Debate Info

Debate Score:37
Total Votes:42
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Should we go back in time and kill baby Jesus? (33)

Debate Creator

Kuriboh(15) pic

Should we go back in time and kill baby Jesus?

While he may have had good intentions, christianity has caused a lot of turmoil on earth. If not killing jesus, what else could we do to "fix" the earth (assuming we wouldn't mess up the space-time continuum)
Add New Argument
2 points

King Herod ordered all babies in his kingdom under the age of two to be killed attempting to kill the baby Jesus Christ. God protected the baby. It was not possible to kill Him as a baby, and if you could go back in time you could not kill Him.

Go back in time...that's so dumb I'm surprised I responded at all here. Usually when stuff is as dumb as this debate/discussion, I ignore it.

2 points

They tried and failed. God hid Jesus away.

And all that was foretold. "Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted, her children were no more."

And "out of Egypt I called my Son"

So it's not a knew idea, but I'd be concerned about what you consider an acceptable model to follow after. It's like modern societies call out "release Barabbas" and they oppress the innocent. They reward depravity, and they crucify righteousness.

You can challenge God if you want.

Fyi, we already know the end of the story.

God's challengers dont stand a chance. He wins, And winner takes all!


Let me guess. You vote for Democrats, or if you are the child you sound like, you will in the future vote for Democrats.

That means you support killing viable Babies in the womb all the way up to birth for any reason. That is the position of this extremist Democrat party you would vote for.

So obviously, not only would you have supported killing the son of God in the womb of Mary, you would have supported the right to kill many great men in our history.

You would have supported killing George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, even days from birth. That's called infanticide case you don't understand your inhumanity.

Jace(5220) Disputed
1 point

Also Hitler. That's called preventing genocide case you don't understand your inhumanity.

FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

Killing innocent people is called inhumanity....PERIOD!

No one knows the future of an individuals life, and to support killing healthy viable innocent babies, is an inhuman act of an animal mentality.

Srom(12206) Clarified
0 points

What does political stuff even have to do with this debate? Just answer the question.

FromWithin(8239) Disputed
1 point

This debate is speaking to killing a Baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Killing innocent people is not politics! IT'S CALLED INHUMANITY!

The Democrat party has become the most extreme inhuman Party in America's history. They are the biggest racists alive since abortion kills a much higher percentage of black people.

1 point

Oh this is the ultimate in stupidity!!!!!!!!

Are you for real that stupid?

(assuming we wouldn't mess up the space-time continuum)

WOW!!! Your generation ate bad food and the immunizations messed you guys up, its amazing how stupid most of you are!

And yes Im a Christian calling you stupid. God calks you stupid too!

Jace(5220) Disputed
0 points

Ah, yes, your god definitely does encourage you to judge others. No way there's scripture against doing that. Oh, wait... Matthew 1:3

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Really? If you do not know you are breaking Gods law, then how would you know you need to be redeemed from judgement?

And the scripture you ref actually only says that when you take it OUT of context. What it actually says, is remove a beam then you can see clearly to remove a mote from your brothers eye.

It doesnt have anything to do with judging the world, (the world is ALL those who are not born again)

The "world people" ARE already judged! Jesus came to exchange His life for "the world, that whoever believes in Him, will not be condemned, but saved throuh Him" John 3: 16

John 3:19

This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

God calls athists fools right here!

Psalm 14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;

There is no one who does good.

2 The Lord has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men

To see if there are any who understand,

Who seek after God.

3 They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt;

There is no one who does good, not even one.

4 Do all the workers of wickedness not know,

Who eat up my people as they eat bread,

And do not call upon the Lord?

5 There they are in great dread,

For God is with the righteous generation.

6 You would put to shame the counsel of the afflicted,

But the Lord is his refuge.

1 point

I have no comment on the actual debate, but 10/10 for the troll bait.

1 point

No, because if Herod who tried to kill Jesus failed. What makes you think that someone else could kill him? It would be foolishness to even try it.

1 point

That wouldn't do any good. He would just rise up from the grave again and again.

1 point

His name is Yeshua, and you owe Him your soul for dying on the cross for your sins and rising from the dead so you may live. He is the one true God. Without Him, you will go to Hell. You can avoid this by repenting of your sins and accepting Him as your God. I want you to go to Heaven and be happy with Yeshua. He loves you.

-1 points

ROFLMAO. As if religion wouldn't have just found another martyr. People don't even need religion to be violent and cruel. That's just one of the easier methods to leverage as a justification.

KNHav(1957) Disputed
1 point

Actually the whole world and everyone in it is in orbit around God and His people. Both sets!

If you dont believe me, then watch the news!

Jace(5220) Disputed
1 point

What "sets" of people? Not sure what I'm supposed to learn from financially motivated and heavily biased news media. Also not sure why you think this is responsive to my original comment. But you do you.