Eve, and by extent Adam, to eat from the tree that he did not want them to.
Ah, forgive me if I did not directly phrase the connection between God and Hitler; I had thought it would be extrapolated from my assertions. I stated "This illustrates that God has a sense of elitism, of the ideal human, and that humans are not necessarily valuable to him, even, as he protects them from outside only to torment them within." My reference to elitism and the picture of the ideal human to whom God shows favoritism were the implied link between he and Hitler.

Noah's Ark
The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.
This seems to me to very directly conflict with the Con's statement "God was greatly grieved by all of the people sinning, and resolved to remove humanity except for Noah (who didn't convince God of anything), because Noah was a righteous man." Later on, as I specified in my argument, God was persuaded by Noah to change his mind. However, as demonstrated by the passage above, God's original intent was to wipe out every living thing on Earth.
My opponent states that the comparison between Hitler and God is loose at best because Hitler's ideal human was one who not only followed a specific moral code, but also conformed to a specific physical identity, whereas God's ideal human only had to follow a specific moral code. I grant, Hitler was pickier than God, but I don't see how that lessens God's quest for racial purity. His intent was not to save a specific race, but to create a master race from favorable individuals, which lines up very well with Hitler's goal. My opponent also states that the people of the world were given a chance. Now, I do not know how many people he would estimate had a view of Noah's Ark, which was much smaller than the infamous Titanic, to give you a reference. Whatever my opponent's estimate, I doubt he would say that every human on the planet of that time had an opportunity to hear and see Noah's influence. That was hardly a fair warning--sort of like warning an entire city with a chalk drawing in the corner of one secluded alley. If God had, as the Con suggests, wanted the people of the world to be saved, he might perhaps have invested in a better advertising campaign. I think it still remains very firmly standing that I have established that God, like Hitler, dreamt of genocide, and sought to create a master race out of the survivors of his global war/domination (in this case, via flood).

Job
My opponent calls my argument about Job fragile, then proceeds to return to how it was all Satan's fault. How God was really a good guy throughout all of this. Two simple points on the matter have I: firstly, I return to my earlier statement, about how God, omniscient and omnipotent, would have known everything Satan would do given every variation of his character before he ever created him, thus, in creating him the way he chose, he chose to create the monster that Satan supposedly became (the Bible speaks of Satan's evil, but I actually see much more genocide and suffering caused by God than Satan). Secondly, I would point out that in condoning Satan's experiment, God did exactly what Adolph Hitler did, which is to sanction the cruel experiment of another person, while remaining distant and 'uninvolved.' My opponent, it occurs to me, may not be very familiar with Adolph Hitler.

Sodom and Gomorrah
You're right, in that, now that I examine once more, the Bible does not explicitly state that Sodom and Gomorrah's acceptance of homosexuality was the cause of God's decision to destroy the cities. However, my opponent has his 'facts' very mixed up as to how events progressed in that story. My opponent states "The two angels, sent to Lot's family to warn them to leave the city before it was destroyed, at first decide to sleep in the city square. Lot, seeing them there, knows that they'll be dead by morning if they sleep there. He takes them to his house and lets them spend the night, but during dinner a group of men start banging on the door. They demanded the angels be given to them so they could rape them." According to Genesis 19, Lot met the angels at the gate and offered them a place to stay. He did not do so with the purpose of saving them. Furthermore, when the locals surrounded the house and demanded the travelers be surrendered to them for sex, A) it is not specified that rape was the intention (Sodom's culture may have included surprise orgies), and B) Lot's characters is significantly defaced when he offers his two teenage daughters to a crowd of libidinous homosexuals in place of his male guests. While my opponent is correct, the Bible is no more explicit than to state that the people of Sodom were wicked, it may have had something to do with the surprise orgies. Regardless of God's declaration of the moral state of Sodom and Gomorrah, however, it remains that he resolved to kill the whole populations of both cities. Like God, Adolph Hitler declared his victims to be wicked, and his own cause righteous. I fail to see the difference.

Lady Love
Yes, I apologize. I did get carried away and stray off-topic by including some unrelated filler about the relationship between God and Mary. I will dismiss the point except for one issue: my opponent states two interesting things: God is omnipotent, and God sent Jesus as a sacrifice for mankind. Now, I think it is implied that my opponent would hold the purpose of this 'sacrifice' to be part of an elaborate plan to save humanity from sin. If the first-mentioned point is true, that God is omnipotent, it seems bizarre to me that he would go to such lengths with alternatives.

Revelation
My opponent seems to have ignored entirely my point that, according to Revelation, God is to be creating a utopia for his ideal humans, whatever race that be, while the non-ideal ones are tortured. My opponent is quite wrong that Hitler cared only about race, and not about actions.

To be continued.
JustinAMoffatt

Con

I thank Torvald for his speedy response. On to the arguments.

The Garden of Eden
My opponent assumes that since the Bible doesn't explicitly state Adam and Eve had daughters, that there were none. He forgets that the culture of Abraham's descendants tended to use Males for credibility, and often created long family trees based off of male predecessors. Females were hardly ever mentioned when describing family lines. And again, Cain was banished for murdering his brother! He wasn't outcast because of skin color, physical figure, the color of his armpit hair, or any other reason.
God gave humans the ability to choose not to serve Him. He didn't give them the desire to do so. As to God creating Lucifer. Yes, He did that. He also gave the angels free will we see, because Lucifer turned on God, trying to take His throne. God knew what would happen, yes. But He also knew that if He gave us any less free will we would be robots, programmed to serve Him. Lucifer also made his choice, and tried to take Adam and Eve with him. In a sense, he succeeded. Saying God caused them to sin is like someone creating a Lego model, and being held responsilbe for all injuries of someone who placed the model on the floor and stepped on it.
Elitism is the link that my opponent gives. It does not hold up. I showed how God didn't "favor" any human. My opponent would rather assume that God created a second woman (without the Bible mentioning it) than that Cain had a sister of natural birth. Also, yes, God created Lucifer and the tree. He knew what would happen. But if we are operating in a Biblical context, He's also a perfect and righteous God. That was humanity's test, and we failed. But He offers us salvation... sounds pretty benevolent to me.

Noah's Ark
In my opponent's passages (which I'd appreciate if he mentioned which version that was from) that he brought up, he claims that since Noah "found favor in the eyes of the Lord", he must have persuaded Him somehow.
However, it never states Noah had to do any persuading to save his own skin. In other versions, that entire verses is left out, and it is merely stated that Noah was a righteous man, so God told Noah to build an ark to save mankind. (Yes, I'm paraphrasing) There is no way one can logically conclude that Noah had to bargain with God for safety. And it would be in direct contradiction with God's character as established in the Bible.
As for the warning, we are operating under the assumption that the Bible is true. We must, if we are to debate whether the Biblical God is akin to Hitler, correct? Therefore, since God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, must assume that God knew that they would not accept the warning. He gave it, just to give them the chance, but God knew ahead of time that, no matter what, they wouldn't accept. Also, for the size of a boat like the ark, and a man and his three sons working on it, I'm sure it took some time. Also considering the concentrated presence of one group of people, (since the tower of babel hadn't happened yet) it would be safe to assume that Noah lived where practically everyone else lived. In the end, God's nature, the time, and the concentration of people, provide a high probablility for the world's population being warned.
I will address the "one race" argument later in my speech.

Job
My opponent need not have any qualms about my knowledge of Hitler. Having studied WW2 and the events surrounding it quite thoroughly, I think I have a good grasp on how evil this man was. Likewise, I am also aware of the expirements performed on his captives.
In addressing my opponent's earlier statement about Satan, I would like to state this. God made Lucifer to serve Him, Lucifer could choose what to do. God knew what he'd choose, but he made him because if he didn't... how could he ever love God or have God love him? Would you rather just live out a pre-scripted life than one of choice and freedom? My opponent seems to. Atheists often complain about how God sends people to Hell, all while being told that God doesn't want them to go to Hell and they can go to heaven, instead. It's a choice that God gives to the people. Just like you don't keep your child in a box for their whole life to keep them safe, and just like you still have children, despite the fact that they're being born into an imperfect world. It's because of the good things that come if they choose to live right.
Also, God gave Job the strength to get through it. God allowed Satan to test him, yes. And do I know why? No. But returning to my earlier statement. We muts operate under the assumption that God is who He is said to be in the Bible. He is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Holy, unlike Hitler. If this is true, God could only have been looking out for Job in this situation. Maybe God was preparing Job for a future event? I don't know. But we know, biblically, that God knows everything.

Sodom and Gomorrah
So my opponent would rather assume that Sodom and Gomorrah had surprise orgies, instead of assuming that these men were trying to rape the visitors. (Um... demands for sex? To the point of rioting at the door? Doesn't sound consensual to me...) Yet he refuses to believe that Lot was trying to protect these men from the very thing they were endagered by mere verses later. No. I say that it was probably known to Lot what the people of Soddom and Gomorrah were all about. He tried to protect the newcomers (who wanted to stay the night in the open) and protected them when the rioters demanded to, yes, rape the angels.
Lot's personal shortcoming is of no consequence to this debate round. But personally, I don't think God would've asked that Lot give up his children to be raped instead. Lot is also previously established before this point as a man who struggles with fear and a lack of dependence on God.
Again, my opponent tries to state that God is like Hitler because of His willingness to remove mass amounts of people. But not only is God's standard for righteousness perfect, unlike the imperfect Hitler, but God also was essentially declaring war on the people of Soddom due to their actions. Killings based off of actions is not genocide.

Genocide- the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So not only is God destroying people based on actions, not allegiance, but He is also righteous when He does so, because the God of the Bible is Holy.

Lady Love
Point was conceded by Pro, except for:
Why did God use Jesus to save mankind?
Ever since the beginning, God required sacrifice for the atonement of sins. Hence, Jesus. Essentially, faith in God's ability to save us is what saves us. However, God saved us through Jesus Christ. But even before Jesus, Abraham was credited as righteous due to his faith in God's power and promises.

Revelation
God is creating a utopia for those that accept Him. He wants everyone to come. He is not punishing those who do not come by throwin them in Hell to "teach them a lesson". No. He has to put people in Hell because that is the only place where He is seperated from man. If you reject Him, He can't accept you. He's given humanity the choice.

Conclusion
My opponent has basically fallen back to the argument of "God is like Hitler because He performed Genocide on those who didn't follow Him". I reiterate, once again, my previous statement. The God of the Bible, as per the resolution, is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Righteous in all He does. He, unlike Hitler, has a perfect standard. He, unlike Hitler, knows if men are beyond hope of redemption. He, unlike Hitler, actually has the power to offer those who follow Him a utopia. He, unlike Hitler, doesn't discriminate by race.

If we are to argue the God of the Bible, my opponent has, unfortunately for him, already lost. The God of the Bible is a holy, perfect, and just God.

I don't think we can say the same for Hitler...

I relinquish the floor to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
Torvald

Pro

The Garden of Eden
I specified, as my opponent may want to reexamine, that the presence of Cain's wife indicates one of two things; either there were humans outside the Garden that were unrelated to Adam and Eve, or Cain married his [younger] sister. I did not explicitly state that they had no daughters. I wouldn't particularly enjoy the image of Cain marrying his sisters, but that's just me, I suppose.
I am not sure why my opponent is including the reason for Cain's banishment in this debate. To my knowledge it is not at question.
My opponent is using logic now that seems quite broken to me. He has stated that God is omniscient. He has also stated that God deliberately creates people (I think it's Isaiah that specifies this). He has also stated that God gives free will to all. Now, allow me to examine the logic here, and present why I find it flawed:

P1: God designs all people (including angels).
P2: God is omniscient, meaning he is ultimately knowledgeable, regardless of time (knows the consequences of his actions before he does the actions).
C: God knows exactly what all people will be like with every variation upon design, before he creates them.

Now, this illustrates that people obviously do not have free will since, if God knows what someone will be like before he designs that person, then he knows what actions that design will bring about, ergo he is consciously designing their actions as he designs them. My opponent's Lego model is flawed because it implies that God is either omniscient or malevolent, as he would either know someone would step on the Legos and put them there anyway, meaning he would be malevolent, or he would not know someone would step on the Legos, meaning he would not be omniscient.

My opponent has just made another assertion I don't follow; I stand accused of preferring God to have created another woman than Cain to have made a marriage of incest; my opponent has stated that God did indeed create his greatest enemy (which I have already proven means God must have been either malevolent or non-omniscient), and that God also created the temptation which was his creation's downfall; he has stated that God knew what would happen; I conclude that since God knew what would happen, created it with this knowledge, and yet still created it, God must have created it maliciously. That he created such an elaborate scheme for a salvation from a problem he created does not seem like an example either of benevolence or omnipotence to me.

Noah's Ark
My opponent now is just creating straw men, or perhaps trying to turn my arguments into straw men. He has stated that it cannot be logically concluded that Noah persuaded God based on the quote I gave. He has also stated that other versions of the Bible omit the verse about Noah finding favor in the eyes of God. Regarding the former, God's attitude progresses from a resolution to destroy all life, all, from the planet to destroying all but Noah and his ark, and it adds at the end of this, seemingly as an explanation, that Noah found favor in God's eyes. I do not see anything illogical about the assumption that Noah's favor in God's eyes is the cause of God's change of plans. Regarding the latter, I would be very interested to know to what versions my opponent is referring, because in my collection of Bibles, both modern and antique, I have yet to find an example of that passage being omitted. If desired I shall provide citations.
We are not operating under the assumption that the Bible is true, we are operating under the assumption that the Bible is an accurate portrayal of God's character.
Now, my good opponent, you are openly contradicting yourself. If God knew beforehand that no one would accept his warning, then presenting a warning would be wasteful. It would have been a better example of benevolence for God to instead offer a warning that people would believe. As for the size of the ark, my opponent may be mentally exaggerating this. The ark was actually quite small, smaller than many private craft. Maybe about the size of a yacht. For four adults with carpentry skills to build such a boat would really take comparatively little time if they had nothing else to do and were dedicated to the project.

My opponent has yet to establish that people were all concentrated in one spot. All non-Biblical evidence speaks strictly to the contrary, that at the alleged time of the Great Flood, some four-thousand years ago, if I remember correctly, humans were living on every continent. I cannot imagine any place on the planet that Noah could go that would successfully be visible to every continent (excepting Antarctica, naturally). This argument stands like a great pillar of marble, as of now.

Job
I'm glad to hear that my opponent is familiar with Adolph Hitler; it saves me the necessity of explaining his actions further. I will simply assume that he knows, and if he does not, he will be responsible for addressing his own currency of knowledge.
My opponent states that God made Lucifer with the knowledge of what Lucifer would do. If God knew what every possible variation on Lucifer would be like, then it is obvious that, in choosing the one he did, he instantly took from Lucifer free will, as the actions of the Lucifer he created were predetermined, and effectively it would mean God was designing Lucifer both to love him for the time that he did, and to betray him. My opponent's own argument proves that if God exists, either he is not as my opponent describes, or freedom is an illusion.
Regarding children, do not bring my children into this. I have created no child with the knowledge of exactly what it would be before I created it, I did not choose a 'template' for what that child's life would be, and I did not force it to assume an identity that I was predeterminedly aware of before I created it. That is a totally irrelevant analogy.
My opponent has addressed none of my points about Job, and instead attacked my religious beliefs, my family values, and idly speculated about God's motivations before conceding that he does not know why God would allow Job to endure such a situation. Finally, he states that God knows everything, reinforcing my point that either God is not all-powerful, or not benevolent.

Sodom and Gomorrah
I did not assume that Sodom and Gomorrah had surprise orgies, I made a joke. There is no more evidence to suggest that Sodom and Gomorrah had surprise orgies than there is to suggest they wanted to rape people. Yes, they did stand outside of Lot's house and demand sex. But as they did not get their wish, they weren't given any opportunity to demonstrate whether they intended it to be consensual or otherwise. That Lot insisted they stay the night with him is not necessarily an act of protection. My opponent may not be highly familiar with Middle Eastern culture: allow me to enlighten him a bit. It is customary for Arabs (and Hebrews) to offer hospitality to travelers. Lot's offer of hospitality could as easily have been habitual as it could have been out of concern for the traveler's safety. Being such an ambiguous passage, that really is hard to address. However, Lot's motives aren't at question. God still destroyed two cities, regardless of innocents.

Oho, and now we have evangelism. I asked you not to do that.

Conclusion
My dear fellow, history is written by the victors! At his rein, Hitler also declared that he had a perfect standard, that he knew if men were beyond hope, and he did promise a utopia to those who followed him. And did I just hear "God doesn't discriminate by race?" surely I did not hear that. My opponent finishes with "God...is a holy, perfect, and just God." Can you support this of a God who, as I have established without rebuttal, has committed multiple cases of genocide, a term which my opponent has kindly defined for us? Saying that he was justified because he was killing those that deserved it to create a utopia is describing Adolph Hitler.

Your move.
JustinAMoffatt

Con

Thanks to my opponent for his response.

The Garden of Eden
I realize my opponent specified this. I don't enjoy the idea of incest either, but back then it was both physically and socially acceptable. It was that or his mom. But this is irrelevant. We both know that.

My opponent has acknowledged two truths. God is omniscient. God created all people. However, he misunderstands the point of free will. God didn't create us so that we'd fail. He created us, knowing some would fail. He didn't banish us to Hell. He created us, know whether we would choose Him or not, but did not make that choice for us. We have to be able to understand this.

I beleive there is no flaw with my lego analogy. Suppose, after your friend stomped his foot on the lego structure, you were to go back in time and get another shot at it. If you were to leave it there, would you be at fault? Or would the desire of your friend to cause himself excrutiating pain be the culprit? My opponent seems to believe that we'd be responsible for keeping it out of our friend's reach. Is this true? Especially when our friend will just find a way to reach it each time we move it?

My opponent makes a fatal error that I brought up before, and will bring up again. We are debating God as if He was all that He says He is in the Bible. If God is Holy, He can not be malevolent.

Also, one final possibility that my opponent doesn't realize is, since God is omniscient, He may know that creating humanity, even with all this knowledge, will result in greater good. Considering the fact He's holy, this is probably the case. I only say probably because, since God is omniscient, and we are not, there are an infinite amount of other possibilities.

Noah's Ark
Suppose I paid 5 cleaners to tidy up my house. Now, suppose I gave them one stipulation, don't track mad all over my carpet! However, when I return 4 of the 5 maids are guilty of breaking that guideline I gave them. I fire the 4. The 1 maid who didn't disregard my command could be referred to as having "found favor" with me, couldn't she? It's far more likely than her having to beg for me not to get fired along with the others.

As for other versions,

ISV
The LORD was pleased with Noah, however.

God's Word Translation
But the LORD was pleased with Noah.

KJV Cambridge Edition
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

This is a small sample size of a great many. In no commentary fo the Bible, nor in any previous translation, will you find it implied that Noah had to beg for favor. This is all conjecture from Pro.

We can not operate under the assumption that the Bible is not true, but its portrayal of God is. The Bible portrays God as having given us the Scripture. This argument makes no sense, nor do I see the impact.

My opponent then asks why God didn't send a sign the people would beleive. However, yet again, my opponent chose to debate a topic where we must assume that God is as the Bible describes Him. He is omniscient. He knows whether or not the people would beleive in the signs He provided. If God just gave a sign everyone would have to accept, then He would be denying humanity the free will He gifted us in the first place.

I accept that I don't know if the world's population was concentrated in one area. However, again, you are trying to use examples that would seem unfair if a human performed them, and measure them up against a Holy God. This is an illogical approach. If God created everything, He also created the abilities of men. He created what was possible and what was impossible to mankind. If we are to accept the Bible's portrayal of God, then He is omnipotent. He could have gathered all the people of the Earth, or could have given the world's population a vision. Maybe He didn't do anything, because He knew that they wouldn't accept Him anyways. We may not know, but if we believe the Bible, we can trust that God is holy and just and He did what was righteous.

Knowing Hitler was a man, his (quite uglier) intentions, and his (quite uglier) actions, we can deduce that he was evil.

Essentially, you can not compare a man to a God.

Job
I accept that responsibility.

God designed Lucifer with free will, knowing that Lucifer would use it to betray Him. He wanted to give Lucifer the fair choice of accepting Him, however. The rest of my response is basically just reiterating what I've said above.

I must apologize. I will address you directly for this. Dear Torvald, I do not, in any way, mean to state a single thing about your children. I wasn't even aware you had them, and wouldn't wish any amount of evil or strife on you or them. I do not wish to use them as a weapon, nor an argument. I just fell back on an old analogy that I've had success with in the past. Would you please forgive me?

As far as the debate goes, I believe I had already covered all your points on Job. If you wish to point out one I have yet to address, please do.

I did not mean to attack anything of my opponent's, and I'm sorry he felt that way. Really. I am merely a man defending my faith. As far as my "idle speculation" however, it is not idle speculation at all. Once again, since we are on the grounds of the Bible being accurate, we must assume God can both be Holy and allow that to happen. This is both the crux of my response to Job and Noah's Ark. Yes, it is probably getting old by now, but the fact of the matter is, it can't be proven false by Pro. If we have faith in the Bible's portrayal of God, then He is not comparable to Hitler. As long as this holds true, the resolution will be false.

Sodom and Gommorah
I didn't realize it was a joke. I apologize to my opponent. I initially assumed that, due to its farfetched nature, this was a troll debate. Since that was not the case, I have elected to treat all propositions as legitimate arguments. However, I do not think that my opponent's stance on "demand for sex" possibly being consensual is sound. Demanding is not a request. They didn't politely knock on the door and ask to see the guests, they demanded, to the point of Lot offering his daughters in their stead. I know this is an immoral act, even you admitted that. But think about it. It's immoral only if the daughters did not want to be given over. Hence, rape. But alas, not the point.

God destroyed the two cities. However, not only can we trust God's perfection in this case, but we have the fact that the people were obviously out of line, and a conversation between God and Abraham before the event happened. I will post a link for my opponent, and anyone reading this debate, but due to character limits I will only summarize.

Essentially, Abraham was discussing with God about God's destroying the city. Abraham, knowing that Lot is in there, asks God if He will spare the righteous inside. He keeps decreasing the number of necessary righteous for God to spare them, until Abraham is satisfied that God will not destroy the cities while innocents reside inside their walls.

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

As for Evangelism, I do not think what I did was really evangilism at all. But aside from that, you merely mentioned it's discouraged. I have tried not to be too preachy.

Conclusion
History is written by the victors, indeed. However, your resolution stated that the God of the Bible is comparable to, nay essentially is, Adolph Hitler. Again, I reiterate my point, and the main crux of what this debate comes down to. If you start from the assumption that God is as He is portrayed in the Bible, then His actions are justified. If you don't, then they're not. This debate, by the resolution, operates under the former assumption, whether my opponent argues from that position or not.

Lastly, since I have a few characters left, I stress once again the difference between action caused by actions and actions caused by racial prejudice.

I eagerly await my opponent's final statements, and I wish to see if he can provide a solid argument under his own resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
Torvald

Pro

I would like to say, initially, that, while it won't benefit my part of the debate any longer, my opponent may wish to establish God's holiness by some account of the Bible. It is being used only as an account on God's character based on events: "God did this, God did that." Not adjectives like "God is great, God is good." That's what's being established in the debate, so if you want to make a case with God's holiness as evidence, you must first prove God's holiness.

The Garden of Eden
I am not sure that I do misunderstand the point of free will, nor that my opponent understands it. I think I have already proven with an earlier syllogism why Biblical free will is only a paper moon. I have yet to see any address of my syllogism at all, so as of now it stands.
Yet a continuation of the Lego analogy. I am not sure I even follow the logic in this analogy; somehow leaving Legos in the floor where an equal entity might accidentally step on them does not seem to me to be comparable to an ultimate entity who knows exactly everything that ever will and could happen creating something that would hurt others. You see, an all-knowing God would know who would step on the Legos before leaving them in the floor, or indeed before they were manufactured, and, accordingly, if he did not wish ill of the person to step on them, elect not to leave them in such a way that they would be stepped on. Free will is not a factor, since, were God to know the Legos would be stepped on, he could simply avert the opportunity. On a lighter yet very relevant note, I would like to see your weird friend step on a Lego that's glued to the ceiling.

As of now, I have not seen a competent refutation of my free will rebuttal, and thus my original comparison of God to Hitler based on his behavior regarding Eden remains untouched.

Noah's Ark
Your analogy seems great, except that it implies that these people that God 'fired' were ever hired to begin with. Another mistake that my opponent seems to be making is interpreting my mention of Noah persuading God to mean Noah begging God. No, persuasion and begging are different. For instance, what I am doing now is persuading the voters that my stance on the resolution is stronger than yours, and you are likewise persuading them that yours is stronger. Neither of us is begging. When I say Noah persuaded God, I mean he had a chat with him, changed his mind. Irregardless, that doesn't actually matter.

Thanks, for these various versions that I asked for. It does little to affect the point, however.

Let me see if I follow the logic of my opponent's sign argument. God knew that nobody would listen to his warning, so instead of offering a warning people would listen to, he offered a warning he knew they would not listen to, for the sake of allowing them to choose or not choose to heed it? But if he knew they wouldn't heed it, he's not giving them that opportunity. Allow me to speak your language of analogies: Say I design a computer program that responds with a numerical value that directly correlates to a value I give it. If I know that it will return a negative number if I give it a positive one, I am not giving it the opportunity to choose a positive number, because the input I am giving it is one that I know, beforehand, will return a negative number.

I fail to see any logical progression at all in my opponent's conclusion that Hitler and God cannot be compared simply because God's printed doctrine says God's motives are pure and righteous. Hitler's propaganda said Hitler's motives were pure and righteous. That it says so in print does not mean it is reliable. My opponent has yet to establish that God's motives and intentions in his actions were any purer or more righteous than Hitler's. He accuses Hitler's of being uglier, but offers no support. If the number of people killed in the Great Flood is not included, Hitler did kill more, at about 11 million people, with God at only some two million. Some sources speculate the number of people supposedly alive at the time of the Flood to be in the millions, so that's several million added to God's kill count, leaving the genocide numbers for each figure about even (remember, however, that God directly carried out much of his killing, while Hitler merely ordered his). I have established that both committed genocide for the sake of racial purity. As of now, this argument stands like a gleaming obelisk, untopplable by the strongest sandstorm.

Job
If God created Lucifer in such a way that he knew Lucifer would betray him, then God did not give Lucifer the fair choice of accepting him. What you're reiterating doesn't logistically add up.

I graciously accept your apology, though you never really offended me.

Once again, we are not on the grounds of the Bible being accurate, but of it hypothetically describing God via the events within, such as Noah's Ark, Joshua and Jericho, David and Goliath, Solomon, etc. As such, we are using it as evidence, not proof. Were I to read descriptions of Der Fuhrer from his propaganda, you would probably disagree with it because of many of the things he did that contradicted those descriptions, some of it even outlined in said propaganda.

As of now, I have not seen a successful rebuttal of my original point that God's sanctioning of Satan's cruel experiment on Job was very much akin to Hitler's sanctioning of cruel experiments on his 'undesirable' subjects. My point stands.

Sodom and Gomorrah
It does not matter whether or not my stance on the demand for sex was sound, that one band of men wanted to rape, or greet with sex, however you put it, Lot's guests does not justify exterminating every life within two cities. There are rape gangs all over India. Perhaps you would approve of God gassing India? I think not. India is full of innocent children, innocent adults, many innocent people who are not rapists, yet would still probably not leave India simply because missionaries from one religion instructed them to do so. By any moral standard with which I'm familiar, destroying India based on such principles would be unspeakably evil, yet that is essentially what God did to Sodom and Gomorrah. (Disclaimer: I do not think India is really very comparable to the Biblical description of Sodom and Gomorrah)

Saying that we can trust God's judgement to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah is equivalent to saying we can trust Hitler's judgement to destroy Belgium and France. According to Hitler, they might very well have been obviously out of line.

I'm familiar with Abraham's bargain with God, reducing the number of innocents necessary to spare the cities down quite significantly. I do not see God's persuadability in the issue as relevant whatsoever. As of now, God's genocide at Sodom and Gomorrah stands as a firm point; God acted mercilessly and bloodthirstily.

Conclusion
Yes, history is written by the victors. Were we to assume, again hypothetically, that God did vicariously write the Bible, it is very natural that he would portray himself in the manner that he wanted, just as Hitler, in writing his brochures and his famous Mein Kampf, portrayed himself the way he wished. If I start from the assumption that God is as he is portrayed fin the Bible without making the entire assumption hypothetical, I go mad with fear or something at the world's worst catch 22, and I still don't see God's actions as justified. It does not matter how frequently God describes himself as righteous, his actions speak plainly to the contrary.

Once more, my opponent has tried to make distinction between God and Hitler based on reason for genocide. Need I remind anyone that Hitler didn't claim to hate the Jews because they were Jewish (not a race, a religion), he claimed to hate them because of a long list of immoral actions and characteristics he assigned to them, just as God justified his actions with his reasons of 'morality.' My points all stand firmly unrefuted by my opponent's straw men.
JustinAMoffatt

Con

I thank my opponent for his response.

My opponent wishes to evaluate God's character from the Bible, without accepting the Bible's portrayal of Him. His justification for this is that history is written by the victors, so we don't know how reliable God's portrayal of Himself is. However, the resolution, which is the sole cause of the debate, states, "The God of the Bible is essentially Hitler". If my opponent wished to debate whether God's actions would be justified if He was not the God of the Bible, then I think he should do so. However, that is not this debate. It is crucial we remember what we are debating exactly. Therefore, in order to debate the God of the Bible, we must accept the Bible's portrayal of God, no matter the author. Otherwise, we are not debating the resolution.

The Garden of Eden
I had already addressed the syllogism. That was my lego analogy. You choose to invite your friend over. Your friend decides to put your lego creation on the floor and stomp on it with his bare foot. (He was always a little odd..) And no matter where you put the lego creation in your room, he will attempt to stomp on it. This is his nature that he gave himself.
If we are to take into account that God is a supernatural, omnipotent being, then we also take into account that He is holy, righteous, and can do no evil. Therefore, either way, the syllogism is negated.

My opponent's free will rebuttal has been refuted, whether he is happy with it, or accepts it, is his choice. You simply can not take a supernatural Being and try to apply natural standards to Him.

Noah's Ark

My opponent seems to misunderstand my analogy. God's "hiring" of mankind were the standards he gave them. Mankind didn't obey. Noah obeyed. Noah found favor. It's very logical, and it's a bit ludicrous to assume that God, Who is not a respecter of persons, would all of a sudden decide to change His mind because of what a man told Him. (He's still omnisceint, you know. There's nothing He "wouldn't have thought of".)

My opponent doesn't seem to understand free will, still. He seeks to put God in a box of mortality and humanity. The God of the Bible is omnipotent. He is fully capable of giving us free will. He instructed Noah to build an ark, and made sure people could see it. He knew, with the free will that the people had, they would ignore the ark. Pro calls this, "God abusing free will" (to paraphrase). However, if God gave us "signs" that automatically pressed some button in our minds that convinced us to do the right thing, we wouldn't have free will, would we? No.

My opponent wishes for me to establish that God's motives were pure.

Leviticus 11:44 - For I [am] the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I [am] holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

There you have it.

My opponent asked to debate about the God of the Bible, not "A God whose actions replicate those of the God of the Bible". However, since the debate has started he's been constantly trying to weigh God's actions without his character. Yes. Hitler was not accurately described by his propaganda. This is obvious. However, if the debate was "The Hitler represented by Nazi propaganda is essentially Jesus", the fact that the propaganda doesn't line up with real-world events means nothing. We would be debating Hitler, as portrayed by Nazi progaganda.

Here, we are debating God, as portrayed by the Bible. And this debate, and the results, must be focused on this.

My opponent's gleaming obselisk is quite impressive. It's just too bad that it's in the yard next door.

Job

My argument does logically stand up. Again, the God of the Bible is omnipotent, omniscient, and yet still Holy. This is the God we are debating, is it not?

I'm glad I didn't offend you. That relieves me greatly. Thank you.

My opponent tried to attack the crux of the debate here, by saying we can't accept the Bible as accurate in this round. However, I have already explained why we must do exactly this, if we are to debate the resolution that is. We are debating the real Hitler, and the real God, as portrayed in the Bible. Whether my opponent personally accepts that God is his own decision, but the resolution remains.

Sodom and Gomorrah

My opponent again is trying to debate an unholy god. This is not the resolution. In the Bible, God is omniscient. He knows the hearts and souls of each individual, and did for each person in Sodom and Gomorrah as well. If He can do no wrong, we must assume that everyone who perished was justly punished. If we were to take away the Bible, and its descriptions of God, then we would be judging these actions as if a man, who was not omniscient, and not holy, had committed them. THAT, my good opponent, would be Hitler.

In essence, God's conversation with Abraham is not relevant, due to the fact that we already have enough proof that God is holy, simply due to the nature of the debate and the words within the Bible. However, my point here is that we see God took into account that there were righteous beings in the city. (Side note: God was not persuaded here, rather, Abraham was trying to figure out the minimum amount of righteous people required to be saved from the city. Despite only reducing the number to 10, God saved Lot, his wife, and three daughters, 5 people total.)

Conclusion
The author of the Bible is irrelevant to this debate. My opponent chose to debate whether the God of the Bible was essentially Adolph Hitler. The God of the Bible, as described by the Bible itself, is Holy, Righteous, Just, Omnisceint, and Omnipotent. He can create free willed beings, know exaclty what they'll do, and be Holy. He knows men's hearts, and can act reightously, despite what someone who doesn't know his character may think. The God of the Bible didn't commit genocide based off race or politics. But in all He did, He was just.

This is the God of the Bible.

This is defnitely not Adolph Hitler.

You simply can not measure the God of the Bible against a man, especially one as devious and twisted as Hitler.

If my opponent wishes to debate whether God's actions would be justified if performed by a mortal man, he may do so in another debate.

As for this resolution, it is negated.

Sources
KJV Cambridge Ed.

To my opponent:
Thank you for this great and engaging debate. You are, without a doubt, one of the most clever and elegant debaters I've had the pleasure of exchaning words with. I look forward to talking in the future, and perhaps another debate soon. God bless.


Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Oh my! Last time I have this debate!
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Votebombs, votebombs everywhere! I guess it's what I get for setting up such a contentious, long debate.
Posted by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
S&G, Convincing Arguments, and Sources seem to stem from your personal bias to the Christian God, leading to the misinterpretation of Pro's contentions as a whole.

By Bias I am referring to your personal opinions regarding God. There are many different versions of the Christian Bible because of the many different denominations hence why it is extremely easy to address certain provocative similarities as misinterpretations or attacks on God. Instead of analyzing the possibility that similarities between the actions of Hitler and God are true, you have resorted to a cop out that dismisses Pro's assertions with supposed misinterpretations. Which is the same if not similar reaction as the other vote bombers who vote based on their narrow beliefs.

Before you accuse me of being presumptious and full of hubris, I will say that I am neither omniscient nor superior to anyone, and that the dissection of your clarifications RFD will always have a margin of error because it is an analysis based on your comment in this debate and your contentions in the debate "There is at least one contradiction in the Bible and this proves it cannot be the word of God" which you have debated as con.
Posted by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
To Gordon James.

Simply typing "Con made sense; PRO misrepresents and rewrites the stories he claims as evidence" is an obvious vote bomb for several reasons. First, it appears that you have not read the debate and have based your decision by reading some of the comments leaning con. In addition, if you had read the debate, then you have decided to ignore Pro's valid contentions and introduce your own bias into the topic. You have yet to clarify how Pro misrepresents the stories nor bothered to cite examples of Pro's rewriting the stories as evidence.

I have seen that you have attempted to explain your RFD, but the Counter Vote bomb stands.

Lets dissect your RFD.
You have stated, "1. PRO states in the rules 'irrational appeals to emotion are discouraged' He then opens his argument with unsubstantiated emotionally loaded words like "From the very beginning of the Bible, God has been portrayed as possessed of heavy double-standards, as well as a cruel sense of overlordship." (Almost sounds a little preachy as well ;-) )"
If you had analyzed the debate you would have noticed that both pro and con used unsubstantiated loaded words to appeal to the readers emotions to garner support for their respective side.
You have also stated, "This is the first of many conduct points. Also accusing CON of breaching the rules is bad conduct." Simply pointing out that Con overstepped his boundaries is not bad conduct. If Pro had overstepped his boundaries in the debate then Con would have pointed that out and the issue would be moot.

[Continued]
Posted by gordonjames 4 years ago
gordonjames
This is not so much a comment on the debate as a question to Rayze?

I"m not sure what you mean by "four point counter vote bomb against gordon james"

Just curious how you justify CVB?

I have often disagreed with either PRO, CON or voters but I am unclear how you recognize or justify (your) vote bombing (as stated by you).

For more detail on my voting . . .

1. PRO states in the rules " irrational appeals to emotion are discouraged"
He then opens his argument with unsubstantiated emotionally loaded words like "From the very beginning of the Bible, God has been portrayed as possessed of heavy double-standards, as well as a cruel sense of overlordship." (Almost sounds a little preachy as well ;-) )

This is the first of many conduct points. Also accusing CON of breaching the rules is bad conduct.

Although it is not precisely spelling or grammar, PRO was confusing in his misrepresentations.

Most convincing arguments -
Pro"s arguments had less to do with similarities between God & Hitler (the resolution) and more to do with attacking God"s character. His statements refuting free will seemed like an obvious attempt to distract the debate from its stated focus.

Most reliable sources - It was hard to give a tie for most reliable sources as PRO seemed to misrepresent the clear meaning of the stories he misquoted. I opted for a tie here as I was not wanting to give both conduct and source points to CON when they were so closely linked in my conduct vote.
Posted by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
In the Contention Noah's Ark, Con's comment "...essentially, you can not compare a man to a God..." in R4 is in effect similar to the R5 comment in that it is an attempt to deny the resolution when there was no attempt to do so in the Previous rounds. If Con had bolstered the assertion with sufficient biblical evidence, then the God-Hitler comparison would have likely been broken. However, because Con failed to support the assertion point goes to Pro.

The arguments under Job, Sodom and Gomorrah were initially difficult to judge due to discrepancies in the bible. However, it can be inferred that the contention under Job was God's indifference to his followers by setting what appear to be cruel tests. Con attempted to address the why, but not the motivation. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are in some versions references to God's dislike of Homosexuals. The destruction of the two cities can be compared to Hitler's attempt to "cleanse" the Reich of homosexuals. However, in other versions of the Bible, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of its desire to sin. The destruction of both cities could have been justified through various versions like those including the encounter between Abraham and Stranger (Pre-Incarnate Jesus). However, because Con decided not to do so, point goes to Pro.

S&G, Conduct, and Sources are tied regardless of what the points awarded category states due to those points being wasted on a CVB.

Torvald could have done better by sticking the Hitler-God Comparison home with explicit and implicit evidence rather than argue with only implicit evidence. As well as keeping the flow of the debate within the Hitler-God comparison instead of getting off course with Cain's wife.

In any case well done on a provocative debate that can easily be misconstrued and changed into a different topic.
Posted by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
While I have awarded Torvald 7 points, 4 in a cvb and 3 for convincing arguments, the many different versions of the Christian Bible make it difficult to judge this debate. This is due to the fact that there are certain discrepancies in each version which inevitably detracts from both Pro and Con. Which in turn invites Vote bombs into this debate.

The debate revolved around the question agreed upon in R1; "The god described in the bible has similarities to Adolf Hitler."

Pro supports his assertion by listing certain examples in the bible that displays behavior associated with the Fuhrer of the Third Reich. Whereas Con supported his assertions with justifications to God's actions as well as some confusing analogies (lego analogy).

While both sides argued admirably, I have to agree with Muted's conclusion that, "There is a lack of focus on the specific comparison between God and Hitler. Much of it is implied, with some statements helping the reader to compare the two characters, but overall, I think the case as presented should not be able to win voters. A case where a strong comparative is presented, would, in my opinion, totally be unbeatable."

However, despite the lack of focus on the specifics of the God-Hitler comparison, Pro did have more convincing arguments than Con.

Regarding the Garden of Eden, the arguments mainly revolved around Cain's wife instead of the Hitler-God comparison until R4. However, Con's usage of the lego analogy served to inadvertently bolster Pro due to clarity reasons and the negative conclusions drawn by Pro which would have shot down the analogy. Also, the assertion by Con in R5 that, "You simply can not take a supernatural Being and try to apply natural standards to Him." can be interpreted as an attempt deny the resolution, since in Agnosticism one believes that God made the world and left it to be governed by the natural laws.

[Continued]
Posted by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
LOL

I mean "his (Con's) opponent) not "my opponent". Gah.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Is there a target on this or something?
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
What is it with this debate. It's a blasted votebomb-magnet!
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by donald.keller 4 years ago
donald.keller
TorvaldJustinAMoffattTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I have to agree with Con's argument best. Pro simply misinterprets the Bible too much in his case. All Pro did, in fact, was fall back on terrible misinterpretations, as Con proved. Because Pro based his arguments on misquotes and misrepresentation of the source material (bible) he loses Conduct. Because of the same reason, and Con's stronger all round argument, Con gets the More Convincing Argument. Con also sourced himself in R3-R4 and somewhat in R5.
Vote Placed by RyuuKyuzo 4 years ago
RyuuKyuzo
TorvaldJustinAMoffattTied
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: Jegory's RFD is nonexistent, so this is a counter. I'll update my vote with my own opinion once I finish reading the debate.
Vote Placed by Jegory 4 years ago
Jegory
TorvaldJustinAMoffattTied
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: A very close debate, but in the end I had to go with CON, whose arguments were stronger than PRO's.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 4 years ago
gordonjames
TorvaldJustinAMoffattTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made sense; PRO misrepresents and rewrites the stories he claims as evidence.
Vote Placed by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
TorvaldJustinAMoffattTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments with a four point counter vote bomb against gordon james
Vote Placed by Marauder 4 years ago
Marauder
TorvaldJustinAMoffattTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: a lot of pro's arguments did not read did not read quite coherently and caused confusion a few times in a debate and back tracking on his part. I think he would benefit from proof-reading to make sure he expressed every though he wanted to about any given point was making. besides that though Pro had to completely drop 2 of his contentions early on and Con wonderfully answered all the rest of the contention that were maintained to the end of the debate. He not only gave good rebuttal to Pro's 3 cases but slid in what I think deserved a bolded section to itself his own 4rth point through out the debate that we basically have to remember Gods actions simply cant be ethically compared to humans just because he's God. it would be kind of like comparing when a Lion kills a Gazel to When a Human kills a Human. I give sources to Con because Con did offer source links, and also because he simply had to correct Pro on just what the bible actual say's all throughout the debate.
Vote Placed by GOP 4 years ago
GOP
TorvaldJustinAMoffattTied
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: See comments.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
TorvaldJustinAMoffattTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:51 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by PolitelyDisagreeable 4 years ago
PolitelyDisagreeable
TorvaldJustinAMoffattTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con due to Pro's insult in the comments section. Spelling and grammar to Pro, as a couple mistakes were noted on the part of Con. Arguments are tied, as some of Con's arguments seemed to support the topic, and Pro had to concede the argument on the impregnation of Mary. Sources are tied, as they were presented by both arguers.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
TorvaldJustinAMoffattTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I have placed my RFD in the comments section. I hope that these comments will be read; I think that too many readers may have failed to recognize the crux of the debate.