Instigator / Con
14
1774
rating
98
debates
77.55%
won
Topic
#5191
The Bible portrays a God that is pro-life.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Benjamin
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Pro
11
1420
rating
395
debates
43.8%
won
Description
Burden of Proof is shared.
Round 1
Thank you for accepting this debate Mall.
Abortion in our modern sense did not exist at the time the Bible was written, and the Bible doesn't discuss modern methods of abortion at all. But we can ask another question. How highly does God value the life of a child. If we are to believe what is written in the Bible, the answer is not much. I believe that actions speak louder than words, and even a cursory reading of some stories from the old testament shows us that God makes no effort to save children.
Reading even just the second book of the Bible, exodus, we see God failing to protect his chosen people the Hebrews when the pharaoh orders all of their newborn boys to be killed. He could very easily protect these children without infringing on anyone's free will, but he doesn't. Later in exodus, God sends Moses to tell Pharaoh to let the Hebrew slaves go out of Egypt into the land God has promised them. When Pharaoh refuses to do so, God sends 10 plagues to the land of Egypt as a form of coercion. The most interesting of these is the last one, where God sends his angel of death to kill every firstborn Egyptian. That would make up for a considerable percentage of the total population, and it would definitely include a lot of newborns and young children, and even pregnant women. If God really cared about the killing of babies, he would have killed the armies of Egypt and the pharaoh, those who were actually responsible for the attempted genocide of the Hebrews. But no, he chooses to punish Egypt by killing their babies.
This is a running theme in the old testament. When God kills a lot of people, he never spares the children or the pregnant women. An example is the Amalek people.
Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child (Samuel 15.3)
God specifically orders that the children and infants are to be murdered along with their parents as part of his "just" genocide. Since infants and fetuses in pregnant women were slaughtered that can only mean one of two things. Either God views their deaths as a net postive, or he doesn't care about it at all.
Samaria will be held guilty,For she has rebelled against her God.They will fall by the sword,Their little ones will be dashed in pieces,And their pregnant women will be ripped open.(Hosea 13:16)
Ah, what a profound piece of Biblical prophesy. If these two examples weren't enough, here is a list of Biblical genocides: [bible.knowing-jesus.com/genocide]. In none of them did God care enough about the children or unborn to have them spared. Even when he could have let them be adopted by the Israelite invaders.
That's not all, God often uses the death of children to punish their parents. This is the case in the story of David and Bathsheba. I am going to use a summary from the website missionbibleclass.org, the link leads to the page I am quoting:
Although David was a good king, there came a time when he did not choose to follow the Lord. When he looked across from the roof of his palace, he saw a beautiful woman, Bathsheba, bathing. This led David to commit adultery with Bathsheba. When Bathsheba became pregnant, David arranged to have her husband murdered so that he could marry her. The prophet, Nathan, confronted David with his sin. David’s heart was such that he repented his sin and asked the Lord to forgive him.But even confessed sin has consequences. In David’s case, the consequences did not include the sinner’s own death (12:13). But Nathan said, “The sword will never depart from your house” (12:10) – a prophecy that began to be fulfilled when three of David’s sons died violently. Furthermore, David would be humiliated in public (12:11-12), and his son by Bathsheba would die of an illness (12:14).
Now this story is problematic in many ways for christians, since it implies that even honest repentance from a righteous man isn't always enough to still God's wrath. But the key takeaway for this debate is that God views killing a child born from rape as a fiting punishment for the rapist. Mind you, being tortured to death by an illness after already being born is objectively way worse a fate than modern abortion.
In summary:
- God specifically chooses to slaughter the innocent children and the fetuses inside pregnant people when he commits a genocide.
- God murders children instead of their parrents who were the ones who sinned
- Lastly, God never forbids the termination of a pregnancy.
In conclusion, the Bible doesn't portray God as pro-life.
Just thinking off the top of my head going to the book of Exodus in the Bible.
Chapter 20
"12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill."
We read in 2 Peter 3:
"9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
That's pretty "pro-life" or supporting of life.
Speaking of "perish", brings to mind for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not PERISH but have everlasting LIFE.
That's John 3:16
" I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." That's John 10:10
John just backing up the support of life .
John 14:6
"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Keep 'em coming John
John 6:63
“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”
Why's that John?
Matthew has an answer and the Bible said out of the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established.
"But answering He said, "It has been written: 'The man shall live not by bread alone, but by every word coming out of the mouth of God.'"
Matthew 4:4
All these words inspired the scriptures and we read search the scriptures for in them ye thinking ye have eternal LIFE.
That's in John 5.
The gift of God , free gift is eternal LIFE as we read in Romans 6.
John 6
"50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."
Now that is a mouthful. Let's wash it down with that spiritual water.
John 7
"38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water"
My side and the opposing side can find texts to support our position, so what are we left with?
Well this verse comes to mine.
Deuteronomy 32:39 ... “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make ALIVE; I wound, and I heal: "
I'm almost done I be out your way.
First Corinthians 15 about the life giving spirit. Oh I say the LIFE giving spirit. Did y'all hear me?
We go to verse 45
"45 Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being";the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. "
I can go on and on and on but the scripture says must your speech be so long.
Round 2
Thank you Mall.
Definitions
According to Merriam-Webster, pro-life means opposed to abortion, and abortion means the termination of a pregnancy. PRO has not provided any reason for why we should interpret these words in an unconventional way, nor has he provided definitions that differs from the standard ones.
Rebuttals
PRO does write "That's pretty "pro-life" or supporting of life." about some bible verses he chose to highlight. The problem is the type of life that these verses talk about.
" I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." That's John 10:10"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6The gift of God , free gift is eternal LIFE as we read in Romans 6.
So Jesus came to give people eternal life. But, as we all know, no initial follower of Christ in the first century has survived to the modern day, so they don't even live to the age of 2000, which would still be a far cry from eternity. Thus, it is fair to assume that the life these verses speaks of is not the literal type of life here on earth.
"He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" John 7.38
Again, this is definitely not meant to be taken literally. This type of life is more metaphorical and spiritual, or referring to life after death.
Deuteronomy 32:39 ... “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make ALIVE; I wound, and I heal: "
This verse from PRO does not show in any way how God has a strong preference for life.
Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13
Again, God never specifically forbids the termination of a pregnancy, the murder of an infant or of children. And actions speak louder than words. PRO has not disputed my evidence that God commits himself as well as commands the same Israelites to commit countless genocides where he specifically targets the children, infants and pregnant women for slaughter. I also proved that God tortured to death the newborn son of David by sickness, as a punishment for David. Either God views their deaths as a net postive, or he doesn't care about it at all. If he did care about the life of the fetuses he would not have had their mothers slaughtered mercilessly.
That leads me to my next point:
God doesn't count fetuses as human beings.
"In the Genesis account, God reveals to Abraham that Sodom and Gomorrah are to be destroyed for their grave sins (18:20). Abraham pleads for the lives of any righteous people living there, especially the lives of his nephew, Lot, and his family. Abraham seems to negotiate with God on behalf of the righteous in the two cities. God first agrees to spare the cities if 50 righteous people can be found and eventually agrees to spare them if 10 righteous people can be found" [britannica].
10 people who didn't deserve to die, and God would have spared the two cities. But God did destroy them. This means that God doesn't count fetuses as people not deserving to die.
God is okay with and/or the cause of miscarriages
There is also the fact of miscarriages. Under naturalism, miscarriages are tragedies caused by our flawed biology. Under a Biblical worldview, where God is the one who "knits people together in mothers womb" (Psalm.139.13), miscarriages mean that God was creating a human, but then either failed or decided to stop. Since an omnipotent God by definition cannot fail at anything, miscarriages must mean that he decided to stop knitting a person. In other words, that God decided to terminate a pregnancy. According to an article on Time, women in 2010 had as many miscarriages as abortions, around 18 percent each. That means that the number of modern pregnancies terminated by humans is roughly equal to the number of pregnancies terminated by God himself.
The best case scenario for PRO's case here is if God doesn't "knit people together in mothers womb" as the Bible says, and that he merely created the human biology to be prone to miscarriages, and that he doesn't care enough about the life of fetuses to prevent all of these miscarriages.
Summary and Conclusion:
A God that makes his moral positions known to humans but never forbids abortion, is not pro-life. A God that slaughters pregnant women, infants and children, is not pro-life. A God that causes or fails to prevent countless miscarriages, is not pro-life. Thus, the Bible doesn't portray a God that is pro-life.
"So Jesus came to give people eternal life. But, as we all know, no initial follower of Christ in the first century has survived to the modern day, so they don't even live to the age of 2000, which would still be a far cry from eternity. Thus, it is fair to assume that the life these verses speaks of is not the literal type of life here on earth. "
This still doesn't mean God is not for life . He is the "life" giving spirit. Abortion means death, not life.
We read in John 5 about those that'll resurrect to eternal life. The book asks the question I believe death where is thou sting?
See those in the graves whom you see in the natural sense as dead , the book calls asleep. See when we're talking about God of the Bible we have to get to the spiritual reality. Just because you go to sleep, doesn't mean God is not for life. He gives those who he gives life see .
Got to deal in spirit and truth. See people that commit abortion aim to end a person permanently. God will give you life permanently. While those that destroy the body via abortion can't destroy both that and soul according to scripture.
"Again, this is definitely not meant to be taken literally. This type of life is more metaphorical and spiritual, or referring to life after death."
Yes so not the second death as I believe taught in Revelation. What I want you to understand is that abortion is death from the view of the natural side. Now God according to the Bible can give life to those that have been aborted so how can this God not be for life as being a life giving spirit?
I think if you reject believing in the spiritual reality which is what you're dealing with when discussing God, you can't really see life other than the first death that we know about.
Being immortal and being resurrected is one part of it. Remember I mentioned about the command of "thou shalt not kill". There's that aspect too from God given to Moses to give to the people.
" This verse from PRO does not show in any way how God has a strong preference for life. "
I never said it did. I never said anything about strong preference. Let me actually quote what I said as to why I brought up Deuteronomy. Please actually go by what I say versus trying to reinvent an interpretation.
"My side and the opposing side can find texts to support our position, so what are we left with?
Well this verse comes to mine."
If you don't know what I mean by this, please don't be afraid to ask.
"Again, God never specifically forbids the termination of a pregnancy, the murder of an infant or of children. And actions speak louder than words. PRO has not disputed my evidence that God commits himself as well as commands the same Israelites to commit countless genocides where he specifically targets the children, infants and pregnant women for slaughter. I also proved that God tortured to death the newborn son of David by sickness, as a punishment for David. Either God views their deaths as a net postive, or he doesn't care about it at all. If he did care about the life of the fetuses he would not have had their mothers slaughtered mercilessly."
I think you have to refer back to that Deuteronomy passage I offered. Read over that again and if you still miss the point, I can help you out.
The rest of what you had to say just boils down to opinion. I don't debate opinions. I have no business or entitlement to that.
I would just argue for you to focus on the Deuteronomy passage, bottomline.
At the end of this I believe we just break even.
Round 3
PRO does not reject my definitions of pro-life and abortion, nor has he provided any differing definition. PRO does not dispute that the Bible portrays a God that constantly slaughters children, infants and pregnant women. PRO has not provided a Biblical passage that forbids the termination of a pregnancy or the killing of a pregnant woman. He has not tried to argue that miscarriages show a God that terminates pregnancies.
All of my arguments stand. PRO has no good arguments. The resolutions is false. Vote CON.
It looks like we can't even communicate with one another so we both said what we had to say.
Whenever you want to do it for real, maybe in a discussion. People tend to have no defensive walls up in a conversation and not reject what the other is saying.
You're ignoring Deuteronomy where it indicates God of the Bible will take and give life. So at the very least to say God is not for life is error. At the very least we're at a draw.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Best.Korea // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 0
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
There are three types of tied votes:
(1) Ones which allot zero points. They have no meaningful impact on the debate outcome, and are thus only moderated if warranted for other reasons.
(2) Ones which cancel themselves out. While the category assignments may serve as feedback to the debaters, there is no still meaningful impact for moderation consider. These are in essence the same as the previous type.
(3) Votes which leave arguments tied, but assign other categories. While these need not meet the sufficiency standards for an argument vote, they must still evaluate arguments enough to justify no clear winner. There is however an exception for repeated forfeitures allowing conduct only with no further explanation.
**************************************************
"but you didn't justify why both sides have arguments and sources of equal quality. "
"My side and the opposing side can find texts to support our position, so what are we left with?
Well this verse comes to mine.
Deuteronomy 32:39 ... “See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make ALIVE; I wound, and I heal: " "
Kudos to those who were honest about that. Shame on those who ignored it.
You do realize that you both used sources? And I dont see any problems with conduct, so really, I dont know what you are going for here.
Ah, I see. So you know that my vote changes nothing, and yet you still go around being upset because you assume that I didnt justify the arguments.
I am pretty sure that plenty of unknowns justify a tied vote, and you saying it doesnt would just be your assumption.
Yes, I am bothered by bad votes, even if they don't change the outcome. I also do realize that arguments are tied in your vote, but you didn't justify why both sides have arguments and sources of equal quality. I don't understand why you would vote at all if you are not going to put in enough effort to make a sufficient vote.
"Also, you wrote something about the debate that is simply untrue. PRO never claimed that fetuses are people"
I was talking about your claim, but yes I can see the source of confusion.
"explain why one side has better arguments."
You do realize that arguments are tie in my vote?
Really? You are bothered by a vote that doesnt affect anything?
I think our guidelines say that no sufficient vote can contain zero usefull analysis of the debate, and I think that description applies to Best.Koreas vote.
What you have written is not sufficient according to our guidelines to be a vote. You don't provide any justification for leaving sources, conduct and legibility tied. Also, you don't weight the arguments and counterarguments from each side against each other and explain why one side has better arguments. You don't even make any reference to the resolution of the debate. Also, you wrote something about the debate that is simply untrue. PRO never claimed that fetuses are people, so how could that possibly be a claim of his that went mostly unchallenged. I even wrote that "God doesn't count fetuses as human beings" in underscored and bold text, so I don't get how you missed that.