On Average, The God Of Abraham Is Not A Kind Being
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
KhalifV
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 7/29/2014 | Category: | Philosophy | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 1,556 times | Debate No: | 59721 | ||
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)
 Pro Structure: 1. Acceptance 2. Opening Arguments 3. New points/ Rebuttals 4. Rebuttals 5. Rebuttals and Closing The God Of Abraham: "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are sometimes called "Abrahamic religions" because they all accept the tradition that God revealed himself to the patriarch Abraham. The theological traditions of all Abrahamic religions are thus to some extent influenced by the depiction of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible, and the historical development of monotheism in the history of Judaism." http://en.wikipedia.org... On Average: " generally; usually." http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com... Kindness: " Kindness is a behavior marked by ethical characteristics, a pleasant disposition, and concern for others. It is known as avirtue, and recognized as a value in many cultures and religions." Kindness: " According to Book Two of Aristotle's "Rhetoric" it is defined as virtue).[citation needed] It is defined as being "helpfulness towards someone in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped". http://en.wikipedia.org...  Con He/she/it of himself is a loving, caring god. He in the bible told the Israelites time and time again that these actions will have these consequences and these actions will have these consequences. All of our strife is caused by our actions not by god's doing. He warned us of the consequences of moving away from him and of course we don't listen and look at how 'perfect' the world is. Secondly: Are you an Atheist? If yes, then god is nothing in your eyes so there would be no reason to continue. I accept. With these opening statements. |
 |
|
Pro I have to address statements made by con.
Con says: " The first problem is I will openly state that NO, I Am is not a kind being. Because he is not just a loving god, but a judgmental god." This openly concedes the debate. Con says: " Secondly: Are you an Atheist? If yes, then god is nothing in your eyes so there would be no reason to continue." This statement is insane. I don't believe in the literal existence of Zeus, however that doesn't mean I can't address Zeus's character. Atticus Finch is a novel character, but I still love him and can say he's a ethical character. Now on to my arguments. Unkind Terms Of Salvation: "Romans 10:9-10 That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." So not going to hell is contingent upon believing Jesus is lord. Per the previous definition of kindness, GOD is unkind in requiring worship in order to not go to hell. P1) The truly kind don't require reciprocity P2) God requires reciprocity C1) God is not kind Defense of P1- The definition presented. If one requires reciprocity, one is merely behaving in a rational egotistical way, which is understandable for a human, but not for a god. " In ethical philosophy, rational egoism (also called rational selfishness) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one's self-interest" Humans and other Earthly organisms behave in this way, due to evolution and to meet needs. It's basic behavorial biology, organisms act to meet three ends: 1. Individual selection 2. Kin selection 3. Sexual selection. So what's the conclusion? It's that humans very rarely, if ever, engage in disinterested altruism, thus they are rarely kind in the truist sense. The problem is that GOD doesn't need to act to meet this end or any ends, thus there is NO excuse to require reciprocity. P1) Humans act towards ends because they have needs P2) Humans arn't purely kind because they must require reciprocity to meet needs P3) God does not have needs P4) As a result of god not needing anything, god shouldn't require reciprocity P5) God requires reciprocity C1) God is not kind P1 and P2 is well established by behavorial biology. P3 is true by virtue of god's attributes. P4 naturally follows. P5 negates god's kindness. C1 is the neccesary conclusion. So I think this proves god isn't kind. Now con concedes god is not kind, so he makes some off topic comments. Con says: " He/she/it of himself is a loving, caring god. He in the bible told the Israelites time and time again that these actions will have these consequences and these actions will have these consequences. All of our strife is caused by our actions not by god's doing. He warned us of the consequences of moving away from him and of course we don't listen and look at how 'perfect' the world is. " Anything that happens to the Israelites is god's fault. Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods): P1)An omniscient god knows the future. P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong. P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong. P4)An omniscient god knows your actions. C1) You don't have free will. Hell- Sending people to hell is unkind, I hope I don't have to explain why. Is god morally justified in sending people to hell? Consequentialism: P1) That which is good, promotes overall well-'being P2) God sends people to hell P3) Hell does not promote overall well-being C1) God is not morally justified in sending people to hell Deontology: P1) Act as if your actions will become universal laws P2) God sends people to hell P3) A universe in which people are sent to hell is a less favorable universe than in one in which people are C1) God is not morally justified Hell is infinite suffering for a finite act. This only renders god immoral and unkind. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.biblestudytools.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... Con The case for Hell is not God's fault in all arguments you throw back at me. Did god make Hell? No, Satan did. Did he make it for the sinners? No, in the book of Revelations, doesn't it state that even though god comes to the Earth and shows himself to us and even though the Non-Believers could've chose to follow him, in the end didn't they stay on the Earth with the Anti-Chriest? God didn't bring evil to this earth either. Didn't he WARN (like I stated in my first argument) to Adam and Eve that if they eat from the Forbidden Tree there will be consequences? Did they do it anyways? Though in the end didn't god keep them alive because he loved them too much? God has absolutely no reason to be kind to us; even though we are like his characters in a novel, or that we are all his creations (don't you feel special when you make a masterpiece? And you want to help preserve that masterpiece? It isn't gods fault for our hardships. It is ours. . . Why doesn't he change us? Well because my friend, it has allowed us to do whatever we want. I can become the most selfless, heartful person in the world or Hitler. Would you like walking around naked in a place full of ripe fruit your entire life without a mind to think and a body to feel, your entire life? Because that's what we would do if we weren't in the situations we are today. |
 |
|
Pro Did god make hell? Yeah ' Hell is a place of suffering originally prepared by God for the devil and his angels (Matthew 18:9; 25:41). Everything that ever was or is or will be is created by God, including hell (Colossians 1:16). John 1:3 says, “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” God did create hell. Con says: "It isn't gods fault for our hardships. It is ours. . . Why doesn't he change us? Well because my friend, it has allowed us to do whatever we want." Once again, NO. Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods): P1)An omniscient god knows the future. P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong. P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong. P4)An omniscient god knows your actions. C1) You don't have free will. So if there's an omniscient god, then everything we do was determined by god. P1) God created everything that exists P2) Evil exists C God created evil P1- Defended by aforementioned verses P2- Fairly obvious. con agrees.  Evil and suffering exists. C- necessarily follows. I think con has conceded the debate. The resolution is regarding if god is kind. We can debate if god is moral, but I think we both agree he isn't kind. http://www.gotquestions.org... http://mswara-holocaust.wikispaces.com... Con God is good, and he created the means to produce evil. He knows everything and nothing. He has seen the beginning of times and the ends of times. He knows all and sees all. Thank you for stating that. Especially since it implies that he has no reason to keep us, and he should just kill us. 'He has to show himself for me to believe in him'. The Bible states that if god showed himself to us that he would burn our good with our evil. Purity Sin = Corruption Heaven = Purity Corruption Atonement = Purity Hell = Corruption Blood of Jesus = Atonement Heaven = Eternity With God Hell = Eternity without God Therefore, Purity = Eternity with God Corruption = Eternity without God The key: Atonement by the blood of Jesus. A universe where people are sent to Hell is less favorable. . . Well Venus is a Hellish world; when space exploration starts isn't that a great place to send criminlas? Hell was made for people that will always never believe in god. Not for people's sins. If you believe in god, Jesus died on he cross for our sins. I mean I'm not stating it will give you a full ride if you killed billions of people, but at that point you don't really believe in a god more you think oyu are god. |
 |
|
Pro Yeah Con has definitely conceded. Con's venus analogy is poor. No I don't advocate criminals being sent to venus. Maybe child torturers or childer serial rapists/ killers, but that's about it. The difference is that hell is FOREVER. That is not just. I can be a great person, give to charity, solve world hunger and god can still send me to hell? Yeah this god is not kind at all. Con acknowledges that if god exists, we have no free will, but he does not acknowledge the implication. If we go to hell, it's god's fault, because god has known we would go to hell for all eternity, yet he still let disbelievers be born. This is surely unkind. Con |
 |
|
Pro "Con states that God let's us choose wether to go to Hell or not." FALSE Problem Of Free Will(Non-gods): P1)An omniscient god knows the future. P2) An omniscient god can't be wrong. P3) An omniscient god can predict your actions and can't be wrong. P4)An omniscient god knows your actions. C1) You don't have free will. We don't choose anything. Conclusion: Con has pretty much conceded. The resolution regards kindness and he has not rebutted my arguments. Con seemed to be debating if god is morally justified, which is a different debate, but he does not even do that well. I have shown god is unkind, due to hell,he allows evil to exist and because he requires reciprocity for salvation. I shall end with one last piece of evidence: "2 Kings 2:23-24King James Version (KJV) 23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them." Con "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him, who"ve been called according to His purpose." Romans 8:28 http://rickwarren.org... |
 |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sagey 7 years ago
| KhalifV | ben671176 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 5 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Pro provided a substantial argument that Con did not rebut. Con only kept the line that God is not to blame, yet, Pro demonstrated clearly that God is to blame, Though God is even to blame for the actions of Adam, thus God brought sin onto itself and God is to blame for the fall of man, not Adam, nor Eve. Pro also provided more and better sources than Con.
Con needs to get some better arguments happening for himself.
Vote Placed by YaHey 7 years ago
| KhalifV | ben671176 | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 5 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded and Pro used more sources
You would be better off reading "Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers" by Robert Sapolsky.
So God did not warn anybody.
The entire story reeks of utter Stupidity.
Though the real origin of Noah's Ark, may very well be the story of a man who when the Tigris River suddenly flooded while he was taking his animals to market, he got washed down by the flood a very long way from his destination and ended up on a hill, where he had to wait for the flood waters to subside before he drove his animals across land to reach the intended city of Ur to sell his animals.
It is believed the man's name was Noah and it is far more probable the true story that the Bible borrowed and twisted into the stupid tale you are arguing about.
The Flood was only a local Tigris and Euphrates Rivers flooding, as a tablet was found on top of a building where it was etched, that water covered the world. Which was more likely just meaning the water was as far as the eye could see or around 10 miles in every direction (horizon).
Though the person survived to write this, so it didn't cover that Temple in Ur.
The other proof that the Flood never took place is that the Persian Empire survived right through the so called Great Flood without being affected by it, same goes for Celtic people and Australian Aboriginals, who don't even have a flood story for the same period. They survived without a single loss due to floods.
Same with many of the strange animals living in Australia and Tasmania which only became extinct in the last 1000 years.
Mark Chapman is an example of this, shot John Lennon because John didn't give him the attention he wanted, same as God killing everybody except Noah's family for not paying attention to it.
Thus God is a Megalomaniac. Though God admitted killing people for Jealousy in "I am a Jealous God" passages which there are a few of them. Thus God admits it is a Narcissistic Megalomaniac.
God had no reason to kill everybody if God is as Christians say, Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent. God was and can never be considered Benevolent, thus Omnibenevolence is a Joke.
If God was Benevolent, if would not have initiated the Flood. Though even Leonardo da Vinci knew the Flood never really happened.
The Two reasons an Omniscient and Omnipotent Being did not need to kill everybody except one family is:
1: If God was Omniscient, it would know every person who was Evil or even was going to turn Evil.
It would know where they lived and slept at night.
2: If God was Omnipotent, it could kill every Evil and Potentially Evil Individual without even scratching an innocent person, nor harming a young child.
So the Flood story proves that God is a Malevolent, Murderous, Narcissistic Megalomaniac.
There is no other answer for it performing such a Stupid, Murderous Plot.
When it could have potentially only gotten rid of the Evil without harming an innocent individual or animal.
The Bible is therefore Dumber than Dog Droppings!