The Instigator
solo
Con (against)
Losing
66 Points
The Contender
InquireTruth
Pro (for)
Winning
100 Points

The Christian god is Fair

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 27 votes the winner is...
InquireTruth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/18/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,854 times Debate No: 5749
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (50)
Votes (27)

 

solo

Con

Resolved: The Christian god exists.

The Christian god is not fair as described in the following bible passage:

http://bibleresources.bible.com...

Deuteronomy 32:4:
4 He is the Rock; his deeds are perfect.
Everything he does is just and fair.
He is a faithful God who does no wrong;
how just and upright he is!

The Christian god is selective of whom he directly communicates with, which is just one example of unfairness. If he were fair, he'd speak directly to everyone, but elevating the status of some and not others is completely unfair.

The Christian god is attributed to talents and endowments that each person receives. If some are born into privilege and wealth while others are not, it hardly makes him fair. If some are born with amazing voices, acting ability or athletic prowess while others are not, it also makes him very unfair.

The Christian god is not a fair god.
InquireTruth

Pro

My opponent is arguing that the Christian God is not fair.

"Resolved: The Christian god exists."
Here my opponent has contradicted himself. Since he is negating this resolution, he must affirm that God does not exist. If God does not exist than he cannot be unfair.

"The Christian god is not fair"
"The Christian god is not a fair god."
These statements presuppose that the Christian God does indeed exist, for God cannot be unfair if he does not exist.

Either my opponent affirms that the Christian God does not exist which consequently debunks his own assertion that God is unfair. Or he contradicts his resolution and believes that the Christian God exists and is unfair. If the Christian God exists you cannot call him unfair because that is a contradiction. IF the Christian God exists than he MUST BE JUST because that is a necessary tenet of the Christian God.

Lastly, your scripture reference is inadequate because you used a translation that is a paraphrase. Do not use NLT.
Debate Round No. 1
solo

Con

<< Since he is negating this resolution, he must affirm that God does not exist. If God does not exist than he cannot be unfair.>>
That is your own assertion; I didn't resolve to the Bible being truthful. The Christian god exists (in this debate) and he is unfair. There is no contradiction in my argument whatsoever.

<>
It isn't.

<< IF the Christian God exists than he MUST BE JUST because that is a necessary tenet of the Christian God.>>
Then the burden of proof lies with you. I disagree. As there are contradictions in the Bible itself, he CANNOT BE JUST.
The Christian god is punishing everyone for original sin when Adam and Eve committed the crime. How is that fair? We should all be in Eden, if he were fair.

Your point about my choice of Bible is completely invalid. We aren't even debating in the language that the Bible was originally printed in, so you don't get to make that call.
InquireTruth

Pro

"The Christian god exists"
Then you contradict your resolution.

"and he is unfair."
If he exists, then he is the metric by which we judge fair. That is a necessary quality of the Christian God. Simply calling something unfair does not make it so.

"I didn't resolve to the Bible being truthful."
Yet you are using it to argue your premises?

"Then the burden of proof lies with you."
If the god of whom you speak is not just or fair, than he is not the Christian God. In order for god to qualify as the Christian God, fairness and justness are a necessary quality.

"Your point about my choice of Bible is completely invalid."
It is not a literal translation. It should read: http://bibleresources.bible.com...

1. A god who is unfair cannot be the Christian God, that is a contradiction.
2. If the Bible is not true you cannot use it to justify your premises.
3. You contradict your resolve in argument #1.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 2
50 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by solo 8 years ago
solo
Well... so much for solo2070. His account is GONE-zo! *sigh*
Posted by solo2070 8 years ago
solo2070
Normally I would not engage in stating opinions without first trying it out myself. However, I have been on debate teams, and have engaged, judged, and prepared for debates. So I do understand a bit on the techniques and skills required to win and participate in a debate. When looking at who won a debate I do not look at what my opinion of the issue is but rather who presented more points to be refuted and by the end of the debate had the least refuted points. Already this is one thing that I wish were changed by the voting system.

With your further clarification of the language thing I think I see what you were saying much more clearly now. Thank you for that.

with regards to the logic and religion, I think that I too have walked onto shady ground, as logic is a pretty subjective term. There is logic within the realm of religion, but there is also logic within the realm of science. The problem is when they are brought together as they often do not go together and one persons logical view does not mesh with the others. Within the Christian doctrine most things makes a lot of logical sense, but to a person that looks at it from a scientific point of view for example it will look like a bunch of crap. Also vice versa, when looking at evolution for example.

To clarify more what I was saying about logic. Logic can be used to present and prove a point, and in opinion debates that is often the case. There just needs to be some sort of an order, and often it is a less than ideal way to prove or disprove a point as it can easily be picked to pieces when the other persons logic is based in a different background.

I do think that you bring a lot of interesting ways of looking at different topics and they would be hard to discuss. I do look forward to our debate as I feel that it will be a debate that makes me look at things a different way which will only broaden my points of view on topics.
Posted by solo 8 years ago
solo
Since you're willing to debate with me, as commented elsewhere, I'm going to keep this as nice as possible. It is a pet peeve of mine when new members come on the site and criticize debates without ever having won/lost/tied a debate. I just view it as poor website etiquette. It's like telling someone how to drive from the backseat and not even having a driver's license or criticizing government and politics while never casting a vote.

As for your comment regarding Inquire, you clearly don't know about it. I will admit that I was frustrated as I struggled to reach mutual understanding with him. He might get it. You don't, so I'll try again.

I can read music and play the piano, but I do not have an intimate understanding of music. This is my estimation of Inquire's linguistic abilities. Can that evolve? I'm sure it could with dedication, but I do not think he has the intimate understanding to realize all of the dynamics in speech that are affected when one translates from one language to another. "I speak to eat" was the best example that I could come up with that he would be able to understand, as he understands Spanish. "Hablo a comer."

There are just some things that some people can't/won't/don't understand and this might be one of those things for you and possibly Inquire. I personally don't understand how bisexuality works, but I know it exists, so I fully accept it. I just don't understand how folks can be sexually attracted to both sexes because I'm not wired that way.

I do take issue about being subjected to scrutiny in the area of logic for a religious debate. Since when does logic apply to religion? You believe that a virgin gave birth to a god. How is that logical? I said I'd be nice, so I'll stop right here and leave the logic of golden plates and seer stones alone.

I thank you for voting on this debate and I appreciate that you listed your reasoning for your vote.

Welcome to Debate.org!
By the way, great name! ;)
Posted by solo2070 8 years ago
solo2070
I voted for the Pro for a number of reasons.

1. I feel that Pro made more points that needed refuting with more than a simple "It isn't" for example.

2. I feel that con contradicted himself into a corner when he said

"I didn't resolve to the Bible being truthful. The Christian god exists (in this debate) and he is unfair"

The Burden of proof lies with the con, as the basic Christian belief is that God is just and fair and he was making a statement to the contrary. By simply making the statement it does not make it so. He needs to back it up with some substance using something as logic, ethics, or human behavior to do so.

3. I feel that the con lead the debate off topic just enough to not cause both parties to not discuss the nature of God as stated in the argument.

Solo just stating your opinion, even in an opinion topic, is not a very good argument. You need to convince me (and others) of your point of view. Don't tell me I'm wrong, tell me how your right. Or to re-word that, still refute the opponents point, but show your points with reasons why your right.

There are other reasons why I voted Pro, but I will stop here.

Solo to attack Inquire about his knowledge or ability to understand the bible in Greek is foolish unless you have been studying the ability to do so. have you? If not, how would you know for a fact the degree of difficulty required to do so? If you don't know the degree required how can you pass a valid judgement. If you do however, understand by some valid reason other than you just think so, than I sincerely apologize.
Posted by solo 8 years ago
solo
Good luck with that.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
I do not communicate with Biblical Hebrew and Greek because they are not spoken languages. I have learned them for the specific reason of understanding the Bible in its original context.
Posted by solo 8 years ago
solo
I believe you are familiar with your material, as you want to see it. It's clear you don't "understand" language the way that I understand it. Though you can communicate in other languages, it doesn't mean you understand it. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I speak to eat. (Understand?)
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Really? Then how can you make arguments about direct translations and ancient literary practices when you don't understand the language that the Bible was originally printed in?"

Do you know what language the Bible was originally printed in? The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. There is one phrase in Aramaic in the New Testament, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani."

"Or are you fluent in all of them? Or do you have to go back to one language for it all to make sense?"
Well, obviously I am fluent in English. I am proficient in Spanish (I was taught in a public school, but have gotten much better with colloquially communicating). Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek are no longer spoken languages. Though never in Hebrew, I do often dream in Greek (this is probably because I have learned Koine Greek using a modern dialect and not the standardized Erasmian pronunciation).

Solo, this stuff is the focus of my schooling, If you are going to ask a leading question you should at least be aware of the material you are referring to.
Posted by solo 8 years ago
solo
Thanks for you vote and your reasoning behind it, Harlan. The same to all the other considerate voters; it is a appreciated.
Posted by Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
I think that PRO won this debate with the point that god defines what fairness is.
27 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
soloInquireTruthTied
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 solo2070 8 years ago
solo2070
soloInquireTruthTied
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 
Vote Placed by RequireTruth 8 years ago
RequireTruth
soloInquireTruthTied
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 Harlan 8 years ago
Harlan
soloInquireTruthTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
soloInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
soloInquireTruthTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
soloInquireTruthTied
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 K_Rich3 8 years ago
K_Rich3
soloInquireTruthTied
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 TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
soloInquireTruthTied
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 NickyB 8 years ago
NickyB
soloInquireTruthTied
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