The Instigator
Konflikt208
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
FritzStammberger
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

The atonement of sins is an immoral and illogical doctrine

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 5 votes the winner is...
Konflikt208
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,871 times Debate No: 29390
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

Konflikt208

Pro

The atonement is an immoral doctrine, specifically "substitutionary atonement" which holds that Christ suffered and died on behalf of humankind. The first round will be for opening arguments. Con will be in favor for a moral atonement doctrine. I will be in favor for an immoral atonement doctrine. Con shall have the burden of proof since it is a major doctrinal component in Christianity and stated as being moral from Christian religious leaders. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Responsibility is by definition: accountability: the state, fact, or position of being accountable to somebody or for something

Not only is the atonement for sins immoral because it allows a guilty person to dodge their responsiblity via scapegoating, but it is also illogical.
It is illogical because punishment is the appropriate response for the one who is guilty of breaking a certain law. The important element of retributive justice then is that the guilty party and only the guilty part should be punished, and thus it is logically impossible to punish an innocent person. To punish an innocent person contradicts the very definition of the word "punish" in the judicial sense. Thus, the substitutionary theory is an oxymoron.
FritzStammberger

Con

My opponent fails to fully comprehend the gospel of Jesus Christ.

"But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:8

"All people have sinned against God. But, God is infinitely holy and righteous. He must punish the sinner, the Law- breaker. If He didn't, then His law is not Law for there is no law that is a law without a punishment. The punishment for breaking the Law is death, separation from God. Therefore, we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God. Since we are stained by sin and cannot keep the Law of God, then the only one who could do what we cannot is God Himself. That is why Jesus is God in flesh. He is both divine and human. He was made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and He fulfilled it perfectly. Therefore, His sacrifice to God the Father on our behalf is of infinite value and is sufficient to cleanse all people from their sins and undo the offense to God."
http://carm.org...

Therefore, salvation is by grace through faith since it was not by our keeping the Law, but by Jesus, God in flesh, who fulfilled the Law and died in our place.

Ephesians 2:8-9

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

This is why the gospel of Jesus is the most astounding event of human history and utterly defies our initial conceptions of what is logical and necessary.
Debate Round No. 1
Konflikt208

Pro

The atonement is an immoral doctrine, specifically "substitutionary atonement" which holds that Christ suffered and died on behalf of humankind. The first round will be for opening arguments. Con will be in favor for a moral atonement doctrine. I will be in favor for an immoral atonement doctrine. Con shall have the burden of proof since it is a major doctrinal component in Christianity and stated as being moral from Christian religious leaders. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Responsibility is by definition: accountability: the state, fact, or position of being accountable to somebody or for something

Not only is the atonement for sins immoral because it allows a guilty person to dodge their responsiblity via scapegoating, but it is also illogical.
It is illogical because punishment is the appropriate response for the one who is guilty of breaking a certain law. The important element of retributive justice then is that the guilty party and only the guilty part should be punished, and thus it is logically impossible to punish an innocent person. To punish an innocent person contradicts the very definition of the word "punish" in the judicial sense. Thus, the substitutionary theory is an oxymoron.

Con did not show proof that the atonement throw sacrifice is moral. You can post as many quotes from the bible, but they still do not show how this act is moral. You are basically stating that god has the power therefore it is right. But might does not necessarily make right. If god is almighty, then there are many more moral ways to give forgiveness for transgressions against god. A sacrifice is not necessary.
Plus it is not a real sacrifice, for Jesus was supposedly resurrected. The act of god giving his son to die is immoral.

Con states that "we sinners need a way to escape the righteous judgment of God." This is an immoral statement, explaining that instead of being responsible, we need to try and dodge the blame.

If we are going to be saved by grace through faith, why send Jesus to die?

According to Christianity, God gave us our sense of right and wrong. The Bible teaches that Jesus suffered in the place of sinners, while Jesus was sinless and thus innocent. Therefore, the atonement is a contradiction; otherwise, Christians have to admit that its okay for God to do what he tells man not to do.

The Old Testament also makes numerous statements that God greatly dislikes human sacrifice, because it was a practiced by non-Jews to appease their gods (Lev. 18:21; Deut. 18:10). However, God did command Abraham to kill his own son Isaac in Genesis 22, however God at the last moment stops the sacrifice and was satisfied with Abraham's obedience. This very fact, carried to its logical conclusion, would eliminate the necessity of the sacrifice death of Christ. It eliminates the atonement and thus over turns the whole Christian Gospel. If sacrifice is unacceptable to God, then the sacrifice of Jesus was not acceptable.
FritzStammberger

Con

1. "Con did not show proof that the atonement through sacrifice is moral."

- Not only is it moral, it is the greatest moral act that anyone could have ever committed.

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
John 15:13

2. "If we are going to be saved by grace through faith, why send Jesus to die?"

Jesus is the manifestation of Gods grace. What Jesus did manifests Gods grace to us.

God loves us and blesses us not because of who we are or what we can do, but because of who He is and how great His love is for us.

"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:"
1 Peter 1:18-19

3. My opponent believes the sacrifice of Jesus was not acceptable morally. But without the God of the Bible my opponent has NO foundation for objective moral value statements such as this.

- Let me ask you, what is your foundation for your moral judgement? society? yourself? if it is either of these it is merely a subjective opinion with no foundation in objective reality.

Thus Jesus dying for our sins is not only moral but is actually the most moral thing that any being has ever done in the history of the universe.

For he came "to seek and to save that which was lost." Luke 19:10.
Debate Round No. 2
Konflikt208

Pro

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

A mother working 2 jobs for her children, soldiers in the fields dying for our freedom, doctors putting their own health at stake to heal the inflicted, these are true sacrifices which display the greatest love hath no god than this.

"Jesus is the manifestation of Gods grace. What Jesus did manifests Gods grace to us."
This is not an answer to the morality of the atonement. You must also demonstrate this statements validity.

"My opponent believes the sacrifice of Jesus was not acceptable morally. But without the God of the Bible my opponent has NO foundation for objective moral value statements such as this."

-" Let me ask you, what is your foundation for your moral judgement? society? yourself? if it is either of these it is merely a subjective opinion with no foundation in objective reality."

This is a whole other debate, that I would be happy to debate with you later. But since you asked I shall answer.
I do believe that moral objective values exsist from natural means, not supernatural means. If you base morals on say the Christian god, then all you have done is set up a theocratic totalitarian state where what ever god says goes; be that child mutilation or murder of innocent people. Like I said earlier, might does not make right.
You stated earlier "cannot keep the LAW OF GOD", which I assume means this is where your foundation for morality comes from. If this is the case, I would like to point out that law is not equivalent to morality. God could impliment many laws, but they can still be morally bankrupt.

We are physical beings living in a physical universe; subject to physical laws. This means we can affirm truths about how things affect us. If morality is about well-being, then there must be certain baseline things, such as, life is generally preferable to death, which come not from anything revealed by a diety, but by purely natural means. Death is obviously a violation of well-being. With these simplistic qualities we can build systems of morality. Then if we go further on with these implications, we see that in a given situation there exist a finite set of possible actions which we can compare with other actions and determine that some may be better than others. This means that there must be a set of one or more actions for any given situation that represent the pinnacle of objective morality for that situation. We make assesments with respect to values.
And even if objective moral values do not exist, so what! Morality is necessarily the well-being of conscience, living creatures and bound to the physical limitations of this universe.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
For the purpose of arguement lets say that this crucifixion did take place. It is said that to obtain this gift, I am responsible for the entire event, even though I was not present and had no part or say in the matter. In addition, I am required to believe that this whole event of agony was necessary for an earlier crime that I also did not have a part in; the eating on an apple....... This compounding of the sins of the father, original sin, is entirely immoral. If a baby is born to a women who was raped, based on your "god" law, this baby is sinful. That is wrong.....

Lastly the atonement's immorality is also bound to another immoral action. If I use the free will, that god has given me and choose not to believe in this act, then I am condemned to eternal punishment. - Immoral....

For he came "to seek and to save that which was lost." Luke 19:10.

Really, I thought he came "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34
FritzStammberger

Con

1. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

- you said "putting their own health at stake to heal the inflicted, these are true sacrifices which display the greatest love"

exactly!

What did Jesus do?

He put his own health at stake to heal the inflicted.

and you agree with me that this displays the greatest love.!

2. "Jesus is the manifestation of Gods grace. What Jesus did manifests Gods grace to us."

-you said "This is not an answer to the morality of the atonement. You must also demonstrate this statements validity."

I just did in #1 above.

3. you seem to affirm objective morality, but still fail to provide any bases for it whatsoever.

you say "we are subject to physical laws"
- This implies a law giver.

if God exists than God provides a solid foundation for these objective physical and moral laws. If God does not exist you have NO foundation for objective moral values. I asked you to provide a foundation or bases and you just went off railing against the christian religion. You failed to provide any bases, thus we can affirm that God is the most logical and rational bases for objective moral values. Now imagine this God who designed these laws entered into his creation to save the morally fallen mankind, and his creations mocked and ridiculed him, tortured him and crucified him. How noble a deed!! how pathetic we were. If you fail to see the grace and mercy of God demonstrated in this act than God help you.
"it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

4. you say it is wrong to think a baby sinful. I agree a baby is a very innocent and precious looking but I bet my life that the baby if it grows to be a mature adult will lie at least once, probably steal at least something small it will think evil thoughts now and then, it may even do a lot worse in the course of its life. The bible teaches we are all sinful and so far I have found this to be 100% accurate, do you know of 1 single person who has never sinned?"...I do, Jesus Christ.

5. Yes - if you "choose not to believe in this act, then I am condemned to eternal punishment."

Once presented with the gospel of Jesus Christ and his death on the cross to pay for our sins you will be held accountable for your decision regarding Christ. The bible says in Phillipians 2:10

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;"

I surrendered my life to Jesus a few years ago and it was the best decision I ever made.

Mathew 16:15

"He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Konflikt208 4 years ago
Konflikt208
My opponent stated that breaking the law was punishable with DEATH, separation from god. If there were a morally benevolent god, why would death be a punishment?
Posted by Konflikt208 4 years ago
Konflikt208
Just want to thank Fritz for the fun debate.
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
The "substitutional theory" is a family of different views on atonement. It just works as a catch-all grouping for them. I'm not sure if the model of atonement I have in mind is substitutional or not....
Posted by Konflikt208 4 years ago
Konflikt208
I would like to focus on The Substitutional theory, but sure which ever one your have the best evidence for.
Posted by popculturepooka 4 years ago
popculturepooka
So we can argue for ANY atonement theory, correct?
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
I'd take it if not for the burden of proof.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by BornOKTheFirstTime 4 years ago
BornOKTheFirstTime
Konflikt208FritzStammbergerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued his point from Christian dogma. Only in that universe does his argument make sense. Pro, on the other hand, argued from a sense of what is right and wrong. I agree that it is immoral to allow someone else to take the responsibility of your actions. That is what we are taught as children, and we teach it to our children. Would you encourage your child to take the rap for what another kid did? Additionally, the whole premise that anyone had to die for our 'sins' is ridiculous. God made us sinful, demanded sacrifice and then killed his own son (himself) to atone for the things he made us do in the first place? He's God. Why did anyone have to die? (plus Jesus got to go to heaven afterward, so he got out of this life early and get to the goal of heaven. What's the sacrifice?)
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
Konflikt208FritzStammbergerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO argued succinctly that CON had a burden of proof to establish that sacrifice of one person can possibly "cover" the punishment of a person. While CON's case was lacking in that he didn't even cover how retributive justice is objectively moral in the first place, and pro demonstrated that argument of morality by authority is flawed, as might does not make right, owing back to the is/ought problem and the Euthephro Dilemma. Sources to PRO because PRO's source was helpful to his purpose for it, whereas CON's source was just one long assertion fallacy.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Konflikt208FritzStammbergerTied
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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: It was, I feel, pretty poor of Pro to shift the burden of proof when pretty much any metric of judging that would give it to Pro. Still, Con accepted, and sort of failed to meet that burden. Sources to Con anyway because CARM is an objectively more reliable source than Wikipedia.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
Konflikt208FritzStammbergerTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con really had no case, and loses the sources vote for referencing the bible as if it were not a collection of illogical myths.
Vote Placed by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
Konflikt208FritzStammbergerTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: To use the entertainingly bold words of CON, PRO "...fails to fully comprehend the gospel of Jesus Christ." PRO evaluates divine act by human standards of justice, and con indirectly points out the divergence between the morals of men and the laws of God by citing biblical verse to explain the meaning of the crucifixion. PRO tries and fails to shift the BOP from himself (where it properly lies, given that indeed he was the one who made the -fairly brave- claim). Both continue to stumble over the difference between divine and human law. In all of this, PRO never proved the validity of his claim (the thing he was supposed to affirm, given the debate itself). Both might benefit from reading some of the many works of St. Thomas Aquinas.