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

god has no moral compass

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,454 times Debate No: 116345
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (50)
Votes (0)




1. God Created everything (Prov 26:10, Col 1:16) including evil. Isa 45:7, Amos 3:6, Lam 3:38
2. God is unquestionably just and righteous in all of his works Duet 32:4, Dan 9:14
3. God should be feared because he can send you to hell Matt 10:28, Luke 12:5, Heb 10:31
4. God causes blindness, deafness and dumbness Ex 4:11
5. God causes suffering so that his great works can be demonstrated John 9:1-9, 11:4, Isa 30:20, Ezek 38:16
6. God Kills Deut 32:29, 1 Sam 2:6
7. God causes rain, tempest, drought and hurricanes Job 5:10, 37:2-12, Isa 30:30, 42:15, Matt 5:45
8. God sends lying spirits and deceives prophets before destroying them 1 Kings 22:19-23, 2 Thess 2:11, Ezek 14:9, Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29, Tit 1:2
9. God hates violence of mankind so he violently destroys all life Gen 6:11-13, Ezek 8:17
10. God rejoices in the destruction of sinners Deut 28:63, Ps 37:13, Pr 1:26
11. God sends evil spirits 1 Sam 16:14, 18:10, 19:9, Judge 9:23
12. God tempts and can lead mankind into temptation Gen 22:1, Matt 6:13
13. God tried to kill moses Ex 4:24
14. God assists manslaughter Ex 21:13
15. God stirs up jealousy Isa 42:13, Deut 32:21
16. God Sends false prophets to test people Deut 13:1-3
17. God gives false laws, commandments and statutes. Ezek 20:25-26
18. Sends delusions and lies so that people might be damned 2 Thess 2:11-12, Isa 6:9-12, Mk 4:12
19. Lists punishments, including cannibalism, he will carry out to disobedient Lev 26, Deut 28
20. Sends locusts and pests to eat crops Joel 2:25
21. Becomes angry when Saul doesn"t kill enough 1 Sam 15:18-19, 28:18
22. Ends a famine after seven innocent men are hanged 2 Sam 21 (v14)
23. God is Jealous Ex 20:5, Num 25:11, Deut 5:9, Josh 24:19
24. Repents Gen 6:6, Ex 32:14, 1 Sam 15:11, 35, 2 Sam 24:16, Jonah 3:10, Jer 18:10, Joel 2:13
25. God demands blood as a sacrifice Lev 3:2, 4:6-7, Gen 8:21, Lev 1:9, Ezek 20:40-41
26. God"s sword is covered with blood and greasy fat Isa 34:6
27. God belches fire and smoke in anger Ps 18:7-8, 15
28. God has commanded drunkeness Jer 25:27
29. God rewards fools and transgressors Prov 26:10
30. Kills Uzzah for trying to steady the ark 1 Chron 13:10, 2 Sam 6:7
31. Allows David to choose the punishment inflicted on the people for David"s sin 2 Sam 24:11-13
32. Tricks David into a census and then vents his anger on the people, killing 70,000 2 Sam 24:1
33. Hardens pharaoh"s heart so that he can punish him and his people and commands moses to threaten pharaoh with murder Ex 4:21-23, 7:3, 13, 10:1
34. God hardens people"s hearts Rom 9:18
35. Considers the handicap, illegitimate children and their descendants, or men with injured genitalia inferior and unworthy to enter the congregation . Lev 21:17-23, Deut 23:1-2
36. God uses his chosen people to punish other nations Ps 149:5-9
37. God punishes many for the sins of one, the innocent are punished for the guilty, especially their guilty ancestors Deut 28:41; Gen 9:24-25, 20:7,18, Ex 12:29, 20:5, 34:7, Num 16, Deut 5:9, 23:2, 28:32, 41, Josh 7:8-26, 22:20, 2 Kings 5:27, Isa 14:21, Ezek 23:25, 46-47, Mal 1:2-4, Jer 31:29-30, Hos 2:4-5, Rom 5:14, also Adam's Fall generally in NT)
38. God will punish the men by causing their wives to be ravished and their children to be "dashed to pieces" (Isa 13:16, 18, Zech 14:2, Nah 3:10)
39. God's punishment of entire nations or cities by destroying every living thing naturally includes the destruction of babies and unborn embryos (e.g. Isa 34, the Flood, the plagues on Egypt, Sodom; Jesus also: Matt 11:20-24).
40. God will cause adultery as punishment (Deut 28:30).
41. God will cause drunkenness as punishment (Jer 13:12-13).
42. God will "spread dung upon your faces" as punishment (Mal 2:3).
43. God punishes one third of the human race (the descendents of Ham) because one man's nakedness was seen by his son (Gen 9:24-25).
44. God punishes Pharaoh and Abimelech because of Abraham's lie about Sarah. Abraham is not punished for lying (Gen 12:14-20, 20:18).
45. God turns Lot's wife into salt for looking back (Gen 19:26).
46. God kills for Onan for "spilling his seed on the ground" (Gen 38:10).
47. God endorses Judah condemning Tamar to death by burning for harlotry (Gen 38:24).
48. God kills all of Egypt's firstborn, including animals, to punish Pharaoh (Ex 12:29).
49. God will punish an animal with death if it grazes on the mountain while he is there (Ex 19:12)
50. Miriam is made a leper temporarily for speaking against Moses (Num 12:1-10), but Aaron, who was equally guilty, is not punished.
51. God punishes the Israelites for complaining about their food, first by sending fire to kill them (Num 11:1), then by sending poisonous snakes to kill many (Num 21:4-6).
52. God punishes the Israelites with plague for eating the quails he sent (Num 11:33).
53. God kills Korah and 250 others, with their families, because they questioned Moses' authority (Num 16:1-40).
54. God kills another 14,700 by plague, for murmuring against the punishment of Korah (Num 16:41-50).
55. Nadab and Abihu are burnt to death for offering "strange fire" (Lev 10:1-5).
56. Achan and his children and animals are burned to death for Achan's crime of keeping booty (Josh 7:8-26).
57. God smites a whole city with hemorrhoids as punishment for taking the ark (1 Sam 5:6-9).
58. God kills 50,000 men of Beth-shemesh because they looked into the Ark (1 Sam 6:19).
59. God kills Nabal for refusing to be extorted by David and gives David Nabal's wife (1 Sam 25:38).
60. God kills David's child in order to punish David (2 Sam 12:15-18).
61. God will punish David by giving his wives to another to enjoy in public view (2 Sam 12:11-12).
62. God does not punish Solomon for Solomon's sin, but punishes Solomon's son (1 Kings 11:9-12).
63. God kills a prophet for believing a lie told by another prophet of God (1 Kings 13).
64. God causes a lion to kill a man because he refused to strike a prophet when commanded (1 Kings 20:35-36).
65. God causes 42 children to be killed by bears because they tease Elisha about his baldness (2 Kings 2:23-24).
66. God caused cannibalism as a punishment (Lam 4:9-11, 2 Kings 6:26-29).
67. God will punish Samaria by allowing their infants to be dashed to pieces and their pregnant women to be ripped up (Hos 13:16).
68. God strikes a sorcerer with blindness for trying to dissuade a
potential convert (Acts 13:6-12).
69. God causes infant sacrifice (Ezek 20:26).
70. God is a "man of war" and causes war between people for his glory. (Ex 15:3 Deut 3:22 2 Sam 22:35, Ps 18:34, 144:1 Ps 24:8 Ezek 38:16, 23)

Prove that god is moral and refute the verses above (refute at least 10 of the verses above and prove that there is god's love within them)

dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.


First of all, I will begin by saying that I accept the challenge but I will ignore your rules of "refute 10 verses". To refute 10 verses defeat the heart of the argument. We should take the verses as they are. There is no need to hide that the Bible holds some very brutal passages and instances.

Secondly, the assumption that God has no moral compass is a faulty argument for one simple reason. We are attributing human traits on God. That is problematic to say the least. For the sake of argument, if the creator of life takes life, is it immoral? Is it even cruel? If I build a robot, can I not destroy that robot? It is my creation. Philosophers of ethics are still very much in debate on this topic, but even my analogy is troublesome because it is still very limited. We know, and since you established the Bible as the core of this argument and have already assumed that it is truth, I will assume that the Bible is truth in all its words, that God can both take life and restore life (1 Kings 17, 2 Kings 4:18, 2 Kings 13, Luke 7:11, Luke 8:49, Luke 16, John 11, Matthew 28, Matthew 27, Acts 9, Acts 20...). There is also the promise that we will all be restored to life and stand before God (1 Corinthians 15).

Thus, at the very least, each verse above which dictates that God took a life, knowing that He is the creator of life and the restorer of life, is he not entitled to take a life? Furthermore with the promise to take a life and THEN restore that life, is He still not entitled to take it? And if not, are we then to claim that we known more and have greater power to discern the outcomes of time and space than God?

But, let's take a specific look at some of your claims: A grand number of your chosen verses are stripped of their context. Unfortunately, this is a double edged sword as it makes your verse look like God is cruel (again human personification on a deity is inappropriate) but you lack the context of the verse which can deconstruct an claim.

Gen 19:26 Lot's wife is turned into salt. You state that she is turned into salt for "looking back" but what does the Bible actually say? Well, for one, the term "looked back" is the Hebrew verb (please help my my friends) "wat ta bet" - which means to look back with regard or basically to stare. It wasn't a simple glance over her shoulder. Second, your reference assumed that she was punished because she glanced back, but your use ignored the fact that God had given the command that they don't look back. This was disobedience, plain and simple. Though, your argument may be that, "Well death is a bit harsh penalty!" And I would agree, as humans, I agree. But, some things to be aware of -- first of all, what did she see when she looked back? I think this best explains it:

An eighth-century midrash from Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer states: The angels said to them, "Do not look behind you since the Divine Presence of the Holy One, blessed be He, has descended to rain brimstone and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah."

God even warns his most beloved that they cannot see Him: Exodus 33:22 -- God's presence is so great that we simply cannot view Him. Thus, Lot's wife's disobedience was not necessarily cruelty, but folly. If I warn my child to not play near the new construction yard, but he does, and is crushed by a beam. I will be greatly saddened. I will be greatly hurt. But he was warned.

So that leads to another question, does God weep or cry with us and for us? Yes! Jesus, God's son and a part of the trinity, wept multiple times that is recorded (John 11:35, Luke 19:41, Hebrews 5:7). But what of God? A snippet from gives a good snippet to consider:

"Even though the Lord needs nothing from us, He has chosen to make Himself emotionally responsive to our choices:

" He has sorrow when we rebel against Him (Genesis 6:6; Psalm 78:40).
" He can be provoked to anger by our defiance and rejection of Him (Isaiah 65:1"3; Jeremiah 8:19).
" He feels jealousy because of our idolatry and worldliness (Exodus 20:5; 34:14; Joshua 24:19).
" He rejoices with love over His children (Zephaniah 3:17; Isaiah 62:5).
" He hates wickedness (Psalm 5:5; 11:5; Proverbs 6:16).
" He has great compassion for His creation (Psalm 103:8; Joel 2:13).

God can be saddened, but nowhere in Scripture do we see an indication that the Lord God of heaven"s armies (Zechariah 8:14; Isaiah 22:14) cries tears. Jesus shed tears, showing us God"s sorrow in a very human way. One of the reasons that Jesus came to earth was to help us understand God."

For greater depth, I would recommend the book "Knowing God" by J. I. Packer.

You also utilized Exodus 4:24 that God had planned to kill Moses, though you specifically stated "tried" which is wholly inaccurate. But again, this was a concern of obedience. In that particular chapter, Moses had been given a task and he failed to do it (Exodus 4:18-26). Again, what was at stake, one man's life or a whole nation? Moses had been groomed for 8 years to do the task God had asked of him, and Moses was planning to walk away from it. Yet, God knows us very well, and we see, yet again and all throughout the bible, someone interceding for the people. Moses's wife interceded for Moses's life, Moses intercedes for the life of all Hebrews. Christ intercedes for the life of all people! Bigger picture wasn't able to be seen by us in a moment, but we must look at the whole picture -- the Greater Good, to be clich".

So how many of your verses fall under the condition of obedience? Speaking of obedience, we are told from the very beginning that the punishment for sin is death (Genesis 2:17, Romans 6:23). Again, the established precept that God is real and that God created everything, then God also set the system. If we follow God's decree, to sin is to die, then this punishment is just and not cruel. We have the right and ability to choose right and wrong. I can choose to murder my enemy or love him. I can choose to berate those who challenge me, or invite them into a discussion with me. Which is cruel? He is my enemy, should I not kill him? Should I withhold my love? Is that fair? Should I not love all people?

Let's consider the issue of hardening hearts. For example in Exodus 4, it is mentioned that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. This is once again one of those instances where the greater picture, one that we as mere mortals cannot see without help. Why would God harden the hearts of men? In particular, in Pharaoh's case, the Hebrews had lived in Egypt for a long time. By the time that Moses came returned to Egypt to speak on God's behalf most of the Hebrews didn't have a clue who God was. Moses asked God, "Who do I say you are?" (Exodus 3). So, with Pharaoh's heart hardened, God used the miracles (or plagues depending on perspective) to discredit the gods the Hebrews had begun to follow and identify with. How do we know that the Hebrews had turned to the Egyptian gods? Simple, while they were in Sinai, they began to worship Hathor and built a golden calf (Exodus 32) when they were scared.

Further more, much of what happened to the Hebrews out in the wilderness starts with disobedience. God provided water (Ex 17), food (Ex 16), and made sure their sandals didn't even wear out (Deut 29:5) which I think clearly demonstrates love as well. However, the people continued to be ungrateful and complain (Numbers 11 and 14, Ex 16) yet God still cared for them and continued to show His power to them by healing and caring for them as well (Num 21) in spite of their complaints.

At this point, I believe I have more than adequately seen to your challenge. I would encourage you to select a particular section or verse you wish to investigate deeper and we can take it one step at a time.

I eagerly await your reply. :)
Debate Round No. 1


You eagerly await my reply? Why? So I can rip your throat out, and throw it into the disposal so it can be regurgitated by the next flock of seagulls at the trash heap for you being so completely ignorant?

"We should take the verses as they are." 1. Who is this "we" that you are speaking of? Um no YOU got dealt an absolutely monstrosity of a hand and you cannot squirm out of it and neither can anyone else because of YOUR god"s complete 100% immorality. Oh and oh yeah. You cannot even prove that your god even exists. 2. (Taken from Dossier of Reason and it only covers a minute portion as to why YOUR god would never choose text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible) Which Bible? A. Over 450 English versions of the bible B. All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts C. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain, and how those verses read. D. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts. II. Availability - current estimate is that 2,251 languages, representing 193 million people, lack a Bible translation 3. Would you like to rephrase your mind numbing dunce cap manure spread response? 4. So are you now telling me that this god of yours would have not foreseen through all of these foreseeable errors and done something about it? Like namely not used text? Duh.
5. "There is no need to hide that the Bible holds some very brutal passages and instances." You are so right. That means morally according to you the bible should not exist. Wow. that was easy.
6. So if this conversation is to continue, in no possible way am I going to let you off with a light feather dusting. You either pay attention to the rules, or don"t bother. I"m not paying attention to you.


First of all, let's keep the debate civil. I more than adequately addressed the verses you submitted (far more than 10) and if you are not going to pay attention to me, then there really isn't a debate. You're simply wanting to get on a soapbox and shout.

Second, the hand dealt to me is not in the least monstrous. it is my hand and I accepted knowing my material well enough. Nor will I be squirming. I have nothing to hide from, but you seem to have ignored your requirement of proof of your claims.

Third, you used verses, without context, to establish your challenge. The assumption is that these verses are true events as they are stated and thus must be refuted. Yet, your claim is that they are not truth, so you can't logically argue that the Bible is brutal unless you acknowledge the events are true. Also, God must be real, as your claim states, "God has no moral compass". You logically assert that God exists. You must keep to the debate you initiated.

Yet, I am not one to back down from a good mental exercise and welcome any challenge you may bring :D.

Now, to head you off at the pass, if your next claim is that God does not exist, there is no proof of that as well. Science nor reason establish such an irrefutable claim. Though people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hutchins will claim so, their claims have been summarily answered and reasoned much like Henson's "Dossier of Reason". Therefore, I urge you to draw your own conclusions and points or we can just copy and paste all day long.

However, and this is a big however, historians agree that there had to once exist the Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus of the Bible) who traveled the roads around Jerusalem and preached to the masses and did many amazing feats. This isn't up for debate because of how we authentic ancient manuscripts and history is through eye witness statements and harmony of texts. Jesus (Yeshua) is one of the most well established people in history due to this fact. Simon Gathercole has written on this fact over and over. If we change the rules of how we dictate historical figures and events to rule out Jesus due to the amount of writings, also beyond the Bible, the details of facts, and the harmony of the writers, then much of our ancient history will vanish as well. It has been said, "There is more evidence Jesus existed than any other figure more than a thousand years old."

Fourth, let's take your reply, apart piece by piece. Yet, I feel the need to remind you of the rules of a truth statement. It must be beyond rational doubt.

I) Text as the most unreliable -- uhm -- I'll just use my own logic here. Oldest known story ever, "Epic of Gilgamesh" we have multiple versions of it and they are all very similar and intact, couple thousand years old. Oldest known law, Hamurabi's code, also intact, thousands of years old, somewhere around 95% identical to each one we've found (maybe exaggerate yet still very close). Egyptian hieroglyphs still in tact. Homer's writings, though not all dated back to Homer's hand, largely intact, millenia old, and still largely in agreement with one another. The Torah of today and compared to those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls -- identical, centuries old. How do you mean unreliable?

Please elaborate. Please provide an example that can be rationally examined.

II) Discussion on the Bible's translation is, at best, spurious. Assuming that Henson's assertion is indeed the case, and we ignore voluminous studies to the contrary, then even your use of the verses to assert God has no moral compass is faulty because your own use of the verses would be inaccurate. Yet, I won't just make a claim and pretend it is fact, so let's look at what experts in the field have to say:

(Concerning the New Testament) "Our modern translations have been based on older and even older manuscripts. For example, the King James is a fantastic translation - in its day a landmark translation of the Bible into English - but it was only based on a handful of Greek manuscripts and those were very late. Not to fault Erasmus or the King James translators who put that together - they were using the Greek manuscripts that they had.

Modern translations of the Bible are going back even further into the history of the text because we now have available to us even older manuscripts, whereas Erasmus only had medieval manuscripts available to him. We have manuscripts that go all the way back to the 2nd century. We have fragments that go back to the early part of the 2nd century and all of those have been taken into account when new translations are made.The King James is not the foundation for any modern translation - ancient Greek manuscripts are.

With modern English translations, you are getting a more reliable translation based on more data, based on more scientific discovery, and based on more available manuscripts which are older and which are considered by most experts to be even more reliable than the medieval manuscripts used by Erasmus."

I could spend all day discussing Equivalence Translations and how they work, but at this point, it's safe to say your point, that one translation is based on another translation on another translation on another translation is faulty since modern translations use the oldest of materials available and not other translations for veracity (The Message not withstanding). We have over 24,000 copies of the New Testament books all within the first and second centuries, the earliest being dated to 68 AD and their harmony of text is almost perfect. Your claim is false.

How about the Old Testament you say? Same story. We could even bust into a the concepts of ostensible truth versus perceived truth, but I think this piece is settled.

The burden of proof is upon you now, as you claim the various copies disagree with one another, I can't think of a single scholar who has studied the texts and agrees with that statement. Bart Ehrman is perhaps the most critical of the translations and most well known, but even he acknowledges that the manuscripts we have are more than ostensibly accurate to today's manuscript. So this calls into question the entire Dossier of Reason at this point. His facts are ignorant as to how the translations exist and relate.

Also, point to availability, are you now claiming more knowledge than God (remember your own premise assumes He exists) to say that you understand divine revelation (stories abound) as well as how God knows each person and what lies in their heart? Romans 3 suggests that those nations who have not had access to the God's law are not held accountable to the law, yet still have the availability to know God.

I find it troubling that you refuse to respond to any philosophical problem posed. Is God subject to Human limitations and understanding?

III) No, I would like for you address the questions posed to you and respond to the challenges. The burden of proof for your claim still lays heavily at your feet. At this point, my response to your host of verses stands quite prominent. You have moral quandaries for which you must answer and provide substantive replies to.

IV) Uhm, again, texts have lasted the test of time.

V) How is acknowledging that the Bible has some brutality in it means that morally it shouldn't exist? That is a non sequitur at best. Are humans plush toys and we all hop around in fields of rainbows? No! I've lived and worked in 3rd world nations. Life is brutal. Yet the Bible's purpose is about hope. Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, perhaps, one of the defining pieces on this called the "Nature and Destiny of Man".

"Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope.

Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore we must be saved by faith.

Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we must be saved by love.

No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the standpoint of our friend or foe as it is from our standpoint. Therefore we must be saved by the final form of love which is forgiveness."

These points by Niebuhr are the core topics of the Bible. Jesus's blood sacrifice which was outlined in Leviticus and the law set by God (which remember, you established that God exists and that the Bible is true in your initial claims) is about forgiveness and love. God's love, Jesus's love, gave us forgiveness and hope that the brutality of this life will cease and be made right in the end.

VI) Last but not least, the burden of proof of your claims rests on you. You made the claim you must support it. At this point you have claimed that the Bible can't be trusted (refuted in this post) and yet used verses from the Bible to shout your accusation (faulty logic).

Finally, your response does not forward your claim that God has no moral compass and you have even more points to engage.

Again, I eagerly await your response. :)
Debate Round No. 2


I am keeping this debate just fine and peachy clean as dry to the bone at a nun"s pep rally. "First of all, let's keep the debate civil. I more than adequately addressed the verses you submitted (far more than 10)" That"s news to me as its not my job to look up the verses that you list, and I cannot possibly understand what you are trying to say when you use them due to the fact of the power of conversion ratio. Its why its one of the main reasons why your god would never use text, the worst form of communication possible.

"Second, the hand dealt to me is not in the least monstrous." See? That"s the problem with you christians. Because absolutely yes in every way possible yes it was. That"s why your god is completely immoral and so are you and you cannot possibly fathom what immorality is. "it is my hand and I accepted knowing my material well enough." Well you don"t. "Nor will I be squirming." Well that"s why you don"t know what immorally is. "I have nothing to hide from," that again is why you have a 0 concept as to what morality is. Your god certainly doesn"t. The verses proves that. "but you seem to have ignored your requirement of proof of your claims." The verses prove their claims. They need not be taken any further. They are quite sick, perverted and disgusting enough which is perfectly fine with you in a book which is supposed to be read and observed by children.

"Third, you used verses, without context," only christians say that. Its useless folly. And what do you think you did? Oh I get it? You must think you are NOT a somehow a barrage of a contradictory hypocrite, just---like---your---god in his bible who would not use text to begin with, the worst form of communication possible so people like YOU can get it wrong. "The assumption is that these verses are true events as they are stated and thus must be refuted." Oh really? Well what moron, other that your god, in which you cannot even prove exists, would---put---them---there---in---the---first---place? Um no they are just fine the way they are to paint a true sick and disgusting portrait of YOUR printed god.

"Yet, your claim is that they are not truth, so you can't so you can't logically argue"" yadda yadda yadda. You sound like a super cheap broken elevator recording of incipient la la byes trying to ROCK his doodles. Well then you cannot logically argue your god. You have not run any tests, declared in any way possible, nor demonstrated AT ALL this god of YOURS. You don"t even know what this god of YOURS IS. You cannot describe what this god of YOURS is. Yet stand back on every single fiber optic cable to the brain on anything that has to do with morality. Talk about "can"t argue logically." But let"s add thinking, reasoning, rationalizing and common sense in which you have thus far proven has none. YOUR god certainly doesn"t.

"that the Bible is brutal" well jeepers with a pinch of a gosh golly gee gosh darned it all, that"s what the verses claim. "unless you acknowledge the events are true" Are ALL horror films TRUE? Is EVERY SINGLE Stephen King novel TRUE? Your ability to argue logically is truly astounding. "Also, God must be real, as your claim states, "God has no moral compass". You logically assert that God exists. You must keep to the debate you initiated." And with that I"m stopping this debate. I can"t in good conscious continue with someone who doesn"t know the difference from what is truth from fiction. You have no idea, none, as to what the difference is from fact from fiction. What the difference is from right from left. What the difference is from up from down. What the difference is from north from south. What the difference is from east to west. What the difference is between immortality and morality. You proved it with"
"Thus, at the very least, each verse above which dictates that God took a life, knowing that He is the creator of life and the restorer of life, is he not entitled to take a life?" Um no. Not ever. Not for any reason. And I do not ---ever--- deal with people like you. That's the difference between me and you. I don't as those unjustified questions much less believe in any of them.


First, I'll keep this simple since you keep saying you cannot understand what I am responding. Also, in a debate, the burden of proof resides on each person for their claims. You stated that the Bible cannot be trusted. you copy and pasted a passage from "The Dossier of Reason" which claimed as much -- you have then, logically, defunct your own evidence.

You now claim that the verses prove your point. Either the verses can be trusted as you stated or they cannot be trusted as you have also stated. If they are trusted, then you must confront the elements from my first post of context for the verses and obedience of God, plus the moral quandary of if God can be held to a human limitation and definition.

Second, it is your job to check my references to the claims I have made, that's how reasoning works. If you wish to not confront the validity of those points, then you must provide other points that support your claim that God has no moral compass. Questioning if God exists is not within the scope of your premise.

Third, you job also requires you to make logical and well reasoned stances, simply claiming something as fact does not make it fact. "due to the fact of the power of conversation ration. It's why its one of the main reasons why your god would never use text, the worst form of communication possible." Yeah, I've already discussed how text stands the test of time and allows for references to be made back and forth and can be used to validate future materials. You have to now prove your point that text is a terrible medium and possibly provide alternative methods that God should have thought of to give to mankind millennia ago.

Your lack of comprehension is not my folly. Again, claiming my hand is terrible does not make it so. You have to prove it is a terrible hand, not just make a spurious claim. Regardless of the facts at my disposal, you haven't yet laid down a clear definition of immorality. You haven't yet approached the moral question of if a creator of life is subject to human interpretations of life. You haven't yet defined any aspect of your premise. What of my character tells you I have no fathom of immorality? What about me gives you the right to disparage my character and claim what I know and don't know? How is my refusal to back down from you a cue that I have no morality?

Again, you claim the verse are sick and nasty and horrible which is fine with me -- again, I suggest to you to pick a verse and let's look at it at length. I saw that another debater attempted this same debate with you and you blew up at him over the verse of Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Yet a learned person would know to check the context if they were troubled by this verse. So let's do that shall we?

Isaiah is a Hebrew text, the English version you references is a translation that identifies evil as "hardship or judgement" while the Hebrew text literally writes: "...I bring affliction...". Regardless of your interpretation the context of this verse still discusses obedience. The whole length deals with God praising Israel for obedience and removing his favors (one of which is protection) for their disobedience. Do you discipline a child? Certainly. Do you remove your kindness in their obstinate time? Sure. Do you remove your love? Never. Again you lacked context of the verse and understanding of the verse.

So, you're saying that it's okay to take a single line out of context and decide whole issues with it? You state in your 3rd paragraph that it is not needed. So if this conversation was handled face-to-face in a state with "fighting words" laws you'd be okay with the consequences of one single line you said to me at this time? You would feel great going in to court to discuss how that one statement you made that disrespected me was not actually slander? That it didn't throw discredit on me? Or would you argue there was context?

Again, whether God exists or not is not part of this debate. You set the premise. And, regardless, you can't prove He doesn't exist either, and simply saying that I cannot prove his existence is not evidence of his lack of existence. It is not fact nor is it truth. If you have the magic bullet that pulls the plug on this God conspiracy for thousands of years and billions of believers, fire away!

Simple point of fact, again, I don't have to prove God exists for this debate, you began the debate with the premise that He did exist and that He has no moral compass. However, scientific laws are quite clear, a lack of evidence is not evidence. An object that is supernatural or preternatural is not testable by natural means. But let's throw a fun one out there just for kicks and giggles. I'll even make it a soft one that can easily be argued -- Ezekiel is a book that is without a doubt written in the BCE. The book, the letters, the references, even the time line checks out. Plus, we even have a really, really old copy of it. Yet, somehow, Ezekiel either made a really lucky guess, or someone told him the future, because in Ezekiel chapters 36 and 37 he talks about the rebirth of the nation of Israel. Totally weird right? Since Israel was still a nation, it had just been captured by the Babylonians. But he even called out the diaspora of Israel and darn near to the day got the year right of when Israel would be reborn. Now, without a crystal ball (which would be a supernatural event and thus beyond the scope of science) or the ear of a god, how did he know?

Here's a fun link to a simple article if you'd like to do due diligence:

Now, I have given you some evidence that God just might be out there. Your job would be to refute this claim, however, yet again, this was not the scope of your original premise, which already stated that God existed.

I find it comical how you cut my sentences in halves and ignore the parts you don't like. Again, you used the verses as facts, thus in your premise they are true. You can't, once again, argue they are false, otherwise your premise is false. If the brutality in the bible is real, and not horror movie fantasy which you now claim, then you must accept your own premise that the Bible speaks truth. If you are now saying they are false, then your premise is false, because that is how you structured your own argument.

I find it quite ironic that you choose to step out of the argument without so much as a shred of evidence to your claim, let alone the evidence you provided you now disparage and claim as false. You can question my ability to know right from left and up from down and fact from fiction all day long, but -- then I actually met you on your ground and saw to your demands and I am the one still standing at the end of it all.

Lastly, what gives you the authority to instill your beliefs upon another person? Let alone what gives you the right to instill your morality upon God? You can claim, and I know you will, that it's okay because he doesn't exist, but that doesn't answer the original question you posed. Have you ever killed a spider? An ant? Even accidentally? Was that a life you were allowed to take, and if so, why? Have you ever ate meat? Or a vegetable? Or a fruit? If so, was that a life you were allowed to take, and why? You didn't create any of those lives, and remember your premise clearly stated that God exists, and He created all things. Pretty sure you cited that in your original post. So, why are you allowed to take a life, but He, the creator, the restorer of life, cannot? What gives you that authority?

Same question as what gives you the authority to disrespect me so much? How are you greater than anyone?
Debate Round No. 3


OK I"m gonna give you one more shot and if you show ANY immorality, especially the way you have with your pigeon holed snot meat sow dimwitted dullard arguments, I will end it immediately because in fact I do happen to be moral and I do not do unto others what your god in print has done unto them. I do know what is immoral and what is not.

Now here"s how I operate and if you don"t like it, that"s not my problem as I treat everybody the same" Here"s how I run things" if there is the slightest hint of you inventing excuses from something in which you clearly know nothing about, especially when its the subject in which you claim to professing you have knowledge upon, namely this one, and you really don"t, and yet you pretend that you do by coming up with invented excuses and or flat out lying, I will insult you with my brand of insults (in which I have already done and you deserved it because in no possible way did you think, reason, rationalize, use common sense or use logic because your god, in which you cannot even prove exists is totally incapable of that) that are original, funny, stupid, deranged and walls to the ball insane, unless those excuses are so far fetched that they are clearly pulled off from your groin to be a groin pull from the gold-i-lox area to keep scientists looking for other planets, then all bets are truly off and I may end the debate right then and there because I DO KNOW my stuff, whereas most don"t.

So let"s start off with a morality test" DO NOT use a supposed christian "the law" it is fake and fraudulent.
* 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 with the word "homosexuality" added into it. Yeah your bible is constantly changed to suit man"s wants needs and desires. Even worse is man constantly changes the characters and what they say. Yes even god and christ themselves.Oh really? That"s a good one. God"s word is supposed to be "perfect". And who gives these translators permission to change ANYTHING? And who says that these translators and or interpreters are RIGHT? Shakespeare isn"t changed or updated. - yet another reason why your god would never use text as a form of communication. Yeah there"s no possible way that the bible YOU ARE READING is CORRECT)
* 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. What's worse is this so-called god would never use text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible.

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.

"Also, in a debate, the burden of proof resides on each person for their claims." No it does not when one side cannot prove what he is stating. You cannot prove that your god even exists.

"You stated that the Bible cannot be trusted". you copy and pasted a passage from "The Dossier of Reason" which claimed as much -- you have then, logically, defunct your own evidence." Completely false. See, that"s why I hate debating with christians. Their minds work totally differently from others than that of the outside world. I showed you that your god would not use text, not for any reason whatsoever, and yet you glossed over it like green eggs and spam. And then when I use the bible as evidence to prove what this god of yours says, well you know what? Its this god of YOURS. Not mine. Y-O-U-R-S. I stack evidence against YOU. And you know what that shows? Its a contradiction. Why its the biggest contradiction of all. And you know what the best party favors are? There"s over 1,000 hypocritical contradictions and inconsistencies in YOUR bible to make it truly unreadable. (No space to list them but have fun with this website. Some are not correct. But most are. )

"You now claim that the verses prove your point." Oh I haven"t even gotten started with those. Let"s give you a couple on how your god hates pregnant women and children.
* 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.

"Second, it is your job to check my references"" It is if you list references. But when you don"t as you have not done, then that"s not my problem. I"m not going to look up every single verse YOU present or even one of them. That"s not my job. That"s yours to present them, IF you want me to see them. If not then I"m not going to bother. And you WILL lose debates that way. That"s just like you getting into a debate, presenting a book, but keeping it closed at all times during the debate.

I already showed you why your god would never use text in RD1.

No more space.


Michael, I am impressed. You responded with material.

Before I begin, I'm curious how you wish to achieve your goals of peace and morality when you berate someone? When you are spouting spiteful, perhaps hateful, diatribe rather than actually responding to someone showing equality? I have given you respect and I have given you patience, and you have shown neither to me. How you rationalize such behavior being an advocate of morality? Doesn't such behavior create dissonance and disrespect?

Also, you claim I have no knowledge to which I speak. You haven't countered or re-countered my claims, so... what's your basis for this claim on my ability?

This part of the debate could be so simple if I follow YOUR method by claiming that you have no evidence for God not existing and then saying you have no knowledge for anything you've said and ignoring your claims. However, I am not that unprepared nor am I that inept.

Now, let's address your concerns dealing with the moral test. Again, you have failed to establish that a deity is subject to human moral relativism (round 1) and you still have not provided any evidence whatsoever that this should be the case (round 1 and 3). Also, at this time, I reject your claim that God is subject to your view of morality, which you have failed to establish as well.

But, let's assume a human can place moral restrictions on a creator deity, whom we assume exists because of, once again, your initial premise claims He does. I first need to know whose morality do we use to judge all people? I have lived in countries where they eat cats, but in the US, cats are pets not food, and in Ancient Egypt they were sacred and revered as a goddess.

So let's answer your questions...

1 -- According to the latest International Humanist and Ethical Union's Freedom of Thought report, 13 countries currently have laws on the books carrying a penalty of death for blasphemy or apostasy. Including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Such laws have also existed in ancient civilizations. Can we use their versions of morality? Why or why not?

2 -- Whose sabbath day do we use? Some cultures use Friday. Some use Saturday. Some claim Sunday. Some claim Wednesday. Some don't even acknowledge it. So, whose moral sabbath are we talking about? Are you aware that many, many, many trainers, doctors, and psychologists discuss the necessity for a day of rest and meditation as it causes us undo wear and tear on our bodies and minds? So, can we use morality to improve health quality for those of us who work or are on call 24/7/365?

Note: Jesus did work on the Sabbath, oh and in Luke 6 he told the priests that they had perverted the law and used it for their own advantages. You would know that, if you read the text rather than copy and pasted from someone else. You would also know that there was a new covenant made with the coming of a messiah as his purpose was to fulfill the law of God -- which you claimed as "FAKE" yet you established from the beginning that the verses are valid and factual evidence, thus hey, it's gotta be right. I'm just using your rules you established. This will become even more important later as we look at the new covenant, since we're discussing God's moral compass we have to use the texts that deal specifically with His teachings. Again, YOUR premise!

3 -- Ask my grandmother who promised to take me out of this world every time I was obstinate. Just obstinate. Can we use her moral code? If not, why not? You still have not established a premise for whose moral code is superior to lead the human race and that God is accountable to.

4-- Adultery carries a bunch of problems with it from psychological detachment disorders. For example we are now learning that the brain can actually become too accustomed to the Serotonin and Oxytocin which creates feelings of attachment. This is leading to numerous problems, one of which is the devaluation of life. Let's follow biological precedent through it's natural course? Or do we need to stop that?

You claimed in round two that you could rip my throat out and throw it in the disposal for being ignorant, so, by that standard can I not harm someone who hurts me, possibly to the point of killing them? What about those people who get STDs and then share them? Where do you stand on those who have HIV and do not tell their sex partners purposely spreading the disease? Is that a crime or an "oops"?

However, since you said at the end that if I answered yes to any of these questions, then I am immoral. Therefore, you must be supportive of life not wanting adulterous to be killed, yet you're pro the devaluation of life which promiscuity engenders, and I'm assuming you're pro-abortion, yet you told me earlier under no circumstance should life be taken (see round 3's questions about killing lesser lives)?

5 -- Again, there are countless cultures throughout history who are okay with killing homosexuals and countless others which say it is not okay. Which culture do we choose and why? What gives that culture the moral high ground?

Again, your challenge to the accuracy of the Bible has been refuted by my post in Round 2. You still haven't shown me any evidence of your claim being remotely valid. Just glimpses of accusations -- and yet I gave you actual statistical, verifiable, and historical data -- unless science isn't reliable. Dang that logical reasoning skill of science! I tell ya what!

6 -- I'm assuming form this post you don't understand what "other gods" means in this text. It's all about someone's heart and what they value most. Many times those other gods carry their own punishment. However, according to your posts here in this thread, you have already told me that my worship of God makes me unfit for life since I don't bow to your values. So, you have answered this question yourself as a "Yes".

That's two "Yes"s for Michael and according to your own test, "If you answer "yes" to any of the questions, it means you are totally bankrupt and immoral"

But I digress --

Now let's look at things from a Biblical perspective, As the verses you used to begin your argument must be true, because they are the evidence you used to prove God is immoral, they must be true, or logically you have no argument to begin with, making the scriptures are fair game and truth. Thus, assuming God exists and assuming the Bible is truth, then God is also the law giver (Isaiah 33:22 -- For the LORD is our Judge...).

The Bible establishes death in a few ways, one of which is considered a spiritual death and then the physical death, Genesis 2:17 is kind of the first glimpse we get of this. Ephesians 4:17-19 helps us out more:

"So I tell you this, and testify to it in the Lord: You must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardness of their hearts. Having lost all sense of shame, they have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity, "

So, again, as you established in your premise the scriptures are true -- thus God has established a death which separates us from Him when we break his laws (sin).

So, I'm going to lob you an easy question, which death is being spoken of in all of your moral questions? Spiritual or physical?

"The Law provided harsh penalties for wrongdoing, including the sin of blasphemy. One of the purposes of the Law was to establish the conviction that God is holy. God"s name, as an expression of His nature, is also holy (Psalm 99:3; Luke 1:49).

The coming of Christ signaled a transition in how God's people are identified. They had been previously identified through the Jewish culture and a theocratic marriage of "church" and state. With Jesus came the New Covenant, and God"s people were identified internally: "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). In order to provide open access to God, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Law (Matthew 5:17). No longer were sacrifices necessary because He was the once-for-all sacrifice. No longer were specific dress requirements necessary. And no longer were God"s people identified by a state under theocratic rule. " -- J. I. Packer

That alone should suffice many of your questions, but again, I feel the need to remind you, according to your initial claim, the verses are true and God does exist. Also, your premise that text is a horrible source material went challenged and you refused to answer or even examine the challenges posed, therefore there can be no truth to you claim that God would not use text as truth, by definition, remains true and constant under all inquiries into its components. Your claim from the Dossier of Reason has not remained constant under the inquiries and can be logically surmised as NOT TRUE.

Your answers you said you knew my stance on already:

1-- answered above
2 -- 3 --Pretty much deals with the same premise as 1 -- thus answered.
4 -- 5 -- Sin is a spiritual death -- physical death of course not, that isn't my job as a Christian first of all as Jesus gave us the Great Comission (Matt 28:16-something). "Christians" are told to "restore them gently" (Galations 6:1).
6 -- spiritual death obviously so because you're not right with God -- physical death No, and no one is under this law biblically any longer due to the new covenant (Galations 2:16)

I assume you're going to take my words out of context and that you're going to completely ignore the questions that confront you. Why don't you simply tell me what you really want because it is clear you're not here for a debate
Debate Round No. 4


"I assume you're going to take my words out of context" Oh you mean the way you completely take YOUR bible out of context? And just because you cannot communicate properly, that"s not my problem, that"s entirely yours.

"Michael, I am impressed. You responded with material." ARE YOU SERIOUS? Now I am REALLY p**sed. The entire RD1 WAS material in which you completely and totally ignored. RD2 presented why text would NEVER be used by YOUR god. Not for any reason. And it should have hit your brain, that since this is true you have absolutely no sources whatsoever for your god and is automatically fraudulent, thus completely immoral. Nah. That"s too much to ask for someone who SHOULD be educated and intelligent. So why shouldn"t I completely ignore you? Sheesh! And you wonder why I berate you. That"s within my rights when you DO NOT know your product and yet you pretend that you do and you thus invent excuses for it. If you do that to any teacher = instant F. If you do that to your friends and loved ones = no friends and loved ones. Try it! Oh but wait, you already have which is why you have no genuine friends and loved ones. (But wait! That one of your christ's sneeze rag stipulations is that you have no family and FOLLOW HIM!) So why should I deal with it here? This ---is--- taught in college.

"I have given you respect and I have given you patience," Oh no you haven"t by your lack of intelligence and education. Its insulting.

"Also, you claim I have no knowledge to which I speak. You haven't countered or re-countered my claims," There"s nothing you can counter with!!! Especially when dealing with complete immorality.

"This part of the debate could be so simple if I follow YOUR method by claiming that you have no evidence for God not existing"" No that"s not what I said, even though there isn"t because you would even have to dig yourself a bigger tar pit with that statement because then it becomes "which god"? What I said was you cannot even prove that your god even exists. That"s a stark black and white difference. Because you can"t. There is no claim that you have.

"Now, let's address your concerns dealing with the moral test. Again, you have failed to establish that a deity is subject to human moral relativism" WRONG. But let"s see what YOU said. And that"s why I am an atheist and you are a so-called christian and you do not know the difference between what morality and immorality is.

"But, let's assume a human can place moral restrictions on a creator deity," Ab-so-lu-tely 100% we can. Why shouldn"t we be able to especially when you cannot---even---prove---that---this---deity---exists? AND even worse for you is that this supposed deity is supposed to be kind, caring, loving, harmonious, peaceful etc etc etc. and something you as a supposed christian (in which there is no such a thing that"s another debate entirely as to the why, but simply put christ is a false messiah in which is so ridiculously easy to prove)
"whom we assume exists because of, once again, your initial premise claims He does." Oh for f--ks sake. NO. What is wrong with you? Until this supreme deity is proven, it---does---not---exist. There---is---only---a---belief. "I first need to know whose morality do we use to judge all people?" I didn"t ask "all people" you fricken a$$. I asked YOU. Naturally YOU avoided in answering the questions because YOU know that the questions are ALWAYS the answer of "No" but YOU can NEVER admit it, because they are completely immoral made by a completely immoral god OF YOURS only in which YOU cannot even produce as existing. So one question in which nearly 100% of all so-called christians cannot answer - why believe?
"So let's answer your questions"" Let"s not. Let"s end this. I cannot deal and or debate with those who are completely immoral and thus invent excuses.

- Why Does Every Intelligent christian disobey jesus?
And you most certainly do.


To the readers of the debate.

I would very much like to thank everyone for reading through and I would appreciate any positive and constructive feedback.

I do believe it is important to realize that the original premise assumes God is real, thus we can examine if He has a moral compass or not. And the use of scripture also must be considered truth to judge God on this topic. If God is not real, then the consideration of his moral compass is moot, or if we cannot accurately trust scripture, then we cannot judge his moral compass.

Personally, I feel that at this time, too many questions remain unanswered by the instigator such as: Why can humans require a creator god to be subject to our morality? And whose morality do we use and is superior that we use to judge all people with? Can a being capable of giving and restoring life be held to account for murder? And what truly does it mean to be moral and immoral?

I also feel that many of the verses supplied in RD1 were addressed in broad scope through evaluation of context and the general scope of obedience to a creator's law.

I also feel that the discussion of how we analyze ancient texts and personalities is settled as well. Whether one believes in the Bible's most fanciful parts, the question of how it is translated and the accuracy is based on the oldest and closest to the originals we can find. 68 AD isn't even a full generation away from when Jesus walked, preached, and died. Luke himself claims to have spoken with many people who saw him speak and saw the scars in his hands. Amazing? Certainly. Rare? Very. Truth? That is for each of you to decide for yourself.

I hope you all have gleaned something or perhaps raised a good question you wish to pursue more. I would enjoy hearing from anyone further on this topic. :)

God bless everyone.
Debate Round No. 5
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by malus_pudor 3 years ago

I find it so hypocritical that you find it okay to insult me, my education, my intelligence, and my faith, and yet, if I hint at any lapse from you, you throw your hands up and scream that I'm a liar and a fool. Yet, you continue to refuse to answer any questions. You refuse to confront the logical errors in your argument. Wait, sorry, my mistake, your plagiarized arguments and op/ed material from Youtubers.

I have to admit, I really feel as though the material you posted you yourself haven't bothered to read through it. The videos you posted were largely people saying, "Oh so you think this is the case, yet in this verse this happens!" Except, just as I challenged you, even that guy Stephen on the atheist experience stripped verses and texts away from their context.

So, if stripping things from context means they stay true and accurate, and I know you already side with Richard Dawkins, so how do you deal with the fact that in a 2006 interview with Dan Cray, Dawkins said, "There is a God."

Now I know you're going to run back and find the context, but this whole time you've been shouting that the context doesn't matter. That we don't need to know anything more than what only YOU said. Except we do.

Lastly, how does hypocrisy lead to world peace? Doesn't pride do far more harm than good? How does berating and mocking people establish the equality of all needed in socialism?

I agree, I am completely done with you. You can certainly have the last word, because in the end, your words, your opinions they don't affect me. At the end of the day, I still pray, and you buddy, are on my list. :)

God be with you.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@malus_pudor - OK we're done. As stated, when you've insulted my education and intelligence I will have 0 to do with and I'm not going to repeat myself again especially when you are 100% wrong and the worst of it is you are so pathetically fake and fraudulent that you cannot possibly ---ever--- state where and how you get your information from. It is also clear that you haven't looked at the videos which are EVIDENCE no matter what thong you wear in high school to burp up your excuses. Have fun being all alone with no friends or loved ones. Because the crap you sell, no one of merit will ---ever--- believe. And the question you have to ask others is since you are so unintelligent and so uneducated, why is it that you have to infuriate others so badly? This will be my final post to you. I promise. and I ---never--- break my promises.
Posted by malus_pudor 3 years ago

I find it astounding how your version of events, which can be looked over by anyone, is completely different than what the record shows.

Your claim that the words and text have been changed over time is unsubstantiated. I've already addressed this. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Just because you post an op/ed youtube video doesn't make it fact. What makes it fact is the research, which I showed. You just claimed it was false without proof. That would be you running from the conversation.

Teeheehee, what a shock, you stripped a verse of context and fling it about as though it's fact! But then again, in round 2 you claimed the bible was completely untrustworthy (again without substantiation) so that's cowardice and running from the argument. Of course, stripping something of context is just ignorance. But hey, if you actually read the chapter, you would have noticed that it was a battle, and that Judah had chased the people from Gaza, not God. But, see, you would have had to read Judges 1:18 for that little note.

Semitic has never been a dead language. It was claimed to have been dead in the 1800's but was proved false, why on earth would you use defunct source material? Oh, because it fits your schema which means you're are purposefully and willfully misrepresenting information.

Actual Facts
Mishnaic Hebrew considered extinct as a spoken language by the 5th century CE, surviving as a liturgical language along with Biblical Hebrew for Judaism. Revived in the late 19th century CE. 9 million speakers of Modern Hebrew of which 5 million are native speakers. "Readings in The Sociology of Jewish Languages, Leiden: E. J. Brill

I have literally addressed every challenge you have posed. I have provided numerous challenges for you you haven't even tried to answer. You just tell me I'm wrong and then throw more at me, that I again refute and provide facts. At this point, I'm done with your debate.

I'll be praying for you.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
Oh and oh yeah DO NOT accuse me of so-called running from conversations, when that's all you did during the debate on your god's immorality. You couldn't even attack RD1.

What is it you're after, exactly?
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
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.
JG 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
(tee hee THAT'S REALLY way beyond silly. So this is how I will defeat/ set up a defense against your god is if I have iron chariots. And all the nuclear bombs on earth and all the supernovas and all gamma ray bursts IN THE UNIVERSE EVER will not be a defense and not be able to defeat god, but alas, according to the schizophrenic of unsound mind in whoever wrote the damn thing bible *take a breath please* iron chariots will. Again this is proof as to why your god would never rely on text as as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible because of utterly silly verses like these that DO PROVE your god is NOT omnipotent and yet YOU in being the utter imbecile that you are, in continually being proven wrong, you still search for truth in your bible. Now why is that when you haven"t proven one god damned thing?)

Now I specifically asked you "which bible"? Now you GIVE DATES as you specifically stated. Oh please prove something.
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
"can you prove that the Bible isn't a history book?" I already did you complete imp. (Taken from Dossier of Reason and it only covers a minute portion as to why YOUR god would never choose text as a form of communication, the worst form of communication possible) Which Bible? A. Over 450 English versions of the bible B. All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts C. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain, and how those verses read. D. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts. II. Availability - current estimate is that 2,251 languages, representing 193 million people, lack a Bible translation and to further rub it in...
- Video 1. Christians don't understand the character of God
-Video 2. The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!!!" - Video 3. Atheist Experience 21:49 with Tracie Harris and Don Baker - Video 4. The Bible is not Evidence of god
Oh and btw, I really don't care if you don't take videos as evidence against your bible. Your bible is not evidence. 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 languages with absolutely 0% of a chance to trace it back to the original. There"s no original in the first place! So absolutely nobody is interpreting correctly. Within those translations and copies throughout the generations
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
@malus_pudor - "The laws of the OT are not the stories of creation." And that's precisely to the letter why you have no friends or loved ones. Its because you think you have the the answers and you really don't, and thus you pretend that you do, and since you don't you have to make up some sort of excuse for it. And since this is 100% true, everybody that you've had in your life simply goes running. Ab-so-lu-te-ly creation IS a 100% law believed by everybody who knows anything at all about your tepid christianity and its following. But wait, here comes you with your chugga chugga choo choo and its green death to say "no". "OT Levitical law are not the stories of God." Oh really? According to what imbecile? You? How would you know? Then you get rid of ALL the jews from around the world who would happen to disagree with you and you do it right now. That is an epic logical fallacy on your half and why you have no friends or loved ones. So again you do not believe in ANY of the OT. "Plus, you threw out more verses" Name them. Wow um no its you who threw out verses - over 300 I might add of your god's complete immorality. OH You completely forgot about those. Context? Here a nice little video for you to watch about context and how YOU take YOUR bible out of context. OH But are you going to ignore this as well? I love it when christians ignore rock solid evidence when its slapped right in their faces. And you expect others to read and interpret YOUR bible as YOU do? Not a chance especially especially especially when YOU TAKE YOUR BIBLE OF CONTEXT - context.

Now get this and get this good... I only flee from absolute ignoramuses who are completely unintelligent and have absolutely no edumacation like you because you are so insulting to my intelligence and education and how dare you enter my debate and insult me. And the only reason why I would stick around is because I am having an absolute blast in destroying you.
Posted by malus_pudor 3 years ago

What is it you're after, exactly?
Posted by malus_pudor 3 years ago
@Backwardseden -- The laws of the OT are not the stories of creation. Again, you seem to wave your ignorance of the Bible and your inability to make logical connections like a white flag. OT Levitical law are not the stories of God. That is an epic logical fallacy on your half.

Plus, you threw out more verses but you fail to know the context in which they apply and you have already shown me that you will NEVER stand and address the problems with your own argument. I have read your other debates and you NEVER answer questions and always flee from the debate when you don't have answers.

I'll give you an example of your failure to stand tall -- can you prove that the Bible isn't a history book? From Chronicles to Kings you have an expanded list of events, key figures, and dates. You have genealogies. And so on so forth... So, are you now saying that proven history such as the Babylonian Exile didn't happen? That Assyria didn't lose a battle at the gates of Jerusalem even though the people inside were weak and outnumbered? What do you make of the Famine Stela? I'm guessing, to you, even though the Egyptians wrote it down and it appears in Genesis -- it never happened since you just declared the history of the Bible as false.

In the New Testament we have essential figures such as Pontius Pilate who, for so long, was said to have never existed, and yet his name was discovered. Same with Caesar's census and then that turned out to be true... King Herod's death and his issue with parasites... guess that never happened.

Matt Dillahunty's claim was already answered by me. Shame you didn't read it first.

Richard Dawkins is an interesting character. All of his books and claims have companion opposing pieces from multiple authors. I would strongly suggest you look some of them up, but since I doubt you will, I believe you said that we can't refute science so..

Science mimics faith...
Posted by backwardseden 3 years ago
"Those who chose to follow the "Way" -- the old term for Christians -- were free of the levitical laws and the OT laws" Really? And exactly what "laws" are they that free you from the OT? So I get it also, so that means that you do not believe in creation, you do not believe in the great flood, you do not believe in Noah, you do not believe in the ark, you do not believe in moses, you do not believe in the 10 commandments, you do not believe in exodus, you do not believe in the 10 plagues, you do not believe in Sodom and Gomorrah etc etc etc you do not believe in any of the OT and that's according to you. So according to you, the god of the OT is not the same god as in the NT. They are completely different. jesus thus has more power than the god who is mentioned in the NT by your jesus and yet this jesus character often refers to this god guy as "father". Strange huh? So why not chuck the entire OT? Oh I get it, you like the typical so-called christian, in which there is no such a thing, you do what you want because it suits you to your wants, needs and desires and you chuck the rest of YOUR so-called bible. So again what "laws"? AND were they ever approved by this god of YOURS? Was this jesus of YOURS ever approved by this god of YOURS? Get out you hanky, because all of those questions are a big 0% on anything for anybody who knows anything at all about the bible.
Yeah let's prove that you are NOT a christian right now. Have you gotten rid of all of your family as your christ orders you to? Well you probably have which only shows that your christ is completely insane. Matthew 10: 35-37, Luke 12 51-53, Matthew 19: 28-29. Have you gotten rid of all of your possessions in which YOUR christ demands in which you have not done which shows your christ to be completely insane? Luke 14:33, Luke 18:22, Matthew 19: 28-29, Matthew 19:21, Matthew 13: 22 . Do you love your enemies? Only christ would suggest something so ludicrous. Luke 6:27, Romans 12:20, Matthew 5:44 etc
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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