The Instigator
sleepingviper
Pro (for)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
snelld7
Con (against)
Winning
38 Points

God can, and has sinned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/6/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,533 times Debate No: 8139
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (11)

 

sleepingviper

Pro

God created the 10 commandments and gave them to Moses. Among these are "Thou shalt not commit adultery" and "Thou shalt not murder."

Adultery in biblical times meant a married woman having intercourse with someone other than her husband. Although Mary was not technically married to Joseph, the intent was there and they were married in all but name. There is a minor technicality here in that God only tempted Mary into being unfaithful and granting the use of her body to him instead of being sinful himself. But this leads to a very slippery slope. Also, the tempting is supposed to be done by the Devil. Where would one end and the other begin?

Secondly, the 6th Commandment, "Thou Shalt not Murder," has been broken by God in no small way. Anyone remember the great flood and Noah and the Ark and all that? With the exception of Noah's family/spouses God murdered the entire human race! And his way of apologizing? What a pretty rainbow.......

God has sinned.
snelld7

Con

My opponent is under the misconceived notion that, simply, because God has given the commandments, he also has to abide by them. This is a logical fallacy (looks about right, but then again under inspection you realize it's not). Just because he has given them a set of laws to abide by, doesn't mean he is also constricted under those laws. For example, if your parents tell you "Son, your bedtime is at 10:30 pm," and they stay up past that bedtime, this doesn't mean that they are breaking the rules. The commandments were something he issued the people of the world to follow, not something he issued himself to follow. So therefore the resolution IS INDEED wrong. God has not sinned , is not sinning, and will not sin.

Resolution NEGATED
Debate Round No. 1
sleepingviper

Pro

By this logic God could wipe out the entire universe and not call it a sin. If God does not follow the rules that he himself has created he will be an immortal hypocrite. To concede that God is incapable of being in the wrong is to say that he can DO no wrong. This means that nothing he does can be considered flawed. God made the universe. He made people. If this is the case, why did he not create humans in such a way that we also could do no wrong? Or, why did he allow Lucifer to survive? If he is perfect, as doing no wrong implies, then why didn't he create a perfect world?

I believe this where the argument for free will would enter in. To head this off I would state that free will is by no means definite and to assume so is to base an argument on an unproven assumption.

As God obviously can do wrong, or do things imperfectly, can he be considered incapable of sinning? Granted, the 10 commandments can be seen as not applying to a hypocritical God. But then we have the Euthyphro question, "Are actions good because God commands them, or does God command them because they are good?" Is morality independent of God or dependent on him? If it is dependent on him then yes, he would be incapable of sinning because he IS morality. However, as God feels the need to write certain moral codes down, some of these are more important than others. For instance, lying is obviously less immoral than murder. Furthermore, if morality is dependent on God then it is ever changing. What is moral today could very well not be tomorrow. As some have been written down, the possibility for fluidity has been greatly reduced. Morality must be said to be independent of God for it to hold permanent merit.

As morality exists independent of God then God would have to follow the same moral codes as people. Given that people have found numerous ways to break these moral codes, so too, can God.
snelld7

Con

>>By this logic God could wipe out the entire universe and not call it a sin. If God does not follow the rules that he himself has created he will be an immortal hypocrite. To concede that God is incapable of being in the wrong is to say that he can DO no wrong. This means that nothing he does can be considered flawed. God made the universe. He made people. If this is the case, why did he not create humans in such a way that we also could do no wrong? Or, why did he allow Lucifer to survive? If he is perfect, as doing no wrong implies, then why didn't he create a perfect world?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, because it's very hard to assume that GOD is immortal! [...] Are serious?

A sin is defined as :

A) Estrangement from god

and

B) An act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will

Now, how cam GOD, either go against his OWN will, or seperate from himself as a result of hostility?

He can't, simply, because everything he does, he has wanted to do. And if he has wanted to do it, it's not against his will.

Sins aren't just wrong because they're wrong. They're wrong because it's not what God wants you to do. Which is why he can't sin. You're whole argument is that he has killed people in the bible via floods, plagues, etc. However, if you're going to accept this form of God from the bible, you must also accept why he hasn't created a perfect world according to the bible. And within the bible, it states that God wants us to have free will. He wants us to have the ability to choose bewteen right and wrong in order to see what we'll choose.

Besides, how do you know we aren't an experiment for God? How do you know we aren't doing EXACTLY what he wants us to do within the experiment? How do you know we aren't "perfect" in his eyes? How do you know, that to him, we aren't perfect?He created us to live and have free will, so in a sense, we have the ability to be alive, have feelings, and choose WHATEVER IT IS WE WOULD LIKE TO CHOOSE. Wouldn't that mean we are doing exactly what he wanted us to do? Sounds like he was 100% perfect/sucessful in what e was wanting to do, to me.

besides.. How fun would a perfect world be anyways :-P
Debate Round No. 2
sleepingviper

Pro

First, I never have questioned God's immortality. I just called him an immortal hypocrite.

Your definition of sin neglects a couple other definitions. According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, a highly trusted tool, a sin is defined as "an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible." Therefore, by this definition, God could either go against moral law or commit an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible. Obviously, as God created the religion of Christianity so that he WAS the religion, he cannot go against moral law. However, as I have shown previously and have yet to be refuted, morality must come from some source other than God. This in turn puts a limit on the power of God.

Also, as for actions which are highly reprehensible, I sincerely believe that the Great Flood, the Plague, the killing of the First-born - all of these are reprehensible. This definition leaves determining sin in the eye of the beholders - not the person performing the action.

The free will argument, as I have already stated, is based on an assumption that has yet to be proven. Merriam-Websters defines free will as the "freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention." A man named B.F. Skinner developed a theory of behavior known as radical behaviorism. This theory states that, if he knew the past of any person he could predict with absolute certainty how they will behave in the future. He "conditioned" animals to behave in a certain way - meaning that, at the end of a period of time, he will have altered their will and made them incapable of choice in a certain situation. No choice is ever completely free of the past. Choosing to debate this was likely encouraged by some event in my opponent's past. Free Will is in no way a guarantee.

If this is an experiment should there not be ethics involved? How would the scientific community react if one of their own suddenly killed a fake world full of monkeys except for a handful that made a boat? I refuse to live under the impression that the Earth is like the Truman Show. Imdb it if you don't know it. My life may be a radical experiment by God. I will concede that. But in no way does that give him an exception to morality - which he did not create.

God can sin.
snelld7

Con

Thank you, once again, for this debate.
Words followed by ">>>" are going to be what you've said in this debate. The words followed by "--" Are going to be my replys.

>>"Your definition of sin neglects a couple other definitions. According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, a highly trusted tool, a sin is defined as "an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible." Therefore, by this definition, God could either go against moral law or commit an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible....This definition leaves determining sin in the eye of the beholders - not the person performing the action."

--The whole reason things are seen as sins, are because they don't follow something God would like. The " action that is felt to be highly reprehensible" part was added so that people know even if a particular thing isn't written down, it's still a sin in God's eyes if it's bad. Not to apply that standard to God himself. We only have "sins" because there is a religion. Religion (at least the one where the word 'sin' come from) is derived from God. Therefore, you cannot attempt to throw out morality being a key issue, nor can you remove the fact that the true definition of sin is "An act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will."

In understanding this, you see that it is impossible for God to sin. You can say it limits God's power if you'd like [...] but put it this way; It's not that God can't do it, it's that God CAN not do it. :-p

>>>". No choice is ever completely free of the past. Choosing to debate this was likely encouraged by some event in my opponent's past. Free Will is in no way a guarantee."

--True, I was influenced to debate this by something in my past. However, I still had the choice of clicking it or not. My influence was just that, an influence. I was made or forced to by anyone, and I was under my own control. Put it like this. We're lab rats and God is the scientist. The cheese represents what we want in life. Now, we have a choice between not doing anything in the maze or going for the cheese. It even has the choice to stop breathing or take its own life if it wants. Although we still have that choice, God (the scientist) knows that we will go after the cheese.

>>>"I will concede that. But in no way does that give him an exception to morality - which he did not create."

-- How can you concede that God created the world, God has you as an experiment, God is all knowing and all powerful, but then say he didn't make the word "Morality." That would be like saying whoever invented the football didn't invent nerf footballs. It is based off of him! he doesn't need to invent it, he's DIRECTLY responsible for it.

You don't need to give him the exception of morality. Morality is based off of good and bad decisions in God's eyes (when you look at it in a religious "sin" standpoint) AKA it is in coherence with God's will. And once again i'll state, if it's God's will, then it's not a sin; being that he doesn't go against his OWN will, he connot sin.

___________

In Conclusion
___________

God Cannot, has not sinned, and will not sin.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sleepingviper 8 years ago
sleepingviper
that would have been easy enough to refute though - call it a cop-out - state that the wording of the debate topic implies an assumption that he does exist etc..... so im glad you chose to debate how you did - it was a lot more fun
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
idk how god got there... lets just say (since we cant prove he is there) that he's not there...
=) in this case.. he still can't sin, because he's non-existant
(I was gonna just argue saying that when I accepted it)
Posted by sleepingviper 8 years ago
sleepingviper
What about God's daddy? or momma? did god just appear out of nowhere? Or, to use your example, is God just a kid in a science class who will get graded on his "project"?

In that case, who is the teacher?
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
The only reason God can do it, is because he's God. The rule of sins are based off of who he is and what he wants us to do. So no it wouldn't be ok, because the rule of sin isn't based off of our will, but are of his.
Posted by sleepingviper 8 years ago
sleepingviper
ok.... this is getting ridiculous - but one last thing.... if people had the power god does, not necessarily the divinity, would the same actions be ok?
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
When I refered to you, I didn't exactly mean YOU lol. Just anyone. And about it taking a while to recover from pregnancy and God is spoiling things (LMAO), we dunno what happens next! He might have sewn it all up with divinity to where it was 100x more effective and better than before!!!!
Posted by sleepingviper 8 years ago
sleepingviper
inappropriate!!!! lol

im not married - i was speaking on behalf of all married men lol

and i have it on good authority that it takes awhile to recover from pregnancy.... so this would be God acting as a spoiler.....lol
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
>>give God first dibs at the wife? that seems a little extreme

Beause you're thinking of God waxing your wife lol
They aren't having sex, he is simply placing a creation inside of her stomach. If you get out of the "GOD IS HAVING THE BEST SEX POSSIBLE WITH MY WIFE, HOW DO I COMPETE SEXUALLY WITH SOMEONE WHO HAS A GOD-LIKE PRIVATE AREA" mode (lol), then you can see it's no biggie!
Posted by sleepingviper 8 years ago
sleepingviper
I agree that marriage is supposed to bring couples together under God. However, to give God first dibs at the wife? that seems a little extreme. This reminds me of the old custom of English nobles in Scotland.... Prima Noctes? I think that's what it was called.....
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
Marraige is a sacrament that's suppose to pull couples together under God. The bible says you are suppose to put God as number 1 (before husband/wife/realatives/etc.) With this understanding, you see she has more of an obligation to God then she does her husband, there was no overstepping of any boundries.

(Not that I believe in everything the bible has to offer, it's just that if we are attacking stories of the bible, we have to use the bable's standards... However, I do think the bible has a lot of good in it that shouldn't be overlooked at the mere prospect of it just being fictional stories. They have great meaning)
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by OurGodIsAnAwsomeGod 8 years ago
OurGodIsAnAwsomeGod
sleepingvipersnelld7Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
sleepingvipersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lazy 8 years ago
Lazy
sleepingvipersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Slurve 8 years ago
Slurve
sleepingvipersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 8 years ago
tBoonePickens
sleepingvipersnelld7Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by pewpewpew 8 years ago
pewpewpew
sleepingvipersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
sleepingvipersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 8 years ago
studentathletechristian8
sleepingvipersnelld7Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MrMarkP37 8 years ago
MrMarkP37
sleepingvipersnelld7Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
sleepingvipersnelld7Tied
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