The Instigator
numa
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
AEQUITAS
Con (against)
Losing
29 Points

the christian portrayal of god is hypocritical.

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  
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: 8/15/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,931 times Debate No: 5023
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (45)
Votes (17)

 

numa

Pro

christian teaching is that god is responsible for all life here on earth. physically, it takes a man and a woman (or a sperm and an egg, to be more PC) to create a child. however, without god's influence, that life will never come to be. that is the christian belief.

christians also believe that god is omnipotent, that he sees and knows all, and this is supported numerous times throughout the bible. for instance, philippians 4:3 and revelation 3:5 say that the moment you place your faith in jesus as your savior (see John 3:16 and romans 10:9‑10), your name is written in the Book of Life, never to be erased. no true believer should doubt his eternal security in Christ (john 10:28-30).

in other words, humans do have free will, but god in all of his infinite wisdom already knows the choices that people will make... because he is omnipotent, knows everything about everything, etc. and god knows who has accepted him and lived by his word, and will save them after death, i.e. send them to heaven.

well if this is the case, god also knows long before one is born that one will go to hell. what i mean is, if one is going to reject the lord as their savior, they will be damned for all eternity. but god knows that one is going to go down this path (hehe- he's clairvoyant). so... why would god choose to create that life?

according to christian/biblical logic, god is choosing to damn souls to hell by even allowing them to exist. if they're only going to be lost souls doomed to eternal damnation in a firey existance worse than any excrutiating circumstance that we as humans can fathom (deep breath), why not just prevent a life from ever being created? sure humans have "free will" to make the right choices, but god already knows who WON'T make the right choices, so in essence he is allowing people to go to hell. isn't that completely contradictory of the all-loving, gracious and forgiving god portrayed and embraced by christian faith/doctrine...?
AEQUITAS

Con

You're argument forgets that GOD is not only love and mercy but also justice. If someone breaks GOD's law then GOD has every right to send that person to Hell. GOD didn't create people so that we could have a great time. He created us to bring glory to Himself. In order to bring glory to Himself, He created some of us to repent and be saved, (to show His mercy) and some of us to be defiant and not be saved (to show His justice) Romans 9 and Ephesians 1&2. It's as simple as that. It's doesn't contradict itself at all. GOD created all of us. Everyone has broken His law. There is nothing un-loving about punishing law-breakers. It's simply justice. Now as to the free-will part of things. People do not have free will. Sorry to burst the bubble. People are born slaves to sin. Do people still get to make a choice? Absolutely. But humans are so sinful that our choice will always be sin. GOD, although He knows we are going to sin, does not force us to. Think of it like this... One owns a dog. This person has repeatedly told this dog to stay inside the fence, NO MATTER WHAT. This person opens the gate knowing that the dog is going to run out of the fence. Has the person made the dog leave the fence? Not at all. The person simply allowed the dog to make the choice. GOD doesn't ever force anyone to do anything. He simply lets us make our own choices. When someone gets saved it's only because GOD has changed their heart from wanting sinfulness to wanting to obey Him.
Debate Round No. 1
numa

Pro

my point has been that god created people KNOWING already what their fate would be before they were even born: that they would someday go to hell. con was supposed to refute this; however, here is what she has said- "In order to bring glory to Himself, He created some of us to repent and be saved, (to show His mercy) and some of us to be defiant and not be saved (to show His justice) Romans 9 and Ephesians 1&2. It's as simple as that."

so con is agreeing with me that to BRING GLORY TO HIMSELF, god purposefully created people just so he could send them to hell. that god sounds vain, prejudice, and unloving- FAR from the god that christians normally describe.

then con says, "Everyone has broken His law. There is nothing un-loving about punishing law-breakers. It's simply justice." i would agree with con here. except if EVERYONE has broken god's law, then why isn't EVERYONE saved? because some crimes are worse than others? i would agree with that. however according to con, people don't have free will. in other words, people cannot control what they do because con believes in predestination over free will. so basically, people are forced to commit crimes (due to their own natural urges) and then are punished for them to show god's justice. now, whether or not you agree with this christian approach (and christian beliefs on the subject DO vary), while voting you must only take into account the specific beliefs and arguments that con has put forward...

also, keep in mind that the definition of justice is also linked to fairness. why is it fair that some people are born with god's 'intention' of sending them to heaven, and others specifically created just so he could send them to hell to glorify himself and his name? again, DO NOT VOTE BASED ON YOUR OWN BELIEFS, BUT THESE ARE CON'S BELIEFS WHICH SHE HAS OFFERED IN DEFENSE OF HER ARGUMENT...
AEQUITAS

Con

You're point is that "the christian portrayal of GOD is hypocritical." You use the fact that GOD creates people knowing they will go to Hell to try and prove this. I showed that while this belief is true, it does not contradict other christian beliefs. Thus, the christian portrayal of GOD is NOT hypocritical. You still have yet to refute my point on that and unless you can I've successfully argued my point. Even so, I'll refute the other points you make, irrelevent to this debate though they may be. In the process I'll also refute some of the points made by commenters.

"If everyone has broken GOD's law, then why isn't everyone saved? Is it because some crimes are worse than others?" Again, keep Romans 9 in mind. Now, If everyone has sinned, then everyone deserves condemnation. Jesus died on the cross to satisfy that punishment. Because Jesus is perfect He could die in our place and satisfy GOD the Father's justice. When Jesus died He died for people who were pre-ordained by GOD to be saved (to show GOD's mercy) These people are completely sinful and have no hope of salvation until GOD changes their hearts. (There is NOTHING special about pre-ordained people. They are just as sinful and rebellious against GOD as everyone else. The ONLY reason they are saved is because GOD chose them and changed their hearts.) People who GOD doesn't choose are not saved. (To show GOD's justice) Again, I point to the example of the dog and the owner that I used in my first argument which explains how a person always gets to choose between right or wrong, but because of people's inherent sinfulness they will always choose sin.

The merciful thing is that Jesus died to satisfy GOD's perfect justice. The just thing is that people who refuse to repent of their sins still go to Hell. Mercy and Justice are not contradictory.

These beliefs are known as Calvinism. Here is a website that will explain it in more depth. http://www.calvinistcorner.com...
Debate Round No. 2
numa

Pro

you are mistaken.

to win this debate, all i must do is provide one example in which the christian portrayal of god is hypocritical. now con admits that "GOD creates people knowing they will go to Hell... I showed that while this belief is true, it does not contradict other christian beliefs" which is fine. i am not debating about christian beliefs. i am debating about the christian portrayal of god as an ALL-merciful one, which con admits is not the case. she says that god is just as much about justice as he is about mercy. and that justice is executed through non-loving actions, such as condemning a person to hell.

con is wrong in assuming that i do not understand the ways of the christian god. i do, and i'm not even saying that i disagree with them. however consider this quote from the bible- but i have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation (psalms 13:5). con's own argument has been that just because one trusts in god's mercy, does NOT mean that they will go to heaven. so all of the bible verses upon bible verses and writings and teachings proclaiming that anyone who believes in jesus christ and god and their message will be saved, is wrong. it's a lie. because god has already chosen (pre-destination) who will go to heaven and who will go to hell.

so if one has no free will... which con says that nobody has free will... then we have no role in whether or not we will go to hell. so according to that christian message, WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER DOING GOOD? WHY SHOULD WE ACCEPT GOD? if there is a possibility that god will condemn us anyway despite our loyalty and devotion.

if you think there's a discrepancy with this message... vote pro.
AEQUITAS

Con

As I've already pointed out there is nothing un-loving about GOD punishing people who break His laws. He created us, He gave us commandments and said "Do not break these or you will go to Hell." We broke these commandments. GOD has is perfectly just in condemning people for that.

People always have a choice. They have a choice to either turn to Christ and trust in His mercy, or to continue in their sin. The problem is that a person WANTS their sin more than they want Christ. It's not that GOD says "ummm... you would have wanted to repent, but I didn't want you to so I kept you from it." GOD doesn't keep anyone from repenting. Our own sinfulness does that.

The only way for someone to desire to repent is if GOD changes their hearts and makes them want Christ more than they want sin. Then they will choose Christ. It's not that GOD gives the people who He has chosen the ability to repent. Everyone has that ability. He gives them the desire. The only reason why non-preordained people cannot choose GOD is not because they lack the ability, it's because they lack all desire to do so. So when the psalmist says "but I have trusted in thy mercy; my heart shall rejoice in thy salvation." This is someone speaking from a heart that GOD has changed. This is someone who DESIRES GOD. Desires to praise Him and follow Him.

Since GOD has changed this person's heart this person now trusts in GOD's mercy and salvation. A person whose heart GOD has not chosen to save will never trust in GOD's mercy or rejoice in His salvation. GOD doesn't keep someone from believing in Him. He simply gives some a new heart that desires to follow Him.

Back to the example with the dog and the owner from argument one. The owner has repeatedly told the dog to stay in the fence. The owner leaves the gate open and walks away. The owner knows that the dog is going to leave the fence but wants to give it a choice. The owner did not make the dog leave the yard in any way shape or form. He simply gave it the choice whether or not to obey him. The dog could have stayed inside the fence, but he didn't want to.

In order to be saved one MUST trust in Jesus as their only hope of salvation. "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life. No one comes to the Father but by Me." One must turn away from their sin and follow Jesus. "For whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." All the promises of those who trust in GOD will be saved are true. The only way someone will trust in GOD though is if they are given a new heart that desires to trust in Jesus. The mercy side of things is that Jesus died when He didn't have to. Matthew 26:52. Jesus states here very plainly that He doesn't have to die if He doesn't want to. He still does though. Dying in order to take the punishment for someone else is merciful. Punishing those who refuse to repent of their sins and follow Jesus is just. Granting a new heart that desires to follow Christ and then letting them make a decision is mercy. Not granting a new heart that wants to follow Christ and letting them make their own choice is just. It is also just to give a new heart that desires to follow Christ to some because Christ died to take the punishment for sins. His death satisfied Justice.

People are always allowed to make a choice. Because sin's hold on them is so strong however, they cannot choose anything but sin. They have the ability to choose, but they desire sin so strongly, they cannot choose against that desire.

In conclusion, there is no way that GOD will condemn someone in spite of repenting and following Christ. "Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." The only way someone will call upon the name of the Lord however, is if they have been given a new heart that desires GOD. Everyone has the choice to change, but no one is able to independently because they desire sin too strongly. GOD is just for sending those to Hell who reject His law and His Son. He is merciful because gives to some a new heart that desires to follow Christ.

Read the books of Genesis, Matthew, Romans, and Ephesians.
Debate Round No. 3
45 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ashcon 8 years ago
ashcon
One thing for Con I would say is hindsight. Consider the following:

A Mother's child passed away and she asked me, "Why did God allow this? I love God. Why did this happen?"

What could I say in this situation? Rather than providing an answer I asked her this question. "You have three children. One of them has died. If you could go back to the time before you had any children, with the knowledge that one of them would die this horrible death, would you have children again?"

After a long pause, with many tears in her eyes and a broken heart she said, "Oh yes. Oh yes. yes I would. Because, you see, the love and the joy and the happiness I have received from my children far outweighs the pain, suffering and misery I experienced from the loss of that one child. Oh yes. Oh yes. I would have children again."

In this tragic story we see an incredible insight as to why God allows evil to exist. As discussed earlier, a loving God can allow an evil state of affairs to exist if, in allowing it to occur, it brings about an even better state of affairs. For this woman, the loss of her child was an unequaled and tragic evil. But, with the advantage of hindsight, she said she would do it all again because the love she received as a result of being a mother outweighed the evil state of affairs in the death of her child.
Posted by Amplifier 8 years ago
Amplifier
We speak as adults?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Ad hominem, Amplifier. Your response was nothing else... but a self-proclaimed (see profile) 7 year old calling me a child :D.
Posted by Amplifier 8 years ago
Amplifier
Puck.

They who spoke, write without looking for answers, rather to mock. Questions they have, though where are they now? Have they raised there voice to follow there casue?
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
Puck
"You who have spoken about this issue, have your answers been written? Have you found you own reasoning? Where is your voice which was so proud before that here you are silent?"

A brief check of my profile will clearly tell you that I do indeed have both answers and reasoning. :)

Once you make a comment worthy of notice, maybe then you will start getting more replies.
Posted by Amplifier 8 years ago
Amplifier
Addressing all who spoke.

You who have spoken about this issue, have your answers been written? Have you found you own reasoning? Where is your voice which was so proud before that here you are silent?

If you seek answers then speak again so they maybe heard.
Posted by Amplifier 8 years ago
Amplifier
Ragnar Rahl.

I am not trying to look down upon from the way I speak, rather to allow those few words to speak grater than I ever could (by the spirit). But we are not the same which is clear by your words.

Then this may take time for some understanding to come. You see its clear you are a child concerning these issues and I cannot speak about all there is for you cannot even understand those scriptures you have put forward.

It not about which scripture I need to put forward to help you understand, because even then you shall debate without understanding.

So I say again.
From those that are saved, they know the light and become it. Those who rejected the message of Jesus remain in darkness, and so they are against each other. Darkness cannot remain inside a room were there is light.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
What does ANY of what you said have to do with ANY of what I said? I don't see it.
Posted by Amplifier 8 years ago
Amplifier
Ragnar Rahl.

Your statment is incorrect. Jesus came to release mankind from the law, as written "one can only be free from law if one dies." But also He came to save those who know the truth.

He said that you must cut all ties from this world and its bonds liken to marriage and follow me. They who follow will know the light and others will fall. Against each other they shall be made, as light is to darkness.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
No, they can't. To honor is to hold someone in esteem. Believing someone is wrong is not holding them in esteem, indeed it holds their mental faculties in disesteem :D.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by numa 7 years ago
numa
numaAEQUITASTied
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 lyra 8 years ago
lyra
numaAEQUITASTied
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 ashcon 8 years ago
ashcon
numaAEQUITASTied
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 
Vote Placed by AEQUITAS 8 years ago
AEQUITAS
numaAEQUITASTied
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 apathy77 8 years ago
apathy77
numaAEQUITASTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
numaAEQUITASTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by MyMeteora81 8 years ago
MyMeteora81
numaAEQUITASTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Monster 8 years ago
Monster
numaAEQUITASTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bullslapper 8 years ago
bullslapper
numaAEQUITASTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
numaAEQUITASTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03