Is God of the Bible evil
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Any atheists is welcome, be respectful and like always have fun and good luck.
This is my first debate.
'I agree that looks evil because you don´t read in context format'
"If you look at Genesis 6:5 it says 5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man WAS great in the earth, and THAT every intent of the thoughts of his heart WAS only evil continually. You see that we deserve this punishment cause God is judge like criminals deserving a death penalty. and this is only reason why God send the flood do wiped out every evil people. Even judges send a criminals do death penalty but I don´t see you complaining about it."
"Now you´ll say what about children and babies? I would be surprised if there where children and babies in that time because of wickedness. Now that´s say there were children and babies will i´ll blame on their parents because they did not listened to Noah´s warnings about the flood and they mocked him for it if they listened there would be no such thing of Genesis 7:22-24."
"First, the Egyptians were far from innocent. Pharaoh had murdered all of the infant Hebrew boys by drowning them in the Nile River (Ex. 1:22). Egypt had grown rich by enslaving the Jewish people for 400 years (Gen. 15:13). While Pharaoh carried out this plot, the Egyptian people benefited from his decision to enslave the Jews. Now, the Egyptian people were being held culpable for standing idly by, while this was happening."
"This Scripture tells how hostility toward God and an unwillingness to obey Him can result in being besieged by plagues and wild animals.The message was a corrective message to address current attitudes and behavior that if heeded would ward off worse sins and greater judgment. The gang was shocked and silenced when mauled (not necessarily killed) by the bears, and their parents and community were warned to repent of their sins (reflected in their children) and obey God before worse judgments befell them! So The “bear attack shows God trying repeatedly to bring his people back to himself through smaller judgments” so that they could avoid a worse “full force” judgment."
- Kids are being naughty
- Parents spank them for fixing them
- So that makes parents evil
- Kill them for no reason
- He hates them for no reason then kills anyone
- All above
- Since he is killing his creation for a reason like in Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.", people are being wicked/evil
- Is a loving and just God that he gave Jesus do die to safe us from SIN
Yes God of the Bible is all-powerful but why should he listen to sinners saying he’s doing “something evil”? Let me ask you something, do you deserve the death penalty? If you say no let me ask you have you lie, steal anything even if it’s small, do look at women with lusts, have you murder anyone(hopefully no) break all 10 commendments? If that child deserves death then that child is going to have to be put down for example Cristian Fernandez, Jordan Brown, etc tell me does these children deserve death? Or even better proof that people don’t deserve death or should I say proof that people are good? Name one person that is pure and sinless besides Jesus?
Yes you did but I think you missed my point on this. What do I mean by context is that when someone like you or me read misunderstood verses like killing people we need to know why he did what he did. Like what I gave you Genesis 6:5 which he saw the wickedness in people.
Babies don't have wicked hearts but they go to heaven. Okay I agree but what if their children become like their parents? Because I see babies who have abusive parents they become abusive to their children. Same thing is that God does not want them to grow up and be like their parents, if he kills them they go to heaven. By what I mean by this is like he’s protecting from themselves.
That’s turned this to its head shall we, what if his wife was part of that crime? What if his children is Cristian Fernandez or Jordan Brown and he was with his dad and helped him? What if he trained his dog to kill people who are in his way? What if what they did was drowning other people? Does that judge have a right to sentence both of them to death? If not, why not they both commit the crime?
Again why should he listen to you? If he knew that people won’t sinned no more that would be great in all, but he knows that we could sin again so why bother? Also he gave us freewill if you want to debate on that topic about freewill then message me and we’ll plan on it.
You are half right but also wrong here is why I can’t remember the verse but I know that Babiloyians have human sacrificed(babies included) to their gods so imagend how bad it was in Noah's times that's why I don’t believe that there were babies because people are having sex and killing them in the process.
Here is what i’m hearing after you wrote thatMe: They did something horrible that’s why he did this.You: Yes agree but imagine this after American Civil War blah blahMe: So basically you're saying even though Egyptians did indeed do something completely disgusting, you are just STRAWMANNING my argument to turn it something bad and you don’t see anything wrong with what Egyptians did? And see nothing wrong with enslaving Jewish people and they should keep them as slaves.You: huh.This is what I am seeing from what you are arguing about, you are kinda saying Egyptians did nothing wrong.To add he was very patient and gave him a choice if he stopped him then that broke his freewill system.
- Kids are being naughty
- Parents spank them for fixing them
- So that makes parents evil
So murdering, stealing, raping, and being wicked person are all petty reasons for death penalty?
Arguments: PRO establishes a framework and builds his case based on God acting immorally whilst having the capacity to avoid doing so. CON ignores the framework and attacks the credibility of PRO as a judge of God's actions, as well as try to justify God's actions. Yet a single line of though from PRO destroyed CON's case:
"Imagine if a guy went to court in the modern-day for continually thinking wicked thoughts (or murder, it doesn't matter), and the judge sentences him, his wife, his children, and his dog, to death by drowning. We would call that judge a horribly wicked judge, dealing out cruel and unusual punishment, horribly disproportionate to the crime. "
Backed by PRO's argument that God could always do else wise, PRO successfully shows that God of the Bible is evil as from a human perspective. CON's rebuttal is that God does not need to conform to human standards, which fails to address that evil is a human term with human definition -- and PRO fulfilled his BoP while CON did not.
The sources point is very simple actually. CON obviously gets the sources points as his main thrust is to use "the context", as well as referring to Biblical verses telling us that God is just and Christian webpages explaining the Christian interpretation of certain passages. CON even went so far as to use Biblical references to Jesus as to prove that God is loving rather than evil.
The spelling, grammar, structure and style of CON made it really hard to read his arguments, meaning I have to give PRO the legibility point.
CON's general style as a constant accusation of PRO, often personally, makes his conduct horrendous. For example, this is a real quote from CON's R2: "Let me ask you something, do you deserve the death penalty? If you say no let me ask you have you lie, steal anything even if it’s small, do look at women with lusts, have you murder anyone(hopefully no) break all 10 commandments?"...
That is a personal question that one should not be allowed to ask, and CON uses this accusation of PRO being a "sinner" to devalue his logical evidence. He actually said:" Yes God of the Bible is all-powerful but why should he listen to sinners"; => CON uses the accusation of PRO doing immoral deeds to evaluate his logic -- absurd and improper conduct that shall be penalized with a vote in PRO's favour for conduct point.
Argument - Con starts out with presenting no arguments and simply passes the debate over to Pro to make the first argument. Not all that much better than a forfeiture really.
Pro - Pro starts out with arguing how God should be blamed for murdering Children and quotes 2 Kings 2:23-24, Exodus 12:29, Genesis 7:22-24, and then concludes that the god of the bible is overwhelmingly evil.
R2 - Con opens round 2 in better fashion, offering rebuttals, and responds to all Pros arguments with his take on the bible. So we have Pros opinion versus Cons opinion.
Pro - Pro begins round 2 in the same fashion. Pointing to how god is evil for killing children. Pro breaks down Cons argument bit by bit and makes understandable points regards to how babies can't have wicked hearts. There is then a dispute about whether or not children and babies were around at the time of Noah, and I do believe Pros argument for children and babies being around is probably more Scientific, though Pro does not produce any scholastic evidence. But never mind, Con argues that it is their own faults anyway because their parents should have listened to Noah. Pro offered no rebuttal to this statement. Though he does offer rebuttals to everything else.
R3 - Con opens round 3 arguing for why god murdering children is ok. in the second paragraph they get to crosswires over an issue which Con is actually correct about. Pro did take his statement out of context. Con then argues that abusive parents breed abusive children. A very extreme opinion, but an opinion all the same. Con then asks why god should listen to Pro? Which, is fair enough.
"Now", Con comes out with a "terrific" argument out of nowhere to explain why there was no babies at the time of Noah. "Child sacrifice". "You are half right but also wrong here is why I can’t remember the verse but I know that Babiloyians have human sacrificed(babies included) to their gods so imagend how bad it was in Noah's times that's why I don’t believe that there were babies because people are having sex and killing them in the process"
I am also extremely impressed by Cons translation of the Hebrew bible when he explains that the word used to describe those mauled by the bear can describe anything from children to adults. Con is now presenting arguments that do need rebutting, though he should have presented this earlier.
Pro - Pro offers rebuttals to all arguments by breaking down Cons argument in detail, bit by bit, but what I am really interested in is his response to those couple of great arguments presented above, and the first claim is rebutted by the pointing out of the carthaginians. Now I am actually surprised and shocked to find that despite breaking down Cons argument, Pro decided to not rebut the major argument about the translation, which leaves me wondering why? And is then Pro reading bibles that have mistranslations? He really needed to respond to this. I will go back over the argument once more to double check that he did not. And after checking, I find that Pro skipped over it. Pro wrote that he had refuted everything. " In conclusion, the god of the bible is overwhelmingly evil. Every example given has shown this to be the case, and my opponents attempts at justification for these horrible atrocities were soundly refuted".. In actual fact, Pro did refute everything, except the most important part, and that was the part when Con raised concerns over translation, and that children being killed could be a mistranslation. -I disagree with Cons philosophies in the instance it is not a mistranslation. However, however, however, if it is a mistranslation then that is Pros argument out of the proverbial window, and Pro done no research on this claim. Did not even respond to it.
Argument - Con
Sources - I am equally shocked, because I admit at first impression Pro had won this debate until I read about the mistranslations. Regarding sources, Pro only really produced three sources from the bible, which even in the voting policy is regarded as a not very good source. On the otherhand Con supported his bible research with a source regarding the mistranslations. I have not read the source to find out if it states what Con claims, but this should have been disputed by and refuted by Pro. - Con
S&G - Cons grammar went from extremely good to appallingly bad in stages, giving the impression there may have been someone else helping - Pro
Conduct - Pro was accused of strawmanning, without justification - Pro
Pro was able to gain the initiative by proposing a simple standard for evil: the murder of children. He then backed it up with biblical accounts of God doing just that. Con is not really able to defend from this, as saying things like the children were maimed by a bear instead of outright killed, still leaves the main thrust of the point of cruelty to children unhindered. Claiming there were no children before the flood, was an outright non-sequitur.
Pro could have done a bit better, as he missed a critical point with Egypt (in that focusing on how God could have easily changed the Pharaoh's heart, it ignores that in the story it clearly states he did exactly that to force the guy to not obey him). Still, no challenge to God having the means to do otherwise without any difficulty.
I do give con credit for just claiming any innocent God kills goes to heaven (for that, I highly suggest quoting the bible). It was an avenue that could at least be explored further, but it intuitively did not cast sufficient doubt within our limited knowledge and standards (as much as I would love to see that explored directly in a debate).
Voting closes within 1 day.
Thank you for voting.
Thank you for voting.
that's fine you don't have to vote
Are you referring to the description? I didnt initiate this debate
Yes, and you even noted that the debate should attract atheists, which I took to mean as debate opponents, but that probably might have extended to voters, as well. I'll try to make comment further after the vote is finished.
I understand. Honestly, i figured most believers wouldn't want to touch this debate out of personal bias. That's why I was somewhat surprised Ragnar voted.
I would normally be very interested in voting on this debate, but I am too close to the subject, and have too many personal thoughts on it that I'm afraid they would sway a fair, unbiased vote, so I think I'll pass on this one. Besides, I am currently involved in a debate with Benjamin that is much the same subject that would further influence my vote, I'm afraid. Sorry, guys. I'm sure this will attract sufficient voters to compensate. Good luck to both.
Thank you for voting.
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
Vote bump
thank you
If doing this one again, I suggest picking a single book of the bible, and a clear standard for evil (or with the one you're using, a clear standard of good).
There are also easily digestible sources for key bits. Like when I talk about the book of Job, I use a clip from South Park so that everyone is on the same page.
Yeah no problem.
I like to say is thank you you giving me great arguments, I had fun and also good luck in your future debates.
thank you, and good luck in your debate.
Though it seems hasty to kill someone because of what they MIGHT do rather than what they DID do, wouldn't you say?
Good argument in your round 2 regarding the potential of parents to corrupt their children, and their being spared of that consequence, even by their death at God’s hand due to the wickedness of the adults. Since death is not a permanent condition, it is merely the last enemy that will be defeated.
Well thanks
Interesting argument:
"If we assume God is all-powerful, we are assuming that he could always do otherwise"
I like that line of reasoning.
It´s fine man
Sorry for the typos, I speech to texted this this morning.
define "evil"