The Instigator
backwardseden
Con (against)
Tied
6 Points
The Contender
chrmon2
Pro (for)
Tied
6 Points

Why does the god of the bible murder babies, Children and pregnant mothers?

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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/21/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 877 times Debate No: 119569
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

backwardseden

Con

Naturally I am taking the con side on this argument.

In the horrific terrorizer bible, Its god has murdered 2, 821, 364 in one little splatch of land which includes babies, Children and pregnant women (abortions in which chirstians are so against. But how can they be considering that their god has knowingly committed them? ) Its not difficult to figure this blank sheet of the mind out. Simply look to its great flood legend (which never happened btw) as its storybook god character murdered every single man, Woman, And child (babies included) showing how this god character is completely immoral.

If the god of the bible was kind, Caring and loving as many believe, Then he wouldn't have to murder anyone. However according to the bible this god storybook character has murdered babies, Children and pregnant women for no reason at all. Just because according to him in which people were wicked, Well if this god were a god he would have already known this before it would have happened so he wouldn't have had to have had to wipe them out, Duh, People's are from different cultures and happen to worship different gods and idles, These are not a reasons for this god of the bible to knowingly commit deliberate genocide against them.
In many instances just because according to what is printed, He's jealous in which no supreme deity would have the want, Desire, Need for jealousy (which is nothing but anger as disguised fear) and would have chucked that human baggage emotion along with evil, Anger, Wrath, Rage, Fury, Etc in which he's freely admitted to that he obviously nurtures so dearly long before man was rockin' in the cradle. Nah. What this god character did was neatly cast down those baggage emotions to man by believability alone so in turn man could learn to hate on the battlefields alone since this paraplegic god's inception with at least 1 billion dead all in his supposed "good" name. Great going god. Great going for those that worship this storybook god character in which is based on nothing but a superior bloated ego god complex in which the bible is entirely about.

It is also a supermassive hypocritical contradiction that this god can murder but man can't. This is NOT the same thing as killing.

However there is no reason why this storybook god character should have murdered at all except for the fact that he simply gets off on it. What christians simply don't get is that this god of theirs could have easily started out with love, Peace, Kindness, Care, Harmony etc etc etc AND KEPT IT. Now what is wrong with that other than nothing?

Another thing that christians don't get is not once since this god's inception, Not anywhere, Not at any time, Not for any length of time - oh say 30 years or longer, Has there been peace of any kind wherever this so-called god of the bible has reigned.

Here is a link to show all of god's murders.
https://dwindlinginunbelief. Blogspot. Com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible. Html

RULES FOR THIS DEBATE:
Prove that the god of the bible is peaceful, Kind, Caring, Loving, Harmonious and not a warlike genocidal maniac. Christ/ jesus does not come into play as there's no proof for his existence and if so, He was the false messiah.

dsjpk5 will NOT be allowed to vote in the voting process.
chrmon2

Pro

Opening

I will be debating the affirmative. The topic of this debate is not the existence of God. Otherwise, I would be using arguments such as the Cosmological Argument. Unfortunately, Con has banned me from bringing up Jesus, But that's neither here nor there. Instead, The topic of this debate is whether or not the God portrayed in the Bible is kind, Caring, Etc. Or a homicidal maniac.

Let's tackle Con's arguments one at a time.

1) Flood legend, Wiping out groups of people

God did this as a punishment for people's sinful behavior.

2) God is Jealous, Angry, Etc

Con hasn't given a reason that being jealous is bad. (In this case, It is equivalent to being mad if your spouse cheats on you. ) Also, Being appropriately angry isn't necessarily bad, Unless Con would like to provide actual evidence.

3) It is also a supermassive hypocritical contradiction that this god can murder but man can't.

As Con states, Murder is not killing. God does not "murder" people. He punishes people for sin, Which is justifiable.

4) What christians simply don't get is that this god of theirs could have easily started out with love, Peace, Kindness, Care, Harmony etc etc etc AND KEPT IT. Now what is wrong with that other than nothing?

God could have done this. However, He gave humans free will, And they chose to sin.

5) There has never been peace when God reigned

Again, Violence is a punishment for sin.

Con provided a link with spaces. I removed them, But the page looks empty:

https://dwindlinginunbelief. Blogspot. Com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible. Html

These arguments seem to be based on a disagreement over the definitions of what sin is and the appropriate punishments for it. According to the Bible, The punishment for sin is death. Unfortunately, Humans chose to sin and the burden falls not only on them but on future generations, Animals, Etc. God, Being good, Doesn't want to punish people. However, He couldn't do this while maintaining his impartiality. The fact that he punishes people actually proves he is good, As it shows that he values remaining an impartial and moral judge.

Here is the fatal flaw in Con's argument. The topic of this debate is the God portrayed in the Bible. In other words, According to the Bible, Is God kind, Caring, Loving, Etc. Or a homicidal maniac? Now, The bible gives its own definition of what is morally justifiable, So if someone took the Bible as a whole, They would have to come to the conclusion that the former is a more accurate description of God.

If Con wishes to state that it is a contradiction for the God of the Bible to be kind, Caring, Loving, Etc. Then this is irrelevant because the topic of this debate is not "Does God Exist? "

Now, Onto some positive arguments that the God of the Bible is kind, Caring, Loving, Etc.

Evidence From the Apostle John

1 John 3:1

"See what great love the Father has lavished on us, That we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. "

1 John 4:8

"Whoever does not love does not know God, Because God is love. "

Evidence from Moses

Exodus 32:12-14, NASB

"Turn from Thy burning anger and change Thy mind about doing harm to Thy people. "Remember Abraham, Isaac, And Israel, Thy servants to whom Thou didst swear by Thyself, And didst say to them, "I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heavens, And all this land of which I have spoken I will give to your descendants, And they shall inherit it forever. "" So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people"

Moses pleads with god to spare the Israelites, And God agrees to do so. If God were the warlike homicidal maniac that Con would have you believe he is, He would not be inclined to do this. From this, We can conclude that God is slow to anger and will on occasion spare people from punishment.

Evidence from Rahab

In Joshua 2, Two Israelite spies are sent into Jericho. They stay at the house of a prostitute named Rahab, Who hides them from the city guards. God agrees to spare her and her family when the city is destroyed. This further shows that God is merciful, As he is willing to spare Rahab, Possibly the only person in Jericho who fears him.

Summary

In conclusion, Con cannot appeal to the bible in order to "prove" that God is a genocidal maniac. Even if I were to concede that the Bible is fiction, Then the debate would become something like, "Can the Harry Potter Portrayed in J K Rowling's Book Series Fly? " Con might say, "Harry Potter can't fly, Because he is a human, And humans can't fly, " but he would only be evaluating half of a whole. According to the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter can fly, And the debate would be over the Harry Potter portrayed in the Harry Potter book series, Because science works differently there. So even if the Bible were fiction, It would have a different standard of morality and God would be caring, Loving, Etc and not a warlike genocidal maniac.

We can also see that the Bible frequently talks about God's enduring love for humans and about how he is caring and merciful.

Sources

https://carm. Org/deuteronomy-913-14-let-me-alone-i-may-destroy-them

https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Rahab#In_the_Hebrew_Bible
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Con

Since my opponent has stated "God does not "murder" people. He punishes people for sin, Which is justifiable. " Rally? Babies, Still suckling on their mother's nipples have "sinned". That's a good one. Oh and oh yeah. That's murder for your god to snuff them out for no reason at all, Same as children, Same as pregnant women, Same as anyone because there is no need, No requirement, No necessity for murder. Only in your god's warped, Deranged world is there. Since you think that there is and that you think its perfectly justifiable, That makes you as immoral and as bankrupt as your god. This debate is now over. Don't talk to me anymore. The world doesn't need people like you.
chrmon2

Pro

We've narrowed down to the definition of murder. My opponent has raised two contentions based on whether God is justified in killing people. These are based on:

1) Who God Kills

My opponent says that God kills people who have not sinned. He is correct. However, As I noted in my previous argument, There is still the concept of original sin, Or the consequence for Adam and Eve's sin in the garden (See Genesis). While it may seem counteractive to be punished on behalf of another, It is justifiable according to biblical morality which is the basis of this debate.

As the apologist William Lane Craig writes,

"How can we make sense of Adam"s sin being imputed to us? Two things suffice, I think: (1) As the federal head of the human race, Adam stands before God as our representative and so acts on our behalf. His misdeed was our misdeed because he acted as our proxy before God. (2) Lest anyone complain that Adam was a bad representative, We can say that God via His middle knowledge knew that, Had we been in Adam"s place, We would have done the same thing. So Adam does not fail to represent us accurately before God and so serves as an apt representative on our behalf. "

Based on this sort of reasoning, I think we can come to the conclusion that it is justifiable for God to punish people due to Original Sin.

2) Why God Kills

My opponent says there is no necessity for God to kill. This would depend on how my Con defines "necessity". If Con means that God is physically capable of not killing, Then they are correct. However, God, Being a just being, In addition to caring, Kind, Etc. Would need to kill or otherwise punish people in order to remain impartial. God could just let people live, But then he wouldn't be just, Or even "good", Which is the whole topic of this debate.

My opponent also states, "there is no need, No requirement, No necessity for murder. Only in your god's warped, Deranged world is there. " However, The entire topic of this debate is based around the world of the God of the Bible, "warped and deranged" as it may be. So Con has basically ceded this contention.

Finally, I would like to add a contention. Con states that it is "wrong" for God to kill people. However, He has not provided any evidence or a basis for this system of morality, So it should be disregarded.

Summary

So I think that given the context for this debate, It can be agreed that God is justified in killing people.

Oops, I just realized that Con is done with this debate, But I'm not going to forfeit a round, Especially after I typed all this out.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Con

backwardseden forfeited this round.
chrmon2

Pro

Con forfeited. Vote pro!
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Alright guys, I'm out for Christmas. We are going to see family and good friends of mine. I will probably be out for a few weeks. Merry Christmas everyone!
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@hunt3rz - *yawn*Why don't you hit yourself with a pile of dung as you pour gasoline upon your ape-like figurine ooga booga heart pounding THUNDEROUS chest and then waltz into a burning collapsing building? After all you seem to know all the answers to everything AND more importantly you 100% claim to know your unproven god, As no one has ever proven this so-called god to exist, Not ever, Not in the entire existence of the human race, Better than this god of YOURS that it knows himself. Yeppers teeny bopper still stuck in high school with an obvious high school education and intelligence, WOWZERS CABBAGE BATBRAIN you show your overbaked noodles when you mentioned: "Everything in creation is subject to law. " Oh really? According to what imbecile? You? How would you know? What grade of astonishing stupidity beyond all senior surfboard suckers soap scum sucking sky socket engineering did yah come up with that one sport? I get it. I really do. So according to your tepid tinsel mind. . . Plants and trees are subject to "Everything in creation is subject to law. "? AND according to you babies still suckling on their mother's nipples in the human race are also subject to "Everything in creation is subject to law. "? Since you didn't think ONE GOD DAMNED THING OUT, As you only babbled with your bumbling baby brained reject button, I didn't even bother to read the rest of your minced mutton moron mechanical mind teeny bopper gibberish. I'm so very glad I made your day better. Please do not post me again unless you have something intelligent to say. And we both know you don't. So GROW UP. You had your chance and wow did you blow it.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
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

"Such an entity could possibly be pretty moral. " Yeah. DAMN RIGHT. Not all this hate and pure evil in which not for one second do I buy, Which is why christianity, All of it, To me is 100% false especially of its pure hatred of children with sooo many verses.

Yep. This christian god/ entity doesn't care about ---anything--- but itself. The entire bible is geared towards the belief in its superior ego god complex and NOTHING else.

I do know that according to the bible its entity is "a sick cruel super entity. " I agree. "Because that's what the data indicates. But, It's nothing but a wild guess. " No its not a guess at all. "Over 90% of those who claim that they are christian, Have never read their bible"s. And in fact that"s how you become an atheist. " I don't know who stated that, But I do know its one of the members of The Atheist Experience. And it is a statement in which I have no doubt of.

Gtg please always tc and have fun -Michael
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
@hsteacher - Yeah you have no idea as to how many 14, 15 year olds are here on DDO. I mean these idiots think, Without any thought process, Reasoning, Rationalization, Use of common sense or logic, They think that they own the universe. . . When in fact they are a true product of absolute dishonorable disbelief. What's worse is that they don't get it and even worse is they don't "want" to get it. They are truly trapped within their own misfortunes of their dire need for love and care that they get from nowhere so they think they can get it from an invisible religion in which they have no proof of their god even existing. Jackiebaby is such a primordial soup direct hit to his brain in this.

Yeah TEXT would be completely out, No matter what from a supreme deity. PE-IR-OD. Especially when this so-called deity can simply come on down and talk to man and thus avoid all the troublings. Not only from ---exactly--- what you have stated, But this supreme deity, If in any possible way that it exists, Would simply come on down and talk to man and thus completely avoid all the troubles that text allows. This supreme deity would certainly be able to foresee them all and thus avoid text for every single reason imaginable.

Now suppose that the text of the bible has one thing wrong in it historically speaking, Then that makes the entire thing wrong as that book is ---supposed--- to be perfect. Well we both know its not. Not by a longshot. Sure there might be some "good" things in it, But are they "good"? Its really hard to claim that especially from a symphony of errors.
"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
Posted by hunt3rz 3 years ago
hunt3rz
God is Holy, Perfectly pure and righteous in all His works. The perfectly moral and righteous God hates lawlessness (iniquity). Everything in creation is subject to law. Everything is existing because of law. Without law there is chaos, There is anarchy, Which is to rebel against established law. God loves laws. Sin is lawlessness. It is to transgress Gods Law. To sin is to transgress against God. God is Creator, We are created. We are not God. We are in subjection to God. Creator God commands total obedience to His perfect law as revealed in His Word. God is perfect, He does not accept anything less in His creation except perfection. We have all transgressed God's perfect Law. The wages of sin is death, Or the reward or penalty of sin is to die. We've transgressed against God Almighty. Adam disobeyed God in the garden of Eden. We were exiled from His presence. Separated from God, Our Creator, Because of our sin. In His exceeding mercy and longsuffering toward us, He allows us to enjoy good things and is kind to the unthankful and the evil. He has sent prophets through history to communicate with us (Old Testament) and Apostles (New Testament). He has given us His Word by which we are saved if we believe in His Son. Who He sent 2000+ years ago, Jesus Christ. We are saved from God's wrath. God has appointed a day when He will judge the whole world in perfect righteousness. We are all condemned because of our sin against God. We all must pay for our sins in hell forever to satisfy our God's Justice. Sin is this serious. And all the world will stand before The Holy and Righteous God in the Day of Judgement. Only those who have been washed clean from their sin by the blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son. Will overcome that Judgement. Jesus Christ willfully took God's wrath and hatred for sin on Himself on the cross. He took the wrath of God as our subsitute for our sin if we believe in Him we will be saved from our sin. Only Jesus Christ God accepts. There is no other name
Posted by hsteacher 3 years ago
hsteacher
It's even not totally impossible that this possibly existing super smart entity feels so horrible about what it's doing to get the physics data (over the next few billion years, ) that it's wanting to take us all with it into another universe once it can figure out how to get there.
In biology, It's called studying cells in situ - in their natural environment so that the cells behave normally, Making the observations meaningful.
Perhaps it simply must do its studying like that, Even if the results are horror beyond belief. And that it wants to take us all into the other universe with it as compensation for all the monsterous things it's required of us.
Then again, Maybe said possibly existing entity is just one sick monster and there's nothing else to it.
You see, We simply can never know.

My WILD GUESS, Is that it's just a sick cruel super entity. Because that's what the data indicates. But, It's nothing but a wild guess. BUY, BUT, That's the working hypothesis we are stuck with going by. I'm going to formally explain that tomorrow or something.
Posted by hsteacher 3 years ago
hsteacher
Very scarey universe - way too scarey for having offspring in. That's what I gotta say.
Posted by hsteacher 3 years ago
hsteacher
Such an entity could possibly be pretty moral. For example, Most modern physics theories postulate that the universe has a limited life span. So it's not impossible that the entity at the top needs the physics data to try to get into another universe. Struggling for its survival. It could possibly totally hate the horrors it's causing, But has no choice without risking its own survival.
Then again, Maybe it doesn't need the data worth nothing, And just doesn't give a dam in the universe about anything except itself. There's no way we will ever have any chance of knowing if this is what it's experiments call for.
Posted by hsteacher 3 years ago
hsteacher
Hmmm, 14 15 year olds - I didn't think about total reject stupid 14 year olds. There's no sense in trying to talk to one of those. . THINGS. Those rejects ought to be spayed and neutered.

About any god not being stupid enough to use text - well, Ya got to realize that any god out there would be a physically real extraterrestrial entity. One virtually infinitely above us. Our complex brain systems, Especially combined with all the brains on Earth, Would make for a complex physics experiment. Manipulate these elementary particles in this brain, See what happens to the particles in this other brain over there. Physics experiment. Using constantly changing text, Constantly changing over the centuries, Could be exactly what it's physics experiment calls for. I'm talking like insect experiment here. And also, Realize, This universe is 14 billion years old. Any visitors here would have been here for at least AT LEAST, Statistically speaking, On the order of 10 million years. Perhaps billions. So, Insects maybe complex organic molecules, Is about all we'd be compared to it. So TEXT, That would not be something ever intended for our benefit. Only to the benefit of it's science experimentation set up.

About the historical accuracy thing - it's not totally impossible that it is pretty accurate. Assuming of COURSE that there's actually a grain of truth to it. Again - all just physics experimental set up. Set up loony from our insect world view. But just what the experiment called for.
The reason I'm giving the bible a slight chance of being historically real, And not too bungled in accuracy, Is that the Fermi paradox is so huge a paradox now a days. Astronomers kind of just take it as a given, That ultra entities are out there and easily within range. So, We could POSSIBLY be looking at the bible as a product of their experimental manipulation of life on Earth. Manipulation totally making no sense to us, But ultra advanced science to it.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
backwardseden
Sorry. . . Historically inaccurate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Thoht 3 years ago
Thoht
backwardsedenchrmon2Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's ff is bad conduct, as well as refusing to continue the debate. That being said, if God was perfect his murdering of infants, children, etc would not be necessary. He could solve the problem via nonviolent means. Unless you say he can't, in which case what makes him God?
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
dsjpk5
backwardsedenchrmon2Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con called Pro "immoral" because he disagreed with Him. That's poor conduct. Con made the argument that "In the horrific terrorizer bible, Its god has murdered 2, 821, 364 in one little splatch of land which includes babies, Children and pregnant women", but Con's rebuttal was the most convincing argument: "God did this as a punishment for people's sinful behavior."
Vote Placed by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
backwardsedenchrmon2Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did forfeit and gave bad conduct which is why Pro does have the conduct point. Con did make the most convincing argument. Example: "In the horrific terrorizer bible, Its god has murdered 2, 821, 364 in one little splatch of land which includes babies, Children and pregnant women" Pro rebutted with "God did this as a punishment for people's sinful behavior."

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