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

The bible is immoral

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 651 times Debate No: 116279
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Taken from "Dossier of Reason"

A. The bible is so unclear on morality as to leave modern Christian's split on the issues.
B. Old Testament Morality
1. Human Sacrifice
a. God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22)
b. Anything devoted to God, of man or beast, shall be put to death (Lev 27:28-29).
c. God's anger is sometimes turned away by killing people (Num 25:4, 8, 2 Sam 21).
d. Jephthah sacrifices his daughter to fulfil his vow to God (Judges 11:29-39).
e. Mesha, King of Moab, sacrifices his firstborn (2 Kings 3:27).
f. Prisoners of war are sacrificed (1 Sam 15:33, 2 Sam 21:1-9, Num 21:2).
g. A messiah will be beaten and crucified to pay the penalty for man's sin. Ps 22, Is 53
2. Animal Sacrifice
a. Much of exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are devoted to the manner in which animals are to be slaughtered, smeared onto the people, distributed, burnt and eaten.
b. 22,000 oxen, 120,000 sheep sacrificed at dedication of Solomon's temple (1 Kings 8:63, 2 Chron 6).
c. Blood of the sacrificial animals is to be smeared over thr priests and the people (Ex 29:20, 12, 21, Lev 4:6-7,17-18, 25, 30, 34, 5:9, Ezek 43-46).
d. A heifer is to be killed if a man is found murdered by someone unknown (Deut 21:1-9).
3. War
a. Much of the old testament is a record of Israel's wars, with god as their protector and champion.
b. Psalmist prays for God to be on his side in war (Ps 35:1ff).
c. David is praised for ten thousand slain (1 Sam 18:6-8).
d. David wars on the Geshurites, Gezrites and Amalekites to steal
their land (1 Sam 27:8).
e. With the Lord's approval, Joshua mows down Amalek and his people. EX 17:13
4. Genocide and Slaughter
a. Genocide is a tool used by god to further israel's interests. It is usually unclear what the exterminated had done to deserve annihilation other than being in the way of the israelites or worshipping a different god.
b. The Israelites slaughter Hamor and his city and plunder it (Gen 34).
c. Moses is commanded by God to exterminate the Canaanites, the Amorites and the people of Bashan "and show no mercy" (Deut 7:1-2, 9:3, Num 21).
d. Moses orders "every man" among the Israelites to slay his brother, companion and neighbor, as a punishment for the idolatry of all, and 3000 die (Ex 32:27-28).
e. God commands Moses to slaughter 24,000 people and hang their heads in the sun (Num 25).
f. God commands Moses to slay the Midianites because the Israelites are seduced by them. All males (including infants) and adult women are killed; virgins are enslaved (Num 25:17,31:1-2, 7, 15-18).
g. God's annihilation of Sihon's people and others (Deut 2:30-35, 36, 3:1-7).
h. God commands Moses, in any city near the promised land which does not agree to become a vassal state of the Israelites, to kill all the males and take the women and children as slaves and the animals as booty, but in any city in the promised land the Israelites are to kill every living thing, sparing no one (Deut 20:10-17).
i. Joshua, with the help of God, annihilates numerous tribes and cities, "left none breathing," "destroyed all that breathed, as God commanded" (Josh 6:21, 8:24-27, 10:, 11:11,14,21-22).
j. Judah slays 10,000 Canaanites (Judg 1:4) and 10,000 Moabites (Judg 3:29)
k. Danites destroy "peaceful" Laish and kill its people for no reason (Judg 18:27).
l. Judah and Simeon utterly destroy Zephath (Judg 1:17).
m. Samuel tells Saul that God wants to annihilate the Amalekites, including infants and women, which Saul then does, slaying all the inhabitants except Agag the king (1 Sam 15:1-9).
n. David leaves no man or woman alive in the countries he invades: Geshurites, Gezrites and Amalekites (1 Sam 27:9,11).
o. David takes Rabbah and puts its people "under saws...and harrows... and axes of iron and made them pass through thebrickkiln" and does the same to all the cities of Ammon (2 Sam 12:31, 1 Chr 20:3).
p. David executes 2/3 of Moab by measuring a line (2 Sam 8:2).
q. More slaughter by David (2 Sam 8:5, 13, 10:18).
r. God helps Judah kill 50,000 Israelites (2 Chr 13:17).
s. Esther gets permission for the Jews to slaughter all their enemies, including women and children, which they do, then celebrate it and institute the feast of Purim to remember it
(Esther 8:11, 9:1-19).
t. "Let none [of Babylon] escape" (Jer 50:29).
u. "Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children," says God (Ezek 9:6).
5. Cruelty, Barbarity and Violence
a. God requires all male infants to have their penises mutilated (Gen 17:10-27).
b. God orders horses to be hamstrung (Josh 11:6).
c. Judah cuts off thumbs and toes of his captive Adonibezek, which is justified because he had done it to his captives (Judg 1:6-7).
d. Samuel "hewed [King] Agal in pieces before the Lord" (1 Sam15:33).
e. David boasts of his cruelty (2 Sam 22:41-43).
f. David pays 200 foreskins as dowry (1 Sam 18:27).
g. David "shed blood causeless" (1 Sam 18:31).
h. David's treatment of captive people of Rabbah: he "cut them with
saws, put them "under harrows of iron, and under axes of
iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln" (1 Chron
20:3, 2 Sam 12:31).
i. Jehu has Jezebel killed and her body mutilated (2 Kings 9:3-37).
j. Ahab's family are slaughtered (2 Kings 9, 10); this is praised by God (10:30).
k. "Happy shall be he that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones [in revenge]" (Ps 137:9).
l. Samaria's infants will be dashed in pieces, pregnant women ripped up (Hos 13:16).
m. Other dashing of infants, ripping of pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12, 15:16, Isa 13:15-18, Hosea 10:14).
n. The righteous will laugh when their enemies fall (Ps 52:6).
o. Cruelty, vengeance and hatred permeate the Psalms, e.g. 59:10-13, 68:21-23, 109:6-14, 139:19-22, 140:10.
p. Hell, which God created for punishment of his creatures, is a place of everlasting torment and cruelty (Rev 14:11, 16:9), a continuation of God's torment of unbelievers in this life (Deut 28:15-68, Lev 26)
q. David praying for the death of someone who spoke against him, and that his children become poor vagabonds hated by all. Ps109:1-115
6. Deceit, Treachery
a. Jacob and his mother deceive dying Isaac so that Jacob receives his birthright blessing. This is how the Israelites become God's chosen people i.e., god honors the deceit Gen 27.
b. Jacob's sons promise Shechem their sister Dinah, but slaughter him instead, and the whole city (Gen 34).
c. God instructs Israelite women to borrow the Egyptian women's jewelry and not return it (Ex 3:22).
d. Rahab the harlot, who betrayed her city to Joshua, is rewarded for her treachery with her life and becomes an ancestress of Jesus (Josh 6:22-25, Matt 1:5, Heb 11:31).
e. David on his deathbed breaks his promise to Shimei not to kill him and instead arranges to have him killed (1 Kings 2:8-9,2 Sam 19:21-23).
f. Elijah is to anoint Hazael king of Syria (1 Kings 19:15) but Hazael becomes king by treacherously lying to Benhadad and murdering him, following the instructions of Elisha (2 Kings 8:8-15).
g. Jehu uses treachery to destroy the worshippers of Baal (2 Kings10:18-28).
7. Polygamy
a. Lamech is the first polygamist (Gen 4:19).
b. Polygamy is discouraged in the king (Deut 17:17).
c. Abraham takes Hagar as wife while married to Sarah (Gen 16).
d. Abraham has concubines (Gen 25:6).
e. Isaac takes more wives. Gen 26:34-35
f. Jacob married Leah and Rachel (Gen 29, 31:50; this violates Lev 18:18).
g. Rachel gives Jacob her maid, Leah also (Gen 30:1-4, 9-13; in this Jacob violates his covenant at Gen 31:50)
h. Gideon has 70 sons "by many wives" (Judg 8:30).
i. David had many wives, violating Deut 17:17 (1 Sam passim, e.g. 25:42-43, 2 Sam 3:2-5, 5:13-16), but God gave them to David (2 Sam 12:8).
j. Solomon had 700 wives, 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3; Song 6:8 says 60 wives, 80 concubines, and "virgins without number").
k. Rehoboam had many wives (2 Chron 11:18-23).
l. Law provides for protection for the son of a polygamous wife whose husband hates her, but no protection for the hated wife herself (Deut 21:15-16).
m. Law about authorizing polygamy (Ex 21:10).
n. God will use polygamy as a punishment (Isa 4:1).
8. Prostitution
a. Boaz pays Ruth in barley for spending the night with him (Ruth 3:15).
b. Leah buys sex with Jacob by giving Rachel the mandrakes which Reuben had harvested (Gen 30:14-16).
c. God orders Hosea to purchase a harlot (Hos 1:2, 3:1-2).
9.Abuse of Women
a. A mother is unclean for twice as long after the birth of a daughter as after a son (Lev 12).
b. A woman is "unclean" during her menstrual period and for seven days afterward, i.e. for approximately half her adult life and is not allowed to come into contact with men. (Lev 15:19-28, Ezek 18:6). To purify herself each month she
must make a "sin offering" (Lev 15:29-30).
c. Only males can enter the covenant, since it requires the rite of circumcision.
d. Adam blames Eve for his sin in the Garden (Gen 3:12).
e. Eve's curse is that Adam shall rule over her (Gen 3:16).
f. A wife is listed among her husbands property, after the house (Ex 20:17, Deut 5:21).
g. God gives the Israelites rules and regulations for selling their daughters (but not their sons) into slavery (Ex 21:7-11).
h. Miriam is made a leper temporarily for speaking against Moses (Num 12:1-10), but Aaron, who was equally guilty, is not punished.
i. Moses enslaves 32,000 virgins (Num 31:18, 35).
j. Israelites slaughter their fellow Israelites of Jabesh-Gilead to obtain wives (Judg 21:1-14).
k. Males of Benjamin are advised to get wives by abducting women of Shiloh (Judg 21:16-23).
l. A divorced woman is as unclean as a whore and unsuited as the wife of a priest (Lev 21:7, Ezek 44:22).

n. Rules for taking a captive woman to wife and what to do if you decide you don't like her after all (Deut 21:10-14).
o. A rape victim must marry her rapist. The rapist must pay a penalty to the victim's father, but not to her (Deut 22:28-29).

(To be continued)


I would argue that the claim that the Bible is immoral depends on how you define morality. But also, the claim of morality depends not only on who the reader is, but who the author is, who the intended audience is, and the cultural context of the writing. Many of the examples that you've extrapolated from the text are indeed examples of what we may consider immoral today, but in the cultural context of the writing, it was commonplace. This in no way means that I am making the claim that it is moral in today's day and age. My claim is that the Bible's morality is dependent on who is reading the text, also from a literary standpoint, it depends on the intentions of the writer.

Now, since we cannot dig up the writers of the text and ask them, I say the later of the claims is difficult to ascertain, but I would say that my former claim stand true. If one is a Christian, specifically a North American Christian, the morality of the Bible would be more negative based on what you quote. On the other hand, there is good that one can pull from the text, just look at any Sunday school class for children and you can find the stories of David and Goliath concerning bravery and strength, the story of Daniel and the Lion's Den about being calm, patient, and faithful, the many pieces of life advice from Proverbs, etc. So, there is good and bad to be pulled from the text, but this depends on the reader and what they choose to pull. If you want to avoid spiritualizing the text, if you are someone who may be non-theistic, you can see that any text that has been so influential has been under heavy scrutiny and diverse interpretation. If you're an American, take the Constitution for example simply from a perspective of scrutiny, there are so many questions and debates over it that the meaning has been confused over the years; there is no one right way to construe it. This by no means devalues the text, be it the Bible or the Constitution but conveys the message that right and wrong are grey.

I would say that any text that is highly regarded should be analyzed, but if one is religious and only reading the Bible for moral guidance, I would argue that they are not reading the text for it's full intent in the first place. I mean, there is poetry, narratives about war, love stories, figurative stories, proverbs, spiritual guidance, some historical context, and also mythological context (myth not meaning untrue but being a story of great importance to a group of people); there is just so much to read.

Now, I agree that if you broad-stroke the Bible, it can be seen as immoral. In doing so, however, you have devalued all of the other components of the text and the meaning that the text has to people who read it for other things rather than morality. I disagree with your statement that the Bible is immoral, on the grounds that it is too broad of a statement and that it seems that you are attempting to reduce it, superimposing your own contemporary beliefs onto a text that was written outside of our own cultural context. I would also make that argument for someone who says that the Bible is entirely moral as well, or makes any claim that paints with such a broad brush. The Bible is neither one way or the other, concerning our contemporary context; the individual that pulls from the text is the moral or immoral agent in the equation, not the text itself. I would argue that it is immoral to make a claim one way or the other, claiming a sort of confirmation bias and ignoring the entirety of the book and the adherents of that particular faith.

I like that you pull examples, but there is little substance outside of your bullet points. I can understand what you mean, and I can recognize that people on the other side may use the Bible to defend their morality, but I would disagree with them as well. You pull examples, but your argument rests only in the contemporary understanding and is weak even in that context. You assume that your own morality is correct and that no one else's is, which is presumptuous but also makes your argument from pathos even more unbelievable. You only look at things that could be construed as negative and that shows your ignorance and lack of understanding of the text and of the people that read it, as well as all of the context behind the text and writers themselves. I disagree with you and I would argue that you should reword your argument to say something like, "Contemporary Christians are immoral." instead of this vague, reductionist argument. If that were done, then perhaps clarity would come to the debate and people may understand your full meaning. But finally, if you think that the Bible, all in all, is immoral then I disagree, because morality rests in the conscience of the reader and how they apply what they read, not the text itself.
Debate Round No. 1


I give you fair warning, if you ignore the videos and the verses as you did with the verses, completely in the first round, I will ignore you. I don't appreciate debaters ignoring rock solid evidence that they cannot refute.

"I would argue that the claim that the Bible is immoral depends on how you define morality." No the bible is immoral. Period. Its stories of hate and evil of a superior ego god complex all the way though it and nothing else of a true crybaby wanting his rattle. And you are forgetting that this supposed god of the bible, well he has yet to be proved by anyone. You also forget that this god of the bible would ---never--- use text, the worst form of communication possible so that errors like these are made possible plus a whole lot more, well that"s of course only true unless this god is amazingly STUPID. And of the morality you are speaking of the reader is concerned, well that reader does not know that this god had murdered in his book 2,821,364 which included babies, children and pregnant mothers, oh and can"t forget men in which case absolutely nobody had to die, not for any reason. So if this reader is defending that, then the reader is not moral. The reader does not get that this god of theirs could have started off with peace, love, kindness, care, harmony etc etc etc AND KEPT IT. But no, this god of theirs 100% prefers pain suffering, ---- evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury, jealousy all in which this god has freely admitted to, baggage emotions and are so befitting of a supreme deity of morality - right? Jealousy? Jealousy is nothing but anger as disguised fear. So that"s even worse. And even worse this god of theirs gave all of those wonderful emotions to man so in turn man could learn to hate. Great going god. Great going for those that believe in him.
Ah who the author is. Loving of so much pain and grief. Right? So moral. Right? "Many of the examples that you've extrapolated from the text are indeed examples of what we may consider immoral today, but in the cultural context of the writing, it was commonplace." Killing was commonplace? Ah yes and god wanted it that way with his ever so many genocides. You are doing so wonderfully in your efforts to prove thus far how bankrupt and morally corrupt the bible is when it could have been a book of peace.

"Now, since we cannot dig up the writers of the text and ask them," Well then what you do is you urinate on it. Have you read the bible? Obviously not. Have you read the verses thus far pointed out? Obviously not. Oh I haven't even gotten to the god part. That"s for another debate. Tell me, how many so called christians actually claim themselves to be christians? Take a guess. And how many christians who believe themselves to be christians are christians? Do you even know? Its roughly 0%. That"s because both christ's laws and god"s laws are so ridiculously absurd and completely immoral that nobody except for maybe quite possibly 1,000 people on this planet can follow them. Here"s some videos to help you out.
- Why Does Every Intelligent christian disobey jesus?
- top 10 reasons why the bible is repulsive

So all of what you ascertain as what you believe to be a christian goes to the wasteside.

"just look at any Sunday school class for children"" and then you know nothing about god of the bible as he truly hates children. Here"s some verses for you to look up to see how "moral" this god really is god in his bible knowingly and truly hates children through numerous passages such as LM4: 9-11, MT 10:37, MT 2:16, JG 21:10, 2 SAM 12:11-14 which is truly sick and disgusting, DT 2:34, NU 31: 17-18, LV 26: 21-22, 1 SAM 15:3, HS 13:16, 2 KS 15:16, EZ 9: 5-7, HS 9: 11-16, EX 12: 29-30, IS 13: 15-18, MT 2:16, (EX 21:17, LV 20:9, MK 7:10, MT 15:4, MT 10:21), JG 11: 30-33, PS 137: 8-9, 2 KS 6: 28-29, DT 21: 18-21, DT 32:25, DT 2: 32-34, DT 3: 3-6, JG 19: 24-29, EX 12:29, 2 HS 2: 23-24, LV 26:29, JM 11: 22-23, JM 19: 7-9, JM 51: 22-26, 2 KS 8: 9-15,LM 2: 20-22, RV 2: 18-23 only to name a few and if you now think that god is in any way moral, then don"t even bother posting another argumentr, because I ost certainly will not respond.
Here"s a few more video"s for you to look at just to see how moral this god is with children and how he hates them"
- Atheist debates get em while they"re young
- god hates children

"David and Goliath" B.s. shouldn"t have happened in the first place. It---was---war!!! = Immoral. "Daniel and the Lion's Den about being calm, patient, and faithful, the many pieces of life advice from Proverbs," A silly little idiocy. And if you can only come up with only a couple if verses out of how many pages? You are treading a life raft in the pacific ocean.

"So, there is good and bad to be pulled from the text, but this depends on the reader and what they choose to pull." Oh I get it now. So you are the average christian that reads what he wants to reads, reads what suits him best for his wants needs and desires only and trashes the rest.

"This by no means devalues the text," Oh it most certainly does devalue the text you are so so so wrong. 100%. I"m truly tired of you being wrong. So this is the final time and then I must get going for this round" NOTHING is established in scripture so everybody can get it wrong as there"s been 0 updates in at least 2,000 years. There"s translations upon translations upon translations upon translations upon copies upon copies upon copies upon copies upon dead languages upon dead langanguages with absolutely 0% of a chance to trace it back to the original. And there"s no original in the first place! So absolutely nobody is interpreting correctly. And within those translations and copies throughout the generations, characters and what they have said, especially with its leading characters, namely god and christ, their quotes/ verses have changed over time. Oh really? Who has the right and or knowhow to change ANY of god"s language to update it to whatever they felt like and or to amputate it into ---their--- language? Did they consulte god and or jesus to see if this was OK? Of course not. And more importantly did they get it right as an updated version to what these characters would say in this day and age, or even back then when the translations were updated? 100% certainly not. So once again god if as stated was reasonably intelligent would ---never--- use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible because he would have certainly have foreseen all of these major faults. And that"s only part of the reason why this god of the bible would never use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible. There"s a lot more and all it takes is a little common sense.


I did not ignore the verses in the original statement, they need not all be addressed point by point because, in doing so, the amount of words allowed would not accommodate the correct amount to address each one. "Rock solid evidence" is quite subjective, in fact, your entire argument is subjective and that is my point. I, myself, do not appreciate poorly written and ignored responses to a refute, or poorly written and ignored responses in general.

Firstly, you do not offer any sort of substance in your refute of the morality of the text. Your responses are rife with emotional adjectives and biased metaphors to describe the god of the Bible. (i.e. proof was never in your actual claim so avoid the red herrings and you may actually make a substantial argument.) Immediately you follow up your point, about lack of proof, with a claim about the character of God which seems strange. If text is the worst form of communication, then is this debate a terrible fallacy that shouldn't be continued? What does, "plus a whole lot more" entail, and again you follow it all up with a claim about God's character, that you say still has no proof. Every reader is different, and you are now making claims about readers whom you know nothing about. Also, these claims about extremes, like "100%", need to stop because there is no world in which these are 100% true, and the claim that it is all hate is just wrong. If it were 100% hate, and the other negative emotions you say, the word "love" would not be mentioned once, but it is mentioned numerous times throughout. Again, you end the paragraph with an argument from your pathos; your emotional response only shows more of what your lack in understanding of both people and how text is written, read, and finally how poorly you debate.

The authors, of the books of the Bible, speak with a bias in favor of the things that they would think are just and correct. This is done in every form of writing, even these debates. When I say "commonplace", it does not mean that it was good or bad, but that the beliefs in certain traditions and taboos were normal for the time, so the biases are not as taboo to the author as they would be to us, like the Levitican Code for example. Your ham-fisted attempt to lessen my point is just another sign of you knowing so little, just speaking out of frustration and from your own lens, ignoring everyone else's except for those that give you what you want to hear; I never made the claim that the Bible is, "a book of peace." You need to pay attention to my debate as well if you're so concerned about someone responding ad nauseam to yours.

If we cannot dig up Shakespeare do we urinate on his writings? No. If someone is dead, that does not mean that you dispose of their corpus of writing. If that were the case, then we should burn the majority of books in existence. I have read the Bible, and still do, and I did read the verses and I think they CAN be looked at as immoral, but that does not make the whole of the text immoral. Again, you pull a red herring with this whole bit:

"Oh I haven't even gotten to the god part. That"s for another debate. Tell me, how many so called christians actually claim themselves to be christians? Take a guess. And how many christians who believe themselves to be christians are christians? Do you even know? Its roughly 0%."
(Here's my own link for you, not from as biased and unoffical a source as a simple YouTube video that someone made up)

This has nothing to do with the morality of the text and it is also incorrect, again saturated with your extremist thought. The videos that you posted are rife with confirmation bias and literal interpretation of the text and does not reflect the majority of contemporary Christian thought; of course not everyone is going to agree, we're humans. You direct the Bible as a solely divine thing with no human connection...which may be the source of your frustration.

The verses, you pull from, all have different contexts like in Lamentations. Lamentations is poetry about the destruction of Jerusalem, the author is grieving and uses this as a way to show his grief. Whether you take it literally or not is up to you, but the author wrote it and we must take it with a grain of salt. Exodus, the book as a whole, shows itself as an identifier for the Jewish people and culture, showing how they stand out and claim how they are different, so not poetry but again something that is up to you to interpret. Again, I cannot go bullet point to bullet point since there aren't enough characters to address it accurately. "If you now think that god is in any way moral, then don"t even bother posting another argumentr, because I ost certainly will not respond." You just brush off all argument if it doesn't agree with you, again showing how ignorant of the topic you are. Matt Dillahunty is a great thinker and a wonderful analyst, but the video you posted only speaks to the confusion of the text and how difficult it is, but doesn't support your claim about immorality. The last video does the same thing that the first two that you posted did, and that's speaking from a literal interpretation, ignoring context, and speaking from an anti-theistic bias. These videos do not speak well to your argument since they just repeat you, with the same bias.

I agree that war is not good, but there is an argument that one can make to show morality in war; people fighting for freedom and for the ones they love. You point is a red herring though, you only mention war and not the interaction with David and Goliath, and you just brush of Daniel and the lion's den as a "silly little idiocy." How is it a silly little idiocy? You need to address the issues like you so vehemently want me to. It is much more complex than the number of verses you can throw at someone.

In this next point, you build a straw man and purport to know what I am and what I believe, which is a fallacy and, again, shows how ignorant you are. I may not believe everything in the Bible literally, but I do not throw it all in the trash and cherry pick it. The text should stand to criticism and it should be taken as a whole, not verse for verse, and no pieces ignored, the parts that you claim to be about hate, or the parts that talk about love, like when Paul talks about it. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) There are many, but again, we don't have enough space for all of the verses unless we pasted the whole Bible up, but what do you do with the texts that mention love if it is 100% hate, like you claim?

If you only look at the Bible for moral reasons and you only hunt for immorality, then that's what you will find, seeing it as deficient. In doing so, you are the one at fault since you are making the claim. The text includes more than just what you've listed and you have done the very thing that you accused me, so passive aggressively, of doing and that: "reads what suits him best for his wants needs and desires only and trashes the rest." You are quite hypocritical in your arguments and you have failed, being wrong yourself. As for the updates, the text is not 2,000 years old; the text was compiled in the first few centuries C.E. (or A.D. if you'd like) There are original manuscripts and codexes that have been pulled, like the Dead Sea scrolls (not my favorite example but the most easily recognized) that had not been translated, but the endeavor of the scholar is to understand the original text and language, to get the original book; of course there is no one singular original, but if you want to get technical, you could say that the Vulgate is one of the first originals that we would know today. If there was no original, that hardly implies incorrect translation since the books are all independent but part of a whole. The books are independently studied before the whole of the Bible is studied, so you are incorrect with that assumption. I agree that the characters in the book have changed over time, but they also have not. What I mean by that is that the books have remained almost static, since some of the original codexes remain, but the interpretation of the character has changed some with the differing age's and people's influence and interpretation. Theologians ask the very same question about who has authority over God's word, assuming you were a theologian.
Theologians may not have talked directly, how you and I talk, with God/Christ, but they would say that they have had some sort of divine or philosophical experience to guide it, perhaps using their own deductions. Again, you are making claims about a god that you also claim has no proof, so this is quite the mental acrobatics to say what you do not believe and renders it quite unbelievable, especially with the peppering of heavy bias. Please do explain better forms of communication, that we would have as humans. You are making a claim about communication that is entirely subjective and shallow, without any explanation, it's poor.

In conclusion, all in all, you argue poorly. You make red herrings and straw man arguments whenever cornered, angered, flustered, or if you do not know how to respond. (At least it seems that way) You shut people out who do not agree, making this something other than a debate, and you use videos and justify truth just by shear number of verses that YOU interpret as "immoral". You also make claims about a god that you seem to not believe in and reduce humanity, and the people that you argue with, to being stupid for not having your stance. You poorly argue, use bad grammar, ask for assessment of your points, or "evidence", but neglect and gloss over the points against your own and it only shows how ignorant you truly are. You know very little of this topic and you show little understanding of how to debate and respect for the past. Do better.
Debate Round No. 2


"Rock solid evidence" is quite subjective, in fact, your entire argument is subjective and that is my point." Its not subjective in any way IF and only IF you were to have even in the slightest way were to have looked at the verses AND the videos in which you obviously didn"t AND you have something called a moral compass. So I know that you are as completely immoral as your god.

There"s no way that you can circumvent 1. Human sacrifice, 2. Animal sacrifice, 3. War, 4. Genocide and slaughter, 5. Cruelty, barbarity and violence, 6. Deceit treachery, 7. Polygamy, 8. Prostitution 9. Abuse of Women
And there"s plenty plenty plenty plenty plenty more from Dossier of Reason that I haven"t gotten into. But you haven"t even made one, not one little teeny tiny bit of effort to circumvent ANYTHING from that list of crap that this god of YOURS that he is guilty of as you have made every effort to do a roundabout, which doesn"t work from this debating corner who knows a lot more about your god, religion and bible than you ---ever--- will.
So "I, myself, do not appreciate poorly written and ignored responses to a refute, or poorly written and ignored responses in general." which is entirely your problem. Why should I refute one god damned ANYTHING you have to say you fricken contradictory hypocrite (in which I absolutely did and you just can"t stand it), so no more playing your prostitution, we play in my rule headquarters you refute oh I"d say 3 from each of the categories listed is quite fair you prove that they were moral from your god or don"t even bother posting another argument back to me. K?

Oh and btw, Its NOT my job in this debate to prove that YOUR god is moral. The title of this debate is quite simply "The bible is immoral" is which was 100% proved.

So "Firstly, you do not offer any sort of substance in your refute of the morality of the text." is a stupid response. Over and out for now and its up to you. I have no reason or rhyme to pay any more attention until you pay attention to what has been previously posed unto you.


Ok, taking your post one piece at a time, you are making a three point claim that your points are true if you have these three things:

1) Looking at the verses you posted.
2) Looking at the videos you posted.
3) If you have a moral compass.

Now, I would argue that this further makes the Biblical accounts more subjective to the reader simply because you have only pulled, what you perceive as immoral, from the text. You have ignored my question and rebuttal to what one does with the texts that speak of love, directly saying the word "love", what do you do with these text is what you claim is "100%" true? So in effect, you've made a claim that's built on a a false dilemma fallacy, you say that the Bible is entirely immoral, pulling only from certain verses and ignoring the rest, and this is created by your first two qualifiers. (I did look at the verses, because in no way have you acknowledged the verses about love, care, kindness, etc. but only what you see as immoral) The verses you quote and the videos that you link to are the same, they share the same sort of cherry picking that a fundamentalist Christian would use to defend the Bible, both of which are poorly founded arguments. The third qualifier for it being objective is that one must have a moral compass and morality, in any sense, is subjective and based on the individual; there is no collectively correct moral compass or else debates on such topics would not exist. So, You make a black/white comparison and lace it with ad hominems and are in fact ignoring my rebuttals to your own points. This ignoring of my claims and restating your own creates the hypocrisy that I stated in a previous post.

Secondly, my goal is not to circumvent these things and if you want me to give you a rationale as to why those things listed are not immoral, I'm not going to do that, because it's not so simply and effectively done unless you are intellectually lazy or if you have a strong agenda going one way. If one is to make sense of the Bible, or any text, recognizing the context is important. Concerning the Bible, specifically, most scholars know when to detach God from the humanity of the text and what I mean by that is that we do not apply to God from the context of the historical time period. So, rationalizing the events of the Bible only do so much and we must know when the writer's biases come into play and when they do not. It is much more complex than one would imagine, on a surface level, and that is theological debate that is for another forum, it doesn't belong here. But, "Dossier of Reason" is quite reductionist and speaks from an anti-theistic perspective, so it's not effective in forming a logical and coherent opinion about the Bible's morality since it is so one-sided. I would say that it's a place to start, but one must look at both extremes, and then some, before culminating a mature and original opinion of the morality of the Bible, as well as anything in life. So, after a long winded explanation, circumventing these things, or rationalizing them, is not the goal, but recognizing that it is in the text and delving deeper into the meaning of the text. But again, you end the paragraph with ad hominems and you ignore me, lashing out like I stated before. When cornered, and your information is found wanting, you resort to insults and it's off-putting for a debate. You make yourself look like a fool who only adopts opinions of others, lacking the individuality to form your own.

I'm not asking you to "prove" that the god of the Bible is immoral, but after instigating a debate with the claim, "the bible is immoral" and making so many claims that, "you are as completely immoral as your god," you'd think that there would be a substantiated claim that the Bible is immoral as well as the god of the Bible. All you've done is regurgitate what others say (i.e. the videos and the verses) and peppered it with insults to those that disagree, so you've not "100% proved" that the Bible is immoral. So, this is my response to your last couple of sentences: Next time, please don't resort to insults, because it makes you look silly and ignorant of what you claim, which you have not defended with your own rationale, but you've done a great job of plugging authors and I would argue that you have conducted a sort of plagiarism with it, plagiarism with poor grammar and terrible insults at that.

So, what has culminated is that you posited a copy and paste of verses from the Bible, that you've cherry picked, and snippets from the "Dossier of Reason" without your own, individual substance. I responded in whole to your initial debate; going bullet by bullet wouldn't have worked since there is not enough space to respond accordingly, so my response was indeed sufficient in refuting your claim. You responded by saying that I didn't address it and I don't know how you didn't see the connection to your initial claim; you throw a sort of tantrum about me not picking apart these verses and the videos, but in reality, it is not possible to exegete all the verses, or even one alone that you've presented, in this limited space. I responded in a more point by point basis, responding to each paragraph at a time, and you still do not think I'm addressing your claim; stating that you think I'm dancing around it and using a non-sequitur like, "So I know that you are as completely immoral as your god." I refute your claim and say that the Bible is not moral, but is not immoral either.

(Also, I don't know what you mean by, "so no more playing your prostitution", it doesn't make much sense and it seems like another nonsensical insult meant to try and reduce my argument instead of actually respond to it.)

That is my claim, and you can continue threatening to not respond, but it is evident that this discussion is important enough to you that you continue to debate. You're not an umpire and you're not the ruler of the debate forums, and continuing to speak as such, with such supposed authority, and continuing to attacking your opponent, you are making yourself look worse than you already do through your debate. I apologize if that's harsh, but you argue like a political commentator and it's quite the opposite of a debate, but more of a, colloquial, "pissing contest." Instead of responding out of hurt and confusion, lashing out with insults and claims of knowledge, use that knowledge and show someone how intelligent you are. Don't just repeat a book or a video, but use your own reasoning and recognize that the world is diverse and that not everyone has the same opinion or moral compass as you, and that's alright. Use this knowledge that you claim you have. Do better.
Debate Round No. 3


Does the laugh track laughing box stored in his toy noodle that screams to "do better", since he cannot pick up stick figures and get rats together with teeny weeny little lassos so you can have your own little rat rodeos "ride em up, ride em out RAT HIDE." Great song - right snookums?

"Now, I would argue that this further makes the Biblical accounts more subjective to the reader simply because you have only pulled, what you perceive as immoral," Oh I get it now, so you want me to pull the entire bible. Here"s a helping hand since you are completely immoral as is your god"
"The simple solution is to chuck the bible out because we don"t need it for anything, even if there are things in it which there undoubtedly are, even if there are things that are good which there undoubtedly are" they"re not good because they"re in the bible, they"re not good because they come from a god, they are good because they are good, and they are something that we can discover without ever having to appeal to an old book and without having to tap dance around and sacrifice our humanity to make excuses about how we treat rape victims, and how we own people as property, and how there"s some "GRAND CONTEXT" in which all of this isn"t very bad. You have sacrificed your humanity for genuflecting to your religion. And its abominable." Matt Dillahunty

"Stop making excuses for your holy book. It is an abomination. It encourages abomination. And the more you sacrifice your humanity and morality to make excuses like "well god really wanted people to love each other but they just wouldn"t so they just wanted to nudge them in the right direction by saying you can own people but don"t beat them too damn much." Its still a weaka$$ immoral god. And YOU are better than that. Stop making excuses for the immorality. Take responsibility for your life and realize that if a GOD tells you that you can own somebody, that GOD is a piece of s--t." Matt Dillahunty

This is you..
"When you start making excuses for atrocities you have removed yourself from ANY valid discussion on morals. When you say "yes the bible says you can own slaves but" well now you"re contradicting yourself because before I was asking if you thought the bible was accurately representing the mind of god, the will of god. You"ve got this conflicted mess of contradictions and you"ve found a way to rationalize them. You"ve gone and looked at them and said "boy that one really sounds bad, BUT that"s what Israel was doing that"s not what god was doing. So let me ask you this" do you believe that there"s an all knowing all powerful fun loving god who has an important message for humanity and he is so completely inept that his best attempts at communicating to people managed to convey the exact opposite message of what you think he meant? Now like are you the one who got it right? And all the people who authored the holy book and got you started that they managed to get it wrong? Is your god such a bumbling buffoon that he cannot state "thou shalt not own somebody as another human being?" or "please don"t rape the people and pillage the villages around you"" and he managed to communicate so poorly that it got written down as "Thou shalt be able to own other people as property and oh by the way go over there and kill everybody kill everything except for the young virgins." Its asinine. You cannot reconcile this." Matt Dillahunty

"You have ignored my question and rebuttal to what one does with the texts that speak of love, directly saying the word "love"," And when EXACTLY does god do this? And bringing up only a few minute verses really in comparison to the galvanizing combustible engine, especially especially especially when YOUR GOD KNOWINGLY HATES CHILDREN and knowingly causes them pain and suffering does---not---count.

Let"s look at it this way" would you ever for any reason, ever once captured and everybody knew who it was, and could prove it 100%, someone who raped, beat, tortured, cut into little pieces 6 five year old girls" let that person go? Or would you execute that person? Well its a no brainer. You execute this person. You throw away that key forever. But here comes the christian religion, this person finds christ and he gets to go to heaven. And me for never believing in this s--t stain christ, and rightly so, and in truth nobody does, I will spend an eternity in hell. Sounds fair - right? So don"t tell me about "love" in your made up screwed up bible that gives false hope to its readers.Oh but wait, nobody, not one person can even prove that god or christ has ---ever--- existed. That"s false hope with miles of it especially considering that the bible is based on YOUR god"s superior ego god complex and nothing else. It is all geared towards this monstrosity of an ego. That---makes---the---bible---entirely---immoral.

Oh darn, I forgot about this"
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror." Richard Dawkins

"One must have a compass and morality" OK Let's look at that
* Do you think you should be put to death just because you blaspheme? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Leviticus 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death."
* Do you think you should die if you work on the sabbath? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Exodus 31:14 "Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.", Numbers 15: 32-36 " And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. 33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. 34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. 35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." Notice jesus worked on the sabbath, he was not put to death. Strange? That supposed "law" that christians use is in ill effect and does not work.
* Do you think you should die for merely cursing at your parents? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Exodus 21:17 "And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death., 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.", Mark 7:10 "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:, Matthew 15:4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
* Do you think you should die if you commit adultery? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
* Do you think you should die if you are a homosexual? Y___? N____? Your god thinks so. Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense." (NLT updated in 1946. Yeah your bible is constantly changed - yet another reason why your god would never use text as a form of communication)
* Do you think you should die if you worship other gods? Y____? N____? Your god thinks so. Deuteronomy 13: 9-10 "9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage." AND 17: 2-5 "2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die."

These plus many more completely absurd examples show how completely inane and insane this biblical god is, as well as completely immoral. and yet no one can even prove he even exists. Yeah this printed god of the bible would REALLY use text as a form of of communication, RIGHT?

If you answer "yes" to any of the questions, it means you are totally bankrupt and immoral, just like your god and you need not respond as I know where you stand. I answer all "no". Duh.

Do better.


Right off the bat, you continue with your insults, non-sequiturs, and ad hominems. I don't want you to pull the entire Bible out, that's what I'm saying we cannot do in this space, you're not paying attention to my argument, and you follow up immediately with another unrelated jab at a god that you don't believe in. (You make an awful lot of claims that do not pertain to morality of the Bible, stick with the topic) If you make the claim that there is good in the Bible, even in the slightest, then either your the Bible cannot be 100% immoral, like you say, or you're immoral to think that good exists within its pages. You pose a self defeating argument and you attack me on a personal basis, leaving you wanting by your own standards.

You follow up with more quotes from someone many heavy handed quotes that you regurgitate, and it further proves my point that you don't formulate things on your own. If you formulate based on these extremist views of morality, then you have become jaded beyond any sort of seriousness in debate and it's effecting the debate, itself. I Think that Matt Dillahunty is a wonderful thinker, but his argument is based on the opposition holding a view that everything in the Bible is attributed to God and God alone, neglecting to take into account humanity as responsible for the text.

When you say "This is you..", this is most certainly not me. I told you, in Round 3,
"my goal is not to circumvent these things and if you want me to give you a rationale as to why those things listed are not immoral, I'm not going to do that, because it's not so simply and effectively done unless you are intellectually lazy or if you have a strong agenda going one way."
So, your misused quote is meaningless and unrepresentative of what I'm saying. I didn't try to rectify morality about the things you've said. You misunderstand my position even when I've clearly stated it.

I've seen your debates before and I want to preface what I say with this because I know you disagree: Most Christians, not all, believe that Christ is God in flesh, therefore he would be representative of God. So, when Jesus says to, "LOVE thy neighbor as thyself." (KJV) Most Christians, and the majority of Christians throughout the ages, at least Western Christianity, would say that any time Jesus spoke of love and peace, then God would speak of love. Even in the OT, we see in the Psalms that the poets write about God's love and guidance. (Ps 143: 8, Ps 63: 3, Ps 103:13) Not all of the Bible is rife with hate and anger, but you seem to want to see it that way. The problem with your argument here is that you count morality/immorality based on the number of verses that would be considered moral/immoral by a contemporary reader and render it all to God alone, ignoring the humanity that you say the goodness of the Bible comes from. You cherry pick in the same way that defenders of the faith are a hypocrite. And when you end the questions with a backhanded frame like, "And bringing up only a few minute verses really in comparison to the galvanizing combustible engine, especially especially especially when YOUR GOD KNOWINGLY HATES CHILDREN and knowingly causes them pain and suffering does---not---count." It says that no matter what I bring up, it is insufficient to you, showing ignorance lack of wisdom; you are unwilling to budge if proven wrong, you don't want to change.

I don't think that it's a "no brainer", because I don't proclaim to have the authority to preside over someone's fate in the same way that you do. Concerning what would happen to them after death, I don't purport to know anything about that particular fate either. You make bold claims about God and Christians, but you seem to know nothing about them at all. I'm curious about whether you've been hurt in the past by someone who was/is religious, that would explain your vapid argument and venomous words of extremes. You spew so much hatred and the argument has devolved into you hurling insults and simply regurgitation information from other atheists, I would argue anti-theists, and the only original content of yours is the insults, non-sequiturs, and ad hominems that don't make any sense. But again, you speak in extremes like "entirely", "100%", and "0%" yet you say that there is good in the Bible, but you then claim it is immoral. So is immorality good or is it bad, you overlap and contradict yourself; your original claim can no longer hold water.

Again...a ham-fisted quote that does not belong. (The Richard Dawkins quote) Use your own rationale and the text that we're speaking about, not someone else's, it doesn't help you and it only makes you look bad. I'm sorry if I come off as harsh.

Now, the problem with this is that you have made a black/white fallacy again, only giving me two choices when the issues are much more complex than a simple "yes" or "no". You may not be satisfied with my answer, that Christ came to fulfill the law, not to enforce it and there are a few issues about Jews and Gentiles that highlight this in the NT. Regardless of this, you may not be satisfied with my answer unless I entirely agree with your statement that, "the bible is immoral". I've also noticed that you only pull examples from the OT, not many from the NT, and I wonder why. The NT is the bedrock of the Christian tradition, and the OT tends to frame those beliefs in historical context, not theological context, so I'm curious. So, I don't think that those examples prove that the biblical god is inane and insane, but it goes back to my first point at the beginning of the thread, that it is subjective based on the reader.

Finally, you assume and box in your opponent in a way that prevents them from giving you something that you can't respond to accurately. I wouldn't answer yes or no to any of those questions. It is much more complicated than that, and if I don't answer "yes" to any of those, I wonder what that makes me. You might have some sort of silly-chiding response, but it doesn't lessen what I'm saying; you are a poor debater and a hypocrite.

You reduce and throw out what you don't agree with, making a fool of yourself. Again, I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but it's true. You post nothing of your own besides venomous insults, non-sequiturs, and ad hominems. You copy and paste other people's sayings that only agree with you, you block off anything that you disagree with, and you ignore points against you and say that your opponent is ignoring you. You are a hypocrite and quite the awful person for hurling insults that are ill-deserved. Your claim is not backed by your own work and your argument is vapid, lacking any sort of discourse. And you end it all, again, by regurgitating what you see; recycling someone else's material to make yourself look better. This debate is no longer a debate, but you simply insulting me and ignoring what I say. I apologize if I have sounded harsh, but this is no longer a's just you throwing a tantrum. better.

P.S: You said that we have no use for the Bible. Based on that standard, we don't have a use for Shakespeare, do we chuck his work out as well? We also can't prove he existed either. You make weak arguments.
Debate Round No. 4


"Right off the bat" No blat. Get it right. Jeez. Don"t you know how to insult someone properly with a concrete parachuting class garlic onion beer belly tasting championship at hand?

"I don't want you to pull the entire Bible out," Well then you don"t know your bible very well do you to demand such a loose sponsorship that YOU stamped on your forehead. You just don"t like it when the cookie cake crumbles around your manure spread.

Well garsh filled with jellybean holes in your cabbage batbrain, I use quotes, websites and videos from others to support what I have to say. Oh but wait, you don't which must mean that you think you are G-O-D in your own frail fragile teeny tiny little pea of a moldy undies from the arctic and you must know ev-ry-th-in-g that there is to know in this uni-verse. Well to bad hot stuff if you don't like evidence that is slapped in your face.
- Christian can't reconcile his morality with immorality in Bible.
- Christianity is False and Immoral. (Christopher Hitchens)
- Atheist Experience Kenny
- Difference Between God Existing & Morality of God

Wowzers imagine this - I happen to have friends and loved ones and I listen to others as well and what they have to say.

Yeah I am paying attention to your argument. YOU DON"T HAVE ONE. (I really love it when I glanced at you trying to present christ - a false prophet who was NOT god so he really has nothing to do with this conversation try harder who had nothing of value to say as he told you to abandon your families and give away ALL of your possessions an follow him - oh wait you don't know that AND he lied about his god AND he lied about a few other things as well and you don't know that either AND he broke a few of god's laws AND he told you to love your enemies in only which an absolutely insane person would do and and and and yeah tiger you really got that one right just like god and his blankity blank morality in which you know nothing about!!!!) And like you, the contradictory hypocrite is REALLY paying any attention to anything to what I put forward to your sweaty piece of blackened rear end wipe? See? The stool napkins just don"t fit on your gloves and you don"t like it just one little droplet and that"s just too bad.

But I"m such an idiot because here"s a few things to close down your morality issues down right now"

1, Your god made it far too easy for man to destroy each other. In mind, heart, and oh yeah the one that fits the wondrous snitch MURDER. But YOUR god loves MURDER with plenty of it. YOUR god murdered 2,821,364 in his bible in which your are hippy hippy joy joy in so much love with and you just want to hug your god with and be fine with it as it included babies, children and pregnant women. Oh but wait, YOU must think that's completely moral. That's why you are a christian and why I am an atheist.
* Indeed YOUR god is far far far worse than Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hong Xiuquan, all serial killers, all rapists, all tortures, all pedophiles, all sadomasochists etc etc etc combined. After all god knowingly created them which means that he is ultimately responsible for them. Its either that or god is not a god and lets them off the hook with nothing but a tap on the shoulder for their horrific, disgusting, repugnant crimes and simply god---does---not---care. Now here's some examples of god"s sickened, diseased, abominable atrocities for absolutely no reason at all... the great flood according to the bible (which never happened btw) so who knows what the body count was there? 3,000 EX 32:27-28, 14,700 NU 16:49, 24,002 NU 25: 1-11, 12,000 JOS 8: 1-25, 10,000 JG 1:4, 120,000 JG 8:7-10, 42,000 JG 12:3-6, 1,000 JD 15:14-15, 3,000 JD 16:27-30, 25,101 JD 16:27-30, 1 SAM 4 34,002, 1 SAM 6:19 50,070, 2 SAM 8 65,850, 1 KI 20: 28-29 100,000, 1 KI 20: 30 27,000, 2 KI 19 35 -37 185,000, 2 CHR 13 17-18 500,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not one war in the history of the human race has ever claimed as much, 2 CHR 28:6 120,000, Esther 9:5-18 75,813, 2 CHR 14: 9-14 1,000,000!!! etc etc etc Yeah god is really so moral huh? Nope.

Yeah your god is so huggable and lovable and smoochable. And you just want to run up to this god of yours and teach the world about this god of yours because he's just so fab. AND moral.

2. The entire bible is based on god's superior ego god complex and nothing else. Everything is geared towards that one thing. That"s immoral. Thus once again the bible is AND its god, unless people only want to believe in ego, is fundamentally flawed.

3. YOUR god HATES children, babies and pregnant women. Here are only a few examples out of over 30.
* 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." Wow. Such a nice gentle caring god who is all warm and fuzzy inside. This book should clearly be read to children - correct? (also listed in Dossier of Reason 67. You a$$)
* 2 Kings 15:16 "Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up."
* Lamentations 2: 20-22 "20 Behold, O LORD, and consider to whom thou hast done this. Shall the women eat their fruit, and children of a span long? shall the priest and the prophet be slain in the sanctuary of the Lord? 21 The young and the old lie on the ground in the streets: my virgins and my young men are fallen by the sword; thou hast slain them in the day of thine anger; thou hast killed, and not pitied. 22 Thou hast called as in a solemn day my terrors round about, so that in the day of the LORD'S anger none escaped nor remained: those that I have swaddled and brought up hath mine enemy consumed."
There"s over 30 verses like this of YOUR god"s complete immorality. ]If you think this is moral, get the f--k out of here and don"t bother me again.You cannot circumvent this with ANY of the squishy meaningless pathetic useless verses that are remarkably childish in which case YOUR bible as proved in previous RD"s should NOT be taught to children.

4. Your god creates suffering, pain and agony. If he didn't love it, he would not create it. Simple. Oh and btw, you have no concept, none, as to what true suffering is. I could tell you some true stories that would turn your soul black. DO NOT invent the "satan" crap because YOUR god created satan meaning this god of YOURS must have known what evil was in order to have created satan. Also giving satan control in anything such as suffering? That would mean there is something god cannot do so god is not a god. So once again god is immoral to lovingly create suffering and relish in it ESPECIALLY for children as daddy beats and rapes them. What a wonderful god to allow it. Free will? Oh I get it more power to daddy and no power to the children AS ALWAYS.

"When she dies does she get to go to heaven? If she gets to go to heaven will she be happy? And she"ll probably say "yes". And you say "Will you be able to choose and do anything you want while you are in heaven?" And she"ll say "yes." And so you are basically saying "you"ll have free will in heaven?" So you have free will in heaven and no one is being hurt, raped, so you can do anything you want and no one gets hurt. If god has that power in heaven, he must have that power on earth. So he"s chose not to set that condition/ toggle switch which means he"s a dick." Phil Ferguson

"Could god have made the world and not suffering? And if they say "no" then he"s not all powerful. If they say "yes", then why didn"t he? Its a constant thing. There"s multiple ways to come at it." Phil Ferguson

Also show me anywhere in you bible where it says something to the effect of "I the lord thy god grants man free will." It doesn't exist. So christians do not have free will. Not having free will is immoral. I being an atheist, I do have free will.

5. Here's something that nearly all christians that I have encountered DON'T Get, which means christians as a whole are dedicated to hate and evil, which is obviously immoral, like you. YOUR god could have started out with peace, love, kindness, care, harmony etc AND KEPT IT. Now what part of that don't you understand? But no this god of YOURS chose evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury jealousy. ALL in which he freely admitted to. So befitting of a supreme deity. Right? Jealousy is nothing more than anger as disguised fear. And then your god neatly passed down those emotions to man so in turn an could learn to hate. That's immoral.

"You make an awful lot of claims that do not pertain to morality of the Bible" That"s why you are a christian and that why I am an atheist. That"s why I understand what immorality is VS morality and you in being a christian is completely numb to it.

In other words you believe that its perfectly OK for your god to butcher (for absolutely no reason at all) children, babies, pregnant women and whoever he feels like it for whatever reason on any ho-hum quadrillionth of a day simply because YOU believe he is their whatever. Well f--k you. That"s why you have absolutely no genuine friends or loved ones. What do I mean by genuine? Those that will go way way way out of their way to help you out in time of dire need and NEVER ask you a single question. For that I cannot even pity you. But you deserve it. You did it to yourself. You will die alone. UNLESS YOU CHANGE. Not only that you have a 0% concept as to what the difference is from right from wrong, right from left, up from down, north from south east from west. Since this is true, and I have a moral compass and you clearly don"t, I"m done. Bye.


I do not choose to intentionally insult someone in a debate. You seem to be the one hurling insults for absolutely no reason.

Your retort has nothing to do with my statement about pulling the whole Bible. The context of that was that it would be too long and we do not have sufficient space to accommodate the text. You responded with a snarky response and then I reconfirmed my stance. Hurling insults doesn't make that any less clear.

You use quotes and videos from YouTube. That's akin to using Wikipedia as a source for scholarly's no good because it's unreliable as a source. So your argument is invalid if you nest it in these quote and videos. It's not "evidence" to support you, it's confirmation bias to make your argument sound valid...when in fact it's weak.

I'm sure you do have friends and loved ones like that, and I'm glad you do. Everyone, regardless, should have those that they love and whom love them. I'm not resorting to personal attacks though, this doesn't belong here.

You're not paying attention and I do have an argument that I have stated many times. (The Bible is not moral, but it is not immoral either. The interpretation of morality is subjective based on the reader.) Your "evidence" doesn't address this at all and you have only brushed it off...I don't know why. You frame the Character of Jesus around a strictly Jewish frame, which is ineffective. There are few Christians that profess to adhere to the OT, Jewish, law. To hold Jesus to a Jewish standard does nothing when you hold a Christian to it, it's a false comparison. I'm paying attention to what you say and I have been breaking it down piece by piece, accordingly, since my second response when you gave a back-handed warning that was unsubstantiated.

I don't think that you're an idiot, I think you're so heavily biased that it hurts you. It corners you and prevents growth and you have created a sort of misanthropic view of those who are theists, making you anti-theistic.

#1, Those verses don't say the words "God loves murder", you have equated that since there is murder in the Bible, God must love it. It is reductionist and you have pout blinders on to come to this conclusion. No one made the claim about these fascist politicians that you have mentioned, pertaining to God. This is another red herring from you, so you can hurl insults. I truly think that you are equating God with human actions, a sort of misnomer. I'm not rationalizing suffering in the Bible, just simply stating that it happened, you are applying the emotion to it.

#2 That is an entirely biased statement. Not many people, theistic or atheistic, would say that the Bible is based on God's ego, whether is a "superior ego god complex" or not. This statement, in fact, is what is fundamentally flawed.

#3 These verses sound like a statement of what is to come, predictions of things to happen. There is nothing in it that indicates a "hate" for women, children, etc. It plainly seems to say that these events will happen, cause and effect. There is no emotionally charged word that is attached to the actions, save for Lamentations 22:22, but I mentioned in a previous round that Lamentations is poetry to mourn the burning of Jerusalem; the writer is rationalizing what is happening, there is no narrative of God actively killing someone but a man reasoning that God is angry and he allowed Jerusalem to burn. (All in the form of poetry) Like I said, you fail to pay attention to what I'm saying in favor of your own words. So, if you were to attach morality to anything in Lamentations, or anything like that, look at the writer and their context and then judge. Don't just fly off the handle and assume.

#4 This is another black/white fallacy. Just because something is undesirable doesn't mean that it is enjoyed, that's such a shallow argument. Your modus operandum is that God is omnipotent and that I believe in Satan. Now, I don't doubt that you may have experienced suffering, but it's rude and insulting to think that someone else couldn't have experienced more suffering. You don't know me, so that is rude, uncalled for, and I ask that you not do that...please. Firstly, I don't believe in Satan as an anthropomorphic, singular figure. I think that there is a spirit of evil in the world, but I don't play the blame game and dumb responsibility on the character of Satan. (Not all Christians believe this though) Concerning God being omnipotent, I find that I don't know if God is omnipotent and I don't make that claim one way or the other. I find it more effective to speak of God by negation, using apophatic theology instead of positive, catophatic, theology. I'm getting carried away, this has nothing to do with the argument, but theological understanding. Biblically speaking though, the OT folks used stories like Job to explore and explain the open-ended question of innocent suffering. No one, atheists and theists, know why innocence suffer and if any of them makes them claim, with such fierce belief in their own point, they are arrogant and ignorant.

This quote addresses free will, and I have noticed that you force the subject of free will into things. Free will is a hard thing to rationalize, I believe in it though. (A fun fact, Sam Harris, a militant atheist like yourself, makes a convincing argument that free will doesn't exits.) Just knowing that both theists and atheists have a hard time with free will and predestined behavior shows how complex this is and you cannot reduce it, at least effectively, and force it into the argument. You should look at Sam Harris and Alvin Plantinga, see what they have to say. You may enjoy those readings, whether you agree or not.

Again, you're making arguments for free will and against Chrsitianity that don't belong. I don't have an opinion one way or another on these statements...they don't belong here and have no effect on the morality of the Bible.

#5 I see what you mean and I agree that many Christians, not as a whole but the majority, try to rationalize. In doing so, though, they make the discussion more confusing and are no closer to a concrete answer. I don't profess to know this answer, like I said above, these are open-ended questions that we can only attempt to answer individually. (Like my claim originally about it being subjective based on the interpretation of the individual.) But, to have these emotions, "peace, love, kindness, care, harmony etc" you must have the opposites as well, "evil, anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, fury jealousy."; you cannot have heat without cold, light without dark. If there was only these good things in the first place, they wouldn't exists...we would have no concept of what love is without knowing what hate is. To know pleasure, we must know pain, to know joy, we must know suffering; this is the human condition. Your frustration the existence of negative emotions and suffering is not indicative of the Bible being immoral, but is indicative of you superimposing your own frustration onto the Bible and then making an unsubstantiated claim about it.

This statement makes no sense, you're not addressing my point, but responding to it instead. You make no point with it, other than that you don't understand what I said.

I don't think that it is perfectly ok to "butcher" innocence, I think that you are applying your own frustration onto me and the Bible. You are making assumptions that don't stand to reason. Again, you're resorting to personal attacks that are uncalled for and unappreciated. I would tell you, though, that I do have friends that would do things like that for me, and I hope that you do as well. No one deserves to be alone and everyone deserves to have someone love them and to love someone else. Me conforming to your beliefs won't do me any good, in fact, I think that it would push people further away, at least in my case. It's unfortunate that you believe these things.

You run from arguments and points, you use bad sources like YouTube and quotes from YouTubers (in the context of their videos on said sight). You ignore what others say to you and fail to acknowledge their argument. Your skills at debate are poor and you lash out at people with personal attacks when they are not welcome and they are unprovoked. I hope that you can move beyond personal attacks, ad hominems, non-sequiturs, red herrings, black/white fallacies, etc. for the sake of your debates in the future. I think that you are a smart person and you have the ability to do so much. However, I think that you have failed to convince me of your claim, in fact, you have proven to me that you know very little of what you speak of, almost proving yourself wrong the long the debate goes on. The debate, itself however, has devolved into you brushing off my points and just insulting me. I wish you well and I know this is a bit passive aggressive, but it seems characteristic of my responses at this point:

You have failed,
Do better.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 2 years ago
You really are a source of comedy.

"(Num 31:18, 35). "
That has to be read into the text.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Upon what basis does a person determine what is moral? LOL Its a dog (spelled backwards is god) chasing his tail argument.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
I'd like to thank backwards for allowing me to vote on this debate. It was very charitable of him. I really struggled trying to decide how to vote. It was a really difficult decision!
Posted by CivilTube 3 years ago
You're faltering Michael. Be careful brohemius; the guy you're debating actually knows his stuff and is intelligent.
Posted by RegularGuiseppe 3 years ago
I would agree. He talks as though he has a sort of authority over someone and it was a bit off putting in the debate, itself, but the debate continues.
Posted by TrenchWarfare737 3 years ago
"I give you fair warning, if you ignore the videos and the verses as you did with the verses, completely in the first round, I will ignore you. I don't appreciate debaters ignoring rock solid evidence that they cannot refute."

LOL, real deep in a trench tbh
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro called Con a "hypocrite" in round three. This is poor conduct.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.