The Instigator
LesNibbs
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
OtakuJordan
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Is God complicit in the sexual abuse of children

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 2 votes the winner is...
OtakuJordan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 665 times Debate No: 42379
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

LesNibbs

Pro

As title says IS GOD COMPLICIT IN THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

well not bothering to quote bible verses (there are many) but a summary
God is all knowing
He knows what is going to happen to you
He knows what you are going to do

So if a child is sexually abused by a religious person (minister for eg)
God knew this was going to happen
God knows the person planned this
God could of stopped it from happening but chose not to.
God knows the effect this would have on the child

so yes Lets now Indict Him and charge Him (If a parent acted this way we would remove the child from their care/charge them/find them guilty/and send the sucker to jail.... SO OFF TO JAIL YOU GO, GOD GOOD BYE

Also there is a legal precedent wilful ignorance.... where a person in charge of an organisation is negligent is exercising a reasonable level of control to ensure compliance with state federal statutes/laws/regulations etc.
OtakuJordan

Con

Thank you for proposing this interesting debate, Pro. I look forward to a good discussion.

I have two contentions to make.

1. God's omniscience may not match our conception of it
2. God may not be able to act or may be choosing the greater good by not acting

Contention #1 - God's omniscience may not match our conception of it
There are different views of God's sovereignty and God's omniscience within orthodox Christianity. Each lends different levels of support to theodicy. One of the weakest is Calvinism (which is probably the theological view that my opponent has come across); Arminianism is somewhere in the middle; and Molinism and open theism provide the strongest, in my opinion.

Philosopher Alan Rhoda has provided this handy guide to the various forms of open theist thought:


    1. Voluntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because he has voluntarily chosen not to know truths about future contingents. Dallas Willard espouses this position.

    1. Involuntary Nescience: The future is alethically settled but nevertheless epistemically open for God because truths about future contingents are in principle unknowable. William Hasker espouses this position.

    1. Non-Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions about future contingents are neither true nor false. J. R. Lucas espouses this position.

    1. Bivalentist Omniscience: The future is alethically open and therefore epistemically open for God because propositions asserting of future contingents that they "will" obtain or that they "will not" obtain are both false. Instead, what is true is that they "might and might not" obtain. Greg Boyd (and yours truly) espouses this position.[1]


Within the framework of some of these views, God's omniscience is retained but he has placed limits upon it to preserve the free will of humanity (essentially, it is an argument that foreknowledge can mean predestination in some cases). Within the framework of others, God does not and cannot know the future.

Contention #2 - God may not be able to act or may be choosing the greater good by not acting
Have you ever heard the argument that God cannot be all-powerful, because if he were he could create a stone to heavy for him to lift? This argument is fallacious because it confuses omnipotence with the ability to act against one's own nature or to defy the laws of logic. In a similar way, God may be barred by his nature from acting in certain circumstances, perhaps to preserve free will.

That being said, allow me to quote Christian philosopher William Lane Craig at length:

But the problem with this argument is that there’s no reason to think that God and evil are logically incompatible. There’s no explicit contradiction between them. But if the atheist means there’s some implicit contradiction between God and evil, then he must be assuming some hidden premises which bring out this implicit contradiction. But the problem is that no philosopher has ever been able to identify such premises. Therefore, the logical problem of evil fails to prove any inconsistency between God and evil.

But more than that: we can actually prove that God and evil are logically consistent. You see, the atheist presupposes that God cannot have morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil in the world. But this assumption is not necessarily true. So long as it is even possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil, it follows that God and evil are logically consistent. And, certainly, this does seem at least logically possible. Therefore, I’m very pleased to be able to report that it is widely agreed among contemporary philosophers that the logical problem of evil has been dissolved. The co-existence of God and evil is logically possible.[2]

Dr. Craig goes on to list some further contentions for why the problem of evil fails to disprove God:

1. We are not in a good position to assess the probability of whether God has morally sufficient reasons for the evils that occur.

2. The Christian faith entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and evil.
a. The chief purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
b. Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.
c. The knowledge of God spills over into eternal life.
d. The knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.[3]

For all of these reasons, I contend that God is not guilty of being complicit in acts of child abuse. I look forward to Pro's rebuttal.

Sources
1. http://www.alanrhoda.net...
2. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
3. Ibid.
Debate Round No. 1
LesNibbs

Pro

Hi in respect of God's omniscience (whether or not God knows)

I wont refer to all bible verses but this one will do (there are plenty of others)

Matthew 6.13 Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil
the bible makes it plain that if you pray, God hears you He might not act BUT HE HEARS

So a reasonable and factual statement to make is that there were/are repeated occasions when both offender and victim of child abuse both prayed.... AND THE BIBLE STATES THAT GOD HEARS so on this basis you HAVE to conclude that God knows/knew that the sexual abuse of children was taking place. To argue that God does not hear all prayers goes against doctrine/the bible. Remembering the prayers of both offenders and victims of sexual abuse was going on for decades

In respect of his acting to stop this (MY ARGUMENT IS THAT HE DID NOT ACT) The reason why He did not act is immaterial.

What is important is that God is the ultimate Head of the church, on that basis He is responsible for what happens in the organisation, remembering that children are in some aspect placed under His care when they attend any event organised by the church.

So on point 1 of your reply.... my answer is prayer.. God is aware of the sexual abuse of children through both the offender and victim praying to Him. And that is is systemic within the churches
on point 2 of your reply..... Why He did not act.... WHY IS IMMATERIAL The point is He did not act

Willful blindness (sometimes called ignorance of law, willful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation where an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting himself in a position where he will be unaware of facts that would render him liable.. heaps on the internet
OtakuJordan

Con

"In respect of his acting to stop this (MY ARGUMENT IS THAT HE DID NOT ACT) The reason why He did not act is immaterial."

Rather than refuting every aspect of Pro's argument, I shall focus on this part, as it is the Achilles' heel of his case. My opponent made no arguments as to why God's reasons are irrelevant, so I can only refute the statement itself.

Allow me to give an example: On his way home from work one day, John sees his child as well as the child of his neighbor in immediate danger. He only has time to save one and the other will surely die. If he acts to save one, is he then guilty because he did not save the other? Are his reasons irrelevant? No, we can see that reasons for a person's non-action can mitigate or completely remove the moral guilt of the non-action.

And this was a case in which the action was morally equal to the non-action, so we can easily believe that God has no moral guilt in his non-action if it serves a greater good, as I have claimed.

"What is important is that God is the ultimate Head of the church, on that basis He is responsible for what happens in the organisation, remembering that children are in some aspect placed under His care when they attend any event organised by the church."

This is some interesting ecclesiology. I would like to see some support for it from my opponent, although it is an irrelevant point given my contentions and rebuttals.

My opponent did not refute my claim that God may not be able to act

My opponent did not refute my claim that it may be against the nature of God to act, and therefore he cannot.
Debate Round No. 2
LesNibbs

Pro

LesNibbs forfeited this round.
OtakuJordan

Con

That is unfortunate.

Please vote Con.

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
Posting your arguments in the comments section does not count.
Posted by LesNibbs 3 years ago
LesNibbs
sorry missed posting Christmas here

Your reply in 2 was 1 view of 3 you did not reflect on the 2 other philosophies to show why they can not be fact. And when a statement includes "somn good can come out of it" or words to that effect... as in this 12 year old was anally raped and there could be some good in that... well you can not argue with the reasoning and rational behind a philosophy that justifies that statement. So I forgo that pleasure.

In respect of God knowing about sexual abuse taking place.. that is a true fact.... based on prayer.... victims informing him that this was happening.
Your statement concerning God does not know what happens in the future. the answer to that is prophecy (and no I do not need sources... this is all in the bible).... prophecy comes from God and for someone to argue God does not know what happens in the future is asinine when the bible shows the opposite..

Also God acting... I think from your profile that you are a christian. I daresay that at least once in your life you prayed to God.... therefore you expected Him to hear and also to act..... based on the particulars of prayer asking and receiving... I find it amazing a person would argue that God does not hear and know and does not act.

I like the Lord's prayer.... It is a statement that we ask and He hears

Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil
FOR YOURS IS THE POWER

That verse shows that the position I have taken is the correct one- God knows that sexual abuse is happening and chooses not to act....the reason why is immaterial
Posted by LesNibbs 3 years ago
LesNibbs
hi Otakujordan digesting your writing
while you are waiting for a response please read and vote for my poem 10 stars would be great
http://www.poemsclub.com...
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
I think that either would be an acceptable position for Con to take.
Posted by themohawkninja 3 years ago
themohawkninja
Is con saying that God shouldn't be charged, but he does know of the child abuse, or is con saying that God shouldn't be charged and he doesn't know about the child abuse?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
LesNibbsOtakuJordanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
LesNibbsOtakuJordanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: It is really a pity that Pro did not finish the debate as I would have liked to hear his closing statements. Con wins this debate as his arguments were well constructed and his rebuttals were left untouched by Pro. While I don not agree with Con's position on the problem of evil, he made arguments that win this debate. Spelling and Grammar go to Con, as Pro had very poor grammar. Conduct points also go to Con, due to Pro's forfeit as well as the subtle ad hominem attack in Round 2.