The Instigator
nonprophet
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
IQok
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The god of the Bible is not moral

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 2 votes the winner is...
nonprophet
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,078 times Debate No: 49656
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

nonprophet

Pro

By taking the "con" position, you are saying that the god of the Bible is, in fact moral.

First round is for acceptance only.



IQok

Con

I accept....
Debate Round No. 1
nonprophet

Pro

First, I want to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I do hope we can stick to real facts and not try to use logical fallacies and semantics. I'm interested in the truth, not winning debate.

OK, to begin, I'd like to define morality as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."
https://www.google.com...

Now I will list some things that, I hope my opponent will agree, are not moral, based on them being "wrong" and/or "bad"

1. Rape
2. Slavery
3. Killing of innocent humans
4. Undeserved violence
5. The death penalty, which is permanent and irreversible, for crimes that can me forgiven or made good.
6. Infinite punishment for finite crimes.

Now I will go over parts of the Bible that I believe are immoral:

Leviticus 20:9

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

Since the Bible is known as the "word of god", then the above prescribed punishment for cursing ones mother or father is god's idea of morality. I would suggest that any sane or reasonable person can tell that the punishment does not fit the crime. Although cursing ones mother or father is rude and disrespectful, there are many punishments that are better suited consequences for such an action rather than the death penalty.
Cursing is defined as: http://dictionary.reference.com...
1. the expression of a wish that misfortune, evil, doom, etc., befalla person, group, etc.
2.a formula or charm intended to cause such misfortune toanother.
3.the act of reciting such a formula.
4.a profane oath; curse word.
5.an evil that has been invoked upon one.
Cursing is 100% non-physical. It can be undone with an apology. It is nor permanent. It's not even illegal in the United States. Yet, the almighty god would seek the ultimate punishment for it; DEATH.

Number 5 on my list of immoral things matches with this Bible verse. This is clear evidence that the god of the Bible is not moral.

Next Bible verse:

Leviticus 20:10 If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Again immoral based on number 5 on my list.

Next:
Leviticus
20:13
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death.

Again immoral based on number 5 on my list.

Next:
Deuteronomy
22:20-21
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house.
Not only is this immoral based on number 5 on my list, it assumes guilt before evidence of guilt is presented!
It places to burden of proof on the accused to prove themselves innocent! She must find proof that she's a virgin or get the death penalty. Not and painless death, but one that is cruel and painful; stoning!

Next:

Exodus 35:2

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Once again! This is immoral, based on number 5 on my list.

Moving on:
Deuteronomy
20:10-17
When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. . . . This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you.
This is immoral based on 1-4 of my list of immoral things.

More:
Ephesians
5:22-24
Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
This suggests that wives should be slaves to their husbands.

Another example:
Exodus
21:20-21
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Immoral based on 2 and 4 of my list.

Even more:
1 Peter
2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Immoral based on number 2 of my list.

Also:

Leviticus
25:44-45

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
Immoral based on number 2 of my list.

I will also add that the concept of hell is immoral based on number 6 of my list of immoral things.

Oh, I almost forgot!
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
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.

Not only is rape not punished...it's REWARDED!

I now will let my opponent try to explain and prove why the god of the Bible is, in fact, moral, despite the evidence I just presented.
IQok

Con

There are several things approved
or tolerated by the Old Testament which our modern
moral sense condemns. Such, for example, are the practices of
polygamy, slaveholding, and arbitrary divorce. Here we must
distinguish between practices which are wrong in themselves and
those which were (or are) permissible under certain conditions,
but are normally reprehensible. The latter classes fall under the
head of social institutions, which, along with the approving sentiments of the community, are gradually eliminated by the Christianizing and humanizing of society. Of the former we may say
that they were wrong from the very beginning, thus it will be
generally agreed that it was always wrong to lie, to steal, to cheat,
to murder. On the other hand, there was an innocent or beneficent,
as well as a noxious and improper, use of the relations
once approved, but now condemned. Thus it was always wrong
to abuse Of oppress a slave or a wife. Accordingly, the conditions and standards of moral obligations may, in certain important
departments of life, be modified by the change or readjustment
of social institutions.
It is, however, not always an easy or a grateful task to apply
the distinction just made. Courses of action arc tolerated and
even approved in certain sections of the Old Testament which,
though condemned by the spirit of Christinity, are yet encouraged
by our Christian society. The chief of these is aggressive
warfare with its attendant and consequent evils and horror.
The discussion of this moral or immoral subject, while difficult and
ungrateful, is in the highest degree wholesome and instructive ;
for it helps, not only to a clearer understanding of the Bible,
but to the purifying and quickening of the modern Christian
conscience.
But even more difficult and important than an agreement upon
subjective standards or canons of morality are the objective
criteria of our moral judgments upon the Old Testament. In
other words it is easier to agree upon the question as to what
classes of recorded actions or sentiments are wrong or right, than
to agree upon the question as to what are the marks by which
the Old Testament indicates specific moral character or
status. Confusion and misunderstanding upon this point threatens
to be endless possibly because the matters at issue have been
dealt with in the arena of controversy more often than in the
field of inquiry. One may, however, venture to offer tentatively
the following working criteria. We may inquire:
I. What does the Old Testament directly approve or
insist upon ?
2. What are the deeds or characteristics of the Old Testament
heroes Or worthies?
3. What attributes are ascribed to the God? What does he
enjoin? What does he approve? What does he condemn?
A few typical instances from the historical books may now
be tested by one or other of the above criteria.
In Gen. 11 : 10 it is related of Abram that he went to
Egypt, and while there contrived to have his wife Sarai made a
member of the Pharaoh's household, under the pretense that she
was his sister, and for the purpose of saving his own life and
fortunes. In Gen., chap. 20, essentially the same story is told
of Abraham and his wife Sarah at Gerar, after their change of
name: while in Gen., chap. 26, Isaac, son of Abraham, is alleged
to have acted with regard to his wife Rebekah much in the same.
These two outstanding instances-the career of Abraham and
that of Jacob, as narrated in the book of Genesis-present phenomena
of surpassing importance. The moral standpoint of the
time period seems, at first sight, incredibly low and false. No respectable pagan, whether in the disguise of a Christian or without it,
has ever assumed or defended it. It stands in glaring contrast
to that of the higher Old Testament consciousness - for instance,
to that of the writer of Ps. 73 In the book of Job, who vex
themselves over the apparent contradiction to the divine order of
things implied by the prosperity or the sufferings of the righteous. In the stories of Genesis we find ourselves in a strange
and perplexing moral and theological region, where the most rudimentary ethical notions are seemingly set at naught or ignored .
One might almost fancy that the primeval darkness had not yet
been lifted from the moral universe, and that the most favored
people of mankind were still in a state of ethical chaos.
To condemn the morality of the Old Testament is irrellavent due to the historical culture of the time period in question and considering the entirety of the moral lessons of the bible as a whole.
Debate Round No. 2
nonprophet

Pro

First of all, my opponent did not address a single fact I presented.
Basically he tried to justify the Old Testament by saying it was "due to the historical culture of the time period in question".

The word of god does not change.
If the Old Testament is no longer valid in modern times, then Christianity itself is no longer valid in modern times.

“For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abide by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.

If Jesus is god, then the morality of the Old Testament is endorsed by god.

My opponent is also trying to say that morality itself can change. Morality is based on empathy.
We have the ability to put ourselves in other people's shoes. Because of this ability, we do things to others, the same way we want others to do to us. For example, we don't go around killing other people because we don't want them to kill us.
That's why rape and slavery are immoral, and always have been. The people who justify those things either lack empathy or try to justify their actions by pretending a woman or a slave is not the same as another human.

My opponent asks:
1. What does the Old Testament directly approve or
insist upon ?

As I have stated before, it approves and condones:
1. Rape
2. Slavery
3. Killing of innocent humans
4. Undeserved violence
5. The death penalty, which is permanent and irreversible, for crimes that can me forgiven or made good.
6. Infinite punishment for finite crimes.

Nowhere in the 10 Commandments or elsewhere in the Bible does it state "Thou shalt not rape another human being" or "Thou shalt not own another human being as property."

The question, What are the deeds or characteristics of the Old Testament
heroes Or worthies? is irrelevant. since what heroes and worthies do in the Bible are just stories of what happened, not commandments.

The question, 3. "What attributes are ascribed to the God? What does he
enjoin? What does he approve? What does he condemn?" Is directly linked to what the Bible condones, since the Bible is the word of god. Hence you get the same answers as to question number 1:
1. Rape
2. Slavery
3. Killing of innocent humans
4. Undeserved violence
5. The death penalty, which is permanent and irreversible, for crimes that can me forgiven or made good.
6. Infinite punishment for finite crimes.

By opponent has only refereed to the Old Testament and has ignored the New Testament.
The Bible consists of both testaments.

I already pointed out that slavery is also condoned in the New Testament:
1 Peter
2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Nowhere in the New Testament does it take back or change what was said in the Old Testament.

Conclusion: Both the Old and New Testaments are immoral. They are God's word. They do not change over time. Their meanings do not change over time. Morality is based on empathy. By using empathy, it can be clearly said that the following things that the Bible condones are immoral:
1. Rape
2. Slavery
3. Killing of innocent humans
4. Undeserved violence
5. The death penalty, which is permanent and irreversible, for crimes that can me forgiven or made good.
6. Infinite punishment for finite crimes.

I have given specific versus in the Bible that prove the above things are condoned by the Bible.

Therefore, The god of the Bible is not moral

I want to thank my opponent or taking on the debate. Although he is good at using big words and sounding intelligent, he did not directly challenge the evidence I presented. Instead he tried to justify what the Bible says in general by pretending an old book doesn't count in modern times, "due to the historical culture of the time period in question". even though the book contains the words of god.

Please take this into consideration when voting.
IQok

Con

My opponent states " "Nowhere in the New Testament does it take back or change what was said in the Old Testament".
The New Testament is called the New Testament for a reason but that is a whole new debate.
God"s morality as written in the Old Testament must be carefully interpreted. The problem is simply that some have declined to accept the Bible as the absolute authority and others have confused what it says because of not"rightly dividing the Word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15).

Rightly dividing the word of truth is a key factor here. God is completely moral, true and patient. The Old Testament laws may be viewed as immoral but a stronger lesson must be learned by the ancients views. God perhaps left these old views within the bible so as to better prepare the multitudes and to drive home I bigger and broader sense of moral for future times. God went along with humans and had patience with them in hopes they would learn from their mistakes. It was the social institutions who applied these immoral acts not God. God, on countless occasions, tried to employ other avenues of morality but still had patience with our human ways. Free will comes into play here as well. How long does God wait for change.

In my opinion I would greatly love to see God"s wrath come down upon a few on earth today. I little flood on some evil folks would be just in my opinion " so thank God I am not God!!!
Non believers love to play the Old Testament moral card for one simple reason. They love to throw this out there to make themselves feel better about not believing in God or finding fault with the bible. They figure it is their get out of jail free card I suppose.

So I say wah, wah and go ahead and cry because some mortals believe God is not moral. Without taking the whole of God"s plan into light and interweaving dissension into why God acted a certain way during a certain historical time period does not make God immoral. Mortals have no foundation to play the moral card upon the Old Testament in my opinion.

These immoral laws my opponent speaks of were the law of the land in the day and accepted as such (here we see again the free will issue not being intruded upon by God until it really got farther out of hand).

Non believers love to play the moral card for one simple reason. They love to throw this out there to make themselves feel better about not believing in God or finding fault with the bible. They figure it is their get out of jail free card I suppose.

Universal Mission
The mission of the people of the Old Testament began only after the appearance of sin, when two different ways of life were chosen (see two lines of genealogies"Cain and Seth"in Genesis 4; 5). The followers of God were to carry the message of salvation to others (Isa. 66:19; Ps. 67:2; 96:3). This mission was universal in scope. Unfortunately, God"s people did not always succeed in their mission.

The intent of the Old Testament (morality) was written to show the before and after the New Testament made great changes to the morality of the people. God made a covenant with man and laws changed in direct relation and due to Jesus Christ. Morals and Ideology changed overnight thanks to Jesus.

Morals were in direct relation to the people of the time as it was their way and it was God"s intention and design to break free from that morality upon the entrance of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. The bible does not condone immorality in any manner so for my opponent to reach some conclusion along those lines is pure proctor hock.

im"mo"ral"i"ty
G6;iməG2;ralitē,G6;im"-/
noun
1.1.
the state or quality of being immoral; wickedness.

Wickedness has never once played into what God has ever said or done so hence this debate becomes a moot point within this area as a whole..

Also, human morality had to get from point A to reach point Z and we could not skip any letters along the way.
So, by calling God immoral it only shows that we mortals have little understanding of God"s plan in its whole entirety so therefore it is highly incorrect for a simple minded childlike human to assume that God is or ever was immoral.

Please keep that in mind when you vote"".
Debate Round No. 3
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
@Wylted Thought you said I couldn't debate , my DDO stalker.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
Nonprophet, hi how are you?
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I've heard Christian apologists using similar arguments for Con in trying to defend God from it's Malevolence in the Old Testament, but apologists like William Lane-Craig are too often too dumb to realize that they are actually supporting Evolution with that argument.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Con's arguments were actually pointing out that Morality evolved without God, by stating that people thousands of years before Christ had less of a moral framework than after Christ, so it took thousands of years for people to develop a reasonable moral framework, even under a so called God's guidance.
That is essentially stating that Morality evolved, in spite of God'

Con actually supported the truth that all Morality evolved as human cultures evolved.

But that was not attacking the originating argument for this debate, truth doesn't win debates, only rational counter arguments addressing the opponents arguments should gain points.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
Prove there is a heaven or a hell. Prove there's such a thing as salvation. I can prove there isn't.
We've all been dead 100 years ago and we all will be dead again 100 years from now. The death we experienced in the past will be the same in the future. If you saw no god to set you off in the beginning of life, you will see no god at the end of life either.

Your stupid myths are nothing more than wishful thinking.
Posted by MysticMansion 2 years ago
MysticMansion
The test that we have found ourselves in is not for God but for us. There are people here who will be saved because of their interaction with other people here. Some of these people who may be the direct cause of another persons salvation may themselves end up lost forever.

We must see the justice that God dispenses is His last mercy on the damned. For those who make it to Heaven they must see that they required His assistance and did not manage to get there on their own merit.
This is because as humans we will remember all that transpired throughout our lives as reward or punishment depending on our outcome. In some cases playing out these silly things we call lives will directly effect the exact degree our or reward or punishment. So you are right God does not need to see that what he knew would happen did happen, we need to see it.
For some people how they lived their life out here will cause people to come and thank them for their assistance for all eternity increasing their joy and merit in Heaven. For others the consistent curses of those we have helped damn through our influence or sharing in sin will punish our ears forever. That is just to name one aspect of cause and effect. Heaven and Hell are communal not just individual experiences.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
If god knows everything what would he need a test for> He already knows what the outcome of the test would be! Christian logic is amazing.
Posted by MysticMansion 2 years ago
MysticMansion
God as creator has every right to test his creation. This is more fundamentally explicit when the opportunity for eternal life is offered based on the successful completion of the test life has prepared for us individually. God has right to test each creature as to their worthiness of His favor.

The sin of Adam and Eve was in judging God to be a liar and tyrant. They believed satan who said that they were denied the knowledge of Good and Evil so that God could rule over them. Their egos desired satans promise that if they would reject God's law they would become God's themselves. They ate and we all inherit the knowledge of Good and Evil. It is precisely because we are not God that this knowledge makes us subject to sinful temptations.

God has hidden nothing we need to know for our salvation. Today we see many people denying God because like Adam and Eve they want freedom from moral law and service to God. Nothing at all has changed.

God knowing all things can only chose what is best for His purpose and as creator has that right as creature we have none. God has warned us that if we sin we will be punished and when we do God punishes us by many means. War, sickness, death, suffering etc. If we make him very angry He punishes us cruelly in order to force some of us back to good behaviour by removal of all the good things that He normally gives us like, charity, neighbourliness, reason, purity, kindness, goodness etc. That pretty much sums up the American culture. God's goodness is being removed and those blind to the fact are running everything.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
I find it funny that after I quoted Matthew 5:18-19 and proved that Jesus didn't want anything from the old Testament changed, my opponent goes and says: "God made a covenant with man and laws changed in direct relation and due to Jesus Christ. Morals and Ideology changed overnight thanks to Jesus."
I don't think he bothered to read a single word that I said.
Posted by nonprophet 2 years ago
nonprophet
I find it very sad that people need to plagiarize in order to make themselves look smart.
Study, do the research, quote things and give credit, but just don't cut and past like it's yours.

I will be blocking IQok from having any more debates with me.

Thanks to all who pointed this out and please vote pro.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
nonprophetIQokTied
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 did not address Pro's argument properly nor sufficiently and kept on about repeals and changes in morality, which is really stating that Morality came about through Evolution (which is the Truth) and not God. Which is not even touching on Pro's argument at all. It' was like two professional tennis players trying to hit winners on different courts. Only Pro was on the right court, con evidently couldn't find that court and used another.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
nonprophetIQokTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made very convincing argument where con danced around the subject. Almost out of fear that he knows he is wrong! That may sound bias but it is a valid concern! So argument to pro. I almost gave pro all 7 points to emphasize his dominance in this debate! But con was not rude or sloppy!