The Instigator
POPOO5560
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Phoenix61397
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Jesus paying for our sins

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 4 votes the winner is...
Phoenix61397
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 862 times Debate No: 59055
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (4)

 

POPOO5560

Con

Hiii....

i will argue that Jesus sacrificial death for our sins paying for it - redemption is not making any sense,its contradictory and its not fair in any shape or form. looking for a debate...

Phoenix61397

Pro

Since no arguments were offered by my opponent this round, I'll assume it's for acceptance. So I accept. Good Luck.
Debate Round No. 1
POPOO5560

Con

Ok thanks for accepting... i forgot to define some terms:

Original sin - Inheriting sin (to all humans) from Adam as a result of his first sin, eating the forbidden fruit.

Redemption - Forgiveness by believing that Jesus paying for our sins that he took our sins upon himself and died with them.

Here why Original sin and Redemption are unjust,irrational and not making sense...

1) Inheriting sin of others.

Adam and Eve sinned, so God will punish us for their sin and now everybody inheriting this sin we are guilty. that is fair? being punished for others sins, imagine one day, some police offcers comes to you and throw you to jail for rest of your life, because your great great great great grandfather killed somebody, so somebody must be responsible, so you gonna pay the price for your gggg-grandfather sin and you are guilty.make sense? nop,exacly. how can God hold me responsible for Adams sin? he cant, unless he is unjust.


2) Its contradicts the Bible itself.

Ezekiel 18:20
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die.

Accoring to this verse, poor Adam sined, so his sin will not inherit to his childrens (we), and our sins will not hold responsible Adam, imagine how many gays roaming in America, God will hold responsible Adam for that?? No.
So everyone responsible for his/her actions, the good deeds you do is yours, your bad deeds you do is yours, nobody gonna take his sins and place on another person's back... and if the the wicked repent and do what is just and right he surely live - salvation.

Jesus taking our sins for redemption, is like you take pills and your fellow firend gets healed, its not working that way, its illogical.


3) The greater the sin the greater the Redemption.

That is illogical, imagine Hitler (because of him 60 million+ died in the Second World War), believes Jesus died for his sins, and finish no punishment, he achieved salvation. heaven is his place he ran away with it, its make any sense? irrational. clearly there is no just and fairness here.

4) Humans violating Humans.

You robbed someone's motocycle, so you have sinned, Jesus died for your sins so you got free. but what about the person's right? you sinned against God and that person. if God forgave you somehow ok its his pleasure to do whatever he likes,but he cant forgive you for that person behalf, because you violated against him and God. if you got free, God is unjust.

5) God punishing his son (or himself) for the sinners.

God doesnt need to punish his son to forgive sins, if he want to forgive, he just doing it,its iirrational, where is the mercy and justice of God? if you sinned you shall get punished, he dont going out of his way to kill his own beloved son. (Imagine someone doing it in real life).

Isaiah 43:25
“I, I am he who blots out your transgressions for my own sake, and I will not remember your sins.

He can forgive anything for his own sake, it doesnt crucify Jesus his own son for that.









Phoenix61397

Pro

Thanks for the argument. I agree to the above definitions. Due to the nature of this debate (which is my opponent questioning why Jesus needed to die for our sins), I will rebut in this round. My opponent has the BoP as they are going against societal ideas. This debate assumes the Bible is fully true, as my opponent has cited it.

1) Inheriting Sin of Others

We inherit death because Adam sinned. According to Romans 6:23: "For the wages of sin is death..." Being the just judge he is, God punished humanity for its disobedience by making it mortal [1]. However, we also sin on our own. Every person sins and betrays God. We are all just as guilty as Adam. Mankind continued to deserve Adam's punishment. So the great grandfather analogy is false. God doesn't hold you responsible for Adam's sin, just upheld the punishment that Adam was given.

2) It Does Not Contradict the Bible

This Ezekial verse concerns those under the law of the Torah [2]. If they had sinned, they would make a sacrifice to God and be clean. This outside sacrifice would make up for their small sins. However, original sin is not a personal sin and therefore is inapplicable to this verse:

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted. CCC

Plenty of Bible verses, however, support original sin:
5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5)

This last statement stems from false analogy. Sin doesn't work like an illness. Christ died to fulfill the prophecies of the Bible, to destroy the effects of original sin, and to give us a way to new life rather than just death. It only works if we follow Him. Therefore, only if you follow Christ can you receive the removal of the stain of original sin and the destroying of death.

3) The Greater the Sin, the Greater the Redemption

It is not enough to believe in Christ if you do not follow his words. If you accept Christ as Lord (someone or something having power, authority, or influence; a master or ruler [3]), you accept that you must follow his teachings.

Luke 6:46 - "But why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do the things which I say?"
Matthew 7:21-27 - Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter

Murdering millions of people is not consistent with Christ's teachings. Only if Hitler truly repented and revoked what he had done will he be allowed into heaven. God forgives. First you claim He is too harsh and then not harsh enough.

4) Humans Violating Humans

Jesus died so that, if we follow him, we can enter heaven, despite our sins. Divine forgiveness and earthly forgiveness are different. You claim that God is unjust because he forgives us when we sin against Him. This is a separate entity from the other person. He never claims to forgive us for the other person. The other person must do it themself. The two sets of forgiveness are separate.

5) God does not "punish" Himself

God sacrificed Himself, not punished Himself, for our sins. This shows pure love, letting Himself be tortured and die so that He could save us. As my opponent keeps demonstrating, God needs to be just. By one man's life we were brought death, so the just reversal of this would be one man's death bringing us life. My opponent asks for a real life example. Here is one [4]. A father here sacrifices his life for his child, so that his child, a disabled person, who may put himself in danger in the future, will live. This was not a punishment, but a sacrifice.

6) Isaiah

It is interesting that my opponent chose Isaiah, who described Jesus and the need for Him so fully [5]. This verse, again, refers to individual sins, not the stain of original sin.

Sources will have to be in the comments, as I am out of space.
Debate Round No. 2
POPOO5560

Con


1) Inheriting sin of others.

My opponent claims we are guily as Adam, and we continue to deserve Adam punishment. thats my problem. how we deserve it? because the Bible says so? God will punish us for Adam's sin, God is unjust. How we are guilty of something we werent consulted? irrational. if the police throw me to jail for my gggg-grandfather crime, its the same as God's logic in the Bible, i cant see whats the different between this example and the Original sin.

Upheld the punishment of Adam means God punish us for something not responsible for, because Adam didnt ask me before eating the apple, if God punish me for that, surly God hold me responsible for that. your first part and the second part of your sentence are inconsistence.



2) Its contradicts the Bible itself.

How its not contradicting? why God punish me for Adams personal sin? or maybe if you were consulted with Adam before eating the apple it would not be personal.

20
The soul who sins shall die
(Adam sinned, not we) The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father (we cant bear the suffering because of Adam's sin) nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son (Adam cant suffer for the millions of gays in america its not his business) The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. simple language.

Pro - "Original sin does not have the character of a personal fault"

So again its unjust blaming me for Adams sin.



3) The greater the sin the greater the Redemption.

Pro claims that its not enough for you to believe in Jesus death/resurrection/as a lord, you must also follow Jesus teachings/works.
Its not true, according to Christain theology salvation is only through faith alone in Jesus Christ, because Paul says so:

Ephesians 2:8–9:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Here a link of well known Christain site explaining in brief that faith is only through believing not works... http://www.gotquestions.org...;

Secondly you qouting only Jesus, Im not disagreeing with Jesus, the problem is Paul contraticts Jesus, Jesus followed the Old testment and encouraged the Jews to follow it, but Paul contradict it. according to Jesus salvation is to follow him and being better than the Jews (keeping the commandments). according to Paul in believing in Christ alone...


4) Humans violating Humans.

pro - "Jesus died so that, if we follow him, we can enter heaven, despite our sins". & "The two sets of forgiveness are separate." (sin against God and humans).

irrational. if i violated somebody (example stealing somebody's motocycle) and i believe in Christ - i would go to heaven (despite our sins), so what is rational there? who cares about the forgiveness of Humans... if eventually i will reach heaven, thats enough. illogical why God wont punish me for that? God must be Just. Justice mean dealing equally (for God forgiveness and the victim).


5) God punishing his son (or himself) for the sinners.

Pro claim that Jesus sacrifice (God) is pure love, How its love? torturing and killing his innocent Son who did nothing because of our sins (including murderers, criminals, rapists...) this is not love. this is killing innocent poeple instead of the criminals who deserve it and leting them to be free from sin, irrational. The analogy you gave is a tricky one its not the same.
imagine you turturing you own son for rapist you saw in the News because you love this guy so much. its not love its murder.


Isaiah 43:25 is showing that God can forgive sins on his own sake. if you say its for personal sins, Adam's sin is a personal its not ours! this is my problem Adam didnt ask you/me before doing so, why you should be responsible and get punished its unjust.

Phoenix61397

Pro

Thanks for the argument.

1) Inheriting Sin of Others

My opponent seems to be ignoring my points here, so I'll demonstrate them with an analogy. Let's say for the sake of argument that the mayor of your town, who happens to also be immortal (this is hard to demonstrate in terms of something that could happen without supernatural intervention in the world) makes all the laws of the town. Your gggg-grandfather decides to break one of these laws by stealing something. He is put in jail, but before he is jailed, he passes his knowledge of how to steal things to his son. His son is prone to stealing because of his father's fault. This son passes the knowledge to his son, etc., they eventually are each jailed, until it gets to you. You steal something, because your father taught you to. Now the mayor, tired of seeing his citizens jailed, cares about them so much that he takes your life sentence in jail for you so that he may inspire you to stop telling your children to steal. If you accept his sacrifice and realize that his laws are just, you and your family may escape jail forever. This is a fairly accurate representation of original sin and Jesus' sacrifice.

2) Biblical Contradiction

My opponent has misunderstood what original sin is. This Bible verse claims that "the soul who sins shall die." We die BECAUSE of original sin. This verse already assumes original sin exists, and applies to those under the Torah and Mosaic Law. It had no pertinence to Adam's sin, as Adam wasn't under Mosaic Law [1].

3) Redemption
My opponent does not post the whole verse here:

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are God's handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do. (Ephesians 2:8-10).

It talks about us being saved by grace [2]. In other words, faith in Jesus' death and resurrection imparted grace, so that we may go out and do works in His name. This doesn't contradict Jesus' teachings or the necessity of his death (which I might remind voters is the subject of the debate), but rather justifies them.

James also says:
"Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." (James 2:17)

4) Humans

I honestly don't understand what my opponent is getting at here. Why would we be punished by God if someone didn't forgive us for a wrong we had committed? How is this justice in any way? I never claimed we never had to ask God's forgiveness (I claimed the opposite) but my opponent ignores this completely and just assumes that because some Christians believe in Sola Fide that any arguments I make here are completely futile. The arguments by my opponent are also getting increasingly unrelated to Jesus' death and more related to Sola Fide.

5) God "punishing" Jesus

So many assumptions are made by my opponent here! First, God didn't do any torturing or killing. Humans did that of their own free will. Secondly, Jesus was willing to give Himself up. It was a sacrifice, not a murder (Once again, my opponent kind of just ignores this). My opponent does get one thing right: Jesus didn't deserve to die. He offered Himself up, to take the place of all humans (especially Adam, who, in his sin, represented all of humanity [1] ) who had sinned. Remember the sacrifice needed in Mosaic Law to forgive sin? Jesus was the sacrifice. Only someone who represented all of man and had the impact of a divine sacrifice could make up for all of the sin of humanity. I gave an analogy above.

Lastly, my opponent once again ignores my argument that original and personal sin are different. Adam still had the possibility of reaching God [3]. The effects of original sin were not the same as the effects of an individual sin. Jesus' death was still necessary. I have proven this point and refuted all those of my opponent. He has not filled his BoP.

Thanks for the debate! (Sources will be in the comments)
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by POPOO5560 3 years ago
POPOO5560
Sorry for the small space i thought it would be enough...
Posted by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
Maybe. I'll see if anybody else wants it first.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Fatihah 3 years ago
Fatihah
POPOO5560Phoenix61397Tied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: The point of the debate was to discuss whether or not it is just, rational, or sensible to punish someone for what someone else has done. For two straight rounds, Pro completely ignored addressing this and instead focused on the difference between what a personal and original sin is and the interpretation of scripture. Finally, Pro decides to address the issue with an analogy, but in the last round, making Con unable to respond. So for dodging the issue, and then addressing it at the last minute to prevent Con from responding makes Pro Lose the debate. Con wins by a landslide. Those who are reasonable can see this. (The analogy is invalid anyway, since it spoke of passing knowledge and one choosing to sin of their own free will from such knowledge. Whereas original sin is inherited, without choice. So the analogy was inaccurate. Yet this flaw was not reason for a vote against him. It was for introducing it at the last minute with no chance for Con to address it).
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
POPOO5560Phoenix61397Tied
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: pro used more sources; and con used lots of Straw mans that didn't work to his/her arguments
Vote Placed by ben671176 3 years ago
ben671176
POPOO5560Phoenix61397Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: What lannan13 said.
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years ago
lannan13
POPOO5560Phoenix61397Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had terrible grammar so that point goes to Pro. Pro also had a greater number of sources so he gains that point. Con failed to see the difference of original sin and personal sin. Con had miskewed many of Pro's arguments causing the debate to go to Pro. Pro had fully explained the original sin analolgy several times