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

There is at Least One Problem with the Notion of a Catholic (Christian) God

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 734 times Debate No: 80672
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (0)




The purpose of this debate is to have a conversation on this particular issue.


1. Definitions are non-binding, but encouraged (but the meaning in this first post is more-so binding).

2. No disparaging (to "regard or represent as being of little worth" (Google Dictionary) ) the other side unless it is used in the context of an argument, and then its use ought to be minimized (The purpose of this is to prevent ranting against the other side; I know that some people are passionate against the Christian God, but I want a more logical, organized debate).

3. I want a more logical, organized debate, so the content should be judged by how effective the logic is.

4. Rules may be changed if both sides agree, and on which rounds they apply to. The default for which rounds would exclude rules being applied retroactively.


There are a myriad of problems with the Christian god, depending on you present it. For instance, the Creation Account is pretty inaccurate in how the Earth actually developed, the World Wide Flood lacks any compelling evidence, and some silly things like how the great all mighty creator of the universe can be stopped by something so basic as iron chariots (Judges 1:19).

There are also moral problems to contend with. God is in favor of things like slavery, the rape of women prisoners of war, the execution of male prisoners of war, and the very idea of infinite punishment for a finite crime is horrendous. But I won't go very deep into this, as it is the first round.

Of course some of these things depends on the Christianity one puts forth, and as I am unsure of the specefics of Catholicism I would ask Con to present some of the things that he considers Catholic belief.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the debate!

I agree that the creation account has a contradiction (sun was created on the fourth day though a day is defined by the sun) be inaccurate and the evidence part about the flood.

Now, the Bible isn't meant to be a scientific book, and it isn't meant to be a historical book, although there may be parts that rely on history. If it were, it would try to give evidence for its science or its history (maybe a bit on the history).

The purpose of the Bible is to be a theological book, in that it tries to explain God and how He is involved in the Christian and Jewish people, and what He was trying to do.

For Judges 1:19, one has to show that the Lord wanted the men of Judah to defeat their enemies there without using an ordinary way in order for the argument to work.

For slavery, one has to first distinguish between the slavery they had in the Old Testament and the slavery of the 19th century. The slavery of the Old Testament is analogous to being an employee today, except that there was no safety net or technology or police force so much so that people found themselves in debt and the way to pay off debt in those times was in labor. Now, one has to show that it wouldn't be immoral to treat those slaves cruelly according to the Bible for the argument to work (By the principle of innocent until proven guilty).

I don't know the context of what you mean by "rape of women prisoners of war," so you have to be more specific. How do I know that the context doesn't say that this was frowned upon?

I also don't know the context of what you mean by "the very idea of infinite punishment for a finite crime."

For the execution of male prisoners of war, I would like the context.

I think it is fair to use and scrutinize the Bible, as many Christians (all should, I don't know if all do) use it. Catholics have seven more books in their Bible than many of the other Christian denominations.

That being said, the Bible needs to be taken as a whole, and not just a verse or section or chapter sometimes. However, the really important thing is to ask each Christian denomination (I mean what their documents say, not just what a member says, which can be erroneous), and to see what sources they claim that from. Now, one thing to watch out for is whether a religion claims that lying is ok in certain situations, and to see whether they could lie about their faith. That being said, contradictions have a right to be hammered out.

For Catholic beliefs, you can look here: I haven't read it all, so I don't endorse it necessarily, but the three Creeds are good as sources, as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (though I don't know if the website gave the correct interpretation of what each actually says, but I will assume it for now). The Creeds are necessary beliefs I think, and there do exist optional beliefs in other things (but not on faith and morals).

That being said, some beliefs are hard to defend in and of themselves because of the difficulty of getting evidence, so the way I would defend it is to defend the Catholic Church as an authority in and of itself, though this depends on God and His Existence, so this would need evidence as well. I can go here if requested.


Before I get into this, let me just say what I am trying to argue. I am not trying to say that my morality is the best morality, or even necessarily that morality exists, but I will bring up moral issues. This is because I am arguing that the average person, who does have their own moral system, should find issue with the Catholic Christian deity. If you would like for me to give something of a proof for morality outside of a religious system, I can.

You say that the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally on its more scientific and historical claims, and that it is to tell some truths about God. I'm okay with this to a point, but I think it raises perhaps another issue. Say the Creation story isn't literal. What is the point of its inclusion in the text? What does these scientific inaccuracies tell us about God that made it necessary to include? Why did God inspire a story that sounds a lot like the posturings of a scientifically ignorant culture, which these people certainly were?

And if this is more of a rule book and a memoir, why would God present it like it is true? Even to this day people teach Creationism and the World Wide Flood as if it is on the same level as the Roman Empire or the American Revolution.

Not to mention the allegories are pretty vague and led to something like 30,000 denominations, though if you were to ask me, there are as many denominations as there are Christians. So as the work of literature that will instruct us on getting to Heaven, it really needs to be synthesized and boiled down to its main points, instead of this sprawling mass of disjointed points we have today.

I'm not sure what your defense of Judges 1:19 is. Let me be a little more clear. In Judges chapter 1, it tells of a war with the Canaanites, and the Israelites seem to be winning. The Lord is with them, and they take the hill country, but they cannot drive the people from the plains because they had chariots fitted with iron. Are you saying that this story shouldn't be taken literally?

Whether or not this is Roman slavery or Arabic slavery or African slavery or White slavery, it is slavery. Owning another human being as property. What you talk about, working off a debt, is called indentured servitude, and is just as immoral, but that is only how they had to treat their Jewish slaves (did you know that slave masters could take the wives and children of a male slave hostage so that their servitude is permanent?). Exodus 21:2-6 says that they can buy from the heathens around them and pass them off to their children. Daughters can be sold as sex slaves, and don't even get freed at the end of six years like the male slaves are.

Finally, in Exodus 21:20-21, slaves can be beat with a rod to the brink of death, and the slave master can't be punished if the slave survives for a day or two.

Numbers 31:17-18 God commands Noah to kill all the male Midonites and take all the virgins for themselves.

Hell is often described as an infinite torture playhouse the unbelievers will go to. No person deserves to be tortured infinitely if their crime is finite.

I don't think that most members will believe exactly what their denomination says, and so I think it is a lot better to ask the member and not the documents. Talking about the scientific inaccuracies won't be very persuasive to a person that doesn't take the Bible literally.

More Issues:
1. God/Jesus will judge who goes into Heaven.
God, as I think I have shown, isn't the best moral character as he is presented in the Bible. He's a vengeful, controlling being that thinks of humanity as mere dirt under his feet, and acts as if his evil, destructive rule is what is required for humans to prosper. Jesus, as he is presented, says nothing that makes him good enough to judge us all. In fact, he says some pretty horrible stuff. For instance, "Slaves obey your masters, even the cruel ones. (Ephesians 6:5).

2. Original Sin
Original sin is the idea that all humanity is responsible for the actions of Adam and Eve, and it is because of them we go to Hell. Just as we don't punish the daughter for the crimes of the great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother, nor should we be punished for the "sins" of two people we never met.

Also, what was their sin? Disobeying God? If the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge gave them the ability to know right from wrong, then how could they have known that it was wrong to disobey God?

3. Homophobia
Leviticus 18:22. ""You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."

4. Sexism
1 Corinthian 14:34-35. "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
Debate Round No. 2


With morals, people can and should scrutinize moral systems. One point I want to make though, is that the type of atheism that doesn't believe in an afterlife pretty much destroys morality, and so this type of atheism is bad to be in from a moral standpoint (I can explain if asked).

Now, if you are going to accuse Christianity of immorality, the burden of proof would be on the accuser by the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Now, if you want me to give evidence as to why Christianity isn't immoral, rather than just try and poke holes in your argument and give reasonable doubts at minimum, I can give that (starting at an argument for God existence).

I would like for you to give a proof outside of a religion system (which includes the rejection of an afterlife. If there is a belief in an afterlife, then be particular about it, and show why it isn't blind faith (meaning give evidence for believing in it)).

Q1: Yes, that is a good question, why the creation story isn't literal. The point of it is to give an explanation about God. What it is saying is that God created everything, and that God created in an orderly way, as expressly contrasted with the Greek religion saying that everything came from Chaos. It is a sort of rebuttal to the ancient Greeks.

Q2: This is also a good question, why there are scientific inaccuracies. The reason for this could be that people weren't concerned about this, as they would otherwise give more evidence of that in some way.

Q2 & Q3: To say that they are a scientifically ignorant culture requires a lack of evidence (so it is my burden right now). However, they probably were very familiar with astronomy, and probably had some level of mathematics. They also had agriculture, hunting, creating fires, making buildings, and possibly sailing and fishing. That requires some level of knowledge/science/order, otherwise survival won't be as good. Two sources to consider could be along these lines (I haven't read these though) and

As to the Creation story, one can be scientifically ignorant yet still realize that the sun couldn't have been created on the fourth day, when a day is defined by sun. Therefore, a day must have a different meaning than the common one.

Q4: It is presented to be true because there is a message that is being sent from it that is more important than just science or history. That message is morality and its connection to the afterlife.

Well, for Creationism and the World Wide Flood, there are scientific problems. However, the Catholic Church doesn't endorse those as true, though some Christian denominations do. In fact, Catholicism doesn't have a problem if both of those are false in terms of history. However, there are more important lessons to get out of it. Stories are told to children because they bring up important points of life, wisdom. Allegories and parables are examples of this.

I agree that there does need to be an authority to understand the Bible, as it can get pretty confusing. Fortunately, the Catholic Church has the Magisterium, which is are its authoritative Church leaders in Catholicism that has as part of their duties, teaching and explaining Bible passages.

The reason there are 30,000 denominations isn't because Christianity allows this. In fact, it says somewhere in the Bible that there is only one Church. From the Catholic point of view, denominations started happening because of Martin Luther and his protesting the Catholic Church rightfully for some of the abuses it had. However, instead of staying inside the Catholic Church, he went outside of it. Later on, people then protested against Martin Luther, and so on, until there are 30,000 denominations.

Now, Catholicism says that in between those 1,500 years between the start of the Church and Martin Luther there was the Catholic Church, while the opponents say that that Church was too corrupted. However, the problem with this is that how can you distinguish between something that God gives and something that a person claims is from God when it really is just from himself?

There is a solution to this in regards to Jesus, as there is a reasonable system for God to show that it really is Him and not someone pretending that God is with them. The system is this: (1) God pre-announces His coming, (2) that person does miracles, maybe a miracle-worker, and (3) they don't contradict natural reason.

My defense of Judges 1:19 is to say that your offense isn't enough to succeed. I am saying that we can assume that the story can be taken literally, and that your offense isn't enough without further explanation. Here is my defense. What if the Lord doesn't want them to win in that situation, since it would require extraordinary, and not ordinary means, and what if the Lord prefers the ordinary means to the extraordinary means? Also, it seems that they won something (the hill country). Even if they didn't win, at least they seem to be saying that they didn't get destroyed, even though the opponent had greater technology.

Now, that said, it doesn't mean that this battle happened historically, but that's not the point of it. The point could be that one should learn from one's opponents, rather than write them off.

(*1) (Means that I will discuss this next round) On slavery
(*2) Exodus 21:2-6 (did you mean Leviticus 25 instead?)
(*3) Exodus 21:20-21
(*4) Numbers 31:17-18

Well, Hell is described in that way for some Christians maybe, but not for Catholics. In fact, that version of Hell doesn't make sense if God is Love or if God is Justice. It doesn't make sense for the Native Americans who didn't have an opportunity to choose God like other people. The version that makes sense is this: People go to Hell because they choose it, meaning that they explicitly reject being with God. Technically though, the crime is infinite, because of "crime-ing", a.k.a. sinning, against an infinite being (God).

There is a problem if people don't believe their denomination on fundamental things. Yes, science does pose problems for those types of Christians. Now, that doesn't disprove the religion, it just means that that religion ought to have a sufficient explanation as to why God can overcome physical laws.

You can scrutinize religious documents, that's not a bad thing.

(*5) More Issues: #1

#2: Original sin is a way of explaining why man sins against God. It is silly for human to be responsible for something they didn't do. That being said, families, like nations, can be punished by the actions of their leaders, though it isn't just (though God can still be just). I agree that it isn't just to be punished for the crimes of others. However, there is still the possibility justice being made up in Heaven. Not only that, but Heaven lasts infinitely longer and is infinitely better than life on Earth, so Earth will feel like nothing compared to Heaven and Hell. So, seeing this whole picture, who would complain of a sad life on Earth, of being poor, or being a slave? Those things aren't ideal, but there is at least hope for justice.

People don't go to Hell because of original sin, but because they choose Hell.

With the tree, you spotted a contradiction, so this passage can't be taken literally. Good eye.

Genesis 2:9 contrasts two trees: "In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

One article says this: "The Tree of Death. " The tree of the knowledge of good and evil represented mankind taking to himself the ability to produce knowledge of what is good and evil, what is right and wrong." (*6) Source

So, one interpretation is that God doesn't want man to make up its own rules, as God's rules are best.

(*7) #3
(*8) #4


I'm going to make an assumption about your point of morality without an afterlife. You're going to say that there's no point, right? Well, wolves and other social species have their own form of morality and I doubt you'd say that they are going to heaven. Morality is a way to get along with each other, and to promote the well being of the tribe. That sort of objection is about why we should be moral (and the answer is because 1, it is in human nature to care for other humans, and 2, because it is beneficial to you and others that we have rules.)

I understand that it is my burden to show why Christianity is immoral, and I provided clear examples of how it is morally wrong.

I'm not sure what you are asking for me to give a proof of. That Christianity is immoral? My examples do that.

Q1: Did the early Israelites interact with the Greeks to the point where they had to make a rebuttal to them? And if the point is just to say that God created everything using order, then why create a false story? If this book is inspired by God, why fill it with falsehoods, especially when he doesn't plan on making a new one to correct them? In fact, why leave it up to vague stories, and not just tell us the message?

Q2: Apparently the scientific innacuracies in a book inspired by God can be explained away by the fact that the people he was talking to didn't care.

Q3: I don't think I was implying that they had no understanding of science at all. Their scientific inaccuracies and a lack of scientific method or any sort of method to finding out the world (other than pray to something that probably isn't real) shows that they're ignorant to most of science.

Q4: Why wrap it up in a story that isn't true? What is necessary about the flood myth that can't be said directly? Don't disobey god. Boom, I just saved everybody an entire page. And if the parables are so necessary, why does God sometime do away with them and just tells people the rules? Why doesn't he stick to a single format?

Honestly, if I am an all knowing and all powerful god, I don't write something so extremely important to the fate of humans in a confusing manner that people have to explain what it is even trying to say. Actually, I wouldn't put it into a book at all, I'd just give them that knowledge if they absolutely have to have it.

I never said that the Bible supports denominations, but it's confusing and vague messages make it almost impossible that schisms would occur. There were denominations before Protestantism. Orthodoxy, for instance?

Is the way to find out whether or not something is from God him just telling us? Nope? Course not. Apparently the way to tell if somebody is from God is because they are miracle workers? Okay? How does that determine the validity of Protestanism? Are we still talking about Protestantism?

Let's assume you are correct. God didn't want to break the natural order (even though he literally has absolutely no problems doing that ever. The flood, the plagues, the parting of the red sea, the flaming tornado or something, the burning bush talking, Jesus, etc). Why doesn't God say so? Why is he so vague that reasonable people would find issue with what he is saying? What about, "Hey, let's stop here for now," or, "Hey, you aren't going to win that fight with your weapons so let's chill?" Instead we have, "I, your almighty god, can't do this right now because they're chariots are fitted with iron."

(*2) No, Exodus 21: 2-6 talks of slavery.

It isn't an infinite crime because I only have a select number of years to do it. If I had forever, then you may have a point, but I only have 70 or so years (and that's being optimistic) to do this noncrime. And I'm not choosing to go to hell. God is choosing to not show himself to me.

Oh my god, so God can literally do anything he wants to do to us on Earth because of Heaven? What? JESUS CHRIST. Okay, maybe if somebody were enslaved and God said, "You really shouldn't do that guys," you'd have a point that Heaven makes up for it. But it doesn't. IT LITERALLY TELLS PEOPLE TO ENSLAVE THE HEATHENS AROUND YOU. It is telling others to put people in horrific, dehumanizing situations even though God is perfectly capable of putting a stop to it. If I see somebody getting mugged, do nothing, and then buy them an ice cream later I didn't make up for not helping them. But this scenario isn't even suffecient to explain how evil your god is. Your god is a man with an everything proof shield, aware of every situation and pain on earth, with ample ability to stop it, and not only that, but he specifically tells people to do some of these horrible things.

Oh, that's cute. If something is contradictory, it isn't a problem. It's just not literal. Would you tell a child a story meant to tell them a lesson with a glaring contradiction? Who would listen? You just admitted a problem with the Catholic Christian god.

Yeah, one interpretation that you pulled out the "Backpedalling Closet". You know, I really don't like getting this upset and I really wanted to avoid a debate about proving whether or not God exists, but that one paragraphe really upset me. Jesus man, this religion has divorced you from any morality. Any pain or evil is okay because maybe, just god damned maybe God might let them go to Heaven. That is, if they believe in the correct invisible sky apparation made up from the mind of a confused sheep herder. I noticed you didn't address the rape of virgin prisoners of war or the execution of the male ones. Yeah, I'd really like an explanation there. What dispicable thing will you pull out to excuse this atrocity? So for next round, prove that your god exists, prove that Christianity is at all moral, prove that the actions of the Catholic Church are moral (INCLUDING THE PROTECTION OF CHILD RAPISTS), and while you are doing those things, maybe fix world hunger and bring about world peace. I mean, they're all just as likely to happen.
Debate Round No. 3


Why does morality matter if there's nothing after death? Morality becomes absurd. Why care about getting along with each other if it will all disappear and be a waste of time? The beneficial aspects are lost because death will destroy that for us. Lastly, why should we care about others if we get nothing from it? I think we do get something from it, even if we didn't intend to get anything from it, because the other sees how we do things. However, this implies an afterlife, otherwise this gets lost. Your argument therefore becomes absurd.

Your examples don't necessarily show that all of Christianity is immoral. In fact, those things you mentioned aren't even adopted by all or much of Christianity, it seems.

Your assumption that there are no objections puts you at a disadvantage if you are wrong.

Examples aren't proofs. That's a fallacy.

Q1: You seem to be unable to get past this notion that stories don't have to be true. Did you study Literature in grade school? Do you think fiction Literature is worthless, and there is nothing to get out of it?

I tell you that there is something more important than scientific facts, and you need to disprove this or your argument doesn't work.

Messages aren't as memorable as stories. That is very important when writing a blog. Also, the message can be rejected more easily, but not so much the story.

Q3: Why does it matter than they are ignorant of 21st century science? Be exact.

Q4: It's confusing because you're reading it the wrong way. That's a good thing, because it prevents you from assuming anyone can know-it-all about what the Bible is saying. God wants us to depend on Him, not solely on ourselves and our own interpretations. If you want to understand, you're supposed to look to God on that.

You can give them that knowledge, but it doesn't mean they will follow it, because they can choose against it. You would also have to keep giving them that knowledge, as some would attempt to distort it, so a hard-copy would help against this.

Yes, one division that happened in the 10th century, but it wasn't over the Bible, I think. It was over doctrine. The same with the initial division with Martin Luther. It wasn't over the Bible, but over abuses. It then expanded so that there were biblical differences.

You have to take miracle-worker with the other two. For this, you need historical documents to verify that. I have a problem with Protestantism because of their gap. Catholics claim to not have a gap, and there are historical documents during those times which point to Catholicism. Protestants have a greater hurdle, in my opinion, as they have to show those three things I gave all over again.

I don't know why you're trying to force God to want the Israelites to win a battle over iron chariots no matter what. This sounds like a straw-man fallacy.

The stories are vague in that area because that's not the point of the story in that case. The Bible does need to have some historical parts, but not all of it, and those can be pointed out when it is a foundational point for Christianity or Catholicism. However, I think science points to creationism being wrong, and I am fine with that, as that isn't foundational for Catholicism, though it is for some Christians.

There are more types of infinity than just time. Attacking all of an infinite God is an infinite attack.

You're not choosing to go to Hell? That sounds like a contradiction, since you say that you don't want to be with God because of a plurality of your arguments.

So what if God doesn't choose to show Himself right now? That doesn't send someone to Heaven or Hell. Otherwise, give me a Catholic document disproving this. You don't get to make up Catholic dogma though, that's a fallacy (and I shouldn't either).

If God can do anything He wants to do, then this contradicts God being all good. Though yes, God isn't limited.

You seem to can't hold yourself when I said I would get to slavery later.

You seem to be referring to the problem of evil. The reason there is evil with man is that God wants man to have free will to choose Him or not. The reason there are natural evils is because of our consequences, to help us to avoid choosing evil because of the consequences, and to choose good. It is also to help us look to God and not be comfortable in not looking at God.

I never said that pain or evil is okay, but that there's hope of conquering it.

God doesn't approve of child rapists, and the Catholic Church allowed it because of corruption, not because of religious dogma.

Even if I showed that God existed and you agreed, you wouldn't be happy about it, so why should I do it?

You seem to be clueless in that I can't find a reference to "daughters can be sold as sex slaves" in Exodus 21:2-6.

(*1-*3) One thing I read was that God could have been speaking to those particular governments, rather than to what the ideal is. The reason is that if God spoke the ideal, the Israelites would have outright rejected it, and God would have gotten nowhere here. Now, one can look to the other governments historically and see how they would do things, and the article claimed that the Israelites were more moral than those other groups.

One example of this is with divorce, in that Moses allowed for divorce, even though that wasn't the ideal, and that Jesus fulfilled that law by saying no divorce, and the fulfillment of a law can be safely interpreted as the ideal of that law.

Also, what if more slaves' rights was a way for God to encourage foreigners to Judaism, rather than false idols? It isn't good for Israelites to turn to false idols though. In Leviticus 25:44, they are allowed to buy foreigners as slaves and as property, yes. The question is, is this the ideal. The wording "may" sounds like a no.

Also, what did Leviticus exactly mean when it says "slaves" and "property"? And what about the context of "image and likeness of God" in Genesis 1? Also, this source talks about slave protections in Israel as better than elsewhere

I do need an exact reference on the female sex slaves part, as I haven't found it.

(*4) Next round

(*5) More Issues: 1 Genesis says that man was made in the "image and likeness of God." If God allows men to be killed, it not because God wants it, but because it isn't good for evil men who do evil things shouldn't be allowed to be spread to do more evil, but those men are still made in the image of God, so we don't wish them death.

For Ephesians 6:5, God didn't intend to make things right on Earth, but in Heaven. Otherwise, this would be a total disaster for God. So, God wasn't trying to have political and social upheaval, but spiritual upheaval, when he referred to those slaves. You seem to think that it is impossible for God to give justice to those slaves who were unjustly treated. Prove God's incapability.


(*7) More Issues: 3 Homophobia. What is good about homosexuality? What makes it worth doing that nothing else can do? Pleasure isn't something intrinsically good. It isn't something neutral either, but it is a multiplier, an encourager of whatever is being done, whether good or evil. Intimacy is empty here because nothing happens. What does love mean exactly?

(*8) More Issues: 4 Sexism. What is implied in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is that there shouldn't be women-priests. This article claims that Paul claims that women shouldn't be silenced at all times, and points to 1 Corinthians 11:5 (*9). This article says to not take this passage literally, otherwise women shouldn't sing Now, why no women-priests? Well, start by realizing that men aren't women, and see if that solves it. This could be discussed later.


Why eat if I am going to die? Why drink water when I will pass away? Why maintain my existence if someday I will perish? Because until we die, we have to get along. If we don't, if our social order breaks down and everyone acted in this sociopathic manner you suggest that we would, then humanity will be over. The species would be dead. Our ancestors with morality survived, passed on that gene, and most people feel some sense of morality. And I would counter, why be moral at all if, on one's death bed, you can recant and be accepted into heaven anyway?

I never said that all of Christianity is immoral. This isn't the debate. The debate is over whether there is one problem with Catholicism/Christianity, so I went to the Bible which I would assume would be a good place to start.

I don't know what you are talking about when you speak of my assumptions about disadvantages.

Wait, which fallacy says that examples aren't proofs? I gave examples where Christianity/ the bible have said morally incorrect things. I have no idea what you would like me to do instead of give examples?

Q1: Well, when compiling a rule book that determines the eternal resting place of someone's soul, a smart being would say, "Maybe we should be direct here." Why do manuals have all these guidelines and tips? I need vague and flexible stories to tell me what to do.

Actually, YOU need to prove that there is something more important than scientific knowledge. It's called the burden of proof. But, hey, I'd actually agree with you. If you ask me, human relationships are a lot more important, especially in our day-to-day lives. I don't see why spirituality is essential to our lives, and that is what you need to show.

Well, when you compile a book that is supposed to be a rule list for humanity, then directness is really more important. I mean, the Constitution isn't a series of vague, flexible allegories because that'd be a really inefficient document. And what do you mean by the message can be rejected easily, but not the story? Isn't the story only important in that it translates a message? And it's actually very easy to reject the story: there's no evidence for the world wide flood and a mere rejection of god doesn't mean that people are deserving to be murdered. Boom.

Q3: Actually, you were the one to strip my comment on their scientific ignorance from its context. I was saying that the scientific inaccuracies were consistent with a culture that didn't know much about the natural world, and not the word inspired by an all knowing God.

Q4: So it is good God's message is confusing... so I can go to god's message to find what I should do... But god's message is confusing... so I have to go to god's message to find what I should do about god's confusing message... But (goes on for infinity). To be more clear, I was saying that telling stories to explain rules is counter intuitive, especially if the stories are fictional. Anyone can construct a hypothetical to support themselves.

We don't have a hard copy though. We have a document, and in the past copying documents were extremely hard to do. For a long time they had to hand write it, and then the printer press made things only marginally easier. Not to mention that it was written in a language that would die out and have to be translated into languages so obviously there is a large chance that some of the messages wouldn't be copied correctly. In fact, making a book in 600 BC and wanting it to be copied is literally the best way to ensure that your message will be distorted. So there's another problem.

Doctrine based on what? I mean, if the doctrine isn't based on the Bible then what is the point of having the Bible?

I honestly don't even know what you are talking about with Protestantism. Maybe I'm an idiot. What documents? What gap? I'm not even a Christian, why should I care about this?

Nowhere does God say, "We don't need this battle." He doesn't say, "This is where your land will end." He says, "They have iron chariots, which I can't beat." So either God is a liar, or the common Christian claim that he is all powerful is a lie. Boom, another problem.

I haven't attacked God though. If anything, I'm doing the exact opposite. If he exists, I would be distancing myself from him. But no, he's distancing himself from me by not showing himself and not giving evidence he exists.

I don't want to be with God because I don't think he exists. I don't think Hell exists. How can I choose to go to a place I don't believe in?

If God doesn't show himself and gives no reason for me to believe he exists, why should I believe in him? But apparently if I don't believe in him, I will go to hell, and all because he hasn't given any evidence he exists.

So God can't do anything or else he isn't all good, but he also isn't limited. So God isn't all good?

To be honest, to stop all suffering and pain in the world, I would happily give up my free will to commit these acts. There is no reason he can't stop others from being evil while still letting us choose him or not. In fact, the more knowledge we have of a situation the more informed our decision can be. And Satan knew of God, right? He still rejected him. Obviously humans can reject god while still knowing of god.

No, you said pain is okay because god is handing them an IOU.

So, the Catholic church is corrupt. Boom, one reason not to trust Catholicism. The people who are going to guide us to heaven are corrupt, and therefore not trustworthy.

Please, don't use my disdain for your horrific character stop you from proving he exists. If you don't there's no reason to believe any of the Bible except an empty threat.

Exodus 21:2-6 isn't about female sex slavery (because you never specified what you were asking for), it is about another form of slavery. Exodus 21:7-11 is about sex slavery.

Oh, so God isn't Hitler, he's just Neville Chamberlain. But it's all fine. The Israelis were better to their human cattle than the other slavers. Except even this hypothetical falls apart when you realize that God doesn't care about free will or the opinions of his subjects (hardens the Pharaoh's heart, repeatedly punished the Israelites for disobedience). And if God is just appealing to us, his subjects, then how can you say that any of his pronouncements are correct. Maybe the climate had changed in the New Testament so now he has to say that divorce is okay.

Divorce is actually pretty okay. Can you show divorce shouldn't be allowed ever? What about domestic violence incidents?

Why would having slaves keep Israelis on God's path, and why would that invite foreigners? Who would go to slave state?

I was using Exodus, not Leviticus. Also, God contradicted himself by saying we are all made in his image but some people are just objects to use for labor. Congrats. Another problem.

Right, evil men like the group of children that were mauled to death by bears (2 Kings 2:24)

Right, God couldn't make things on Earth perfect because when people are in utopias they notoriously revolt. I'm saying that it is a d*ck move to allow someone to be in pain, just to repay them later.

Jesus Christ you couldn't be more of a d*ck. Homosexuality is just fine because there are no victims in a consenting, healthy relationship between adults. And persecuting these harmless people is obviously bad.

WHAT? Are you saying that men are intrinsically better than women? Where did I say that men are women? If you aren't implying that men are better than women, then what does that even mean? Apparently women can't preach because those god damned ovaries would get in the way. How can they preach the hateful, murderous word of a genocidal tyrant when they're just so emotional? They might just cry when talking about dashing the babies against the rocks.

Numbers 31:17-18
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. 18"But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.
Debate Round No. 4


(I will extend my argument into the comments section, though judging doesn't have to necessarily include that)


I'm saying that your side can't get past the absurdity that death gives if there is no afterlife. Why would your side care about social order? The species will be dead anyway. Our ancestors survived because morality wasn't built off of absurdity, but a belief that it wouldn't be wasted by death. So, your whole argument on this is absurd and you won't admit it.

That is a good question to ask. God is love and mercy, so He will take any chance you give Him. Nevertheless, one doesn't know how one will die and if they will have the opportunity to recant, or if they would say that they can't recant. Also, life's better to be moral than to be immoral, because of the consequences. Being immoral is a liability, because if other people notice that, they will be repulsed by that. Being moral is attractive. Also, it's a sin to presume that God will accept oneself. Lastly, it takes more effort to change than to do nothing, and recanting involves a change.

Well, saying that "I didn't kill someone 6 out of 7 days," means that the person acted immorally. It doesn't matter if they didn't steal or commit adultery, but if they killed, then they acted immorally. The same can go with Christianity.

Examples generally aren't definitive proofs (unless one says that there is no example which exists in this case). What I mean here is that you have to show that there couldn't be a reasonable alternative explanation, which is an explanation, which is more than just an example. I can look for those explanations, like the one I gave.

When I mean assumptions about objections, you were saying that "I provided clear examples of how it is morally wrong." I do understand your claims, but they don't prove it is morally wrong if my objections work.

I do want you to give examples from the Bible. You just sound like you jump to the conclusion that you've rightly interpreted it.

There are rules, it is just that the Bible isn't the whole of Catholicism, but it just one of three sources for authority, Tradition and Magisterium being the other two.

You are right in saying that it would be good to have rules as well. However, the reasoning is as important or is more important than the rules, else the meaning and purpose of the rules can become distorted. One example of rules is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Now, there are probably a lot more rules than one or a few books can handle, as well as times change and new rules need to be made for newer situations like with technology, in addition to living in different types of societies, like a democracy or monarchy, with their own problems, so the rule book would have to deal with all those things, meaning that multiple documents or revisions would have to be made.

That sounds reasonable that I need to prove it. Spirituality is important because materialism can despair with no-afterlife atheism because of death. Spirituality conquers the problem of death. Scientific knowledge can't get you past death, as far as I know.

Since the Bible doesn't do a good job at being a rule-list for humanity, it therefore probably isn't meant to do such a thing (although parts of it are like mini-rule lists, like in Leviticus, and with the Beatitudes). On the other hand, maybe it doesn't need to be a rule-list, as if you have the spirit of it, then the rules will flow naturally from that. So, why write it on a list if it's in the heart? ""I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts" Jeremiah 31:33.

That being said, it wouldn't hurt to write stuff down anyway, though it's more so meant to be followed and done than just read.

What I meant by the message can be rejected more easily than a story is that people are more attracted to a story than a sentence-fact, and so it is one thing to deny a fact/moral, but it is much harder to deny that same moral in a web of different plausible facts woven by a story. Stories which invoke the senses can seem more personal than abstract, objective facts.

Q3: I don't think God was interested in revealing scientific facts, and that there were more important things than scientific facts, hence a possibility for the inaccuracies because they didn't care about them primarily.

Q4: If a passage of the Bible is still confusing after looking at other passages, then go outside of the Bible. The Bible needs interpretation, and it needs proper interpretation at that.

The way you show that the Bible isn't from some man's mind is through the three points I said regarding God, as well as historical accuracy in critical points.

A story isn't meant to be a proof of an idea, but as a way of better understanding an idea.

Catholicism doesn't believe in "Bible alone," because one can interpret it wrongly. In fact, I don't know of anything that says essentially "Bible alone." And if it did, it would be a circular reference, so its verification would have to be in something like history or some other way.

You are right on the translation part. Hence, another difficulty with "Sola Scriptura" that a Magisterium can resolve with the existence of a Magisterium.

Doctrine is based on the Bible. Yeah, actually your initial point now makes sense to me. Now, just because the Bible is vague on certain points doesn't imply that it's okay to schism. The Bible doesn't cause the schism. People do. They just use the Bible as an excuse. The Bible is meant for people, not people for the Bible. That being said, there are different types of Bibles (meaning a few more or less books, not necessarily a totally different book).

Also, not all of Catholic doctrine is necessarily defined clearly in the Bible, though there are probably hints of it, like the Trinity.

Looking into the 11th (not 10th) century schism, it appeared to have been a bunch of things. I can't tell if it is exactly over the Bible or not, but it doesn't seem important for our purposes. I agree that the Bible has parts which need some explaining.

Oh, I meant to say that the 3 things with the miracle worker would have to be re-done for Protestants because of the gap between the time of Christ and when Protestants came up, because they broke the continuity, while Catholicism claims the continuity, so it doesn't need for those 3 things to be done again. I was saying that this is what Protestants need to do to verify that their ideas come from God, and not just some person who used the Bible for their own ends.

Where does it say in the Bible that God says that "I wanted to defeat those guys with iron chariots, but I can't beat them," rather than choose not to have them defeated in a supernatural way? This gets into the idea of whether "all-powerful" means God can do contradictions. Well, God can't. God also can't do evil, as that would be a contradiction. So, all-powerful is not a good name. I propose that God can do all things which aren't evil or contradictory.

"I don't want to be with God," and "because I don't think He exists" make no sense when put together.

Of courses you are attacking God, you are saying that He is bad, so avoid Him. You"re doing the opposite, helping God? Huh?

Actually, you have shown that you are distancing yourself from Him. He's not stopping you from coming to Him.

You ignored my part which says that it wouldn't be just for God to put people in Hell for no good reason.

In terms of suffering and pain, you ignore the value of free will and the point about Heaven. In terms of evil, I already gave my points previously, and they stand against what you said this round. Satan rejected God for no good reason, though.

God is testing people and their free will, hence the suffering and pain being allowed. It's not so much an IOU, as God isn't limited to do what He wants, but a reward.


I won't admit my argument is absurd because it isn't. We are moral today for the same reason we eat and drink food in spite of the fact we will die: we have to, to be able to survive to reach our deaths.

So Christianity's glaring moral flaw won't be abused by every person. Okay. That child rapist that lived to recant on his deathbed? He's in heaven. Jenny Atheist is in hell though for the "crime" of nobelief. Also, apparently morality is absurd without an afterlife, and yet Pro provides a perfectly good reason (the same one I have been using) for why we should be moral: getting along. No, you see, it was a change within the heart.

You accused me of saying all Chrisianity was immoral. That was not my position.

Actually, you have to prove that there isn't a flaw within Christianity, but you have the burden of proof. Again, I have taken it upon myself to present potential problems and argue against your explanations, which I think I have shown to be very weak.

The fact that so much of a rule book is left up to interpretation sounds like a problem.

I don't know why you bring up Tradition and Magisterium.

Do rules need stories to explain them? The consequences are explained about breaking rules, but fictional, abstract tales aren't presented in, say, a lab safety manual.

The Bible is actually very bloated because of the extra baggage of unnecessary stories. What can simply be said in a few words is told in an entire story. A smart god would plan ahead for technology, or present his rules in a way that they never need to change. You say that revisions need to be made, but Jesus says that anybody that tampers with the book is going to Hell. (Rev 22:19).

I'm an atheist, but I'm not materialistic. Spirituality doesn't conquer death just like Santa Claus doesn't conquer the problem of going everywhere in one night. If you need spirituality to feel good at night then go ahead but I'm going to be spending time with my family and making the most out of my time here.

Oh, so the Bible fails as a rule book? Then it was never meant to be, even though it was treated by Christians for thousands of years and even today as the book we need to follow to get to Heaven. And yet, I highly doubt that every Catholic let alone every Christian would get the same laws to follow from simmering in the spirit of a dusty old book. Except that the law isn't written on our hearts because we all come to very different moral conclusions (note, this isn't an argument for moral relativism. Not all moral systems are equal).

So wait, you write down the rules you get from drinking in the spirit of the law, which you gained from an admittedly inneffecient rule book.

So to make something harder to reject you make it harder to define by hiding it inside a web of a story? And you seem to think that there is a differenc between the story and an objective fact. So are the messages in the stories true or not?

Q3: Who's they? God or the Israelis.

Q4: Think the Bible isn't clear enough? Ditch it away. It's not like your holy text is all that important anyway. Just the writings of mad man.

You say that there is some way to demonstrate the truth of the Bible, but you do not do it for us. 'Tis a shame.

I think that just stating an idea, especially if I need to know and follow it to get to heaven, would be the smart thing to do.

You haven't explained anything other than the Bible, though.

What's a magisterium? And wouldn't the necessity of a corrective measure point to a fault? Most manuals don't need a scribe to guide the congregation.

So the vague, confusing, and overall unclear parts of the Bible aren't to blame for denominations, it's... the people that have to read them. I'd say both are to blame for putting any trust in such a horribly constructed truth.

If the Bible is your Holy Text why would you try and divorce yourself from it? I would think the dead weight given by the Bible would be a problem.

You never demonstrated that those three things ever happened, or even really explained why that test is accurate for a Protestant or a nonbeliever. And if the Protestants are right in that Catholicism is incorrect, can you really claim a continuity? What matters in a continuity if it is based on false things?

Where does it say that God couldn't do it because of the iron chariots? Why, the very place I've said over and over again: Judges 1:19. But since you can't do even moderate research for yourself: Now the LORD was with Judah, and they took possession of the hill country; but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots.

Yes, they do. I don't be with things that don't exist.

Attacking is an offensive move. Distancing was a defensive move. And I'm sorry if your all mighty god's nonexistant feelings are hurt that I point out he's a warmongering, bloodthirsty narcessit, but seeing as I am going to be the one burning at the end of the day, I don't really care.

If you ask me, there is nothing to come to.

I agree it wouldn't be just to put people in hell for no good reason. He has no good reason. He is not just.

What choice is there in being poor, eh? What choice is there for starving, or for freezing, or for being murdered? God isn't in favor of free will. He is in favor of free will for psychopaths and murderers. So sorry if I don't claim him as my father. You also ignore my point that giving someone a future present THAT HASN'T BEEN PROVEN TO EXIST if they meet a certain criteria doesn't make up for abadoning someone if they can help. Your god doesn't even help all those who are in pain, though. What about Muslim rape victims? Are they evil too?

The point is that showing himself to the world wouldn't restrict free will because Satan had free will, knew of god, and rebelled.

Apparently he is limited because he can't, or wont (which makes him evil) rescue these people before they are in pain. If god is all knowing, he already knows the results of these tests and any pain experienced is even more unnecessary.

Pro's arguments were cut off, but I'll respond to some of his comments here.

Comment 1: Wow, didn't take you long to apologize for rape. Of course God couldn't fix these sexist societies in which prisoners of wars are forced to marry their family's murderers, and then be legally raped by them. He was just watching out for the little 9 and 10 year old girls. Wouldn't want to treat them with respect, am I right? Your argument that God is beholden to these societies is so f*cking weak though. When does God evr cave to the Israelites? He punishes them for the slightest moaning on a 40 year journey. But I hope you can sleep tonight.

God created the rules in which women weren't given that freedom. God is their dictator and he isn't improving the lives of anybody but thealready privileged.

No, buddy, you argue for why the ownership of others is okay. Don't just give me sources.

Comment 2: Nobody is harmed. That's the definition of harmless. The two people getting tax benefits from marriage gain something. The difference between male roomates and two men dating is, obviously, a relationship.

You were trying to defend a passage that seemed to say women aren't equal to men. I curse god's name because I like it and he can't stop me.

So here we get right down to it. God isn't even good for you, you are just suffering battered wife's syndrom, because at the end of the day, God is a bully, and abuser, and yet he still demands your love. So murder the young boys because they might be against being conquered. Wow, who'd have thunk it?

C3: The idea that it is okay to put people through extreme amounts of pain on the offchance they MIGHT make it to heaven is disgusting and the test is unfair. A test would only work if we were all submitted to the same experiences so as to isolate the variable.

People not being able to move is not a rebellion, nor is it relevant to what I was saying.

Okay, for the rest, I might just take to the comments, but seriously man, go god damned f*ck yourself.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
You know, occasionally, like any rational person, I have my doubts about my beliefs. I was even considering checking out a church service sometime, maybe see if they had anything of substance to offer, but from what I have experienced in this debate Christianity, when stripped of its fancy claims of a loving god, is nothing but the realization of a psychopath's torture fantasy. God is allowed to subject us to anything he wants, allow us to live in hell on earth and yet we still have to love this nonexistent puppet master.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
Addressed that in my response in the ACTUAL DEBATE.

If those who work for the Catholic church are needed to interpret this dogma, then you can't trust what you know about the dogma, because it came from potentially corrupt individuals.

You already gave your argument for god.
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
Wait, why can't this first cause ask about its existence? and can't a god like being ask about its existence? What the hell?

There are parents who hate their children. There are parents who love their children, but they aren't love incarnate.

That was some nice mental gymnastics right there but you kind of confused me. If men are the ones who want to do good, why is there evil and why would this make God good?
Posted by YaHey 2 years ago
It's not my fault you can't read your own holy book, but I guess it isn't yours either. The PROBLEM is in how it was designed.

So in some situations, divorce is okay? I think in any situation in which people want a divorce they should be able to, and should be able to remarry.

Actually, I never said Israel was the only slave state. It is a slave state and therefore it is disgusting.

God talks about tricking the slaves into becoming full time slaves, and that's with Israelis who weren't the victims of war. They were the warmongerers.

I insult god so I deserve to die? F*ck god. bring it on. If I were allowed to kill people for upsetting me you'd be dead right now too.

God isn't justice. He's a blood thirsty mass murderer.
Posted by Matt532 2 years ago
Sorry, I went to my fifth round argument without realizing it. Ignore the first post and the first two lines of the second post (I edited the third line of the second post).
Posted by Matt532 2 years ago
Also, not all of Catholic doctrine is necessarily defined clearly in the Bible, though there are probably hints of it, like the Trinity.

Looking into the 11th (not 10th) century schism, it appeared to have been a bunch of things. I can't tell if it is exactly over the Bible or not, but it doesn't seem important for our purposes. I agree that the Bible has parts which need some explaining.

Oh, I meant to say that the 3 things with the miracle worker would have to be re-done for Protestants because of the gap between the time of Christ and when Protestants came up, because they broke the continuity, while Catholicism claims the continuity, so it doesn't need for those 3 things to be done again. I was saying that this is what Protestants need to do to verify that their ideas come from God, and not just some person who used the Bible for their own ends.

Where does it say in the Bible that God says that "I wanted to defeat those guys with iron chariots, but I can't beat them," rather than choose not to have them defeated in a supernatural way? This gets into the idea of whether "all-powerful" means God can do contradictions. Well, God can't. God also can't do evil, as that would be a contradiction. So, all-powerful is not a good name. I propose that God can do all things which aren't evil or contradictory.

"I don't want to be with God," and "because I don't think He exists" make no sense when put together.

Of courses you are attacking God, you are saying that He is bad, so avoid Him. You"re doing the opposite, helping God? Huh?

Actually, you have shown that you are distancing yourself from Him. He's not stopping you from coming to Him.
Posted by Matt532 2 years ago
You ignored my part which says that it wouldn't be just for God to put people in Hell for no good reason.

In terms of suffering and pain, you ignore the value of free will and the point about Heaven. In terms of evil, I already gave my points previously, and they stand against what you said this round. Satan rejected God for no good reason, though.

God is testing people and their free will, hence the suffering and pain being allowed. It's not so much an IOU, as God isn't limited to do what He wants, but a reward from God.

There is a distinction between the people in the Catholic Church, and its dogma. You have to show that the dogma are corrupt, not the people. I also never said the whole Church is corrupt, and in fact, the Pope is claimed to be infallible when giving faith and morals in a certain official way. "You are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:18). (see

Actually, I changed my mind. I do want to give you my argument for God's existence, because I can argue from there to claim that God is all-good. So my argument for God existence is this. The principle of cause and effect is one that is used to explain things, including where the existence of a thing comes from. However, where does it stop? Some may say the Big Bang, but then one may ask what caused that. Now, one huge problem is that it must stop somewhere. If it doesn't stop (meaning there is an infinite chain), then this means that the question never gets answered, meaning that there is no solution, meaning that there is no first cause and effect, which mean that the chain can't be real, meaning that we don't exist, which is not true. So, one has two options: find a First Cause, or deny the principle of cause and effect.
Posted by Matt532 2 years ago
Now, if one is to deny the principle of cause and effect, one has to have a reason or else one is being irrational. If one is to make cause and effect conditional, then one has to explain where the condition is.

Now, if there is a First Cause, then it has to be a First Cause in such a way that it doesn't ask where its existence comes from. The only possible answer that works is if the First Cause is Existence itself. This First Case is what Christians call God.

Now, since it is the First Cause, it isn't limited by anything, and is therefore infinite. Since it is infinite, it is perfect, since nothing can be added to it, as it already has everything, since it isn't bounded. Since it is perfect, it can't change, since change implies imperfection, in that one goes from something that one doesn't have to something one has. Therefore, God must be simple, meaning not composed of parts, as opposed to complex, as parts implies potency to change.

Now, since God created man, God loved man. And since God loved man, God is love, since God is simple. Also, since man was created as good (when man achieves his ideal, meaning maximizes all his potential, this is good), God is goodness itself. Now, man is good because evil tends towards nothingness (as its ideal), as evil is a privation, and man was created from nothing, so man can't tend towards evil. But the only opposite of evil is good.

So, that is my argument that God exists and is all-good.

Your argument against free will is actually an argument for God having free will.
Posted by Matt532 2 years ago
Exodus 21:7-11. My previous argument with *1-*3 stands. Also, I don't see where this talks about female sex slaves. You have to be more exact in your sources that claim this. However, if it is true, my previous argument must be shown to be invalid here.

Divorce is never ideal. Schism is never ideal, as you implied previously. It was allowed way back then because the men were killing their wives to marry other women, and the law is meant for people, not people for the law. Now, you can have separation if one spouse abuses the other. However, that doesn't justify re-marriage in and of itself (for Catholics, unless the marriage is shown to never have been valid, a.k.a. an annulment).

You act as though Israel was the only slave state at that time. Prove it.

God didn't contradict Himself because He didn't say slavery was ideal. He allowed it, possibly because people needed employment to live, as their lands were destroyed from war, possibly which the Israelites did because the enemy threatened them in some way, one possibility being religion, especially since some of the other religions at that time practiced human sacrifice.

For 2 Kings 2:24, I am looking at this source: It claims that "children" is misinterpreted as young adults. Then, it says that those youths were actually mocking the Lord, and that "Elisha called upon the Lord to deal with the rebels as He saw fit." The punishment was death. Actually, there is something worse than physical death, and that is spiritual death (Hell). It is ironic that this passage that you give actually seems to apply to you, as you seem to go out of your way to insult God (in my following comments where I say, "I don't know why you like to bring up""). Don't expect for God to treat you nicely if you don't treat Him nicely. It's not good to let evil thrive, so good would put a stop to evil to prevent it from getting out of hand, especially if God is justice).
Posted by Matt532 2 years ago
It sounds like you're complaining against God for there being a test of free will in whether a person wants to choose God or not. Your complaining doesn't show that God is bad. It just shows that you complain and that you don't like God.

You didn't understand what I meant about how God can use pain, so let me repeat it. God can use pain to bring about a greater good, an eternal good against a finite good. When comparing infinity to a finite thing, infinity makes the finite thing look like it doesn't even exist (infinity plus one is infinity, that's what mathematics says). Get it? Sacrificing $100 into a 401K can result in $300 in 20 years (just a hypothetical thing to get my point across). Get it? Having a little pain now can result in big gains later if it is taken advantage of.

Communist utopian systems don't work because people aren't encouraged to excel, but to have their social and political and work (and possibly spiritual) "muscles" wither and be weak.

I don't know why you like to bring up and swear in God's name even though you don't even like it. Why are you going out of your way to insult God like this? Seriously, you don't have to in order to make your point. You really are like the youth in 2 Kings 2:24.
No votes have been placed for this debate.