The Instigator
9lsyh2rDaeXXYpeGCOlb
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sengejuri
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

A Theist should value a killer of the innocent over a killer of the evil.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 417 times Debate No: 53136
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

9lsyh2rDaeXXYpeGCOlb

Pro

First round is for acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1
9lsyh2rDaeXXYpeGCOlb

Pro

In all Theistic religion's, even Satanism, the more agonising afterlife comes to the evil.

All religions encourage selflessness and sacrifice as part of serving God.

Killing an innocent ensures they didn't live long enough to sin and end up in the more unpleasant afterlife of that religion.

Killing an evil ensures they end up in the worse afterlife.
You are eternally damning them.

there is nothing more selfless than eternally damning oneself for the sake of ensuring people 100% end up in the more pleasant afterlife.

Thus, all Theists should prefer a killer of the innocent over a killer of the evil as killing is a sin and thus it is selfless to eternally damn oneself for the sake of ensuring others end up in eternal bliss.
sengejuri

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for opening this debate, best of luck.

Pro makes several assumptions about Theist beliefs in order to complete their argument. These assumptions are:
1) All Theist philosophies generally teach the same thing
2) Evil people go to hell
3) People must be selfless to serve God
4) Innocence is a function of lifetime length
5) Humans have the power to send people to heaven or damn them to hell by killing them

I will address each of these assumptions in order.

1) The first assumption is the most important for my opponent's case. By claiming that "all Theists should prefer a killer of the innocent" Pro must prove that every Theist religion actually teaches according to their chain of reasoning. If even one Theist religion does not teach this, then my opponent's claim cannot be true. While I believe many religions disagree with some or all of Pro's points, I will focus specifically on Christianity.

2) Evil people go to hell - True. However, Christianity teaches that all people are by nature evil and sinful, which becomes problematic for Pro's assumptions later on.

3) People must be selfless to serve God - Also true. However, Christianity teaches that one cannot serve God by sinning. Murder is considered a sin according to the 10 Commandments, so by definition murder cannot be considered a righteous act of selflessness. The Bible teaches that damning yourself is foolish, not selfless.

4) Innocence is a function of lifetime length - Pro argues that Theism advocates killing people who have not lived long enough to sin. Unless I am misinterpreting how the argument is phrased, this suggests Theism advocates killing children. This is clearly not a principle of Christianity, nor is it advocated by the other major religions. The biggest obstacle for this point however relates back to assumption #2. Christianity teaches that all people, including children, are sinful by nature and not as a function of time. The whole point of Christianity is the philosophy that all people are sinful and in need of God's saving grace. As a result, no one is innocent through their own merit, and killing children before they can sin is not only impossible, but would fail to accomplish salvation anyway.

5) Humans have the power to send people to heaven or damn them to hell by killing them - Again, this is not taught by Christianity. According to Christian doctrine, only God has the power to judge, damn, and save people. The Bible teaches that only God has the power to determine innocence from guilt - so even if you decided to kill someone you thought was innocent, you could never be 100% sure they actually were. The Bible also teaches that humans cannot save other humans, only God can, so Theists who fall under the Christian category would not agree with the assumptions of Pro's argument.

If it can be shown that at least one branch of Theism does not teach according to my opponent's points, then Pro's claim is false by definition. I therefore submit that Christian doctrine is an example that disproves all Theists should prefer a killer of the innocent. I look forward to Pro's reply.
Debate Round No. 2
9lsyh2rDaeXXYpeGCOlb

Pro

9lsyh2rDaeXXYpeGCOlb forfeited this round.
sengejuri

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
9lsyh2rDaeXXYpeGCOlb

Pro

9lsyh2rDaeXXYpeGCOlb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9lsyh2rDaeXXYpeGCOlb

Pro

9lsyh2rDaeXXYpeGCOlb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Brendan_Liam 3 years ago
Brendan_Liam
"theism does not advocate killing children"

Do you realize they are called the 'Abrahamic religions' as they begin with the god telling some guy named Abraham to kill his kid? And htats the first of countless, COUNTLESS examples that prove that claim false including in the 2 biggest theist faiths.
Posted by Brendan_Liam 3 years ago
Brendan_Liam
You missed his assumption about sin in christianity, that too is false. Killing is a-ok as it relates to damnation, as jesus forgives all sins, except ONE and that one is not something one can do to another person. So, there is no thing you can do to antoher person that leads to hell. Only one sin leads to hellthe unforgivable sin, the only one jesus doesnt allow you too pass the buck for. But hey, leave it to chrsitian thinking to come up with a reason its good to murder babies..... lol
Posted by Mhykiel 3 years ago
Mhykiel
As Con.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 3 years ago
PeacefulChaos
Do you mean debate against Con, or debate as Con?
Posted by Mhykiel 3 years ago
Mhykiel
Same I would debate Con.
Posted by PeacefulChaos 3 years ago
PeacefulChaos
This is interesting. I wouldn't mind debating this matter.
No votes have been placed for this debate.