Instigator / Con
11
1478
rating
2
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#2871
Is God of the Bible evil
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Sum1hugme
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Pro
14
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Description
Any atheists is welcome, be respectful and like always have fun and good luck.
This is my first debate.
Round 1
First I would like to say thanks to Sum1hugme for accepting this debate.
First what is evil:
Evil, in a general sense, is the opposite or absence of good.
Now to order for me to debate is first my opponent to give me verses in the Bible that talks about genocides that God committed so I can rebutted.
So I´ll give this to pro now.
Thank you Adam, for this debate.
Evil is a multifaceted problem, that can take on many forms. In an effort to keep things simple I will focus on a particular evil action performed by the biblical God and ignore the many other evil things that he does in the Bible.
FRAMEWORK
I'm going to be taking on a consequentialist moral framework for the purposes of this debate, and lead with a hypothetical imperative that I hope is not too controversial a position:
If one murders children, and had the ability to do otherwise, then one is evil.
I'll be referring to the English Standard Version when quoting Bible passages.
THE MEAT
If we are assuming that God is all powerful then we are assuming that he can always do otherwise. This is an irreconcilable problem for my opponent's position. God murders children multiple times in the Bible. The three we will be focused on here are, in order of increasing severity: when God sends two she-bears to butcher 42 children, when God kills every Egyptian first-born son, And probably most egregious of all, the Noahic Flood.
DONT INSULT THE PRIEST
English Standard Version
23 He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, (A)he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys."
EGYPT
English Standard Version
The Tenth Plague: Death of the Firstborn
29 (A)At midnight the (B)Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, (C)from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock."
If God is all powerful then he could have just changed Pharaoh's heart, But instead for some ill-defined reason, God thought it would be more efficient to murder every first-born child of not just the Egyptian people, but even their livestock.
THE FLOOD
For sake of brevity, God got upset that people had become "wicked" and decided the best course of action was to just drown them all, indiscriminately killing man, beasts, and baby alike.
English Standard Version
22 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days."
In this passage, God gives man free will and then drowns them for using it wrong. Worse, he drowns all their children and animals. Babies can't possibly be evil or wicked. This is the farthest thing from a just punishment next to hell itself. Frankly, God seems to have anger problems.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, in every case presented, God fulfills the moral framework that I laid out. The uncountable murders committed by the god of the Bible puts him on the same level of villain as the emperor from Star wars: Destroyers of planets. Clearly, the god of the Bible is overwhelmingly evil.
Round 2
Thank you for your first argument
English Standard Version
22 Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. 23 He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. 24 And the waters prevailed on the earth 150 days."
I agree that looks evil because you don´t read in context format
Explain: 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.
English Standard Version
The Tenth Plague: Death of the Firstborn
29 (A)At midnight the (B)Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, (C)from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock."
Explain: If you believed that Egyptians were good people the that verse proofs that God is Evil,
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. God had promised to curse those who cursed Israel (Gen. 12:3). If God did not act, he would have been reneging on his promise to Abraham. Second, the tenth plague was last on the list, because it was a last resort. Pharaoh had been warned by God for nine straight plagues. God had given Pharaoh multiple opportunities to change his mind and avoid judgment. Pharaoh, on the other hand, did not give the Jews any “ways out,” when he killed the Hebrew boys. While God waited patiently and gave many chances for repentance, Pharaoh gave none. mmmm again this reminds me of another death penalty.
English Standard Version
23 He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, (A)he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys."
Explain: It is about how Elisha was in a most challenging time of taking over from the great prophet Elijah, who was swept up to heaven in “a chariot of fire.” God endorsed him as a successor to Elijah in dramatic and eye-catching ways: Dividing the river he was crossing right in front of the faithful “sons of the prophets,” purifying Jericho’s polluted water, and disciplining a gang of ruffians who were ridiculing and rejecting God and His prophet.
We read how Elisha, the prophet of God, was entering one of the worst places in the corrupt and decadent nation of Israel. Although Bethel was called “the House of God,” what should have been a holy place was a center of idolatry and immorality where the “sons of God” were vastly outnumbered by those who taunted and trashed the faith of Elijah and Elisha! Bethel was so bad that a gang of young teenagers “harassed” Elisha, taunting him to leave them and their town alone and go off to be with his God (as Elijah had done). We are also reminded that the real issue was not how this gang showed contempt and “disrespect for God’s prophet,” but revealed utter “disrespect for the Lord.” Therefore, “a strong message was sent to the city and parents” reminiscent of Leviticus 26:21-22. 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.
Your turn pro
Thank you for your response.
My opponent has not challenged my proposed moral framework, therefore it will be accepted for this debate.
If we understand that the god of the Bible is all-powerful, then he necessarily could always have done otherwise. Therefore every time he murders a child, he could have done otherwise, and is therefore evil.
THE FLOOD
'I agree that looks evil because you don´t read in context format'
I did provide a link to the whole chapter.
"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."
I'm not sure how babies can have wicked hearts. I would definitely be against judges sentencing babies to death because of the wickedness of their parents. That would make them an evil judge, specifically because they could have chosen another sentence or not at all for the children. It is unjust to punish children for the sins of their parents.
"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."
My opponent does not shown the connection as to why "wickedness" would mean there wouldn't be children and babies. If people are wicked, according to bible standards, they will have more sex. That presents a clear connection to as to why there would probably be lots of children and babies.
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.
And at the heart of the argument, God could have done anything else. He could have snapped his fingers (If you don't mind a little anthropomorphizing) and made everyone not wicked. He could have relaxed his criteria of crimes worthy of the death penalty. He could have chosen a less painful way of killing everyone, and it would have been more just than drowning everything.
EGYPT
"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."
Imagine if, after the North had won the American Civil War, the American Government went around killing the first born son of every family (and the families pets) in the South (and many northern families) for THEIR PARENTS standing idly by while slavery happened. It would be a crime against humanity (and animal cruelty). Again, God could have just made Pharaoh not so stubborn with literally no effort.
BEAR MAULING
"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."
Firstly, my opponent just assumes that they weren't killed, but it is unlikely that many children would survive being torn apart by a bear.
My opponent's argument is that God used this mauling as a deterrent to avoid having to judge them more harshly in the future. While this does solve the problem of having to judge them more harshly later (by removing them from the equation), my opponent forgets that those who died are probably going to Hell by virtue of being against the God who slew them.
This is also a clear example (if my opponent's rationalization is entertained) of coercion. God, an all powerful being, must for some reason, violently coerce people into being nice to him and his representatives.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the god of the Bible is overwhelmingly evil. He freely coerces, mauls, and murders, man woman and child, indiscriminately, for petty reasons. The worst thing is that he could, with no effort, take any other path to his arbitrary ends. This makes him evil.
Round 3
Thank you for your response.
If we understand that the god of the Bible is all-powerful, then he necessarily could always have done otherwise. Therefore every time he murders a child, he could have done otherwise, and is therefore evil.
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?
THE FLOOD
I did provide a link to the whole chapter.
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.
I'm not sure how babies can have wicked hearts. I would definitely be against judges sentencing babies to death because of the wickedness of their parents. That would make them an evil judge, specifically because they could have chosen another sentence or not at all for the children. It is unjust to punish children for the sins of their parents.
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.
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.
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?
And at the heart of the argument, God could have done anything else. He could have snapped his fingers (If you don't mind a little anthropomorphizing) and made everyone not wicked. He could have relaxed his criteria of crimes worthy of the death penalty. He could have chosen a less painful way of killing everyone, and it would have been more just than drowning everything.
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.
My opponent does not shown the connection as to why "wickedness" would mean there wouldn't be children and babies. If people are wicked, according to bible standards, they will have more sex. That presents a clear connection to as to why there would probably be lots of children and babies.
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.
EGYPT
"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."
Imagine if, after the North had won the American Civil War, the American Government went around killing the first born son of every family (and the families pets) in the South (and many northern families) for THEIR PARENTS standing idly by while slavery happened. It would be a crime against humanity (and animal cruelty). Again, God could have just made Pharaoh not so stubborn with literally no effort.
Here is what i’m hearing after you wrote that
Me: They did something horrible that’s why he did this.
You: Yes agree but imagine this after American Civil War blah blah
Me: 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.
BEAR MAULING
"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."
Firstly, my opponent just assumes that they weren't killed, but it is unlikely that many children would survive being torn apart by a bear.
My opponent's argument is that God used this mauling as a deterrent to avoid having to judge them more harshly in the future. While this does solve the problem of having to judge them more harshly later (by removing them from the equation), my opponent forgets that those who died are probably going to Hell by virtue of being against the God who slew them.
This is also a clear example (if my opponent's rationalization is entertained) of coercion. God, an all powerful being, must for some reason, violently coerce people into being nice to him and his representatives.
Yes they did die but I forget to add, the translators really botched this one (as do many modern translations). When Elisha drew near to Bethel, and a group of people mocked him, many versions say these were “little children” (KJV), “boys” (NIV), or “small boys” (ESV). The Hebrew phrase is a combination of the noun na‘ar and the adjective qatan. What do these mean?The word na‘ar, which is often rendered as children/boys, has a broad range of meaning. It can denote everyone from baby Moses (Exod. 2:6) to fully-grown Absalom (2 Sam. 14:21). A na‘ar can also designate a servant (Gen. 22:3), armor-bearer (Judges 9:54), king’s official (2 Kings 19:6), and—significantly for us—a priest (1 Sam. 2:17).
The Hebrew adjective, qatan, means small, little, or young. The question is: how young? This same Hebrew combination, na‘ar qatan, is used to describe a mature rebel named Hadad the Edomite (1 Kings 11:17). Likewise, when Solomon takes the throne at about the age of twenty, he describes himself as a na‘ar qaton (1 Kings 3:7). Obviously, he and Hadad were not elementary-aged, little boys! But that's say you are right then God is just making them correct themselves and stop being wicked.
But you say making kids corrective by beating them up is bad or evil. So here what I say:
- Kids are being naughty
- Parents spank them for fixing them
- So that makes parents evil
Is it evil to make your kids be nice by spanking them? Yes or No?
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the god of the Bible is overwhelmingly evil. He freely coerces, mauls, and murders, man woman and child, indiscriminately, for petty reasons. The worst thing is that he could, with no effort, take any other path to his arbitrary ends. This makes him evil.
If God of the Bible is truly evil he could:
- Kill them for no reason
- He hates them for no reason then kills anyone
- All above
But since I gave you proof on why I don’t believe it I find that:
- 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
So murdering, stealing, raping, and being wicked person are all petty reasons for death penalty? Ok got it I will do all these things because according to you its very very petty to die for these reasons. So by this The worst thing is that he could, with no effort, take any other path to his arbitrary ends, your basically saying killing criminals/ wicked people should not have death penalty even though they deserve it.
Source
Vote con
P.S there might be part 2 to this debate so get ready.
Good luck to your future debates.
Thank you for this debate.
My opponent has accused me of strawmanning his positions, but in fact, this fallacy describes a huge portion of his own closing rebuttals.
Is the god of the Bible evil? In an attempt to answer this question, I laid out a specific evil action that my opponent and I could both agree on, and reason from. It was:
" If one murders children, and had the ability to do otherwise, then one is evil."
My opponent did not contest this framework at any point in this debate. It was the only instance of clarification of some measure of evil in this debate as well, and therefore must be accepted by virtue of being uncontested, as I have previously argued.
The reason I specifically chose children in the framework, is because it is so counterintuitive to claim that killing children is preferable to the alternative. I deliberately chose something intuitively morally obvious so that we could easily agree on a specific evil action. God slew children in every example I gave, and by virtue of being all-powerful, he could have done any other thing. According to the accepted moral standard, this is evil. That's really this debate in a nutshell, but I am going to delve into the weeds so I don't leave any boxes unchecked.
Final Rebuttals:
1.
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?
He should listen for the same reason that any thing that claims to be caring, in order to be consistent, should not do evil things.
No I do not deserve the death penalty. We aren't arguing about the death penalty though and this is the last round, so I'm not going to write a whole thesis here. One does not have to be morally perfect in order to not be evil. The fact that some people are not perfect does not justify evil actions done by another person.
2.
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.
I addressed this already. The wickedness of people does not justify drowning their children.
3.
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.
This is just insulting. While there are children that grow up in abusive households that become abusive, there are just as many that grow up to be the best people in the world. Your anecdote is not reality.
4.
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?
You are just assuming that everyone on earth in the flood, every child killed by the plagues, and every young boy killed by the bears, were murderers or the equivalent, and deserve the death penalty. Presumably, that is because you think that to be a moral evil, is why you consider them worthy of death. This obviously backfires when applied to the executioner.
5.
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.
If he knew we were gonna sin again, why bother saving Noah?
This whole reasoning is self contradictory. If he knows what we will do, then we do not have free will. If we have free will, then he cannot know what we are going to do.
6.
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.
The carthaginians were sacrificing thousands of babies [1], and their civilization thrived for hundreds of years[2]. Therefore, by way of example, your claim is refuted. Further, the fact that you first state that the Babylonians were sacrificing babies also contradicts the assertion that there would be no babies if people in Noah's time were sacrificing babies.
7.
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.
I steel manned your argument, and I'm sure the judges will see that I did just that when I said:
" Imagine if, after the North had won the American Civil War, the American Government went around killing the first born son of every family (and the families pets) in the South (and many northern families) for THEIR PARENTS standing idly by while slavery happened. It would be a crime against humanity (and animal cruelty). "
This is a direct analogy to the situation in Egypt, and my opponent's hand-waving dismissal completely fails to address this devastating point against him. God did not kill pharaoh, the guy that was enslaving the israelites, but he killed his son. Not just his son, but every first born son of the entire nation and their livestock. My opponent weakly tried to justify this by saying that they were standing idly by during slavery, therefore their children deserved death. I refuted this by way of analogy and demonstrate that this decision by god is evil, on the level of a crime against humanity. My opponent did not contest this.
8.
- Kids are being naughty
- Parents spank them for fixing them
- So that makes parents evil
This is not what god did though, He did not spank them. A more accurate syllogism would be:
1. Kids are being naughty.
2. Parents kill them to fix them while other options are available.
3. That makes parent evil.
9.
So murdering, stealing, raping, and being wicked person are all petty reasons for death penalty?
No, being the child or baby of a thieving, raping, murderer, is a petty reason for the death penalty.
CONCLUSION
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.
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"