#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Are Morals Objective?
Yes
Side Score: 29
|
 |
No
Side Score: 40
|
|
1
point
1
point
|
Typical. Translational mistake. Let me show you why you are wrong. Check your traslations first. New International Version (©2011) "You shall not murder." New Living Translation (©2007) "You must not murder." English Standard Version (©2001) “You shall not murder." New American Standard Bible (©1995) "You shall not murder." King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) "Thou shalt not kill." - Your evidence. Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009) "Do not murder." International Standard Version (©2012) "You are not to commit murder." NET Bible (©2006) "You shall not murder." GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) "Never murder." So now that this it out of the way show me how God breaks his moral code? I would love to knock down another one of your walls to see what your new insight is. Show me. Prove your point, Cartman. There is a clear difference between kill and murder. Side: Yes
There is no way killing 2 cities is not malicious, unless the person we are talking about has no ability to understand morality. In which case morals are subjective because the being that wrote them can't grasp morals. How is punishing people not malicious? Because He had good intentions? Side: No
There is no way killing 2 cities is not malicious, unless the person we are talking about has no ability to understand morality. I think you saying this proves the objectivity of a moral construct, you are essentially saying destroying two cities, no matter how disgusting the inhabitants are, is inherently wrong. . In which case morals are subjective because the being that wrote them can't grasp morals. He dictated that there was ample reason for him to wipe the city off the map. It was because the city was immoral. Is it immoral to wipe out immorality? Nevertheless, He said despite this, he would spare them if there was 50 righteous men he would save an entire city. The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know. Sodom was notorious for its behaviour, you do not have much of a crutch to stand on. People always complain that God does not do enough against evil, like stop the rapist or the gunman or the abortion he does not like, so why are we complaining when he does this one thing against a inhospitable nation? How is punishing people not malicious? Because He had good intentions? So I guess turning a blind eye to everything is better Cartman. Isn't this the God we have a problem with? Side: Yes
I think you saying this proves the objectivity of a moral construct, you are essentially saying destroying two cities, no matter how disgusting the inhabitants are, is inherently wrong. Yes, that's what I am saying. Christians say I am wrong, therefore I believe Christians do not have objective morals. So I guess turning a blind eye to everything is better Cartman. Isn't this the God we have a problem with? God let them sin for so long that they corrupted everyone. Less than 50 people were good. It looks like He turned a blind eye for quite some time. Side: No
Yes, that's what I am saying. Christians say I am wrong, therefore I believe Christians do not have objective morals. Explain why you believe the destruction of an infamous city is wrong. God let them sin for so long that they corrupted everyone. So long? So you would prefer him to swoop in in the first few seconds of sin and blow that place up huh? The first gang rape? The first lie? Where should he have started? When should he have stepped in? Less than 50 people were good. It looks like He turned a blind eye for quite some time. I don't think God having the whip over there heads before less than 50 people would have made you feel any better about it. I don't think him sparing the city would have either. Tell me, how do you think you would deal with the situation. Side: Yes
Explain why you believe the destruction of an infamous city is wrong. It would be the destruction part. So long? So you would prefer him to swoop in in the first few seconds of sin and blow that place up huh? The first gang rape? The first lie? Where should he have started? When should he have stepped in? Wow, projecting your hate filled God's evil practices on me. A new low. Maybe when there was the first gang rape God should have stepped in and stopped the ones who were involved. But no, He let them rape for a long long time. I don't think God having the whip over there heads before less than 50 people would have made you feel any better about it. I don't think him sparing the city would have either. Tell me, how do you think you would deal with the situation. Maybe start punishing individual people so that everyone else knows that you think it is wrong. Don't keep threatening over and over that you are going to kill, then just kill everyone. How about saying rape is wrong, then striking down the next individual that rapes. Side: No
It would be the destruction part. And you never answered the question. You just stated where the problem was, you never said why you had a problem with it. Wow, projecting your hate filled God's evil practices on me. A new low. Just wanting to see if your job could have been better. Maybe when there was the first gang rape God should have stepped in and stopped the ones who were involved. Okay, God stops the first gang rape. God stops the second gang rape and the third and the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh and so on and so forth. Does this change the hearts of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah? No, it does not. God stopping a gang rape itself does not stop them wanting to gang rape, and the former is the same as the latter. But no, He let them rape for a long long time. So discipline them all earlier then, I get it. But how? A pat on the back and a little warning? Doesn't seem to do much, because the people of Sodom and Gomorrah already knew what they were doing was wrong, telling them to not do it isn't going to solve anything. Maybe start punishing individual people so that everyone else knows that you think it is wrong. Read what the text says, the entire city was depraved. Not even ten were righteous and God said he would save the city if ten were found (not fifty as I said before but ten). So he destroyed the city. Don't keep threatening over and over that you are going to kill, then just kill everyone. How about saying rape is wrong, then striking down the next individual that rapes. Stop the first rape by striking someone down. Everybody gets scared. So rapists are going to stop raping physically but they are still potential rapists. You keep suggesting a superficial change which never solves anything, suggest a deeper one. Side: Yes
And you never answered the question. You just stated where the problem was, you never said why you had a problem with it. I did answer the question. The act of destruction is my answer. I feel that destroying stuff is bad. Okay, God stops the first gang rape. God stops the second gang rape and the third and the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh and so on and so forth. Does this change the hearts of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah? No, it does not. God stopping a gang rape itself does not stop them wanting to gang rape, and the former is the same as the latter. Ok, so now we are saying that an actual rapist is the same as someone who thinks they want to rape. Now we should blame the thing responsible for creating that desire to rape. Where can we find a creator to blame? So discipline them all earlier then, I get it. But how? A pat on the back and a little warning? Doesn't seem to do much, because the people of Sodom and Gomorrah already knew what they were doing was wrong, telling them to not do it isn't going to solve anything. You can't go from telling people it is wrong to killing everyone. People will learn if one person gets punished. Read what the text says, the entire city was depraved. Not even ten were righteous and God said he would save the city if ten were found (not fifty as I said before but ten). So he destroyed the city. What about the rape victims? Are they depraved as well? Are they still there? Maybe it is because rape went unpunished that everyone became depraved. Stop the first rape by striking someone down. Everybody gets scared. So rapists are going to stop raping physically but they are still potential rapists. You keep suggesting a superficial change which never solves anything, suggest a deeper one. Oh, a deeper one. How about the creator of all things, the all powerful being could do a better job creating. God made a mistake and made the inhabitants rape, and the destruction was to erase that mistake. God should have done a better job creating people so that they wouldn't need to be destroyed. Side: No
When your men want to rape angels and refuse to listen to God what other form of justice will you use? Murder is not justifiable. Murder does have a just cause. Otherwise it is a killing. Malicious intent is required. This isn't the case with God. So your argument is invalid. Side: Yes
Wiping out 2 cities is not malicious to a psychopath maybe. Someone who has no ability to grasp morality could destroy 2 cities, how convenient. Everyone keeps saying He is all loving. His actions speak far more though. Invalid again, Cartman. For one the cammandment did not exist yet so he did not break any of his own rules. Secondly a justified kill is not a murder. Thirdly men did not have such a direct link to God like we see in the new testament. People didn't listen and continuosly sinned until their sin where simply unbelieveable. Raping angels? That is crazy. Raping incoming visitors? Rape in general? Are you excusing that? Also what about the rest of the actions? Did you ever consider that? Side: Yes
Invalid again, Cartman. For one the cammandment did not exist yet so he did not break any of his own rules. Doesn't change the fact that a psychopath would not have a rule saying don't wipe out 2 cities from existence. Secondly a justified kill is not a murder. Someone breaking your own rules is not valid justification. Thirdly men did not have such a direct link to God like we see in the new testament. So killing people is cool when you are disconnected from them, kind of like how a psychopath would think. Raping angels? That is crazy. Raping incoming visitors? Rape in general? Are you excusing that? Also what about the rest of the actions? Did you ever consider that? I would totally exaggerate what my victims did so that I could justify my murder. I am not saying God did that, just saying. Side: No
Doesn't change the fact that a psychopath would not have a rule saying don't wipe out 2 cities from existence. Insulting god? Is that all you can come up with and a rebuttal? If you won't debaye normally you will be banned and this is yoir only warning. Like I already said. God is a just God. How can you question almighty justice if you are not almighty? Someone breaking your own rules is not valid justification. Invalid and incorrect. Murder is unlawful. No law was present. Murder is malicious. No malice was present. Again, try to make a logical statement, Cartman. Otherwise you are just trolling and making up stuff, hoping to get by with insults. So killing people is cool when you are disconnected from them, kind of like how a psychopath would think. Nope. Completely took my words out of context. You are saying his killings are not justified. List me all the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. Then tell me if the hand of justice was neccesary. I would totally exaggerate what my victims did so that I could justify my murder. I am not saying God did that, just saying. Didn't even access what I said. Again, make a logical statement. Murder is unlawful and malicious, but neither of these qualities were here. So what you are claiming is invalid. Try again, logically, Cartman. Otherwise I will just ban you for posting ignorant comments, false information, and trolling. Side: Yes
If an individual person completely destroyed 2 cities, we would say they were a psychopath. Invalid and incorrect. Murder is unlawful. No law was present. Murder is malicious. No malice was present. Again, try to make a logical statement, Cartman. Otherwise you are just trolling and making up stuff, hoping to get by with insults. What does objective mean? Didn't even access what I said. Again, make a logical statement. Murder is unlawful and malicious, but neither of these qualities were here. So what you are claiming is invalid. Try again, logically, Cartman. Otherwise I will just ban you for posting ignorant comments, false information, and trolling. If a person killed a whole bunch of people, and had a chance to tell the whole world what really happened, would that person not exaggerate? Side: No
God does things for a reason. We can't comprehend God because we only see a fraction of the big picture. For example if you are playing tennis and your opponent hits the ball and you see the ball is coming towards you straight but as soon as you are going to hit the ball it slices and goes a different direction. The people in the stands knew that the ball was going to slice before you did. God is the people in the stands and we are the player on the tennis court. So we only see a small fraction of the big picture that God see's. The positive things are that Christ died for both you and I and rose again from the dead. You have an opportunity to get out of the slavery of sin and be a child of God. Side: Yes
So, it was ok to murder before the rule went into affect, thus, morals aren't objective. Name an apostle that murdered and never paid for it. Go ahead, Cartman. You are no claiming anything at all. Nobody said it was okay and none of God's killings were malicious which you seem to ignore. So access the entire argument or don't try. Now give a logical answer and tell me, what apostle murdered and didn't pay for it? Side: No
What I meant to say was that happened before the Ten Commandments came in. Plus the Ten Commandments were for human relations not God. He said if you do this then your life would be a lot better but He knew you couldn't come to Him through the Ten Commandments that is why Jesus Christ came down in human form to die on the cross for our sins. Thus making the path for you to come to God because Christ put all the sin o n His shoulders and died and rose again. Side: No
2
points
No. Morality is our invention and it evolves as a society and people evolve. It preceedes religion entirely and is ingrained in us naturally because we are a social species and need it to survive. The idea that morals are the creation of some overlord deity is idiotic and untrue. Theres no proof that that is the case and if it were so all morality would be the same and it isnt. Iraqi morality is typically different than American morality so to speak. We can have different opinions on moral issues thus confirming that seperate minds have separate senses of morality. Side: No
1
point
You contradict yourself. First you claim that it is an invention, then you claim it is ingrained in us naturally. So which is it, do we have an innate sense for morality or is it a construct? Why are you bringing deities into this? That is a red herring. The question is not whether we get morality from God or not, it is whether or not morality is objective. Simply because there are different ideas regarding morality does not automatically make it subjective. Side: Yes
1
point
|
