The Instigator
Christfollower
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
squeakly54n6
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

The bible is repulsive

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
squeakly54n6
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,101 times Debate No: 120630
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (31)
Votes (3)

 

Christfollower

Con

First round, Acceptance. Say something along the lines of "I accept"
Second round, Opening statements.
3-4 just plain debating
5: closing arguments.

I am against this statement. "the bible is repulsive. "
squeakly54n6

Pro

Greetings I accept this debate, Before the next round I would like to recognize that you're the first opponent to debate me twice, In a row nonetheless. Not that this is bad or anything but hey I'm just a sentimental person obsessed with tiny details. Anyways I will need to clarify a few things before we start,
- I am NOT against religion in and of itself, I understand religion has been a positive outlet for many people which I've seen firsthand from several of my friends who are all nice and respectable people.
- While I do believe the bible is repulsive, What I learned from the last debate I had on this topic with kill shot, I don't believe in the bibles complete eradication what I simply believe is the bible should NOT be used as a moral compass for reasons I will address in my next argument.
- I will put aside my atheist beliefs for this debate and pretend for the sake of argument that God does in fact exist.
- Finally, The conclusion I and Kill Shot came to was while the bible is false and immoral, It should be studied as its apart of our history and for various reasons in academia. If anyone is interested in the debate it is one of the first debates I did on this profile, I will try to link it below but since debate. Org is so broken I may not be able to do so, So no promises.
- The last point I would like to address is that I am specifically going to be tackling the first testament and not the new testament and here's why. From what I've gathered through looking through forums and articles, The new testament is NOT comprised of first-hand accounts but rather a reinterpretation of first-hand accounts while the old testament is first-hand accounts. Assuming this is true, I am going to trust the old testament more as it is likely more reliable. One could make the argument that the old testament has also been reinterpreted and possibly misrepresented through the years as well, This is sadly true and we will likely never have a definitive answer. Even so, I would argue while the old testament could be misinterpreted, It is likely the closest we will ever get to Gods teachings. So to summarize this paragraph, I will be using the old testament in my argument with little from the new testament.
- With all of that out of the way, I am ready to discuss with you the repulsive nature of the Bible.
Debate Round No. 1
Christfollower

Con

I want to thank you for clarifying. If you want to become a lawyer, Recognizing small details can be helpful. While you may be trusting the old testament more than the new, There was a significant time gap between them and lots of things happened during that time. I ask you to please take things in context.

Because you trust the old testament more than the new, I shall provide some evidence for the new testament.
New Testament Accuracy.

Eyewitness testimony is often considered the best evidence. The ability for a witness, To tell the truth, Rests in part upon the witness" chronological and geographical nearness to the events. The apostles constantly stressed that they passed both tests:

"For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, But we were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (2 Peter 1:16).

John wrote, "What was from the beginning, What we have heard, What we have seen with our eyes, What we have looked at and touched with our hands, Concerning the Word of Life " These things we write" (1 John 1:1, 4).

Luke reports, "This Jesus God raised up again, To which we are all witnesses" (Acts 2:32).

Not only do the apostles claim to be eyewitnesses, Archaeological evidence also supports their chronological and geographical nearness to the events. In painstaking detail, Colin Hemer combed through each verse of Acts to determine just how careful Luke was as a historian. In the final 16 chapters alone, Hemer identified 84 facts that have recently been substantiated through archaeological and historical research.

A promising means of dating the Gospels early comes from the work of noted Roman historian, Colin Hemer. He reasons backwards from the Book of Acts to the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). The Book of Acts is about the origin of the Church, With special focus on the ministries of Peter and Paul. The book includes the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:54-60) and James (Acts 12:1-2), But it says nothing of the deaths of Peter and Paul (between A. D. 63-66). Acts also fails to include the accounts of the Jewish war with the Romans (A. D. 66) and the destruction of Jerusalem (A. D. 70). Acts abruptly ends with Paul"s arrest in Rome, Without any resolution to the situation.

These are significant events that radically altered the relationship between the Romans and Jews. Not including them would be like writing a history of the U. S. And not including Sept. 11. If we found such a book, We would rightly conclude that it was most likely written prior to September 2001. Similarly, Since Luke, The writer of Acts left out such important events as listed above, It is reasonable to conclude that he wrote Acts before these events took place, Around A. D. 62. Because Luke was written before Acts, And Matthew and Mark likely before Luke, Then the three Synoptic Gospels were written at least before the mid-60s A. D. This span is far shorter than the 400 years that elapsed between Alexander the Great"s death and his first biography.

Since the New Testament documents were written within 30 years of the events they record, They are unlikely to be legend. Eyewitnesses would still be around to correct errors, Exaggerations or outright mistakes.

Here are some facts
Jesus said "If anyone of you is without sin, Let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (John 8:7). In context - a girl had just been caught in the act of adultery, And by way of test, The teachers of the law had put a stone in Jesus' hand. But Jesus did not stone the girl. He told the teachers, With these words, That God is the judge of crimes, Including adultery, And that God alone determines guilt and punishment.

So - should we put to death people who sin? NO! Jesus specifically commanded us not to. Jesus goes on to tell us that just as man must learn to forgive, So does God forgive (assuming you believe Jesus was God incarnate), By telling the woman "Neither do I condemn thee: go, And sin no more" after all of the others had left.

So perhaps we should judge them. Perhaps we should stick them up at the front of the church, And shout out "This man worked on the Sabbath - condemn him! " Well. . . No. Read Matthew 7:1-5:

"Judge not, That ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, Ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, It shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, But considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, Behold, A beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. "

So pretty much, The bible tells us to leave God's law to God, And man's law to man. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, And render unto God what is God's. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. Peace is the way, The truth, And the life. Love your neighbor as yourself, Even if they are sinners, For it is not the healthy who need a doctor (as opposed to executor), But the sick. This is the word of God.
squeakly54n6

Pro

" Because you trust the old testament more than the new, I shall provide some evidence for the new testament. "
- Alright, I'm really glad we can find common ground there because a lot of Christians seem to disregard Gods teachings in the old testament for no real good reason.
" Since the New Testament documents were written within 30 years of the events they record, They are unlikely to be a legend. Eyewitnesses would still be around to correct errors, Exaggerations or outright mistakes. "
- As I said, I don't disregard the entirety of the new testament, It's just that I would rather use the old testament as it is likely closer to Gods teachings than the New Testament is. Before I start my argument I would like to apologize if I mix anything up or take something out of context as I'm not exactly an expert on the bible. Anyways with all of that said I will now be my opening argument.

For my argument I will be using direct quotes of the Bible followed by my analysis of this. On that note lets get started.
"You shall acknowledge no God but me. . . . You are destroyed, Israel. . . . The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, Because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, Their pregnant women ripped open. " (Hosea 13:4, 9, 16 New International Version)
- In this quote, God is destroying an entire town including women and children, Simply because they rebelled against him. Surely a loving and forgiving God would forgive the people of Samaria for rebelling against him? Furthermore massacring an entire town just because they don't believe in God is not the way to go about it, Instead of destroying them God could simply try again to save them. If they rebel again, Than God should just leave them alone and not kill them.
" And in those days the tribe of the Danites was seeking a place of their own where they might settle Because they had not yet come into an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. . . . Then they said to [the priest], 'Please inquire of God to learn whether our journey will be successful. ' The priest answered them, 'Go in peace. Your journey has the Lord's approval. '. . . Then they took what Micah had made, And his priest, And went on to Laish, Against a people at peace and secure. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. . . . The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. " (Judges 18:1"28 NIV)
- In this quote, God is once again destroying an entire people so that one of his tribes could live there, Even though the Tribe living there originally was peaceful and didn't want to harm anyone.
"See, The day of the Lord is coming " a cruel day, With wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated. " (Isaiah 13:9"16 NIV)
- In this quote God is saying that because this group of people was arrogant their infants should be put to death, Their houses should be looted, And their women raped. Once again God is wiping out an entire group of people simply because their arrogant which is once again REPULSIVE.
These 3 quotes are just the tip of the iceberg, Other quotes in the bible state that women shouldn't have any authority or that disobedient teenager's should be stoned to death. While the Bible does have some good lessons to teach such as thou shall not kill, Thou shall not steal, Or love thy neighbor, The Bible overall is repulsive

" Peace is the way, The truth, And the life. Love your neighbor as yourself, Even if they are sinners, For it is not healthy who need a doctor (as opposed to executor), But the sick. This is the word of God. "
- I 100 % agree, I believe in peace and the truth which is why I am an advocate for vegetarianism and I want to become a lawyer so that I may bring justice in the legal system. However, I think the quotes above have proven that overall the Bible teaches immoral and repulsive lessons.
- Also if you haven't noticed I copied and pasted my opening argument on my debate with kill shot here as I figured it would be a waste of time to type up a new argument when my past argument explained my points clearly and concise already.
Sources: https://ffrf. Org/faq/state-church. . . .
https://www. Ranker. Com/list/top-20-bible. . . .
Debate Round No. 2
Christfollower

Con

I am not exactly an expert on the Bible but have read through it multiple times. I congratulate my opponent on a well-done argument. However, He has left out a couple of things.

-Because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, Their pregnant women ripped open. " (Hosea 13:4, 9, 16 New International Version)
I am not going to pretend to know the will of God but I will try to explain this chapter.
God is a loving and forgiving God but also a just God. If you read the entire chapter, You would have gotten a bit more context. They were offering human sacrifices and making idols even though they knew the God was the only God. How did they know that? It says in Hosea 13:4,
But I have been the Lord your God
ever since you came out of Egypt.
What happened in Egypt?
They were slaves in Egypt for many years until God decided to take them out of Egypt. That is when Exodus 14:21-22 happened.
21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, And all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, With a wall of water on their right and on their left.

God did a miracle and split the waters so they could walk through. That would be significant evidence for God being the real God. Rebelling against God means 2 things.
1. You know there is a God.
2. You are purposely going against Him.
They also made human sacrifices, So God could have wiped them out for that. I would just be like the death sentence for murder.

" And in those days the tribe of the Danites was seeking a place of their own where they might settle Because they had not yet come into an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. . . . Then they said to [the priest], 'Please inquire of God to learn whether our journey will be successful. ' The priest answered them, 'Go in peace. Your journey has the Lord's approval. '. . . Then they took what Micah had made, And his priest, And went on to Laish, Against a people at peace and secure. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. . . . The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. " (Judges 18:1"28 NIV)
To be honest, I do not quite understand this one. I will talk to my pastor later this week.

"See, The day of the Lord is coming " a cruel day, With wrath and fierce anger. . . . I will put an end to the arrogance of the haughty. . . . Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated. " (Isaiah 13:9"16 NIV)
He is referring to the end times when Jesus will come down and be the ultimate judge. He will send anyone who didn't believe in him to hell. God is a just God and will not let sin into heaven.

Jesus changed things between the old and new testament. Using the old testament is not a good argument. I challenge to find a repulsive verse in the new testament. In the new testament, It is all about love, Compassion, And Jesus Christ.
squeakly54n6

Pro

" God is a loving and forgiving God but also a just God. :
- Killing people who are also killing people isn't just. If God was loving and forgiving then he would forgive the people and try to forgive them. The fact that God would kill innocent children and women for whatever reason is REPULSIVE plain and simple.
" So God could have wiped them out for that. I would just be like the death sentence for murder. "
- Fighting fire with fire only makes the fire grow larger, Also honestly whats worse killing children and pregnant women, Or wiping an entire people out? I mean both are atrocious acts and while one is worse than the other, This does not make killing children and pregnant women any less REPULSIVE.
" To be honest, I do not quite understand this one. I will talk to my pastor later this week. "
- With all due respect before you ask for your pastor, You should keep this in mind. What reason does your pastor have to come out and tell you the truth? His main job is to get you or keep you indoctrinated in the religion. Therefore it would be rather unwise to use him as a reputable source.
" He is referring to the end times when Jesus will come down and be the ultimate judge. He will send anyone who didn't believe in him to hell. God is a just God and will not let sin into heaven. "
- Don't you think it is hypocritical for the bible to preach loving thy enemy and forgiveness when in the end times God doesn't forgive anyone and will kill innocent people whom may have not even been knowledgable of the religion at the time? Besides even if the people he was killing were sinful, That does not justify slaughtering them. Once again using violence against violence only creates more violence.
" Jesus changed things between the old and new testament. Using the old testament is not a good argument. "
- Please explain what makes the old testament not valid but the new testament more valid? Regardless of whether or not Jesus changed some words, This still doesn't excuse the fact that these are still Gods teachings. Besides the new testament STILL teaches horrible morals so let's go through them?

"Women Should Shut Up in Church: 1st Corinthians 14:34 NASB"
- This is a pure example of the blatant sexism exhibited in the Bible, And sexism is REPULSIVE.

" Return Runaway Slaves to Their Owners: Philemon 1:12 The Message"
- Slavery is a violation of human rights, And helping the slave owners catch runaway slaves is almost as bad as owning them. Since the new testament preaches slavery, This makes the new testament REPULSIVE.

" The Wealthy Will Be Condemned by God: James 5:1-5 NASB"
- I currently am growing up in the California bay area which is arguably one of the richest areas's in the world, And I've learned through first-hand experience that the majority of rich people are kind, Giving, And forgiving, While there are horrible rich people out there, The mere fact that the bible clumps all rich people into one negative category is almost as bad as racism or sexism. Which in and of itself, Is REPULSIVE.

The bottom line is even if we buy this argument that the old testament is invalid, There are still many immoral messages in the new testament which make the new testament as well as the old testament, REPULSIVE.

Sources,
- ht tp://backyard skep tics. Com/wordpr ess/new-tes tament -bible-verses-xtians-tend-to -ign ore/
- htt p://skept icsannotatedbible. Co m/cruelty/nt_ list. H tml
Debate Round No. 3
Christfollower

Con

repulsive,
adjective,
arousing intense distaste or disgust.

-The fact that God would kill innocent children and women for whatever reason is REPULSIVE plain and simple.
Well, Actually the death sentence is currently justifiable murder, No matter age, Or gender. If the court believes that the crime is worthy of a death sentence, Killing that person is justified by law.

- Please explain what makes the old testament not valid but the new testament more valid?
This is going to take a while to explain.
The first main difference that you need to grasp and understand is what was going on with God the Father and the Jewish people in reference to them getting a temporary covering for their sins.
God the Father specifically chose the Jewish people to be His chosen people
However, In order for them to be able to approach and enter into a personal relationship with Him, They needed some type of temporary covering for their sins since Jesus had not come yet to die for their sins.
So what God the Father arranged was that a blemish free lamb had to be killed and sacrificed to atone or give the Jewish people a temporary covering for their sins.
However, When Jesus came and died on the cross, He permanently did away with God"s chosen people ever having to sacrifice any more animals to get that temporary covering for their sins.
As a result of Jesus" death on the cross, All we have to do is go to God the Father, Confess our sin, And ask for His forgiveness. If this confession of our sin is sincere and from the heart, God the Father will honor the confession and our sin will be fully forgiven. No animals will ever need to be sacrificed again to get this forgiveness from God.
This is why Jesus is called the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. He is an extension of the lambs used by His Father in the Old Testament to give God"s chosen people a temporary covering for their sins.

The Law
Here is where many people get confused. After Jesus" death on the cross, We are now under a new covenant with God the Father. As stated above, No more animal sacrifices are needed to get forgiveness for our sins. However, There are verses in the New Testament that state that we are no longer under the law, But under grace.
Some Christians mistakenly think we no longer have to obey any of the basic laws and commandments set out by God the Father in the Old Testament since we are now operating under a new covenant with Jesus. But this view is wrong. Jesus Himself says that He did not come to do away with the law, But to fulfill it.

Here is the verse directly from Jesus Himself:

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass away, One jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. " (Matthew 5:17-18)

This verse right there tells you that all of the basic moral commandments set out by God the Father in the Old Testament still apply for all of us today. This includes all of the 10 Commandments, All the commands not to engage in occult.

Granted, Many of the ceremonial type laws back in the Old Testament are no longer applicable in today"s world, But many of the moral laws that God had set out are still in full play today.
Jesus is referred to as the "fulfillment" of the law because His death on the cross gives us total and permanent forgiveness of all of our sins.
In the Old Testament, The killing and sacrificing of the lambs did not give the Jewish people total and permanent forgiveness. It only gave then a temporary covering for their sins until Jesus came down to die on the cross for all of our sins.
When the Jewish people died in the Old Testament, They did not go straight to heaven because Jesus had not come yet. Their sins were not totally forgiven until Jesus came and died on the cross. This is why Jesus is referred to as the "fulfillment" of the Law. That is why He said on the cross right before He died " "It is finished. "
Jesus did what the lambs could not fully do in the Old Testament. His death on the cross gave all of us who will accept it " full, Final, And permanent forgiveness for all of our sins " all past, Present, And future sins that we will ever commit.
When the Bible says we are no longer under the law, But under grace in the New Testament, What it is referring to is that we do not have to kill animals anymore for the forgiveness of our sins. We are now under God"s grace and mercy because His Son has now died for us, And we now have total and complete forgiveness for all of our sins.
We also do not stone people to death if they now commit adultery. It is now between that person and God to get their sins forgiven and if they do not, Then God will judge them accordingly when they die. . We no longer have a right to put a person to death for adultery.

This will now bring us into the next topic " the "eye for an eye" punishment that was enforced back in the Old Testament.

An Eye For An Eye
In the Old Testament, Since Jesus had not come yet, God the Father not only arranged to let His chosen people know what His basic laws and commandments were going to be, But He also had to arrange for some type of punishment to occur if His people broke those laws. This is where the "eye for an eye, Tooth for a tooth" comes in.

God had it set up if you killed someone else, Then your punishment would be the same " you would be killed yourself. The punishment would thus fully fit the crime. God then proceeded to tell the Jewish people what the punishments were going to be per the crimes committed.
The two that have always bothered me were that you would be put to death for adultery and engaging in the occult.
In these crimes or sins, You were not killing anyone else. So why would God hand down a death sentence on these two crimes in particular? It does not seem to line up with the "eye for eye" rule that He had going during this time.
I can only give you my opinion as to why God allowed the death penalty for these two specific transgressions. I believe God the Father, In the Old Testament, Was laying down serious groundwork for all the people that would be born from the New Testament on. He wanted to show the serious consequences involved for each person that would break many of His basic laws and commandments.
In the New Testament there is a verse that says that the wages of sin will lead to death! God is not only referring to possible early physical death as a result of serious sin, But also to the death of our souls if these sins end up keeping us out of heaven.

By setting the examples early on in the Old Testament, I feel God is making a powerful statement to the rest of the world.

He is basically telling us that not only must we become saved and born again through the acceptance of salvation through His Son and His sacrificial death on the cross " but we must also stay out of serious sin.
I will touch on one more subject that you probably picked up in reading much of the Old Testament. Not only was God the Father very strict with the laws and punishments enforced on those laws, But there also was quite a few displays of His wrath and anger that was released upon either certain peoples or the entire world at one time like He did with the flood of Noah.

The incredible release of His wrath and anger during those times have always scared many people, Including many Christians. Many of His own people see Him as being a mean and vengeful God. As a result, Many of His people have developed an unhealthy fear of Him to the point that some of His own people are too afraid to approach Him for prayer or to enter into any kind of close personal relationship with Him.
Let me try to explain this part of His personality so can see exactly where He was coming from in those days, And why His wrath and anger were so violently released at certain times during the Old Testament.
If you look very closely at the times that He would release His wrath and anger, It was always justified. I believe there is something called "righteous anger or righteous wrath. "
Every time God released His anger and wrath, It was always because the people who were on the receiving end of His wrath really did deserve it at the time that it was coming down on them.
1. The Flood of Noah
In the flood of Noah, God destroys all humans with the exception of Noah and his family because everyone was so wicked and evil back at that time. However, Note that God did not destroy Noah and his family. Why? Because they were found righteous in His eyes.

If God was a mean and evil God, Then He would have also killed Noah and his family " but He did not!

This right there shows that God will judge each one individually and that He is not releasing His wrath just to be mean and vengeful. His wrath is always released for a specific reason and a specific purpose.
The other times you will see God manifest maximum wrath, Anger, And vengeance is when He is defending the Jewish people from their enemies who are trying to attack and kill them.

When the Jewish people were walking right with God, God would literally fight some of their battles for them. We are talking about incredible displays of supernatural power and wrath being directed against Israel"s enemies. Some of these enemies were literally wiped right off the face of the earth.
Many people do not realize that God the Father has an incredible War Side to His personality and that He will not hesitate to go into battle to protect His own.

Romans 13:8-10 ESV
Owe no one anything, Except to love each other, For the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, " and any other commandment, Are summed up in this word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself. " Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Sound like pretty good advice to me.
squeakly54n6

Pro

" Well, Actually the death sentence is currently justifiable murder, No matter age, Or gender. If the court believes that the crime is worthy of a death sentence, Killing that person is justified by law. "
- I don't want to get into a debate about the death penalty but the a " loving and forgiving " God giving the death penalty on sinners isn't exactly loving and forgiving. Besides as I already previously stated, Fighting fire with fire only makes the fire grow bigger.
- Also just because it's legal does not make it right, That logic could be used to justify the absurd laws in North Korea or in Cuba.
" I believe God the Father, In the Old Testament, Was laying down serious groundwork for all the people that would be born from the New Testament on. He wanted to show the serious consequences involved for each person that would break many of His basic laws and commandments. "
- So you do agree that many of the teachings in the old testament were repulsive and immoral.
" If you look very closely at the times that He would release His wrath and anger, It was always justified. "
- Exhibiting wrath and anger on your enemies is never the answer and here's why. How can people take the Bibles " forgive your enemy" or " love thy neighbor", When the teachings of God and the Bible directly contradict that by slaughtering innocents just to kill a couple of sinners. Killing innocents in ANY circumstance is REPULSIVE.
" God destroys all humans with the exception of Noah and his family because everyone was so wicked and evil back at that time. "
- Assuming that this story is real which I doubt, I find it hard to believe that EVERY single human minus one family were all wicked and evil. Moreover we once again come back into the argument that killing every almost every single human is not loving or forgiving. Plain and simple drowning everyone in the world minus one family is REPULSIVE.

"If God was a mean and evil God, Then He would have also killed Noah and his family " but He did not! "

- Wow so out of the millions of people alive at the time, God saved one family. I guess that excuses his genocide as he still spared one family! But in all seriousness what about the times when God massacred tons of innocent and righteous people? The holocaust is the purest example of this, Many of the Jewish people whom remained moral and righteous were sent to gas chambers including the elderly, Women, And children. The mere fact that God has slaughtered millions of people throughout history, Is REPULSIVE.

" He is defending the Jewish people from their enemies who are trying to attack and kill them. "

- What about the holocaust? You could make the argument that eventually helped them, However regardless the all powerful God STILL allowed for millions of innocent Jews to be slaughtered. Which is REPULSIVE.

To summarize God has directly or indirectly allowed millions of innocent people throughout history die, And since the Bible is Gods teachings, This makes the Bible REPULSIVE.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
squeakly54n6

Pro

squeakly54n6 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
As you wish, Omar.
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
@dsjpk5

Are you going to change your vote now or not even though I have addressed your concern.
Besides Christfollower did not find my vote to be a bad one.
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Omar only addressed one side.
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
It isn't @ squeakly54n6
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@ Christfollower

I agree on that, But how was omars vote poor and bias?
Posted by Christfollower 3 years ago
Christfollower
I agree that backward was a bad vote and should be removed
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@dsjpk5

Explain how their votes were poorly done?
Posted by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Yes.
Posted by squeakly54n6 3 years ago
squeakly54n6
@dsjpk5
You know his name?
Posted by 21stCenturyIconoclast 3 years ago
21stCenturyIconoclast
OALKS,

Again, You"ve said absolutely nothing of importance but only a vain attempt to HIDE from my questions with your child-like circular reasoning.

When are you going to start following your pagan and primitive bible in defending it's word, And actually follow the words of your mythical Jesus by doing so? Are you too scared to be made the fool again?

Jesus" strict words that you are to follow when "trying" to engage the Atheist in defense of your bible:

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, And take every thought captive to obey Christ, " (2 Corinthians 10:5)

"He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, So that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. " (Titus 1:9)

As explicitly shown thus far, You do not have the acumen to engage me other than for you to continue your weak and lame excuses to RUN AWAY from your disgusting faith, Where I didn't expect anything less.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
Christfollowersqueakly54n6Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering Michael's poor vote.
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Christfollowersqueakly54n6Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly showed the Bible is repulsive with this "In this quote God is saying that because this group of people was arrogant their infants should be put to death,". Pro does have better reasons but this was my favourite. Con didn't adequately show how the Bible was not repulsive. Con stated "I am not going to pretend to know the will of God" which means he is not capable of making a claim for or against God and resorts to explaining the Bible. Pro did take the position the Bible is repulsive therefore God would also be so but Con takes the position the Bible is not repulsive but states a sort of non-comment on God. I find this inadequate.
Vote Placed by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Christfollowersqueakly54n6Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con knowingly plagiarized the title of a very famous video that's been running for years on youtube. That's an automatic point deductor. "Eyewitness testimony is often considered the best evidence." Memory is not reliable as the NT was not put together until at least 100 years after the death of christ. Pro brought out many correct things about the bible which Con cannot ignore. Hosea 13:16 is sickening and disgusting showing abortions in graphic details. Isaiah 13:16 Once again truly sick and disgusting showing god's contempt for children with rape of wives. This is not hard to figure out.

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