Instigator / Con
7
1716
rating
45
debates
70.0%
won
Topic

The Biblical God acts fairly

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
3
0
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

Benjamin
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Pro
4
1692
rating
76
debates
69.74%
won
Description
~ 55 / 5,000

Literally playing the devil's advocate.

BoP is shared.

Round 1
Con
Thank you fauxlaw, for accepting this debate. I wish you good luck.

 


FRAMEWORK


1 - WHAT ARE INCLUDED IN "GOD ACTS"?

Gods actions of course refer to anything that happens explicitly because of God. Specifically, we are talking about God's judgements. 
Judgementthe ability to make good decisions about what should be done.[Only a judgement and its effectuation can be fair or unfair] 




2 - WHAT IS FAIRNESS?

Justicefairness in the way people are dealt with:

Justice isn't served merely by upholding laws, as laws have the potential to be unfair, cruel and evil. Justice is the result of making (and upholding) fair laws and upholding these laws in a way that is fair. PRO can't simply site verses saying that God is just, and then claim that God's "righteousness" prove that his unfair acts were fair. Since Justice is defined as fairness without adding new meaning, we should simply ignore the word Justice and focus on the word fairness. End of story.


Definitions from Cambridge:


Definitions from Merriam-Webster
  • Fairness
    • the quality or state of being fair
  • Fair
    • marked by impartiality and honesty free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
    • conforming with the established rules :
  • Honesty
    • adherence to the facts :
    • fairness and straightforwardness of conduct

For all intents and purposes, these are the correct definitions. Let me briefly explain what fairness means, based on the applicable definitions. Fairness is the quality of correct judgement and treatment based on all available information.  Fairness can be understood as the absence of flaws in one's judgement. (Note to voters: if you are in a hurry, feel free to skim-read the list below. There is nothing too controversial or new there)

An unfair judgement is one that is:
  1. Biased: Twisting facts to propagate your own worldview rather than use an objective analysis of facts.
  2. Partial: Favouring one side over another (biased towards one side).
  3. Dishonest: Ignoring crucial information, or using false information. Judging differently than previously promised.
  4. Discriminatory: Judging different people based on different standards. Especially people of different ethnicity, language, religion or political adherence.
  5. Hypocritical: Judging other people harsher than you do yourself. 
  6. Unreasonable: Judging people for breaking impossible or contradictory standards. Making unreasonable demands.
  7. Ignorant: Lacking or failing to take into consideration crucial information.
  8. Disproportional: Not having one's judgement be proportional to the actions of the one being judged.
  9. Collateral: Having one's action or judgement damage innocents (if one have the capacity to avoid doing so). 
  10. Emotional: Basing one's judgement on emotions rather than logic.
  11. Transferal: Punishing one person for another one's crime.
  12. Oppressive: Abusing one's own judgemental power to control people's actions
I don't think anyone would disagree that these are opposites of fairness. This remains our checklist for fairness.




3 - HOW DO YOU JUDGE GOD?

Make note of this fact: most of these flaws are a result of human shortcomings rather than malicious intent. Judging a human using this checklist would require a huge margin of error. Humans face multiple obstacles that prevent us from being fair. Not only are humans biologically inclined to have emotions affect their actions [biology-emotions], but they neither have perfect information nor can they place too much trust in their limited reasoning ability. Due to these shortcomings, we accept many human judgements as "fair" despite the fact that no human judgement can ever be perfectly fair.

God on the other hand is supposed to be omniscient, meaning He knows everything.  God is also omnipotent, meaning He can do anything.  God even inhibits omnipresence, which means that he is present at every moment all the time. God's infinite knowledge and infinite time to rethink and reconsider, in addition to his ability to always act differently, means that none of our excuses applies to him. God making an unfair judgement is INEXCUSEABLE. His judgements and actions ought to be perfectly correct and fair in order for the resolution to be true. Failing to meet this standard for perfection would mean that God does not act fairly, and the resolution would be false.



4 - DEBATE SETUP

Resolution: 
  • God always judges perfectly fair.
  • Meaning: God's judgements are flawless and without critique-worthy mistakes.

BoP:
  • PRO: Prove that the resolution is true.
  • CON: Prove that the resolution is false.

I will now move on to my actual arguments.






ARGUMENTS


God uses unreasonable punishment
According to the Bible, God sends people to hell after they die. Hell is a place of fire, a place of torture. This is supposed to be a result of God being just. One can thus regard hell as a method of punishment by God. Fairness is that you get punished proportionally with your guilt, however, the hell-sentence lasts eternally [Jesus's word].  This is a textbook example of disproportional judgement. Since you have only a finite time on Earth to commit crimes and be a sinner, no person could ever accumulate infinite guilt to justify eternal punishment. Being tortured for eternity means that you are effectively getting infinitely disproportional treatment. Thus God's punishment is infinitely unfair



God has unreasonable laws
How does one accumulate the infinite guilt necessary to justify hell as fair? Jesus says that:
anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  [Matthew 5:29]
God's laws punish mere thoughts with eternal torture. It would be impossible to follow this law, and God knows that. In order to be 100% sure of innocence, people would need to avoid social interactions in fear of breaking the law. Society can't function with this law, and God knows it. Thus God is not being fair, He is being severely unreasonable. Many more laws like this could be mentioned. Yet this example is even more interesting:


“Anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” (Matthew 5:22)

[Jesus] claims that words spoken in anger are the moral equivalent of murder. But by chapter 23, he’s pretty angry at the religious leaders.
“You blind fools!” he shouts during a chapter-long rant (Matthew 23:17). He calls them hypocrites, snakes and vipers .
Simply by speaking out in anger, you risk getting thrown in hell. Despite that, Jesus Christ apparently has a get-out-of-jail-free card because he is the son of God. That is a case of blatant hypocrisy by God himself. Not only does he make unreasonable laws, but he doesn't care about following them himself. This is not fair at all. 



God does not serve justice
Let's give God the benefit of the doubt. Let's ignore that neither God's laws nor his punishments are fair at all; and instead, simply assume that there exist some very good reasons which make them justifiable. Let us assume that Jesus is innocent despite breaking his own law. Let us assume that having wrong thoughts is a crime that makes me deserve eternal torment. Similarly to a mass murderer, I would actually deserve my punishment. If that was indeed the case, then God simply should not forgive me. Fairness is that you get what you deserve, nothing more and especially nothing less. One does not simply "forgive" criminals from their well-deserved punishment. If a mass murderer stood trial, it would be 100% unfair for the Judge to simply release the convict. Similarly, it would be 100% unfair for God to simply "forgive" anyone with infinite guilt.

P1: IF God is fair, THEN all those who deserve hell, and only those, go to hell
P2: All people deserve hell, but not all go there (or vice versa)
C: God is unfair

[Rejecting P1 is to deny that fairness includes equality in front of the law. P2 is literally the message of the Bible.  Accepting C would be a concession]

What we see God do in the Bible is shocking. He not only forgives the people who were infinitely guilty, but he also promises them a luxurious life forever; heaven. Instead of being fair and upholding the "holy law" that he insisted on creating, God punishes a total innocent named Jesus [1 Corinthians 15:3]. 

But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. [Isaiah 15:3]
This is infinitely unfair. Imagine if a mass murderer was released from his death penalty and an innocent was put in his place. We would not call it fairness infused with grace, we would call it an act of injustice -- a severely unfair act. One cannot transfer guilt from one person to another. In the book of Ezekiel, God verbally states that he agrees:

The person who sins [is the one that] will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the sin of the father, nor will the father bear the punishment for the sin of the son; [Ezekiel 18:20]
Jesus being punished for the sins of humanity is literally a textbook example of unfair judgement. Furthermore, God judging in contradiction to how he promised to judge exposes him as being a lying hypocrite who bends the rules as he pleases. Love is the reason, which makes it even worse. God suffers from the exact same flaws humans do. Humans can't make fair judgements because they are affected by personal motivations and emotions. God bending fairness for the sake of love is utterly unacceptable and unfair.





God abuses his position
God has abused His power as judge, set fairness aside and punished an innocent. But let us assume that God was being perfectly fair when he punished an innocent instead of the infinitely guilty. Let us assume that the blood of Jesus outweighed the sins of all humanity. Let us assume that because Jesus died, humans are free of guilt. Then what?

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. [John 3:36]
God literally has already punished enough to outweigh infinite guilt, and so punishing more any more would be unjustifiable. Yet God will still torture us eternally unless we obey his human avatar. This is not acting fairly, this is abusing power; literally the exact opposite of fairness. When human judges promise to release criminals from prison in exchange for something they want, we immediately call BS! Even humans can avoid corruption and favouritism in courts. Corruption, abuse of power and favouritism falls beyond the human margin of error. Humans acting like this is deemed unfair and unacceptable. Why should we hold a Tri-Omni God to a lesser standard?





CONCLUSION
  • God must act perfectly fair for the resolution to be true.
  • I have shown how God is unreasonable and punishes infinitely disproportionally. His judgements are biased, emotional, dishonest and hypocritical. God abuses his power as the ultimate judge to gain followers and personal gain. God actually acts less fairly than most humans, despite being far more capable of fairness.
  • I proved logically why no matter what, God judges unfairly.
  • The resolution thus fails.
I look forward to your arguments, fauxlaw.







Pro
Resolution: The Biblical God acts fairly
 
I Rebuttal: Definitions as offered by Con
 
I.a I generally agree with Con’s definitions. However, there is a disconnect with the definition of Justice. Con defines it as:  “Fairness in the way people are dealt with.”   But then states:  “Justice isn't served merely by upholding laws, as laws have the potential to be unfair, cruel and evil.” Following is,  “God has unreasonable laws.”  
 
I.b Neither are substantiated as fact, else they should have some scholastic source. Neither mention fairness. Therefore, they do not support Con’s own definition of justice.  They do speak to injustice, and therein turns the debate.
 
II Argument: What/Who is God?
 
II.a To be God, I suggest he does not lie; that what he says, biblically, is acceptable information we can trust because we trust that he would do, or not do, anything which he has commanded us to do, or not do. This is a reasonable logic comparable to what civilization's most commonly held principle among virtually all cultures, a.k.a., the Golden Rule: “do to others as you would have them do to you.”[1],[2]

II.b A common question posed by opponents to the Resolution is:  were God fair, how could he allow the suffering that has occurred to mankind. In particular, innocent suffering unto misery and death. They ask, in these, or similar words, referring to suffering, “How could God allow it, and not move to stop it?” Let’s hold on that thought, and return to rebuttal.
 
III Rebuttal: Con R1: “How do you judge God?”
 
III.a The above question follows a list of 12 “unfair judgments: biased, partial, etc,”  and concludes that these are opposites of fairness. I agree.
 
III.b Then, Con says, following the quote in the heading above  “Make note of this fact: most of these flaws are a result of human shortcomings rather than malicious intent.”  I would rather say that all of the flaws are human shortcomings, and I would strike the trailing  “rather than malicious intent”  because intent, or motivation,  legally, is a variable standard that may have naught to do with guilt/innocence. It is the more general application of mitigation, which subject is too difficult to assign to determining guilt or innocence. It belongs to the punishment phase of justice. And it is in this phase of justice wherein Con spends the balance of his R1 argument, whereas he has only lightly touched on guilt or innocence. Justice must take in to account both conditions of the human condition; even God’s justice: 
1.    Guilt/Innocence
2.    Punishment for guilt; acquittal for innocence.
 
III.c Therefore, I rebut the entire question,  “How do you judge God?”   I contend the proper question ought to be: “How do we judge ourselves,” for that, individually, is the only fairness doctrine we have any capability to fully apply. Without a trial, and witnesses, presented evidence, and even discussion of mitigating circumstances, how well do we judge one another, let alone God?[3]
 
III.d The entire crux of my BoP is to demonstrate why both factors of justice, III.b. [[1], [2]] above, are not just necessary, but essential factors in order to gage judicial fairness, even by God’s standard applicable to himself.
 
III.e Con’s entire balance of his R1 argument addresses three points:
1.    God uses unreasonable punishment
2.    God does not serve justice
3.    God abuses his position
 
III.e.1 In rebuttal of point 1, I’ll remind that fair justice does not begin with punishment; nor should Con’s argument. By so doing, Con has just violated all 12 of his “unfair judgments.” Not a great, nor fair beginning. We are reminded of Louis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,[4]   the Red Queen, and her preemptive “Off with their heads!” Execution before trial. Nice. This is where Con chooses to begin. If God acted in such a fashion, he would be unfair. Does he?
 
III.e.1.A In brief, God does not start wars or any other calamity with which he is often charged by such as Pro, even in a devil’s advocate role. Con asserts that God should deal fairly with mankind. I will add that mankind should deal fairly with God, i.e., take personal responsibility for their actions, be they good or evil. Humans, on one side of a growing conflict with other humans, have and will start a war with opponents. In many cases, to lend credence to their cause, they will wrap within a mantle of Godly justice, such as in the Crusades,[5]   but war is seldom justice, particularly when waged by an aggressor. The attacked retaliate, with expected escalation. Why do we tilt the scale to blame God? He did not start, nor wage the war.
 
III.e.1.B I maintain that every action God has historically taken against mankind [Adam & Eve, Sodom & Gomorrah, almost all inhabitants of the Earth in Noah’s flood, the firstborn sons of Egypt, and Pharaoh’s army, and the inhabitants of Canaan when the Israelites came out of Egypt, guided by Moses, and then Joshua…] has had previous law-breaking activity by those so dealt with by God. Yes, in these processes of Godly actions, innocent bystanders and children also died; not all were evil-doers. However, one must recall, contrary to Carroll’s Red Queen, that fair justice demands a trial before punishment. Con’s error is in calling these biblical actions I described in III.e.1.B, above, “punishment.” It is an easy conclusion, and Con made it by starting with punishment as his first point of argument, but it is premature. The Bible speaks of a Judgment, but the Bible also clearly states that this Judgment is a consequence that has yet to occur, for there has not yet even been a trial:
 
“5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;  6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:”[6]
 
Clearly, the actions taken by God, taken in Old Testament [O.T.] references, were not the trial and judgment as Christians perceive this last-of-Earth event, as it had not yet occurred at this saying by Paul to the Romans. God’s O.T. actions vilified as unfair by Con, were something else. We will see what it was.
 
III.e.2 Con’s second point was that  “God does not serve justice.”  For brevity, I am combining this with the 3rd point, “God abuses his position,”  because [2] & [3] are saying the same thing. But, God has  not yet  served justice with a Judgment [which includes a trial, first] therefore, no abuse. When will he serve justice? By biblical decree, we simply do not know when, but it clearly has not happened even yet, 2,000 years following Paul’s declaration.
 
III.e.2.A So, exactly what were God’s actions toward the listed O.T. victims of his wrath? It was surely that. God’s wrath caused their deaths in every case listed above. Is death a trial or a judgment? No, it is not; Death will come to us all, regardless of our thoughts and actions, good or evil. Death is merely a passage from mortal life to a world of spirits separated from their physical bodies; a passage to the next phase of our existence, in which those already there, wherever “there” is, are awaiting, as Paul described it,  “the righteous judgment of God.” A word we have not defined:
 
According to the OED: Righteous: “Of a person: acting or disposed to act rightly or justly; conforming to the precepts of divine law or accepted standards of morality; upright, virtuous.”
 
Sounds to be the near equivalent of justice or fairness. I trust, therefore, that Con agrees. Being of God, it must follow that Paul is telling us that God’s justice is just, right, and fair, not unjust, wrong, and unfair, as Con claims.
 
III.e.2.B What are we missing from Con’s argument? We already know we’re missing the trial, in which evidence and testimony is brought before the Judge [God] to determine our relative goodness or evil. Death is neither a trial nor a judgment or punishment. What Con misses altogether is the other element of justice following a trial: the consideration of mitigating circumstances. I will flesh this out in R2. For now, it is summed up in two words: Repentance and Forgiveness; two words Con has also avoided in his entire argument, let alone by definition. I’ll also define them in R2. I think we know their implications already. The former is our obligation to one another and to God. The latter is our obligation to one another, and God’s to us, if, and only if we have come to each other and to God with a broken heart and contrite spirit of Repentance; to do all we can to compensate those we have wronged, demonstrate our sorrow, and then depend on the grace and mercy of Christ to fill the gap we cannot fill regardless of all we can do. See 2 Chronicles 7: 14, and I John 1: 9. 
 
III.b.2.C Innocence also has a right to Christ’s grace and mercy, even for untimely death. In R2 we'll see why.
 
I will close R1 here, and turn R2 to Con. Good beginning round. Thank you, Con.
 
 
 
 
 

Round 2
Con
Thank you, PRO.


FRAMEWORK

Justice
 PRO asks the question "how do we judge ourselves?". While an interesting question, it doesn't matter in this debate. All we need to know is that humans are guilty, and God has appointed himself as our judge. If PRO wish to claim that God is righteous, then he needs to prove why God serves justice. Moving on, PRO disagrees with my statement: "Justice isn't served merely by upholding laws, as laws have the potential to be unfair, cruel and evil.". His reason being that I lack a scholastic source. I strictly remember using the number one Cambridge definition of justice [1]. I admit that I haven't bought the OED, but I am not lacking authority. Here is my syllogism.

P1:  Justice: fairness in the way people are dealt with
P2: Laws can be unfair and cruel (E.g: apartheid, Muchen laws, Jim Crow, etc)
C: Upholding laws =/= justice

I don't think anyone disagrees. If PRO means that unfair justice exists, then God being just would not prove that he acts fairly.


Fairness
PRO agrees that my list of unfairness is valid. However, he calls all of them human shortcomings. He is trying to define unfairness as a specifically human trait in order to claim that God is innately fair. I refuse to accept this assertion. By "human shortcomings" I referred to the limitations of a physical human as opposed to a Tri-Omni God. Specifically, there are certain physical limitations humans have that God doesn't have, namely lacking adequate knowledge, understanding and power, making it much harder for us to act fairly.




REBUTTALS

Judging God
PRO tries to argue that God is righteous, and therefore acts fairly. This is circular logic. The very claim of God being righteous requires evidence that he is fair. I remember specifically addressing this point in my R1: "PRO can't simply site verses saying that God is just, and then claim that God's righteousness proves that his unfair acts were fair." [2]. If we know that God is unfair, then we know that he isn't righteous. What we can do to disprove God's fairness is provide logical evidence that God acts unfairly -- which I already did in R1. Actions speak louder than words. God himself claiming to be righteous doesn't outweigh my analysis of his actions. PRO must prove, using the definitions, that God acts fairly. First then can he justifiably claim that God is just or righteous.

Moving on, PRO's question "how do we judge ourselves" is nearly irrelevant as a response to my R1 framework. The proper question, and what was my point, is how we judge God as opposed to a human. God cannot be treated with silver gloves like us humans, cause he is Tri-Omni and not limited by physical laws and human biology. Regardless of how high a standard we put on humans, God must adhere to a perfect standard in order to be called fair. 

I will add that mankind should deal fairly with God, i.e., take personal responsibility for their actions, be they good or evil
Taking personal responsibility for our own actions is one thing. Believing hell and manslaughter and other acts of God are justified is a whole other thing.



Punishment
Con’s error is in calling these biblical actions I described in III.e.1.B, above, “punishment.”
Cambridge definition of Punish: to cause someone who has done something wrong or committed a crime to suffer, by hurting them, forcing them to pay moneysending them to prison, etc. 

PRO is mistaken. Every time God has inflicted damage on humanity, even on Earth, must be considered punishment if not a crime or an accident. PRO's claim that death is simply a transition does not take away from this fact. Contrary to PRO's claim, it is not unfair to start out by analysing God's punishments. Literally speaking, that should be the first thing that comes to mind. Hell is the worst place imaginable by far, and the question is what justification God has for using this harsh prison as punishment. 

Recall my logical syllogism:

P1: IF God is fair, THEN all those who deserve hell, and only those, go to hell
P2: All people deserve hell, but not all go there (or vice versa)
C: God is unfair

This is crystal clear logic. Humans either deserve hell, or we don't. Either way, God's unfairness is exposed in his inconsistent judgement based on faith instead of guilt.



Trial
PRO claims that God is free of my R1 criticism because there will be a trial. However, we already know the ground rules of God's trial. Let's check if it is fair or not.
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.
 ...
“There is no one righteous, not even one; 
...
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law
[Romans 1-3] (3 chapters specifically talking about God's judgement)
God will hold a trial where everyone will be judged guilty. God will then send people to hell or heaven respectively -- not based on their actions, but rather their faith in Jesus Christ.  As per my R1 logic, this trial will be utterly unfair. Unreasonable laws ensure every human will be judged guilty no matter what, and these laws apply even if you don't know about them. God's world is basically a death trap. If you are born, there is a 100% chance of you doing something wrong and God torturing you for eternity. That is unless you worship and obey the creator of one specific religion. Despite claiming to be the ultimate judge, God forgives infinitely guilty people merely because they worship and obey him. By doing this, God is precisely preventing justice -- which means that God's trial is the opposite of a fair trial. 

P1: No fair judge punishes the innocent instead of the guilty
P2: God punishes the innocent Jesus rather than the guilty humans
C: God is not a fair judge

I have presented another syllogism with crystal clear logic.  I will now do the same for God's trial.

P1: A fair trial requires fair laws and a fair judge
P2: God is not a fair judge. God's laws are not fair.
C: God's trial is not fair.

I challenge PRO to deny this logic.




What Con misses altogether is the other element of justice following a trial: the consideration of mitigating circumstances
Here is a list of mitigating circumstances a normal person has:
  • Trying his best to do what is right
  • Yelling out in anger is a part of human nature, it's impossible to avoid by choice. God designed humans to break this law (or vice versa)
  • Not being aware of God's existence
  • Not being aware of God's laws
    • God intentionally refuses to inform you about the law you will be judged by
  • Christianity is only one of many religions. It would be hard to know that this specific religion is correct. 
    • God fails to make it clear that Christianity is the true way
Conclusion: It's God's own fault that all humans break his laws. God has not made it possible for us to follow his laws. 

Impact: Humans have all the mitigating circumstances they need. God punishing normal humans is strictly unfair. God punishing actually evildoers such as Hitler is still justified, but one should rightly condemn eternal flames as punishment for being angry. But some crimes are simply to large to be mitigated. What kind of mitigating circumstances does PRO think justifies a crucified murderer coming with Jesus to heaven simply because he asked kindly [Luke 23.40-44]? If that murderer deserved to go to hell, then he had infinite guilt. I ask PRO to provide evidence that mitigating circumstances can remove infinite guilt. Similarly, I require him to prove that an innocent needs to die for mitigating circumstances to be valid. Failing to do so would be detrimental to PRO's case.










ARGUMENTS
Since PRO did not rebut my arguments from R1, I extend those arguments -- especially my logical syllogism. I will now provide more evidence for God not acting fairly.


Example 1- David
Remember how I showed in R1 that God promised not to kill the son for the sin of the father. Proof: [Ezekiel 3.20].
“The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. 14 But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for the Lord, the son born to you will die.” [2 Samuel 12]
God does exactly what he promised not to do, killing an innocent baby for the sin of the father. The Biblical God is indeed a lying hypocrite. To make things worse, not only does he kill an innocent, but he also forgives the guilty father. What kind of justice or fairness is that? Any human judge who punished a murderer by killing his innocent son would immediately be called unfair and cruel. God does not even hesitate in his decision. Once again, God falls short of even human standards for fairness.

Read the rest of the story, and you will see that God punishes David by starting a family conflict. His other children start with rivalry, abuse, sexual harassment, all of these things stem from God's curse of Davids family: "Out of your own household, I am going to bring calamity on you"[ibid]. Apart from the inherently cruel nature of using your direct power over individuals to create conflict, God also makes himself guilty of collateral damage. David is the king of Israel, so the rivalries between his sons create political instability and almost civil war.

God's "righteous" response to the murder of an innocent is not to punish the murderer. God gives his servant a get-out-of-jail-free card. This is blatant favouritism, the opposite of fairness. Instead of being fair, God responds by murdering an innocent baby, cursing an entire family and destabilizing a nation. Is this fairness, or is it anger issues?



Example 2- Job
"Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”  [Job 1]
Job is literally without flaw. He even brings out offerings to God in order to repent from sin. Yet God allows Satan to destroy his wealth, kill his family and make him insanely sick. What kind of justice is this? What kind of fairness is this? What kind of person is God if he allows the insane suffering of innocents without any justification. And no, this is not to be blamed on humans. God is granting an evil spirit the right to destroy the life of his faithful servant, without any justification. As far as the book of Job is concerned, God simply felt like he needed to show his power. God is not only a lying hypocrite bending the rules when he so pleases, but he also arbitrarily lets evil spirits attack innocent humans.


R1 arguments
These arguments went unrebutted by PRO:
  • God has unreasonable laws
  • God punishes infinitely unfair
  • God punishes an innocent instead of the guilty
  • God uses his power as a judge for his own personal gain (to get followers), rather than to serve justice
    • He does this by punishing specifically those who don't obey Jesus Christ, despite clearly being capable and justified in saving all humans from the flames
I extend all arguments.



SUMMARY
God acts arbitrarily and ignores his own rules when he so pleases. I have provided multiple examples where God acted in clear contradiction to his own words. This proves that God is not fair, he is rather dishonest and hypocritical. I have shown why his ultimate judgement of humans is fundamentally flawed in many ways. PRO must provide an adequate explanation as to why these examples don't depict God acting unfairly. Otherwise, it would be irresponsible to say that God acts fairly.



CONCLUSION
God does not act fairly at all. Everything from his actions to his words to his judgements points towards this conclusion. There is nothing more to say. The resolution fails.

I gladly await PRO's argument. I hope I didn't miss anything.
Pro
Resolution: The Biblical God acts fairly
 
IV Argument: Dominion
 
IV.a Genesis 1 describes the creation of “heaven and earth.” The chapter concludes: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the…earth”[1]
 
IV.b What is dominion? According to the OED:   “The power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority; lordship, sovereignty; rule, sway; control, influence.”
 
IV.b.1 Man’s dominion includes  “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[2]
 
IV.b.2 Was telling Adam he would die his final judgment? No. A warning? Yes. Personal responsibility includes a prudence to not act like an MTV Jackass.
 
IV.b.3 Con noted in his R1 that God has omni-powers. God is not compelled to use all power all the time, else Con must demonstrate the fact. In fact, we cannot say with authority he ever has.
 
V Rebuttal: Con R1: “Something else” contradicts “How do you judge God?” 
 
V.a In my R1, III.e.1.B, I rebutted that God’s action is not fair, that he is applying punishment before a trial. I said God’s actions in incidents like Sodom were “something else.” 
 
V.b Death will come to us all. Is death is a punishment by God? No, even Jesus died:  “Thy will be done,”[3]   he said. Was Jesus a sinner? No. Mortal death is merely the result of living a mortal life, not a punishment. 
 
V.c The action taken by God toward all who suffer and die is something else. We need to remove punishment from consideration. We must realize the full effect of the need for a Messiah. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is not just to absolve from sin,  on the condition of our repentance,  [a subject Con totally ignores] and obtaining forgiveness from God. The Atonement is that, but is so much more:
“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”[4]

V.d Christ’s Atonement is more than propitiation for our sins, but for all our suffering, disappointment, misery, and pain. The innocent lives suffered and lost have the opportunity, still, to repent of their sins. The Atonement of Jesus Christ assures their eternal lives.

VI Rebuttal: Con’s R2: Fairness
 
VI.a Con states  “humans have certain physical limitations… that God doesn't have, namely lacking adequate knowledge, understanding and power…”   But, lacking the knowledge, understanding and power that God has, how can we legitimately judge God? I declare the Con arguments of R1 and R2 as contradictions, and the Resolution fails.
 
VII Rebuttal, Con’s R2: Judging God
 
VII.a Con states,  “…we are talking about God's judgements.”  [sic] Yes. Pro referred to “The Biblical God”  as the Resolution’s subject, but then declares in R2 that,  “PRO can't simply site  [sic] verses saying that God is just...”  From whence have I cited sources to prove my BoP? In my R1, and R2, I've cited biblical references.
 
VIII.b Yet, Con’s R2 has attempted to remove the Resolution’s primary source: the Bible.  In R2, Con cited from Romans, Luke, Ezekiel, and 2 Samuel. Pro can cite biblical verses, but Con cannot? The DArt Voting Policy states,  “A side with unreliable sources may be penalized…”  but that is a judgment by a voter, not a debater against the opponent. Con has effectively absorbed the duty of a voter unto himself, with no authority to do so.  Therefore, Con’s argument does not negate the Resolution.
 
VIII Rebuttal: Con’s R2: Punishment
 
VIII.a Con offers a “punishment” definition from Cambridge. I entirely agree with the definition, but let’s analyze the wording of punishment: “to cause someone who has done something wrong or committed a crime…”   Note: “has done.”  An act committed and proven. But how is such determination made? As my R1 argued: by trial. Accusation, then trial, then judgment, and only then, punishment.  My R1 analyzed and concluded that God’s judgment has yet to occur. Therefore, no action by God to date, by the process of justice, has imposed punishment. Death is not a punishment [per my R1][5]   and, other than failed attempts at logic by Con, nothing has demonstrated otherwise. 
 
VIII.b Observe Con’s repeated syllogism [refer Con R2]. 
P1:  “If God is fair, then all those who deserve hell, and only those go to hell.”  I agree.
P2:  “All people deserve hell, but not all go there (or vice versa)” I disagree. From whence comes the indictment that all people deserve Hell, since no trial has yet occurred to make that judgment, and no judgment has yet rendered that decision, since several biblical references already cited [some by Con, to wit:  Romans 1, 2, 3][6]  say that some will go to heaven?  
C:  “God is not a fair judge.”  I disagree.  Since God has not yet judged mankind [to wit: Romans 1, 2, 3],[7]   there is no justification to judge him as a judge; fair, or otherwise.
 
The syllogism does not hold as logical; the demand of all syllogisms, if either or both proposals are not correct.
 
VIII.c Con’s 2nd“syllogism [which must comply with it being logical]:
P1:  “A fair trial requires fair laws and a fair judge.” I agree.
P2:  “God is not a fair judge. God's laws are not fair.”  I disagree. As with P2, above, and my R2, VIII.a, above, this statement is premature; God has yet to hold a trial, and therefore has not rendered judgment. Citation: Romans 1, 2, 3.[8]
C:  “God's trial is not fair.”   I disagree, because by P2 failure, it follows that C fails.
 
IX Rebuttal: Con’s R2: Mitigating circumstances
 
IX.a Con offers 4 mitigating circumstance, but offers an incorrect interpretation of #4: “God intentionally refuses to inform you about the law you will be judged by”   Again, Con has denied the Resolution’s primary source: the Holy Bible. To truncate, legitimately,  “the law,”  I offer it’s New Testament version, which entirely summarizes and encompasses the extensive O.T.  “law:”
 
“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”[9]
 
I contend that this is sufficient information to understand God’s law, for Jesus concludes, “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”[10]
 
IX.b Con summarizes,  “God fails to make it clear that Christianity is the true way.” Again, Con fails to recognize his own declared primary source. I understand it is Con’s BoP to deny the Resolution, but Con has called the tune, and it is the  Holy Bible.  
 
“Jesus saith unto him,  I am the way,  the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”[11]  
 
I contend…  repeat my statement just above, that actually includes the contained quote, in addition to using Con’s own claim regarding  “the true way.”  It is cited from Con’s own Resolution’s source. 
 
X Rebuttal: Con’s R2: David, Job, and sin.
 
X.a Con’s reference to David in the R2 argument is missing from his stated reference, Ezekiel 3: 20, and from the actual link to Ezekiel 18: 20, so, I cannot comment on Con’s argument by Ezekiel. However, Con’s reference in 2 Samuel speaks of the theft of a poor man’s ewe lamb by a rich man with many sheep who celebrates a visitor with the poor man’s lamb for dinner. How should the rich man compensate the poor man, David was asked? David, not God, in effect, judged himself, by his own words.
 
X.b Con’s reference to Job is questionable, because the book’s origin is in question. There are two surviving versions, the Masoretic text [Hebrew] and the Septuagint [Greek].[12]  It is the most unique of Hebrew texts of the entire Old Testament, or the Torah, lending no credence to the book’s true origin.[13]   But both agree that it was Satan, not God, who causes all of Job’s misery. Even as a pure allegory, and not history, it is the same cause of our miseries, or by our own cause, such as with David, so there is consistency of the story. And, the book concludes with all Job’s losses restored, and then some, due to his righteousness.
 
X.c Con concludes that God’s word and actions disagree, but the claim is based upon the assumption that God’s actions amount to judgment which I have shown, by evidence, that these actions are not yet judgment, that such an event has not yet occurred. The Resolution is spared.

I pass R3 to Con.
 
 


[1]Holy Bible, Genesis, 1: 26
[2]Holy Bible, Genesis, 2: 16, 17
 
[3]Holy Bible, Matthew 26: 42
[4]Holy Bible, Matthew 11: 28-30
[5]Holy Bible, Romans 1, 2, 3.
[6]ibid
[7]ibid
[8]ibid
[9]Holy Bible, Matthew 22: 37, 39
[10]Holy Bible, Matthew 22: 40
[11]Holy Bible, John 14: 6




Round 3
Con
Thank you, PRO.


QUICK REBUTTALS
The titles are links to their respective Biblical stories. 
 
Righteousness
PRO fails to understand the meaning of my R1 phrase "PRO cannot simply".The meaning of "can" signalises what is appropriate, not what is possible. Of course PRO can site verses referring to God as just and righteous. However, PRO can't simply use that as evidence for God acting fairly. Actions speak louder than words. It doesn't cut it merely to show a verse in which God claims to be righteous. The resolution needs a demonstration of why the actions of God fit our definition of fairness.
  

PRO claims that David judged himself by his own words. At face value, this argument seems legit. That is until you remember that David said: "the man who did this must die!". David said that the guilty, not the guilty's family, should be punished. Yet God killed an innocent baby, cursed an entire family and destabilized a nation. God did not punish David, he punished everyone. This punishment is blatantly disproportional, transferal, collateral, unreasonable, hypocritical and biased. More problematic for PRO's case is the fact that even if God simply effectuated the judgement of David, he still punished in this blatantly unfair way. The Nazi soldiers who murdered innocent jews would still have personal responsibility, despite their oath to Hitler prior to getting their orders. Similarly, God acting based on Davids words would not justify his actions as fair.
 
 
PRO consistently emphasizes the fact that the Bible is holy. But when I mention the book of Job he starts treating it like a book written by humans, to the point where he questions its origins and validity. This inconsistency in PRO's reasoning should not go unnoticed. Moving on, PROdefends God by saying that it was Satan, not God, that tortured Job. But since God explicitly gave Satan permission to do what he did, God actively chose to act in a way that led to Job being tortured. Furthermore, God did not protect Job, despite Job being a loyal servant of God. At best, God is an evil master who doesn't mind letting his servants be tortured.
 
 
 
 
HOW DO YOU JUDGE GOD?
PRO Kritiked my framework by asking: "how can we legitimately judge God? The simple answer to PRO's question is that our judgements need not be perfect to be called legitimate. The Earth is round, this is our conclusion after "enough" evidence. Few dare to call this judgment illegitimate, and the same principle should apply to our judgement of God. Despite our human judgements not being perfect they are still legitimate. Human reasoning is flawed, but still legitimate when backed by logic and evidence.
 
 
 
GOD DOES NOT PUNISH FAIRLY
What PRO should be arguing is that God had good reason to punish people in the Biblical timeline. Yet PRO is making claims that support CON's case.

PRO claims that God has never punished unfairly because he has never held a trial. The same rebuttal could be used to defend Hitler's Holocaust. As absurd as this sounds, the analogy is perfect. In the Bible, God causes genocides, plagues,  child slaughter, wars, curses and natural catastrophes. Without context, God and Hitler are quite comparable. The thing that would make God different from Hitler would be if he had some good reason to punish people. But PRO has claimed that the actions of God were not punishment, which annihilates his excuse. If not punishment, and certainly not accidents, then these acts of God are blatant crimes similar to Hitler's Holocaust.

If PRO regards his claim as a defence of God then he is also defending Hitler. Hitler did not hold a trial, and therefore the killing of innocents is not an unfair punishment but rather "something else". This is PRO's argument except we inserted Hitler instead. Luckily for PRO's case, PRO's claim is incorrect. God did not commit crimes, he punished unfairly.
 

Trials are not needed
In the definition of Punish, there is no mention of a trial.PRO thinks that the words "has done" signalises that a trial must be present before punishment can happen. Yet my parents never held a trial before punishing me. There is no court trial before you get fined for parking violations. Indeed, trials are not needed in order to punish. This is even more true for God. Literally speaking, God is Omniscient and already knows every "has done" of every person, and God does not need to weigh evidence in a formal trial. God's actions on Earth were indeed unfair punishments rather than blatant crimes or "something else" as PRO claimed.
 
 
Death is a punishment
PRO claims that death is merely a transition. This is once against an argument that could just as easily be used to defend Hitler's holocaust. Does PRO raise the Kritik that morality is irrelevant with regards to fairness? Is PRO ready to claim that God and Hitler are equally fair? If not he must retract his claim that death is not a punishment.

 
 
GOD IS AN UNFAIR JUDGE
PRO's semantical argument is that God has not held a formal trial, therefore is not yet a judge, therefore does not judge, therefore does not punish, therefore does not punish unfairly, therefore acts fairly.This train of logic is extremely far-fetched. The beginning of PRO's logical train actually contradicts the ending. God not judging humans does not prove that his killing of innocents was fair. PRO’s argument yet again puts God in a worse light than I have done.His claim that God’s unfair acts were not judgements makes it seem like God had no reason for his violence and brutality. Apart from actually supporting CON’s case, PRO’s argument is also based on false information.

God is a judge, and he judges.
 
 

God has been judging humans

Verb - Judgeto form, give, or have as an opinion, or to decide about something or someone, especially after thinking carefully:
 
God has indeed fulfilled this definition multiple times. I will provide one example:
 
"""""
Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence...So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created
""""""

At the very least, this shows us that God ACTS as a judge by actually judging people. Given the resolution, God acting like a judge is what matters, not which title God has.
 
 
 
God is a judge
God is referred to as a judge in the Bible.

 """"""
God is a righteous judge, a God who displays his wrath every day. [Psalm 7:11]
 ...
It is God who judges: He brings one down, he exalts another. [Psalm 75:7]
""""""

It cannot be said any more clearly. God is a judge,and he judges. PRO is putting the cart before the horse in claiming that an unfair punishment requires a trial. God has judged and punished humans in ways that clearly contradict fairness. God has done this without holding a trial. PRO’s claim that God is not an unfair judge simply fails on every front.
 

 
THE FINAL TRIAL IS UNFAIR
PRO argues that since God's trial has yet to occur, I can not analyze his judgement and therefore my syllogisms fail. But my syllogisms do not have a defined temporal  limitation, and neither does the resolution. Since the Bible clearly describes the future, I am justified in analyzing his future actions, including his trial and punishment.
 

God is an unfair judge
I have provided evidence that point towards the conclusion that God's judgements are disproportional,collateral, unreasonable, biased, abusive, arbitrary, emotional, hypocritical and dishonest. This renders God unreliable, unfair and untrustworthy. PRO has never rebutted any of these accusations against God's unchanging nature. As a result of knowing this it would be irresponsible to claim that God will judge humans fairly in the final trial.

 
God has unfair laws
PRO has not denied that God’s laws are both unreasonable and impossible to follow. PRO has instead denied that God’s laws are hidden from us humans. He claims that “love thy neighbour” is enough to understand God's. In doing so PRO completely ignored my R1 examples of specific commandments Jesus gave us. I said in R1 that “God’s laws punish mere thoughts with eternal torture”. PRO never rebutted this fact.
 

Hell is an unfair punishment
My major argument was that hell is unfair punishment no matter what reason you have or what trial you hold. PRO did not rebut this fact, and he did not explain how humans can accumulate infinite guilt to justify infinite punishment. PRO only commented on my claim that God is inconsistent with his punishment. 

PRO asked: "From whence comes the indictment that all people deserve Hell since no trial has yet occurred to make that judgment"

The indictment comes from the Bible. "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one;'[1]. Everyone is guilty of sin and deserve hell. Due to the very nature of infinity, the infinite guilt of humans would not in any way be proportional to our crimes. The Bible clearly supports this view: "whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it."[2]. These crystal-clear Biblical passages prove that all humans are equally guilty in God's eyes. Such generalisations by God clearly impedes the very justice PRO claims God is serving with his trial. 

Furthermore, this point solidifies the validity of my R1 syllogism proving that God is not fair because he judges inconsistently those with equal guilt.
 


Mitigating circumstances
God has put humans in a situation where there is little chance for a human to know about his laws, and it would literally be impossible for humanity to follow them. PRO's only rebuttal was that we have the Bible. The problem though is that the Bible is one of many holy books. Most people throughout history never even heard about it. Additionally, the Bible clearly admits that knowing about the law is not a requirement for being judged by God: "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law" [Romans 1-3]. The Biblical God clearly does not care about whether or not those he judges knew about him or his laws, nor does he care about the fact that his laws are impossible to follow.


Repentance
One can only be saved through Jesus Christ. "There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." [Acts 4:12].

That is a pretty insane and unfair demand by God. 

Muslims are actually trying as hard as possible to appease God. They even pray to the one creator 5 times a day [MuslimInc]. If anything can be called repentance it is the daily life of a dedicated Muslim. Yet according to the Bible, he would get sent to hell because he does not obey Jesus Christ as Lord. On the other hand, a crucified murderer asked Jesus kindly if he could come to heaven [Luke 23]. This kind of last-ditch effort cannot really be called "repentance". That would be like a criminal in court casually asking the judge to forget the whole incident. No sane human would call that “repentance”.Yet Jesus agrees and the murderer is brought to heaven instead of hell.
 
God does not care about the life and actions of those he judges, but merely their faith in him and Jesus at the last moment of their lives.
What kind of justice is this? 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION
God does not act fairly. In every way imaginable, God fails to serve justice or treat people fairly. 
 
PRO has yet to provide a single example of God acting fairly, and thus has not fulfilled his BoP.
 
Good luck PRO.
 










Pro
Resolution: The Biblical God acts fairly
 
XI Rebuttal: Con R1 “God’s personal gain”
 
XI.a Con said by conclusion in R2 that God abuses power for personal gain, without argument or any evidence of it. However, is there evidence of alleged greed? Matthew 25 gives us three parables by Jesus: the ten virgins, the talents, and the sheep and goats. The talents is telling: representing dominion given to man, and God’s eventual judgment, when that occurs, for it has not yet happened,  to account for our dominion:  
 
“His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.[1]
 
XI.a.1 This is not Con’s vengeful, greedy God who is jealous of his possessions.
 
XII Rebuttal: Con’s R2: Pro-dropped arguments of Con R1
 
XII.a Con accused Pro of dropping arguments from Con R1. One of these is addressed above. See also my R2, Rebuttals III.e.1, .2, and .3. 
 
XIII Rebuttal: Con R3: Righteousness
 
XIII.a Con’s R3 says: “Pro cannot use Bible verses to demonstrate God’s actions.” The Bible is the defined source by the Resolution to exhibit God’s fairness, per my R2, VII rebuttal. Bible verses are fair game to use to demonstrate God’s actions by Con’s own argument. Con argues against Con. Con cites the Bible in argument. 
 
XIV Rebuttal: Con R2: David
 
XIV.a Con’s R2, 2 Samuel 12: was cited evidence that “God killed an innocent baby, cursed an entire family and destabilized a nation. God did not punish David, he punished everyone.” The chapter, as cited, does acknowledge a baby of David and Bathsheba dies, and “…the sword shall never depart from thine house,”[2]  but that is not “everyone.” David’s house is only of Judah and not the rest of the House of Israel, which Genesis 49[3]  tells of 11 other sons. Con exaggerates. Not even all Jews are dead.
 
XV Rebuttal: Con R2: Job
 
XV.a Job is written by humans? I accept, but, I’ll argue that all other books of the Holy Bible were, as well. God is the inspiration of such, but the writing is not in God’s hand. In fact, is any book of holy writ of any religion composed by the hand of whatever deity is described? Missing from Con’s R3 rebuttal is any mention of Job’s restoration to a better condition than had before. 
 
XVI Rebuttal: Con R3:Judge God
 
XVI.a Con argues: “our judgements  [sic]  need not be perfect to be called legitimate.”  Con has just removed “fair” from the condition of judgment from the Resolution, but defines judgment elsewise. Judgment must always be fair to be legitimate. This is Con’s BoP. Then, how “fairly” can we “judge God?”
 
XVII Rebuttal: Con R3: God does not punish fairly
 
XVII.a Con is full of passion. Con’s argument headings: “How do you judge God?” God has unreasonable laws.” God does not serve justice.” “God does not punish fairly”   In 3 rounds, Con has called out “punishment” on 66 occasions. Con’s argument is passion.

XVII.a.1 According to Aristotle, who offers a considerable argument by philosophic view on the subject of law and justice,  “The law is reason free from passion...Man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.”[4]  

XVII.b If Con wished to separate scripture from the rationale that the law, and justice, are reason separated from passion, then Con ought not have included “the biblical God” as subject of his Resolution, and then argue against the law and justice by passionate appeal [66 references to “punishment”].

XVIII Rebuttal: Con’s R3: God does not punish fairly
XVIII.a Con’s R3 argument has no justification against my rebuttal of R2, VIII that “Death is not punishment” other than his say-so. I have offered biblical evidence that death is not punishment because death is not final. All will resurrect from the dead [Ref: Romans 1, 2, 3]. There are other biblical verses I’ve cited as well. Con has yet to refute any of these biblical justifications for my argument that death is not punishment, but merely a passage through which all, righteous or evil, will pass and leave behind by resurrection. Resurrection, itself, is not a factor of final judgment which comes after resurrection and not before it [Romans 1, 2, 3].

XVIII.b Con alleges  “trials are not needed.”Con described ‘punishment,’ but did not give you the definition. I will, from his citation:[5]  to cause someone who has done something wrong or committed crime to suffer, by hurting them, forcing them to pay moneysending them to prison, etc.:”   The justice of force to pay money and imprisonment are the results of a trial, then judgment, and then punishment, but punishment does not precede trial or judgment.  
 
 
XIX Rebuttal: Con’s R3: “God is an unfair judge”
XIX.a My description of an ordered judicial process of indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment is a matter of “semantics” per Con. It is not as Con claims, but is an ordered, precedented procedure of  thousands of years, refined over time, and currently, in general description, consisting of the order I’ve argued.[6]
 
XIX.b Con cites Genesis 6 as evidence that God has already judged [Noah’s flood with the deaths of all but Noah’s family]. My rebuttal of R1, III.e.1.b, and R2 VIII.a tells us death is not judgment and not even punishment, for, as noted above, there is an order to the process of justice, and God works by it.
 
XIX.c Con claims, “PRO is putting the cart before the horse in claiming that an unfair punishment requires a trial.”   The cart’s placement is Con’s. I have argued the orderly process of justice, as just above, XVIII, XIX. I have never said “unfair punishment requires a trial.” Con may speak for himself.
 
XIX.d Con claims “Hell is an unfair punishment.” No one wants to go to Hell. Therefore, would we naturally conclude that if that is someone’s personal sentence, they would call it unfair? It is said that prisoners in prison are innocent. Yes, according to prisoners.
 
XIX.d.1 Con claims that "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one;'"[7]  True, as a present condition; we all sin. However, any Bible-thumper can stop there and say, “See! God is unfair!” Such is the problem of contextual ignorance. Read the balance of the chapter, and see the results of faith in Christ, in repentance, and the forgiveness of God. 
 
XIX.e Con cites Romans: "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law.”  The correct citation is Romans 2: 12. Let’s read the next verse, and then the entirety of Romans 1 through 3, all chapters, all verses, and see the loving forgiveness of God for all who repent.  Verse 13: For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”[8]
 
XIX.f Con charges all go to hell who do not recognize Christ. His R3 claims that if we are not worthy of heaven, as if heaven is one place, we deserve hell as our sentence. There are multiple, separate glories in heaven, as described in 1 Corinthians 15. I suggest to read the entire chapter, but it’s summarize by two verses: I Cor. 15: 40, 41.[9]
 
XX Argument: The missing factor in justice: Mercy
 
XX.a Let’s revisit: “How could God allow [suffering], and not move to stop it?”  It is a valid question whose answer was partially offered in my R2 as the necessity of a Messiah, Jesus Christ, who would, by his personal sacrifice, offer the Atonement for our sins and our suffering. So, the question is answered simply: God did move to stop eternal suffering, on condition: 
 
“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”[10]
 
XX.b This popular verse has all the answer needed. Our death is neither a punishment, nor permanent. We will not perish. Not in the sense that we are lost and unredeemable, as “perish” might be interpreted. We are redeemed to life forevermore after death. 
 
XX.b.1 There are other scriptural passages we have already seen [Romans 1, 2, & 3, for example, which tell us:
 
1.    The gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation
2.    The wrath of God will be visited on unrepentant sinners
3.    Repentance is the responsibility of all to wipe away our sins & suffering
4.    God will judge all according to their actions by unrepentant sin and repentance for sin.
5.    Man is justified through righteousness, and not justified through unrepentant sin.
 
XX.c Therefore, Justice is satisfied, and the Resolution holds. 
 
 


[1]Holy Bible, Matthew 25: 21 
[2]Holy Bible, 2 Samuel 12: 10
[3]Holy Bible, Genesis 49: 
[7]Holy Bible, Romans 3: 10
[8]Holy Bible, Romans 2: 13
[9]Holy Bible, I Corinthians 15: 40, 41
[10]Holy Bible, John 3: 16

Round 4
Con
Thank you, PRO.


CLARIFICATION AND REBUTTAL

Personal gain
God clearly has the power to save Muslims and everyone else with "mitigating circumstances". Yet he demands that we obey and worship Jesus Christ to avoid hell, which effectively means he demands of humans that we become his loyal servants. If we think of "free will" as the only thing God doesn't control then God is, in fact, trying to get personal gain. The Bible clearly tells us that Christians (those that God cherry-picks for salvation) are to be regarded as God's property."You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body." [1]. "you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God"[2]. God does indeed get personal gain through his choice of salvation.


Righteousness
PRO thinks I am denying that the Bible is our source. That is incorrect. I am stating that actions speak louder than words. The Bible could say that God is righteous, but it falls upon PRO to actually show how God's actions are fair by our definitions. PRO has attempted to use the "righteousness" of God to prove that God is fair, which is a blatant moving-the-goalpost fallacy. Everyone already knew that the Bible calls God just, and that is not what this debate is about. It is about God acting fairly by official, not Biblical, definitions.


David
God did not punish David. God killed an innocent baby, cursed his closest family and thus destabilized a nation which of course hurts everyone living in that nation.


Job
God allows the killing of the defenceless and innocent family of Job. This is not reversed by Job later getting a new family.


How do we judge God
PRO claims that I have a duty to prove how one can fairly judge God. Yet that is not the case. If anything, it is PRO's duty to prove that we can judge God, as his very case as PRO relies upon our ability to judge God's actions as fair. PRO's moving-the-goalpost fallacy fails because of this, and also because even an unfair judgement by the voters is allowed, as long as it is supported by adequate reason. PRO's Kritik is fallacious. It is at best a reason not to vote at all, it is certainly not a reason to vote PRO.


Death
PRO asserts that what is not final is not punishment. In other words, PRO suggests that only permanent suffering like hell is punishment. I guess in PRO's world prisons and fines don't count as punishment, as they aren't final. Oh, I forgot; the very definition of punishment specifically mentions prison and fines as examples. PRO's claim, then, seems outrageously false; it contradicts the very Cambridge definition of punishment he himself uses. Death is indeed punishment, if not an accident or crime.



GOD'S UNFAIR PUNISHMENTS - AND - PRO'S INVALID DEFENCE

 I have never said “unfair punishment requires a trial.” Con may speak for himself.
OBJECTION: PRO has, at the very least in meaning, claimed that an unfair punishment requires a trial. Recall PRO's R1:

 I maintain that every action God has historically taken against mankind [...] has had previous law-breaking activity by those so dealt with by God. Yes, in these processes of Godly actions, innocent bystanders and children also died; not all were evil-doers. However, one must recall, contrary to Carroll’s Red Queen, that fair justice demands a trial before punishment.
PRO's statements clearly show us God punishing, as PRO himself admitted that God made people suffer because of their law-breaking actions. PRO also admits that God is guilty of collateral actions, that God has hurt innocents and bystanders; PRO did so without denying that God with his omnipotence could have avoided doing so. These are indeed unfair punishments by every meaning of the phrase. Yet PRO uses as a defence of God that "fair justice demands a trial before punishment". He is asserting that God is not punishing unfairly because he has not yet held a trial. PRO has indeed used God's lack of fair trial to defend against accusations of God punishing unfairly. He claims that punishment requires trial and that therefore God's actions aren't unfair punishment but rather "something else".


I uphold my R2 and R3 argument that if God was not punishing unfairly, then he was rather committing blatant crimes. PRO made an R1 claim that "It was surely that. God’s wrath caused their deaths in every case listed above.".  Emotional or decisions caused by wrath aren't fair as per our agreed upon R1 list of unfairness, and neither are collateral infliction of suffering and death. PRO's own R1 quotes both disprove his R3 claim and proves CON's case correct.




GOD'S TRIAL IS STILL UNFAIR
 It is said that prisoners in prison are innocent. Yes, according to prisoners.
OBJECTION: Hell is unfair, that is a fact rather than subjective opinion. According to the agreed-upon R1 list of unfairness, disproportional punishment is indeed unfair. Hell is an infinite punishment, and only a person with infinite guilt and infinite amounts of crimes committed could be sent there fairly. Yet God sends people there merely for shouting angrily. That in itself is an unfair judgement by God, but the problems don't stop there. Humans have only a finite time on Earth, and we cannot feasibly commit infinite crimes to accumulate infinite guilt. Therefore, it is literally impossible for a human to deserve hell because of their crimes.

In R3, I showed a biblical verse that says God regards the breaking of one law as a breaking of the entire law -- which means that God by definition judges humans disproportionally. Hitler and Churchill are equally guilty of breaking the law in God's eyes, and both would equally be sent to hell by God. That is a textbook example of unfair and disproportional punishment. No trial by God could ever justify this blatant unfairness.


Repentance
In my last round, I showed why God does not require or care about our actions, only our faith in Jesus at the last moments of our lives. PRO ignored this and goes on to claim:
Repentance is the responsibility of all to wipe away our sins & suffering
OBJECTION: The very R3 round of mine debunks this idea. Muslims are sent to hell because they don't obey Jesus Christ, while a crucified murderer is brought to heaven merely because he asked Jesus for that favour. God is not a fair judge as much as he is a judge that gives everyone who worships him a get-out-of-jail-free card. PRO's claim that repentance is necessary for salvation is not true. Of course, repentance is a Biblical concept that the disciples taught the early church, but God's actions and the words of Jesus clearly show us that mere faith or even words is enough; while at the same time life-long commitment to the creator is invalid unless you obey Jesus Christ.

OBJECTION: Mitigating circumstances and the gospel don't work the same,  they contradict each other. If humans could avoid hell by repenting, then Jesus would not need to die on the cross. Mitigating circumstances don't require an innocent being punished instead of the guilty. Furthermore, mitigating circumstances does not mean that the guilty are set free, it means that they receive only a lesser punishment [Britannica]. The gospel works in a totally unheard way. An innocent dies, and then the guilty are required to join a specific religion to worship the innocent, or merely believe in that innocent, and then they are given a get-out-of-jail-free card that ensures they won't get any punishment at all. 




SUMMARY
The following is my unrebutted R1 framework.

Resolution: 
  • God always judges perfectly fair.
  • Meaning: God's judgements are flawless and without critique-worthy mistakes.

BoP:
  • PRO: Prove that the resolution is true.
  • CON: Prove that the resolution is false.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I have won if I have shown that God's judgements are flawed and have critique worthy mistakes. I think I have done so. Here is a summary of my case.


God acts unfairly
God kills innocents on Earth without justification. One example is that of David, where God hypocritically kills the innocent son instead of the guilty David, which amounts to blatant dishonesty when you compare it to his promise to Ezekiel that he does not kill the son for the sin of the father. God also curses the royal family and destabilizes an entire nation he had sworn to protect. Throughout the O.T, God slaughters entire populations and does not hold a trial beforehand. His actions are equivalent to unfair punishment, but PRO claims that they are "something else", which could only be blatant crimes. God does not act fairly on Earth, this fact is indisputable.


God's laws
God's laws are unreasonable. Apart from not knowing these rules, the rules themselves are impossible to follow for a human, a fact which God completely ignored in the making of these rules. God also has broken his own rules multiple times, and even Jesus was not able to follow them. God's unreasonable rules being broken don't in any way justify God's punishment or his slaughtering of innocents in the Biblical timeline.


God's trial
The trial of God does not justify his killing of innocents on Earth, whether they be punishments or crimes. The trial also is not fair because most humans never knew about this trial, its rules or its judge. God could have easily delivered the Bible to every human so that they could prepare for that day, but he instead relies on faulty humans to do this. God thus acts unreasonably when he judges those guilty that would have repented if God had given them the possibility by revealing the rules to them.

God is also an unfair judge. His judgements have been shown to be collateral, unreasonable, disproportional, dishonest, biased, emotional, transferal, partial and hypocritical. God's character cannot change, and therefore he will continue to have these traits whilst judging humanity in the final trial. God has also promised to bend justice by sending a murderer to heaven without any justification while sending a Muslim to hell -- purely based on their perception of Jesus Christ, a perception God has all the control over. 


God's punishment
Hell is infinitely unfair and totally unjustifiable as punishment for any thinkable crime. This claim stands on logical evidence provided by me in every round and is unrebutted by PRO.


The gospel
God punishes the innocent Jesus for the crimes of humanity. That is the transferal of guilt, an unfair act as per the agreed-upon R1 list of unfairness. God also demands of humans that they worship and obey Jesus if they wish to avoid hell. God is thus bending justice by not punishing those that deserve hell, and he does this in return for human obedience and worship. Since human servants count as personal gain, God is indeed corrupt in the sense that he bends justice as long as he gets something in return. God is also guilty of letting his judgements be influenced by emotion which becomes apparent in his reason for punishment being wrath and his reason for salvation being love.


PRO's case 
PRO's only evidence is his personal interpretation of Pauls statement that God is righteous. His BoP has not been fulfilled in any measure as he has not even shown a single example of God acting fairly. PRO's only "example" of God acting fairly is his semantical appeal to God's trial. His arguments to defend God's actions on Earth could just as easily be used to defend Hitler's Holocaust. I have rebutted most of his claims by using official definitions to debunk his self-proclaimed criteria for justice, punishment and judgement.

I could continue but I am out of space.



CONCLUSION
God does not act fairly. I have shown many examples of God acting in ways that are unfairly, and I have exposed multiple major flaws in God's judgements.

The resolution fails. Vote CON!


Thank you, PRO, for an interesting debate.
Pro
Resolution: The Biblical God acts fairly
 
XXI Rebuttal/Defense: Con’s R4 Personal Gain, etc.
 
XXI.a Personal gain
 
XII.a.1 Con argues, God clearly has the power to save Muslims and everyone else with "mitigating circumstances."  The primary tool of mitigating circumstances is mercy; [my R3],  “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.”[1]  Further, see my list [my R3, XX.b.1], derived from Romans 1, 2, 3. Con’s statement demonstrates, by biblical reference, to negate the balance of Con’s argument on this matter.
 
XXI.b Righteousness
 
XXI.b.1 Con argues, Everyone already knew that the Bible calls God just  [and righteous],   and that is not what this debate is about.”  Con defined “justice” as   “Fairness in the way people are dealt with,”  [see Con R1, item 2]. I agree. The Resolution clearly says the Bible must be the source of discussion in this debate, specifically whether or not God acts with justice, fairness, and righteousness, which all fit beneath “righteousness.”
 
XXI.b.2 Therefore, refer to my R1, III in its entirety, concluding with, “Innocence also has a right to Christ’s grace and mercy, even for untimely death. In R2 we'll see why.”
I also reference my R2, IV – X, as the continuation of R1, III.
 
XXI.c David
 
XXI.c.1 Con argues, “God did not punish David. God killed an innocent baby, cursed his closest family and thus destabilized a nation which of course hurts everyone living in that nation.”    All my previous rounds rebut: Con is enamored with this term: punishment; that it is applied by God ending innocent lives. I have defended that death, by either guilty or innocent actions by man, is not punishment; because punishment applied at the point of death is out of the appropriate judicial process steps [see my R1, III, and, specifically, R2, VIII.a], and because, therefore, punishment of man for guilty acts, unless man repents of them appropriately, will not occur before those judicial steps are processed by God in the appropriate order; punishment occurring last of all against only those remaining guilty of sin absent repentance.
 
XXI.d Job
 
XXI.d.1 What goes for David, rebutted/ defended above, goes for Job as well. Innocence, with application of repentance as needed, including those who always were innocent at the time of their untimely death, will win out in the end by God’s just mercy.
 
XXI.e Judging God. 
 
XXI.e.1 Reference all rebuttals/defenses above as applicable to this Con argument, and, my R1,III rebuttal.
 
XXI.f Death
 
XXI.f.1 Con argues, “I guess in PRO's world prisons and fines don't count as punishment, as they aren't final. Oh, I forgot; the very definition of punishment specifically mentions prison and fines as examples.”   Con would do well, but has failed, to recognize that man’s justice is not timed by God’s justice.  The end of man’s justice, if the accused is guilty, has been conviction and punishment by prison and fines. God’s judicial conclusion has not yet been meted out, and will not until all have died, and are resurrected [Romans 1, 2, 3.][2]  Con’s guessing, notwithstanding, ignores the Resolution by throwing at us man’s justice as concurrent with God’s justice.
 
XXII Rebuttal/Defense: Con’s R4 God’s unfair punishments
 
XXII.a Unfair punishment
 
XXII.a.1 Con argues that I said re: God’s Old Testament actions, “Yes, in these processes of Godly actions, innocent bystanders and children also died; not all were evil-doers. However, one must recall, contrary to Carroll’s Red Queen, that fair justice demands a trial before punishment.”Con cleverly, but ingenuously, stops quoting, whereas, I continued, saying, “Con’s error is in calling these biblical actions I described in III.e.1.B, above, “punishment.” It is an easy conclusion, and Con made it by starting with punishment as his first point of argument, but it is premature. The Bible speaks of a Judgment, but the Bible also clearly states that this Judgment is a consequence that has yet to occur, for there has not yet even been a trial:
 
‘5But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;  6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:’”[3]   
 
Con has argued that I cannot use the Bible to demonstrate that God is righteous. But the Resolution does not prevent such demonstration, and that was Con’s Resolution. 
 
XXIII Rebuttal/Defense: Con’s R4 God’s trial is unfair
 
XXIII.a Still unfair
 
XXIII.a.1 Con argues, Hell is an infinite punishment, and only a person with infinite guilt and infinite amounts of crimes committed could be sent there fairly. Yet God sends people there merely for shouting angrily.”  This claim is mere opinion that has no justification in any citation Con has offered from biblical text; our sole source due to the words of the Resolution: that we discuss “the Biblical God.”  Wherefore is the claim that anyone would go to hell merely for shouting angrily? The claim ignores my R3, XX.b.1 rebuttal concerning Pro’s missing rebuttal in R4 against mercy; that:
 
1.    The gospel of Jesus Christ is the power of God unto salvation
2.    The wrath of God will be visited on unrepentant sinners
3.    Repentance is the responsibility of all to wipe away our sins & suffering
4.    God will judge all according to their actions by unrepentant sin and repentance for sin.
5.    Man is justified through righteousness, and not justified through unrepentant sin.
 
XXIV Repentance
 
XXIV.a Con argues: “In my last round, I showed why God does not require or care about our actions, only our faith in Jesus at the last moments of our lives. PRO ignored this and goes on to claim… [see #3 in XXIII.a.1, above].   I have never argued that repentance “at the last moment of our lives” is an acceptable repentance; this is a subtle, but false argument by Con. It is unsubstantiated by scripture, whereas, I have rebutted by a read of Romans 3: 25, which I have cited in all previous rounds, is clear enough in its advice that repentance is a serious process, requiring putting sin away and being propitiated through Christ. The last moment of one’s life in repentance would be, indeed, a free pass to heaven, but, as Romans also advices, there are several degrees of glory to heaven, and then there is hell; outer darkness having no glory whatsoever. The fully righteous and fully repentant will inherit eternal life in the presence of God, but there are other kingdoms of heaven for the not so righteous, such as those who do not repent of shouting in anger, but that is not hell. That is also clear enough by reading Romans.
 
XXIV.b Con argues “If humans could avoid hell by repenting, then Jesus would not need to die on the cross.”  This claim is not supported by scripture, either, whereas, it is the Atonement of Jesus Christ, by suffering in Gethsemane, and dying on the cross, that the effect of godly propitiation occurs, and the mercy of the Atonement is accessed only by repentance [see my R3, XXIII.a.1.]
 
XXV Rebuttal/Defense: Con’s R4 Conclusion
 
XXV.a Con embarks in concluding by misquoting the Resolution. I have quoted it exactly in all three rounds, and above, but I will agree to his stated meaning.
 
XXV.b Con concludes with arguments that can be summarized by Con’s three-pronged R1 [as stated by Con, and summarized in my rebuttal, R1, III.e]:
 
1.    God uses unreasonable punishment
2.    God does not serve justice
3.    God abuses his position
 
XXV.b.1 Refer to the paragraphs of my R1, III.e. My rebuttal stands unassailed by Con in his subsequent rounds because:
 
XXV.b.2 Con claims to judge God. I submit we should not even judge ourselves but under conditions of jurisprudence. To judge God is like throwing a stone into the air, expecting to strike heaven. The real outcome is known: without further cause by anyone or anything, the stone will yield to gravity, fall, and might land on the hurler’s head. Thus has justice found the proper mark. Gives alternate meaning to the phrase, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...”
 
 
XXV.c Con argues, “[Pro]  claims that “love thy neighbour” is enough to understand God's. In doing so PRO completely ignored my R1 examples of specific commandments Jesus gave us. Con said in R1 that ‘God’s laws punish mere thoughts with eternal torture’. PRO never rebutted this fact.”  I specifically rebutted the claim by the argument of repentance and the subsequent propitiation of God by merciful acceptance of our repentant process, as noted above, R4, XXIII, and XXIV, which refer to my earlier rounds’ rebuttals to Con’s claim.
 
XXVI Conclusion
 
I conclude that Con is guilty of his own suggestion in R1, “Note to voters: if you are in a hurry, feel free to skim-read…”  Con skimmed my arguments. I have replied by rebuttal and defense to each of Con’s arguments in 4 rounds, and I conclude that the Resolution has not been successfully assailed by Con. Please vote for Pro.
 
Thank you for your attention.
 
 


[1]Holy Bible, John 3: 16
[2]Holy Bible, Romans 1, 2, 3
[3]Holy Bible, Romans, 2: 5-6