Gods plan does requires Sin to function
Debate Rounds (4)
Round 1 is accepting the debate.
Round 2 - Opening arguments.
Round 3 - Rebuttals.
Round 4 - Closing arguments.
Rules: The rounds must be followed as stated above.
There is no need for vast spacing(hitting the enter key many times) between points. Example for proper spacing is the spacing used in this here.
Failure to comply with the rules will result in the Pro winning the debate.
Without sin, god has no purpose. We are to praise The Lord, attend church, go on being good people in order to received into Heaven. But we don't need to do those things do we? For the way Gods plan is structured a murder of dozens can simply pray at their last meal for forgiveness and be forgiven. That just doesn't seem right does it? Should a person who has dedicated their entire life to being religious be just as fairly treated as the murder of many?
God created us? With free will, giving us free will gives us the ability to sin. God allowed the sin because he needs it.
Also "You shall have no other gods before me" Exodus 20:3 - Does that mean a child who grew up not knowing about the correct God of The Bible is sinful?
I say that if sin did not exist, though it does, there would be no purpose for God.
What is sin?
Let us first exam what sin is. Sin is considered an act against God, a breaking of some kind of divine command. The story of the Garden of Eden tells us that God gave man one job, not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge but man, under the influence of the serpent, did so anyway. From there the entire Bible is the story of man's sinfulness, God's vengaence and, eventually, his redemption of mankind through Christ. This is what should be considered as "God's plan". Christianity teaches that God loved creation so much that he was willing to send Jesus to die a horrible death for our collective redemption from sin. This makes Pros assertion truly perplexing. Why would God have crafted a plan that requires sin to function? The very definition of sin is a transgression against God. The defining narrative of the Bible is God's conflict with Sin, and his saving of the wicked mankind.
My opponent concedes that God gave man freewill and thus we have a choice to sin or not. This is exactly the point--it is no plan of God that man sins, it's the plan of God to have people worship Him freely. If we were all to stop sinning and worship God His plan would be fulfilled. What God wants is the opposite of sin.
I'll end my case here with Proverbs 6:16-19 to show that God hates sin. "There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community."
We can now turn to my opponents case and see where it falls short.
Pro contends that worshipping God is not necessary because we can all just pray for forgiveness at our last meal and everything is okay. First of all this has absolutely nothing to do with the resolution, but I will just say that Pro is completely misunderstanding what is required to gain Gods forgiveness. It's a lot more than simply saying "Oh God if you actually exist please forgive me but I'm going to do what I want anyway". It's about true remorse. Pros argument that there would be no purpose for God without sin simply makes no sense. I don't know what else to say other than he's failed utterly thus far to uphold the resolution.
Back to you Pro.
Rebuttal - Con stated that man was first introduced to sin through the serpent which gave man influence to sin. Since God is The creator does this not mean God put the serpent in the tree? Yes, God gave mankind the ability to choose what they want to do, free will, but nothing is stated about other living creatures. This serpent would have been acting with Gods intent, there is no reason to assert otherwise.
If God did not want man to sin because "God wants is the opposite of sin" then why would he introduce the factor that led to sin. If God has such conflict with Sin then why in heavens did he allow it? He allowed it because he needs it.
God created everything, therefore God created Sin. If he didn't want Sin then why did he make it? After man sinned the "Bible is the story of man's sinfulness, God's vengaence and, eventually, his redemption of mankind through Christ." None of the vengeance or redemption was needed. God introduced Sin so he could sit back and let man use his ability of free will to obey his divine command or burn in hell for eternity. Without Sin god has no purpose.
Yes, if someone is truly repentant in the end they would be fully welcomed into heaven and be treated as equal to everyone else, regardless of their misdeeds.
==What is sin?==
My opponent makes no attempt to respond to my definition of what sin actually is, which is a trangression against God. Keep in mind that this (dropped) definition makes it very difficult for Pro to win as it makes no logical sense whatsoever for God to have a plan that requires transgressions against Him. Let's look to what Pro did say, and from there we can see why exactly a vote for Con is needed. Recall also that my opponent has made no attempt whatsoever to explain what God's plan is. I explained that God wants all humans to willingly accept redepmtion through Christ. This is a biblically sanctioned perspective, entirely mainstream and consistent with attributes commonly given to God.
Pro argues that since man has been given the mere *ability* to sin, then clearly God wants people to sin. First, this is simply false, giving someone a choice doesn't mean that you want them to choose that way. Secondly, my opponent gives no reason why God would want sin if he hates it so much (refer to the definition of sin and Proverbs). I could simply say "I don't know why God gave man free will" and you would still have to vote Con because it blatantly defies logic to assume without any argument from Pro that God gave man free will because he wanted them to sin. However this is all irrelevant because we have good reasons to believe that God gave man free will for a purpose that doesn't involve sin. He wanted to be loved freely.
As C.S. Lewis explains: "...free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -of creatures that worked like machines- would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they've got to be free."
What this means is that God wants to be loved and have meaningful relationships with free people. If one is wondering what the difference between actual, freely given love and forced love is, compare human relationships to, say, the relationship between a human and a computer programmed to "love" him. Clearly the former would be more meaningful.
God doesn't want us to sin. He wants us all to come to Him, and he gave us Jesus to do just that.
The resolution is negated.
Jail, what is the purpose of jail? It is to keep people enclosed in a secure area to prevent them from doing misdeeds. In jail they do what they can to prevent people from breaking out and hurting others in the jail. They don't want things going wrong so they do what they can to stop it.
If god did not want/need Sin in the world why would he of set up the scenario that first introduced Sin? The Con did not even mention this in their last statement. If god did not want Sin then he would of made the perfect circumstance for Sin to come into existence and flourish. God is the creator of everything, he made Sin, without Sin there is no purpose of God. God saves us from the thing he created, his plan revolves around Sin. I want you to address this one FACT, that is it is only a fact if you believe in the literature in The Bible.
Back to you Con.
Thanks for the debate Pro.
Pro makes no attempt to dispute my principle arguments that God's plan for mankinds redemption doesn't require sin, just acceptance of Christ, and that God gave man free will because he wanted to be worshipped by free beings. You can extend the C.S. Lewis card arguing this as my opponent made no response. Refer also back to my original argument where I showed that God hates sin and wants man to turn from it.
Pro contends that since God created everything He must have had a plan that revolved around sin. This is false because God gave man the free choice *not* to sin. That's what He wants. If we all stopped sinning and started loving God we would have fulfilled His wish for mankind.
At the end of the day you have to vote Con here because Pro has failed to uphold his burden of proof, God *allowing* the existence of something is not the same as his plan *requiring* it. I've also given good reasons why the existence of sin is consistent with Gods plan for mankind not requuring it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets to the crux of the issue--to allow is not to require. Pro fails to fulfill his BOP in that he only shows God allowed sin to occur. Interesting topic and discourse. I vote Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.