The Instigator
backwardseden
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jonbonbon
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

There's too much hate in God

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...
Jonbonbon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,663 times Debate No: 102184
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (156)
Votes (2)

 

backwardseden

Con

If you believe in god, I feel for you because there far too much hate in him. And seriously when it comes down to it the only way that you can believe is through hate. Perfect examples are Deuteronomy 13, Numbers 31, the entire book of Nahum. So many more examples of this hate. KILLING, TORTURING NON-BELIEVERS: The Bible is clear " people who do not believe in God and Jesus are to be killed and/or tortured: 2 Chronicles 15: 12-13 "And they entered into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul; 13 That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." What a great god filled with such kindness, love and chocolaty goodness that really wants to enlarge his congregation through peaceful gestures huh? Nope. Well goodie for me, just because I am NOT to seek this lord guy I shall be put to death? god has freely admitted in his bible that he has anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, evil, and the biggie jealousy. Jealousy from a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. And even worse is this supposed supreme deity passed down these emotions to man so man in turn could learn to hate. Wow what a great god huh?
Jonbonbon

Pro

Hopefully this debate ends up being intellectual from both sides. Anyway, I'm going to basically address everything from my opponent's side and present some extra stuff that'll help me build constructive arguments on my side once we get a clearer direction of the debate. Sound good?

The Resolution:

"There's too much hate in God." I believe what my opponent is trying to say is that God is too hateful. Without a proper metric for hate, I'm not sure how this topic can be judged or even debated effectively. If my opponent can in the next round present a metric that would be fantastic. To be clear, I'm asking for a way to measure the claim.

The Positions:

If you're confused about the positions, you definitely should be. I'm technically con to this resolution, and my opponent is technically pro. However, my opponent ignored everyone in the comments who tried to tell him this, preferring the "insult all who disagree with me" path.

So I could end the round right here and say "now he has to support God, because he's con." But that wouldn't actually lead to anything, and while members who know how a debate works might vote for me, that's not really why we're here. We're here to have a productive discussion (I hope that's why we're both here anyway).

BOP:

The burden of proof is on my opponent. He is making the claim, which means he must back it up. I must only cast enough doubt on the claim for you a voter to question the validity of the claim. That's not to say I won't bring forth my own arguments. I will give myself some BOP because I have statements to prove throughout the debate.

I just want you to be aware that even if he managed to shut down extraneous arguments of mine, the thing that really matters is that the claims supporting the resolution have remained true. The resolution is the thing that really matters in the end, which is why I'm asking that my opponent attempts to measure it.

Ignorance:

In this case, I simply mean to ignore. As in, my opponent has selected things from the Bible but failed to perform an exegesis on them. This is the result of looking for something wrong with Bible as opposed to studying it to find out what it actually means. My opponent is not a scholar of the Bible. Fortunately, I happen to enjoy studying proper exegesis and hermeneutics.

Let me define those, because I don't expect everyone to know what those mean.

Exegesis: "An explanation or critical interpretation of a text." [1]
Hermeneutics: "The science of interpretation, especially of the scriptures." [2]

Now, let's get to the good stuff. One of the first rules of hermeneutics is that you can't interpret the Bible based on a few sentences. That's why I tend to read a chapter at a time, because you can actually derive meaning from that. It's like catching the tail end of a conversation and assuming what the rest of it was about and what all the parties were thinking despite not having been there for any of the rest of the discussion.

So if we read the rest of 2 Chronicles 15, it says that Judah was filled with civil war and violent crime because the people had strayed away from the Lord, who would prefer for none of that to happen. Instead, they were worshipping idols. The story is actually about a King named Asa who took charge of the situation. He essentially issued a death sentence for the people who were living a life of violence and hate.

Keep in mind, the people who were sentenced to death were not simply choosing a passive atheism or agnosticism. They were actively choosing a life of violence and idolatry, as evidenced by the time before Asa became king. So these people sentenced to death were actually doing something very wrong.

Whether this was the right move or not is up for debate, but keep in mind this was the action of a man, not the action of God. However, you may argue it was definitely guided by God, because after that, Judah was war free for 35 years. Don't believe me? I linked you at the bottom [3]

Here's the summary, my opponent took the tail end of a conversation and based his distaste on that. However, the rest of the chapter clears it up quite nicely, and we can see that when you put in the effort to understand, it's really not that hard. This was a fairly easy verse to explain.

Whose Fault is it?

Here's the other problem. My opponent is taking the side that everything is God's fault (I don't know if he said that in the debate, but he said it in the comments. I'm just assuming it'll be the same in the next round, so I'm addressing it). Because God has the ability to stop evil, he must right? That's the typical POE argument.

Unfortunately, it relies on an underlying assertion that's not true: "A benevolent God who has the ability to stop evil would stop evil given that he knows about it."

In fact, it's the opposite. In order for God to be a loving God, he must allow evil to exist. Contrast the two options: you can have a partner who loves you and obeys you no matter what because they have no choice or you have a partner who loves you and obeys you no matter what even when given the choice to do something else.

One of them sounds like actual love, and the other is essentially slavery of the mind. In order for God to love us and for us to love him, there must be a choice to do horrid, evil things that are completely against the desires of God. Without that choice, there is no loving relationship. So God allows evil to exist because he loves us, and it is because of that, that humans are to blame for the evil things that humans do.

Summary:

My opponent presented a very emotionally charged first round with tons of loaded statements and things of the sort. I've attempted to sort them out and explain reasonably why my side is correct. I hope my opponent does the same thing successfully in the next round. Keep in mind that the debate is incredibly vague, and we're waiting on my opponent to bring forth a metric.

If he fails to do so, I will attempt to bring a metric in the second round. If I bring a metric, my opponent agrees to it, because I am giving him 72 hours to at least come up with a proper way to measure this debate. If he doesn't, we'll assume he doesn't care what I choose as a metric.

We also are awaiting evidence and a proper interpretation of the scriptures brought forth. Burden of proof is on him, and until he proves something in this debate, he is not winning.

Good luck in the next round.

Sources:

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Con

god hates children...
Jeremiah 19: 7-9 7 "And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. 8 And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. 9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them." Pretty simple really. Cannibalism of children. Now if that isn't hate, what is?

Ezekiel 9:5-7 "And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house. 7 And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city."

Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

Leviticus 26:30 "And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat."

Isaiah 13:15-18 15 "Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. 16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. 17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. 18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children."

Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

Matthew 10:37 "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Hosea 9:11-16 "As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. 12 Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! 13 Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. 14 Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. 15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters. 16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."

Exodus 12:29-30 "And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died."

A child, age 6 for example who has stage 4 cancer, does not know what is happening to him/ her. Their cries are not heard, that they are in constant pain unless they are given sedatives/ pain killers, that they are terrified, that they are in an unfamiliar place (a hospital of some kind as an example), and are not home unless it is special circumstance, that they really do not understand what suffering is, but those around them probably do, etc etc etc.
Oh and btw, YOUR god put children in that position of suffering to begin with which is 100% pure evil and hate. YOUR god absolutely loves to knowingly suffer, otherwise he would not create their situations for them to suffer.
And btw, I know that you know that you cannot contemplate suffering at all. Your precious jesus went through 12 hours, tops, of suffering. Some children go through decades of suffering. Your precious jesus had it easy. Now please do tell me what a child can possibly learn from suffering? Much less an adult? If you"ve answered nothing, you"ve answered correctly. ---------------------------------------------------
god knowingly creates children to be raped, beaten and tortured at the hands of their abusers... sometimes for decades. An example is daddy is sticking in his you know what inside of his daughter age 5 while punching her in the face twice per week for 15 years. To knowingly create children to suffer is 100% pure evil and hate at its finest. You can not get more evil than that with all the hate if you wanted to. Please DO NOT bring in the "Free Will" argument either because children DO NOT have the Free Will to escape from these monsters who commit these horrific acts. And god creates these children to suffer as well as these monsters to commit their unspeakable crimes to begin with. god must also love it, otherwise he would create these horrific events. Please DO NOT invent the excuse that "its not god's fault". Well yeah it is. Otherwise, god is NOT in control of everything, nor is he all knowing nor is he all powerful. Nor is god omnipotent. Nor does god care enough to not create these horrific acts. And the worst of the absolute worst is god is giving a greater value, a greater meaning to these monsters to commit these horrific acts while these children suffer at the hands of these savages who have no free will to SCREAM. God IS hate and evil. Pure and simple. So invent better excuses please. Sure, call me that I "hate" when it was just proven that YOUR god hates and nothing but. AND GOD MUST HAVE GIVEN THAT HATE TO ME AND ALL OF MANKIND. And yes, absolutely 100% that includes YOU by gum!!!!!!!! Wow. What a loving god huh? Pathetic, but typical smug christian ideal that doesn't work - ever - excuse on your part.
In other words, god truly hates children which is a truly "duh "situation. The bible proves this time and time again. Also notice how children do not get to say a single sentence in the bible? Not one. Its like having your mouth glued shut for your entire childhood. That's the worst form of child abuse there is - to be neglected and ignored. And the bible does it so well. Sure god and jesus have stated that they love children or whatever, but that's not the same thing. Not by a longshot. How would you like it if someone spoke for you for your entire childhood and you could not say a single word on your behalf? Well, you'd naturally hate it. Also the bible is surely incomplete because there are no voices of children, there are no children talking or singing, or voices of them playing, when it is most assuredly required. How would you like it if you as an adult, who worked so hard for your children, as well you should, and they should always be the center of your life, were to find out that they were left out of your life? Well, once again you'd naturally hate it. And that's exactly what the bible and god has done in leaving children completely out of "their" most supposed sacred book of history that is supposed to engulf everything that was known within their supposed surroundings up until that special moment in time, and yet it completely ignores and neglects children. Well good job for the men who wrote the bible. Not too bright.
Jonbonbon

Pro

A Metric:

My opponent did not provide a metric, so I will be providing one myself. I'm sure my opponent will find it agreeable, although due to the wording of the resolution, it is hard to find a metric that's less vague than the wording of the topic itself. Too much hate is now to be defined as a level of hate which hinders God from being good.

We can agree that some level of hate is good. A just God who does not hate evil is a logical paradox. So God must at least hate evil. Of course, this means we need to establish what is morally good. Since my opponent is attempting to disprove Christianity by using its own assumptions, I will bring up Biblical morality as the basis of morality as it pertains to God's actions. But I'll get to that in a second.

I want to address an essentially dropped point:

Free Will:

My opponent is making the non sequitur analysis that because God has the power and knowledge to stop something bad, that he must or he's actively causing the bad thing. Non sequitur is a logical fallacy that means that the point doesn't logically follow from the premise to the conclusion. I did go through a logical process of describing how man's free will and the existence of evil is necessary for the greatest good possible: a loving relationship with God.

In other words, my argument is not simply "an excuse," it is a proper logical analysis. This is important, because we must only take into account things that God directly caused. The Bible isn't necessarily full of the righteous. In face, a lot of the historical books tell you about a lot of rulers or regular people who did a lot of bad things. According to the standing analysis, these are not God's fault.

Now I have 6,000 characters to explain Biblical morality as it pertains to God and how the wrath of God is good, because I feel that's necessary for this debate. Keep in mind as I'm writing this, it may not feel comfortable. It may not give yout he warm fuzzies. However, truth is not found in feelings. Truth is something that accurately describes that which is real or corresponds to reality. Truth is not emotive.

Let's go:

What is Good?

That which is good is that which God says is good. Why is that? Imagine it like an inventor. An inventor creates a vastly complex machine. You ask, "what is this part supposed to do?" He tells you its purpose, but you think it looks like something else and decide you should take it out because it looks bad. Unfortunately, that was central to the machine working, and now the machine no longer works. The inventor decided what was good and what was bad as it pertains to his machine, because he created it.

As in that example, the Creator of the universe is the one who decides what is good and bad in that universe. He is also the most important thing in that universe, or in fact the only thing good in this universe. Do not take that statement lightly alongside the analysis of God killing people. We're going to get to God's wrath here in a second.

Greater Sins:

Because God is the Creator and the one who decides what is morally good and the only good thing in the corrupted universe, that means that sins against him are the greatest sins one can commit. In a vast majority of my opponent's examples, the people who were punished by death were the ones committing sins directly against God such as idolatry and the destruction of God's image (themselves).

Remember that last sentence for this bit.

God's Image:

Man is created in God's image according to Genesis. If God is the best thing in this universe, and God is in fact bound to value Himself as the greatest good (as a being who understands what is good) then God would not take the destruction of his image (humans) lightly. It's not that God is comfortable with the killing that had to happen, it's that humans are too adept at rebelling. Not just mindless rebellion, but a very active rebellion and a spitting in the face of God.

God, according to his nature, had to order the death of some people groups who were corrupt from the inside out in a direct rebellion against him.

God's Wrath:

God's wrath should actually be viewed as something which is good and necessary. Justice means that there's an ultimate truth, which is good. Justice is a direct response to that which is good and true. So yes, in cases where a culture has become so rampant with a sort of demonic mindset, such as Soddom and Gommorah, then they must be destroyed or they corrupt that which is good.

We actually have examples where the Israelites not killing peopel resulted in the corruption of Israel. [1] Women used seduction to trap the Israelite men into their way of thinking and convinced them to follow their idols. This is why often God commanded that everyone except for virgins and children be killed. However, there are some cases in which the culture would've been so corrupt that no one could be left alive without the corruption of Israel.

Why is this good?

It's natural to ask yourself this question. I don't blame you for being skeptical of genocide. The carries a heavy connotation, but the fact that it sounds bad doesn't make it bad. Like I said, truth is not emotive. In fact, I believe God evaluated things on a cost benefit analysis. If leaving a certain group of image bearers alive would further or lead to the glorification of his image, then God would've let them live. However, if letting them live would result in the destruction of his image and the cursing of his name, then they had to be killed.

We already know according to Biblical principles that God is the most important thing in the universe. The only good thing in the universe. So if God is the only good thing, then why would it be okay to attempt to curse that? That should be the greatest sin of them all. And since sins of lesser severity are punishable by death, then why should this sin not be punishable by death?

Maybe because it makes us feel like God is petty or egotistical. Honestly, if you were the greatest being in the universe, you would have a right to have a focus on yourself. Especially if you created a race of people to enter into a loving relationship with you, only for them to rebel and continue rebelling for thousands of years. God has a right to value himself, because he created everything. Logically, nothing else can be more valuable than him.

I can explain this more throughout the debate, but I have to address something else my opponent said, because I think it's an argument.

On that last bit in my opponent's round:

My opponent apparently has not read the Bible. It's easy to Google verses where God commanded someone to kill without giving the Bible another thought, but to claim that the voices of the people are not heard in the Bible is absurd.

In Job, Job does quite a lot of speaking his mind to God. In the historical books, we hear a lot about what God's people thought and what everyone said. They're written a historical records. We also hear them speaking their mind like in the prophecy books and in the epistles.

Even Psalms is just one long book of things that a multitude of humans were saying. Some books of the Bible don't even mention God (Ruth and Esther).

And as for actual children, there were children who were kings, like Josiah. Jesus even tells adults that they should be more like their children. Of course, the people who wrote these books were adults who could read and write, but adults in ancient Israel were people 12 years old or older. People just old enough to think critically.

So my opponent's complaints and rants are unfounded.

Summary:

Most of my opponent's arguments fall in the non sequitur or baseless assertion category. I don't see any attempts on my opponent's part to analyze verses of the Bible. He's just saying verses and telling you to take them at face value, which is the biggest mistake you can make when interpreting the Bible.

Thank you for reading.

Sources:

[1] http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Con

Metric no matter how you word it is still metric. Hate is hate is hate no matter how you look at at it in your cannibalistic warfare that you consider "good" I"m guessing.

When you sink to the level of cannibalizing children, murdering them, massacring them, brutalizing them through deliberate genocides that were absolutely needless yet done anyway and were nothing but pure hate and evil as described in the bible and many times as god"s hissy fits then there"s absolutely no such a thing, nothing, 0 as "too much hate". Its simply doesn"t exist. Its goes leaps and bounds beyond too much hate.

Been thinking about this and I really don"t need nor require to think much. But my opponent has failed to to prove how god is not pure hate after I proved to her in my previous argument that god truly hates children. She has stated that what I have provided to her as evidence are idol verses and she obviously believes that the children should be murdered and that her god should cause the children undenying pain and suffering because of this. I would like her to point out any verse that shows this. I would like her to show any child that shows this. Regardless, if she points this out to be true, does any child deserve to be put through the horrific tortures and sufferings and pain that the bible clearly describes that her god put these children through? That answer is a very obvious "no" However, she thinks that answer is an obvious "yes". So what is wrong with her morals?
So this ties in with her "that means that sins against him are the greatest sins one can commit. In a vast majority of my opponent's examples, the people who were punished by death were the ones committing sins directly against God such as idolatry and the destruction of God's image (themselves)." Absolutely 100% false.
1. My opponent clearly has not read the verses.
2. The people in the verses who were being punished were children, so how were they committing "sins" against god?
3. Does that happen today? No it does not. Why not?
4. I want you to come on down here right now and murder me as your bible perfectly describes in Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 because I am committing sins against your god. But you are not going to do it. Why not?
5. Since you won"t, this proves you to be a coward and you cannot live by your god"s laws and rules and regulations. So that means that at the very least your god has banned you.

I get it. I really do. Her morals are with her god that is her child were to curse at her, her child should be put to death as per what her bible and god prescribes. Now if that isn"t god truly hating children, then what is?

My opponent thinks this god of hers had to forcibly order, when many of them were proven whimsical at best and for no reason at all, the deaths of 2,821,364 in her bible and that they are all justified including that of children and those babies that were suckling on their mothers breasts.

"We can agree that some level of hate is good." No we can"t. "A just God"" whoa. Who ever said and or assumed that god was in any way "just"? How can he possibly be when he murders and causes the innocent deaths and murders and the evils sufferings of children? He obviously enjoys this hatred and evil as well. Otherwise he would not continue in this manner. continuing "who does not hate evil is a logical paradox." No its not. Its completely illogical. Hatred is illogical. God---invented---evil. So no he doesn"t hate evil at all. He relishes in it.
Tracie Harris "If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That"s the difference between me and your god. He watches and shuts the door and you go ahead and you rape that child and when your"re done I"m gonna punish you. If I did that people would think I"m a freakin" monster."

Yes, morally good. Get rid of god for starters. That sounds like a very good plan to me.
"god has never communicated any essential scientific knowledge"
"god has not communicated any essential moral knowledge."
"god has never even communicated any consistent religious knowledge. (despite claims going on for over 40,000 years)"
"These 3 facts are exactly what you"d would expect if there are no gods. But none at all if you expect there are gods." Richard Carrier

Free Will:
Its a losing proposition that you can"t win. If you believe in god you do not have free will of any kind. Period. Let's look at it from god's point of view because god himself does NOT have free will IF he knows his future. After all, how can he if he is omnipotent because he will have already known his choices that have been chosen? That is NOT Free Will. So if YOUR god does not have Free Will and the ability to choose, most definitely man does NOT have Free Will and the ability to choose. Also you---show---me---anywhere, and I do mean anywhere, in his bible where it says something remotely like "I the LORD thy god grants man free will." The fact of the matter is, is that it doesn't exist. Not anywhere. Not even a remote hint. So god has not granted you Free Will. Also there's free will in hate? That's makes no sense whatsoever if this god guy is supposed to be loving, caring and kind. Wow what a true contradiction if there ever was one. But then again, god and the bible are riddled with thousands of contradictions which proves 0 intelligence. If this god guy of yours is omnipotent and cares, with kindness, and love in which there's no way he can because this god guy can easily take the evil and hate out of Free Will such as the brutal rape, beating and torturing of a 6 year old girl as an example. But no, he doesn't. He leaves it in. Thus that absolutely proves that this god of your IS EVIL(and he freely admits it several times is HIS bible as proved. .

My opponent thinks that there is truth. But there is no truth in faith.

My opponent believes that god is good. But she has yet to prove that god exists.

My opponent insists that everybody should believe as she does which declares war on others (though not on me) and she should be extra careful when talking about religion around others, she believes that there is a creator to the universe without proof at all to this unscientific meandering.
Stephen Hawking perhaps the smartest person who has ever lived has come up with a mathematical equation that proves that something is gotten from nothing. In other words your god was not needed to have created the known universe.

If man is created in god"s image, then god must be Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Hong Xiuquan, every serial killer, rapist, sodomizer, torturer, racist etc

Here"s the thing that my opponent doesn"t get" Good and evil don"t mix. Not ever. Here"s why" What would you do with someone who has raped and murdered 6 five year old girls and there"s a 100% certainty that this was the person and you had him in custody? You can"t let him free not ever. So you give him the chair. But wait, my opponent is being a christian would forgive this person and set him free because the biggest sin is to have false idols. Naturally this proves her to be quite insane. Well um no. Not ever do you let this person go. And you cannot do the same with god. God creates these murderers, these rapists, these lunatics, these Hitler"s, these Pol Pot"s, these Hong Xiuquans"s and he knows EXACTLY who they will turn out to be quadrillions of years in advance long before they are rockin" in the cradle. You do not forgive god. Not this time when he knowingly creates yet another murderer who shoots up his entire family of 6. Its time that this god be ousted. But then again he doesn"t exist.

Summary
My opponent didn"t, as predicted, and was very christian-like, did not in any way think about my previous argument of how much hate there is, and the pain and the suffering that children go through. She ignored the children completely just as I knew she would. Its the children that matter, the children who are exploited and treated like scum. Not her god. Not the adults. Not anything else.
Jonbonbon

Pro

Thank you for that. I'm going to attempt to address the major points throughout this debate.

Irrelevant Points:

My opponent is make two irrelevant points at this point in the debate. I'll tell you what they are and why just to clear it up for everyone.

1) The existence of God.

My opponent started this debate by arguing under the pretenses of Christianity in order to prove Christianity incoherent. This is a common approach to disproving Christianity, but it only works if we stay under the assumptions of Christianity. This means we are not debating the existence of God. In fact, if God does not exist, the resolution falls. The resolution itself assumes God exists.

So we're assuming God exists.

2) Non Biblical Morals.

As I said above, we've established that we're operating under Christian assumptions. Since my opponent did not present a metric, I provided my metric. It was a bit late in the debate, so we needed to just agree on it and move on. I clearly stated that if my opponent did not provide a metric, I would provide one, and we would count it conceded on my opponent's part. I presented that "too much" hate is so much hate that God can no longer be considered good. Then I argued that we consider God through Christianity, which means we understand God through Christian principles. When I set the metric, I decided that "goodness" was best defined through Christian principles as an analysis of God.

In other words, God and Christian principles must be together for an argument to be made against the Christian God. If we don't argue from a basis of Christian principles, then we are not properly analyzing God. If we are not properly analyzing God and his nature, arguments made concerning him are irrelevant. A proper analysis requires a full understanding, not a partial understanding. Again, my opponent's arguments do not come from an analysis of the Bible but rather the emotions generated when he reads certain verses of the Bible.

Now we continue:

Emotive Arguments:

Again, I stress that something being distasteful does not make it untrue. My opponent's argument is entirely emotive. Most of his arguments use circular reasoning. He started with "God killing people is bad," and I said, "Not if God killing people falls into line with justice," and I elaborated on that. My opponent's response is essentially "it can't be just if he's killing people."

While I provided a logical analysis of Christian principles of the Bible, my opponent has only made the assertion that they're wrong. This is unproductive to his case because it does not use the proper methods for proving Christianity inconsistent. One cannot take his own values and apply them to something else then declare it inconsistent. One has to understand the values of the other thing enough to display its inconsistency.

Until then, the reasonable arguments are on my side. My opponent's arguments are purely emotive.

Free Will:

My opponent's analysis of free will is incorrect. There are three points I will respond to including the nature of God's will, the nature of free will, and the Biblical teachings of free will.

1) That God does not have free will. Despite the fact that this is irrelevant, my opponent's assertion is based in a false analysis of the nature of God. He assumes eternity is linear, which creates the problem of infinite regression. Instead, imagine eternity like this: draw a line on a piece of paper, then imagine that paper extends infinitely in all directions.

The white space is God's plane of existence, a non-linear existence, and the line is our existence, which is linear in time. In other words, God does not know what actions he will make, instead he's already made them, because he exists outside the fourth dimension, time. So we cannot say that God knows what he is going to do, only that he has already done it, just not yet from our perception. If you need me to explain how the perception of the fourth dimension differs between us and God, ask and I'll explain.

2) Now onto the nature of free will for humans. He assumes that free will can exist within boundaries that restrict some possible actions. In order for true free will to exist, all possible actions must be allowable. If certain possible actions are not allowed, then we do not have free will. It's like saying, "You can choose to write your paper on whatever you want as long as it's about Abraham Lincoln or George Washington." The end of the sentence contradicts the beginning of the sentence. So in fact, in order for Christianity and God to be consistent, evil must exist.

3) My opponent asked me to provide Biblical evidence of free will. Even just one verse. I'm happy to.

God commands us to make choices. This would not make sense if we were incapable of making choices [1]. Such commands can be found in Deuteronomy 30:19-20 and Isaiah 48:18. The Bible also speaks of planning in Proverbs 21:5. It advises us to plan, because unless we make an active choice to get somewhere in life, we will not get there. So we have the free will to change our destiny.

The fact that God knows what's going to happen to us does not mean he is directly handling it. He simply sees what happens when we make our free choices. In fact, the Bible backs this up when it says that God exercised self-control toward Babylon in Isaiah 42:14. All of this adds up to mean that God sees everything that is happening at all points in time, but he does not directly control us as to allow us to make the decision to love him or not to love him.

As such, my analysis of free will stands, and my argument concerning God's allowance of evil in the world is necessary for God to remain consistent. My opponent's arguments do not disprove anything I've said.

This is actually important, because if free will exists, then verses that predict or order that people be killed are often times not on God, because they weren't even said by God. Most of them are said by kings and a couple by prophets who just prophesied that other people would kill other people. So because we cannot support my opponent's analysis of free will, we cannot support his stance on the Bible thus far.

BOP:

Once again, it is my opponent's job to prove now that under the Christian principles that I've brought forth as a metric of God, that God is too hateful to be a good God (causing a contradiction in Christianity). This debate is not "Christianity is a hateful religion" or "God does not exist, so we can say whatever we want about him." The debate is "There is too much hate in God" or "God is too hateful." So my opponent is failing to uphold his statement by:

1) Assuming God does not exist.

2) Ignoring Christian analyses of God

3) Arguing outside of the premise by which God may be judged hateful

4) Personally attacking me (I never said that everyone had to believe the same thing I do. I'm only providing a relevant analysis).

5) Talking about how children didn't write the Bible or weren't part of any major decisions in war (except for Josiah, an 8 year old who decided to tear down all temples and statues of idolatry and rebuild the temple of God. Kind of funny how he left that one out).

6) Performing improper analyses of the scripture itself

7) Failing to properly define free will and why it does not exist under the assumptions of Christianity

The resolution is still not upheld.

Sources:

[1] https://www.jw.org...


Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Con

Relevant
Sadly my opponent is not a good poker player. Nor can she read people"s tells all that well. If this was a game of poker, I"d take all of her chips before she were even to sit down to the game.
Its shocking to believe how far off she is. I went back and I don"t think I ever mentioned the word "christianity". And I know I never mentioned the "christian god". I simply mentioned "god". So where did she dig that up from? So her terminologies of "christinaity" is false.
She stated "My opponent started this debate by arguing under the pretenses of Christianity in order to prove Christianity incoherent" yadda yadda yadda in which I never did. "So we're assuming God exists." Um no-we're-not. I have no idea where she got that one from?
1. My opponent assumes that god exists without any proof.
2. She brings no proof that her god exists to the table.
3. It is always up to her to prove that her god exists because the bible itself is not proof of her god.
4. That is an automatic loser with so much hate printed in the bible that this character god who was obviously written by man, who clearly in itself hates children, as proved in verse after verse after verse and also in a few chapters and also in a book that my opponent cannot counter.
5. When questioned on it previously, twice, and now in this turn, all my opponent can answer is "Performing improper analyses of the scripture itself" which is not an answer of any kind when clearly there is far too much hate being spewed by this god character in this so-called holy book.
6. My opponent tries to justify that murdering and torturing innocent babies and children is somehow justified for any reason. And her reasoning is, is that they worshiped idols. I guess she thinks that must have more value and have more meaning than a rapist murdering 6 5 year olds. And I asked her to prove it in the verses I presented to her.
7. She expects everybody to believe in what she believes. Now she has stated that this is not the case, but lets be honest here she certainly implies it at the very least.
8. My opponent has made countless irrelevant points in this debate in which everybody can go back and check to see in which has nothing to do with the main argument "There"s too Much Hate in god" and completely strays from the subject. I have followed with those points, but only to answer her questions and points.
Summation: god-does-not-exist. Its is the mere belief in him that causes this pain, suffering, hate, bloodshed, greed, evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, etc. etc. And this hate in this glorious bible from her christian bible is directed at children more than any other multitude of an already crushed population.

In round one my Opponent stated in regards to 2 Chronicles 15, "They were actively choosing a life of violence and idolatry," Really? According to what? You? Now go ahead and prove it. Oh and btw, no one of merit will agree with you. "He essentially issued a death sentence for the people who were living a life of violence and hate." So according to you, that"s issuing hate. Issuing a death sentence is issuing hate. And how many children were involved?

"As I said above, we've established that we're operating under Christian assumptions. " Really? According to what? You? Um no we"re not.

"My opponent started this debate by arguing under the pretenses of Christianity in order to prove Christianity incoherent." Nope. I think you are required to read everything I stated again and the word "incoherent" as it is a far cry from the word "hate". God hates children, babies, women, hey more than half the human race as proved in the book, chapters and verses presented in which in no way can you or anyone on the planet justify. But you did try with only two sentences. Your justification wouldn"t have worked back then which is why there was so much rebellion. It doesn"t work now which is why god is losing his followers day by day. So the hatred of god stands.

Whoever said I"m trying to disprove christianity? I already told you what this debate is about.

Again, no we"re not operating under christian morals nor assumptions. Who says so? You? And again for roughly, I"m guessing here you still have yet to define your definition of what a "metric" is? So since you didn"t, I"m ignoring the rest of the statement.

You mentioned god and christian principles. Well we"re not operating under those principles. So this statement will be ignored as well.

"Not if God killing people falls into line with justice," there-is-no-justification-for-it. Period. And your justification for it is worshiping false idols. AND god murdered countless babies and children in the process in which you have absolutely no defense for. None. And I"m tired of repeating myself. Your god murdered every-single-man-woman-and-child except for Noah and his family in the great flood. Yeah right like children and babies suckling on their mothers nipples were wicked and deserved to be suffocated by being drowned? Come up with better excuses please.

You haven"t provided with anything that is logical except for the absolute and consummate fact that your god has this blubbering superior "ego" complex in which I 100% agree with.

"While I provided a logical analysis of Christian principles of the Bible,..." which had nothing to do with god"s hatred now did it? So absolutely it was completely unproductive on your part. Naturally I didn"t fall for it.

Onto Free Will.
1. God does not have free will, you are right it is irrelevant to the conversation. But in your existence, since god does not have free will as previously explained, by all the terminology of logic, you do not have free will. Oh and btw, that is not my idea. That is several pythons and generations of thinkers that thought that one up. And its not too hard to think about it and thus analyze it correctly and thus come up with the logical solution as presented to you word for word. And if you were to apply my opponent's analysis of perhaps how god works, which is fascinating btw, though she does not know and obviously does not understand, then perhaps she should read the first few verses of genesis again (but then again as I put forth to her text is the worst form of communication possible in which no supreme deity would even communicate) time IS linear and her god operates in linear time and in no way suggests any other throughout her bible. Strange isn"t it that oh so many biblical scholars have stated and or predicted that the known universe/ Earth is 6,000 years old? Ken Ham believes this is so. I guess my opponent believes this is so also? Perhaps?

2. Already Covered.

3. Biblical evidence of free will is an utter failure. I shall provide biblical evidence to prove this. My opponent has provided some verses in an attempt to show an outlook to Free Will, but it really doesn"t exist.
My opponent got her first one totally wrong. Read the verse prior to it. Yeah what a choice huh? Either believe in your god, or die. Simple. Oh and btw, since when are "commands" the same things as "choices" of any kind? They have nothing whatsoever to do with anything. Isaiah 48:18 big whoop. Proverbs 21:5 I see it as another forgettable proverb. Now here"s one for you" "Who"s more the fool? The fool? Or the fool who follows him?" Name who stated that? Here"s a few for you and they require no explaining. There"s no free will here among them" GN 2:17 god threats with death, GN 3:2 god threats with death, (all that threats with death and there are so so so many are NOT Free Will), MT 10:37 especially, MT 10: 20, Romans 8: 28-30, Deuteronomy 13:4, 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:4-5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Jeremiah 10:23, there are many more.

Well I"m out of space so I can"t respond to anything else.

Regardless in my opponents previous argument she did not cover god's hate with the rest of what she had to say. She only attacked me and avoided subject matter that was directly put forth to her.
Jonbonbon

Pro

Parameters of the Debate:

A metric is something that measures another thing. I'll make it easy for you: http://lmgtfy.com...

My opponent is only now disputing the metrics and scope of the debate. If you recall, I gave my opponent 72 hours (the length we have to post an argument) in order to write a clear metric for how we were to determine whether there was too much hate in God. My opponent dismissed it entirely, so I wrote the metric. I made it very clear that in order to make this debate productive, we needed to choose one, so if he didn't then I would. I did choose one, and my opponent by not choosing to clearly define his debate, has conceded to my parameters whether he likes it or not.

He wouldn't like his new parameters anyway. Here's why:

If God Does not Exist, I Win this Debate:

Something that does not exist cannot hate or possess hate. It's logically impossible. So if God does not exist, then my opponent is not correct in saying that God is hateful. If my opponent wished to debate the existence of God, he should've made a debate centered around that. Instead, he chose a topic that necessitated that we speak about God as if he exists whether it's proven or not.

But if my opponent wants to say for the purpose of this debate that God does not exist, I'm fine with that. Vote for me.

Without the Christian Principles, I Win:

My opponent's arguments come entirely from the Bible. So if the Christian God has nothing to do with this debate, then my opponent's arguments up until this point in the round are completely null. As such, we have no way of determining if God is hateful, because we don't even know who he is. Again, I advise my opponent to attempt being reasonable, but if he wants to argue that we're not talking in any way about the Christian God, I probably don't even need to do my next round. Just vote for me.

Why This is not just Whining:

Naturally, it may sound to some like I'm just whining, but I put a lot of effort into trying to make this debate usable. I even avoided noob sniping him by saying that he chose the wrong side of the debate so he needed to argue for that side. I excused that. And I attempted to lay down parameters where my opponent did not. My attempts at making this debate workable have fallen, however.

I'll attempt to respond to some of the other points, though I don't really need to.

Can Children Sin?

Yep. People are born sinful. If you really need me to tell you the verses on that, I can in the next round. If you want me to show you the real world evidence, I can do that next round too.

Specific Verses:

All of these are in round two. Sorry, I've been too busy attempting to establish the scope of this debate and more important points to address them.

Ezekiel 9 is only part of a command that refers specifically to killing people who are in direct combat against God. It says that they're to mark anyone who's grieving at the violence and corruption caused by the pagans, and then kill anyone who was actively participating in it.

Addressing Hosea 13:16. Earlier in that chapter it says "I will ransom them from the power of Sheol.
I will redeem them from Death.
O Death, where are your plagues?
O Sheol, where is your sting?"

This is why we read more than one verse. This is a prophecy that's contrasting the options the Israelites have (again, implying there's a choice). The Israelites can either continue rebelling against God and continue their excessive violence, or they can repent and return to God where they will not find anymore death.

Leviticus 26:30. The thing my opponent quoted is not what it says. It says, "30 I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your funeral offerings on the lifeless forms of your idols, and I shall abhor you." [1] It just says someone is going to destroy the idols.

Isaiah 13:15-18 is literally speaking about the end times. Obviously, at the end of the world, those who are not followers of God don't get out of it alive. Read the whole thing, don't just post the parts that talk about death.

Leviticus 20:9 says more in Hebrew than it does in English. This verse doesn't mean that if your child throws a hissy fit then you should kill them. What it actually says is that if your child uses God's name to curse you (a name they weren't allowed to say anyway), then you were to be put to death [2]. Why? Because that's blasphemy, which is among the worst crimes one can commit (again my opponent hasn't actually refuted my claims regarding the sins one commits against God outside of saying "nuh-uh").

Matthew 10:37 is best understood with the rest of the Bible for understanding. The Bible tells us that if we don't love the people around us, then we don't love God [3]. That means it's impossible to love God unless we also love our family. God just wants to remind us that ultimately, he's the most important thing. Not that we should treat our families with any less love than all the love we have to give.

Hosea 9:11-16 is not talking about actual children or even specific people. The children of Ephraim are a tribe of Israelites [4], and at this point, they were all about to be taken over by Assyria [5].

Exodus 12:29-30 describes a punishment for Egypt's longtime and constant abuse of their slaves: the Hebrews. God didn't just kill people for fun. He gave them like a hundred years to stop being an abusive nation, specifically toward his chosen people.

Free Will:

Glad I still have enough characters to address this.

My opponent completely ignores that my analysis of God's existence is more logically sound that his. The problem of infinite regression is that we are unable to determine for how long something went on. For example, God was alone for an eternity, so why didn't he create earth then? The fact that my opponent chooses to ignore my more logical analysis shows desperation to prove me wrong.

My analysis of the nature of God does not conflict with the Bible or the nature of reality. My opponent's does. Thus my opponent's analysis is inferior to mine. And also, I believe evolution and such did happen over a course of several million years according to the literal translation of the Genesis 1, but that's completely outside of this debate.

Now onto Biblical commands. My opponent has a contradiction on his side.

P1: If God can make anyone do anything, then he does not need to command it.
P2: God commands us to do things.
C: God doesn't give us a choice.

Do you see how that doesn't flow? God could make us little robots that do whatever he wants us to do. God does want us to do things, and he gives us commands to make it clear. He just doesn't force us to do anything, because we must freely choose it.

My side makes sense, and his side does not. My analysis of free will stands.

On death threats: this is a small point, but in the cases where God threatens death, he normally means that you're going to die by natural means but without the benefits of eternal life. Because if you're given eternal life then you don't die. This makes sense, because Adam and Eve were told they would die if they eat from the tree. They ate from the tree. They lived long and happy lives then they died (in this case it was just physical death, because it's reasonable to assume that Adam and Eve did die still following God, and before the sin they did not experience physical death).

Summary:

Anyway, when we take a logical look at both sides, my side is the only one that holds up. Honestly, if nothing else, my opponent's parameters lose him the debate.

Thank you.

Sources:

[1] https://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] http://biblehub.com...
[3] http://biblehub.com...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.bible-history.com...
Debate Round No. 4
backwardseden

Con

1, As stated before" this debate is not about winning. This is about the children which is something that seeming all christians seem to misuse and escape. This is about their pain and suffering and the horrors that they go through due to what christians believe is perfectly OK because hey their bible says its perfectly OK. WRONG.

2. If my opponent wishes to think she"s won because her god does not exist, well then why bother with the debate because again, that"s not what this is about. But she argues anyway. So that"s a bit of a self righteous contradiction.

3. More verses to prove the god of the bible is based on nothing but hate and truly hates children: And my opponent STILL HAS YET to tell me how I am misinterpreting. Um no, she is misinterpreting. I"ve been doing this for 40 years and I"ve studied the bible for40 years with its ridiculous fallacies that proves god"s hate not only toward children, but towards gays, women especially raped women as you will soon see, well that"s more than half the planet!!!. And I"ve talked with at least 25,000 people on it. There"s also many online sites which my opponent can search through to see how ridiculous her god truly is. Here"s some more verses:
Numbers 31:17-18 "17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." (hate towards children and women and lovely rape as well sheesh)

Leviticus 26:21-22 "And if ye walk contrary unto me, and will not hearken unto me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins. 22 I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number; and your high ways shall be desolate." WHAT? Rob you of your children? How---much---hate---do---you---have---god?

1 Samuel 15:3 "3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling , ox and sheep, camel and a." (hate towards everything in the verse)

3. Now we can"t forget about rape now can we which is utter hate.
2 Samuel 12: 11-14 "Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For thou didst it secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun. 13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." (theevilbible) [The child dies seven days later.] This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

Now you go right ahead and tell me how for any of those verses I am misinterpreting. They are what they are.

4. Oh oh I almost forgot. Darn. Its not up to her to make anything clear to me. If she doesn"t like the way I debate, she can leave. I"m not here to please her. She thinks she can force things down people"s throats like cyanide in a yodeling punk band. But that doesn"t work at a nun"s factory while they press their linen. She thinks she can pull one, well actually its quite a few and be extremely bossy over me or obviously anyone. Nope. So why don"t we all calm down and start fresh with a handshake. And that can bring in a smile or two.

5. Boy she must want to win really really really exquisitely badly. With every titled post she says "Vote for me". OK. Vote for her. Let her win. But her side can never win because she is morally bankrupt and corrupt. She thinks its perfectly OK to murder an innocent child simply because they worship other/ false idols.
So let"s put that to the test. There my opponent is on the street. There"s an innocent 6 year old child with a doll who happens to be worshiping an idol from another religion. Then on the opposite end of the street there"s a 6 year old child being raped, beaten and tortured by a thug. Naturally our hero, my opponent, runs off to beat the 6 year old girl with the doll and stone her to death because that is what her god wishes and demands of her as is exactly what is stated in Deuteronomy 13: 9-10. Sorry. That"s not a misinterpretation. And she cannot wiggle herself around it.
Nor can you wiggle around the fact that I do not believe and perhaps I worship false idols and you are required by your god to stone me to death and everybody else on this planet who does worship false idols. Now why won"t you do it?

6/ 7. ( http://rationalwiki.org... )
The morality of the people of the time is quite different from our own.
* Women and children were seen as property to be disposed of as necessary " under proper religious guidance, of course.
* Rape was a sexual crime committed by both people. Women could be stoned to death unless the rapist wanted to marry them.
* Slavery was, if not common, quite accepted. Even God himself tells his people to go to war for him, and take the women as slaves.
(this is me saying this and sorry, all of that IS HATE)

7. How to get around all that Leviticus stuff, and the "Mean old god" stuff, and the calls for war, and killing off those who do not agree with your views.
* Just ignore it, and it will go away.
* Jesus changed all that when he said "It does not matter what goes into your mouth but what comes out."
* Of course, he also said "I come not to change the Law, but to fulfill it." But clearly that's just "details."
* We do not read the Old Testament, because God gave us a New One.
* Unless of course we want to bash gays, but that's covered later.
* The "Law" was really three different sets of laws: Ceremonial, moral, and legal. Only the moral law still applies to Christians.
* Of course, such a distinction is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, nor is this explanation universally accepted. Some Christians believe no laws apply to them, because their insanity faith will guide them to the right actions.
* That's not in my bible.
* You are reading it wrong, you have to understand the context.
* I thought I was addressing the context?
* Look, over there, a shiny thing!
(this is me saying this: indeed you misinterpret)

8. Oh but wait, my opponent has an out" god does not exist!

9. If my opponent wishes to say she's won, I---don"t---care. See#5.

Videos
https://www.youtube.com... (the absolute very best)
https://www.youtube.com... (the math of the great flood)
https://www.youtube.com... (How the bible says to investigate a murder)

Websites
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com... (you'll get a kick out of this one)
http://godisimaginary.com... (this is a great site)
http://www.thegodmurders.com...
http://www.evilbible.com... (mmmmmm goood)
http://rationalwiki.org...
http://commonsenseatheism.com... (top 20 Evil bible stories)
http://www.biblebabble.curbjaw.com...
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com... (you might get a kick out of this one!!!!!!!!)
https://infidels.org...
http://new.exchristian.net...
http://www.godofevolution.com...
http://www.news24.com...
http://wiki.ironchariots.org...
http://z7.invisionfree.com...
Jonbonbon

Pro

On Parameters:

The reason I was setting parameters on our debate (yes it is our debate, not just his debate) is because I was attempting to have an intelligent discussion that was focused on finding some truth. My opponent did not have to support God. He simply needed to stop asking me to have a second debate unrelated to the topic instead of actually addressing the topic. In fact, he even asked me to have a thiraddressing what I said in round two, which dovetails into my next point.

How to judge the hate of God:

My opponent completely ignored my second round. He simply said "that's not true, you're inventing excuses" and moved on as if that was sufficient to take down a detailed analysis that fit both a philosphical and a Biblical analysis of God. My analysis of the natre of God and the morality he abides by thereof were ignored, and thus my opponent cannot be awarded for his arguments.

My opponent starts at the wrong place. He starts at his personal morals and personal disgusts. He doesn't start at the nature of God or any thing in regards to that. In other words, we have no way of judging God because we have no way of understanding him under my opponent's side. My side has a comprehensive and coherent analysis that leads from the beginning (God's nature) to the end (God's acts that may seem hateful).

Of course, my opponent simply accuses me of making excuses. I'm going to be honest with everyone here, it doesn't matter what I say in regards to those verses. My opponent is relying on an understanding that the Bible should not be read as a whole book and that the statements within should be taken at face value instead of being analyzed. I cannot convince him, and I don't need to do anything in-depth to win this debate.

My opponent did not bring up my second round. There you will find an actual explanation for why we can consider the Bible not only consistent but also philosophically sound. Whether you find its teachings distasteful or not, the fact remains that my opponent's only arguments were emotional rather than reasonable.

In fact, my opponent used emotionally charged words throughout the debate to turn you against my side. They weren't arguments or reasonable analyses. Just words. One of them isn't even a bad thing. Can I go on about jealousy? I have the characters.

The jealousy of God is a good thing. When you're in relationship, and you're jealous because your significant other is talking to someone else, that's because you love them. Not because you hate them. To think otherwise would be ridiculous. That's what I've been saying throughout this debate. God's actions are an indication of love, not hate.

Refer to round two on an explanation of the nature of God's love toward us and why he treats us how he does.

Free Will:

My opponent has dropped this. Please consider my analysis in the debate. Actions that were ordered by humans are entirely the fault of the human, not God. God must allow free will for love between us and him to exist, and that means allowing every possible action, not just some. I assure you, rape breaks God's heart more than it breaks ours. But God has to allow humans to choose to be humans as they see fit in order to allow some to choose his ideal path for us. If God contradicted his own nature, he would no longer be God.


Summary:

My opponent did not uphold the burden of the resolution to prove that "there is too much hate in God."

Thank you for reading.
Debate Round No. 5
156 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
""Virgin women and young girls were obviously not participants in this, so they were spared." does nothing to explain why the young boys who "were obviously not participants in this" were not-spared for the same reasons." Oh for petes sake, you are defending this utter B.S.? Either way when it comes down to it, no matter what you have when its all stripped away, you still have all this hate. And for what reason? Why? What good does it do? Ah yes, your god loves all the hate in the world otherwise it would have not made his printing press.
And do-not-ever-tell-me--what-to-do-especially-when-you-are-flat-out-wrong. Got it boy? Because I know a lot more about god, religion, and the bible than you ---ever---will. Off topics. god is on topic because he does-not-exist. And until you can physically prove that he exists, then you have nothing. 0, zip, nada except for hate from a printed bible in which case no supreme deity would ---ever--- choose text as a form of communication, the worst form of conversation, intelligence, and correspondence.
Free Will? Um no jonbonbon brought that one up and she lost that one by the big bang as compared to an atom. If you believe in god, then you have no free will. Period.
Oh I agree it is a good idea to address what my opponent is talking about. But not when it is so far off the subject matter that it shouldn"t be discussed. And I should have avoided the free will conversation all together because it strayed so far off point because it had 0 to do with the hatred of your god which was the topic. So that was my fault that I divulged in it when I shouldn"t have.
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
3RU7AL --- Well um no you missed the entire point. There"s far too much hatred within chritianity and that right there cannot be overlooked. jonbonbon did. So do all christiasns. So do you. Isn"t it right a socket to the jaw that within those verses that you neatly missed all the killings? Now why is that? Killings ARE hate as commanded by YOUR god. Sorry, there"s absolutely no other way of looking at it.
Here"s her stance and all christians also" If there were two gay men kissing on one end of the street and then a little girl be raped beaten and tortured on one end of the street, the christian according to their god is supposed to call the police on the two gay men kissing even though they have done nothing wrong. The same is true if someone, anyone were worshiping false idols in which there really is no such thing - according to god because he plants that figure in people"s minds and the raped girl still gets raped, beaten and tortured. What a sick little god who loves it.
Now no one can concentrate on two specific bible verses within 5 rounds of debates. There"s far too much information that is required that is needed to be transmitted.
Oh and btw, with your link, its not rational at all. I stopped reading after "It's clear that God didn't intend for the soldiers to rape the women," because he most certainly did. That is if you know anything at all about your god and rape. Now do you want me to post some verses where your god absolutely loves rape? Sheesh. Oh and btw, get a reasonable translation. What you have there is a true abomination. Please try harder. .
"...but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." means that the "girls" were treated well (as slaves?)," OK so you support slavery in which the bible and your god was ever so keen on. Great going you for proving the bible"s utter backwards eden and silliness that nobody in their right mind should follow.
Posted by 3RU7AL 1 year ago
3RU7AL
backwardseden:

I appreciate your position and I believe it is more easily defensible with a modified resolution.

Perhaps something like, The "YHWH" should not allow unnecessary suffering.

Or perhaps, The "YHWH" commands unnecessary killing.

Try to focus on one or maybe two specific bible verses and maybe one or two key "common sense" examples to support your resolution. Be sure to address common counter arguments from apologists.

For instance, PRO's round 2 [1] https://www.rationalchristianity.net...

This suggests that the quote, "...but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." means that the "girls" were treated well (as slaves?), but does nothing to explain why the young boys (non-combatants) were killed. Specifically the quote, "Virgin women and young girls were obviously not participants in this, so they were spared." does nothing to explain why the young boys who "were obviously not participants in this" were not-spared for the same reasons.

Do not allow off-topic points like "the existence/non-existence of the YHWH" or "the existence/non-existence of free-will" to muddy the water. Maintain focus on the resolution which is the primary measure of the debate. Always support the resolution.

It is also generally a good idea to address your debate partner's arguments (and requests) point by point if possible.
Posted by backwardseden 1 year ago
backwardseden
jonbonbon --- If I or anyone doesn't bring up evidence from outside sources, that's bad, extremely bad debating. princearchitect is a prime example of that and he 100% knows it. He also accused me of lying in which only a loser completely out of ideas and stuck in his box without proof does. And he did it for at least a third time, so I ended it.
But I on the other hand happen to think you are intelligent. But what are we supposed to do? Debate from the rawness of our heads and thus invent excuses, things that have never occurred? But I believe you have at one point or another and I have questioned you on it and what your sources are. See, that's the dangers of misinterpreting. Now you asked "Why don't you have to study to know the Bible?" OK then let"s all get it wrong. After all there"s millions of translations that have been passed down from generation to generation. There"s probably been hundreds of thousands of scribes. And oh I"m so absolutely sure that each one of those scribes got every single word right - correct? So here"s a question for you, how are you so sure that you and or anyone is interpreting correctly? That answer is nobody does because there"s not one god that would have ever put the bible into text form, the worst form of communication possible.
There"s also another reason also. Think about the dangers of misinterpretation. How many have payed god over time with your bible? How many have shot up they families because that"s what they claimed that their bible said that"s what it claimed, and by gum it does to some. And if you really want the dangers of misinterpretation, check up on Hong Xiuquan.
Also how can someone debate with you if you are not willing to examine the evidence, the evidence that is directly relating to the source material? See that"s what christians ---specifically--- do. And I"m not trying to be insulting here, but they as a whole, they do not look at the evidence. Why should they when they have an unproved god?
Posted by shannon83 1 year ago
shannon83
@Jonbonbon - no worries this will be my last comment on this page as I did not see your request before submitting the previous one.

@princearchitect - sorry for your confusion. I was using the laws of logic not science and you brought up science not me, so please don't come through and claim that I brought that up. Please reread the previous posts so you don't look like a fool telling me I brought something up that you did. have a good one, no hard feelings. Ill not respond to the other claims you made in the previous two posts.
Posted by princearchitect 1 year ago
princearchitect
I apologize, jonbonbon, but let me address shannon83 recent comment, I tried to comment and message her privately but her profile rules can't do it. Shannon83, I'm a scientist, I work with scientists, your final paragraph science can't prove or disprove the existence of God, if that is the case why did you bring science into the conversation, the very fact that you mention science in a debate about God, only lets me know you don't know what your talking about. And speaking of human error, the very fact that science is a human construct and requires human interpretation, human error always plays a role in it.

And if anybody knows anything about science is that science is always changing as our understanding of the evidence changes because there were many peer-reviews scientific findings that were published as the fact that was proven wrong, source http://list25.com.... Therefore just because something is published in a scientific journal as fact today could be proven wrong tomorrow.

And the very fact that atheism is not proof that God doesn't exist, your conclusions that possibility of his existence is far-fetched falls flat because your personal feelings on the matter doesn't hide the fact that you don't possess the capabilities to definitely say God doesn't exist so you look like the fool by bringing science into a conversation that is outside of the scope of science.

No, the only person failed here is you because objectively the two atheist scientists conclusions could both be wrong scientifically like the link of the link I provided above. Now if you want to continue this conversation, l encourage you to change your settings so people can have a conversation with you. Thank you very much.
Posted by shannon83 1 year ago
shannon83
@princearchitect " I said that meaning logically, it is circular reasoning and fallacious. Thus you can not use it to justify. I agree you can use it technically though it fails all logical tests. So by all means continue to use a failed argument, it does not matter to me.

Now your second point about studying the moon. Yes this can happen and does happen. The issue that you leave out is that normally with these two separate analysis one of them is normally wrong. Peer review of their findings occur and from that other experts look over their work and recreate their steps we find out who was correct. This helps take out human error. Plus, in a lot of these instances one side of the argument has more data supporting it. So I disagree it would give one atheist the right to condemn the other atheist in this situation. Science finds out what is most likely true, and if two opposing positions arise one is more likely than not false.

Now when you flip it, the fact that the Christian put God into the equation is fallacious. Science is the study of natural occurrences, this means that God and the supernatural was never in the equation. You cannot prove/disprove god with science. Unless you claim that you can prove it? If you want I can state some reasons why I find the possibility of a creator to be far-fetched?
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Thanks prince! I appreciate it. I hope you have a great day!
Posted by princearchitect 1 year ago
princearchitect
Okay, Jonbonbon out of respect for you, I humbly apologize, I will not speak any more of this thread.
God bless you, my friend. Much respect.
Posted by princearchitect 1 year ago
princearchitect
@Shannon83 said" I was asking how you claimed yours was valid and his not. I also did not see backwardesden use the bible to justify the bible, if he did then please point it out to me.

Shannon83 didn't backwardesden used countless of Bible verses and gave his interpretation of them verses? My question to you what makes his atheistic interpretation any more authoritative than the Child of God interpretation of the same Bible... So your position is that it's is perfectly okay for backwardesden to quote scriptures and condemn God, but it's not okay for me to quote scriptures and defend God?

You're a devilish hypocrite because the only reason why it's okay for him to quote scriptures and condemn God is because his bottom line is the same as yours, but if you were truly objective and partial if your going to question me for using the bible to defend God, you should question him for using the bible to condemn God.

You are hypocrites because when it comes to the Christian, the atheist begs and begs and begs for all this evidence of his existence. Yet and yet don't hold themselves to that same standard because atheism is not scientific evidence that God doesn't exist and I'm scientists, I work with scientists, I have a post-High School, post-secondary advanced educational certification in Advanced Physics 1 and you atheists like to throw scientific evidence towards the Christian in a manner that the science validates their atheism to give the atheist leverage. But the truth of the matter is there is nothing scientific about atheism so how can you demand all this scientific evidence from the Christian when the same scientific evidence don't even validate your atheism, guess what the same God you don't believe in is the same God that actually predicted you will use science as an opposition against him 1 Timothy 6:20
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by princearchitect 1 year ago
princearchitect
backwardsedenJonbonbonTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with dsjpk5 Con says, OK. Vote for her. Let her win." Due to this concession, I award arguments to Pro & Conduct because Pro displayed much better conduct than Con.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenJonbonbonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: In round five, Con says, " OK. Vote for her. Let her win. " Due to this concession, I award arguments to Pro.