The Instigator
Empiren
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Lunalilo
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The system of "Sin" is not fair.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 816 times Debate No: 56082
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

Empiren

Pro

Hi I'll be on the side of "Pro" and will be debating on the subject of Christianity's sin-and-punishment being fair to the human race as a whole.
Note: For this debate you must assume the bible is true.

The definition of sin is: To go against or disobey god.
The definition of Hell is: A place where the souls of mankind who enter are eternally tormented/tortured.

I base this on the things god has punished for.(i.e. the forbidden fruit, going against his commands, etc.).
============================
If you wish to post something to this or against it, please do so, but I am not hoping for this to be the main topic.
=============================

The system in the bible for sin and it's punishment, is not fair in regards to humanity.

1. "Sins of our Fathers"
-This applies to the concept in Christianity known as "our fallen world"
-This applies to God's punishment of people throughout the bible for the sins of their father or great grandfather.
The belief of paying for the sins or disobedience of our fathers is unfair. We as humans do not in good moral conscience blame the child for the father's mistakes. We do not give children death sentences because the father murdered. And we do this for a reason, that being that someone who did not participate in the crime should not be blamed or punished, regardless of genetic similarity.

2. Those undeserving of Hell.
In the bible there is the belief that whoever sins and does not acquire forgiveness goes to Hell. This is both before and after Jesus, with Jesus being the way to salvation after he ascends to Heaven.

P1: God punishes many people throughout the bible without a chance at redemption. This is shown in the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Amelekites(the list goes on). These people(men, women, and children) all went to hell thanks to God's actions. It sets the standard that God can kill anyone at anytime and send them to an eternal torture.

P2: Those who could not have known of God or his religion went to hell regardless of they were "good" according to the bible's system.

P3: God selects his chosen people, and condemns all others to Hell. According to the Bible, the Jews were God's "chosen people", meaning he had forsaken all others to Hell until the time of Jesus and the opening up of the religion thanks to Christianity.

C: The system of Sin-and-Punishment the bible presents does not present a fair chance at salvation for all of humanity and punishes those undeserving of punishment.

I await the con, hope you have fun!
Lunalilo

Con

As a preface to anyone who is viewing this debate:
1. Whether you are Christian or Non-Christian, please view the facts as they are presented as unbiased as possible... otherwise the voting could never truly reflect the facts 'not opinions' presented as they are for THIS debate. I thank the Pro for providing the only ground work for this type of debate... and something that even you the reading must agree to for the sake of voting properly.

2. "Note: For this debate you must assume the bible is true." <--- As per the Pro.

3. Also reader, please note that he does use the term 'true' and not 'real'. So you must accept, for the purposes of this debate that EVERYTHING the Bible says is 'TRUE' and not false.

The definition of sin is: To go against or disobey god.

First Rebuttal:

1. "The system in the bible for sin and it's punishment, is not fair in regards to humanity."
-Surprisingly this was actually my first statement that I was locked into and I realized that there is actually flaw to this statement. The flaw is the word humanity! The definition that is. You see if I were to take your rules seriously about this debate than this statement is done out of ignorance. I could literally use basic math to rephrase the sentence to see it a little more clearly by using your given definition of sin. "The system in the bible for [disobeying God]and it's punishment[of going to hell], is not fair in regards to humanity."
For you to fully understand the Bibles arguments that God is in fact being "fair", you must understand God's attributes. There are many, but the main one is God is Holy. Many Christians surprisingly don't even know what this means! The bible says God is "Holy, holy, holy" (Revelation 4:8), it's saying that He is separated, separated, separated (Old Hebrew language would repeat something that is important rather than modern English using BOLD or exclamations) which is referring to God being so very separated from the world, people, evil and sin that it is not even funny. Again not by choice, it's just what he is.
So when Adam and Eve disobeyed God's commandment of not eating from the tree of good and evil, they chose to disobey God's commandment and because they had knowledge like God ABOUT sin, unlike God, they had freewill to act upon that knowledge. And again God is Holy and sin has no part in God or his actions whatsoever, God simply has knowledge of it just like Satan told Eve. The end result is a disobedience woman and man who passing their "corruption" to their descendants "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." -1 Corinthians 15:50 THEN ENTERS MY NICE FLOW INTO YOUR FIRST ARGUMENT...
2. "Sins of our Fathers"

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Psalms 51:5

- To be absolutely clear, their is nothing in the bible that says God has ever or will ever give a death sentence to a baby whose (according to your example) parents are terrible role models when it comes to following God. "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of THOSE WHO HATE ME, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those WHO LOVE ME AND KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS." Without going into a lot of detail, there is nowhere here that says God will kill or send to hell the sons of sinful parents. You'd have to reach petty far to get it there.
Deuteronomy 24:16 says, "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."
Lastly your remark about us being "moral" is also ignorance because according to the rules the Bible is true, so if I were to take that and rephrase your remark it would read...
"We as [Sinful, disobedient people] do not in good moral conscience blame the [psalms 51:5] for the father's mistakes. We do not give [psalms 51:5] death sentences because the father murdered." <---- How can immoral sinful people have a good moral conscious? I'm just trying to follow your Rule about the Bible being true!
"And we do this for a reason, that being that someone who did not participate in the crime should not be blamed or punished, regardless of genetic similarity." <------ I agree and God does too!

3. Those "undeserving" of Hell.
-For the sake of readers getting bored I will correct some Biblical areas as per your rule, as to bring about a quick non-biased approach from the reader:
"In the bible there is the belief that whoever sins and does not [ask for] forgiveness goes to Hell."
"This is both before and after Jesus, with Jesus being the way to salvation after he ascends to Heaven."
Not so my friend according to the Bible which is true for the sake of this debate "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:4

"P1:God punishes many people throughout the bible without a chance at redemption. This is shown in the Flood [Noah is called a Preacher of Righteousness - 2 Peter 2:5], Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 18:16-33 says that Abraham pleaded for the safety of Sodom]"the Amelekites(the list goes on). These people(men, women, and children) all [were killed] thanks to God's actions [I don't get this, so if an executioner, in your words "morally" executes a killer then the executioner is wrong?].
"It sets the standard that God can kill anyone at anytime and send them to an eternal torture." <-----This is actually very surprisingly biblical. Psalm 115:3 says "But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases." and 1 Samuel 2:6 says "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up."

"P2: Those who could not have known of God or his religion went to hell regardless of they were "good" according to the bible's system." <---- I just have to ask, who are these so called "good" people your are referring to specifically?

"P3: God selects his chosen people, and condemns all others to Hell. <---- This is simply not founded in any scripture although Israel is God's chosen people God even wanted to wipe out Israel at one point [Numbers 14:11-19].
"According to the Bible, the Jews were God's "chosen people", meaning he had forsaken all others to Hell until the time of Jesus and the opening up of the religion thanks to Christianity."<----please refer to previous

C: The system of Sin-and-Punishment the bible presents DOES IN FACT present a fair chance at salvation for all of humanity and punishes those undeserving of punishment.

I hope I've been fair in my rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Empiren

Pro

I feel that any addition to the original post I made might push the debate farther than it should in terms of simplicity and a "simple read", although it is already very long.

My response in accordance to the points brought up:

1. I'm not exactly sure how to go about saying this so I will try to make it as clear as possible. If you are making the point that God is seperate from humanity and that god is holy, seperated, and a different entity: I accept that as per the bible stating it.(I thought this was by default accepted once you accept the bible as tru per the opening).

However, your math was off. The punishment of sinning is not only that you are sent to hell, but that God may take your life before that(and then consequently you would go to hell). I want o make this clear because to say that the only punishment God has given for sin in the bible is to to got to hell, is not true.

2. "Sins of our fathers".

I'd like to address the acts that we are all born sinful and that is becaue of the original "fall" of Adam and Eve.

Romans 5:18-19:
18 Therefore, as one trespass[b] led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness[c] leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.
-Let us ignore the Jesus stuff for the sake of the debate.
This verse states that all were condemned for the sin of Adam and Eve. The "father" of all mankind, made many sinners.

Note: You did not respond or explain to people why God killed the several groups of people in the stories of Noah, Moses, Sodom and Gomorrah and the Amalekites, where in each the entire group of people were wiped out because they were deemed "sinful" or "corrupt" in the eyes of God.

-You assume that the verses stating that the child will not pay for the sins of the father prove that no child was punished in these genocides unfairly, but that assumption is false. Not only in the sense that all mankind has paid for the sins of Adam, but that these groups of people(children included) were punished for the sins of the mature members. Innocent children were punished (killed) in these acts.
Note: I am not proposing that the bible is false, but that the verse was meant for a different interpretation. That being The son shall not bear the responsibility of the father according to the law.(i.e. the 613 commandments in the Old Testament). So that if a father broke the law, the son could not be punished for this. I believe this verse was intended in such a way.

-God did kill children. In accordance with the story of Noah, Moses, Sodom and Gomorrah and the Amalekites, all died for their sin(from birth) and the sins of their father. To think that not one child existed in these examples is rather naive, but for an example we can look towards the story of Moses:
Exodus 11: 4-7:
"4. So Moses said, "This is what the Lord says: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. 5 Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. 6 There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt"worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. 7 But among the Israelites not a dog will bark at any person or animal." Then you will know that the Lord makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel."

-I'd like to note that there are examples of where God himself killed the innocent and where he ordered the Israelites to do such. There is a difference, but I find that the overall effect the same.

[On the topic of Born-Sinners]
The Bible repeatedly tells us that we are born sinners thanks to adam and eve.

In the first part I opened with the assumption that both parties would accept children as being "innocent". I make this assumption based upon the notion that children do not fully understand or comprehend the acts that they do and their consequences. I realize that this can also apply to more mature humans, but for children I think we can agree that "innocence" is among them to a certain age.

This presents a conflicting view. We percieve children as innocent though the bible does not and from birth gives them the effective sentence of Hell, though they could not have possibly disobeyed god. This is effectively "the sins of the father", that father being Adam.

3. Deserving of Hell.

I'd like to make the point that the verse you listed(1corinthians 10:4) is talking aobut the Jewish religion. I.e. the same "spiritual drink" and "unto Moses" relate to the Old Testament. Of course within the belief that Jesus was God(the trinity), those who already believed in the Jewish God(i.e. the jews), would have technically been believing in Jesus before he came to Earth.

However that leaves us with John 14:6
"6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

So the original meaning of the Corinthians verse is that the Jews would continue their religion by believing in Jesus. This does not apply to the non-jewish people before Jesus, but ot assure the Jews that Christianity is a continuation of their religion.
=============================================
The whole point of 3 was that those who could not know of the Law, Jesus, or of the bible were sent to hell, regardless if they are "Good" by moral or even biblical standards. It is in accordance with 2, where they are punished not by something they did, but by the sin of Adam.

Meaning: People go to Hell for circumstances that are outside of their control.
=========================================

In response to your edits on P1-3(I'd rather you not since this makes it harder to read through later.)

P1-3

1.Noah can be called a preacher and Abraham can plead for Sodom, but that has no effect whatsoever on the decision made by God and what it stands for.

In response to your assumption that God "morally" executed a killer, I deny that. God committed genocide.

(Genocide definition: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.)

This is entirely different from the moral justification of killing a specific person or group. The justification for genocide is non-existent.

2. The good people? The people who are for the most part good. Humanitarian, peaceful, non-violent. I'd presume there is a general definition of a "good" person we can agree on.

3. It is founded on all the scripture, in fact the entire story of the Old Testament is of the Jewish people. To clarify, I was talking of the time before Jesus.

Genesis 17:7
"7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee."
====================

Note: You did not edit the closing correctly. You left the phrase "and punishes those undeserving of punishment"
=========

To summarize:

2."Sins of Our Father"
- Adam and Eve: mankind pays the price for generations because of their Sin. The are (according to the bible) the parents of all.
-God also murdered select groups of people for the sins of the whole.
-God did kill children(listed examples).

[Children are innocent]
-Yet the God has killed them in the act of Genocide.
-Yet God condemns them to hell from their birth.

3. People go to Hell for circumstances that are outside of their control.

P1: God does not give a "second chance" in the old testament to many groups of people. He simply writes them off as "too far gone" and murders them.

P2: See 3.

P3: God's chosen people(the jews) were the only ones God continually spoke to before Jesus. Leaving primarily them alone to know of God and how to avoid the fate of Hell.

C: The system of sin is one that punishes those undeserving of punishment and for circumstances that are beyond a person's control.
Lunalilo

Con

Before I begin, I would like to say how much I admire your constant stable minded attitude toward responding. A true logical mind indeed you are... something I aspire to attain to perfection if that were possible. I do accept the note of not correcting your responses but just responding to them.

I do have to admit that I did not attack or even touch the topic of God dealing with Sodom and Gomorrah, and unfortunately must decline the opportunity again because, like others, this "problem" can automatically be answered by addressing underlying issues. One of these underlying issues that was accidentally assumed, and not picked up by myself in the opening of this debate, was "a baby's innocence".

1."A baby's innocence"

I am almost afraid that if this point is not fairly discussed and unskewed, then this debate will reflect the same direction. I must bring this debate back to the rule of "for the sake of this argument the Bible is true." That means that for the sake of this debate, even cute, innocent looking, tiny, can't-make-proper-decisions-for-themselves babies are in fact just as sinful as us adults who can and do sin on purpose. "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity; And in sin my mother conceived me." - Psalms 51:5. "The wicked are estranged from the womb; These who speak lies go astray from birth. They have venom like the venom of a serpent; like a deaf cobra that stops up its ear, So that it does not hear the voice of charmers, or a skillful caster of spells. O God, shatter their teeth in their mouth; break out the fangs of the young lions, O Lord" - Psalms 58:3-6

2. "The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." (Job 1:21)

If there is anyone in the Bible that has the right to complain about God being immoral, it is Job! He had his own children taken away amongst other horrible things, and yet he states that the Lord has the right to do so hence, him praising God after. I am compelled to reinstate that this is not Jobs opinion, but KNOWLEDGE of the Lord.

3. The idea that "God NOT giving people a second chance is not fair."

I formed this educated assumption by "P1" which says "God does not give a "second chance" in the old testament to many groups of people. He simply writes them off as "too far gone" and murders them." To say that God didn't give them a second chance is to automatically admit they did something that is deserving of some sort of punishment. Plain and simply put I will answer this in the form of a question...how is it fair to obligate God [the author of life itself] to give a second chance when punishment is deserved for constant sin against God?

And just in case this turns into a "well, they didn't know they were sinning against God" issue... Romans 1 says "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, 19 because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes " his eternal power and divine nature " have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse." Levitus and Numbers, as you know, even goes on to talk about even 'unintentional sin' or unknown sin must also be offered a sacrifice.

4. God's right to choose.

"P3: God's chosen people(the jews) were the only ones God continually spoke to before Jesus. Leaving primarily them alone to know of God and how to avoid the fate of Hell." This is simply God's right to choose, in this case, he chose to keep a promise made to Abraham, because God is faithful in his promises. Let me fairly remind you that he almost broke this promise as my previous argument shows [which is another debate in it's own].

Matthew 20:1-16:

9 "The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 "These who were hired last worked only one hour," they said, "and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day."

13 "But he answered one of them, "I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn"t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don"t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?"

C: One of the most common mistakes that happen when humans question God's moral compass is to imply that God is not the creator of the morals. God alone has a right reserved to take away anything and everything according to the bible. Unlike us, he created everything and according to the bible IS everything. God also, unlike us, is not only sinless but void of sin. These are major contributors, when understood, to God's "seemingly immoral, genocidal, murderous" ways.
Debate Round No. 2
Empiren

Pro

Ah. I did not intend to pull a "fast one" on you, but it's hard to phrase the "rules" correctly in the start.

1. A baby's innocence.

-Now first off I was not making the argument that a child is not sinful from birth, or that bible does not state so. What I was saying is that the punishment for sin(i.e. murder, hell), is something that should not be applied to a child.
-This cuts back to the "sins of our father" point. We are all paying for the sins of Adam in general, but there are examples of where god commits genocide for the sins of the adult population.
==================

[2.] Oh boy. Yeah Job is one of the few examples I would never, EVER use in reference to his "knowledge" of the Lord or his morality.

Simple summary: God kills Job's family, livestock, and steals all his wealth. Then proceeds to hurt Job personally with illness. All this time Job is begging for an answer, asking what he did wrong, what he did to deserve this(talking to his friends). Meanwhile God started all this because of a bet with SATAN(you know, the most evil entity ever). At the end, God shows up and instead of explaining to Job why all this has happened to him, he goes on a rhetorical speech asking him "where you there when the earth was born?"
-Then God proceeds to replace that which Job had lost, but not in originality. God replaces everything by quantity.

[The story of Job shows entirely that God punishes unfairly and to those undeserving.]

God effectively murdered innocent people to prove a point to Satan. That's probably the worse example you could have given for your argument.
================
[3.] "How is it fair to obligate God [the author of life itself] to give a second chance when punishment is deserved for constant sin against God?"

1. I am not obligating god. I am merely stating that by human standards, what god did and the system he created was/is not fair.

2. Again, not everyone was "constantly sinning". We have no proof that all of mankind(even the children) were committing outrageous acts against God for the story of Noah, or that the slave/Egyptian children sinned so heavily, or that any of these acts of complete genocide were Justified. This is another problem with the system and it's fairness, God does not state what sin or what acts lead to the genocide of these people.

3. Nor do we have any proof that God's law was known to them.
(btw: Romans-1 says this for the believers in the sense that "god was all around them" in the argument for his existence. Not his Law.).
-No proof that God came to them as he did Moses.
-No proof that God's law is available to everyone in a way they can comprehend it.
-No proof that Jesus has shown himself to everyone either.(for the argument of after).

The point is that you are assuming that these people had full knowledge of their actions, the consequences, and the system God presented. The bible never mentions this, nor does reality support it. Even now you can easily prove that God does not present his system to everyone.

[Note]: I get that we are arguing with the bible = true rule,but when it aligns with modern reality I think this has relevance.

4. Unintentional Sin is again, for the believers of the religion. Those who could not know of the religion could not know of the concept of Sin, be it unintentional or otherwise.

=============

[4.] God's "right" to choose.
[NOTE]Con: Did not deny God chose a group of people and condemned all others.

Also Mathew 20:1-16 Is a good parable for work, but for the souls of a human? That's taking it a bit too far.
---------------

C: God's "right" MkII

No. Creation of something does not imply ownership, especially when free-will and sentience are concerned.

Also implying that God is above morality is implying the appeal to authority fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Please, do not argue that because God is perfect, the system must be perfect. That is beneath you.

Note: [Redundancy]: Of course god is "void of sin", since to sin is to disobey him.

Alrighty, having fun so far and thank you for participating. Lets go to round 3!
Lunalilo

Con

Your last comment about redundancy is an excellent description of this debate.

1. A baby's innocence.
"punishment for sin(i.e. murder, hell), is something that should not be applied to a child."
This is statement is correct if saying it from the viewpoint it is looked through, a human society viewpoint, civilization and acts of human being towards other human beings. It is simply not correct if viewed through the awesome sinless, perfect authority of God's Just and Holy Sovereignty.
"examples of where god commits genocide for the sins of the adult population." <------The bibles position is that all have fallen short, and all are sinful that "deserve" hell but (I know, I know) were given something they didn't deserve, that is, Jesus Christ.
==================

[2.] 100% of people who are educated on the Hebrew and Greek translations will all shoot you down on this. Job is THE perfect example of God's ultimate authority in the old testament scriptures because they understand what the original writer was in fact portraying, not what the reader thought it was portraying.

To interject your own opinion about what was happening to Job and ignore the person that was experiencing it, not to mention, actually talking to God, heck... to believe that the events were not false and that Jobs knowledge (because that's what the bible says it is) is false is a fallacy in it's own merit.

I'm sorry I'm breaking my rule:

"Simple summary: God kills Job's family, livestock, and steals..." <---- Steals? The Bible states that all the wealth people own already belongs to God, so God cannot steal what has always been his.

...all his wealth. Then proceeds to hurt Job personally with illness. All this time Job is begging for an answer,..." <------ Not once did Job ever beg or even ask for an answer... his mistake (not sin) was challenging God to dare accuse himself of sinning(and dare use that as an explanation for his actions against Job), because Job KNEW he was not guilty of sinning.

"...asking what he did wrong, what he did to deserve this(talking to his friends)." <---- I'd hate to say it but this is simply not in the biblical story. It was Job's friends who accused him of sinning, and it was Job who openly challenged God to prove that sin was a cause of these events, because again Job KNEW this was not the case.

"Meanwhile God started all this because of a bet with SATAN..." <----- You have this 100% backwards, it was Satan who started this all because he wanted to wager a bet that Job would curse God.

"...(you know, the most evil entity ever). At the end, God shows up and instead of explaining to Job why all this has happened to him, he goes on a rhetorical speech asking him "where you there when the earth was born?" <---- Again, the mother of all explanation being ignored(Sorry to say it like that, really I'm a nice guy!), God can do anything is pleases... even Job knew this... and was terrified because of it!

Job 23:13 - "But he stands alone, and who can oppose him? He does whatever he pleases... 15 Therefore, I would be dismayed at His presence; When I consider, I am terrified of Him.

================
[3.] "How is it fair to obligate God [the author of life itself] to give a second chance when punishment is deserved for constant sin against God?"

1. I am not obligating god. I am merely stating that by human standards, what god did and the system he created was/is not fair.

2. "Again, not everyone was "constantly sinning". The bible states that everyone constantly sins...

3. "Nor do we have any proof that God's law was known to them." There is also no proof that Abraham became righteous as a result from God speaking to him, on the contrary, it simply said that Abram obeyed God's command to start his Journey, nothing more.

"(btw: Romans-1 says this for the believers in the sense that "god was all around them" in the argument for his existence. Not his Law.)." <----- I agreed when I put it there and even now! Hence "So people are without excuse."

I realize you are logical person... all of the "no proof" arguments are canceled out because of the basic logical standpoint that "the absence of proof does not prove anything".

"The point is that you are assuming that these people had full knowledge of their actions"<------- Not at all, I did note that Numbers and Leviticus accounts for unintentional sins and even unknown sins! Honestly, do you know anyone, like in Lot's case that wanted to rape other men by breaking down Lot's door, and didn't know it was wrong? Even aborigines know to respect a man's home!

4. Unintentional Sin is again, for the believers of the religion. Those who could not know of the religion could not know of the concept of Sin, be it unintentional or otherwise. <---- you are right with the word "sin" but are wrong with the action of sin. This is ultimately shot down with Romans 2 that says:

""13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them,""

[4.] God's "right" to choose.
"[NOTE]Con: Did not deny God chose a group of people and condemned all others." <----because I was busy making that case that this is not true...I am being redundant now, guilty!

"Also Mathew 20:1-16 Is a good parable for work, but for the souls of a human? That's taking it a bit too far." <----Now I know your not reading your bible... Jesus took it that far by starting this parable with "For the kingdom of heaven is like..."

C: God's "right" MkII

"No. Creation of something does not imply ownership, especially when free-will and sentience are concerned." <------ You mean the free-will and sentience that... God created...?

Also implying that God is above morality is implying the appeal to authority fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org...... Please, do not argue that because God is perfect, the system must be perfect. That is beneath you." <--- First off, I genuinely accept that compliment! That made me feel special coming from someone yourself. And I would never dare to resort to such childish tactics that unstable Christians resort to[yes I said that].

I must add though... to be fair... that the bible...which is true for this debate... does say "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." - Psalms 18:30. I didn't argue that... technically the bible did that one! Thanks again!
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lunalilo 2 years ago
Lunalilo
Agreed... I saw your edit button gripe and agree with that wholeheartedly
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Good debate. They REALLY need to make a "quote" option though.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Np. I find it a good exercise as well.
Posted by Lunalilo 2 years ago
Lunalilo
Fair enough, I like knowing peoples thought process, it does help me with my own.
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
This is my opinion, correct?

I believe it is a very odd system. There a couple contradictions within the bible, but I believe as a whole Christianity has agreed on the translation that the animal sacrfices atoned for a person's sin.(but needed to be done constantly.
Leviticus 17:11
Hebrews 10:1-4
However I think the act of sacrifice itself is draconian.
The fact that they needed to kill animals to absolve sins seems rather cruel, but in a limited resource way it would make sense. The exact process is not laid out however.

Likewise Jesus and the process of salvation through his death does not make sense logically either since it is immoral for an innocent man to be killed for a guilty man to escape accountability.

We humans do not accept this in our courts for the same reason.

Example: The courtroom of God:
God is the Judge.
Mankind the Guilty

God comes in, accepts God's judgement of Mankind(to which it has no effect on God anyway), and Mankind is forgiven as long as they
-------------------

To be perfectly honest the original system of "sacrifice" is similar to the pagan religions. The concept of redemption through Jesus is also similar to the many many religions claiming their Leader was a "god" or prophet.

I don't subscribe to Christianity, but there is my take on the sacrificial system within it.
Posted by Lunalilo 2 years ago
Lunalilo
I respect your responses very much, they are well thought-out and reasonable and you are not abrasive[although I feel no one would be able to resist your words if you were]. I will skip one back-and-forth comment and ask a question instead, "What do you say to the implication made that people were given the opportunity to receive forgiveness[individual sins] through [individual]offerings?"
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Ah. Well I won't go too much into it, but the arrival of Jesus just opened up the religion and changed it so that people could be forgiven.

It did not change the problems with the system.
Posted by Lunalilo 2 years ago
Lunalilo
I don't think the comments are under the same rules... So I might as well say... Being born into sin is not a punishment it's a result... Sending mankind to hell without being merciful would even seem a little unfair to me... Even though that's Gods choice and not obligation... But that didn't happen because he sent Jesus. But that's another Debate I Suppose!
Posted by cosecant 2 years ago
cosecant
Punishing us for the sins of others ..... .
Posted by Empiren 2 years ago
Empiren
Ugh spelling errors on the first few. Edit button I miss you.....
No votes have been placed for this debate.