The Instigator
I-am-a-panda
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
Revolution1902
Con (against)
Losing
19 Points

The bible and church claims humans gaining knowledge is a sin

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,125 times Debate No: 5909
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (7)

 

I-am-a-panda

Pro

I would like to thank in advance whoever challenges me in this debate. To adopt the con side you must:
1. Believe in the bible, including genesis.
2. In a Christian church's teachings.

My claim is this, The bible says humans learning knowledge is a sin. I have proof of this.

Firstly, in Genesis it says that God forbid Adam and Eve from eating from the tree of knowledge. This means that God's will is for humans to not gain knowledge. It is not put in that exact wording, put here is a link to the passage : http://www.biblegateway.com...

Secondly, the church has adopted a stance against the challenging of what the bible preaches. proof of this is Galileo's inquisition. However, my opponent may claim that the protestant chruch does not teach this. But they performed the burning of heretics in Geneva.

As well as this, the Church challenges global warming and the theory that the Universe will die out, not by claims it has made, but by mass, I quote from a prayer 'an everlasting world for ever and ever amen'. Although people argue that the universe won't die out and that global warming doesn't exist, that's part of the bigger picture, and there is far more proof that global warming and the universe will eventually die out.
Revolution1902

Con

First of I would Like to thank my opponent for debating me.

I will set out to do two things in this in my first argument.

1. I will try to prove that God was trying to protect us from the knowledge of sin not from the knowledge of good and useful things.

2. I will try to prove that God desires us to learn and grow in knowledge.

Genesis 2 16-17And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." says that the tree in the garden is not to be eaten of because you will surely die. This tree is not just a tree that gives "knowledge but rather a tree that gives knowledge of sin and the difference between good and evil which God did not desires us to know so that we may be protected of sin. You can see throughout Genesis 1 and 2 that God's desire was for man to be as full of joy as posssible.

Secondly the Bible talks about knowledge over well over 100 times; many of these times it is talking about knowledge as something that is something to be desired and something that is given from God as a gift. An example is Psalm 119: 65-67 65 Do good to your servant
according to your word, O LORD.

66 Teach me knowledge and good judgment,
for I believe in your commands.

67 Before I was afflicted I went astray,
but now I obey your word.

More examples are Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
Proverbs 10:14Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.

I also want to say that Jesus desires us to have knowledge and that it is given from him to us You can see this in Luke chapter 11: 52 "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." You can see here that it is people who are preventing people from growing in knowledge not God.

I will end with one last passage:

Colossians 2:2-4 My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I would like to thank Revolution for accepting this debate, and wish him the best of luck.

My opponent has presented some bible passages in his first round. He claims these promote that God wishes that humans want their knowledge to grow. However, the Bible is often open for interpretation.

Proverbs 2:6 For the LORD gives wisdom, and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.
Interpretation: This says that the Lord gives wisdom and tells his followers knowledge and understanding. However, this only addresses his followers, not Humans in general.

Proverbs 10:14Wise men store up knowledge, but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.
Interpretation: This doesn't make reference to God. But I would interpret it as Religious men know alot, and heretics say stupid things as they oppose the Church.

My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, 3in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.
Interpretation: This says that the knowledge they will gain is not knowledge we have today that advanced civilizations, but knowledge of God, which has never been discovered.

My opponent has given proverbs that say God wants Human to gain knowledge, but he wants his followers, who he sees as a more elite group to gain knowledge. One of the debate requirements was to believe in the teaching of a Christian church.

If you chose Catholicism, you believe that the Pope is a direct descendant from St. peter and is God's line to the earth. Therefore, the actions of every pope were justifiable by God's command. Ergo, forcing Galileo to take back all of his ground breaking achievements, banning contraception which led to the outbreak of AIDS in Africa and burning heretics in 'Acts of Faith' were all justifiable.

If you chose Protestantism, Calvin's burning of heretics in Geneva and the Anglicans destroying of catholic monasteries in Ireland, often the only centres of learning.

As you can see, my opponent has not defended the church's teaching and has given us quotes from the bible, which can be interpreted until they actually turn against his argument. Unless he can fathom why the chruch he believes in promotes gaining knowledge that can advance civilization, then he only has half an argument.
Revolution1902

Con

Revolution1902 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
I-am-a-panda

Pro

To summarize my points:
1. God intends for Humans to know knowledge to what he feels necessarry, and all else is a sin.
2. The church wants to limit what it's followers know, and their burning of heretics proves that.
I urge you to vote pro as my opponent has not yet rebutted point 2, and has only given bible passages to disprove point 1 which, as the church admits, is interpretable to a certain degree.

I hope revolution will respond with rebuttal to my round 2.
Revolution1902

Con

Revolution1902 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I hate politics sometimes.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Because some people will vote against you simply because of your stance.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
My opponent forfeited 2 rounds, how is he possibly winning?
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I think I just ogt an auto win because he forfeited both rounds
Posted by Tinkerbell 8 years ago
Tinkerbell
Con says that he "will try to prove that God was trying to protect us from the knowledge of sin not from the knowledge of good and useful things." In a way i agee with him, but at the same time if God did not want us to have knowledge of sin then he would of never let Adam and Eve succeed in the Garden of Eden. God does not want to see us fall on our faces but sometimes thats what we need in order to change. Also Like i have been told plenty of times "God will not place nothing in our life that we can not handle."
Posted by 1994bookworm 8 years ago
1994bookworm
Pro says: God intends for Humans to know knowledge to what he feels necessarry, and all else is a sin."
but the resolution asks only for knowledge. it does not specify what kind of knowledge
so necessary knowledge and other knowledge are both included in the resolution.
Pro has just argued against himself....
o.0
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said."

Demonstrating that what you claim the deity you worship did is a performative contradiction has something to do with that claim :D.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
No round 2 response from revolution? he was on 23 hours ago, so he hasn't been away or anything.
Posted by elgeibo 8 years ago
elgeibo
Pope's are not direct decedents of St. Paul, even to the Roman Catholic church. The RC's believe that when Jesus told Peter that he was to be the rock on which he built his church, he was declared the speaker for God on Earth. Now, each and every Pope is considered another rock on the foundation (to keep with the imagery) and in doing so are the spiritual successors, but not blood decedents. F -.

And your "interpretation" to prove that the Bible can be translated differently is outrageously ridiculous. It is as if I were speaking of views of evolution and saying ridiculous things like, "Since all creatures have the same ancestor, a cat and a snake are the same thing. One just doesn't have fur." Hyperbole proves nothing other than that you're not good at proving something.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 8 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by debatedeity111 1 year ago
debatedeity111
I-am-a-pandaRevolution1902Tied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con only made arguments in first round, forfeiting the other two.
Vote Placed by The_Booner 7 years ago
The_Booner
I-am-a-pandaRevolution1902Tied
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 Zeratul 7 years ago
Zeratul
I-am-a-pandaRevolution1902Tied
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:25 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
I-am-a-pandaRevolution1902Tied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
I-am-a-pandaRevolution1902Tied
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 InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
I-am-a-pandaRevolution1902Tied
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:07 
Vote Placed by paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
I-am-a-pandaRevolution1902Tied
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