Instigator / Pro
21
1465
rating
30
debates
58.33%
won
Topic
#5708
God is not pro life
Status
Voting
The participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
Voting will end in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 7,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- 1,449
Contender / Con
15
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
won
Description
For this debate, we will assume that the bible is completely accurate.
Round 1
Definition of pro-life: Wanting to conserve life, generally referring to apposing abortion, I think it would be reasonable to consider pro-life to mean wanting to protect the life of all innocent, such as infants and babies.
I don't think that this definition will be a problem, but please tell me if you disagree.
I understand the argument that as god condemns murder, he supports, well, not killing people. However, it is agreed that actions speak far louder than words.
Here are some of those actions:
Genesis 6:17 (NIV): "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
So one of the first things in the bible is how god drowned all of humanity. We don't know how many people would have died, but their is a general agreement that it would have been around 750 million, which would include a lot of pregnant woman, infants, and literally everybody else except for eight people. I think that we can agree that killing hundreds of millions of people is not pro-life, but that's not even the beginning.
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (NIV)
"However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you
1 Samuel 15:3 (NIV)
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
Ezekiel 9:5-7 (NIV)
"As I listened, he said to the others, 'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple."
I might not be the brightest person, but definitely know that commanding your followers to slaughter all men and woman, (including pregnant woman) babies and infants is in no way pro-life.
Numbers 31:17-18 (NIV) – Command to Kill the Midianites
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
Ignoring the rape here, that's a subject for a different time, killing every woman who has slept with a man means killing all pregnant woman too.
And there are more examples where god commands his people to kill innocents.
Remember, in all of these instances these commands came from prophet, and since we're assuming complete accuracy of the bible, are speaking the words of god.
My source for the population number:
I used AI to help find the verses, they have been verified.
Thank you to Owen_T for creating this debate. I'm sure we will have a fun time debating this topic.
I will provide a case for why I believe the God of the Bible, is pro-life then I will provide rebuttals to the first argument by my opponent.
Definition:
Pro-Life - The dictionary from Oxford languages provides a definition specifically referring to abortion. Therefore, I will be utilizing that in my argument today.
The God of the Bible is a fair and just God, who is pro-life.
Pretty simple argument.
Examples:
Genisis 1:27 highlights that humans are made in the image of God, suggesting a unique dignity attributed to human life.
Exodus 20: 13 underscores the commandment against murder, reinforcing the importance of protecting life.
Psalm 139:13-16 and Jeremiah 1:5 reflect the belief that God is intimately involved in the creation and development of a person from the earliest stages, suggesting that life begins in the womb and is known by God.
The value and importance of children are emphasized in Matthew 18:10 and Mark 10:14, where Jesus’ welcoming and protection of children are noted. Additionally, Job 12:10 speaks to the belief that all life is under God's sovereign control and care. Collectively, these references form the basis for a pro-life perspective, emphasizing the protection and respect for life at all stages.
These verses combined show us a God that represents a pro-life position. Acknowledging life in the womb and being against murder.
That is my case. Short and sweet.
Rebuttals:
Rebuttals:
Genesis 6:17 (NIV): "I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."So one of the first things in the bible is how god drowned all of humanity. We don't know how many people would have died, but their is a general agreement that it would have been around 750 million, which would include a lot of pregnant woman, infants, and literally everybody else except for eight people. I think that we can agree that killing hundreds of millions of people is not pro-life, but that's not even the beginning.
When anyone says the words," God killed someone" That is making the assumption that God is bound by human categorical terms.
According to the Bible there is life after death. So, if God takes someone out of this life and into the next, that isn't murder, that is justified, because God is in control. He can't murder because to murder would be to eliminate a human life. God is beyond human physical life and deals with the spiritual. So, by definition God wouldn't be killing these people, he would be moving them to another life.
According to the Bible there is life after death. So, if God takes someone out of this life and into the next, that isn't murder, that is justified, because God is in control. He can't murder because to murder would be to eliminate a human life. God is beyond human physical life and deals with the spiritual. So, by definition God wouldn't be killing these people, he would be moving them to another life.
Now I know what you will say. But what about us? Does that justify us to kill? No. It doesn't.
We don't have control over the universe so taking a life wouldn't be within our jurisdiction. And we also cannot deal with life after death like God can.
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (NIV)"However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you
That is not God making a statement.
Also, it is likely that this language used was reactionary language as stated by many scholars of the Old Testament. So, we don't know for sure in ALL of these story's if they literally didn't leave anyone alive or destroyed them.
It would be like you and me on a football team and me saying," WERE GONNA DESTROY THEM".
Well, were not going really destroy them actually, but its metaphorical.
1 Samuel 15:3 (NIV)"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
Again, could be reactionary language. But also, aren't we in conversation about abortion here?
Ezekiel 9:5-7 (NIV)"As I listened, he said to the others, 'Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.' So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple."I might not be the brightest person, but definitely know that commanding your followers to slaughter all men and woman, (including pregnant woman) babies and infants is in no way pro-life.
This story is targeting a specific people who were purposefully committing acts of injustice. Some in the city were against it. When God said this, again he was using emphatic language to emphasize the command of," Don't think just kill whoever doesn't have the mark"
Numbers 31:17-18 (NIV) – Command to Kill the Midianites"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."Ignoring the rape here, that's a subject for a different time, killing every woman who has slept with a man means killing all pregnant woman too.
And the Bible talks about all children going to heaven, when reading about the story of Davids dead child.
And given Gods jurisdiction this child wouldn't be dying but gaining instant eternal life. Only Gods allowed with that jurisdiction though.
Anyways sorry for the bad rebuttals I'm tired, but maybe tomorrow I'll be more on point.
Round 2
My opponent's argument:
- Babies in the womb are alive.
- Therefore, abortion is murder.
- God condemns murder.
Rebuttal:
My argument already rebutted that, saying that actions have much more substance than claims, and god has committed a lot of actions that lead to the killing pregnant woman, and by extension, the baby.
Counter Arguments:
Since babies go to heaven, it doesn't actually count as killing.
According to the definition that you yourself selected, abortion means to "deliberate the end of a pregnancy."
According to the definition that you yourself selected, abortion means to "deliberate the end of a pregnancy."
All of the commands of god I mentioned definitely do that. And remember, this is the definition that you yourself established.
Reactionary Language
You suggest that god didn't actually intent for the Israelites to kill everyone, that it was just reactionary language, though we can use basic context to debunk this. Knowing that this is a command for war, and they did indeed put everyone to death, that this is not accurate.
Here's a verse to back that up.
Joshua 10:40 (NIV):
"So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills, and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord, the God of Israel, had commanded."
Just as god commanded.
______________________________
Not to mention that my opponent ignored the largest killing of all; the great flood.
The rest of your arguments try to justify the slaughter in some way, though whether or not the killing was justified is not what this debate is about.
My opponent's argument:
- Babies in the womb are alive.
- Therefore, abortion is murder.
- God condemns murder.
The Bible shows through the 10 commandments that God condemns murder.
"Thou Shall Not Murder" is the command on stone that he gives.
If the child in the womb is in fact alive then we would have to assume a termination of that life is murder correct?
Now before we continue, I want to specify, this debate is not arguing whether or not, God allowed abortion through Israel, or other people, but that God Himself is or is not pro-life. Meaning God believes abortion is good or bad.
Rebuttal:My argument already rebutted that, saying that actions have much more substance than claims, and god has committed a lot of actions that lead to the killing pregnant woman, and by extension, the baby.
If we are to debate this, we have to accept the Biblical worldview at least for the debate. Which means you have to accept the theological implications of the Biblical God.
The words of God in the Bible are described as The Truth, and nothing else can compete against it.
Therefore, the words do in fact have a lot of substance given the context of the God we are debating about.
Counter Arguments:Since babies go to heaven, it doesn't actually count as killing.
According to the definition that you yourself selected, abortion means to "deliberate the end of a pregnancy."All of the commands of god I mentioned definitely do that. And remember, this is the definition that you yourself established.
My argument wasn't that God hasn't ended pregnancy's. We see clearly that God takes aways Davids child after he murders the husband of the woman he impregnates.
My argument was that Gods position is pro-life. His WORDS say otherwise.
My argument was also that it was justified for GOD to do it only, because it wouldn't be a termination of a pregnancy, it would be a creator moving his creation.
Round 3
The debate has come down to this, does god's words or his actions provide a more clear perspective on what he is like.
Actions speak louder than words, and god ordering the termination of hundreds of pregnancies after he told his people that murder was bad, really takes a lot of validity from his words.
Sure he's told other people not to murder, but he himself had no issue with ordering the death of thousands right after that.
My opponent also says that ending a pregnancy isn't terminating a pregnancy?
You admit that god ends pregnancy:
My argument wasn't that God hasn't ended pregnancy's. We see clearly that God takes aways Davids child after he murders the husband of the woman he impregnates.
End in terminate are synonyms, and yet you say god didn't terminate pregnancies?
My argument was also that it was justified for GOD to do it only, because it wouldn't be a termination of a pregnancy, it would be a creator moving his creation.
We can confidently say that the one time god says he disapproves of murder is not enough to counter the millions of people he himself has killed.
Forfeited
Round 4
Extend
Forfeited
RFV Part 1
Description, I think it was a mistake not to include your definition of Pro Life in the description.
Owen_T Round 1
I think Pros definition of Pro life would be better focused on one definition of Pro Life, allowing multiple definitions allows opponent to focus in on just one, to achieve victory condition. As in God is Pro Life in 'this aspect.
For instance, one could argue that God wants life to 'exist on Earth, life has a lot of death involved in it. Cycle of life.
Though maybe some would argue God 'wants “The wolf will live with the lamb; the leopard will lie down with the young goat. The calf and the lion will graze together, and a little child will lead them.
But that man's Original Sin broke that reality for a time, (Since one is taking all of the Bible as true)
Well, people also talk about in Genisis how wicked those people were,
5Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time. 6And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. 7So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”
I suppose people don't find the execution of murderers very Pro Life, though it might save victims lives. But some people believe in a life after death, but then such a concept wonders why God would say don't kill if death was not death. Then again he says don't kill, he doesn't say don't die, I think. The act of murder can be bad for the murderer.
Bible claims the people God said to slay were wicked, I imagine, claims they sacrificed babies or something. And
Course the Israelites were told to kill the enemies babies.
I think the baby killing and pregnant woman killing is stronger part of Pros Round 1
YouFound_Lxam Round 1
I 'wouldn't have gone for the Pro Life baby argument.
Con makes arguments of how God might value babies, according to them being human life, knitting them from their earliest beginnings in the womb, being against murder.
'Could be a problem for Con, as I vaguely recall something about the Bible saying something about a breathe of life/soul once born.
As well as it only being a fine, not a life for life, if someone causes the death of an unborn. While killing the pregnant mother was a life for life.
But eh, Bible says a lot of things, maybe it says more for the Pro Life definition Con is taking.
(Which there may be, I don't read the Bible much)
. . . But still, would make God Pro Life by Cons definition.
Con argues afterlife and God above human standards.
I suppose that's an argument that could develop.
I consider the argument that God is not being literal with kill them all, weak. Unless Con produces translations or interpretations of the Bible to back up claim, or different parts in the Bible where God speaks non literally (Which there may be, I don't read the Bible much)
Argument about killing the specific injustice people, better.
Argument about children going to Heaven, not 'bad, maybe not 'great though.
God allowed jurisdiction can be seen as God taking the responsibility for this 'specific action, or any specific actions that God orders, and not encouraging or wanting murder.
Con Round 1, okay, but not 'great. Currently I think Pro arguments stronger.
Though I still think Pro arguments have flaws.
Owen_T Round 2
Pro makes strong effort to hit Con with Cons own definition.
Pro gives example of Gods language being followed.
I still lean towards voting Pro
YouFound_Lxam Round 2
Con reminds all of the Commandments and Thou shall not murder,
But it's 'still a problem that Pro is leaning into Cons definition of Pro Life,
But Con 'does try to walk it back a bit, one could view it as people keeping a wolf sanctuary and being Pro Life, but the wolves got to eat.
Some people think there's 'something about existence that humans 'need to experience. Apparent Free Will, for example.
Con pushes against his by arguing, regardless of what God allows causes, he can still consider Abortion bad/be against it.
If Con had continued debate, they 'might have been able to gain traction here, as Pro seemed willing to accept Cons definition of Pro Life.
Con does 'very well in playing into Pros description of the debate, that assumes the Bible is totally accurate, if the Bible 'says that God is something or other, then it will be true regardless of any actions to the contrary that God may take.
'However, I don't remember Con citing the Bible explicitly saying that God is Pro life or Anti Abortion.
I still lean Pro for vote.
RFV Part 2
Owen_T Round 3
I am not convinced that actions speak louder than words.
Hundreds isn't that many people.
Maybe the deaths were necessary to some ends.
Life after death.
Exceptions.
Still, this is the end,
I think Cons Pro Life definition angle was a mistake, not that one couldn't argue God is Anti Abortion, but many of Cons arguments for such were broad, lacking specificality to Abortion.
A bit like Con tried to narrow the goal of the debate (Fair because of Pro definitions in description and round 1)
But then that Con argued the point broadly, instead of focusing on the goal.
Con could have further developed the concept of God being exempt from human standards and expectations.
Missing rounds 3 and 4 really hurt Con.
Pro manages to make arguments and consistently rebut Con's frequently,
But does Pro make good case of God to be Pro Death, or Pro Neutral?
Though I think arguments can be made against Pro, Con missed half the debate, and didn't dig in as deep as Pro for the time that Con 'was there.
. . . On another hand, Con 'does give many examples of God valuing Life, which as I read debate a second time, I don't 'think Pro addresses well,
Pro 'does have the problem of "assume that the bible is completely accurate"
Hm, God 'says live Pro Life, but 'does say to kill some specific people, and sends natural disasters at some points. But Con argues such are exceptions.
I suppose I'll go with a tie but Conduct to Pro,
If I 'had to choose a side for who won, I would have chosen Pro I think, but tie is an option in this voting system.
. . . My vote is a 'bit unfair in adding my own arguments, but I don't think that's a fault. I subtract my arguments from the person I argue against Pro, I don't 'add them to the person who didn't argue them Con.
Arguments Tie
Sources Tie both used the Bible,
If Con had used sources that for instances argued certain translations effecting understood meaning, could have helped Con.
Legibility equal.
Conduct to Pro, people can miss rounds, but without excuse/reason given in debate or comments, it qualifies as a hit.
You didn't specify descriptions in the description.
And in your first argument you allowed me to challenge the definition.
So that gave me the opportunity to provide my definition for abortion and establish it.
As for other words, you're going to have to establish them if you want to.
We probably should have established this earlier.
Should we agree to use all definitions of the Oxford Languages Dictionary?
He is obviously not pro all life.
According to the scripture, God is not pro life , HE'S eternal life.