CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'm not exactly sure what that quote from the old testament was saying.... but in general I do believe God to be good. Although I am an atheist, I think the concept of God can instill morals in people and create a sense of unity for humanity.... when not taken too far.
It is not morals it instills, but a type of Law. There is a difference between law and morals. Law is the set of rules for coercion, morality is a set of rules about how to act. Its a subtle difference, but an important one.
Most people - especially foolhardy atheists - insist that accounts such as these only go to show that God was/is evil.
They know little about the background, though; and, as usual, things aren't so cut-and-dry as they think.
So, why did God have that law?
Because the Jew knew not of evil.
At the time, a purely Jewish society with no influence whatsoever of pernicious outsiders would have been without crime. Murder, thievery, rape - all of it unheard of. However, it would have taken a number of generations for this to be accomplished. If one were to commit such a crime, they would be introducing criminality to a crime-free society. The only way to prevent it. You guessed it - cut it off at the source (i.e. kill the criminal). This may seem quite tough, but one must remember that, had it succeeded, the Jews would have had a completely crime-free society. Murder would be unheard of - it would not be an option because the next generations would not even realize that such an action is possible. Such an option would be outside the scope of a regular man's knowledge and experience.
At the time, a purely Jewish society with no influence whatsoever of pernicious outsiders would have been without crime. Murder, thievery, rape - all of it unheard of.
To quote someone famous on here - "Prove it."
However, it would have taken a number of generations for this to be accomplished. If one were to commit such a crime, they would be introducing criminality to a crime-free society. The only way to prevent it. You guessed it - cut it off at the source (i.e. kill the criminal). This may seem quite tough, but one must remember that, had it succeeded, the Jews would have had a completely crime-free society.
Getting back to reality, harsh penalties for small misdeeds actually only worsens crime. Do you know why?
It's because once a person breaks a small law, the stiff penalties invest them, so they feel like they may as well break more laws since the punishment will be the same (you can only die once). I think there was an old English saying about this that went like "In for a penny, in for a pound."
Murder would be unheard of - it would not be an option because the next generations would not even realize that such an action is possible. Such an option would be outside the scope of a regular man's knowledge and experience.
Murder is a latent impulse, not a learned behaviour.
This is a theological debate and as such my primary sources are theological texts.
Getting back to reality, harsh penalties for small misdeeds actually only worsens crime. Do you know why?
It's because once a person breaks a small law, the stiff penalties invest them, so they feel like they may as well break more laws since the punishment will be the same (you can only die once). I think there was an old English saying about this that went like "In for a penny, in for a pound."
If they are killed immediately there is no time for them to further corrupt society.
Murder is a latent impulse, not a learned behaviour.
This may seem quite tough, but one must remember that, had it succeeded, the Jews would have had a completely crime-free society. Murder would be unheard of - it would not be an option because the next generations would not even realize that such an action is possible. Such an option would be outside the scope of a regular man's knowledge and experience.
This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Texas kills people for killing people and has for centuries, yet everyday someone in Texas is killed. Same could be said of any place on earth that kills people for killing people. It would seem it is not the deterrent you paint it as.
At any rate as to your general point, if the ultimate goal is compliance to the powerful, than the bible is a wonderful guide full of slaves and overwhelming misery among the masses,
however Western culture was set-up apart from religion, recognizing that the goal of society is not compliance for compliance sake, but for the betterment of the population.
As such, once the execution of "law" becomes more oppressive than the actual crimes committed, then it is not the crimes which are "criminal" but the law itself. This is very much the case with the bible, as we have seen during the dark ages, witch hunts, and even currently with christian tribes in Africa and the "god hates fags" type christians of the US - whom all consequently have far more in common with terrorists and the mind-set leading to 9-11 than anyone involved in building the community center you have so railed against in previous debates.
To God is Good but mostly faithful and He shows up right on time. Everyone have their own believes and like to start crap sometimes but there is only one God, Jesus Christ who is with all and through all.
No need to God indescribable, He is all things that are good. Jesus is no prophet he is God in the flesh. Thats why People have their own way on describing their believes on something, I don't argue with them because its not worth it and I also mind my own business and what I say, Is what I say. Moving along. =)
That is on condition that people believe in the bible in the first place, old or new or amended as necessary etc. Made up fairy tales to put the fear into people. No one with an intelligent mind today believes in the bible as "the True Word of God" Come on people, everyone with their own theory about the bible, Koran etc screams originality. The real question is, is there a creator/God. We don't know, and may not for decades, if not 000's of years to come. That's all, and no one alive today can prove it. Just accept the fact that we are but children in understanding the cosmos, and stop the petty bickering over who's God is better than the other. Pathetic! If there is a God, or Gods, we must be the entertainment of the universe.
Jews, Arabs, Christians, my god, "excuse the unintended pun" but your beliefs all stem from a common source, and the so called "books" have been proved and agreed upon that they are written by man. SIMPLE. Take what you believe for the common good and trash the rest as rubbish, as this is what it is. Politics in the first century AD.
So you believe that Jesus is the deity of Christianity?
Ok.
Well then, if you don't argue with them why post on a debate ( meant for arguing ) regarding a subject you don't argue with?
In all honesty all the branches off of Adam and Eve are wrong, the original is the closest thing to being believable not this whole Catholicism, Christianity argument. Take the religion back to its roots before it branched off and then you might have the only believable part of it, other than that your religion gets lost within humans editing what is far beyond humans to edit ( that is of course if you believe in a superior being ).
Whether your side is that God is good or not, it really doesn't matter. The idea of God is totally subjective. Everyone who believes in God should have their own opinion of who God is and God's role in this world. Anyone who believes whatever they are taught needs to look further. My opinion of God is that God is good. The Bible will not change that, because God did not write the Bible. God is different on every page, and that is no coincidence. But everyone will have their beliefs, and most people will disagree. That's why this is a debate. My point is, you can't base your beliefs on what others say. You can let them influence you, and enlighten you, but ultimately your beliefs depend on you alone. Even the Bible must be taken with some measure of caution. Times change, people change, and God also changes. God was there before this world and God will be here after it, but that doesn't mean God never changes. God is good, that is my belief. That's why there's laughter and websites like this.
We assume he exists for this particular discourse.
As every parent knows, the best way to parent, or in this case, play God, is to let people figure it out themselves unless they go absurdly wrong. As much as it pains me to admit, this world is not so terrible as to need divine intervention. Thus, God acts the way he should, and does nothing.
God is just, not bad. That is a reading from the old testament, when you didn't look at the new testament. You may find a contradiction there, but that does not mean that God is BAD.
God is just, not bad. That is a reading from the old testament, when you didn't look at the new testament. You may find a contradiction there, but that does not mean that God is BAD.
Question:
If a person, any bloke on the street told you that you must kill disobedient children, and that people who didn't listen to him deserved death, would you call him GOOD?
Nobody would. That's the point. You're making excuses for an evil deity because you were taught to worship it.
A common blunder on the part of atheists is that the radical differences between the Old and New Testaments decisively prove that the Bible is inherently mistaken. That is not so.
Why? Because the Old Testament is the book of the Jews, whereas the New Testament is that of the Christians. The Christians are not in any way bound to the restrictions given to the Jews, being that they are, unlike the Jews of old, saved via "grace" rather than lineage.
That is on condition that people believe in the bible in the first place, old or new or amended as necessary etc. Made up fairy tales to put the fear into people. No one with an intelligent mind today believes in the bible as "the True Word of God" Come on people, everyone with their own theory about the bible, Koran etc screams originality. The real question is, is there a creator/God. We don't know, and may not for decades, if not 000's of years to come. That's all, and no one alive today can prove it. Just accept the fact that we are but children in understanding the cosmos, and stop the petty bickering over who's God is better than the other. Pathetic! If there is a God, or Gods, we must be the entertainment of the universe.
Jews, Arabs, Christians, my god, "excuse the unintended pun" but your beliefs all stem from a common source, and the so called "books" have been proved and agreed upon that they are written by man. SIMPLE. Take what you believe for the common good and trash the rest as rubbish, as this is what it is. Politics in the first century AD.
That is on condition that people believe in the bible in the first place, old or new or amended as necessary etc.
This is a theological debate.
No one
Generalization.
with an intelligent mind today believes in the bible as "the True Word of God"
Really? I happen to know at least one person whose IQ has been tested and officially certified as being just about in the genius range, and he believes it. I highly doubt that he is the only one in the world; in fact, I know for certain that there are others.
Come on people, everyone with their own theory about the bible, Koran etc screams originality.
Says you. Why should anybody else care what you think?
Just accept the fact
Opinion.
that we are but children in understanding the cosmos
All the more reason for religiosity.
and stop the petty bickering over who's God is better than the other.
Why not?
Every atheist I have ever known has very little understanding of religiosity.
Pathetic
Says you.
If there is a God, or Gods, we must be the entertainment of the universe.
Why?
Jews, Arabs, Christians, my god, "excuse the unintended pun" but your beliefs all stem from a common source, and the so called "books"
Just what does this have to do with anything?
Oh, and they're called "Muslims", not "Arabs".
have been proved and agreed upon that they are written by man.
No such thing has ever been proven; and it stands to reason that - seeing how many billions of people believe them - nothing either has been agreed upon. Only by the atheists.
SIMPLE*
Not quite.
Take what you believe for the common good and trash the rest as rubbish, as this is what it is.
Prove it.
Politics in the first century AD.
That last sentence only goes to show how little you know.
A common blunder on the part of atheists is that the radical differences between the Old and New Testaments decisively prove that the Bible is inherently mistaken. That is not so.
Sorry, that's how logic works. Contradictory stories mean there is a mistake, which renders the damn bible fallible.
Why? Because the Old Testament is the book of the Jews, whereas the New Testament is that of the Christians. The Christians are not in any way bound to the restrictions given to the Jews, being that they are, unlike the Jews of old, saved via "grace" rather than lineage.
Better try reading that book you hold so dear. It plainly states that until heaven and earth pass, not one letter of the law is to be ignored (speaking of the whole bible).
Cognitive dissonance is a tough beast, in your guys' case it means defending the old testament while simultaneously denouncing it.
What the newer version states is that all laws stated are true, and are never at fault.
Which would mean that the old law stated above from Deuteronomy would then be true, this is no contradiction. Merely a statement which led me to the question is Good good? Due to the Lord stating that we should stone our children if they are drunkards.
You must remember that there is a temporal and cultural difference. The law listed in Deuteronomy is meant only for that Jewish civilization. Not for all Jews, not for Jews today, but just for the Jews of that one location, that one time.
Due to the Lord stating that we should stone our children if they are drunkards.
Drunkards, one could easily argue, corrupt society. One must remember that the times were vastly different than they are now - the whole concept of society has changed. It is better - from an almost utilitarian point of view - from one corrupting influence to be destroyed than for all of society to descent into a state of social obloquy.
You must remember that there is a temporal and cultural difference. The law listed in Deuteronomy is meant only for that Jewish civilization. Not for all Jews, not for Jews today, but just for the Jews of that one location, that one time.
In Nazi Germany, temporal and cultural differences made killing Jews and torturing them A-okay. That doesn't change the fact that we can agree that those behaviours are evil.
Drunkards, one could easily argue, corrupt society. One must remember that the times were vastly different than they are now - the whole concept of society has changed. It is better - from an almost utilitarian point of view - from one corrupting influence to be destroyed than for all of society to descent into a state of social obloquy.
I don't care for PR talk, we don't kill drunk children, or disobedient childred in our civil society.
The thing is, God is saying that that is what they deserve. Does a murderer deserve a medal for comitting crime? No, he deserves death God was the voice of justice, but Jesus said to forgive them.
Just because God stated what people deserve doesn't make him bad. If he really was bad he would have sent Jesus to the earth to teach us to forgive them and show mercy.
You are simply wrong. You are either defending God against Himself and you know it or you are basing your statements on own opinion without consult the bible. If you want to be accurate you must realize that you are 2000 years removed from that period and mankind is totally Dependant on the bible for its knowledge. I think you have fallen into the trap of defending God that so many religious people throw caution to the wind with or are just clueless about references like: Job 42:7-9. LET ME ASK THIS: IF DEFENDING GOD COULDN"T BE A SIN THEN WHY WOULD SACRIFICE BE REQUIRED OF THEM HERE? AS A RELIGIOUS PERSON HAVEN'T YOU READ WHERE GOD TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS WHEN HE SPOKE WITH SATAN "...although you turned Me against him without a cause..." Job 2:3. If you want to defend God and be right! The first thing you would need to do is know what the real meaning of the scripture is. This could become a problem when someone is exposed to things that will influence their thoughts before they have grasped the text properly. That's why I tell people to take their bible and SHUT EVERYTHING ELSE OUT BECAUSE YOU WILL NEVER WIN AGAINST 2000 YEARS OF RELIGIOUS CONFUSION, It often takes patience measured in years to understand meaning the few passage that really need an explanation. Commentaries are a waste of time and tend to confuse. They will write almost everything about things that need no explanation but they will conveniently skip over those things that do. That's why atheist are bring up just some what they have skipped over because they didn't the guts to tackle the tuff questions in first place. Now that atheist are bring these point up they all of sudden have something to say but are saying it badly (contrary to scripture). BUT WHERE WERE THEY WHEN THEY WERE WRITING THEIR POINTLESS COMMENTARIES AND BOOKS. YOU KNOW THEY WRITE THOSE BOOKS TO REPLACE THE BIBLE WITH OWN NOTHING IN ORDER TO CASH IN ON GOD. IT THEREFORE IS NO WONDER THAT EVERYONE MERELY CONSULTS THEMSELVES RATHER THAT FOOLISH BIBLE, WHO NEEDS THAT ANYWAY!!!
If you want to be accurate you must realize that you are 2000 years removed from that period and mankind is totally Dependant on the bible for its knowledge.
Time doesn't make the bible any more or less wise.
That's why atheist are bring up just some what they have skipped over because they didn't the guts to tackle the tuff questions in first place. Now that atheist are bring these point up they all of sudden have something to say but are saying it badly (contrary to scripture).
It doesn't require out-of-context quotations to demonstrate that the biblical god is evil.
I bought up the "2000 year" point to bring into question (or doubt) the points people so easily throw around without throughly taking precause not to be mislead, especial since this would be a time period for which they clearly unaccustomed. BUT THIS WAS AGAINST RELIGIOUS CONCLUSION (I.E. AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS). As far as your other point (that also was about deferent religious groups). So no you don't have to take things out-of-text to show that The Biblical is evil according to how you determine evil. It is abundantly clear that the bible has a different form of morality than modern society therefore from within its own view of what constitutes morality the biblical God may be view as good. If you asked me whether I agree with biblical morality, I would say that it troubles greatly. HOW I AM RELUCTANT TO CRITICIZE THIS BIBLICAL GOD BECAUSE OF AN USUAL STRING OF BAD LUCK AFTER BECOME AN ATHEIST. MY UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE GIVES AN ARRAY THINGS TO SAY THAT MAKE THESE STATEMENTS SEEM LIKE CHILD'S PLAY BUT I BACK OFF FROM PUT THEM UP AS DEBATE BECAUSE THAT FUNNY STRING OF BAD LUCK.
I bought up the "2000 year" point to bring into question (or doubt) the points people so easily throw around without throughly taking precause not to be mislead, especial since this would be a time period for which they clearly unaccustomed. BUT THIS WAS AGAINST RELIGIOUS CONCLUSION (I.E. AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS).
I understand you as saying that two-thousand years ago times were different and would be unfamiliar to us. You would be making the point that morality would be different.
Yes, it was. However a god is supposedly beyond the petty prejudices of his people and has values that transcend time. So why would a civil society find his values petty and unsalvageable?
So no you don't have to take things out-of-text to show that The Biblical is evil according to how you determine evil. It is abundantly clear that the bible has a different form of morality than modern society therefore from within its own view of what constitutes morality the biblical God may be view as good. If you asked me whether I agree with biblical morality, I would say that it troubles greatly.
If you take a civil society (post-enlightenment), without bias, and take a random sampling of unbiased people from it, and ask them about those morals, they would disagree with them. Those morals are only shared by tribes and barbarians.
HOW I AM RELUCTANT TO CRITICIZE THIS BIBLICAL GOD BECAUSE OF AN USUAL STRING OF BAD LUCK AFTER BECOME AN ATHEIST. MY UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE GIVES AN ARRAY THINGS TO SAY THAT MAKE THESE STATEMENTS SEEM LIKE CHILD'S PLAY BUT I BACK OFF FROM PUT THEM UP AS DEBATE BECAUSE THAT FUNNY STRING OF BAD LUCK.
Whether or not a comet hit you upon denouncing god or you won a mansion after affirming him, it doesn't change that these morals as spelt out by god make him evil.
The thing is, God is saying that that is what they deserve. Does a murderer deserve a medal for comitting crime? No, he deserves death God was the voice of justice, but Jesus said to forgive them.
So you agree that children deserve death, that people who plant mixed crops deserve death, that people who work on the sabbath deserve death, etc.
This is called evil. I don't care that your theology demands that you ignore evil and pretend that your evil god is loving; what only matters here is that any human standard would hold the kind of behaviour of your god to be bad.
So you agree that children deserve death, that people who plant mixed crops deserve death, that people who work on the sabbath deserve death, etc.
Yes that is what they DESERVE. Do you know why? It's because they comitted sin. Whether it be genocide, or theft, young or elderly, that is what they DESERVE.
This is called evil.
No, it's called justice and mercy. I don't think you realised that there is a difference between someone deserving something, and someone actually getting it. I don't care how closed minded you are to other people's beliefs, but if God doesn't put someone to death who deserves it, I don't see how he's even close to evil.
Also, I think you should look up the definition for the word 'deserve,' you might learn something.
Yes that is what they DESERVE. Do you know why? It's because they comitted sin. Whether it be genocide, or theft, young or elderly, that is what they DESERVE.
All you are arguing is that they violated a rule set by an authority and therefore deserve death. You aren't specifying why they deserve punishment, just stating that the law requires it.
No, it's called justice and mercy.
Justice and mercy are human concepts. We naturally find it to be unjust to punish someone in a manner inconsistent with the crime.
Mercy means that the law wouldn't be upheld.
I don't care how closed minded you are to other people's beliefs,
I am extremely close-minded towards harming the weak, exploiting a gender, abusing children, etc.
but if God doesn't put someone to death who deserves it, I don't see how he's even close to evil.
It is evil in the first place for using one's authority to create a law that punishes the aforementioned behaviours with death. Simply being the authority doesn't allow for the punishment to be deserved.
Justice and mercy are human concepts. We naturally find it to be unjust to punish someone in a manner inconsistent with the crime.
Mercy means that the law wouldn't be upheld.
From a Christian's perspective we are made in God's image so therefore, no, they are not human concepts.
I am extremely close-minded towards harming the weak, exploiting a gender, abusing children, etc.
Same with most people.
It is evil in the first place for using one's authority to create a law that punishes the aforementioned behaviours with death. Simply being the authority doesn't allow for the punishment to be deserved. You worship an evil god.
If they were godly concepts then we wouldn't be having this discussion because the biblical god wouldn't be unjust and would be merciful.
What do you mean would be merciful? Did I not just explain to you why he's not evil BECAUSE of His mercy?
They were created by the biblical god which makes that god evil.
They were created BEFORE the first sin. They would be extremely easy to follow had we not sinned. Now that the world is full of sin the rules God created are going to sound harsher and harsher. Did you not realise God knows this? Why else do you think we are forgiven?
What do you mean would be merciful? Did I not just explain to you why he's not evil BECAUSE of His mercy?
A wife-beater will beat his wife until she is afraid of him. Then later he will refrain, because she is so afraid that she walks on eggshells trying to avoid provoking him, and he thinks highly of himself for not beating her as she deserves, he is being merciful.
Same thing here.
Evil god punishes people for mundane behaviours, then says "Oh but I give you mercy now! Am I not a good deity now??"
They were created BEFORE the first sin. They would be extremely easy to follow had we not sinned. Now that the world is full of sin the rules God created are going to sound harsher and harsher. Did you not realise God knows this? Why else do you think we are forgiven?
Look, this is a rational debate. I expect that you defend yourself rationally and logically. Arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, or what kind of thread should accent the invisible clothes is not tolerated.
If this is too hard to accept, I'll be more blunt: those laws are evil to any civilised society and I don't care to hear theological mouth-service defending evil by spinning the facts.
A wife-beater will beat his wife until she is afraid of him. Then later he will refrain, because she is so afraid that she walks on eggshells trying to avoid provoking him, and he thinks highly of himself for not beating her as she deserves, he is being merciful.
The wife appears to have done nothing wrong/broken any laws. But let's just assume she has...
Same thing here.
No, the wife-beater didn't show his wife mercy.
Evil god punishes people for mundane behaviours, then says "Oh but I give you mercy now! Am I not a good deity now??"
You really don't know anything about God do you....
God does NOT punish people for mundane behaviours, he forgives them. It's the laws of the nation that punish.
Look, this is a rational debate. I expect that you defend yourself rationally and logically. Arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, or what kind of thread should accent the invisible clothes is not tolerated.
If this is too hard to accept, I'll be more blunt: those laws are evil to any civilised society and I don't care to hear theological mouth-service defending evil by spinning the facts.
Bringing God into the question/moot automatically brings in theology. But seeing as how you are so opposed to that, I'LL be blunt and sum everything up:
If you come up with laws at a time when they are incredibly simple to follow, that does not make the maker of the laws evil. If the followers change, the rules don't. Thousands of years ago we wouldn't have thought they were difficult! But look at how much we've changed, and how the laws haven't. This makes them look evil. But seeing as how we aren't punished for breaking them but instead given another chance due to how much we change, I fail to see how that makes the maker of the laws evil?
The wife appears to have done nothing wrong/broken any laws. But let's just assume she has...
Exactly. Just as we do nothing wrong, even if we sin. Those sins are the justification for a malignant god.
No, the wife-beater didn't show his wife mercy.
Not beating his wife when he could have, is mercy.
You really don't know anything about God do you....
God does NOT punish people for mundane behaviours, he forgives them. It's the laws of the nation that punish.
Sins exist to control mundane behaviours.
Hell is god's punishment for these.
If you come up with laws at a time when they are incredibly simple to follow, that does not make the maker of the laws evil. If the followers change, the rules don't. Thousands of years ago we wouldn't have thought they were difficult! But look at how much we've changed, and how the laws haven't. This makes them look evil. But seeing as how we aren't punished for breaking them but instead given another chance due to how much we change, I fail to see how that makes the maker of the laws evil?
It's simple, really.
If the law maker (or decider of sin) is human, then it is merely a reflection of the prejudice of the times. Five thousand years ago a crop, an ox, a wife, were all important things. We can forgive the stupid primitives for being so barbaric, they had hardly advanced the field of ethics, morality, and law.
A god, on the other hand, represents perfection, transcendence of time and bias. If a god creates laws that are primitive and petty, then it must reflect poorly on that god. Put another way, what must it say about a god whose laws are inferior to fallible mortals' laws?
If a god is perfect then the only explanation isn't error, or limitation on the god's behalf, but an active desire to create petty, inferior laws. In other words a trickster deity, a malignant deity.
Exactly. Just as we do nothing wrong, even if we sin. Those sins are the justification for a malignant god.
We do nothing wrong even if we sin? Doing something wrong IS sin (rule/law breaking I mean).
Not beating his wife when he could have, is mercy.
Not beating his wife if she deserves it is mercy, I think you mean. Learn the definition please.
Sins exist to control mundane behaviours.
No, sins are anything that God is against, such as murder.
Hell is god's punishment for these.
No, Hell is where the devil and his angels live. We don't go there for sinning, we go there for rejecting God. God does not send people to Hell, he rejects then from Heaven. What's the difference you may ask? Just because someone is rejected from Heaven, does not mean they will necessarily be go to Hell.
If the law maker (or decider of sin) is human, then it is merely a reflection of the prejudice of the times No, these were around when God created the earth, not by people who thought they knew how to run society.
A god, on the other hand, represents perfection, transcendence of time and bias. If a god creates laws that are primitive and petty, then it must reflect poorly on that god.The thing is, he HASN'T created laws that are primitive and petty, it's only because we have changed so much that that's what we think they are.
If a god is perfect then the only explanation isn't error, or limitation on the god's behalf, but an active desire to create petty, inferior laws. In other words a trickster deity, a malignant deity We were also created perfect, innocent and unable to sin. Like I said before we would have had no reason to sin and thus we mightn't have even needed these laws. But because it was Eve's choice to give us the ability to sin, that does not give us the right to point our fingers at God. Now before you slam me for refering to the Bible, I think that this debate has boiled down to when the laws were created, who created them, how/why, and creationism.
But my basic point that I've been explaining throughout the debate is that were we not able to sin (which once we weren't) then these laws would be simple. Even several thousand years ago we wouldn't have thought of these laws as harsh, but seeing as how we've progressed and changed we view these laws as more and more evil. Because of this we sin more, and that is why God forgives us because he realises how hard these laws are to follow.
We do nothing wrong even if we sin? Doing something wrong IS sin (rule/law breaking I mean).
Sin is nothing more or less than the arbitrary rules imposed by a religion to demonstrate faithfulness. Sins are not intrinsically wrong or immoral.
Not beating his wife if she deserves it is mercy, I think you mean. Learn the definition please.
A wife never deserves beating. Just as in a religion, a person never deserves hell and torture. Creating arbitrary reasons to beat a wife, or send a person to hell, but not punishing according to these reasons is not mercy. It is sadism.
No, Hell is where the devil and his angels live. We don't go there for sinning, we go there for rejecting God. God does not send people to Hell, he rejects then from Heaven. What's the difference you may ask? Just because someone is rejected from Heaven, does not mean they will necessarily be go to Hell.
It's the same thing no matter how you spin it. A woman who rejects her abusive husband is sent to prison. He doesn't send her there himself, he just created a situation where she must choose between abuse or prison.
Do you lack depth of understanding of these issues? They are very simple ones.
No, these were around when God created the earth, not by people who thought they knew how to run society.
Try reading the damned bible yourself. All these monstrosities that are Judaic law were decreed by god.
The thing is, he HASN'T created laws that are primitive and petty, it's only because we have changed so much that that's what we think they are.
Again, read the damned book and theology that you are defending. God commands that you kill workers on the sabbath, witches, adulterers, homosexuals, women raped in cities, etc.
These are your rules that you are defending. Learn something about them before defending them.
We were also created perfect, innocent and unable to sin. Like I said before we would have had no reason to sin and thus we mightn't have even needed these laws. But because it was Eve's choice to give us the ability to sin, that does not give us the right to point our fingers at God. Now before you slam me for refering to the Bible, I think that this debate has boiled down to when the laws were created, who created them, how/why, and creationism.
I don't care for apologetics.
A malignant god commands the deaths of adulterers, disobedient children, sorcerors, etc. I don't care if you try to distract from the issue by saying that they wouldn't have been enforced. This is sophistry on your part. A malignant god creates laws like these in the first place.
But my basic point that I've been explaining throughout the debate is that were we not able to sin (which once we weren't) then these laws would be simple. Even several thousand years ago we wouldn't have thought of these laws as harsh, but seeing as how we've progressed and changed we view these laws as more and more evil. Because of this we sin more, and that is why God forgives us because he realises how hard these laws are to follow.
Those laws are evil, we have grown as a culture that embraces individual liberty and value, instead of allowing dictators to command us. You keep trying to distract from the simple fact that no one with a good conscience could condone those laws. You are defending a god that sentences people to death for working on a holy day, kills disobedient children, amongst other horrendous laws.
Sin is nothing more or less than the arbitrary rules imposed by a religion to demonstrate faithfulness. Sins are not intrinsically wrong or immoral.
*Sin is what separates us from God: Anything bad, wrong, immoral, goes against the Bible, etc. We sin if we do it consciously.
A wife never deserves beating. Just as in a religion, a person never deserves hell and torture. Creating arbitrary reasons to beat a wife, or send a person to hell, but not punishing according to these reasons is not mercy. It is sadism.
We do actually deserve Hell and torture/separation from God if we do even one sin. Originally we weren't even going to sin, but we did. Rather than sending us to Hell forever we are shown mercy for it.
It's the same thing no matter how you spin it. A woman who rejects her abusive husband is sent to prison. He doesn't send her there himself, he just created a situation where she must choose between abuse or prison.
Please explain how this has anything to do with God and us. You really don't know much if you think that living with a loving god is abusive.
Do you lack depth of understanding of these issues? They are very simple ones. Do you not realise that you've made an incorrect analogy saying that living with God is abusive? I don't lack the depth of understanding, I'm saying that given the time we live in, we see these as evil because our lives are full of sin, and yet we are still forgiven for it. God doesn't have to forgive us, but he does so that we don't go to Hell.
Try reading the damned bible yourself. All these monstrosities that are Judaic law were decreed by god.
I have. You don't seem to realise that these things are now accepted in society, and yet we are shown mercy!
Again, read the damned book and theology that you are defending. Again, I have.
God commands that you kill workers on the sabbath, witches, adulterers, homosexuals, women raped in cities, etc. But why don't we? Because they're barbaric? When we were created do you think we would have needed to follow rules like this?
These are your rules that you are defending. Learn something about them before defending them.I'm defending God, not the rules.
I don't care for apologetics.
Sorry then.
A malignant god commands the deaths of adulterers, disobedient children, sorcerors, etc. But doesn't do anything.
I don't care if you try to distract from the issue by saying that they wouldn't have been enforced. I'm not. I'm saying that these are no rules just made up, they're the law of the earth. I don't care if you think that they're just primitive, made up, biggoted and barbaric (which I'm sure you do), but have you ever stopped to think that
This is sophistry on your part. A malignant god creates laws like these in the first place. No. That's where you're wrong. We wouldn't have these laws if we didn't sin. I don't see why you blame God for your own fault of sinning even though you're forgiven.
Those laws are evil, we have grown as a culture that embraces individual liberty and value, instead of allowing dictators to command us. Yes, but we've also grown in evil.
You keep trying to distract from the simple fact that no one with a good conscience could condone those laws. Exactly, no one on their right mind would follow them, and God realises that. You are defending a god that sentences people to death for working on a holy day, kills disobedient children, amongst other horrendous laws. Those laws aren't horrendous. They are what we deserve, but like I've stated time and time again we are shown mercy.
Sin is what separates us from God: Anything bad, wrong, immoral, goes against the Bible, etc. We sin if we do it consciously.
I'm not looking for the biblical (read: sophistry) definition of sin.
We do actually deserve Hell and torture/separation from God if we do even one sin. Originally we weren't even going to sin, but we did. Rather than sending us to Hell forever we are shown mercy for it.
I'm really trying to figure out why you'd make an effort to defend the barbaric at every turn, against the most plain of common sense.
Are you a moral idiot, sir?
Please explain how this has anything to do with God and us. You really don't know much if you think that living with a loving god is abusive.
A god who sends people to hell is not loving.
I'm becoming sick of your defense for evil.
I say that eating babies is evil and you merely chirp in "But god is good, that's why he is just in eating babies."
Do you not realise that you've made an incorrect analogy saying that living with God is abusive? I don't lack the depth of understanding, I'm saying that given the time we live in, we see these as evil because our lives are full of sin, and yet we are still forgiven for it. God doesn't have to forgive us, but he does so that we don't go to Hell.
Sin is irrelevant. Please learn how to debate properly.
If I argued like you did I would merely have to say "God is evil because xelniks surround him and spread to us. We are full of xelniks and therefore god is evil."
Sin exists as a religious conditioning to distinguish the ingroup from outgroup. The outgroup dances, enjoys music, doesn't marry, and eats freely. Religious ingroups are distinguished from a restricted diet, forced attendance to a church, avoidance of enjoyable behaviours.
That is what sin means.
We are not evil. God is for punishing mundane behaviours with hell.
I don't care what you think sin means. You are mistaken and your head is full of apologetic nonsense. It is not evil to work on the sabbath or to love a disobedient child. Wearing mixed fibres is not evil. Your god is for condemning these things to hell. Any sane person can recognise this.
I have. You don't seem to realise that these things are now accepted in society, and yet we are shown mercy!
It is not mercy to not send someone to hell, which you devised and have control over, because they act humanely.
Again, I have.
No you haven't.
But why don't we? Because they're barbaric? When we were created do you think we would have needed to follow rules like this?
I don't give a damn for what you think could have been. It is sufficiently evil to create laws that punish mundane behaviours with hell. Stop changing the subject.
I'm defending God, not the rules.
You are defending evil.
But doesn't do anything.
I don't care what you think god does.
A malignant god commands the deaths of adulterers, disobedient children, sorcerors, etc.
I'm not. I'm saying that these are no rules just made up, they're the law of the earth. I don't care if you think that they're just primitive, made up, biggoted and barbaric (which I'm sure you do), but have you ever stopped to think that
These are not laws of the earth. We do not naturally act this way, killing children and harming people for such things.
No. That's where you're wrong. We wouldn't have these laws if we didn't sin. I don't see why you blame God for your own fault of sinning even though you're forgiven.
I'm not even going to bother repeating myself. Instead I'll just C&P;:
I don't give a damn for what you think could have been. It is sufficiently evil to create laws that punish mundane behaviours with hell. Stop changing the subject.
This is sophistry on your part. A malignant god creates laws like these in the first place.
Yes, but we've also grown in evil.
No, we are good. We have grown apart from an evil god.
Those laws aren't horrendous. They are what we deserve, but like I've stated time and time again we are shown mercy.
You must have the intelligence of mud. You have no concept of morality, all you do is repeat dogma.
I'm not looking for the biblical (read: sophistry) definition of sin.
I'm not looking for a false one.
I'm really trying to figure out why you'd make an effort to defend the barbaric at every turn, against the most plain of common sense.
I'm really trying to make an effort as to why you'd think it's barbaric. The jewish tribes weren't meant to have anything like witches, adulterers, etc, and they were given harsh punishments so they would not continue and would eventually die out, but sin prevailed and what used to be abominable is now accepted.
Are you a moral idiot, sir?
It's not me who's the moral idiot here.
A god who sends people to hell is not loving. I agree, but a God who allows sinners into heaven is graceful.
I'm becoming sick of your defense for evil. I'm becoming sick of your lack of understanding and closed-mindedness.
I say that eating babies is evil and you merely chirp in "But god is good, that's why he is just in eating babies." What the Hell are you talking about? God does not eat babies, he helps them.
Sin is irrelevant. Please learn how to debate properly. I'm learning.
If I argued like you did I would merely have to say "God is evil because xelniks surround him and spread to us. We are full of xelniks and therefore god is evil." If I argued like you I all I would have to say is *I committed adultery because it is so easy to break the rules, God must be evil if he created them.
Sin exists as a religious conditioning to distinguish the ingroup from outgroup. The outgroup dances, enjoys music, doesn't marry, and eats freely. Religious ingroups are distinguished from a restricted diet, forced attendance to a church, avoidance of enjoyable behaviours. No, I think you mean rule breaking.
That is what sin means. No, sin is anything God dislikes.
We are not evil. God is for punishing mundane behaviours with hell. What makes you think all sinners end up in Hell?
I don't care what you think sin means. You are mistaken and your head is full of apologetic nonsense. It is not evil to work on the sabbath You're right. But God doesn't like it when we do, that makes it sin.
or to love a disobedient child I agree.
Wearing mixed fibres is not evil. Your god is for condemning these things to hell. No he's not, he doesn't like them. I'm pretty sick of you condemning God for supposedly 'sending' people to Hell. God just doesn't allow them into Heaven. You seem to think that that means they're going straight to Hell.
Any sane person can recognise this. Any insane person thinks they're sane.
I don't give a damn for what you think could have been. It is sufficiently evil to create laws that punish mundane behaviours with hell. Stop changing the subject. I don't give a damn if you want people to believe your twisted logic of what evil is. Stop changing the subject.
You are defending evil. From what I've seen, you don't know the meaning of the word.
I don't care what you think god does. You don't care about a lot of things.
These are not laws of the earth. We do not naturally act this way, killing children and harming people for such things. We also feel hatred and anger towards other people, and want to harm them. Harming them does not make it right simply because it's 'natural.'
No, we are good. We have grown apart from an evil god.
No, we've grown apart from a loving God who saves us from Hell.
You must have the intelligence of mud. You have no concept of morality, all you do is repeat dogma. I understand that that's just an insult, but mud actually has ZERO intellect, meaning that if I did I wouldn't be typing would I?
All you seem to be doing is condemning a god who tells us not to sin.
A malignant god creates laws like these in the first place. IT IS ONLY NOW WE VIEW THEM AS EVIL. SORRY, YOU VIEW THEM AS EVIL. When they were created they didn't have evil intentions, and if we'd followed them we wouldn't have all the sin we do today. You don't give a damn about what sin is, but it's because (LIKE I'VE STATED TIME AND TIME AGAIN) we are FORGIVEN for them, that we need God. Because of our sinful lives these laws seem evil, and yet we wouldn't have originally needed them.
Were I a God who created the universe and everything in it, my wrath would have surely purged mankind from the Earth long ago for its atrocities in my name and against my name. A God who gives us the choice to keep living is a good God in my book.
First of all, the book of Deuteronomy was written by Moses 4000 years ago. I can personally imagine that a rebellious young man in those days wasn't going around preaching how good and loving our creator is. He was probably on his way toward murder, theft, rape...etc. I can't speak intelligently for the infinite wisdom of God, but I am confident that Gods wisdom is a little greater than anyone who posts in this thread.
If you have any doubts about God, try reading his books (they are compiled in a bigger book called the Holy Bible). My favorite is Proverbs, if you read only one book in the entire Bible read this one. It has amazing insight into your life, no matter who you are.
Even though I do not believe in God, I feel I have a good argument for this particular debate.
If God does exist, who are we to assume that we can even understand the reason that he does things? If there was a God, and this God created or had a hand in all that exists today, this God would most likely have some motives or reasons behind it all. He/she/it probably operates on a completely different level than we do. Perhaps "God" even reasons on a level we can not physically conceive or even begin to imagine.
I would think if there was a God, he/she/it could not be simply described as our pathetic descriptions of "good" and "bad". It would require words that we can't even think of in this day and age.
Your all stupid if you think god is evil, suffering in the world is due to actions that we humans do (moral evil) as for actions we think god does like earthquakes and volcano's if you think they are evil (natural evil) then you again are stupid because we choose to live in areas in which these things happen so who's the one to blame, what happens in the world happens for a reason or there would be no order and no world, to think that god is evil over perhaps a death of a loved one is quite understandable but if they are in pain would you rather them be in worse pain for longer or a peaceful quick death to remove that pain although we blame god as the 'thing' that did this that is true and really, if god was evil, why would he give us free will, if all he wanted was to see suffering he would make us like robots that killed people all the time but instead he give us a set of 10 life rules that if you think about it is common sense don't steal is an example why steal what you don't need or is it because your jealous, but if you really need it and ask for forgiveness then it shall be forgiven but its him forgiving you so dint expect everyone els to forgive you, there is so much to add to this but i think it would be to big if you want more convincing just ask :).
This is such an easy one, think about it, if god was evil a) he wouldn't have made us b) if he wanted to make us for his personal amusement he wouldn't have made free will. Those who think that volcano's and earthquakes are gods fault, is it? We are the ones who choose to live in these areas there for its out fault, what about the commandments, why would an evil god tell us NOT to kill NOT to steal NOT to be unfaithful, stuff that are in our laws and stuff that in our gut we know that if we be unfaithful or lie that its wrong, on the note, lying only comes back on you and not in a good way. So I ask you if a Omnipotent (all powerful) god was evil why isn't there chaos on the world?
This in short tells us that all laws are correct, indefinately correct. Therefore the laws in the Old Testament are correct."
No, it doesn't.
The text actually is: "Do not think that I (Jesus) came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled"
Elsewhere in the New Testament we are told specifically that Jesus, and those who become His disciples are the fulfillment of the law for righteousness:
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Romans 8:2-4 (King James Version)
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. Romans 13:8 (King James Version)
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Galatians 5:14 (King James Version)
What is clear from what the entire New Testament has to teach us about the Old Testament law is that the spirit of that law is infinitely good, but the letter of it is as fallible as the men through which it was given, and the understanding of those who try and apply it to their lives.
The "rebellious son" is not simply the child who sometimes disobeys their parents, but is one who has become an incorrigible and serious threat to the continued well-being of the entire society. Which of you would advise that we today allow sociopaths to roam free within society? Anyone?
I am in no doubt that God is good. It even says in God's word, that "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." John 3:16.
So because the Lord did not wish for us to die, Christ chose to die in our place so that we may live with Him in paradise, forevermore.
You are simply wrong. You are either defending God against Himself and you know it or you are basing your statements on own opinion without consult the bible. If you want to be accurate you must realize that you are 2000 years removed from that period and mankind is totally Dependant on the bible for its knowledge. I think you have fallen into the trap of defending God that so many religious people throw caution to the wind with or are just clueless about references like: Job 42:7-9. LET ME ASK THIS: IF DEFENDING GOD COULDN"T BE A SIN THEN WHY WOULD SACRIFICE BE REQUIRED OF THEM HERE? AS A RELIGIOUS PERSON HAVEN'T YOU READ WHERE GOD TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS WHEN HE SPOKE WITH SATAN "...although you turned Me against him without a cause..." Job 2:3. If you want to defend God and be right! The first thing you would need to do is know what the real meaning of the scripture is. This could become a problem when someone is exposed to things that will influence their thoughts before they have grasped the text properly. That's why I tell people to take their bible and SHUT EVERYTHING ELSE OUT BECAUSE YOU WILL NEVER WIN AGAINST 2000 YEARS OF RELIGIOUS CONFUSION, It often takes patience measured in years to understand the meaning the few passage that really need an explanation. Commentaries are a waste of time and tend to confuse. They will write almost everything about things that need no explanation but they will conveniently skip over those things that do. That's why atheist are bring up just some of what they have skipped over because they didn't the guts to tackle the tuff questions in first place. Now that atheist are bring these point up they all of sudden have something to say but are saying it badly (contrary to scripture). BUT WHERE WERE THEY WHEN THEY WERE WRITING THEIR POINTLESS COMMENTARIES AND BOOKS. YOU KNOW THEY WRITE THOSE BOOKS TO REPLACE THE BIBLE WITH OWN NOTHING IN ORDER TO CASH IN ON GOD. IT THEREFORE IS NO WONDER THAT EVERYONE MERELY CONSULTS THEMSELVES RATHER THAT FOOLISH BIBLE, WHO NEEDS THAT ANYWAY!!!
You can defend an ideology by defining bad behaviours as inerrant, but all that matters here is that the majority of people thinks that those behaviours and deeds are evil independent of whether god did them or has them.
You can defend an ideology by defining bad behaviours as inerrant, but all that matters here is that the majority of people thinks that those behaviours and deeds are evil independent of whether god did them or has them.
The definition of "good" as being "that which is consistent with God's will" is promoted exclusively by religious entities. The infallibility of those entities must be taken on one's own judgment before it can be established. If it is not, then neither is God's inherent and inerrant goodness, which can otherwise be thoroughly refuted by virtually any moral standard with ease.
I was looking for something a little more in depth, thanks for trying though.
The point of it isn't to say that God doesn't necessarily exist, it is to ask those whom believe in Christianity whether or not they think God is good from the standpoint of their own bible.
it depends as to what kind of god you pray to. there are good gods as well as bad gods. but who you pray to totally depends upon you. you can even change your god and start of again by praying to a new one. you do that by completely changing the impression of what you think god looks like and make a perfectly new one.
I believe that there is no solid definition of good and evil, and that said definition is different to person.
And my belief is that God is not good. He does not care for his children and he seems to let a great deal of his followers to be some of the most hypocritical and downright rude people I have had the displeasure to meet.
So no, based on the above, I don't believe God is good
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
God really stinks because he's responsible for taking charge of people's luck but I've almost never been lucky in my lifetime. So to conclude with two words, god sucks
