The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
DNehlsen
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The bible is a moral book

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 519 times Debate No: 100845
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Con

My position: I will be arguing that the Bible is not a moral book, and is, in fact, immoral
Opponent's position:
My opponent will be arguing that the bible is a moral book.

Rules of debate:
1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, insults
2) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for argument since I am not using round 1 for argument. This is to ensure we each have an equal number of rounds used for argument
3) The last round used for argument should be just rebuttals and/or conclusion. No new arguments in this round. New information or facts can be brought up, but only in rebuttal to your opponent.

Definitions
I believe I shouldn't need to define the term Bible, since I am going off of the common definition of that. If my opponent has a specific translation of the Bible they wish to use, I should be fine with any translation(I think). Just to be safe, my opponent should comment on this debate what version of the Bible they would like to use, and I will comment on whether I accept it or not.
Moral: Holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.[1] Additionally, I would say we should go by what is considered "proper conduct" in western society. So, we will go off of western morals.
immoral: Not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

If my opponent does object to the definition or one of the rules, they should say so in comments and we can work out a definition or rules we both agree to.


Sources:
[1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
DNehlsen

Pro

I accept the debate and look forward to a fruitful and productive discussion.

Any version of the bible is acceptable to me, however, KJV, ESV, and NIV are all preferences I suppose.
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate, and I will begin.

The creator of morality, God, in the Bible is responsible for horrendous things

In Genesis 7, verse 4 it reads "For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. " While it may be justified to kill off the adult humans, since they were evil according to the story, it is not justified to kill off all of the innocent babies/children and animals. There's no way babies or children could have been evil at this time, yet God killed all of them off.

Next, God gave an order to the Israelites to "attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." (1 Samuel 15:3) While, again it may be argued the adults were evil and causing harm to the Israelites, what were the children and infants and animals doing exactly? It was completely unnecessary and unjustified to kill them.

In 2 Thessalonians 9-12 it reads "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." Apparently god sends delusions to those who are sinful, which is deceptive and dishonest. How are the people who are sinful expected to ever repent if they are sent delusions to believe in lies from God himself?

God also completely destroyed everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. Genesis 19: 24-25 reads "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground. " Since he destroyed all of the inhabitants, once more, the babies and children must have been killed.

Then God also ordered Abraham to kill his own son, which seems to also indicate an evil god. God is also the one who hardened Pharoah's heart, it wasn't Satan: Exodus 10:1 "Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him"

In Exodus 21, there are many instances where God commands the death of people: for smiting their mother or father, steals and sells a person, curses their mother or father, and many other instances. I could easily point out many other instances where people are to be stoned to death or killed for disobeying God, but I'm sure you know of them, so I will not provide anymore since it would be tedious.

Finally, in 2 Kings 2, it reads: 23 From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. "Get out of here, baldy!" they said. "Get out of here, baldy!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys." In other words, prophet of god was being mocked, and he called a curse on them in the name of the Lord and God complied by sending two bears to maul all of the boys just for mocking the prophet.

How can a book be moral when the character who is supposed to be a role model, does such horrendous acts?

Not just god, but other characters in the Bible who are supposed to be role models do horrendous and immoral acts

As mentioned before, Abraham was commanded to kill his son. The bible talks about how he was going to do it. This essentially teaches it's okay to murder your child if someone who's an authority figure commands it.

Additionally, in Genesis 19:30-38, it talks about how Lot's daughters got him drunk, and proceeded to have sex with him. Not only might this be considered rape, but it's incest. God does nothing to condemn this act, and these are people we are supposed to view as good people and good role models.

In Acts 3:23, Peter tells us that those who don't "hear" Jesus, will be destroyed. In other words, whoever doesn't follow Jesus will be destroyed. Is it moral to force people to follow you or die? I contend it is not.

Romans 1:31-32 essentially states that homosexuals and their supporters are worthy of death. Does killing someone for simply expressing love in a sexual way to a member of the same sex really justify saying they are worthy of death?


Can any book which has so many blatant violent promotions and questionable ethics be considered a Moral book?

Sure, there are many good things about the bible, but there are so many terrible things as well. The good things in it don't suddenly make it a moral book, there are too many terrible and horrible acts within it.
DNehlsen

Pro

Many of my opponents initial arguments come down to one point. God killed, or condoned the killing of, children.

Proverbs 22:6 "Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it."

1 Timothy 5:8 "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

Proberbs 1:8-9 "Hear, my son, your father's instruction, and forsake not your mother's teaching, for they are a graceful garland for your head and pendants for your neck."

At the time of Noah's Flood, these verses had not yet been written. It is clear, however, that God holds the parents of children accountable for them. If a child were to die in Noah's Flood, it would be at the fault of their parents.

2 Samuel 12:21-23 "His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!” He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I will go to him, but he will not return to me.”

Here we see David is assured that he will go to his son after his death. It would only be logical to assume that God will pardon those who have not yet reached a point or age of accountability in their lives. Even if God did not save the dead children, however, would he be in the wrong? Adam turned his back on God in the beginning, and the seed of adam must bear his curse. Is God not already merciful for giving us a chance? God could let us all die and still be perfectly just in doing so - we turned our backs on him.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 there's a story of God cursing a people. Keep in mind, again, that God doesn't owe us anything. We turned from him so he has no reason to pardon anybody at all, yet he chose to die for us. These people were stuck in their ways, and refused God. If you turn from God, he will not beg for your attention. In more cases than one he shows us he will not try to stop you if you try to rebel and run away. He will, however, expect reparations for such a course of action. If you really want to pursue the ways of the world, he will let you to succumb it.

In Exodus 21, God is presenting his law to his chosen nation - a theocracy. This nation was to be God's chosen people through which the savior would come. They had strict rules, and they were expected to live up to a higher standard. This should be expected from such a priveleged position. Does God not have the right to call for the death of his creation who rebelled against him in spite of his meciful route for salvation?

In 2 Kings 2 we read a story of some youths who mock the prophet Elijah, and are then killed by his curse. The King James translation uses the word youth. Following to the root of the translation, we can conclude that this was talking about young adults. Baldness was regarded as a disgrace. It is unclear whether or not the youth are referring to a litteral baldness, loss of hair, or as an epihet of contempt. These individuals were taunting and insulting the prophet of God. To insult the prophet of God was to insult God himself. This would serve as an example that God is a God who is not to be mocked. In light of this, the punishment for such a course of action is entirely justified.

Abraham was commanded to kill his son in Genesis 22:2. In Genesis 17:21, however, we read this "But your son Isaac will be born about this time next year, and the promise I am making to you and your family will be for him and his descendants forever." Because of this promise, we know Isaac will not die before he has made descendants. Abraham most likely knew that if he actually went through with this sacrafice one of two things would happen. God could have let Isaac die, and thus God would have broken his promise and thus is not a trustworthy God worth worshipping. God also could have resurrected Isaac, showing God's power to Abraham. Either way, the outcome is important for Abraham to witness. God stopped Abraham before he did kill his son though, so I fail to see how this makes God bad. Even if God had let Abraham go through with it, because man turned on God, his only fault would be breaking his promise in Genesis 17. This does not teach murder is okay no matter who issues the command. God is incapable of murder since we have all rejected him and fallen from grace. Nobody else has authority over human life.

Acts 3:23 tells us those who don't follow Jesus will be destroyed. Is not the creator of man fully justified in destroying those who rebelled against him? He has a standard of perfection, and cannot abide with those who cannot match this said standard.

In Romans we read homosexuality is worthy of death. This is because homosexuality is a result of our fallen world of sin. It is a mockery of God's gift of sexuality to us. Is not the creator justified in destroying those who make a mockery of his perfect gifts, which were intended to be used for his glory, after they have turned from him and rejected him?

You should be seeing a theme by now. We're all God's creation, and we all fail to meet his glory, his standard. We have all sinned against him and thus fail to meet his standard. Would a judge be just if he pardoned a criminal, with no reparation for his crime? No he would not. In the same way, would God be a just God if he let his creation run rampant, and turn against him? Who do you think you are to demand that the one who created you put up with your rebellion when he could effortlessly end you right now? It is by his boundless mercy and grace that we're still alive to have this conversation. It is by his boundless mercy and grace that he paid for our crimes against him. If we do not accept that payment, and show honest remorse for said crime, what obligation to us does he have?


Debate Round No. 2
Capitalistslave

Con

I will rebut my opponent's arguments in the following 2 formats: one way will be by directly quoting the part I want to rebut, and I will italicize the quotes, and the second way will be if the quote is too large, I will summarize it and bold it. Now, onto rebuttals:

At the time of Noah's Flood, these verses had not yet been written. It is clear, however, that God holds the parents of children accountable for them. If a child were to die in Noah's Flood, it would be at the fault of their parents.
Claiming that the parent's are accountable for the death of the babies and children is shifting the blame of murder from God onto the parents. God didn't need to flood the earth. God, as I pointed out previously, hardens people's hearts and makes it that they will refuse God, and believe in delusions. Why couldn't he make the people good as a solution? Or make it easier for them to believe Noah and his warnings? Why does god only intervene in free will in order to make people believe in false things? Why couldn't he intervene in free will to make people believe in a truth and to act good? Which seems more rational when you're an omnipotent god: end the lives of all of the evil people, when you might be responsible for them being evil to begin with since you harden people's hearts, and then punish them eternally for that, or to make them act good so that they can continue living on earth?

Adam turned his back on God in the beginning, and the seed of adam must bear his curse.
What is moral about holding people who had nothing to do with the fall of Adam accountable for that? By cursing everyone after Adam, he punished everyone for something they didn't do. What is just or moral about that?

Is God not already merciful for giving us a chance? God could let us all die and still be perfectly just in doing so - we turned our backs on him.
Adam turned his back on him. We didn't. Again, it doesn't make logical sense, nor is it moral to punish people who had nothing to do with what someone did many years ago. Saying it's just for God to punish all of humanity for the action of one human many years ago, is like saying all descendents of slave owners need to be punished for their ancestors owning slaves, or all descendents of murderers need to be punished for their ancestor murdering someone.

Additionally, your argument here is based on original sin it seems. Many Christian sects do not believe in original sin. For example, going back to Mormonism, since I grew up as one, they specifically do not believe in original sin. Their second article of faith, which articles of faith to them are general statements of their beliefs, states "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." So, this argument my opponent is making here would only apply to some Christian faiths, I believe specifically Catholic-based faiths believe in original sin and that man will be punished for original sin. Thus, to base this argument around original sin and that mankind should be punished for it, they need to prove why original sin exists through the Bible. If it is a legitimate belief, and not one invented by churches later, it will be found in the Bible. Once more, in my education on the Bible, I don't recall running across anything that specifically supported the idea of original sin. This one I'm not as confident about, but it would still be on my opponent to provide biblical evidence of the idea that mankind should be punished for Adam's fall.

Does God not have the right to call for the death of his creation who rebelled against him in spite of his meciful route for salvation?
Again, much of mankind didn't rebel from him. Many people are Christians and doing their best to follow what they believe is God's will. They're not rebelling at all. Why should the rest of mankind be punished for Adam rebelling?

These individuals were taunting and insulting the prophet of God. To insult the prophet of God was to insult God himself. This would serve as an example that God is a God who is not to be mocked. In light of this, the punishment for such a course of action is entirely justified.
So, would it be perfectly justifiable if President Trump started puting people to death for mocking him? If it's not, why is it justifiable for God?

God is incapable of murder since we have all rejected him and fallen from grace. Nobody else has authority over human life.
No, we've not all rejected him. If I would have stayed in my faith, there is no way you could argue I rejected him. There's no way you can argue that life-long Christians rejected him. Again, this comes down to the original sin idea. What evidence is there that original sin is something everyone should be punished for? Is there anything in the Bible that supports this? Even if there is, it would be hard to argue why it's a good thing to punish people for actions of another person.
Additionally, I was going to ask what gives god authority over human life. I suppose you could argue, "because he created us" but before you do that, I wish to point out a problem in that thinking: My mom and dad created me physically, but it's not moral for them to kill me once I've been born. Why is there a different standard for God in relation to his creations? Why is it morally okay for him to kill his creations, but not morraly okay for us to kill our creations?

Acts 3:23 tells us those who don't follow Jesus will be destroyed. Is not the creator of man fully justified in destroying those who rebelled against him?
Again, I will point to my previous arguments. Most of what you argue here boils down to original sin. I defer to what I've said previously.

Is not the creator justified in destroying those who make a mockery of his perfect gifts, which were intended to be used for his glory, after they have turned from him and rejected him?
The second part can also be deferred to what I've said previously about original sin. The first part, however, I will use an analogy: suppose it's your friend's birthday. You get him/her a gift with which they later throw away. To you, that's a mockery of the gift you gave them. So, you would be justified in killing that person becaue of what they did to your gift? No, of course not. Actually, let's make it more comparable. Let's change it to a parent giving their child a gift, and the child throws away the gift. The parent is the one who created that child. That child is particularly rebellious against their parents. Would the parents be justified in killing their child? Not in western society, at least.

Would a judge be just if he pardoned a criminal, with no reparation for his crime?
The crime you speak of is original sin. I again, defer to my previous arguments. I'll go along with this jude analogy though. You're essentially wanting this judge to make the child of a murderer get the death penalty or be punished for the murder that their parent committed, only because they are related to them. That is not just. The child shouldn't even be in trial. Humans shouldn't even be judged by god because of Adam's transgression. It's a ludicrous idea that isn't even supported by the Bible.


DNehlsen

Pro

Before I continue onto the next stage, there is a part I missed from my opponents opening statement.

"God is also the one who hardened Pharoah's heart, it wasn't Satan: Exodus 10:1 "Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him""
To answer this I'll point to some previous scripture.

Exodus 8:15: But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said.

Exodus 8:19: the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart was hard and he would not listen, just as the Lord had said.

Exodus 8:32: But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.

Exodus 9:7: Pharaoh investigated and found that not even one of the animals of the Israelites had died. Yet his heart was unyielding and he would not let the people go.

Exodus 9:34-35: When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts. So Pharaoh’s heart was hard and he would not let the Israelites go, just as the Lord had said through Moses.

Eventually in Exodus 9:12 we read the following: But the Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the Lord had said to Moses.

Now there are two explanations to this story, both of which are perfectly viable.

Option 1, God did not perform some magic trick to harden pharaohs heart, rather the person of God cause pharaohs heart to be hardend. Almost as if God was saying "My presence will harden his heard."

Option 2, God did actually harden pharaohs heart through divine intervention. Even if this is true, we still see pharoah repeatedly rejecting God. God is justified in doing this because of the chances he already gave him. For all we know his advisors may have yet been in a position to talk him out of his current course of action. The bible, however, tells us his advisors hardened their own hearts as well.

Now that I have cleared that up, I'd like to address my opponents most recent comments.

The biggest defense my opponent makes is that original sin is not biblical, or commonly accepted doctrine. Allow me to clear some things up. There are about 2.2-2.4 billion christians in the world. (1) About 1.2 billion of those are Catholic, and about 600-800 million are Protestant. Protestant and Catholic doctrine teach original sin. This is about 2 billions out of 2.4 billion, or 83%. At the very least, not even counting all of the other christian sects that teach original sin, 83% of christians are part of an organization that teaches original sin.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.


Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned

1 Corinthians 15:21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.

These verses, in addition to the entire Genesis chapter 3 story, clearly teaches that sin entered the world by Adam and Eve. Because Adam sinned against God, his offspring, carrying his cursed genes, were also cursed. Since Adam was the first man, everyone from then on would thus be cursed. Not only was adam cursed, but as was the entire universe. (Genesis Story)


Romans 3:23 says "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

The bible clearly teaches original sin. Mormonism is not a sect of Christianity, rather a cult founded only in the last few hundred years.


"Why couldn't he make the people good as a solution?"
God made us as free willed individuals, and he will not force us to love him. These are stories in scripture of God strengthening people's faith, and there are also stories of him cursing people. If we choose to go in any given direction, he may choose to help us on our way -- but he has never been recorded to make that decision before he was already rejected.

"Which seems more rational when you're an omnipotent god: end the lives of all of the evil people, when you might be responsible for them being evil to begin with since you harden people's hearts, and then punish them eternally for that, or to make them act good so that they can continue living on earth?"
This is a loaded question, in that it does not provide the entire context. In no way was God responsible for humanity, Adam, turning its back on God. They chose to reject him. As previously stated, God has only been recorded to harden hearts after they have made their choice to reject God. To even give them that choice to begin with is evidence of his grace and mercy. God will not intervene in our free choices to turn and reject him. God does not want robots who only worship him because they must -- God wants his subjects to be those who willingly come to him.

"What is moral about holding people who had nothing to do with the fall of Adam accountable for that? By cursing everyone after Adam, he punished everyone for something they didn't do. What is just or moral about that?"
When Adam sinned, God stopped upholding the world. Because of this, our world was cursed. Adam, and his decendants, now had the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The bible says, as previously quoted, that we have all sinned. Not only were we born sinners, but we all reject and turn on God on a daily basis.

"So, would it be perfectly justifiable if President Trump started puting people to death for mocking him? If it's not, why is it justifiable for God?"
Did President Trump create every person who was mocking him? Is President Trump a holy, perfect, and glorious character who is outside our wildest imagination? Is President Trump without sin? No man is without sin, and God is. What obligation does a perfect God have towards an insignificant sinner mocking him? Absolutely none. God was already meciful in allowing him the chance of salvation -- Why should we expect him to put up with our mockery in addition to this? President Trump is in no way comparable to a divine, heavenly figure of authority -- our creator.

"No, we've not all rejected him. If I would have stayed in my faith, there is no way you could argue I rejected him. There's no way you can argue that life-long Christians rejected him."
This is a good dream, however it is not reality. Scripture tells us we all sin. Sin is anything we say, think, or do that breaks God's law. Breaking God's law is rejection. We have all rejected God by means of sin.

"Additionally, I was going to ask what gives god authority over human life. I suppose you could argue, "because he created us" but before you do that, I wish to point out a problem in that thinking: My mom and dad created me physically, but it's not moral for them to kill me once I've been born. Why is there a different standard for God in relation to his creations? Why is it morally okay for him to kill his creations, but not morraly okay for us to kill our creations?"
First off, could you explain where your morality comes from? Why does the state of being in the womb give you no rights to life, yet the state of being outside the womb suddenly makes you a valued human? Why is it acceptable for a woman to kill a child in the womb, but if a man kills a pregnant woman he is charged with two murders? So this is really something you should be telling me. Why is it morally okay for a parent to kill their child until they're out of the womb? Why is a parent not able to kill their child until he becomes independent? It seems sort of arbitrary for us to try and put limits on this, as it has no base in objectivity or fact. We only dictate when it's acceptable to kill, and when it is not. Should this not be God's decision to make? Another thing to keep in mind, is that we are not our own.

1 Corinthians 1 6:19-20: Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

Psalm 24:1: The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it;

The bible clearly indicates that God owns us. He made us. What we think we own, is really on loan. Our children are made using what God created. We cannot truely create out of nothing as God did. We can only use what God has given us to make things. Following this logic, anything we make is still Gods -- Including our children. We do not have true domination over our children, a choice of life or death, because they aren't really ours.

"a parent giving their child a gift, and the child throws away the gift. The parent is the one who created that child. That child is particularly rebellious against their parents. Would the parents be justified in killing their child?"
The answer to this question is no. As we've discussed before, the parent did not truely create that child on his own. The parent used what was God's to make the child. A parent is also not holy and perfect -- on a different level from the child. God has a position of authority in that he is perfect -- we do not have that position of authority over anybody.

"You're essentially wanting this judge to make the child of a murderer get the death penalty or be punished for the murder that their parent committed, only because they are related to them."
As stated before, we all sin daily. We all turn from and reject God. Since we have each fallen from Christ, we are all on trial for our sins. God, being a just God, must punish these transgressions of his glory, his standard.


Sources:
(1) http://www.pewforum.org...
(2) https://simple.wikipedia.org...;
Debate Round No. 3
Capitalistslave

Con

Option 2, God did actually harden pharaohs heart through divine intervention. Even if this is true, we still see pharoah repeatedly rejecting God. God is justified in doing this because of the chances he already gave him. For all we know his advisors may have yet been in a position to talk him out of his current course of action. The bible, however, tells us his advisors hardened their own hearts as well.
How is it justified? Again, why does he intervene with free will in order to make people reject him but doesn't do it to make them accept him? It doesn't make sense. Even if you say he was justified in doing so because the pharaoh rejected him several times before, for all you know he may have accepted him this last time. How are we supposed to know when God is the one who hardened his heart this time?

Re: the scriptures you brought up in support of original sin
Yet, there are also bible verses which seem to contradict this idea:
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:20
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16
"But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin." II Chronicles 25:4

These scriptures seem to be more clear about what they mean, yours, however, are a little more vague. "I was brought forth in iniquity" can simply mean they were raised by people who do sin, but not necessarily that they sinned themselves.

"Because all sinned" could be referring to how no one is perfect and everyone sins at some point in their life time.

Mormonism is not a sect of Christianity, rather a cult founded only in the last few hundred years.
And yet they try to follow the teachings of Jesus. I don't see how you can argue how any religion who tries to follow the teachings of Jesus, is not Christian. This is besides the point anyways.

God made us as free willed individuals, and he will not force us to love him
And yet he will force Pharoah to reject him? Why does he force people to reject him but not accept him? Additionally, he makes people believe in delusions(see 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11). So, why is it justified to make believe not believe in him, but it's not justified to make people believe in him? You can't argue one is justified and the other is not without applying double standards.

Did President Trump create every person who was mocking him?
Ok, suppose it's his children that mock him. He created them.

Is President Trump a holy, perfect, and glorious character who is outside our wildest imagination?
Neither is god, for if he was, he wouldn't put people to death for denying him or mocking him.

Is President Trump without sin?
God seems to be a leader that tells us what to do and doesn't follow what he tells us to do. If you were to apply the "thou shalt not kill" law to god, he did sin. However, I know you'll say those laws don't apply to god for some reason.

Scripture tells us we all sin. Sin is anything we say, think, or do that breaks God's law. Breaking God's law is rejection. We have all rejected God by means of sin.
Apparently god doesn't realize that people make mistakes. Just because a person makes a mistake, doesn't mean they reject that person as an authority figure.

First off, could you explain where your morality comes from? Why does the state of being in the womb give you no rights to life, yet the state of being outside the womb suddenly makes you a valued human?
I wasn't going off of what I believe is morally okay, but what most people consider morally okay, and likely what you think is morally okay. I would guess you believe it is morally wrong for a parent to kill their child, so why is it morally okay for God to kill his creations? It looks like you answered this later though, by saying because God owns all of us and everything is on loan to us, he has a right to take us away. I'll discuss the problem with that in the next point.

The bible clearly indicates that God owns us.
So, in other words, we're slaves to God and have no rights when it comes to God doing things to us, which seems to indicate even more so that the Bible is immoral.

As stated before, we all sin daily. We all turn from and reject God.
Again, we all make mistakes. Someone making a mistake can't be arguing for actively rejecting God. They could be trying their best to follow God, and I would argue this means they are not rejecting him.

God, being a just God, must punish these transgressions of his glory, his standard.
These laws, to begin with, are unjust according to most western standards of morality. Who thinks it's okay to murder homosexuals or stone adulterers nowadays? Many people think it is wrong to deny people marriage because they are the same gender. There are many things that would be considered unjust in today's society that God has a law for.
DNehlsen

Pro

How is it justified? Again, why does he intervene with free will in order to make people reject him but doesn't do it to make them accept him? It doesn't make sense. Even if you say he was justified in doing so because the pharaoh rejected him several times before, for all you know he may have accepted him this last time. How are we supposed to know when God is the one who hardened his heart this time?
Your assumption here is that God doesn't ever intervene to make people accept him. This, however, is completely untrue. Take for example the Apostle Saul, later Paul. Christ appeared before him, and turned him into quite possibly the most successful follower of christ in recorded history. Scripture also tells us that the Holy Spirit strengthens peoples.


Eph. 3:16: "That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, that ye may be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inward man."

Col. 1:11: "being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience,"

In Job 1:21 we read that God gives and takes away -- such is his right as ruler, creator, and savior.

“Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither. The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.”

Even if you say he was justified in doing so because the pharaoh rejected him several times before, for all you know he may have accepted him this last time.
For all we know he would've still rejected him as well. His advisors, as I pointed out before, we most likely in a perfectly viable position to stop him, but they hardened their own hearts.


Yet, there are also bible verses which seem to contradict this idea:

I will not go into this entire discussion, as it is a lot to cover. The important information, however, is that 84% of christian's subscribe to the idea of original sin, and should therefore be given serious consideration when interpreting the morality of any given idea.

Ok, suppose it's his children that mock him. He created them.
As I explained earlier, we cannot create in the same respect that God cannot. We can only use what is God's to make more stuff, and we therefore have no right to make judgement calls on the lives of others.


God seems to be a leader that tells us what to do and doesn't follow what he tells us to do. If you were to apply the "thou shalt not kill" law to god, he did sin. However, I know you'll say those laws don't apply to god for some reason.
So are adults hypocrites because they drink alcohol but tell children they cannot? By no means. You're right on when you assume I will say it doesn't apply to God. As I've already explained, we are not on the same level or in the same position as God is. We cannot kill because we don't own anything. Jealousy and Pride are sins because we are in debt to God and we have right to think of ourselves or want more than we already have. God can demand all of our attention in a jealous manner because we are indebted to him because of the price he paid for our sins.


Apparently god doesn't realize that people make mistakes. Just because a person makes a mistake, doesn't mean they reject that person as an authority figure.
Just because someone didn't mean to break a law, it does not mean they don't pay for that broken law. I am expected reimburse those whom I have caused loss, whether I meant to cause them loss or not. In the same way, our 'mistakes' are actially a serious offense to Gods' standard. He has given us a way out of paying for this, but it does not change the fact that he cannot tolerate mistakes.


So, in other words, we're slaves to God and have no rights when it comes to God doing things to us, which seems to indicate even more so that the Bible is immoral.
So when we break laws, and we go to prison, we have no rights when it comes to the government putting us in prison? This is an indication of how tainted and wrong our legal system is. This quote is clearly exaggerated and wrong, however, it it reflective of the last point you've made. When we break the rules of a superior, we are indeed indebted to them. Not only are we indebted to an authority, but we are indebted to the person who gave us breath in the first place. Please explain to me how it is immoral for a God, who gave you the right to breath in the first place, to take away the breath he gave you? He has no obligation to serve you. In his grace he has lent himself to us, to help us along the way. When we break his law though, why should we expect him to stick with us? Well he does. He gives us salvation through his son, a way to make the wrongs right. This salvation was by no means his obligation, yet his free choice to give us.


These laws, to begin with, are unjust according to most western standards of morality. Who thinks it's okay to murder homosexuals or stone adulterers nowadays? Many people think it is wrong to deny people marriage because they are the same gender. There are many things that would be considered unjust in today's society that God has a law for.
Who thinks it is just to question the dictation of a perfect, holy creator. This creator in his omniscience created the whole world and everything there is to know within it. Who are we to question his laws? While each individual law we may not follow, we are not a theocracy. If we were a theocracy, these laws would be perfectly just in light of our subordination to God.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.