The Instigator
killshot
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points

Original Sin Never Happened

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2019 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 666 times Debate No: 120186
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (0)

 

killshot

Pro

According to Christian theology, The concept of original sin stems from the book of Genesis w/Adam and Eve. In this fable a talking snake convinced the woman, Eve, To eat a fruit from a tree that was forbidden by God. As a consequence for her disobedience, God cursed her and all her descendants for eternity with sin. The entire Christian doctrine is centered around this story.

I assert that original sin never happened and that the entire foundation of Christianity self destructs as a result. I will let my contender have the floor first.

Con

I look forward to a good debate.

Unfortunately, You are missing a lot of details.

Adam and Eve had great gifts. They couldn't feel pain, Hunger, Thirst, Bad emotions, Or death. This is why Adam lives to be over 900 years old. He existed that long before the story happened. Original Sin was getting rid of these gifts. This was the real purpose.

The whole story is in the Bible so you need to explain why it's not true. So back to you
Debate Round No. 1
killshot

Pro

You said, "Unfortunately, You are missing a lot of details. "

Yes, I'm aware of all of that. The point I was trying to make was the woman bit the fruit in disobedience and was cursed for eternity. I was just summarizing.

Here are just a couple reasons why it's not true. We can start here and see if we get any further:

1) Magic isn't real and anyone who thinks it is would be considered delusional. Examples of magic - talking snakes, *magic* fruit, Curses, Etc.
2) Evolution clearly shows that there were never only 2 humans.
3) In order to believe in the Adam and Eve myth and Genesis story, You must also be a young earth creationist, Otherwise you'd be cherry picking doctrines. The earth is much much older than 6-10k years old - like 4. 6 billion. The universe is even older - like almost 14 billion.

Back to you.

Con

1. Well, In this case, Magic is considered a miracle by God, Which is fair to believe.
You want to talk about Magic. A universe created by chance is 1 in 400 quadrillion. It is accepted that magical ingredients created life it is fair to turn to the Bible knowing this.
2. "Human" is a very broad term. What is a human? Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Cro-magnons, Or neanderthals
In this confusion, It is fair to turn to the Bible.
3. The Bible doesn't deny this fact at all. "2 Now the earth was formless and empty, Darkness was over the surface of the deep, And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. "

And. . . The floor is yours again.
Debate Round No. 2
killshot

Pro

You said "Well, In this case, Magic is considered a miracle by God, Which is fair to believe.
You want to talk about Magic. A universe created by chance is 1 in 400 quadrillion. It is accepted that magical ingredients created life it is fair to turn to the Bible knowing this. "

1) Why is a miracle fair to believe? Can you explain the difference between a miracle and magic? Can you provide ANY evidence supporting magic that aligns with reality?

I don't know how the universe came into existence or how life originated, And neither does anyone else. Anyone who pretends to is being dishonest because the real answer is - no one knows, Yet. There are working theories that may or may not be correct (multi verse, Abiogenesis, Etc). These are theoretically possible, But not yet provable. So my answer to these subjects is - I don't know and neither do you. One thing I do know and can prove is that it is certainly not the Genesis account.

You said ""Human" is a very broad term. What is a human? Homo erectus, Homo sapiens, Cro-magnons, Or neanderthals"

2) I was referring to homo sapiens, Our species; however, The argument I made would work with any of the listed species you mentioned. One species does not just pop out a new species in a single generation. It takes numerous generations, And often isolation, For changes to accumulate enough where a the two lineages can no longer interbreed. This being said, There were never two homo-sapiens. At the point of our species there are estimated to have been around 2-3 thousand (give or take) homo sapiens.

You said "The Bible doesn't deny this fact at all. "2 Now the earth was formless and empty, Darkness was over the surface of the deep, And the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. ""

3) The Bible describes the entire cosmos and it's contents being created in a week in the book of Genesis. This is common Christian consensus. Christian scholars have added up the ages of the characters in the Bible to produce an estimate of how old our universe must be. The general consensus here is around 4-6k years old. For the sake of argument, I'll give it 10 thousand years, It really doesn't matter either way. This is entirely anti-scientific in nearly every aspect. Our earth and universe is billions of years old.

Back to you.

Con

If no one knows how the universe came to be is sit fair to turn to answers? Yes

I think the Bible was using life as a term which describes when God created the first soul in a "human person". Also, There is a lot of confusion about whether Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons existed at the same time.

The point is: Nom one knows how the earth was formed.

I don't care what the schools say. A week for transforming the Earth isn't so far out of the reach.

The universe was created in far, Far less than 1/8 of a second says the big bang. The two mass extinctions on Earth had chain reactions inside 7 days. Some processes are extremely short and some are really long.

The Garden Of Eden found

https://www. Manataka. Org/page1073. Html
Debate Round No. 3
killshot

Pro

You said "If no one knows how the universe came to be is sit fair to turn to answers? Yes"

If no one knows how the universe initiated, Is it fair to just make stuff up? Absolutely not! That is the most dishonest approach you can take.

You said "I think the Bible was using life as a term which describes when God created the first soul in a "human person". Also, There is a lot of confusion about whether Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons existed at the same time. "

Genesis clearly describes how God made Adam from clay and Eve from his rib. There was no mention of imparting a soul or anything like that. When you say, "I think the Bible", It automatically infers speculation and subjectivity. It either says it or it doesn't. There are a long list of absurdities and anti-scientific claims made in Genesis. I don't want to straw man this argument by diving into them, So I will try hard to keep this subject to Adam and Eve only.

Multiple species can exist simultaneously, One doesn't have to go extinct before a second can exist. I don't know where you got that impression. The point I was trying to make was one species does not instantly give birth to another species. So there never was a first human (homo sapien). Nor was there a first Neanderthal. This alone disproves the Adam and Eve myth.

You said "The point is: Nom one knows how the earth was formed. "

This is wrong. Science knows how planets are formed. They can also see other planets currently forming in far away galaxies. I think what you meant here, Correct me if I'm wrong, Is that science doesn't know how the universe came into existence. This is true, No one does. You don't either. Having no evidence and just saying it was God/magic doesn't get us any closer to an answer.

You said "I don't care what the schools say. A week for transforming the Earth isn't so far out of the reach. "

You don't care about evidence or truth. Ok. I can't force you to be honest, But at least you admit you're close minded.

You said "The universe was created in far, Far less than 1/8 of a second says the big bang. The two mass extinctions on Earth had chain reactions inside 7 days. Some processes are extremely short and some are really long. "

The big bang is a description for what happened after the initial "spark". It's a point where the laws of physics break down. At the point of the big bang there was no earth for billions of years, So I don't understand your point here. There were no "short" processes that popped out an earth or life in a weeks time. I'm not sure what you're reading your information, But it's not scientific or reality based.

The garden of Eden found?
Come on, Seriously? I will pay you the compliment and assume even you don't buy this crap. I assume this was a joke (at least I hope it was).

They also found Noah's Ark. It was hidden with a cloaking spell and required a level 55 mage to reverse it.

I really want to have a discussion here, But all you threw at me was half literate keyboard smashed sentences, Subjective speculations and unfounded assertions.

Con

The Bible provides more answers.

The idea that Adam was the first created human is under attack within evangelical circles. Dr. John MacArthur warned about this issue in the introduction to his book, The Battle for the Beginning in 2001. We decided to hold a conference on this topic as the theme for our annual creation conference now called the Creation Summit. Much of what we will cover in the Summit is based on the book What Happened in the Garden, Written by the faculty of The Master"s University and Dr. MacArthur.

1. In what way is the historical Adam under attack?

Theistic evolution and old age creationism groups are becoming more influential in evangelical churches and some Christian colleges and universities. In these views, In order to accommodate long ages of evolution Genesis 1-11 is viewed as partially historical or not historical at all. Also, Aspects of modern evolutionary biology involving genetics and paleontology (the study of fossils) are largely accepted as part of these views. It is now widely accepted that many Adam and Eves evolved from pre-human ancestors and therefore there was not one unique created couple.

2. Did pre-human creatures exist before Adam and Eve?

Our starting point and foundation for all our disciplines at TMU is the Bible.

There is no indication biblically that there were pre-human creatures in God"s creation. In fact, The making of Eve from Adam would have been unnecessary if there were many evolving Eves.

3. How do we know there were only one Adam and one Eve?

The Bible discusses a single creation event involving Adam and Eve. God walked with Adam in the garden without mention of others. Adam is often referred to as the first Adam and not the second or third Adam. The Bible discusses the fact that all sin derived from a single first Adam. Jesus is referred to as the second Adam, Supporting the fact that there was a single first Adam.

4. Does science show multiple first Adams and pre-humans that existed before Adam?

Can God create the planets with science?

Mass extinctions have multiple chain reactions within 7 days.

They also found out how Life was formed. Level 100 Meteor with magical space ingredients. The Garden Of Eden fits many descriptions of the earth today.

This is my first debate with Religion so I was unprepared. Thank You
Debate Round No. 4
killshot

Pro

This was a fantastic response and well organized, Thank you for taking the time to write it.

I'll address each of your numbers in order as you wrote them. Feel free to address me back on anything you'd like.

1) I completely agree. Are you in agreement with this too? This is absolutely fundamental to our debate. If we agree here, Then we agree in this debate and we have found common ground.

There never was a single Adam and Eve because our homo sapien species evolved from it's ancestors. This was the entire subject of the debate. If there was no Adam and Eve, There was no original sin. If there was no original sin, There was no need for Jesus and the blood sacrifice atonement. Without original sin, The entire Christian doctrine crumbles into a meaningless collection of fables. This was the exact point I was attempting to make all along.

2) I completely agree.

3) I completely agree.

4a) Well there was no Adam according to science, As we discussed in point #1 of this. Our species evolved from it's ancestral species and at that point in time, There were roughly 2-3 thousand of them in existence. Our ancestral species evolved from it's ancestors, And so on back throughout the figurative phylogeny tree.

4b) If there is a God, Anything could be possible. I cannot prove the hypothetical God isn't a mad scientist from another universe that carefully articulated the crafting of our universe; however, That is clearly not the same God as described in Genesis. The God in Genesis clearly made our universe in about a week, Which is completely unscientific. We know for a fact our universe is nearly 14 billion years old and there are numerous ways to test this. The God in Genesis also made light before he made stars, A firmament for holding waters, And so many other errors. It's clear the author(s) of the book of Genesis were not divinely inspired in any way, Because their accounts of Genesis are massively incorrect. This book is part of the Bible and it was referenced as fact by the Christian faith for a very long time, Until science advanced enough to disprove it. If this book is wrong, What else is wrong. How can the authenticity of any of it be reliable when the book it's founded on is clearly fictitious?

4c) Can you explain what you mean about mass extinctions and chain reactions? I didn't understand that point.

4d) There are numerous theories on how life originated. Panspermia is only one option (the one you mentioned involving a meteor). Abiogenesis is another one, And it's my personal favorite simply because it's the most likely in my opinion. Regardless of how it actually started, It definitely did start, Because here we are. What is known fact is that it is certainly not the account in Genesis, Simply because it's so factually errant.

4e) It is true the Garden of Eden does fit many modern day descriptions of places. I assume at the time of it's writing it fit many places then as well. Whether there really was a physical place this myth evolved from or not, I don't know. But I am certain, Scientifically speaking, That there was no magical garden and no original Adam and Eve.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this being your first debate. Welcome to the sport :). I think you did a fantastic job this round and I think we're actually making progress here, Even if we don't end entirely on common ground. I still respect you as a person and I commend you for taking the initiative to engage yourself in a debate on something that is fundamentally core to your belief system. Not many people are willing to have an honest discussion.

I look forward to your response in the final (5th) round. To help make it easier, I will label my questions for you below.

1) Do we agree that our species (homo sapiens) evolved from it's previous ancestral species?
1a) If so, Do we then agree there was no original Adam and Eve?
1ab) If so, Do we agree that without the Adam and Eve account, There was no original sin?
2) If we don't agree on evolution, Can you please explain why and how your model functions with the scientific data we currently have.

Con

I am trying to find common ground as well so as a Christian I will do my best to agree with both science and God.

The Bible begins with this statement from God:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. "1
Out of nothing, In an instant, God created the heavens and the earth. This was a definitive, Starting point of our universe, What scientists have described as the "Big Bang. "

Many sources and organizations have described the universe happening by chance odds as 1 in 400 quadrillion.

The next sentence in Genesis says the earth was "without form and void, And darkness over it. " The rest of the chapter goes on to describe God further developing his creation: the earth's atmosphere, Positioning the sun and stars, Separating the Earth's water from land, Creating plant and animal and sea life, And finally, Humanity.

Genesis does read as though the heavens and the earth were finished on the sixth day:

"And God saw everything that he had made, And behold, It was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, The sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, And all the host of them. "

It says "sixth day. " But you need to know that Genesis was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew language uses fewer words than English, Bringing greater ambiguity. For example, In Hebrew, "Earth" can mean land, Ground, Region, Or country.

The word "day" (which is "yom" in Hebrew) can mean: a 24-hour day, Daytime, Today, Forever, Continually, Or an undetermined amount of time. So, The "sixth day" is actually an unknown length of time. There is nothing that requires us to read it as six 24-hours.

Ambiguous reference to time is found throughout the Bible. For example, Kings' empires were often referred to in this way, "In the days of King Josiah. . . " Certainly their reign lasted years, Not just days.

And, It is stated in the New Testament, "But do not overlook this one fact, Beloved, That with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, And a thousand years as one day. " Even that is meant figuratively, Not literally 1, 000 years = one day. The point is, God's sense of time is quite different from ours. Our definition of day is a full rotation of the earth in 24-hours, But during creation, Who's to say?

In the second chapter of Genesis, It says:

"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. "
Does this mean God created the heavens and the earth in one day, Instead of six days? No.

The text does not obligate us to conclude that God completed his creation in six, 24-hour time slots, Nor does the book of Genesis necessarily conflict with scientific conclusions that formation of the earth and universe lasted billions of years.

It makes little sense fixating on the length of time (when the Hebrew is going to remain ambiguous anyway), Instead of focusing on the far more important message of what was actually happening? !

If you won a $100, 000 lottery, Would it really matter to you which day you bought the ticket or how long you stood in line to purchase it?

Again, The important point is that Scripture is very clear that in real history, God chose to create the earth, The sun and stars, All aspects of the universe, The oceans, The vegetation, The sea life, The animals, And humanity. God, Unequivocally, Is the creator and originator of it all.

The confusion and multiple theories in science are why it is fair to turn to the Bible which provides a full answer.

As I researched this debate, I have come to the conclusion that this is my main argument. Thank you for a good debate and I look forward to debating more on the topic of Religion
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
@backwardseden- You are a dirtbag and highly rude. You have no friends nor are you big. All you do is hide behind that computer screen all day and whine when you've been beaten on politics.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
@Dr. Franklin - Your arguments are never formed. Why? Because you wing it from your cabbage batbrain far far far too often rather than presenting actual evidence and you thus invent excuses which never works.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
@killshot - You should see the idiot arguments Dr. Franklin posts as he basically wings it without any evidence, As he did with your debate, Well jeez, He freely admitted it for god's sake, Wow he did this with me so I dumped him. You know? There's a time when you basically have to cut someone loose. Naturally he didn't finish "Sin does not exist because there is no proven god that exists"
https://www. Debate. Org/debates/Sin-does-not-exist-because-there-is-no-proven-god-that-exists/1/
because hopefully the oreo mustard manure cookie dough hopefully realizes that he's thoroughly beaten. Yeah the sponge boob score punts thinks he's he's Donald Trump for god's sake in which both god and Trump have a lot of things in common.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
Sorry that my argument wasn't really formed until the fourth or fifth round.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
killshot
@backwards - Ya these rounds are not long enough. . We just get into conversation and it ends. .
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
killshot
@Franklin - Thanks for the debate. I really wish I could address all the genesis stuff you mentioned, But unfortunately the debate ended in it's final round. I feel like it just started to get going, Then it ended. If you want to debate another religious topic, Or even continue this topic, Feel free to challenge me on here from my user page. You pretty much know my position on things, I'll let you pick any religious subject you want. Thanks again for the debate!
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
backwardseden
@killshot - Oh man. You are dealing with Dr. Franklin? Trust me on this. . . He is a true moron of the absolute highest class. To prove it, Look at the debates that not only has he been involved with me, But with others and how he p**ses them off. No offense, And I'm not telling you what to do here, Please be careful, And I blocked him, Yes, I recommend you do the same.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
killshot
@Franklin Sounds good, I look forward to it. Have a great night!
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DeletedUser
My argument will be posted after 4 tomorrow. GN all.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
Kvng_8
@omar

If you need to reply under my 2 comments under Thoht, You can. Or include them in your argument. See ya tomorrow
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.