The Instigator
Con (against)
10 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

is a Christian God great.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,080 times Debate No: 35627
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)




Pro argument must prove that the God of the christian bible is as great as the text claims. Using factual evidence to support the claim along with being able to counter my rebuttals and explain some of the evil that comes along with admitting that there is a Christian God. At the end we will determine if he as good as the bible claims, or if there is more to it and the God of the bible does more bad than good.


I appreciate my opponents topic and will gladly accept. As I understand it, we will be debating the virtue vs. the evils of the Christian God, as well as His greatness, and his relevance to daily life in the modern era. I look forward to tangling wits with you and I hope that we can have a constructive and thought-provoking debate on this matter.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank you for taking this debate and I look forward to having a great discussion.

So the topic at hand is "is a Christian God great", and by no means do I think it is. This argument will more than likely turn into does the good out way the evil. As my opponent will surely point out there are acts of charity because of religion, in fact mass acts of charity. I would ask however when or if he makes this point we look at the implications of this statement. If indeed religion does offer up charity, by what means is this being done. We as humans are capable of doing charity without religion, and do so out of pure desire to help each other. While some may do it for self gratitude, it is a immensely better alternative than the cause religion does it for. Most of the acts that come from religion will always be subject to the critique that they are done out of fear, or by order. The bible teaches Christians that they must love one another and abide by the laws of a divine being and in fact if they do not do so and accept the commandments that are laid before them, the will suffer an eternity in hell. By this inference i can make a point that there could be a vast majority of people doing kind acts out of fear rather than want. Howbeit it is still a kind act, it is entirely for the wrong reasons. It goes without saying that organizations can do the same thing without religion. Countless organizations do charity without fear of hell or eternal torment or without the need of praise from a divine being. Which way would be morally wound. Helping people to help people, or helping because you are commanded to do so.

The next point I would like to make is that if there he would be quite sadistic do you not think? He created us knowing that we would sin(some would argue made us sin), so that he would send his son to die for us, so that we could metaphorically drink his blood and eat his flesh, to be saved from the sin that he originally condemned us to. All while knowing the ones that reject him will burn in a lake of fire where they will be plagued for all eternity. If we look at it logically when we die, it would be the equivalent of God tapping us on the shoulder and saying "you are wanted at this party", and send you to torment. Which in some cases I think would be a far more viable option than the alternative, which would be him tapping us on the shoulder and saying " Hey you are coming to this party and you can never leave, and you will enjoy it whether you like it or not."

I can also point out all of the evil that God has caused in the world. From the crusades in the name of Christ, to hitlers crusade(If you do not believe this was God inspired the belt buckles the nazis wore had "God with us" engraved on them in German),and also the intolerance that it breeds in today's society.

As my opponent agreed, he acknowledge that the bible is true. If the bible is true, then the old testament is true. Then we surely cannot overlook all the heinous acts that God did. From murdering the first born of every family, to causing plagues and illness, and even sending angles to murder people in their sleep because they opposed him. If this type of tyrant existed, I would not enjoy serving him or by no means would he be considered good. My opponent will also most likely state that our definition our justice and Gods definition of justice is two different things. That he could commit all the aforementioned points because it was in his plan or that some people could learn from it. This is not a savior or a saint, this is a monster

I conclude that indeed religion is poising the world. From Muslims believing that women are lesser beings, to people killing in the name of Christ, to jihad and extremeist, and even possibly the radicalism that exists in America like westboro Baptist church. Indeed if there is a God he has a bad sense of humor. Every day he lets children die, natural disasters kill millions, and people die of starvation.

Operating under the assumption there is a Christ, he is not good he is a tyrant that would make Hitler look like a saint.

I hand the floor back to my opponent.


I would like to thank my opponent for his opening argument.
I would like to start by stating that we are debating upon the pretense that the bible is true.
Great: adjective: remarkable in degree, magnitude, or effectiveness. *
There are 2.1 billion Christians in the world and there are 14 million Jews.* That number alone ascribes the greatness of God. If that is not enough to convince anyone of the greatness of God, then we will have to dig deeper. A being that can convince a father to kill his son, spawn a millenia of worship, and have vast cathedrals built in His name is truly great. This is a semantic paragraph that is here simply to illustrate that God is great.
I was not intending to bring up charity, but I think now that the subject has been broached I will. To diminish or outright dismiss the charitable acts of Christianity on the grounds that it is a compulsion, not a choice, would be demoralizing to the trillions of dollars and hours spent in the service of God. There are charitable acts that exist without a church, but a church is able to pool the acts and make a much larger difference. The Bible never even insinuates that it is a commandment to be charitable, it is simply rife with the ideology. I must say at this point that if we were to look at every horror that has befallen the world in the last twenty years, we will always see a long line of churches giving to the aide.
Now I will address the "sadistic" nature of God. It would be easy to see commandments as puerile and menacing, but I think perhaps it is more clear described as this: God is our creator and we are His children. You would never let a child into the world without rules and limitations, both to make their behavior more acceptable, and to keep them from harm's way. He would create us with an inherent self destruct in order to insure that we would need to die and thus return to Him.
Let's address the "mess" that God has created. Between Hitler and the Crusades, the KKK and the enslavement of women, it is easy to think that God is a bad influence. I must say that the wisdom of the verse 'the sins of the father shall not be revisited on the son', it could be applied backwards. I do not think that we can blame God for the evils of men that hide behind His name. As to the intolerance that He brings into today's society, I must point out that a "true believer" would closely follow the word of his Son. That word is about loving thy neighbor and peace.
The last point branches out a ways from the argument, shifting to an obvious bitterness towards the institution of religion, yet I will still address it. The last point first. He must let his children die or we would forfeit free agency. The free will that he guaranteed us all. As to all of the other atrocities that religion brings with it, I must rebut with a theological precept. Jesus was born a Jew. He was also raised a Jew. He spent a good many years trying to convince his countrymen that they had fallen astray. He was even eventually tortured beyond belief by these same kinsman, in order for them to feel a sense of righteousness. I doubt very much that God or Jesus, who knew he must die, wanted to be flogged for three miles and staked out for three days. Religious peoples are often missing the point of the teachings, believing the letter and not the spirit of the Text. All of the horrible things that religious parishioners are committing are certainly not the spirit of their teachings.
I look forward to round three.
Thank you

Wikipedia religions of the world
Debate Round No. 2


let us take a look at how my opponent defines great.

Great: adjective: remarkable in degree, magnitude, or effectiveness. *

So we must first establish what great means to counter this argument. Hitler could have been thought of as great, the same could be said for Allah, or another larger than life being or deity. As I made clear in the comments before this debate started, how remarkably(by the definition my opponent uses) good Christ is. If we were to debate this any other way, with the terms that the bible are true, I would have lost before this debate started. As my opponent states " A being that can convince a father to kill his son", would be great in that context. However since we are debating that the actions of the God in the bible are good or moral, this point would be a fallacy. Since we then are also debating how what we perceive is good, any argument that my opponent may offer saying that God has a different view of what is good or moral is invalid as well. Most certainly we can agree that a being that would make a father kill his son, is not a good being. In fact that is morally unacceptable.

I will address his remark on charity next, where he makes a critical error and mistake. He states "The Bible never even insinuates that it is a commandment to be charitable ". With us going under the assumption that the bible is true, we are saying the scriptures within it are true.
Hebrews 13:16 English Standard Version (ESV)
16 Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

1 John 3:17 English Standard Version (ESV)
17 But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?

Deuteronomy 15 :11 ESV / 39 helpful votes

“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be. Take care lest there be an unworthy thought in your heart and you say, ‘The seventh year, the year of release is near,’ and your eye look grudgingly on your poor brother, and you give him nothing, and he cry to the Lordagainst you, and you be guilty of sin. You shall give to him freely, and your heart shall not be grudging when you give to him, because for this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

He is right it does not insinuate it, it flat tells you to do so.

In the next part of his argument he says " I do not think that we can blame God for the evils of men that hide behind His name. As to the intolerance that He brings into today's society, I must point out that a "true believer" would closely follow the word of his Son. That word is about loving thy neighbor and peace." I will first start by saying the end of this statement is flawed. We are arguing for God, not Christ. Christ in some ways did teach peace, but we are also agreeing that the entire bible is true, including the old testament. Christians would have a much easier time arguing this point, if they would have removed the old testament when they option was available. So unless we want to get into a debate about the holy trinity, I will debate as if Christ is not God. To address his point that we can not blame the entire tree for one bad apple, if this was true I would agree. However if half the fruit that tree is bearing is bad, we must assume that there is something wrong with the tree itself.

Let us focus on some of the acts that God committed in the old testament once more. So now we know that a Great/good/moral God would never commit the atrocities that are within the Old testament.

In the very first book of the bible God creates a flood that wipes out everyone but his chosen people. He slaughtered infants and women alike. He brought down cities in his name. So debating under the framework that this is by the good God has done for the world, my competitor can not argue that God has a different perspective of right and wrong

Thus we can only assume the most logical thing. God is not as good as most Christians tend to think

I offer the floor back to my adversary.



Interesting argument from my opponent.
I believe that I will debate from the bottom up. As far as semantics go, If we were to ask the followers of God if it was good that he saved them from the world ending flood, they would likely say yes. The destruction of the wicked may have been extreme, but perhaps the best way to destroy the enemies of His empire, something even those charitable non religious people have done.
Second the Old Testament. We learn about Grace and Law.
" Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them
who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the
world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law
there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the
knowledge of sin." Romans 3:19-20
"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is
written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are
written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by
the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse
for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"
Galatians 3:10-13
This teaches us that the Old Testament is a bygone time that no longer reigns over humanity. Jesus' teachings are the ones that are obeyed now. Taking that he is the Son of God and speaks His word, then we know that all commandments and tenets that exist today would be from the Son. Faith, hope, and charity, the most important of these being hope.
As to the commandments in the Old Testament regarding charity, they no longer apply. Jesus taught to do what you can for the poor, keeping in mind that poor will always be among us. He is telling us that we should help, without destroying ourselves. Sensible and not very commanding.
As to the first argument, I also agree that any deity, Allah, and Hitler were or are great.
Greatness is something that is above and beyond normal. Obviously God is a qualifier.
Let's now discuss what effect God has had on society. We have heard Hitler referenced a bunch, and never Mother Teresa or Saint Francis of Assisi. God inspires great works in many people, many more than the extremist fruit cakes that defile His name.
I return the floor.
Debate Round No. 3


Since this round is for rebuttals I will offer a rebuttal to my opponents main points. This will be a short round due to he only offered one argument. His main argument is.

(1)the Old Testament is a bygone time that no longer reigns over humanity

I was not questioning whether or not the old testament was in the past. That is perfectly obvious. My opponent states that "Jesus' teachings are the ones that are obeyed now". I will not also argue that there is good done in the name of Christ, this is obvious as well. My adversary however has completely derailed or avoided the points I made.

Be reminded that I have previously stated

"Since we then are also debating how what we perceive is good, any argument that my opponent may offer saying that God has a different view of what is good or moral is invalid as well

I will offer this point one more time and word it differently.

(a) If a Christian God is great, why would he commit all of the immoral acts that he did in the old testament(some of which I have previously listed)


For the sake of being succinct I will be brief. It would seem that my opponent is unclear to the defense of greatness. All of the miraculous and amazing deeds, good or evil, would be considered great. Since I am able to understand that is not his main point I will rebut the spirit of his point. I imagine as all parents grow older, they look back at their history with some regret. Perhaps God punished the easiest way that He knew how, by lashing out. I am certain that if we were to pour through the Bible we would find it resplendent with God's greatness, and only punctuated by his punishments. His good far outweighs the bad. Since we have been arguing from the standpoint that the Bible and all Scriptures contained within are true, then we must remember that God created the world and life that allows us to be having this debate at all. Perhaps the greatest gift and goodness is that of life.
I will offer two examples of his goodness that will seem modest, but are perhaps the most astute and powerful.
how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power. He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. Acts 10:38
And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:4
It is not enough to pick apart the transgressions of the being that is responsible for creating the ones with which he transgressed against. He told the first people the Law and punished it as it was broken. That is harsh, but not unjustly or evil.
I imagine that every convict on death row will bawl about the transgressions of the corrections department, whether real or imagined.
I eagerly await your conclusion.
Debate Round No. 4


Since there is nothing left to offer and my opponent has derailed his original stance. This is now impossible to debate. He has changed his argument to redefine what the word Great means. If we were debating under the impression he is merely great, inferring that we are judging his actions by the magnitude of them, I would concur that he is great however that is not the case.

As I said in My R1 stance

"At the end we will determine if he as good as the bible claims, or if there is more to it and the God of the bible does more bad than good."

This was quite obvious that we would be discussing how great God is and what "good" he does. Good being defined as beneficial toward us and or not being harmful. I have shown that through the old testament and other scriptures most things God did in fact was not beneficial to anyone, except perhaps himself. I have offered up examples and in my prior argument I have shown that Pro still has not offered up any explanation as to why committed the atrocities that he committed. He merely states the old testament was in the past. We can not dismiss the evil of the past, just as we can not dismiss any good none. We can simply acknowledge that the evil God commits, does out way the fact.

Lastly my adversary states that God created us and we are here. Yes that is a great act. We must remember however that God created us so that he could make us suffer if all of my previous point stands. He created us knowing that some of us would burn in hell. This is not an act of good or moral conduct. Neither is the fact that God allows thousands to starve and die everyday. If we are debating under the context that he exists, he is timeless, space less, and infinite. Yet with everything that is wrong with the world, he sits by and watches.

As i have previous stated, there is not much con offered to refute Not he did redefine my R1 stance and still has not offered any valid proof as to why the actions that God commited in the old testament are good or morally ethical actions. I have enjoyed this and thank anyone for taking the time to read this.


For the last round I thank my opponent for their points and debating skills. I must iterate that I have spent some time debating the title, or theme of this debate. Is a Christian God great? Of course he is.
Now for all of the apparent derailing as to if God is good or morally ethical, I could offer the argument that God created goodness and morals, so obviously He is. I will not debate that stance though.
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. Romans 8:28
It is difficult to put God into human morality or ethics, when he is literally championing our souls. At this point we must realize that God is a force of supremacy that is to test us for the prize of eternal life. We would not cry about hitting a chute instead of a ladder. For him it is a complex sociological experiment, and therefore his goodness and morality are peripheral at best.
For one more point of view, It is written that what we hold true on earth, He will hold true in heaven. That being said, the crusades and every other mass killing or genocide in His name, basically licensed him to send upon us plagues. When the leaders of his organization took a silent consent of the slave trade, then it validated him making women not much more than property. A pillar of salt is not far from ethical if considered by men who have made a career of molesting altar boys.
I, of course, am an atheist and am disgusted by all of the atrocities committed by people suffering a delusion of a super powered imaginary friend, but the point of this debate was to discuss greatness and goodness.
When I referenced that the time of law is over, I meant that we now must count the good works of Christ against the tally. I think it will be fairly apparent that there are more good works than bad, because Jesus was a great man. In the name of God he helped the blind to see, the poor to eat, and the lame to walk. He even was able to over right the issue of low value towards women, having taught and accepted Mary of Magdalene as one of his followers. She was a prostitute, something that was a huge no-no socially, and Jesus still accepted her.
I will conclude by saying that most of the ethical debate comes from who you ask. If you ask the losers, they will say it was bad, the winners will think differently. The same comparison can come after any war that is fought. If you ask the Native Americans, the white settlers were bad. God is at war with Satan and some extremes had to be made. This is evident. I don't think that Noah will have found it to unfair that he was warned that a flood would destroy the world. He was given the instructions on how to survive.
I would like to honestly thank my opponent for this debate. I enjoyed reading his arguments and all of the references that he cited. You are certainly an accomplished debater and I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Luisthebraziliancowboy 3 years ago
This could have turned into fun semantics. The meaning of 'great' was need specified. It could have been argued as big, powerful, etc.
Posted by Luisthebraziliancowboy 3 years ago
I am already engaged in another debate with you, so I will not accept this one just yet, but if nobody takes it up, I will on the grounds that we debate from a standpoint where the Bible is true.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
As in How is good God, what good does he do. Does the miracles he perform out way the evils he commits. What makes him great and how is he relevant.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
As in How is good God, what good does he do. Does the miracles he perform out way the evils he commits. What makes him great and how is he relevant.
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
Could you be more specific on what you mean by "great?" How great do you think the Bible makes God out to be? I might consider taking this, but I need to know what I'm getting into first.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
lol chances are no one will take this challenge, due to the fact of how it will go into semantics.
Posted by JayDaylDayJay 3 years ago
Dangit, i thought you were pro for a moment, As the page was loading i cracked my knuckles and said "Let's fuc- this guy up" xD Too bad, i dont think the devils advocate will be a great thing to do here.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
I can debate it either way if you wish, as if the bible were true or not. Either way it will not make much of a difference because if you debate it from the biblical standpoint, it will contradict itself. That would even invoke Calvinism
Posted by Luisthebraziliancowboy 3 years ago
Because if we did start with that assumption, the argument would be that God acts contrary to the morality that he created in the Bible. It's a worthwhile argument, I just think it's important to lay the grounds for it before you enter into the argument.
Posted by Luisthebraziliancowboy 3 years ago
Would this debate start from the assumption that the Bible is true? Because you cannot debate the morality of God without first accepting that the statements made regarding him are also true.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Inductivelogic 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: countering sweetbreeze because she countered someones personal opinions. So 4 points awarded. Also Con the last 3 as far as arguments. Pro did not even bother to dispute the fact this debate was based of a kind God. He tried to change the definition of great when it was stated earlier in the debate. So 4 to counter the prior person , and 3 for arguments.
Vote Placed by sweetbreeze 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Shadowguy nick, adding on extra points. Anyway, Pro actually made strong arguments.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made weak arguments until the end. And even then arguments were weak.