The Instigator
WCBC15
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
MagicAintReal
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points

Did God intend humans to sin.

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 3 votes the winner is...
MagicAintReal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/13/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,180 times Debate No: 80913
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (245)
Votes (3)

 

WCBC15

Con

I will show through scripture the purpose of why God created the human race and why it is illogical and not biblical to say God intended for man to sin. (1.) He created man for His glory: Isaiah 43:7 - [Even] every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. (2.) To have dominion over all the earth: Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (3.) God intended us to do good works (this point here destroys your whole argument.) Ephesians 2:10 - For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (4.) To Follow Gods commandments (which is not to sin) Ecclesiastes 12:13 - Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man. 5) We were intended to serve Him 1 Samuel 12:24 - Only fear the LORD, and serve him in truth with all your heart: for consider how great [things] he hath done for you. (6) God wants us to seek Him ONLY if you want: Acts 17:27 - That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:.

Now what you have to do is prove biblically that God intended man to sin. Give me scripture not some weak philosophy that doesn't even hold any weight, truth is you won't find any reference for God intending man to sin.
MagicAintReal

Pro

I support the resolution that the christian god intended humans to sin.

According to the bible, god created everything:

"For by him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether they are kings, lords, rulers, or powers. All things have been created through him and for him."
http://biblehub.com...

Also, god knows the future, because the future is what he wants to happen:

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com...

God actually knows everything you think and do:

"I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds."
http://biblehub.com...

God can even put his will into others:

"...Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."
https://www.biblegateway.com...

Being that god created EVERYTHING, he therefore created evil:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
http://biblehub.com...

So, according to the bible, god created evil and sin, god created humans with the ability to commit sin, god can will others to do things that he wishes to do, and all that happens in the future is "declared from the beginning" by god.

If god created sin and created humans with the ability to commit sin and god was well aware of the future since the beginning of time, then the fact that we currently sin is indicative of his plan:
1. create sin
2. let humans commit sin
3. allow for a sin-filled future

If god didn't intend for humans to sin, then why did he create sin in the first place?
If god intended us to do only good, and not sin, then he could have given us free will without the capacity to sin.
If god didn't intend for sin to be committed, then why did he create/allow a future rife with humans sinning?

Instead, he gave us the ability to commit sin, which he created, and he created/allowed the future of sinning to happen; if god were on trial for intent to allow sin, he would be found guilty.

Opponents to this logic then say, well that's a contradiction; to remove our capacity to sin would be to remove our free will and god can't allow for contradictions.

Well, no.
If we currently have free will, as Christians claim we do, then there should be no limit on our capacity to act on our free will.
However, if i wish to read someone's mind completely, without any communication, I cannot, because god disallowed our capacity to read minds.

Con, did god make us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to read people's minds?
If yes, then why couldn't god make us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to sin?

You currently can not exercise your free will to read others' minds; now just imagine that you can't exercise your free will to commit sin.

It's clear that god did not intend for us to read minds, as no one can do that.
So, it's clear that god DID intend us to commit sin, because according to the bible, all humans are sinners.

All of god's human creations sin, so if he did not intend for people to sin, he then has an awful record of successful creations.

God intended humans to sin, because he created sin, he created all humans with sin, and he allowed the sin-filled future to remain; this speaks to his intentions.
Debate Round No. 1
WCBC15

Con

I will contend again that you will not find one hint in a single verse that God intended or created man to sin. Likewise you will not find a verse that says God created sin. So to successfully prove that God created man to sin one would have to show bible verses showing that God created man to sin. Even if God created sin it still wouldn't follow that that that would be God ultimate purpose for human kindand that's what my opponent has to prove BIBLICALLY.

You may ask if God did not create sin than where did it come from? Let's first define what sin is biblically 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. If the Law (Exodus 20) reflects Gods true nature than The idea of God creating sin would be a contradiction to what scripture says. Did God create sin? Id advise you to read Ezekiel 28. Ezekiel 28:15 - Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. Now this verse is pretty explicit that God created Lucifer perfect but where was sin found? In God? No but in Lucifer. John 8:44 - Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Lucifer is the originator of sin. Notice in Genesis 1 Adam and Eve walked and talked with God but not until they listened to satan did they sin. To Just drive home the point even more read James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:.

So to say God created sin would be to say that light and darkness can exist at the same time which is impossible! The bible gives irrefutable evidence of this in 1 John 1:5-6 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 John 1:5, KJV)If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: (1 John 1:6, KJV).. So I confirm through scriptures that God did not intend man to sin, and to add on that God did not create sin.
MagicAintReal

Pro

After Con's remarks I maintain that god intended humans to sin.

Con claimed:
"you will not find a verse that says God created sin"

My response:
What's this?
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
http://biblehub.com...

Now, before you go saying that I'm using the King James quote that uses the word "evil" instead of the standard version that uses the word "calamity" or "disaster," please know that according to old testament Hebrew lexicon, the word "Ra`a" means evil, not calamity or disaster.
http://www.biblestudytools.com...

The word "Ra'a" is used in the famous bible quote for Genesis 2:9:
"the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."
https://www.biblegateway.com...

The word "evil" is this quote is the word "Ra'a" in the Hebrew lexicon.

The word "Ra'a" is also used in the quote that I provided, Isaiah 45:7
"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
http://biblehub.com...

So, King James was right...god created evil.
Is sin evil?

"Feet that run rapidly to evil" commit sin.
http://bible.knowing-jesus.com...

So, it would seem that god created sin to allow his creations to commit it, so that he may punish his creations for the sins that he already knew they would commit anyway...god knows the end from the beginning, thus allowing for future sin is a sign of god's intent to have humans sin.

Con remarks:
"Even if God created sin it still wouldn't follow that that that would be God ultimate purpose for human kindand that's what my opponent has to prove BIBLICALLY."

My response:
Nope.
There was no mention of any ultimate purposes in the resolution. The resolution asks "Did god intend humans to sin?"
I need to show that the god of the bible intended humans to sin, if it's his ultimate purpose or not.

To me, creating sin, creating humans with the ability to sin, and creating/allowing a sin-filled future are all clear indications that god intended humans to sin.

Also Con, who created our earthly nature?
Colossians 3:5 says to "Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry."

If god created our earthly nature, and our earthly nature is a bunch of sins, then there's nothing more human than sinning. Seriously, I don't know how else god can demonstrate that he's intending humans to sin...he created sin and then made it our nature to do so.

Con brings up a thought:
"God created Lucifer perfect but where was sin found? In God? No but in Lucifer."

My response:
The fact that god created something as evil as Lucifer, when god already knew the future while creating Lucifer, shows that Lucifer was created with evil knowingly and intentionally by god.

Could Lucifer exist without god creating Lucifer?
No?
Then god created evil and sin, and even though Con provided a quote that mentions that "in him there's no darkness at all," god himself still said "I form the light, and create darkness."

Con's asserts:
"So to say God created sin would be to say that light and darkness can exist at the same time which is impossible!"

My response:
When it's daytime in the US, there is light.
At the same time in China, there is darkness.
Light and darkness can exist at the same time, and it's not impossible.

Con, please respond to my 1st round questions about humans' capacity to sin...
Debate Round No. 2
WCBC15

Con

I still assert that bible nowhere says that God intended man to sin nor that God created sin. As a matter of fact you have not seen a single verse pro has quoted that has the word "sin" in it, or even it correlating God creating man to sin. What you have got is Pro's eisegesis and philosophy forced into the main text he uses that don't support his argument.

Pro really only has two verses he's trying to build his argument on Col 1:16 and Isaiah 45:7 which when actually studied are not in favor of pro's position. I will at first address the few other verses used before i do get to those.

Pro writes"Also, god knows the future, because the future is what he wants to happen:" I would like to make mention that foreknowledge is not the same as predetermination. Read Duet 30:19-20 19 "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God.."
Biblically we know God knows the end from to beginning. To assume because God knows all than that is what he wants to happen leaves you in a tough spot with verses where God tells man to chose and notice something in these verses. Pro adamantly affirms that God intended man to sin but what does God want man to chose? death( Other words separation from God Romans 3:23) No, but LIFE. When you take the affirmative position that God intended man to sin once you open the Bible you'll see God actually says the opposite from you. Ill add also that God intended for man to Love Him but i stated that previously.

Now to the only two verses that Pro attempt to build his argument on Col 1:16 and Isaiah 45:7. Ill start with Colossians 1:16, its blatantly obvious what Paul is trying to convey and that is not sin but the physical universe "For by Him all things were created"John 1:3 says that Christ created the world. Hebrews 1:2 says the Son made the universe. The Father is the originating cause (source) and the Son is the means by which the world came into being (Rev. 3:14).The extent of the Son"s creation is "all" things. This includes the entire universe whether material or immaterial, heaven or earth. "that are in heaven and that are on earth visible and invisible" This phrase refers to the material universe, visible and invisible, space and the physical universe. He made everything that we can see and cannot see. The point Paul is making is that Jesus is God and creator of the Universe because the people in Colossae were polytheist.

The second verse and probably everyone who tries to make this argument uses is Isaiah 45:7. Notice that proponents Love to ONLY quote this verse from the KJV knowing that every other translation got it more accurate (not to say kjv is wrong). Im glad pro put up a link to his source from the Hebrew lexicon, I'm not sure though if He actually read it though or thinks know one will actually look at it. Pro writes " please know that according to old testament Hebrew lexicon, the word "Ra`a" means evil, not calamity or disaster." If you simply scroll down the page PRO provided you see Ra'a used in terms in the OT such as "afflicted , bring disaster , brought calamity , brought harm , damaged grieved , hard, harm , harming , hostile , hurt , suffer , suffer harm , treat me so badly , treat you worse , treated , treated us harshly , went hard , work calamity . So it doesn't take to much to realize that there are two renderings to the Hebrew word Ra'a, one ethical the other such things like calamity,disasters and afflictions. I would assert that each translation got it right meaning that when the kjv uses the word "evil" its not in the ethic moral sense. Lets first look at the immediate text. The first thing to note is the antithetic parallelisms: light is the opposite of darkness, and "disaster." is the opposite of "peace". The second thing to note is that 'evil' (ra') is opposed to shalom (peace) and not to tov (which would be closer to, but not exclusively meaning, moral goodness). This would argue that the ethical element is not present at all. For example, in Isaiah 5:20 ra and tov are contrasted, in an ethical context, as are light and darkness. And in Ps 34.14, all of the concepts are related: Turn from evil (ra') and do good (tov); seek peace (shalom) and pursue it. By abandoning moral evil and doing moral good to his neighbor, the Israelite would insure peace in the community and in the land. Another case of clear ethical contrasts (ra' and tov) is in Amos 5.15: "Hate evil, love good; maintain justice in the courts." All one should do is read the ENTIRE chapter of Isaiah and you'll see that God is telling the children of Israel that He will bring them to safety from all their enemies. Just look at verse 19 in the same chapter when the LORD GOD says " I the LORD speaks RIGHTEOUSNESS, i declare al things that are RIGHT", thats a blatant contradiction of someones understanding of verse 7 if the entire chapter God speaks of righteousness.

So if biblically, lexicalology, and Hermeneutically we understand that the two verses used do not in any way point that God created sin. I've proven through scripture that sin originated with Lucifer. Pro's response was "The fact that god created something as evil as Lucifer..." This shows me that you didn't read all of Ezekiel 28. Just read verse 15 like i pointed out in my second argument Ezekiel 28:15 - Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created.. Lucifer was created PERFECT not evil as you have mistakenly claimed. Again Pro is off on my assertions when he states "Con provided a quote that mentions that "in him there's no darkness at all," god himself still said "I form the light, and create darkness." Pro clearly misses the difference of Gods nature and his creation their obviously not the same. Ill point out again That in God there is NO darkness (evil/sin) so how could God create something that is against His nature? There was no answer for this.
Pro writes: When it's daytime in the US, there is light. At the same time in China, there is darkness. Light and darkness can exist at the same time, and it's not impossible." I didn't think that was difficult to understand but what i mean by the same time is if you have a empty room with just a light and you turn it on there will be no darkness. Darkness and light cannot exist in the same time and place they do not mix. So God could not create sin because He is light.

I charged Pro to prove biblically that Gods ultimate purpose for man was to sin and his response was: "Nope.
There was no mention of any ultimate purposes in the resolution. The resolution asks "Did god intend humans to sin?"
I need to show that the god of the bible intended humans to sin, if it's his ultimate purpose or not." Pro you do know the definition of intend is -have (a course of action) as one's purpose or objective; plan. So again show me verses that it was Gods purpose.

Pro ask : Who created our earthly nature? Colossians 3:5" Well this question is simple. First our fleshly or earthly nature was not "created" but came about after the "Fall" read Romans 5:12 Sin started with man when they listened to Satan and disobeyed God. When God created man He said it was "Very Good" Genesis 26-31. So the assertions you've made about man and even the Lucifer being made to sin or with sin are not Biblical in the slightest sense.

Pro ask: Con, did god make us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to read people's minds?
If yes, then why couldn't god make us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to sin?"Pro the argument is not free will itself but that you cannot coerce someone to Love you it has to be given freely.God created us with the intention to Love Him ,Ive given plenty of verses for that. So could God have created us not to sin? Yes but in turn we wouldn't be able to Love which was the Intention for creating humans Duet 6:5 READ!
MagicAintReal

Pro

Props to Con for using the word "eisegesis."
For those who may have never used the word before, it means a biased interpretation of a text.

An eisegesis is an inaccurate portrayal of my position with regards to god's intention, because I'm going with absolute claims from the bible, which really require no bias. For example:

Matthew 19:26
"With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

Luke 1:37
"For nothing will be impossible with God."

Job 42:2
"I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted."

No bias needed here...god is omnipotent, AND no purpose of his can be thwarted!
How else am I supposed to interpret these quotes?
God can rid the world of sin and free will could remain (ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE) but god chooses not to...this speaks to his intentions to have humans sin.

Con, is Job 42:2 correct that no purpose of god's can be thwarted?

Because it kind of seems like If one of god's purposes is to have humans avoid sin, and humans are always sinning, then one of his purposes is being thwarted...constantly, repeatedly, predictably; god's purpose to have humans avoid sin is being thwarted by the masses of people sinning.

But if god's purpose is to have humans sin, affirming the resolution, then it would seem that his purposes are not thwarted, and Job 42:2 is correct.

Con claimed that my burden of proof is to show that sin is "God's ultimate purpose for human kind."
My contention with this is not the word "purpose;" I agree purpose is synonymous with intent.
My contention is with the word "ultimate," which makes the burden outside of the already undefined resolution.

Ultimate means the last and most fundamental; I don't need to demonstrate that this intention of god's is most fundamental. I need to demonstrate that god intended, even if it is a lesser intention, humans to sin.

Con, you agree that god created all things in the universe, visible and invisible...except for sin?
How is sin not part of everything visible and invisible/material and immaterial?
I argue that sin should fall into the category of "all things."

Con points out:
"foreknowledge is not the same as predetermination"

My response:
Isaiah 46:10 - "Declaring the end from the beginning...My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"
God is clearly DECLARING the end, which is everything he wants to be done...sounds predetermined to me.

So, god's purposes, which we both agree are intentions, can't be thwarted, and the future is declared by god as he will do all he pleases.

Think about it.
Imagine that you're god and you have foreknowledge of the future.
Now, you're getting ready to create Lucifer and you remember, "Hey, I'm pretty sure that if I create this being, that sin will surely follow...yeah, actually I know the future, and I am certain that by me creating Lucifer, I will be creating sin."

At this moment, if you continue to create Lucifer, then you are intending for sin to be created, and because you've already declared the end from the beginning, this is actually what you intended from the start; humans sinning is also part of the future of which you are aware and for which you are responsible.

Before god created Lucifer, was god aware of the sin Lucifer would create?
If god was aware of the impending consequences of creating Lucifer, then why didn't god stop himself from creating Lucifer/sin?

Even when god finished creating Lucifer, why didn't god rewind time and stop the creation of impending sin?
Like Matt 19:26 says, "with god all things are possible"...except for sinless free will, god stopping himself from creating sin, rewinding time to rid sin, and a universe without Lucifer; these things just aren't possible with god.

Con mentioned that people who prove that god created evil "ONLY quote this verse from the KJV knowing that every other translation got it more accurate (not to say kjv is wrong)."

My response:
"I make peace and create Ra'a"
"...the tree of knowledge of good and Ra'a"

Con, the source I provided has the 1st definition of Ra'a, evil, appearing in those two quotes.
http://www.biblestudytools.com...

Would you call it the tree of knowledge of good and disaster?
Ok, so then god makes peace and evil.

Regardless, Con makes sure "not to say kjv is wrong," and Con "would assert that each translation got it right."
So, according to the bible, god created evil, which makes perfect sense, because he created everything.

Con tries to point out that god tells Lucifer, "Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created."
Ok, so god thinks that something he created that supposedly spawned sin was perfect when it was created. Remember, god knew the future while creating Lucifer perfect; the future included Lucifer creating sin, and god knew this, and still called its inception "perfect."

Con, your Ezekiel quote has god, who knew the future of Lucifer creating sin, calling Lucifer perfect at Lucifer's creation.
Does god think sin was perfect at its creation?
Because that's what it sounds like.

Con would also have us believe that our earthly nature has NOTHING to do with god...even though god created us in his image, our earthly nature is not his doing, rather, because we chose to listen to Satan, an ability god intended for us to have, our very nature "came about."

Perhaps this is the most important point.
Con asks and responds:
"So could God have created us not to sin? Yes but in turn we wouldn't be able to Love which was the Intention for creating humans Duet 6:5 READ!"

My response:
Con is saying that by creating us without the ability to sin, we wouldn't be able to love.
Con, does love require humans' ability to sin?
Why couldn't we love god if we didn't have the capacity to sin?

To me, love does not require sin, and, I argue, if we were unable to sin, then our love would be even stronger for god, because we could never stray from that love; we would still be exercising our free will and choosing to love him, but we just couldn't sin. Like now, we can choose to love him, though we can't read people's minds.

God intended humans to sin because:
1. He created evil, Lucifer, and sin. "All things have been created through him and for him." Colossians 1:16

2. When he created Lucifer, he knew that Lucifer would create sin and did nothing to stop it, and the future is all that god wants to happen. Isaiah 46:10

3. God could eliminate sin and our ability to commit such, but didn't, EVEN THOUGH "all things are possible with god" (including sinless free will) AND "no purpose of his shall be thwarted." Job 42:2
If his purpose is no human sin, and there is human sin, then his purposes are thwarted all the time; if he did intend sin, then his purposes are not thwarted.

4. Creation of Lucifer (sin) + allowance of human sin + foreknowledge of human sin + inaction to stop sin + neglect to create sinless free will + total control of the future + no purpose shall be thwarted + humans are always sinning = God intended humans to sin, because he created it, allowed it, won't stop it, and his purpose/intention to have humans sin shall not be thwarted!

Con, come on!
Debate Round No. 3
WCBC15

Con

I still assert that bible nowhere says that God intended man to sin nor that God created sin. Again we have not seen a single verse pro has quoted that correlates God creating man to sin

In my first argument (which pro has ignored thus far) I gave 6 verses (there are plenty more) that prove not only that God did not want intend man to sin but showed what He created man for. Now why can't Pro show verses like that clearly support his position? Because there are none.Since Pro cannot show the ultimate purpose why God created I will demonstrate BIBLICALLY that 1. God does not intend for man to sin 2. What God does intend for man and to add that God did not create sin
1. Ezekiel 33:11Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live." If God created man to sin why does God say He does not find pleasure in mans sin and not only that but God tells man to turn from sin!
2. 1 John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:" So if we were created to sin why is the Apostle John telling us NOT to sin?
3. Psalms 5:4 For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness" If sin does not please God why then would He create man to do it?
4. Psalms 34:16 The face of the LORD is against them that do evil.." So if God created man to sin does it then makes sense for God to be against man? Again Pro your assertions are in direct opposition to scripture

Those are a few scriptures showing that God does NOT intend for man to sin. Pro continues to assert that God creates sin, although at one point he say that Lucifer did, but i will show that not only did not create sin but that it is impossible to create sin
1. Ezekiel 28:15-16 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in THEE. Through YOUR widespread trade YOU were filled with violence, and YOU SINNED. So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and I expelled you" So i bring this up again Pro says FOUR times in his last argument "Lucifer creating sin" and he is right Lucifer did create ,if you can say that it was "created", sin. I find Pro's understanding of scripture shallow because in his rebuttal for this verse he uses the phrase " so god thinks that something he created that supposedly spawned sin" supposedly? really? its clearly written in the verse where sin originated but You insist (sometimes) that God created sin which is mentioned in ZERO verses in the ENTIRE bible. The bible answers your question Pro and that is no God did not think sin was perfect when Lucifer sinned thats why he was cast out. I must emphasize to you the sin and Lucifer are not one in the same, notice the word TILL in verse 15, that means there was a period between creation of Lucifer and when he sinned
2. Isaiah 14:13-14"But YOU said in YOUR heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. 'I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." Notice again where sin originates verse 12 mentions these verses are referring to Lucifer. Just like in Ezek Isaiah confirms that sin began with Lucifer
3. 1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning." Notice it DOES NOT say is of God but of the devil, sin began with satan

So could God even create sin? No. Lets see what scripture says.

1. 1 John 3:5 You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin"
2. For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee"
3. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him."
4. 2 Cor 5:21 "God made him(Jesus) who had no sin"

God could not create sin because its against His nature. Pro continues to use Col 1:16, which again is referring to the universe, to say God created sin bases off this verse is illogical and not biblical for a few reasons. 1. Pro read verses 13-14 in the same chapter, God rescues those who want it from sin. If God wanted us to sin then we would need no rescuing. 2. EVERYTHING in a sense is not created by God. What i mean is God did not create the iPhone 6s, Macbook Pro, Stingray Corvettes, 4k Tv's . God did create all the elements that make up those things but man formed those things into what they are. To say since God created Lucifer means God created sin is a non sequitur. You helped create children, If your son or daughter grows up and commits a crime whether it be stealing ,mass killing , slave trading or any wrong doing are you then convicted as well because you created the child? No, because everyone has to give account for themselves 2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each of us may receive what is due us for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad"

So what did God create us For? I challenged Pro for the Ultimate purpose for God creating man and he couldn't answer but i will Give you clear concise verses.
1. John 17:13 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent."
2.Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God"
3. Matt 22:37-39Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the FIRST and GREATEST commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself."
I challenge Pro to show verses Like this! they do not get any clearer! Gods greatest commandment was for man to Love God NOT sin. These verses prove without a doubt what intends for man. Unless pro can refute all these verses FROM SCRIPTURE not from some off based philosophy then its safe to say God did not intend man to sin.
i would like to address some of the verses Pro brought up. First Job 42:2, Pro writes But if god's purpose is to have humans sin, affirming the resolution, then it would seem that his purposes are not thwarted," Pro you still haven't shown God purposed man to sin also men have chosen not to sin as well so according to your logic Gods will is still thwarted. Gods will has been and always will be for man to love God and nothing can change that and His purpose is fulfilled each and every day and I'm a living witness. Thats what the verse is talking about.

Isaiah 45:7 the word "ra'a" is a masculine noun which can be used as calamity/disaster/harm/damaged. This really needs no further attention because your 5 min google search is in direct opposition to EVERY scholar that has put in hundreds of thousands of work into the verse whether the be Jewish,Christian, or non believer. The eminent Hebrew scholar Shemaryahu Talmon (of Hebrew University, Jerusalem) ,who won the Israeli prize for biblical studies, gives this comment on the verse: "'I am God, there is no other, I bring forth the light and create darkness, fashion peace, and create adversity'. Ra' equaling milkhamah, serves here, as in other texts and also in Ancient Near Eastern writings, as an antonym of shalom and tov." Notice that he equates ra'a with the word for battle or war, milkhamah. So as much as you want to plead that the word "evil" in the verse means sin no scholar agrees with you and if you're ok with that than so be it.

Pro writes"love does not require sin,if we were unable to sin, then our love would be even stronger for god,cause we could never stray from that love" So if straying from God's love is sin and God takes that option away then you are forced to stay, then love would cease to be Love. Rom 12:9 Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. For love to be genuine choice, to not love has to be an option.
MagicAintReal

Pro

Thanks for the debate Con.

Con complains:
"[Pro insists] that God created sin which is mentioned in ZERO verses in the ENTIRE bible."

My response:
If the bible says God created ALL THINGS, then god, BY DEFINITION, created sin...Con you can't avoid contradictions in the bible simply because they are inconvenient, so your 6 bible verses need not be addressed, because every word of the bible should be true, and the bible has already said that god created ALL THINGS with complete foreknowledge and purposes that shall not be thwarted like humans' ability to sin; do you see our ability to sin being thwarted? Me neither.

Like I said before, the bible has so many absolute statements about what god can do and has done, and it's very clear that god is responsible for creating ALL THINGS; sin is a part of all things.

What I tried to point out is that if Con wishes to demote god's creation responsibilities and assign agency of sin's creation to Lucifer, then Con has to recognize god being the ultimate cause of sin; if god didn't create Lucifer, there could not have been sin, but god did create Lucifer knowing full well this would spawn sin, fulfilling god's purpose, which cannot be thwarted, to have a universe with Lucifer and therefore sin for humans to commit.

Con contradicts scripture:
"EVERYTHING in a sense is not created by God"

My response:
While I agree with you on that, the bible is in staunch disagreement "All things have been created through him and for him."

Con continues to contradict scripture:
"God could not create sin because its against His nature."

My response:
Matt 19:26 and Luke 1:37 must be wrong then that "with god all things are possible" and "nothing will be impossible with god."
If all things are possible with god, then creating something against His nature is possible, which is clearly stated by the bible in direct contradiction to Con.

Con almost concedes this debate:
"If sin does not please God why then would He create man to do it?"

My response:
Great question! My answer is that the bible is fraught with contradictions, but biblically, sin does please god, because the bible mentions that NO PURPOSE OF GOD'S can be thwarted, and that from beginning to end, GOD WILL DO ALL HIS PLEASURE; well, we're in the time period of "beginning to end" and we are sinning, therefore it must be part of his pleasure that he declared from the beginning; it can't be thwarted.

If we have sin now, and from beginning to end god will do all his pleasure, then it follows that humans sinning MUST please god which speaks to his intentions to allow us to sin.

To answer the question in a different way, sin does please god, because if it weren't pleasing to god, sin would not be a part of "all of his pleasure" declared from the beginning; instead god's purpose to have us sin remains not thwarted exactly as Job 42:2 would have you believe.

Con mentions god creating Lucifer.

Con, you never addressed my question about imagining that you were god and you had full knowledge of impending sin by creating Lucifer. If god knew what would happen, and let it happen, then he allowed for it.
He created Lucifer KNOWING FULL WELL "iniquity" would arise.

Either god can create Lucifer without impending sin or he can't.
Given the "all things possible" claim of the bible, god could have created Lucifer without impending iniquity, but chose not to, thus taking responsibility for any ills that arise from god's creation.

Without creating Lucifer, there could be no sin, so god is responsible for sin, period.

Then Con tries to reason:
"God did not create the iPhone 6s, Macbook Pro, Stingray Corvettes, 4k Tv's ."

My response:
Yeah, but if god did not intend for iPhones or corvettes, then he would not have allowed them. The fact that we have iPhones and corvettes is a sign of god's intention to let iPhones and corvettes exist; he knew from the beginning that we would create these items and he allowed for it; if god didn't want it, he would not have created the elements for such things, and his intention to disallow iPhones and corvettes would not be thwarted.

Con tries an analogy:
"You helped create children, If your son or daughter grows up and commits a crime whether it be stealing ,mass killing , slave trading or any wrong doing are you then convicted as well because you created the child?"

My response:
Nope, because I didn't create my children with the foreknowledge that they would be a criminal, I didn't create and give them the ability to choose crime, I didn't declare the end from the beginning, I didn't create all things, including crime, and my purposes can be thwarted, thus if I intended my kids to not commit crime, they still could; parents are not omnipotent, not omniscient, and not responsible for ALL THINGS like god is.

I honestly don't care if biblical scholars maintain that god created disaster, but not evil, because the bible says ALL THINGS are created by him, for him. Do scholars eschew this claim of god?

Finally Con points out:
"So if straying from God's love is sin and God takes that option away then you are forced to stay, then love would cease to be Love."

My response:
Con this is why I asked about reading people's minds and maintaining our ability to choose things. God disallowed our ability to read minds, yet we still have free will to choose to love things.
Therefore, god COULD disallow our ability to sin, and we would still have free will to choose to love him; not all sins involve the lack of love for god, so sin and love are not a true dichotomy, even biblically.

Just like not being able to read minds doesn't force us to love things, not being able to sin does not force us to love things; it would allow us free will to love within our limited capacity to sin. I maintain that love does not need sin, as Con would have us believe, and god could have created us WITH free will, but WITHOUT the capacity to sin, thus leaving our choice to love him under our free will, much like our choice to love him now is under our free will.

In conclusion:

1. God created all things and is responsible for Lucifer's creation of sin; no Lucifer, no sin. How did Lucifer get here? Oh yeah that was god's doing.

2. God declared the end from the beginning based on all his pleasures. Well, in this period of end to beginning, humans are sinning, so we must conclude that is is one of god's pleasures.

3. God's purposes cannot be thwarted, and Con claims that humans NOT sinning is one of god's purposes. However, this purpose is thwarted all of the time; we are sinners. We must conclude that god's purpose is for humans to sin and that this purpose is currently not thwarted.

4. God can do anything, nothing is impossible. Con however, claims that god can't create something against his nature, so either the bible is wrong, or Con is...I choose the latter.

5. God intended humans to sin as evidenced by our not thwarted, predetermined, within god's pleasure, perfectly allowed, previously created, ability to sin.

I maintain that god did not intend us to read minds, because WE CAN'T READ MINDS.
I maintain that god did intend us to sin, because WE CAN SIN, and none of his purposes shall be thwarted as he declared them from the beginning to the end; god's responsible for Lucifer, us, sin, and the future.

I affirm this particular resolution.
Debate Round No. 4
245 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Hey you recognize that, great well I'll stfu and let you deal with your holy book's issues
Posted by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
I apologize for any offenses I did.

You just kept taking my words out of context and failed to ask for clarification, but just assumed you were correct. I do not have a problem in calling people out on that. The truth sometimes emotionally hurts people. I don't know a better way to say those things that maintains the truth, unfortunately. But yes, I was emotional a few times apart from that.

I like my holy book, thank you very much. Seriously, I don't understand much about it, and it's easy to point to things that look troublesome about it. However, I start by taking what is good from it, and leaving the troublesome as a question to be answered. Now, if the troublesome is a contradiction or some other obvious rule I hold deeply to that can't be "squeezed" out of, then I'll have to take a closer look at that.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Well when you're less offended let me know, you were just as rude, you just are more emotional about your holy book so things seem rude
Posted by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
I say you're biased, in that you stopped right before my ",but...".

I wouldn't mind debating you eventually, except you were rude to me in the comments, so it's off the table for a while.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Also, we should definitely have a debate, with a completely unbiased voter, about whatever christian stuff you want to argue, within reason.

No need for intimidation, just healthy debate.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
What means am I using that you're not using...how am i intimidating?

A while back in this back and forth, you mentioned that I showed a temporary intention on god's part and you didn't think that met the resolution...well it did, so this is why I want you to include it in your RFD, so that the moderators can show you that, in fact, that's the case.

You said "If you define intention to be accepting the consequences of an action, then your argument makes sense,"

Now take your drinking water example and add to it that anything that the drinker wants was declared from the beginning by him. Now when he goes to drink that water, he knows exactly what will happen and it matches with his previous declarations, under his council, from the beginning.

What say you to this?
Posted by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
Yes, for the bathroom example, we can say that they know the future, to apply it more accurately to the argument at stake.

They may weigh the gain of $1,000, and the loss of going to the bathroom a lot, and say that it's worth enduring the disadvantage to gain the advantage.

If you define intention to be accepting the consequences of an action, then your argument makes sense, but I don't define intention as accepting the consequences, but being a goal, a purpose, an end, which are reasons for doing something.

But seriously though, stop bullying me. We can talk without the bullying. Bully: "use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants" (Google Dictionary) (I don't mean the superior part, I just mean using one's means to intimidate someone to do what one wants).
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Again, if you think that this is what Pro demonstrated, that god indirectly intended for sin, temporarily or otherwise, please include it in your RFD.
When you vote, just put "RFD in comments" so that you can write a lot more right here where you've been writing the whole time.

Matt, do the right thing.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Now take your example and include that the person who's drinking the water knows the future...this future is the person needing to go to the bathroom.

Because the person knows exactly what will happen if this excessive drinking action is taken, they intend for such by committing to the drinking.
Posted by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
MagicAintReal, I think you don't understand the argument Con was making there and I was trying to explain.

(1) People can have many intentions for a single action, like drinking water.
(2) That action has consequences, some of which may not be intended, but occur anyway.
(2.eg) I think someone can intend to drink a lot of water in a short period of time in order to win some prize like $1,000, but not intend having to go to the bathroom a lot shortly after that.
(2.1) would say that their reasoning is their intention is their purpose.
(2.eg.1) If their intention was to go to the bathroom a lot, then they would do it regardless of whether they get the money or not, whereas if they were doing it for the money, then they wouldn't drink the water if they weren't going to get the prize because of some sudden change of events.

What say you on this?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Matt532 1 year ago
Matt532
WCBC15MagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: CA: Overall, there were many good points coming from both sides. Each side contradicted the other on many points. Pro needed to prove that the intent of the authors resulted in a real contradiction in a critical area, whereas Con needed to show that every contradiction possible is an apparent contradiction, by intent of the authors. Neither side gave clear enough evidence for me to show that the contradiction clearly leaned toward real or apparent, save for one spot. The contradiction: (A) No wickedness in God (B) God created all "things" (widest sense), including wickedness. Con attacked at least one of Pro's verses supporting (B) both from the internal meaning of words and from an outside verse contradicting it, whereas Pro only contradicted from the outside of the verse here.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
famousdebater
WCBC15MagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: http://www.debate.org/forums/miscellaneous/topic/76210/
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
WCBC15MagicAintRealTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This is an easy vote and I am still struggling to understand the previous voter's RFD, regardless I will begin with the RFD. Sources clearly goes to Pro since they successfully incorporated them into their argument and it was evident as to which source belonged to which point since the sources were labelled after each point that it corresponded to. Con had sources labelled in numbers however no sources were provided so this makes me doubt the credibility of their argument. The BOP was shared. Con solely relied on quotes from the Bible and the fact that none of them were sourced also intertwined with my reason for awarding Pro the arguments points. All of Con's (relevant) quotes were refuted and I struggled to find much of his own content throughout the debate. Pro provided his own content whilst coming up with valid arguments in his own words. Pro showed that God created the devil and this was insufficiently refuted by Con. Since this was ultimately the deciding factor, I vote Pro.