Instigator / Pro
7
1533
rating
9
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#5736
Is the atonement of Jesus Christ ethically tenable?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
3
0
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
CatholicApologetics
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
4
1485
rating
5
debates
50.0%
won
Description
This debate has been proposed by Casey_Risk. I kindly ask that nobody else accepts this debate.
This debate will explore the ethical foundations of the atonement of Jesus Christ, particularly the Catholic belief that His sacrificial death was not only morally justifiable but divinely necessary for the salvation of humanity. The focus will be on whether it is ethically tenable that Jesus, who was without sin, bore the punishment for humanity's sins in our place, thereby expiating us from our impurities.
The goal of this debate is not to declare a 'Winner' or 'Loser,' but to engage in a thoughtful discussion that deepens the understanding of Christ’s atoning work and its ethical implications, especially from a Catholic viewpoint.
Definitions:
Atonement - By atonement in general is understood the satisfaction of a demand. In the narrower sense it is taken to mean the reparation of an insult. This occurs through a voluntary performance which outweighs the injustice done (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 186-187).
Rules:
1. Both parties agree on the historical existence and death of Jesus.
2. For consistency, the NRSV Bible will be used as the reference when citing scripture.
3. In the final round, only counterarguments addressing previous points will be allowed; no new arguments may be introduced.
4. Failure to comply with rule #3 will result in an automatic forfeiture.
Round 1
Pro
#1
INTRODUCTION.
Welcome, all readers, to the first round of this debate. I would first like to dedicate a section of my introduction to properly thank my opponent for proposing and facilitating this debate. Without their willingness and inclination to participate, this debate would not have materialized. It may be theologically dense for some readers so I highly respect my opponent's dedication and eagerness to place their due efforts in the ensuing argumentation.
I invite you to follow this reflection on one of the most profound mysteries of our faith: the atonement of Jesus Christ. This debate will discuss the central topic: Is the atonement of Jesus Christ ethically tenable? I will be assuming the affirmative position. Throughout this debate, some arguments may briefly reappear as I share another point.
Before starting, I must recollect some definitions. Throughout this debate, you will be exposed to many theological standpoints. Being Catholic, I will assume the Catholic position. “Atonement” will be a term you will encounter frequently. Atonement is generally understood as the satisfaction of a demand. In the narrower sense, it is taken to mean the reparation of an insult: "satisfactio nihil aliud est quam injuriae alteri illatae compensatio." Understanding the meaning of atonement is a prerequisite to applying it. The atonement of Jesus, by this definition, is interpreted as His sacrificial death to reconcile humanity with God.
PREREQUISITE.
Before we can fully understand the atonement, we must first grasp why atonement was necessary. The story of humanity’s fall into sin is foundational to this discussion.
In the Book of Genesis, we read of the first humans, Adam and Eve, living in perfect harmony with God in the Garden of Eden. However, their choice to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 3:1-6) introduced the experience of sin into the world. This act of disobedience, known as Original Sin, caused a rupture in their relationship with God. As a result, humanity became estranged from God, and the harmony of creation was broken.
This separation from God is not merely a theological concept; it is a moral and spiritual reality. Sin distances us from the very source of life and goodness. As St. Paul explains, "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). Because of this, humanity was in desperate need of salvation — a way to be reconciled to God. But the gap caused by sin was so great that no human effort could restore what was lost. Only God Himself could bridge that gap, which brings us to the necessity of Christ’s atonement.
MAIN BODY #1
Atonement occurs through a voluntary performance which outweighs the injustice done. On the occasion that such performance, through its intrinsic value, utterly counterbalances the grievousness of the guilt according to the demands of justice, the atonement is fully adequate or of full value. If it is not commensurate with the grievousness of the offence and is accepted sufficient purely out of gracious consideration, it is inadequate or of incomplete value. Additionally, if the atonement is not performed by the offender himself, but by another in his stead, it is deemed vicarious atonement (satisfactio vicaria).
At its core, atonement is about satisfying the demands of justice. Sin, by its nature, is an offense against God, who is infinitely good. Therefore, the offense requires a satisfaction of infinite value. As humans, we are incapable of offering such a satisfaction because we are finite creatures. This is why the atonement had to come through Jesus Christ, who is both fully God and fully man. Christ Himself expressed the notion of the vicarious atonement in the words: “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many,” (Matthew 20:28). “Just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. And I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.” (John 10:15-18). This notion appears distinctively: “For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21). “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.” (Galatians 3:13). The justice of God is revealed in the demand for and the acceptance of Christ’s vicarious atonement-sacrifice (Romans 3:25), “to the shewing of His justice.” (Cf. 1 Peter 2:24) Since the start, the Fathers accepted Christ’s vicarious atonement. This is exemplified further in the Apostles’ disciple, St. Clement of Rome, who comments: “For the sake of the love which He had for us Our Lord Jesus Christ, according to the will of the Father has given His blood for us, His flesh for our flesh, and His soul for our soul” [1].
St. Anselm of Canterbury, in his dialogue Cur Deus Homo, speculatively penetrated and built up to a systematic theory of Redemption the idea of Christ’s vicarious atonement which is revealed from Scripture and tradition. St. Anselm proceeds from the contemplation of the guilt of sin. This, as an insult offered to God, is infinite, and therefore demands an infinite expiation. Such expiation can only be achieved by a Divine Person. To be capable of representing mankind, this person must be, at the same time, man and God.
The ethical structure of Christ’s atonement lies first within its adequate and full value by reason of its intrinsic merit, which lies in the Hypostatic Union. Christ’s actions posses an intrinsic infinite value, because the principium quod is the Divine Person of the Logos. Thus, Christ’s atonement was, through its intrinsic value, sufficient to counterbalance the infinite insult offered to God, which is inherent in sin. According to the teaching of the Scotists and the Nominalists, it was adequate only by virtue of God’s external acceptance. God required reparation for sin; hence, Christ’s atonement is necessary to restore balance. By willingly offering Himself, Jesus provided the necessary reparation for our sins, reconciling humanity to God. This sacrifice of reconciliation, mending the relationship humans broke with God, is perhaps the epitome of the term "an act of love." Separation from perfect goodness, peace, and love is the most damaging state you can be in, which is exactly what hell is.
MAIN BODY #2
An essential aspect of the atonement is that Christ’s sacrifice was entirely voluntary. This is critical because it demonstrates the depth of His love for humanity and affirms the justice of the act. In 431, the Council of Ephesus teaches with St. Cyril of Alexandria “He (Christ) offered Himself for us as a sweet odour (that is, as a pleasing sacrifice) to the God and Father.” According to Hebrews 8-10, the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were models of the death of Christ on the cross. The Prophet Isaiah foretells not only the Passion and Death of the future Messiah, but also that He would voluntarily accept it as a “guilt-sacrifice” for the sins of mankind (Isaiah 53:7-12). St. John the Baptist, the last of the Prophets, following Isaiah, sees in Christ the Lamb of Sacrifice, who took on Himself the sins of all mankind, in order to atone for them. John 1:29: “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!”
St. Paul, most clearly of all, bears witness to the sacrificial character of Christ’s death on the Cross. Ephesians 5:2 “Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.” 1 Corinthians 5:7 “For our paschal lamb, Christ, has been sacrificed.” Romans 3:25 “God put forward [Christ Jesus] as a sacrifice of atonement by his blood, effective through faith.” The atoning blood is, however, according to Holy Scripture sacrificial blood (Leviticus 17:11). Hebrews 9:1-10, 18, 28, describes the superiority of the sacrifice offered by Christ on the cross over the Old Testament sacrifices. 1 John 2:2, “he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”
Christ Himself indirectly designated His death on the Cross as a sacrifice for the sins of men, by using the biblical sacrificial terms “giving up of life” and “shedding of blood.” Matthew 20:28: “just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.” In the inauguration of the Holy Eucharist, He indicates the sacrificial character of His death. Luke 22:19, “Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body, which is given for you.’” Matthew 26:28, “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” The Fathers, from the very beginning, regarded Christ’s death on the Cross as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind. The author of the Barnabas Letter 7:3, says: “He Himself wished to offer the vessel of life (His Body) as a sacrifice for our sins, so that the model would be fulfilled, which was given in Isaac, which was offered on the altar of sacrifice.” Other examples include, St. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 5:23 , I; St Augustine, De civ. Dei X 20 ; De Trin IV 14:19.
The sacrificial character of Christ’s death on the Cross may be established, speculatively, in that all the demands of a sacrificial act were fulfilled. Christ as a man was at the same time sacrificing priest and sacrificial gift. As God together with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, He was also the receiver of the sacrifice. The act of sacrifice consisted in the fact that Christ, in a disposition of the most perfect self-surrender, voluntarily gave up His life to God by permitting His enemies to kill Him, although He had the power of preventing it (John 10:18). Jesus, aware of the suffering that awaited Him, chose to lay down His life freely. This voluntary nature is not only an expression of divine love but also key to the ethical tenability of the atonement. If Christ had been coerced into sacrifice, it would have been unjust. But because He freely chose to give Himself, He offered the highest act of love: "No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." (John 15:13). This act of self-giving love shows that the atonement is not merely a legal transaction but a personal and loving offering that invites humanity into restored relationship with God.
MAIN BODY #3
The purpose of the atonement was to reconcile humanity with God. This reconciliation is essential for our salvation, as it restores the broken relationship caused by sin. The Council of Trent teaches that Our Lord offered His life on the Cross for our eternal redemption. The same Council refers to the one mediator Jesus Christ: “who in his blood has reconciled us with God made unto us justice and sanctification and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30). D 790.
Christ regards the giving of his life as “a redemption for many” (Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45). In agreement with this, St. Paul teaches that Christ gave Himself up as ransom for mankind and that the effect of His death of sacrifice was our ransom. 1 Timothy 2:6, “who gave himself a ransom for all.” Romans 3:24, “they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.” The slavery from which Christ purchased mankind through His sacrificial death is the slavery of sin (Titus 2:14, “He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity”), the slavery of the Mosaic Law (Galatians 3:13, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us”) the slavery of the Devil (Colossians 1:13 “He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son”) and the slavery of death (2 Timothy 1:10, “our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel”).
Christ indicates the atoning power of His death in the inauguration of the Eucharist: “for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28). St. Paul ascribes the reconciliations of sinners with God, that is, the restoration of the original relationship of child to parent and friendship with God, to Christ’s death. Romans 5:10 “For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life.” Colossians 1:20 “and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.” The atonement is not merely about cancelling a debt; it is about restoring communion with God. Through Christ’s sacrifice, we are no longer estranged from Him, but adopted as His children (Galatians 4:4-5).
From the beginning the Fathers insist on the scriptural ideas of ransom and atonement. St. Ireneaus, appealing to the passages in the Epistle to the Ephesians (1:7 ; 2:13), says “Since between Him (Christ) and us there exists a community (namely the community of the flesh and blood), the Lord reconciled mankind with God, by reconciling us through the body of His flesh and ransomed us through his blood.” Christ’s atonement demonstrates God’s mercy because it offers forgiveness while maintaining divine justice. Ethically, the atonement reflects perfect love, where the innocent (Christ) sacrifices for the guilty (humanity). It aligns with the moral principle of self-giving love (agape), central to Christian ethics. In reconciling us to God, Christ’s atonement also demonstrates both divine justice and mercy. Justice demanded that sin be dealt with, but mercy provided the means through which we could be forgiven. As St. John Chrysostom said, "God both punished sin and saved the sinner" through Christ’s sacrifice. Jesus offered to us a way out of the experience of hell, by giving up His life. He did this in order to restore the lost relationship God wants to have with His creation.
MAIN BODY #4
One important objection that arises is whether Christ’s atonement negates human free will. If Christ died for all, does that mean salvation is automatic or imposed upon us? The Catholic answer is a clear "No." Catholic teaching holds that while Christ’s atonement is universal — it is offered to all — its benefits must be freely accepted.
The atonement respects human free will, as Catholics believe salvation through Christ is offered to all but accepted by individual choice. Christ did not die for the faithful only, but for all mankind without exception (Sent. fidei proxima). In the year 1653, Pope Innocent X condemned as heretical the proposition that Christ died for the salvation of the “predestined” exclusively. D 1096. In the year 1690, Pope Alexander VIII rejected the assertion that Christ offered Himself to God for the faithful only (pro omnibus et solis fidelibus). D 1294. The Council of Trent laid down: “Hence it was that the Heavenly Father sent His Son to men that He might redeem the Jews who were under the Law and that the gentiles who followed not after justice might receive justice and that all might receive the adoption of sons. Him God hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His blood for our sins and not alone for ours but for those of the whole world.” D 794. Cf. D 319, 795.
Holy Scripture clearly teaches the universality of the deed of Redemption, and with it indirectly the atonement of Christ. 1 John 2:2, "and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.” Cf. John 3:16 et seq. ; 11:51 et seq. ; 2 Corinthians 5:15 “and he died for all, so that those who live might live no longer for themselves, but for him who died and was raised for them.” Cf. Romans 5:18. The Fathers living before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy unanimously teach both the generality of God’s will of sanctification and the generality of Christ’s vicarious atonement. St. Clement of Rome writes: “Let us behold the blood of Christ and let us realise how precious it is to God His Father because it, shed for our salvation, has brought the grace of repentance to the whole world.” Cf. St. Ireneaus, Adv. haer. III 22:4. On Good Friday, the commemorative day of Christ’s death of redemption, the Church prays for the salvation of all mankind.
The universality of Christ’s vicarious atonement refers to the objective Redemption only. Christ made sufficient atonement for all men without exception. The subjective appropiation of the fruits of Redemption is, however, dependend on the fulfilment of certain conditions, on faith (Mark 16:16), and on the observation of the Commandments (Hebrews 5:9 ; 2 Peter 1:10). Accordingly the Schoolmen distinguish between sufficientia (adequacy) and efficacia (efficacy, success) of atonement, and teach that Christ offered atonement for all mankind, secundum sufficientian, but not secundum efficaciam. In other words: in acto primo Christ’s atonement is universal ; in actu secundo, it is particular. All of this was to establish the premise; Christ’s atonement is universal, but is not forced. Free will still exists independently of the atonement. God does not force anyone into salvation; He invites us. This respects our free will and our dignity as human beings. While Christ’s atonement is sufficient for all, it is only effective for those who freely choose to accept it. This harmonizes the universal scope of the atonement with the individual’s freedom to respond.
CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, the ethical tenability of Christ's atonement withstands rigorous scrutiny when evaluated through the lens of justice, love, and free will. Sin, as an infinite offense against an infinitely good God, required a reparation of equal measure — something no human could ever provide. However, Christ’s atoning sacrifice, as both God and man, fulfilled the demands of divine justice through a perfect act of love, bridging the gap between humanity and God. This vicarious atonement was not only sufficient, but necessary, as Christ’s infinite merit balanced the infinite insult caused by sin, something no human effort could accomplish.
Furthermore, the voluntary nature of Christ's sacrifice strengthens the ethical foundation of the atonement. Jesus freely chose to offer His life, ensuring that His death was a morally upright act of self-giving love, not a coerced or unjust imposition. The notion that His atonement could violate human free will is unfounded — salvation is not forced upon anyone. While Christ died for all, His sacrifice respects our free will, offering salvation universally but requiring individual acceptance. This balance between the universal scope of Christ’s atonement and the personal choice of each individual upholds human dignity and ethical coherence.
In light of these arguments, the atonement emerges as not only ethically tenable but also necessary and profound. It satisfies the demands of justice while offering reconciliation to all, without coercion or contradiction. The atonement of Christ is not just a theological doctrine — it is the most rational and ethically sound solution to the problem of sin, grounded in both divine justice and the highest expression of love. Given the overwhelming consistency of these truths, it becomes clear that the atonement is not only justified but is the only logically coherent resolution to humanity’s estrangement from God. Through His sacrifice, Christ achieved what no human could — a perfect reconciliation between justice and mercy.
Con
#2
I would like to thank my opponent, Catholic Apologetics, for this debate. I first suggested this topic in a forum post, and they agreed to debate this topic with me. May it prove to be an intelligent and productive conversation!
As a brief preface, I will say that I am not Catholic myself, nor have I ever been a member of the Catholic church, so I may make some mistakes regarding Catholic doctrines. I will try my best to avoid this, but even so, I do not believe that any small doctrinal errors I make will have any substantial impacts on the weight of my arguments.
The Necessity Defense
Christianity as a religion has many different denominations, some of which deny doctrines that others consider to be unquestionably true. For example, I was raised as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, a group that does not believe in the Trinity, which is considered to be a serious heresy by most other Christian denominations. And yet, virtually all faithful Christians can agree on these fundamental points:
- Jesus Christ died as a sacrifice so that the sins of humanity could be forgiven.
- Jesus had never sinned, and therefore had done nothing to be deserving of death.
- Jesus's death was part of God's plan.
Naturally, this seems to be pretty clearly wrong -- how could someone who had done nothing to deserve death, nor any sort of punishment whatsoever, be killed, and yet God's plan for this could be perfectly ethical and justified? The Christian response is generally that it was truly necessary. However, I would like to examine the arguments for the necessity of Jesus's sacrifice closely and reveal how they don't quite stack up under scrutiny.
To Be Willing and Able
Observe that to be willing and able is to do. If anyone ever does not carry out a certain action, either they were unwilling or unable to do so (or both unwilling and unable). If someone ever is willing to do X, whatever X may be, and does not, either something prevented them from doing so, or they were not really willing to do it at that particular time; thus, they were unwilling to do X then. This is relevant, because if one is to accept that the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for salvation, then God must have been either unwilling or unable to grant reconciliation to humanity without it.
Is it possible, then, that God was willing, but merely unable? Put simply, no. It is a basic, fundamental doctrine of Christianity that God is omnipotent, the Almighty, able to do all things. If it were in his will to forgive the sins of humanity without a sacrifice, surely it would be within his power.
Even putting matters of omnipotence aside, however, note that forgiveness is purely a mental act -- all that is necessary to be able to forgive someone is to be willing. To be willing to forgive a person for a transgression is to be able to forgive them, and to be willing and able is to do. Therefore, we can categorically say that God did not fail to forgive the sins of humanity merely because he was unable to -- he must have been unwilling to do so. This is highly consequential, as if the sacrifice of Jesus, God's only son, was not truly necessary, then it was gratuitous suffering -- a gratuitous evil. I believe it is self-evident that intentionally causing gratuitous suffering is inherently a moral wrong, which would render the doctrine of Atonement ethically untenable.
I believe this argument to be sufficient to serve as my entire case, but in the interest of really delving into the topic and covering all my bases (so to speak), I will add more arguments.
Manufactured Necessity
The argument that Jesus's sacrifice was necessary in the broader context is a sort of affirmative defense, one which plainly states that the alleged actions, which are generally illegal or immoral, are factually true and actually happened, but that the context mitigates or even justifies them. For example, historically speaking, those who were abducted by maritime pirates and forced into piracy against their will would generally be pardoned for their crimes upon being repatriated, so long as they never killed. In a modern legal system, such a defendant could use the duress defense. The necessity defense, which states that some illegal action was necessary to prevent a greater harm, also exists. For instance, firefighters destroying private property to create a fire break is generally protected under law, even though it would be illegal and lead to civil liability under normal circumstances.
However, duress and necessity have one thing in common under the law: you cannot use such a defense if you knowingly created the situation that would make such a defense necessary in the first place. One who intentionally sets a fire is not off the hook for blowing up their neighbor's house to create a fire break. In the words of Nathan Burney, "There's no such thing as a Chutzpah Defense." And while it is true that what is legal or illegal is not necessarily equivalent to what is moral or immoral, I think we can all agree that such a limitation ought to be accepted, or else we would have to accept people not being responsible for the non-immediate consequences of their own actions.
So, why do I bring this up? Put simply, even if we put aside the arguments I made in my last section and assume that the sacrifice of Jesus truly was necessary, we must examine exactly why it was necessary. My opponent explains it like so:
In the Book of Genesis, we read of the first humans, Adam and Eve, living in perfect harmony with God in the Garden of Eden. However, their choice to disobey God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 3:1-6) introduced the experience of sin into the world. This act of disobedience, known as Original Sin, caused a rupture in their relationship with God. As a result, humanity became estranged from God, and the harmony of creation was broken.
Simple enough, I suppose, but this raises some important questions, namely: Why was such a tree made in the first place? One must think about the context here: God made the Tree, knowing that if Adam and Eve ate from it, they would be introducing sin into the world, irreparably so except through divine intervention.
. . .sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned
It is obvious that God must have known that, if humans had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, which they easily could have done so, sin and death would spread to all their descendants. Not only must God have known that, he must have intended for that to have been the consequences, for he created everything in our universe, including the Tree. Furthermore, he must have known from the outset that the only way for sinful humans to be reconciled to God was for a divine sacrifice to be made -- that of Jesus. Essentially, God knowingly and intentionally created the situation that made the death of a perfect, sinless human who deserved no harm necessary.
Even if one accepts that God, despite being omniscient, could not have known for a certainty that Adam and Eve would eat from the tree at all, one must still accept that God knew about and deliberately planned for this event. To say that God's actions thereafter were justified in context is to affirm the "Chutzpah defense". I believe we should do no such thing.
Calculate lim x→∞
I have one final main argument that I would like to make. Suppose, for a moment, that I were to steal $100 from a homeless man with only $100 to his name. I then proceed to steal the same amount of money from someone with $1,000. Lastly, I somehow manage to steal $100 from Elon Musk, currently (as of the time of writing) the wealthiest person in the world, with a net worth of 264 billion US Dollars. I ask my opponent, and would like the readers of this debate to answer for themselves: are all three transgressions equally wrong? If not, which was the worst, and which was the least bad?
I think the vast majority of people would agree that, all other things being equal, stealing all the money that a homeless person has is far, far worse than stealing a small amount from the richest person alive. $100 is only a trivial fraction of Musk's net worth after all, but it can be hugely consequential to a person with no means. This is a basic concept, that the seriousness of one's immoral actions is proportional to their consequences, and not merely based on what type of wrongdoing is committed. Despite this, my opponent claims (and many Christians would agree that),
Sin, by its nature, is an offense against God, who is infinitely good. Therefore, the offense requires a satisfaction of infinite value.
This is truly an extraordinary claim. I mean no insult to my opponent for what I am about to say. I wished to debate them as I believe they are a very skilled debater, one of the best who is somewhat active in debating on this site, and probably the best currently active debater on DART who is a Christian. However, I believe there are certain tenets in Christianity, as well as the other Abrahamic religions, that most practicioners believe, not because they have independently looked at the reasoning behind them and found it to be sound, but because they wish to continue to believe in their religion, and so they start with the conclusion in mind that "My religion and denomination are correct, and there is therefore a perfectly reasonable explanation and justification for everything," and end up working backwards from the conclusion instead of forwards from the givens. This quote directly from Pro is a prime example of this, in my opinion. I understand that it is a fundamental tenet of Christianity, and it is the usual justification for how infinite torture in Hell could be justified. What I do not understand is, how it could be so readily accepted by so many.
This sort of Christian morality completely flips the ordinary standards which everyone can intuit and believe in and asks us to believe in something which is, in my opinion, completely absurd. It shifts the idea that the severity of a wrongdoing is proportional to its (real or intended) consequences to the idea that it is based on the worth of the person being wronged. It is akin to saying that committing some crime against Elon Musk requires a response equivalent to about 264,000,000,000 USD, since that is what he is worth, financially speaking. Meanwhile, committing some crime against someone with no money or earthly possessions aside from the clothes on their back would require essentially no repayment. Frankly, I do not feel the need to explain why such a system is ethically untenable, and I should hope that the voters will agree.
Thinking logically, it should be clear that God, as an Almighty, omnipotent being, transcending all human and even physical limitations, cannot be meaningfully harmed by humans in any way. As the input of a decreasing exponential function tends toward infinity, the output tend toward zero. The less someone is harmed by an offense, the less severe the offense is. Therefore, the idea that doing something which God forbids saddles an infinite debt upon the debtor is, in my opinion, patently absurd.
But even if I were to accept an infinite debt being given for a finite crime, I must still examine why such a debt was incurred in the first place. In the end, it is God himself and no one else who sets the punishment for sin. This ties into my first two main bodies: If God wanted to forgive our sins freely, he could have simply done so by simply willing it. However, he clearly was not willing to do so. If God did not want all humans to be born imperfect and sinful, he could have simply made it so that eating from the Tree of Knowledge would not spread sin to all humanity, or he could have simply not made the Tree in the first place. But instead, he made it so that all humans would be sinful and therefore be saddled with an infinite debt. One can only conclude that, although he considered himself to be infinitely superior to his own living creations such that they could commit infinitely bad offenses against him, God wasn't actually interested in making sure that wouldn't continue to happen over and over again, by literally every single human ever from Adam and Eve until the Battle of Armageddon (if one believes that such an event will happen in the first place). It's quite paradoxical. Frankly, I don't feel that I can rationally accept such a doctrine.
Conclusion
As I have shown, the Christian defense for the doctrine of Atonement rests on necessity. However, looking closer, we find reason to believe that this supposed necessity was not truly present, and even if it was, it was a manufactured necessity. It is not something that a rational person ought to find ethically tenable. As I have demonstrated, using basic moral principles applied fairly and consistently reveals the flawed nature of Christian morality. Though they are a skilled writer, Pro has not upheld their burden of proof.
Thank you for taking the time to read this debate! I yield the floor.
Round 2
Pro
#3
INTRODUCTION.
Welcome, all readers, to the debate's middle point — the second round. Before addressing my opponent's arguments, I would first like to express my sincerest gratitude. Thank you, Casey, for having taken the time to thoughtfully compose a response. I understand you are involved in another debate as well, so I respect your ability to delegate time accordingly and be able to participate in both debates simultaneously. From your arguments, I can tell you are highly intelligent and I commend you for your work. I look forward to continue this exchange with you!
On a separate note, my opponent has raised key concerns regarding the atonement of Jesus. I would not consider them "counter-arguments" so much as "misunderstandings." Some of the objections brought up stem from a lack of knowledge about Catholicism. Certain objections reflect a lack of familiarity with the nuances of the faith. My opponent has stated that they are not fully familiar with Catholic doctrines. He states, "I may make some mistakes regarding Catholic doctrines. I will try my best to avoid this, but even so, I do not believe that any small doctrinal errors I make will have any substantial impacts on the weight of my arguments." I wish this were the case, but the errors brought up are not "small," they certainly do have a "substantial impact." Which is why I must preface that this round will be mostly a clarification of Church teachings, ensuring that all who read may understand.
PREREQUISITE.
My opponent's argument centered on questioning the necessity of Jesus' sacrifice and the nature of sin, but they failed to address the arguments presented in the first Round. It seems they have almost entirely ignored the arguments presented. Specifically, they did not engage with the concept of divine justice and mercy that underpins the necessity of the Atonement. While I emphasized that Jesus’ sacrifice was voluntary and that He took upon Himself the punishment for our sins, they did not consider how this reflects both God's mercy and justice. Additionally, my opponent did not address how Jesus' death saves us from hell and provides not just forgiveness, but also reconciliation and renewal. They overlooked the crucial role of free will in humanity's fall into sin and how Christ's sacrifice respects and upholds that free will. These omissions leave significant gaps in their argument, as they do not fully acknowledge the complexity of God's plan for redemption as articulated in Christian doctrine. As a result, my opponent has failed to address any of my arguments in the first Round. I suggest they finally address them in the next round.
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS.
how could someone who had done nothing to deserve death, nor any sort of punishment whatsoever, be killed, and yet God's plan for this could be perfectly ethical and justified? The Christian response is generally that it was truly necessary
This question was addressed as a part of my main points during the first round (see Round 1, Main Body #2). The claim that someone who did nothing to deserve death cannot be justifiably killed overlooks the fundamental Christian belief in the concept of vicarious atonement. Jesus willingly chose to bear the punishment for humanity’s sins, not because He deserved it, but out of profound love and mercy. This act was not merely a response to a moral obligation but an expression of God’s justice and grace. The sacrifice was necessary to fulfill the requirement of justice while simultaneously demonstrating God's deep compassion for humanity.
if one is to accept that the sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for salvation, then God must have been either unwilling or unable to grant reconciliation to humanity without it.
The affirmation that Jesus’ death satisfied for our sins does not logically entail that it was the only possible way for our sins to be satisfied. To argue that, if Jesus did not die, sin could not be forgiven would be to commit the fallacy of negating the antecedent (if A, then B; not A; therefore, not B). Given God's omnipotence, He can bring about any good that does not involve a logical contradiction. As the angel Gabriel tells Mary, “For nothing will be impossible with God” (Luke 1:37). The notion that God could remit sin in a way other than Jesus’ death does not entail a contradiction. Therefore, as St. Thomas Aquinas concludes, “it was possible for God to deliver mankind otherwise than by the passion of Christ” (Summa Theologiae III, Q. 46, Art. 2). Sin is, fundamentally, a personal offense against God. As David says in his psalm of repentance: “Against you, you alone, have I sinned” (Psalm 41:4).
Given God's omnipotence and His unending love for humanity, it would be misguided to claim that God was either "unwilling" or "unable" to grant reconciliation without the crucifixion. While the death of Jesus was not the only possible way for God to redeem humanity, it was, in His infinite wisdom, the most fitting and perfect means within His divine plan. His sacrifice aligns with God’s greater purpose of revealing profound truths about Himself.
Jesus' death on the cross manifests God's justice, for it satisfied the debt of sin that humanity could not repay (ST III, Q. 46, Art. 1). It also demonstrates God's mercy, for as Aquinas notes, “man of himself could not satisfy for the sin of all human nature” (ST III, Q. 46, Art. 1). Above all, Jesus' death reveals the depths of God's love for us. As Jesus Himself teaches, “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” (John 15:13). St. Paul echoes this, saying, “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8). Christ’s death serves multiple purposes beyond satisfaction for sin. It is a powerful example of virtue, particularly obedience, humility, constancy, and justice (ST III, Q. 46, Art. 3). As Peter writes, “Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps.” (1 Peter 2:21). By dying on the cross, Jesus also teaches us to die to sin and our carnal desires, as St. Paul says: “The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.” (Romans 6:10-11). The horror of His crucifixion vividly portrays the ugliness of sin, motivating us to turn away from sin and pursue holiness (ST III, Q. 46, Art. 3).
Understanding the full depth and intricacy of the Atonement would require more than a debate — it would require a lifetime of study. For those interested in exploring the topic further, I recommend "The Crucifixion" by Fleming Rutledge and "A Community Called Atonement" by Scot McKnight. Nonetheless, it is clear that Jesus' vicarious atonement bears significant theological and moral weight. His death corrects our path, calling us to turn from wickedness and strive toward holiness.
if the sacrifice of Jesus, God's only son, was not truly necessary, then it was gratuitous suffering -- a gratuitous evil. I believe it is self-evident that intentionally causing gratuitous suffering is inherently a moral wrong, which would render the doctrine of Atonement ethically untenable.
The sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for humanity's redemption and reconciliation with God, but not in the sense that Jesus was the only conceivable method of achieving that redemption. God, in His infinite wisdom, could have chosen any number of ways to redeem humanity. However, in His divine plan, He chose the incarnation and sacrifice of Jesus as the most fitting means for our salvation. To view Christ’s suffering as gratuitous is to misunderstand the nature and purpose of the Atonement. Christ did not endure suffering without purpose; His sacrifice was the means by which humanity could be restored to communion with God. Far from being gratuitous, this suffering was voluntary, undertaken out of love as an act of vicarious atonement.
Therefore, it is not a moral wrong, but the ultimate expression of love and sacrifice. Jesus willingly bore the consequences of human sin, which would otherwise have resulted in eternal separation from God. This redemptive suffering served a profound purpose: it enabled humanity to be reconciled to the source of all life and goodness. Without this reconciliation, we remain cut off from God, the true source of life. This separation results in spiritual and moral decay, which manifests in personal brokenness, relational strife, and societal unrest.
Why was such a tree made in the first place? ... It is obvious that God must have known that, if humans had eaten from the Tree of Knowledge, which they easily could have done so, sin and death would spread to all their descendants.
There was nothing inherently magical or evil about the fruit of the Forbidden Tree. Rather, the sin of Adam and Eve resulted from their deliberate choice to disobey God's command. The tree was created with a purpose: it provided Adam and Eve the opportunity to exercise their free will by choosing either to trust in God’s loving authority or to reject it. The tree’s presence does not reflect cruelty or a desire to tempt humanity. Instead, it reflects God’s deep love for humanity, for true love must be freely chosen.
For a genuine relationship with God to exist, there must be the possibility of choosing that relationship — or rejecting it. If Adam and Eve had no option to disobey, their relationship with God would have been forced, rendering it inauthentic. Love cannot be forced, as love that is compelled ceases to be love. This is why God, in His wisdom, allowed for the possibility of disobedience through the tree. The tree itself symbolized the freedom to choose, and this freedom is essential to human dignity and the nature of love.
God’s foreknowledge does not mean He caused Adam and Eve’s disobedience. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains, God’s knowledge of future events does not remove human free will or make God the cause of sin (ST, I, Q. 14, Art. 13). God foreknew their choice, but it was entirely their own decision. He allowed the possibility of sin so that humanity could freely choose to love and obey Him, which makes the relationship real and meaningful. The ensuing effects of Adam and Eve’s choice — the Fall and separation from God — were the result of their free will, not God’s will. If the tree had not existed, Adam and Eve would have lived in a world without the ability to make meaningful choices, and their love for God would have been inauthentic. God desires a true relationship with His creation, one rooted in love and freedom. Love that is forced or necessitated is not love at all, and for love to be genuine, there must always be the possibility of choosing against it. This is why the Tree of Knowledge was essential, for it gave humanity the freedom to love God authentically.
God knowingly and intentionally created the situation that made the death of a perfect, sinless human who deserved no harm necessary.
Just as God knew that Adam and Eve would sin, He also knew that He would send His Son to die for the sins of the world. This was not a reaction to human sin but part of His eternal plan to save humanity, demonstrating His boundless love. As St. Paul tells us in Romans 5:8, “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.” This verse reveals the depth of God's love — He loved us not because we were deserving, but despite our sinfulness. God’s foreknowledge of sin does not mean He caused it or desired it. Rather, He permitted sin to enter the world so that a greater good could come from it: the redemption of humanity through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. As St. Augustine says, "God judged it better to bring good out of evil than not to permit any evil to exist" (Enchiridion, Chapter 11). God’s plan was always one of love and salvation, foreseeing both the Fall and the way He would redeem humanity through His Son.
From the moment of creation, God was willing to sacrifice Himself for us, even though we are infinitely undeserving of His grace. He loves us before we can even respond to Him in love. As 1 John 4:19 tells us, “We love because he first loved us.” The sacrifice of Jesus was not an afterthought or a reluctant necessity, but the greatest expression of divine love, freely given so that we might be reconciled to God. In creating a world where free will exists, God allowed for the possibility of sin, knowing that He would ultimately bring about redemption through Christ. His willingness to take on human suffering through the death of His Son shows just how deeply He desires to restore our relationship with Him. This act of self-giving love is not an act of cruelty but the ultimate expression of mercy and love, revealing that God’s plan for salvation was always in place, even before we knew we needed it.
stealing all the money that a homeless person has is far, far worse than stealing a small amount from the richest person alive. $100 is only a trivial fraction of Musk's net worth after all, but it can be hugely consequential to a person with no means.
My opponent attempts to misinterpret my position by quoting: "Sin, by its nature, is an offense against God, who is infinitely good. Therefore, the offense requires a satisfaction of infinite value." They claim that my stance is that "all sins are equal," but this is a misunderstanding of what I actually said. My point is that because God is infinite in being, any offense against Him requires a satisfaction of infinite value. This is not the same as claiming that all sins are equal.
Sin, regardless of its perceived magnitude, separates us from God, who is infinite in His holiness. Therefore, even what we consider minor sins can have profound spiritual implications because of the infinite nature of the One we offend. Since God is infinite in His goodness and holiness, any sin, no matter how small, creates a separation between the sinner and God. This separation reflects the infinite gap between human imperfection and God's infinite perfection. Even the smallest sin disrupts the relationship with God. However, this does not mean that all sins are equal in their gravity or consequences. Thought not a perfect analogy, imagine sins as cars, with some being much more expensive than others. Even though some cars cost more, the problem is that we are broke and can't afford any of them — whether cheap or expensive. The same goes for sin: while some sins are more serious than others, any sin creates a separation from God, and we lack the ability to bridge that gap on our own. We need God's grace, offered through Christ, to repair that relationship, no matter the severity of the sin.
Catholic moral theology recognizes the distinction between the objective gravity of sin and its circumstantial effects on people and society. This is why the Church differentiates between mortal and venial sins, as well as between the severity of particular acts within the broader category of sin. For a sin to be mortal, it must involve grave matter, be committed with full knowledge, and done with deliberate consent (CCC 1857-1859). Stealing can be a mortal sin if these conditions are met. However, the circumstances, including the impact on others, help determine the gravity of the sin. While every sin is an offense against God, and thus requires some form of divine satisfaction (which is why Christ’s atonement is central), Catholic teaching still considers the effect of sin on others. The Catechism explains that sins also cause harm to people, and part of moral evaluation is assessing that harm in a concrete sense (CCC 2484). For example, stealing a poor person’s last $100 would cause far more harm to their livelihood than stealing the same amount from a billionaire, and this increased harm worsens the sin in a practical, moral sense.
Therefore, the statement about sin offending God infinitely is true in the sense that all sins rupture our relationship with God, and this separation reflects the infinite gap. But the gravity of each sin's effects on others also plays a role in how culpable or grave the act is in particular situations. This is why Catholic teaching does not view all sins as equal in terms of earthly consequences, even though they all require infinite reconciliation with God. While the consequences of sin may differ in earthly terms, all sin necessitates atonement to restore the relationship with God.
CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, the death of Jesus Christ remains the most influential moment of all of history. It remains the pinnacle of human experience — the epitome of love itself. His sacrifice is not only a historical certainty but the triumph over death and decay. The love manifested in the vicarious atonement is a type of love rarely replicated. Though not the only way to conquer sin, God chose to sacrifice Himself for the sakes of you and I. Notably, He wanted to sacrifice Himself for us, before we ever began to exist. Since we were just a thought in God's convoluted mind, His love resonated so profoundly that He created all that is around so we could exist. God created much more than is currently scientifically understood, all in the pursuit of our creation. He created the Forbidden Tree, not out of malicious intent, but out of the intense love He has for us. What is love if not chosen? A counterfeit replica? Affection? Despite the measures He took in creating us, He nevertheless granted us the gracious choice to reject Him. Adam and Eve did reject Him. As a result, evil sprouted in the world, not out God's culpability, but out of Adam and Eve's. God's foreknowledge bears no weight in this situation, for foreknowledge is not the cause of action. While God knew Adam and Eve would fall, His knowledge did not force their hand. Instead, He provided humanity with free will — the capacity to choose love or reject it, to obey or disobey. In doing so, He allowed love to be authentic, because love cannot exist without freedom.
In the heart of this debate lies a truth that transcends words — a truth that resonates deep within the core of human existence: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is not only a testament to God’s justice but also a profound expression of divine love. To argue that His death was unnecessary or gratuitous is to misunderstand the nature of love itself. Love is not about mere obligation, but about freely giving, even when it costs everything. Jesus, in His infinite love, chose to suffer for us — not because it was the only possible way, but because it was the most perfect way to reveal God’s mercy and justice in one harmonious act. Through the cross, the ugliness of sin is laid bare, and yet, so is the beauty of redemption. Every wound borne by Christ, every drop of blood shed, was a declaration of love — a love so powerful that it shattered the chains of sin and death, and opened the gates of eternal life for all who would accept it. His sacrifice was not a loss, but a triumph. It was not needless suffering, but the ultimate victory of love over evil, of life over death.
This is the heart of the Gospel: God loved us so much that He was willing to enter into our pain, to take on the full weight of our sin, and to conquer it once and for all. There is no greater love than this. In denying the necessity or beauty of Christ’s sacrifice, one risks overlooking the magnitude of what was accomplished. It was not an arbitrary event in history, but the very hinge on which the fate of humanity turned. It was the moment where justice met mercy, and where eternal life was made possible for every soul. Consider, then, not only the logic of this truth, but its emotional weight. A God who loves you so much that He would die for you is a God worth knowing, a truth worth embracing. Jesus did not suffer in vain; He suffered for you, for me, for all of us — to restore what was lost and to offer hope where there was none. His love calls us to respond, to recognize the price that was paid, and to turn toward the One who gave everything for our sake. Let this truth sink into your heart: the cross is not a symbol of defeat, but of love’s greatest triumph. It stands as an eternal reminder that even in our darkest moments, we are never beyond the reach of God’s grace. And it is this grace, freely offered, that beckons you now to consider the depths of what has been given. In the end, it is not merely an intellectual exercise to debate the necessity of Christ’s sacrifice — it is a matter of life and death, of love and salvation. Choose wisely, for in this choice lies eternity.
Con
#4
Thank you, Catholic Apologetics, for your arguments. I have been enjoying this debate so far.
To be honest, I have been busier than I expected this week and haven't been able to devote as much time to this debate as I would like. Nonetheless, I feel that my case here is actually pretty simple and I won't need much space to make it.
No Necessity
It seems that my opponent and I can agree on at least one thing: the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was not strictly necessary. Pro says it himself:
The sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for humanity's redemption and reconciliation with God, but not in the sense that Jesus was the only conceivable method of achieving that redemption. God, in His infinite wisdom, could have chosen any number of ways to redeem humanity.
He also says:
Given God's omnipotence, He can bring about any good that does not involve a logical contradiction. [. . .] The notion that God could remit sin in a way other than Jesus’ death does not entail a contradiction.
To be honest, I think this really says everything that there is to say. If Jesus's death on the cross wasn't necessary, then it was unneeded suffering, and intentionally willing for unnecessary suffering to happen, and causing it to come into effect, when any benefits from such actions could have come about through less suffering or none at all, is inherently a moral wrong. I'm not sure how a reasonable person could argue otherwise in good faith, except perhaps through the lens of moral anti-realism. (Technically speaking, I will say that it is actually a position that I hold, but in a debate such as this one, some level of moral realism is generally assumed to be true. And even then, I still believe that morality exists and is meaningful; I just don't think moral statements can be factually proven in the same way that statements such as "water increases in volume when frozen" can be proven true, but I'm digressing from the topic of this debate.)
One major point that my opponent makes is that Jesus acted voluntarily in giving up his human life. This is true, of course, according to the Bible, but to be honest, I feel that it makes little to no difference. I do wish that I had more directly addressed this in my R1, but I didn't feel that it was necessary, simply because I think it is obvious that harming someone does not automatically become morally acceptable if the person is willing to be harmed. If someone is suicidal and actively wants to die, that does not make it okay to kill them. Granted, that's a rather extreme example, but I think it illustrates my point. I do not contest that Jesus was willing to be sacrificed, but merely argue that this does not affect the ethical tenability of the doctrine of absolution, because whether Jesus was willing or not, it was possible for salvation for humanity to come about through means other than his crucifixion. For their part, Pro does not contest in any way the idea that Jesus suffered on the cross, but acknowledges the fact that he did. The voters on this debate will have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they believe that intentionally bringing about unnecessary suffering to reach a goal that could have been met with less or even no suffering could ever be justified.
The Nature of Sin
Again, I truly feel that my argument regarding a lack of necessity ought to be sufficient to serve as my entire case, but in the interest of fully covering the topic, I will not leave it there.
Regarding the nature of sin itself, my opponent mischaracterizes my arguments, claiming that I made the argument that "all sins are equal," which is something I never said, nor did I ever imply it. What I actually said was this:
Thinking logically, it should be clear that God, as an Almighty, omnipotent being, transcending all human and even physical limitations, cannot be meaningfully harmed by humans in any way. As the input of a decreasing exponential function tends toward infinity, the output tend toward zero. The less someone is harmed by an offense, the less severe the offense is. Therefore, the idea that doing something which God forbids saddles an infinite debt upon the debtor is, in my opinion, patently absurd.
The closest my opponent comes to directly addressing this point is simply re-explaining Catholic doctrine and saying that sin puts distance between humans and God. However, this doesn't really address the broader points I was making. First of all, as I said, it is none other than God himself who decides the response and sets the punishment for sinning against him. Second, it is a fundamental moral principle that the severity of a misdeed is proportional to its real and intended consequences. When we put these two together, we find a situation where God, despite not being able to be harmed by humans, nonetheless personally considers it a proportional response that humans suffer eternally, as those who are condemned to Hell will. Again, this flies in the face of the basic moral principles that virtually everyone can agree upon.
Christianity, it seems to me, often wants to have its cake and eat it, too. God simultaneously gives humans free will, but also knows what actions they will take. On the one hand, God is portrayed as someone who does not want any to be destroyed (2 Peter 3:9), but also someone who set up a situation in The Garden of Eden where, by disobeying one of his commands, all of humanity would be estranged from him and necessitating an infinite repayment. Whether or not the Tree had any 'magical' properties (I never meant to imply that it did), it is simply a fact that God willed that Adam and Eve's disobedience would have consequences for all of humanity, even though none of us were given the choice that they were given. Essentially, according to Christian doctrine, we have all been cast out for a choice that we did not make. This is an issue, for even if I were to accept that Adam and Eve deserved an infinite punishment for insulting God (I do not), I must still accept that I, along with every other human, have been separated from God as well and therefore also deserve Hell, even though I myself was never independently given the option to accept or reject a relationship with God before being born in sin. I shall leave it up to the voters to decide whether they also accept this idea.
Conclusion
Again, I haven't been able to devote the time to this round that I would like, and it perhaps is not the strongest that I've ever written. Nonetheless, I feel that I've made the main points that I want to make. The not-strictly-necessary nature of Jesus's sacrifice is hugely consequential, regardless of what my opponent may claim. Additionally, Pro's points regarding the nature of sin do not fully respond to mine. As such, there are serious issues with the doctrine of atonement at play here.
Thank you for reading this debate! I yield the floor.
Round 3
Pro
#5
INTRODUCTION.
This round marks the closing statements. To ensure clarity, I will provide a quick breakdown of how this round will be structured. I will start by refuting each of my opponent's arguments.
As always, I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to my opponent for engaging in this debate. I've acknowledged and appreciated their efforts in previous rounds, and once again, I commend the work they've put in, demonstrating just how grateful I am. Without my opponent's involvement, this debate wouldn't have been possible. Despite having limited time to prepare their responses, I truly commend their ability to craft logical and well-developed arguments. I believe I speak for all readers when I say that we recognize the effort put into each round of this debate.
As we near the end, I'd also like to thank all the readers who have been willing to follow this lengthy debate. I appreciate your time and effort in ensuring that this discussion is judged fairly.
PREREQUISITE.
The opposing party has failed to address several key points from my initial round. First, they have not engaged with the argument that Christ's atonement respects individual free will, and that Christ's atonement is not imposed upon us but is offered to all, that its benefits must be freely accepted. Second, they did not respond to the assertion that Jesus's atonement reconciles humanity to God, providing a pathway from eternal suffering to eternal bliss; this act of rescue is an act of love, not an act worthy to be deemed "ethically untenable." Third, after my opponent asked how someone who deserves no punishment be punished, they neglected to address my response, how someone who is sinless can take on the punishment for others in the concept of vicarious atonement. Fourth, my explanation that Jesus' death on the cross manifests God's justice, for it satisfied the debt of sin that humanity could not repay, remained unaddressed. They have neglected to respond to how the atonement of Jesus reflects God's justice and mercy and love. They dismiss the reasons why Jesus died on the cross. For example, notice Round 2, Counter-Arguments, Refute #2, Third paragraph. This section remains unaddressed entirely. Specifically, how Jesus also teaches us to die to sin and our carnal desires. Lastly, they overlooked my explanation concerning the creation of the Forbidden Tree and God’s foreknowledge or why God created it in the first place. They did not engage with my clarification that God’s knowledge of future events does not infringe on human free will or make Him the cause of sin, as articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. This lack of engagement leaves critical gaps in their argumentation. I urge my opponent to address all of these points.
COUNTER-ARGUMENTS.
To be honest, I think this really says everything that there is to say. If Jesus's death on the cross wasn't necessary, then it was unneeded suffering, and intentionally willing for unnecessary suffering to happen, and causing it to come into effect, when any benefits from such actions could have come about through less suffering or none at all, is inherently a moral wrong.
My opponent claims that "if Jesus' death wasn't necessary, then it was unneeded suffering." This assertion, however, overlooks the understanding that Jesus' death was absolutely necessary for humanity's redemption and reconciliation with God (Cf. Round 1, Main Body #1, Last Paragraph ; Round 2, Counter-Arguments, Third Refute). The suffering Christ endured wasn’t arbitrary or gratuitous but served a profound redemptive purpose. Isaiah 53:5-6 emphasizes that Christ was "pierced for our transgressions" and "crushed for our iniquities." His suffering bore the weight of human sin, and only through His sacrificial death could divine justice and mercy be fully realized. This isn’t about minimizing suffering for the sake of efficiency but rather about the most fitting way to redeem humanity. The crucifixion wasn’t merely a solution to sin; it was a demonstration of God's boundless love, voluntarily entering human suffering to transform and redeem it from within.
The argument that "allowing unnecessary suffering is inherently wrong" assumes that Jesus' death wasn’t essential, but that assumption fails to account for the deeper theological implications of His sacrifice. The cross was not only necessary for salvation but the most fitting expression of divine justice and mercy. God did not arbitrarily choose the path of suffering. Instead, by taking on human suffering, Christ elevated it and gave it redemptive power. The crucifixion shows that suffering, when united with Christ, has a purpose — it can be transformative and lead to salvation. As St. Thomas Aquinas argues, while God could have redeemed humanity in any number of ways, the crucifixion was the most fitting because it addressed the full gravity of sin and provided the greatest expression of divine love and solidarity with humanity (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 46, Art. 4).
My opponent asserts that if the benefits of Jesus' death could have been achieved with less or no suffering, then the crucifixion was unjustifiable. While this hypothetical may seem reasonable from a human perspective, it overlooks the understanding of God's omniscience and omnibenevolence. God, in His infinite wisdom, chose the crucifixion as the means of salvation precisely because it was the most fitting way to demonstrate both divine justice and mercy. The depth of human sin required a sacrifice of immense significance, and Christ's voluntary suffering on the cross fully expressed God's love for humanity. Any notion that a "less harmful" path could have been sufficient fails to account for the profound mystery of redemption, where the cross is not just a tool of suffering but the ultimate act of divine love. To claim that there was a better alternative presumes a human understanding superior to God's, which is contrary to God's perfect wisdom.
Jesus acted voluntarily in giving up his human life. This is true, of course, according to the Bible, but to be honest, I feel that it makes little to no difference. ... I think it is obvious that harming someone does not automatically become morally acceptable if the person is willing to be harmed.
My opponent thinks that Jesus being burdened with suffering against His volition, and He choosing Himself to bear this suffering has no difference. I hope the readers notice the flaw in this line of reasoning.
The voluntary aspect of Jesus' sacrifice isn’t just about consenting to harm; it’s about a profound act of love and ultimate self-giving. It's seen not as mere acceptance of suffering but as the intentional choice to embrace suffering for the sake of others. This act is thought to demonstrate the highest form of love — agape, selfless love — that willingly endures hardship for the benefit of humanity. This isn't about making harm acceptable but about highlighting the depth of Jesus' love and the extent of His commitment to humanity’s salvation. It’s a powerful testament to the idea that love often involves sacrifice, and the willingness to endure suffering can have redemptive and transformative power. Furthermore, I preemptively addressed this argument in Round 1, Main Body #2. Specifically in the last paragraph: "Jesus, aware of the suffering that awaited Him, chose to lay down His life freely. This voluntary nature is not only an expression of divine love but also key to the ethical tenability of the atonement. If Christ had been coerced into sacrifice, it would have been unjust. But because He freely chose to give Himself, He offered the highest act of love: 'no one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.' (John 15:13). This act of self-giving love shows that the atonement is not merely a legal transaction but a personal and loving offering that invites humanity into restored relationship with God."
whether Jesus was willing or not, it was possible for salvation for humanity to come about through means other than his crucifixion.
While my opponent claims that salvation could have been achieved through means other than the crucifixion, this does not undermine the significance or tenability of the crucifixion itself. While God is omnipotent and could have chosen a different method, He, in His infinite wisdom, determined that the crucifixion was the most fitting and profound way to redeem humanity. The crucifixion wasn’t just a utilitarian option among many—it was the perfect way to express both the gravity of human sin and the depth of divine love.
God’s choice to enter into human suffering through Christ’s crucifixion reveals not only the seriousness of sin but also the lengths to which God would go to restore humanity to Himself. This method of redemption is central to the Christian faith because it uniquely demonstrates God's solidarity with human suffering and His willingness to bear its full weight. While other means might have been possible, the crucifixion was the most relational and personal act of divine love, showing that God didn’t merely choose an efficient method, but one that would transform human suffering from within.
Moreover, the ethical validity of Jesus’ atonement isn’t weakened by the existence of alternative possibilities. The crucifixion wasn’t one of many equal alternatives — it was the most perfect and fitting means within the narrative of salvation history. It aligns with God's character, showing the union of perfect justice and perfect mercy. Christ’s willing participation underscores the importance of human free will and adds moral weight to the sacrifice. Far from being arbitrary, the crucifixion was God’s deliberate choice to reveal the ultimate truth about love, sacrifice, and redemption.
we find a situation where God, despite not being able to be harmed by humans, nonetheless personally considers it a proportional response that humans suffer eternally, as those who are condemned to Hell will.
A quick note: this argument touches on an important aspect of Christian theology, but it veers away from the core question we are debating: the ethical tenability of Jesus' atonement. The topic of Hell and eternal punishment belongs to a different discussion, namely eschatology, rather than the ethics surrounding the atonement. I understand that the concept of Hell raises significant ethical questions in its own right, which is why I will entertain this objection. However, that issue is distinct from the one we're discussing here — whether the atonement itself is ethically sound.
This argument stems from a misunderstanding regarding the doctrine on Hell. Dying in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love results in eternal separation from Him, chosen by the individual through free will. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "Hell." The chief punishment of Hell is eternal separation from God, who alone can provide the life and happiness for which humanity was created and longs. The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of Hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Matthew 7:13-14). God predestines no one to go to Hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) and persistence in that sin until death is necessary. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance."
Scholasticism distinguishes a double element in the punishment of Hell: the poena damni (pain of loss) and poena sensus (pain of sense). The former reflects the inherent separation from God caused by grievous sin, while the latter involves suffering from external, material things. The poena damni, which is the essence of the punishment of Hell, consists in exclusion from the Beatic Vision (Cf. Matthew 25:41: "Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels," Matthew 25:12: "I do not know you.")
The poena sensus consists in the suffering which is caused by outside material things, often described in Scripture as the fire of Hell. The Holy Scriptures speak often of the fire of Hell, to which the damned are consigned; they describe Hell as a place where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth — a picture of sorrow and of despair. The poena sensus is suffering due to the loss of God, the source of all goodness and peace. The logical consequence of rejecting God is the complete loss of all that is good, which is Hell. By choosing to sin, and therefore rejecting God, humans choose the path of wickedness for themselves, leading to Hell. Hell is not a place where God has "chosen for humans to suffer eternally," as my opponent claims. Rather, God did not create Hell for humans to perish eternally. Hell is the natural consequence of rejecting God, just as darkness is the absence of light. Using this analogy, humans choose darkness by rejecting the light.
it is simply a fact that God willed that Adam and Eve's disobedience would have consequences for all of humanity, even though none of us were given the choice that they were given. ... we have all been cast out for a choice that we did not make. ... I, along with every other human, have been separated from God as well and therefore also deserve Hell, even though I myself was never independently given the option to accept or reject a relationship with God before being born in sin.
This objection is irrelevant to the topic of discussion, which is whether the atonement of Jesus is ethically tenable. The question of why we experience the effects of original sin deviates from the main topic. The inheritance or origin of original sin is unrelated to the ethical tenability of Jesus atoning for these sins. However, I will address this objection to ensure readers do not misunderstand Church teachings.
This is a misunderstanding of original sin. My opponent claims that because all of humanity has been born with original sin, and because we did not have the same choice Adam and Eve had, we deserve Hell. Descending into Hell would mean that we suffer the guilt and condemnation for what Adam and Eve did. We do not. We suffer from the effects of the original sin but not the guilt. When our first parents, Adam and Eve, disobeyed God, they lost the gift of God’s favor that protected them from death and suffering. They experienced a diminished goodness. This diminished goodness was extensive. Yet, it was caused by God removing his direct closeness and presence. After losing this, the rest of the human race was born in a state separate from this complete favor from God.
Only Adam and Eve suffered the guilt from their sin. Everyone born since has suffered the effects of their criminal act but not the guilt. A way to think about this is to imagine a man is given an inheritance that makes him rich, but in his greed he steals more money from the estate of his deceased relative. The man’s wife and children, who didn’t know he did this, are thrilled about never having to worry about money again — until the police arrive and arrest the man, and the courts take back all the money he inherited. The courts don’t punish the man’s family members, because they did nothing wrong. However, the man’s family members still suffer because they would have been blessed with riches if he had not stolen more money. This is the best illustration of how many people can suffer the effects but not the guilt of one person’s sin.
My opponent's claim is groundless. We do not go to Hell by being born into original sin. To put into perspective the severity of my opponent's understanding, by applying this logic we would be able to say that aborted babies deserve Hell, which goes against the teachings of the Church. If we are punished for Adam’s sin then that would be unfair. We are condemned or punished for for our own sin. None of us will stand in judgement for what Adam or anyone else has done. Further, none of us are forgiven for the sin of Adam or anyone else because we are not guilty of it. Scripture is very clear: "Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death," (Deuteronomy 24:16). This verse emphasizes individual accountability for sin. Other passages allude to corporate responsibility such as Deuteronomy 5:9 and Exodus 20:5. Corporate responsibility for sin does not mean succeeding generations are punished for the sins of earlier generations. But, the consequences of the sins of earlier generations may effect later generations. Deuteronomy 24:16, however, forbids that with respect to death penalty offenses.
Equally clear is Ezekiel 18:20, "The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own." In this verse, the Israelites expected the descendants to suffer the consequences of their ancestors’ sin, even though their proverb expressed that such an arrangement was unfair. Ezekiel anticipates their objection and answers by reiterating that all are responsible for their own behavior, good or bad.
SIDE NOTE.
In the debate over the nature of Jesus's sacrifice, it's crucial to recognize that He is not merely an ordinary individual subjected to injustice; He is God, willingly laying down His life for humanity. When we contemplate the depth of this sacrifice, we see that it is not an arbitrary punishment inflicted on a random person, but a deliberate, selfless act by God Himself, who chose to endure pain and death to reconcile us to Him. In this light, the atonement becomes a breathtaking testament to divine love and mercy, illustrating that true sacrifice is not about the suffering endured, but about the intention behind it. God chose to enter into our brokenness, taking upon Himself the weight of our sins so that we could experience forgiveness and the promise of eternal life. This narrative not only affirms the ethical coherence of the atonement but also invites us to respond with gratitude and awe, recognizing the magnitude of what it means for God to suffer for our sake.
CONCLUSION.
In conclusion, this debate has engaged with the profound ethical and theological questions surrounding the atonement of Jesus Christ. My opponent has consistently argued that Christ's suffering was unnecessary and morally untenable, based on the premise that a less harmful path to salvation should have been possible. However, this position overlooks the central tenet of Christian theology: the crucifixion was not a random act of suffering but a deliberate, divinely chosen means to redeem humanity. It was the most fitting way to reconcile God's justice and mercy, addressing the gravity of sin while demonstrating the boundless love of God.
Throughout this debate, I have emphasized that Jesus’ voluntary sacrifice is not just a matter of theological necessity but an ultimate expression of self-giving love. The fact that Jesus, fully aware of the suffering He would endure, freely chose to lay down His life, transforms this act into one of profound moral and spiritual significance. The voluntary nature of His sacrifice underscores its ethical soundness, showing that love often involves sacrifice, and that true justice and mercy can only be fully understood through such a lens. To reduce this to a question of efficiency fails to grasp the depth of what the crucifixion represents.
Ultimately, this debate hinges on how we interpret the nature of divine justice and love. The cross stands as a powerful symbol of God's willingness to enter into human suffering, not to perpetuate it but to redeem it. While my opponent has raised thought-provoking objections, the Christian narrative of atonement remains not only ethically defensible but deeply transformative. It calls us to recognize that through Christ’s sacrifice, we are offered a path from sin to salvation — a path paved not just with suffering, but with the highest form of love.
FINAL REMARKS.
This concludes my final statement. I would like to thank my opponent once again for making this debate possible. Additionally, I would like to remind them to address the arguments presented in the "Prerequisite" section of this round. As per the rules of this debate, "In the final round, only counterarguments addressing previous points will be allowed; no new arguments may be introduced." This reminder is provided to ensure my opponent avoids automatic disqualification.
To all readers, thank you for your attention.
Con
#6
Thank you, Catholic Apologetics, for your arguments. I believe this has been an excellent debate. For my final round, I shall be straightforward and to the point.
One major point that I have made throughout this debate is that the sacrifice of Jesus was not, in the strictest sense, necessary. My opponent has agreed with this statement, but also, contradictorily, begs to differ, saying:
This assertion, however, overlooks the understanding that Jesus' death was absolutely necessary for humanity's redemption and reconciliation with God (Cf. Round 1, Main Body #1, Last Paragraph ; Round 2, Counter-Arguments, Third Refute).
However, one of their own arguments that they refer to says this (emphasis mine):
The sacrifice of Jesus was necessary for humanity's redemption and reconciliation with God, but not in the sense that Jesus was the only conceivable method of achieving that redemption. God, in His infinite wisdom, could have chosen any number of ways to redeem humanity.
This is a very clear contradiction. Was Jesus's death absolutely necessary, or was it not? It's one or the other.
Thinking logically, however, we can easily come to the conclusion that it was not an absolute necessity, for God is omnipotent, almighty, able to bring about anything that he wills. Furthermore, only he can decide what the appropriate response to a sin against him is. For God to be willing to allow humanity to redeemed and come to reconciliation with him is to be able to do so. As such, the sacrifice of his son was not necessary.
My opponent has tried to explain away this issue, but their arguments fail to adequately defend the tenability of Atonement. Voters should note that Pro has not disagreed with or contested my argument that any benefits received from Jesus's crucifixion could have been gained with less or even no suffering at all, at least in theory. What is Pro's response, then? Well, it is that the crucifixion apparently demonstrates God's love for us.
God, in His infinite wisdom, chose the crucifixion as the means of salvation precisely because it was the most fitting way to demonstrate both divine justice and mercy. The depth of human sin required a sacrifice of immense significance, and Christ's voluntary suffering on the cross fully expressed God's love for humanity.
The problem here is one that I mentioned earlier -- this is not the sort of argument that you can ever end up at if you don't first assume that Christianity is true and that everything about it is ethically justifiable. Rather, this is the sort of reasoning that comes from working backwards, trying to find a justification for a set of beliefs instead of reasoning forwards to see if something really is supported by the evidence. What reasoning person, with no prior knowledge of Christianity, would see a situation where a god willed for someone who had never done anything wrong to be tortured to death through crucifixion, used by the Romans for being a very prolonged and humiliating death, and see it as an act of ultimate love? If it was the only possible way for humans to achieve salvation, then perhaps, but as has already been established, this simply is not the case.
Rather, God specifically wanted Jesus to not only be sacrificed, but actually to suffer a literally torturous death. Pro's position is that this event is actually demonstrative of his love, more so than any other avenue would be. But how does Pro know this to be true? Well, through faith, of course.
To claim that there was a better alternative presumes a human understanding superior to God's, which is contrary to God's perfect wisdom.
Essentially, if you start with the assumption that God is always omniscient and just, then of course it was the best course of action. And from a Christian standpoint, that's fine, but this is a debate. At the very minimum, in a formal debate such as this, one must at least be willing to accept that their opponent could theoretically be correct, and then argue why they are not. Obviously, to have a debate about a Christian doctrine such as atonement, it is necessary to start with the assumption that Jesus actually existed, and that basic tenets of Christianity are true. However, if one is to completely enforce the assumption that God is always benevolent, and therefore always chooses the best possible course of action due to also being omniscient, then the notion that the doctrine of atonement could even possibly be ethically unjustified disappears entirely. Essentially, the debate becomes tautological from Pro's perspective. I humbly, yet firmly, request that voters ignore such tautologies from the instigator.
Putting tautologies aside, Pro essentially takes the position that, because the doctrine of atonement is tenable, then the crucifixion therefore must have been God's best course of action. This is clearly backwards reasoning -- starting from the conclusion, rather than the beginning. Thinking forwards, however, we see that, as the Almighty who sets the rules of the universe and humanity in general, God could offer reconciliation, redemption, and salvation to humanity through any means which is not an inherent logical contradiction. Despite this, he still willed that Jesus, in human form, would have to undergo a terrible death. I repeat what I said in Round 1: to be willing and able is to do. Since God is able to do all things which are not inherent logical contradictions, the fact that he did not offer reconciliation in any other way means he was not willing to do so. I repeat what I said earlier: the voters on this debate will have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they believe that intentionally bringing about unnecessary suffering to reach a goal that could have been met with less or even no suffering could ever be justified.
I feel I should also note here that Pro essentially seems to assume that God could not have better demonstrated agape, or selfless love, than through the crucifixion. However, this sort of reasoning does not really hold up -- even if God wanted to demonstrate love for humanity through a sacrifice, and I were to accept this, it doesn't follow that Jesus would have to go through crucifixion specifically, which I note again was used for being an especially prolonged and humiliating form of death by torture. Even if I accept that Jesus had to be killed, it could have been through different means, and the value of the sacrifice would not have been lessened.
My opponent thinks that Jesus being burdened with suffering against His volition, and He choosing Himself to bear this suffering has no difference. I hope the readers notice the flaw in this line of reasoning.
I don't mean to say that the two are equally bad, but that both are inherent wrongs. Obviously, stealing $10,000 from someone is much worse than stealing just $10, but theft is a moral wrong either way. The point is that God willed for Jesus to undergo great suffering that he did not deserve, when the benefits reaped from it could just as easily have been gained with less or even no suffering, and Pro never contests this basic fact. Pro may state that, "this act of self-giving love shows that the atonement is not merely a legal transaction but a personal and loving offering that invites humanity into restored relationship with God," but nothing could have stopped God from inviting us into a restored relationship with him by simply offering it. Again, Pro is reasoning backwards, assuming that God took the best course of action, and then trying to justify it. The idea of God providing a physical demonstration of his love for us is a comforting thought, I will not deny, but when it involves the excruciating (yet completely avoidable) death of someone who did not deserve it, it ceases to be a clear demonstration of love.
Actually, I think it shows a lack of faith on Pro's part to believe that God could not have fully expressed his love for us without giving his only son. If one is to accept fundamental Christian doctrine, then we are all fundamentally undeserving of God's kindness towards us as sinners, and we never could deserve it, yet he offers it to us anyway. Taking it at face value, I think this fact alone is more than enough evidence that God has a deep love of humanity. Having it further be shown through the needless sacrifice of Jesus is simply superfluous. To disagree is to state that God's loving kindness for us alone is not enough.
Conclusion
This debate has touched on many areas of Christian doctrine, and perhaps gotten a bit off-track at some points. I would have liked to discuss omniscience and God's foreknowledge vs. human free will more, but I felt that it was a whole topic worthy of debate on its own. Perhaps Catholic Apologetics would be willing to debate me on that subject some other time. In the end, however, I have decided to focus my case on one line of attack, the same one that I felt was most important right at the outset of this debate: the fact that the sacrifice was completely unnecessary since God could have forgiven us of our sins and offered reconciliation by simply offering it, no sacrifice necessary. While my opponent has tried to dress it up as an act of love, they still have been unable to deny the simple, self-evident truth of that statement, and it in and of itself demolishes the idea that the Christian doctrine of Atonement is at all ethically tenable. Metaphorically speaking, I may be putting all my eggs in one basket, so to speak, but sometimes one basket is all you need.
Now, as for the voters on this debate, you must ask yourself if it is ever justifiable to will for suffering to take place that is not strictly necessary, when any and all benefits that could be reaped as a result could just as easily be gained from less or even no suffering, if the symbolic value of the suffering gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling inside. If you decide that the answer is 'No', then the answer as to what you should do next is clear: VOTE CON!
Thank you for reading this debate! I rest my case.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
CON's primary arguments unfortunately largely misunderstood PRO's implied points, partially due to PRO's confusing usage of "necessary" to mean two different concepts in different contexts. (Something like "ideal" and "needed").
PRO should have made their points much more clear, but I believe they were clear enough that CON (and an unbiased, ignorant third party) could fairly be expected to put it together with a reasonable amount of consideration and no major interpretational mistakes.
While I do think the kind of free will PRO uses in some of their key counterarguments implies a logical contradiction, I don't believe CON provided sufficient demonstration of this. And given that kind of free will, the apparent problems with omnipotence and omniscience seem to be non-problems. So I tentatively believe PRO should still be awarded the victory here.
No problem, I hope I didn't misunderstand CON's arguments but I did my best.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this lengthy debate and procure a thoughtfully vote. I appreciate the effort you've put into it. Thank you!
Thanks for the debate! Hopefully it met or even exceeded the expectations you were coming here with.