The Instigator
GMDebater
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
KeytarHero
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Original sin

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
KeytarHero
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/22/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,821 times Debate No: 17195
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

GMDebater

Con

Greetings! In this debate, I will argue that the Christian concept of original sin is contradictory.

We must understand what original sin means. I will use carm.org's definition

Original Sin
This is a term used to describe the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants (Rom. 5:12-21). Specifically, it is our inheritance of a sinful nature from Adam. The sinful nature originated with Adam and is passed down from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3).

Note that the NT does somewhat talk about "original sin", but it is contradicted in the OT.

This round is for acceptance only. Please be logical. No semantics please!
KeytarHero

Pro

I accept this debate. I look forward to the Instigator's opening argument.
Debate Round No. 1
GMDebater

Con

I am honoured to be debating with my friend, KeytarHero. He seems to be a good debater and am excited to learn from him.
I don't know exactly where to start, so I hope this argument will be good.

Contention 1: Death existed before the fall.

I contend that original sin is contradictory because death existed before the fall. Let's take a look at a few passages.

Adam and Eve were not expelled from the garden because they have sinned. They were removed from the garden because of the Tree of Life.

22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”—
23therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed thecherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

http://www.biblegateway.com...

Think about this logically! If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to become Imortal, then God made them mortal to begin with. Furthermore, what was so special about that tree? How did that tree grant them eternal life?

Conclusion

By thinking logically and not adding or subtracting anything, you can see how death existed before the fall. I shall also point out that the first time sin is mentioned is in Cain and Able, NOT Adam and Eve.

Contention 2: One person cannot die for the sins of another

I contend that original sin is contradictory because one person cannot die for the sins of another.

Let us take a look at Deuteronomy 24:16

"Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin" (emphasis mine)

Therefore, we clearly see that the idea that we die because Adam and Eve sinned is contradictory to the fact that we cannot die because of someonelses sin. Another good example is in Exodus. Let us take a look.

Exodus 32:30-35 Moses tries to offer himself up as a sacrifice. He wants God to punish him for the people's sin. However, God responds that it just does not work that way. If you sin, you will be put to death for YOUR sin!

And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses said unto the people, Ye have sinned a great sin: and now I will go up unto the Eternal; perhaps I shall make an atonement for your sin. And Moses returned unto the Eternal, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the Eternal said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them. And the Eternal plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made. [Exodus 32:30-35]

Ezekiel 18 is all about the fact that you cannot die or be punished for someone's sins other than your own! This is why I reject the idea of Jesus' attonment as well.

References

http://whatjewsbelieve.org...
http://whatjewsbelieve.org...

Back to you pro! I'm looking forward to this debate. Good luck.

KeytarHero

Pro

I thank GMDebater for issuing this challenge. Things have come full circle in the Scriptures because just as Adam and Eve committed the original sin, Jesus became a man and died on the cross so that we could be forgiven of our sins.

Contention 1: Death existed before the fall.

Let's take a look at what happened in the Garden.

First, God planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and told Adam and Eve not to eat from it (Genesis 2:9, 16-17). They were free to eat from any tree in the garden, save this one. Adam and Eve started life as perfect human beings because they had not yet sinned. God's standard for us is perfection, so He had to give them the possibility of sinning in order for them to truly be perfect (without the possibility of evil, there is no standard for good). God told them that disobedience would result in death (Gen. 2:17). Satan convinced Eve to eat the fruit because she "would not surely die," and indeed when she and Adam ate, they didn't die physically. However, the death in question was a spiritual death. By sinning, they were now separated from God and God was not able to fellowship with them as He had before (He actually walked and talked with Adam). Not only that, but by sinning death then entered the world (Romans 5:12). They were expelled from the garden so that they wouldn't become immortal again, but it was the act of sinning that made them mortal. Due to their sin, they were now going to die physically (Romans 6:23).

Conclusion

As you can see, the fall happened when Adam and Eve sinned, and they were made mortal (death entered the world) at the point where they sinned. Death did not exist before the fall.

Contention 2: One person cannot die for the sins of another

"Therefore, we clearly see that the idea that we die because Adam and Eve sinned is contradictory to the fact that we cannot die because of someonelses sin."

You're absolutely correct. We do not die for Adam and Eve's sin. When Adam and Eve sinned, it "opened the door," so to speak, for sin to run rampant in the world. All of creation was now cursed because of the original sin. However, as the Scriptures also attest, everyone sins (Romans 3:23), and that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). You sin and I sin. We die because we sin. That's a fact of Scripture. It's not because of Adam's sin, but our own, that we die. The result of Adam and Eve's sin is that all of creation now had a curse (Genesis 3:14-19).

However, let's look at Jesus' atonement.

When God told humanity that everyone must die for their own sins, He was talking about physical death. Even if we are forgiven by believing in Jesus and seeking repentance, we still must physically die. It's our own sin that we die for. When Jesus died on the cross, He did so to bring us back into reconciliation with God so that we can be forgiven. Even though we still physically die, we don't need to spiritually die and spend eternity in Hell (Hebrews 9:27-28).

Even though God told humans that we must be held accountable for our own sins (we must die for our own sins), it was God Himself who offered a way out of sin's punishment by sending Jesus to the cross. God is the one who has the ultimate standard of good for humanity and who issued that we must die for our own sins. Therefore, God also has the right and authority to offer a way out of that if He so chooses.

I look forward to our next round.
Debate Round No. 2
GMDebater

Con

Finally! Someone that knows what they are talking about and arguing about! Anyway, on to my case.

RRC1) My opponent and I are at a point of agreement. The reason G-d expelled Adam and Eve from the garden was because of the Tree of Life.

Think logically! Did G-d give them their immortality? NO! It was the Tree of Life.

My opponent asserts that they were sinless before and immortal before the sin. Let me ask this question. How can Adam & Eve be morally responsible for something if they did not know the difference between good and evil?

RRC2) My opponent asserts that we do die for our sins--a physical death. However, Elijah and Enoch went to heaven ALIVE and did not die for their sins.

My opponent asserts that Jesus was the attonment for our sins in a spiritual sense. However, the Bible says that G-d does not desire our sacrifices. There are many incidents in the Torah where G-d forgave sins long before Jesus came and without any sacrifice.

A classic example is king David. David sinned with Basheba by comitting adultry and killing Basheba's husband. G-d forgave David without any sacrifice. All what he did was come to humiliation and repent of our sins. That's it! That is all what we need to do is repent of our sins to find favour with G-d.

G-d will forgive us, because he said he would.

18. Who is a God like You, Who forgives iniquity and passes over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He does not maintain His anger forever, for He desires loving-kindness.
19. He shall return and grant us compassion; He shall hide our iniquities, and You shall cast into the depths of the sea all their sins.

Micha 7:18, 19 http://www.chabad.org...


Conclusion

I have shown that G-d forgives sins without attonment and have made a good resolution that G-d forgives without blood and original sin is a false doctrine.

Back to you
KeytarHero

Pro

I would again like to thank the Instigator for issuing this challenge.

RRC1) Actually, it was God. Again, Romans 5:12 tell us that through Adam sin entered the world, and death through sin. They were immortal before they sinned. God created them as perfect beings and they were sinless, and they would have never died but for their sin. The Tree of Life would have restored their immortality, so God couldn't allow that because of their sin.

They can be held morally responsible because God told them not to eat the forbidden fruit. They did it anyway. They still disobeyed a command from God. They had the freedom to obey or disobey, and they chose the latter.

RRC2) Yes, Elijah and Enoch ascended into Heaven without having to die. The honest answer is we don't know why. The Scriptures are not specific on why. We know that they both had very, very strong faith (probably the most faith of any humans who have ever lived), so God may have wanted to spare them from having to experience death due to their great faith. Some speculate they were taken to Heaven in preparation of the end times as the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3-12. We just don't know, and any answers given by anyone would be mere speculation.

Actually, the Bible doesn't say that God does not desire sacrifice. After all, we're to present our bodies as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). You are probably referring to Hosea 6:6, wherein God says, "for I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." God was not saying only mercy and no sacrifice. Our very lives are to be a sacrifice to God. But without mercy first, our sacrifice means nothing. It is an empty gesture.

You must know that sacrifices were going on for a long time. In fact, the book of Leviticus is full of rules and regulations about sacrificing. Animals were sacrificed for the atonement of sins, but it was still faith that justified true believers (Hebrews 11). Jesus was the sacrificial lamb. Because of His sacrifice on the cross, we no longer have to sacrifice animals. We can now approach Him directly and seek forgiveness for our sins.

Conclusion

The Instigator has not shown that God forgives sins without atonement. In fact, the Scrriptures are full of blood sacrifices. Either for sins in the Old Testament, or in the way we live our lives and use our bodies in the New Testament.
Debate Round No. 3
GMDebater

Con

RRRC1) So Adam and Eve did know the difference between right and wrong? Huh, this story is making little sense to me.

Let me offer a different Jewish perspective. Both trees were "correct." If Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Life, they became immortal; but if they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would become a being that dies. Before they ate of either tree, they would be in a "twilight zone." Quantum physics actually does have an explanation. Perhaps these verses foreshadow another incredible incodent.

See! Today I have set before you [a free choice] between life and good [on one side], and death and evil [on the other]... Now therefore, choose Life! (Deuteronomy 30:14,19).
G-d gave Adam and Eve a choice between life and death. It is clear which one they chose.

RRRC2) Sorry, that verse is contradicted by another verse in John.

No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. John 3:13

It is clear that the New Testament is in err; not the Old Testament.

Actually, the Bible doesn't say that God does not desire sacrifice. After all, we're to present our bodies as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). You are probably referring to Hosea 6:6, wherein God says, "for I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." God was not saying only mercy and no sacrifice. Our very lives are to be a sacrifice to God. But without mercy first, our sacrifice means nothing. It is an empty gesture.

*Facepalm* Let me give you the verse I am referring to.

Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Psalm 40:6
or as my main translation puts it:

You desired neither sacrifice nor meal offering; You dug ears for me; a burnt offering or a sin offering You did not request.

Examples of non-blood atonement


A good example is in Jonah. The city of Ninevah fell on their face before G-d, repented of their sins; then G-d forgave them. G-d does not desire a sacrifice, burnt offering, or a sin offering. G-d desires a true, repented heart--one that truly seeks forgiveness. G-d has made a promise that he will forgive you.

"Who is a God like You, Who forgives iniquity and passes over the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He does not maintain His anger forever, for He desires loving-kindness.
He shall return and grand us compassion; He shall hide our iniquities, and You shall cast into the depths of the sea all their sins." Micha 7:18-19

Conclusion

The contender does not have a full knowledge of the old testament laws. I have given examples of non-blood atonemnt and have given a strong verse that claims that G-d doesn't even REQUEST a burnt sacrifice!

Back to you.
KeytarHero

Pro

RRC1) As I have already shown, there was no death before the fall as per the verse in Romans that I gave. They weren't immortal because they were eating from that tree, they were immortal because they were created perfect. Once they disobeyed God, that's when they became mortal and were going to die at some point in their lives. You have not shown any Biblical evidence supporting your assertions.

The passage from Deuteronomy has nothing to do with Adam and Eve. However, even if it did, if you read the passage in context you will see that if they choose life, they were to serve and honor the Lord their God. This is why Adam and Eve would have lived forever, because they would have been obedient to God (i.e. they wouldn't have sinned).

RRC2) Actually, John 3:13 does not contradict Elijah and Enoch ascending up into Heaven. Consider the passage in context: "Truly, truly, I say to you, We speak what we know and testify what we have seen. And you do not receive our witness. If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And no one has ascended up to Heaven except He who came down from Heaven, the Son of Man who is in Heaven" (John 3:11-13). Jesus was not saying that no one has ever ascended into Heaven, but He was speaking to a teacher among the Pharisees. He was telling Nicodemus that the perfect knowledge of God is not obtained by any man's going up from earth to heaven to receive it -- no man has ever ascended for any such purpose. Only Christ can teach us heavenly things, for no other being has ever ascended into Heaven, that is: in order to receive and to bring back deep, spiritual teachings. Christ alone was appointed to do this.

The New Testament is not in error, only those who take the Scriptures out of context will find themselves in error.

"*Facepalm* Let me give you the verse I am referring to."

There's no reason to get testy. If you weren't being clear, that's on you. You didn't give a Scripture reference, so I was forced to consider a verse which it sounded like you were trying to use.

It is true that God forgives a sinner who repents. In fact, even though animal sacrifices were offered it was faith that justified true believers (Hebrews 11). However, animal sacrifices were still required as an atonement for sin.

God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). Animal sacrifice is an important theme found throughout Scripture because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21). Cain and Abel brought sacrifices to the Lord. Cain's was unacceptable because he brought fruit, while Abel's was acceptable because it was the “firstborn of his flock” (Genesis 4:4-5). After the flood receded, Noah sacrificed animals to God (Genesis 8:20-21). (For more on this, visit this website: http://www.gotquestions.org...;)

Again, this verse is not saying that blood sacrifices are not required at all. In fact, as in Hosea 6:6, what God desires more than that is faithfulness. Without faithfulness, all the blood sacrifices and burnt offerings are meaningless. As we can see, the Psalmist here was giving God the faithfulness He desires from all of us.

Conclusion

If the Instigator believes that blood sacrifices and offerings were not required under the Old Covenant, then it is surely him who does not have a full knowledge of the Old Testament laws. The Instigator has not given very strong Scriptural support for his first contention, and his second one denotes a lack of understanding of Jewish law.
Debate Round No. 4
GMDebater

Con

I than you for reading this debate and for my opponent for debating with me. I just want to take the last round to sum up a few points:
1) Sacrifices were not needed
2) Jesus' sacrifice was unecessary
3) We cannot die for another persons sin; so to say that G-d required Jesus's sacrifice is to say: a) God does want a sacrifice, b) God does approve of human sacrifices and c) We can die for anither's sin.

Instill do not feel these were adequately refuted.

Thank you and vote con!
KeytarHero

Pro

In closing out this debate, I would just like to point out, again, that I have refuted the Instigator's claims.

RRC1) Death did not happen before the fall. The instigator did not sum this up in his last round, so I can only conclude that he has dropped it as I have satisfactorily refuted his claim here.

RRC2)

1) Mercy and faithfulness were desired by God more than sacrifices, but sacrifices were still required.
2) Jesus' sacrifice was necessary so that we could stop sacrificing animals and approach God directly to forgive our sins (rather than having to go through a priest).
3) We die for our own sins, but God was the one who came up with the rules. He held each person accountable for his/her own sin, but sent Jesus to die on the cross to take the sins of the entire world so that any and everyone can be forgiven.

They were adequately refuted and I thank you for reading and considering the arguments presented here. Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
ok, sounds good! I'm awaiting your response.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Yes. Solid read, I'll vote tomorrow, I want to flow it again.
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
it now haves a 0 rating
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
It had a negative like rating. I had voted it up but it had a -2.
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
huh? I dont understand.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Why was this voted down the times?
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
so do I ;)
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
I love this site's new formatting system.
Posted by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
that's good. I feel i learned a lot since joining ddo
Posted by KeytarHero 5 years ago
KeytarHero
Not procrastination, just been busy. And I don't like to rush through my debates. I like to think about them for awhile before responding, and if I don't have much time I try to wait until I have ample time to respond.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
GMDebaterKeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did successful argue that without knowledge of good and evil how could one be called a sinner - that was weakly refuted by Pro. 1 pt. Pro however did strongly refute the argument of original sin in that we are our own sinners not being sinners because of the sin of adam and eve. 1 pt. Some other arguments were confused, such as the tree of life, adam could not stay in the garden and eat of perfect foods, etc. and be immortal with sin. I would give this 4:3 Pro due to obligation of BoP on Con
Vote Placed by YYW 5 years ago
YYW
GMDebaterKeytarHeroTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Difficult debate to call, really. While both sides made a laudable effort I am not convinced that CON met his self-imposed burden of proof any more effectively than PRO countered.