T-Dawg
Self-appointed Lunatic
One of the things Rick and I were discussing a while ago was the evils of Christianity - more specifically, that Christianity is enough of a threat to merit an aggressive response on the part of unbelievers.
Since Christians believe that their God is perfect in every way, I believe that it is fair to judge Christians by the actions of the God that they worship. In general, if you worship somebody, you approve of his actions. My favorite story that demonstrates the personality of the Christian God is the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt:
A while after Joseph had passed away, the Pharaoh of his time died and was replaced by a man who had never heard of Joseph, and felt threatened by the Hebrews, who multiplied rapidly. In an attempt to keep the Hebrew population under control, Pharaoh decided to put them under harsh slavery. When this did not work, Pharaoh attempted to execute every male Hebrew that was born; however, he found this command impossible to enforce, as the midwives were sympathetic to the Hebrews.
Skipping ahead a bit, God told Moses to bring the Hebrews out of Egypt. So Moses went to ask Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go to the desert to partake in a religious festival to worship their God - however, Pharaoh refused.
So God sent Moses back to Pharaoh again, and once again, Pharaoh hardened his heart and did not listen. God responded by turning the Nile into blood, so that it would be undrinkable. Pharaoh's heart once again became hard and he refused to listen.
After seven days, God sent a plague of frogs. So Pharaoh summoned Moses and asked him to pray to God and take the frogs away. However, with the plague having ended, Pharaoh once again hardened his heart.
So God sent a plague of gnats. Pharaoh's heart was still hard.
God sent a plague of flies. Moses and Pharaoh reached an agreement - that Moses will pray to remove the flies, as long as Pharaoh does not prevent the Hebrews from going off to offer sacrifices. However, Pharaoh once again hardened his heart.
Then God killed all of Egypt's livestock, while leaving the livestock of the Hebrews untouched. Pharaoh's heart remained hard.
God then sent forth a plague of festering boils, which broke out upon the skin of men and animals. However, this time, something different happened - this time the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not listen to him.
Having done this, God destroyed Egypt's crops with hail. Pharaoh admitted that he was wrong, and agreed to let the Hebrews go. However, once the hail stopped, he hardened his own heart and refused to let the Hebrews go.
When God threatened to send a plague of locusts, Pharaoh agreed to let the Hebrew men go out and worship in the desert; however, he would not let the women and children go. So God sent locusts to devour what remained of Egypt's crops. Pharaoh quickly realized his mistake and asked Moses to forgive him once more. However, after the locusts were gone, the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart.
So God darkened the land of Egypt, so that no one could see. Pharaoh agreed to let all of the Hebrews go into the desert, but demanded that they leave behind their livestock. So the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not agree to Moses' demands.
At this point, God unleashed his most powerful plague - he systematically exterminated every firstborn son of the Egyptians, distinguishing between them and the Hebrews by whether or not the blood of a lamb was smeared over their doors. There was not a house in Egypt without someone dead. Pharaoh decided to let the Hebrews go free.
However, the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart again, so that Pharaoh would pursue them as they approached the Red Sea. So as Pharaoh's army approached, God parted the waters of the sea so that the Israelites could walk through on dry ground; however, when Pharaoh's army attempted to follow, the sea came back down upon them, killing them all.
Now, there's no doubt that Pharaoh is a pretty bad person. He hardens his heart on his own for about half of the story, and initiated the conflict by bringing slavery upon the Hebrews. However, it is still significant that four times, God had to harden Pharaoh's heart for him. Essentially, God had to force Pharaoh to do what was clearly wrong so that he would have an excuse to send plagues upon the Egyptians.
Why did God do this? Conveniently, God explicitly answers this question for us:
Exodus 14:3 - "'And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.' So the Israelites did this.'
From this quote, it is clear that God purposely manipulated Pharaoh and punished innocent Egyptians for the sole purpose of bringing glory to himself and reminding everyone of how powerful he was. I contend that bringing suffering and death upon innocent people in order to glorify yourself is evil, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a "god" or a man.
Christians will often respond to this point with a "special pleading" fallacy - that while such actions would be evil if a human were to do them, such actions are fine when God does them, because God is different. Christians believe that God is fundamentally, by definition, good, no matter what he does, and that because he is God, he cannot be judged by man's standards. However, this leaves open an important issue - if God cannot be judged as good by men's standards, then why should men call him good?
Another response is that the Egyptians deserved their punishment, because slavery is an unspeakable evil and the Egyptians were not about to end it without divine intervention. The answer to this comes in the book of Genesis: During Genesis 47:13-27, the famine that occurred during Joseph's time continually grew worse. Despite the fact that Joseph presumably taxed the grain from the people (as opposed to buying it), he sold the grain back to the people during the famine (as opposed to giving it). This lead to virtually everyone in Egypt running out of money with which to buy food. Eventually, they had to sell everything they owned - including themselves - to Pharaoh. The point being, since Joseph systematically enslaved the people of Egypt on behalf of Pharaoh, the Egyptians were in no condition to enslave the Hebrews - the enslavement of the Hebrews was primarily, if not entirely, Pharaoh's doing. As a result, the plagues of Egypt were punishing an entire country as collateral damage for the crimes of one man.
Another response that I received only recently was that "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" doesn't actually mean that God was deliberately controlling Pharaoh's emotions - it simply meant something more like "God made Pharaoh angry." However, this has two problems: It relies on a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, and it doesn't solve the problem that an entire country is being punished because of one man's sins.
Interpreting the Bible non-literally is a problem for Christians because it opens the Bible up to skepticism. When one interprets part of the Bible in a way not apparent from how it was written, one effectively takes authority away from the Bible and gives it to one's own worldview - for instance, the Bible clearly approves of slavery in the Old Testament and tolerates it in the New Testament (by giving commands on how to keep slaves in the former, and by insisting that slaves not try to change their condition in the latter). A Christian who felt that slavery was a moral evil would have to "reinterpret" these parts of the Bible so that they would mean something different than what they actually say - essentially, putting their trust in their own moral convictions rather than on the words of the Bible. This becomes problematic quickly, as if one part of the Bible (say, the commands on slavery) can be interpreted loosely, then nothing stops other parts of the Bible (say, the Gospels) from being interpreted loosely. Taken to its logical conclusion, a non-literal interpretation of the Bible will have all authority placed on the one "interpreting" the words of God and no authority on the Word itself, because if one part of the Bible can be doubted, the entire thing can be doubted as a whole. (This is actually at least partially how I lost my own faith.)
Another point of contention is that most examples of God's evil deeds, including the example above, are in the Old Testament. Many Christians believe that God completely switched gears after he sent Jesus to "die for our sins," going from a vengeful god of wrath to a loving god of mercy. This is unlikely; it is stated (within the New Testament) that a thousand years is like a day to God. It is simply not believable that an omnipotent, omniscient being that has existed for longer than time itself would make a drastic personality change within a period of a few days. However, aside from this, I personally think that the reason God appears less evil in the New Testament is because he doesn't appear in person for most of the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God was constantly talking to someone about his plans and what he wanted them to do and who he wanted dead, and occasionally taking action himself. In the New Testament, God primarily acts through his followers, who were careful to put him in a good light. However, in the book of Revelation - where God does take a significant direct involvement, God is again shown as being a god of wrath and destruction. This cannot even be handwaved as something God did a long time ago, because it's something that God promises to do in the future.
This should conclude the point that God is evil. Since I'm not incredibly familiar with how one on one debates work or what sorts of limits you were wanting to go by, I'll stop here and let you respond.
Since Christians believe that their God is perfect in every way, I believe that it is fair to judge Christians by the actions of the God that they worship. In general, if you worship somebody, you approve of his actions. My favorite story that demonstrates the personality of the Christian God is the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt:
A while after Joseph had passed away, the Pharaoh of his time died and was replaced by a man who had never heard of Joseph, and felt threatened by the Hebrews, who multiplied rapidly. In an attempt to keep the Hebrew population under control, Pharaoh decided to put them under harsh slavery. When this did not work, Pharaoh attempted to execute every male Hebrew that was born; however, he found this command impossible to enforce, as the midwives were sympathetic to the Hebrews.
Skipping ahead a bit, God told Moses to bring the Hebrews out of Egypt. So Moses went to ask Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go to the desert to partake in a religious festival to worship their God - however, Pharaoh refused.
So God sent Moses back to Pharaoh again, and once again, Pharaoh hardened his heart and did not listen. God responded by turning the Nile into blood, so that it would be undrinkable. Pharaoh's heart once again became hard and he refused to listen.
After seven days, God sent a plague of frogs. So Pharaoh summoned Moses and asked him to pray to God and take the frogs away. However, with the plague having ended, Pharaoh once again hardened his heart.
So God sent a plague of gnats. Pharaoh's heart was still hard.
God sent a plague of flies. Moses and Pharaoh reached an agreement - that Moses will pray to remove the flies, as long as Pharaoh does not prevent the Hebrews from going off to offer sacrifices. However, Pharaoh once again hardened his heart.
Then God killed all of Egypt's livestock, while leaving the livestock of the Hebrews untouched. Pharaoh's heart remained hard.
God then sent forth a plague of festering boils, which broke out upon the skin of men and animals. However, this time, something different happened - this time the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not listen to him.
Having done this, God destroyed Egypt's crops with hail. Pharaoh admitted that he was wrong, and agreed to let the Hebrews go. However, once the hail stopped, he hardened his own heart and refused to let the Hebrews go.
When God threatened to send a plague of locusts, Pharaoh agreed to let the Hebrew men go out and worship in the desert; however, he would not let the women and children go. So God sent locusts to devour what remained of Egypt's crops. Pharaoh quickly realized his mistake and asked Moses to forgive him once more. However, after the locusts were gone, the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart.
So God darkened the land of Egypt, so that no one could see. Pharaoh agreed to let all of the Hebrews go into the desert, but demanded that they leave behind their livestock. So the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart so that he would not agree to Moses' demands.
At this point, God unleashed his most powerful plague - he systematically exterminated every firstborn son of the Egyptians, distinguishing between them and the Hebrews by whether or not the blood of a lamb was smeared over their doors. There was not a house in Egypt without someone dead. Pharaoh decided to let the Hebrews go free.
However, the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart again, so that Pharaoh would pursue them as they approached the Red Sea. So as Pharaoh's army approached, God parted the waters of the sea so that the Israelites could walk through on dry ground; however, when Pharaoh's army attempted to follow, the sea came back down upon them, killing them all.
Now, there's no doubt that Pharaoh is a pretty bad person. He hardens his heart on his own for about half of the story, and initiated the conflict by bringing slavery upon the Hebrews. However, it is still significant that four times, God had to harden Pharaoh's heart for him. Essentially, God had to force Pharaoh to do what was clearly wrong so that he would have an excuse to send plagues upon the Egyptians.
Why did God do this? Conveniently, God explicitly answers this question for us:
Exodus 14:3 - "'And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharaoh and his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.' So the Israelites did this.'
From this quote, it is clear that God purposely manipulated Pharaoh and punished innocent Egyptians for the sole purpose of bringing glory to himself and reminding everyone of how powerful he was. I contend that bringing suffering and death upon innocent people in order to glorify yourself is evil, regardless of whether the perpetrator is a "god" or a man.
Christians will often respond to this point with a "special pleading" fallacy - that while such actions would be evil if a human were to do them, such actions are fine when God does them, because God is different. Christians believe that God is fundamentally, by definition, good, no matter what he does, and that because he is God, he cannot be judged by man's standards. However, this leaves open an important issue - if God cannot be judged as good by men's standards, then why should men call him good?
Another response is that the Egyptians deserved their punishment, because slavery is an unspeakable evil and the Egyptians were not about to end it without divine intervention. The answer to this comes in the book of Genesis: During Genesis 47:13-27, the famine that occurred during Joseph's time continually grew worse. Despite the fact that Joseph presumably taxed the grain from the people (as opposed to buying it), he sold the grain back to the people during the famine (as opposed to giving it). This lead to virtually everyone in Egypt running out of money with which to buy food. Eventually, they had to sell everything they owned - including themselves - to Pharaoh. The point being, since Joseph systematically enslaved the people of Egypt on behalf of Pharaoh, the Egyptians were in no condition to enslave the Hebrews - the enslavement of the Hebrews was primarily, if not entirely, Pharaoh's doing. As a result, the plagues of Egypt were punishing an entire country as collateral damage for the crimes of one man.
Another response that I received only recently was that "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" doesn't actually mean that God was deliberately controlling Pharaoh's emotions - it simply meant something more like "God made Pharaoh angry." However, this has two problems: It relies on a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, and it doesn't solve the problem that an entire country is being punished because of one man's sins.
Interpreting the Bible non-literally is a problem for Christians because it opens the Bible up to skepticism. When one interprets part of the Bible in a way not apparent from how it was written, one effectively takes authority away from the Bible and gives it to one's own worldview - for instance, the Bible clearly approves of slavery in the Old Testament and tolerates it in the New Testament (by giving commands on how to keep slaves in the former, and by insisting that slaves not try to change their condition in the latter). A Christian who felt that slavery was a moral evil would have to "reinterpret" these parts of the Bible so that they would mean something different than what they actually say - essentially, putting their trust in their own moral convictions rather than on the words of the Bible. This becomes problematic quickly, as if one part of the Bible (say, the commands on slavery) can be interpreted loosely, then nothing stops other parts of the Bible (say, the Gospels) from being interpreted loosely. Taken to its logical conclusion, a non-literal interpretation of the Bible will have all authority placed on the one "interpreting" the words of God and no authority on the Word itself, because if one part of the Bible can be doubted, the entire thing can be doubted as a whole. (This is actually at least partially how I lost my own faith.)
Another point of contention is that most examples of God's evil deeds, including the example above, are in the Old Testament. Many Christians believe that God completely switched gears after he sent Jesus to "die for our sins," going from a vengeful god of wrath to a loving god of mercy. This is unlikely; it is stated (within the New Testament) that a thousand years is like a day to God. It is simply not believable that an omnipotent, omniscient being that has existed for longer than time itself would make a drastic personality change within a period of a few days. However, aside from this, I personally think that the reason God appears less evil in the New Testament is because he doesn't appear in person for most of the New Testament. In the Old Testament, God was constantly talking to someone about his plans and what he wanted them to do and who he wanted dead, and occasionally taking action himself. In the New Testament, God primarily acts through his followers, who were careful to put him in a good light. However, in the book of Revelation - where God does take a significant direct involvement, God is again shown as being a god of wrath and destruction. This cannot even be handwaved as something God did a long time ago, because it's something that God promises to do in the future.
This should conclude the point that God is evil. Since I'm not incredibly familiar with how one on one debates work or what sorts of limits you were wanting to go by, I'll stop here and let you respond.