The Biblical God acts fairly
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Literally playing the devil's advocate.
BoP is shared.
- Fairness:
- Equal:
- Right:
- considered fair or morally acceptable by most people:
- correctly:
- Reasonable:
- Fairness:
- the quality or state of being fair
- Fair:
- marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
- conforming with the established rules :
- Honesty:
- adherence to the facts :
- fairness and straightforwardness of conduct
- Biased: Twisting facts to propagate your own worldview rather than use an objective analysis of facts.
- Partial: Favouring one side over another (biased towards one side).
- Dishonest: Ignoring crucial information, or using false information. Judging differently than previously promised.
- Discriminatory: Judging different people based on different standards. Especially people of different ethnicity, language, religion or political adherence.
- Hypocritical: Judging other people harsher than you do yourself.
- Unreasonable: Judging people for breaking impossible or contradictory standards. Making unreasonable demands.
- Ignorant: Lacking or failing to take into consideration crucial information.
- Disproportional: Not having one's judgement be proportional to the actions of the one being judged.
- Collateral: Having one's action or judgement damage innocents (if one have the capacity to avoid doing so).
- Emotional: Basing one's judgement on emotions rather than logic.
- Transferal: Punishing one person for another one's crime.
- Oppressive: Abusing one's own judgemental power to control people's actions
- God always judges perfectly fair.
- Meaning: God's judgements are flawless and without critique-worthy mistakes.
- PRO: Prove that the resolution is true.
- CON: Prove that the resolution is false.
anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. [Matthew 5:29]
“Anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Matthew 5:22)[Jesus] claims that words spoken in anger are the moral equivalent of murder. But by chapter 23, he’s pretty angry at the religious leaders.“You blind fools!” he shouts during a chapter-long rant (Matthew 23:17). He calls them hypocrites, snakes and vipers .
But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. [Isaiah 15:3]
The person who sins [is the one that] will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the sin of the father, nor will the father bear the punishment for the sin of the son; [Ezekiel 18:20]
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. [John 3:36]
- God must act perfectly fair for the resolution to be true.
- I have shown how God is unreasonable and punishes infinitely disproportionally. His judgements are biased, emotional, dishonest and hypocritical. God abuses his power as the ultimate judge to gain followers and personal gain. God actually acts less fairly than most humans, despite being far more capable of fairness.
- I proved logically why no matter what, God judges unfairly.
- The resolution thus fails.
I will add that mankind should deal fairly with God, i.e., take personal responsibility for their actions, be they good or evil
Con’s error is in calling these biblical actions I described in III.e.1.B, above, “punishment.”
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law....“There is no one righteous, not even one;...For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law[Romans 1-3] (3 chapters specifically talking about God's judgement)
What Con misses altogether is the other element of justice following a trial: the consideration of mitigating circumstances
- Trying his best to do what is right
- Yelling out in anger is a part of human nature, it's impossible to avoid by choice. God designed humans to break this law (or vice versa)
- Not being aware of God's existence
- Not being aware of God's laws
- God intentionally refuses to inform you about the law you will be judged by
- Christianity is only one of many religions. It would be hard to know that this specific religion is correct.
- God fails to make it clear that Christianity is the true way
“The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” [2 Samuel 12]
"Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.” [Job 1]
- God has unreasonable laws
- God punishes infinitely unfair
- God punishes an innocent instead of the guilty
- God uses his power as a judge for his own personal gain (to get followers), rather than to serve justice
- He does this by punishing specifically those who don't obey Jesus Christ, despite clearly being capable and justified in saving all humans from the flames
...
It is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another. [Psalm 75:7]
I have never said “unfair punishment requires a trial.” Con may speak for himself.
I maintain that every action God has historically taken against mankind [...] has had previous law-breaking activity by those so dealt with by God. Yes, in these processes of Godly actions, innocent bystanders and children also died; not all were evil-doers. However, one must recall, contrary to Carroll’s Red Queen, that fair justice demands a trial before punishment.
It is said that prisoners in prison are innocent. Yes, according to prisoners.
Repentance is the responsibility of all to wipe away our sins & suffering
- God always judges perfectly fair.
- Meaning: God's judgements are flawless and without critique-worthy mistakes.
- PRO: Prove that the resolution is true.
- CON: Prove that the resolution is false.
I'm still not quite sure I get most of this debate, at least when it gets down into what the actual scriptures say, so I will try to keep this decision to the one discussion that I think ends up being most important, but doesn't get a lot of attention in this debate: burdens. Especially in later rounds, this does get some attention, but it seems to largely vanish from Pro's responses by the final round and doesn't get as much attention as it should from Con, though the latter does produce quite a bit about what fairness is and the issues that get in the way of being truly fair.
That being said, the response from Pro that garners most of my attention throughout the debate is the issue of whether humans can judge whether God is truly fair. The larger point from Pro appears to be that God has to actually judge in order to be assessed for whether or not God is fair, which is an intriguing argument and one I had hoped Con would hit harder (it's kind of like arguing that keeping someone in jail for way too long isn't a problem so long as justice is done in the end - the various harms visited on someone before they are subject to a trial can themselves be unfair punishments that cannot be undone nor fully reversed. Con kind of talks about this with Job, but it's never as clear as it should be nor is it applied more broadly). However, it also introduces a problem, one Con mentions: if we cannot judge God, then how can we determine that God is fair? If I buy that God's judgments are too far in the future to assess and that humans are fallible enough that we can never provide such an assessment without our own bias and, thus, unfair assessments of those actions, then it's functionally impossible to prove the resolution true. The only other means Pro provides reference the Bible stating that God is (by way of near synonyms) fair, but like Con, I find this lacking. It doesn't state that specific actions are fair, just that God is fair, which might apply to those actions, but we are not in a position to assess how well that applies. It's also unclear that those individuals who stated that God is fair are, themselves, not tainted by the fallibility of humanity. Just because it exists in the Bible doesn't mean it is absolute and all-encompassing.
On the other hand, if I allow that humans can judge God's fairness by the actions described in the Bible, then it's mainly a factor of interpretation, as while Con does challenge Con's examples, he does not challenge that, within the known span of time where individuals were harmed, there was a lack of fairness at play, whether that resulted from bias or collateral (in some case intended) damage to family or whole nations. If I buy that what I interpret from the Bible is solidly accurate, then at minimum, these outcomes clash with the claims of perfect fairness that exist elsewhere, leading to some dissonance that makes it difficult to accept Pro's claims of fairness at face value.
In an effort to defeat Con's arguments, Pro removed too many tools to prove the resolution true. So, I do end up giving the debate to Con, though I will point out that this bit of burdens analysis from Con in the final round made me second guess that decision:
"PRO: Prove that the resolution is true.
CON: Prove that the resolution is false."
This suggests an equal burden. If I had seen something like it in the opening round, this debate would most likely have ended in a tie. Hell, Con basically tells me as much in the final round, saying that Pro's reasoning "is at best a reason not to vote at all", which I seriously considered doing. If anything could have shot you in the foot for this debate, Con, it was this. I might still have voted for you on the basis that there are clear examples of unfairness within a given span of time (that, again, Pro claims would be eventually remedied in some way, shape or form), but I'm honestly not sure. I'd have to go through a lot of the scripture analysis by Con with a much finer comb than I'm qualified to handle here, and it would have been a very frustrating decision to make. Recognize that Con doesn't have a stated burden in the debate and use that to your advantage. Don't give your opponent a way to end this in a null decision by virtue of being unnecessarily fair yourself.
You did well; it was a close one
Congratulations for winning the debate. Well done.
Thank you for voting. We really appreciate your effort.
Same here. I tried reading it, but I couldn't grasp the points that the 2 of you brought up. Sad, as this was a truly good debate, but I find myself unable to be interested in voting. Sorry fauxlaw and Benjamin.
I just find it difficult to follow along the debate, to check points Pro or Con clearly and remember, I also disagree with both of you on a number of your interpretations and arguments of the Bible, but 'also oddly am an atheist not 'much interested in the subject of religion.
Tried to read a few times, just can't get into it.
This debate is running out very quickly. It would be highly appreciated if you took a minute to vote, such that this debate doesn't end as a no-vote tie.
One way or another, I’ll get one up, just may not feel comfortable with it.
I'll not comment either way - inappropriate, but I know Benjamin would agree, we hope you and others find a means to vote.
I've read through it, and honestly, I'm still not sure what to think by the end. I agree with Ragnar that not defining the BoP of the two sides off the bat and examining what is necessary for each side to win the debate makes the whole thing more difficult to judge. I'll need to chew it over awhile and see if I can come to some kind of decision.
The description needs more depth. Seriously, a debate like this could come down to definitions, so making them a point of contention leads to needless confusion. Similarly making BoP declarations after the start, is risky, as they are likewise open to contention when not pre-agreed.
---
Con says humans should not be judged due to their limited information, but God should be due to his unlimited information. … Fair enough (pun intended).
Arguments start with God sending people to hell. Good use of limited crime vs unlimited consequence. He then declares that adultery equals hell (I expect pro to counter with better context, but in my haste I did not spot it). It moves on to Jesus cautioning against calling people fools, and him having actually done just that. He then plays the other side, that maybe everyone does deserve hell, arguing that it would then be wrong to not send people there. Then a touch of comedy with God sinning against Jesus.
Pro focuses on humanity, and how we should judge humans instead of God. Explains that God does things not as punishments, for he will only punish later, at some unknown time. Then moves on to point out that since the bible says God is righteous, therefore God is righteous (obviously as this is the only source of information on God, it can’t be dismissed out of hand as con argued in his opening).
---
Sorry to say it, but this is not holding my attention, and I have so much more to do with my limited time this weekend (just started a new job, so I'll be voting a lot less in general).
No promises, but I will try.
If any of you want to vote it would be highly appreciated.
Vote bump
You have no idea what influences voters. Comments shouldn't, but that does not mean they don't. Best to stay clear of the possibility. After all, it's a debate in which I am a participant. Go corrupt your own.
They won't influence the voters any more than other votes would.
Voters shouldn't factor in the comments anyways
Your conversation prior to end of voting is not appropriate in this venue because of its potential to influence voters. Keep it in PM.
Your round 3 was your strongest, although your analogies appealed more to intuition than anything else. I think you could've curbed his main offensive by clarifying that "knowing consequences for certain is indistinguishable from intending those consequences." So the whole "trial hasn't happened yet" is irrelevant because god has already intended the outcome of that trial by virtue of knowing the outcome he is going to produce beforehand.
What do you think of this debate? (not necessarily asking for a vote, I am most interested in your thoughts)
Completely understandable given your current debate on a similar subject. Good luck to you on that one. As this one may be complete through voting before yours ends, I may be able to vote on it.
I will not vote on this debate because I don't want to be biased good luck
Thank you. I can say the same to you.
Thank you for your four full rounds of debate. I will be entering my 4th round soon, working on it now, with a first draft complete. I appreciate your attention to this debate with serious arguments offering good challenges. Well done.
Thanks, Much appreciated. Didn't mean to sound like I was complaining.
My comment was a complement to your writing skill.
Actually, I have one. The PhD, that is, in English Lit. And in that process of education, I took a couple of classes examining the Bible strictly as a piece of literature; a different perspective. Sorry, can't help what I bring to the table.
6 days isn't enough. I would need a PhD in English literature to properly comprehend your argument. Well, the dictionary must be sufficient for now.
Thanks. I wanted to break with tradition and make a debate on this topic without repeating the simple mantra of "genocides, wars etc", and focus on some more important issues. From a Christian perspective, only the eternal judgement of God should matter.
Just wanted to break with tradition [by making comment during a debate] to tell you that this one is very enjoyable. You're making some challenging points [of course, I disagree, but I remember that you are playing devil's advocate]. Hope you're having fun, too.
Thank you
Thank you
good luck both of you
I do look forward to a lively, but friendly debate. Good luck to you, too. Though you do not imply, other than by the Resolution, that our scriptural sources are to be biblical, even though there are other religion's holy writ, I commit to avoiding other scriptural references.
Good luck. This is the first time we go head to head in an official debate. I guess I'll need the dictionary to properly understand your arguments.