The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

What is unnatural is evil in monotheism?

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: 6/6/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 871 times Debate No: 56135
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I will be argueing with Con that what ever is unnatural ( not in one's nature) is evil and if something does something that is outside of its purpose then it is not good. We may argue with examples in order to find out the religious answers to recent issues.


I accept.

I'll start off with this:

Pro is stating that anything, if unnatural, is evil.
He is generalizing the term evil, since there are many degrees of evil, like bullying vs genocide, but most importantly, Pro fails to give a definition for unnatural, and evil as well. I cannot argue anything if we both have conflicting views on what the terms mean.
Debate Round No. 1


Before you try to immediately discredit me con, I was simply following in tradition of previous debates with you, first round is acceptance round. This is easily implied if not stated. I think it is easy to agree that to do that which is not in one 's nature is corrupted. For instance if a cow starts to bark and bites people such as a dog would it is not natural and therefore evil for the cow to not act as is becoming. If each object being created ( and by nature of being a creation has a purpose) and if the creator ( at least in the Abrahamic religions) is just then it's evil to act out of one's nature if one's nature is (A) the only good way to act and (B) the best way to act. It is good for the cow to act like a cow not only because it is the only way it knows but also because it was purposefully "programmed" that way and it is good for the cow to act that way because the cow was built that way...


Through this logic, any deviation from the, "perfect state" of a species of animals, would be considered evil, so mentally-ill people would be considered evil. Also, physically-handicapped people, as well as anything that deviates from this, "perfect state".

Apologies If I'm making assumptions, but you seem to be indirectly justifying the Holocaust, but that may not be true, and it's off topic.

The idea of monotheism comes into play when added to your logic, since all things evil got to Hell. So, Pro, shall we be expecting physically, and mentally challenged people in Hell? That is wrong. Just because they aren't, "natural" (here meaning what a human should be), doesn't mean they're evil.
Debate Round No. 2


Here we venture into a problem arising from disregard. You very well know that we learned that that is simply a problem in capacity or expression not a choice. Things can only deviate from the natural state to actual evil by choice. The mentally ill are still humans without expression. Murderers would have to actively corrupt themselves or choose to give into to influence to become evil


This phrase, although you probably meant something else, surely, seems to suggest mentally ill people lack the ability to express anything: "The mentally ill are still humans without expression."

Moving on, let's create a scenario.

You are in a classroom of people you like, and hate.
One person (a person you hate) come up to you, and insults you, hits you, etc.
The natural reaction for you is to retaliate, but you have to be the better person.
There's an error in your reasoning though, since you just resisted a natural inclination, therefore you reacted unnaturally, so you committed an evil action.

The natural inclination was to retaliate, but most would agree that retaliation is not a good action, therefore a bad one.
Debate Round No. 3


Con you disappoint me, don't try to bring human "instincts" in this. We both know that there is the nature that god intended and the nature of the corrupted man. Everything in nature without sin affecting it is in order and if is the best way it can function.


I'm not looking to impress you, Pro.

Why shouldn't I bring human instincts in this? Instincts are natural, and the whole argument is about whether or not natural means good, and unnatural things mean evil.

By saying that God had intended something to be right, but saying that his creations are imperfect, shows a lack of power, and forethought.

God knew humans would fall.
God had the power to stop them from falling.
God gave them Free Will anyways, and let them fall.
Humans are evil, and have, "a corrupted nature", as Pro stated.

This makes no sense, at least to someone who believes in no divinity.

Thank you for the debate.
It was entertaining.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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