Instigator / Pro
22
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#3484
Resolved: On balance, the Christian doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ethically tenable.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
6
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
4
4
After 4 votes and with the same amount of points on both sides...
It's a tie!
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Max argument characters
- 20,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
22
1709
rating
564
debates
68.17%
won
Description
I, PRO, believe that, on balance, the Christian doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ethically tenable. As CON, you believe that the Christian doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ethically indefensible.
As instigator, PRO retains the BoP. CON is only required to rebut PRO's arguments.
DEFINITIONS:
On balance: All things considered.
Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA): For the purposes of this debate, PSA is defined as the doctrine that states that God, in the form of Jesus Christ, sacrificed himself of his own accord on behalf of humanity, paying the penalty of sin due to humanity in order to exercise mercy over humanity whilst upholding cosmic justice.
Ethically tenable: Not obviously or demonstrably unjust, all things considered. Able to be defended ethically.
STRUCTURE:
R1- PRO Constructive & CON Constructive
R2-3- Fluid attack/defense. No set structure here.
RULESET:
1. No new arguments made in final round
2. No trolling
3. You must follow the debate structure
4. No plagiarism
5. Must follow debate definitions.
RULESET PENALTY:
If the ruleset is broken, the penalty will be the loss of a conduct point. By accepting the debate, the contender accepts the RULESET and the RULESET PENALTY.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Thanks, RM.
“Resolved: On balance, the Christian doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is ethically tenable.”
- RECALL that PSA is being defined as “the doctrine that states that God, in the form of Jesus Christ, sacrificed himself of his own accord on behalf of humanity, paying the penalty of sin due to humanity in order to exercise mercy over humanity whilst upholding cosmic justice.”
- When assessing whether a Christian doctrine is ethically defensible, we ought to understand the doctrine as the Christian would. Otherwise, CON will be debating a severely strawmanned perspective. In other words, we ought to understand the doctrine of PSA within the context of the Christian’s perspective, which assumes several realities: that there is a God, that that God exists as a trinitarian entity, that God is the moral-law giver and judge, and that sin (the violation of that law) exists and requires judgment from God to uphold the moral law.
- RECALL that “ethically tenable” is being defined as “Not obviously or demonstrably unjust, all things considered. Able to be defended ethically.” Thus, PRO's BoP is to show that a relatively strong defense of PSA can be made by the Christian. CON's BoP will be to show that the defense of PSA is weak. Furthermore, understanding what constitutes justice, or a violation of it, is key. And, in order to systematically categorize actions as just or unjust, a moral framework must be established.
My Sole Contention: Establishing a Moral Framework
Subpoint 1: Meta-Ethical Concerns
Under the Christian perspective, moral law for humankind arises out of God’s command, and God’s command itself arises out of God’s own, invariable divine nature. Because of God Himself being the standard of morality, the Christian argues that God’s justice is necessitated and assumed by virtue of his Godhood, thus rendering any action he partakes in beyond human scrutiny.
Thus, one ethical defense of the atonement is simply that it lies beyond human scrutiny. If this sounds like a simple cop-out, consider that human fallibility is highly assumed in Christianity. Thus the major boon to this view is the nature of the atonement as a divinely orchestrated event. Given the divine forces at play, the complexity and incomprehensibility of PSA is no accident. It is the ultimate culmination and expression of God’s divine, holy character in the metanarrative of history. In other words, a combination of everything we should expect to struggle to understand as corrupt, finite beings. So while we can grasp pieces of what has been revealed, we should expect the fullness of the atonement to be far beyond our grasp.
That said, meta-ethics is but one piece of PRO’s case.
Subpoint 2: Establishing Threshold Deontology
Most moral frameworks understand “justice” as the principle of suum cuique, “rendering to each what they are due.” It is on this basis that most objections to PSA arise. How was Jesus, an innocent, divine being, due the penalty of humankind? How was humankind, in all its wickedness, due the pardon of God? Initially, this presents quite the dilemma. For all intents and purposes, the moral axiom that people ought to be duly treated can not be seriously challenged. Any tenable moral framework will uphold that principle.
However, moral frameworks can differ considerably in how they manufacture and treat such moral axioms. For instance, under a consequentialist framework, the axiom that people ought to be duly treated is true because violation of that axiom produces an undesirable effect. Alternatively, a deontologist framework argues that the axiom that people ought to be duly treated is true because unduly treating people is qualitatively unjust.
PRO argues that treating the principle of suum cuique completely rigidly denies ethical reality (a premise that PRO will defend soon). Therefore, PRO argues that the principle of suum cuique ought to be couched within a framework such as threshold deontology, which recognizes ethical considerations beyond what consequentialism and deontology accounts for.
Stanford’s Encyclopedia of Philosophy characterizes the view in this way: “A threshold deontologist holds that deontological norms govern up to a point despite adverse consequences; but when the consequences become so dire that they cross the stipulated threshold, consequentialism takes over.”
In other words, given moral considerations of a certain weight, the rigid axioms of deontology can be permissibly suspended, such that party A’s unjust treatment of party B would be justified in the cosmic court of law in favor of minimizing other, disastrous moral ramifications.
As Joel Fienberg and Hyman Gross observe in their work Philosophy of Law (1),
“In that case, we can say that B was unjustly treated although A’s act resulting in that effect was not an instance of unjust behavior. For an act to have an unjust quality (whatever its effects) it must be, objectively speaking, the wrong thing to do in the circumstances, unexcused and unjustified, voluntarily undertaken, and deliberately chosen by an unrushed actor who is well aware of the alternatives open to him” (pg. 286).
Subpoint 3: Applying Threshold Deontology
In “The Glory of the Atonement,” Dr. Donald Carson ties this concept together with PSA (2):
“It is the unjust punishment of the Servant in Isaiah 53 that is so remarkable. Forgiveness, restoration, salvation, reconciliation–all are possible, not because sins have somehow been canceled as if they never were, but because another bore them unjustly. But by this adverb ‘unjustly’ I mean that the person who bore them was just and did not deserve the punishment, not that some moral ‘system’ that God was administering was thereby distorted” (pg. 134).
Dr. Carson’s distinction in the last sentence is important. While Jesus may have been unjustly treated, the totality of God’s behavior was justified within the framework of the cosmic moral system He established because of the sheer weight of certain situational factors. The voluntary and consensual nature of Jesus’ treatment, His status as both Judge and victim, and the paramount task of dispensing salvation to all of mankind to avoid their collective demise are all key factors that make Jesus’ treatment justified.
But the most important justifying factor is one I have yet to mention: Jesus’ resurrection and subsequent glorification. Indeed, a mere three days after His death, Jesus was not only repaid for what He freely gave (His life), but He was (and is being) compensated with heavenly gifts of immeasurable value and significance such that what was owed to Him has been made up many times over.
Now, while it is true that, by virtue of being God incarnate, Jesus was already owed heavenly gifts of immeasurable value, in Scripture there is a clear sense in which Jesus is now being rewarded and exalted even further by the Father for the sacrifice He made.
Consider Philippians 2:8-11 (ESV):
“And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
Also, Revelation 19:11-16 (ESV):
“Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.”
Jesus has an on-going, eternal reward for the one time mistreatment He voluntarily endured: His exalting as the “King of kings and Lord of lords.” To be clear, I do not mean to discount or underplay the immense suffering Jesus went through on the cross, only to illustrate that Jesus is being duly rewarded for His heroism.
Subpoint 4: Defending Threshold Deontology:
Yet, even with all of this in mind, some potential objections arise. First, one may point to the weaknesses of threshold deontology as a concept: how can we be sure such a threshold exists? For that matter, how would one even begin to decide where such a threshold would lie on the spectrum of disastrous outcomes? From their previously cited entry, Stanford furthers:
“Threshold deontology faces several theoretical difficulties. Foremost among them is giving a theoretically tenable account of the location of such a threshold, either absolutely or on a sliding scale… Why is the threshold for [justifying] torture of the innocent at one thousand lives, say, as opposed to nine hundred or two thousand?”
Of course, the task of concocting some universally applicable meta-ethical formula to locate the precise location of the deontological threshold for each given situation is impossible. However, demonstrating that such deontological thresholds exist independently of our ability to model them and are regularly used in human moral judgments is easily done. Who would object to the voluntary self-sacrifice of an innocent person for the lives of even a handful of people, much less thousands, millions, or billions? Consider the purported scenario of cavalry, in which the eternal destination of billions hung in the balance, and in which the sacrificial Lamb would be duly rewarded. What person could seriously object with the decision of Jesus to sacrifice Himself?
If the only difficulty of threshold deontology is locating the threshold, then threshold deontology is no real danger of refutation, especially given that the Christian theorist can reasonably account for such a difficulty. While for the secular theorist, there is no room for knowledge above human conception, for the Christian, higher knowledge is not only permitted but assumed and expected. Thus, our inability to locate thresholds with precision can easily be attributed to our human limitations, not to any defect within the moral framework itself. After all, God Himself is the source of moral mechanics and constructions, meaning that we can only come so close to modeling those mechanics and constructions ourselves.
One last objection arises. With everything in mind, and assuming threshold deontology’s accuracy, could God have not simply used threshold deontology to justify humanity’s acquittal? Could it not be argued that, in such a scenario, the unjust act of allowing sin to go unpunished would be overruled by the weightier outcome of the salvation of those who accept it?
To answer such objections, we must harken back to the principles necessitating the propitiation of sin in the first place. Romans 6:23 states that “the wages of sin is death,” and Hebrews 9:22 claims that “under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (ESV). Sin must be a serious offense to necessitate the shedding of blood. Guilt before God is not simply tied to the status of the perpetrator, it is indelibly tied to the status of the One that was sinned against. Should we sin against someone of infinite value, that is an infinite evil. Therefore, although we don’t usually think in these terms, for the mere created being to openly commit cosmic treason is an inherently infinite evil that deserves infinite punishment. Thus, the collective sin of all of humankind is an infinite injustice demanding cosmic resolution. To simply acquit such infinite injustice with no propitiation for sin (as PSA provides) is an even greater injustice in its own right. This injustice would not be outweighed by mankind going scot-free, it would be magnified by it.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, then, a strong defense of the atonement lies in taking the facts of the case and reading them through the framework of threshold deontology. The imputation of the sins of mankind to Christ, such that He was declared guilty in the cosmic court of law, was an unjust treatment that was simultaneously a justified decision because of overriding moral factors, including Jesus’ resurrection and subsequent exaltation as “King of kings and Lord of lords,” Jesus’ voluntary heroism, Jesus’ status as both Judge and victim, and the necessity of some measure of propitiation for sin for the sake of mankind.
All of this illustrates clearly that PSA is not only ethically tenable, but ethically without flaw. PRO has more than fulfilled their BoP.
Back to you, RM.
- Joel Feinberg and Hyman Gross, eds., Philosophy of Law, 2nd ed., (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1980), p. 286
- D. A. Carson, “Atonement in Romans 3:21-26,” in The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Practical Perspectives, ed. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 133
Con
#2
WARNING I am not religious and have little respect for the absurd fairytales people believe, in real life in a professional and social environment I'm willing to chastise my mouth and feign respect for the nonsense that I'm blackmailed to show 'respect' to but please understand that this is a competitive debate and I am not obligated to speak to Christians about their religion with deep respect while tearing a central idea in it to pieces. Let me have my fun and forgive me, cheers Christians.
I obviously disagree with the framework Pro has offered but I cannot attack it without risking violating the rebuttal rule, in fact I have realised that every single part of my constructive is fundamentally a rebuttal to Pro's framework so I ask you to accept this as coincidental. I wish to prove 4 things that simultaneously challenge and tear apart the framework Pro offers:
- If you are a good Christian, you should be severely bemused by the idea of God using either his own body or son for the suicide-by-persecution arrangement that unfolded, primarily due to the omniscience of God.
- The entire idea is so utterly dumbfounded and irrational that there is no polite way to explore how absurd it is than to rip Christian ethical framework to pieces.
- This will have parallels to point 1 but essentially Jesus is either a severely abused and gaslit son of God or is impossible, either way around the PSA was sadistic and immoral under Christian ethics specifically due to how God treats Jesus in the situation and the way Jesus is duped.
- This has parallels to point 3 and point 1 but even point 2, the focus is that the duping of both Adam and Eve and later Jesus as well as all humans prior to Jesus and who grow up since Jesus with insufficient exposure to Christianity mean God's entire test of reality is broken and ethically untenable to be drawing conclusions on a human's soul/spirit.
I will actually like to prove 1, 3 and 4 in a simple rant of sorts, if I structure it better, it only looks more like a rebuttal to Pro's case which is very difficult to avoid. I will save sourcing, exploring Bible verses and historical analysis of the death of Jesus for Round 2 depending how rebuttals are deemed to optimally go, by me.
1, 3 and 4
Is the Christian God omniscient and omnipotent? Yes, he is described as being so (I implicitly challenge his existence and power being non-fictional though). When God formed the bodies, brains and even souls of Adam and Eve, he knew the snake would show, that Eve would eat the apple so on and so forth. The reason he had to have known is that to God there is no such thing as probability, he is never playing poker with cards hidden, it's all chess with an open board. God has complete information at all times about all variables and has the omnipotence to sway every single variable even if somehow his omnipotence had limitations in what it could perceive and predict.
Theists often will negate the idea of God being responsible for Eve's sins by the idea of 'free will' which is why I said, body, brain/mind and soul. That is a huge Kritik to their 'free will' scapegoat and drives home a point that does not require me to back atheism whatsoever. God makes the souls, knows their nature and has absolutely infinite precision and accuracy in knowing how they will respond to scenarios and react, in tandem with body and brain structure as well as hormones, to any stimuli, environment, situation so on and so forth that God provides them.
What I am accusing God of is the idea of God itself/himself being responsible for Eve sinning, responsible for all of our sins and this then leads us to ask was Jesus God in the flesh or an independent son sent to preach? If you have the 'god in the flesh' interpretation, it raises even more questions because how exactly did God inhibit himself and why was God of a particular race, body type and even gender/sex of human, why isn't God a hermaphrodite? Jesus (known back then as Yeshua) was a male, probably more Hewbrew and Indian looking than anything like the simply brunette caucasian type of bodily, facial and hair structure that we see.
Why was this the form of God? What exactly was the idea? Even more interesting is that if God is capable of undergoing wilful split personality disorder on command, are the rest of us actually just personas that God has inserted into? This entire notion tears apart the fabric of Christianity. Why did God then mutilate himself at will by wilfully ignoring his omniscient awareness of Judas and the plot? Also, why did God let Jews, Hindus (of the Shaivism and Vaishnavism variety) and plenty of pagan variations of faith exist deluded and having an unfair shot at the test that determines if they end up in Christian heaven or hell beforehand.
THIS IS NOT IRRELEVANT TO THE RESOLUTION, let me please explain to you why.
The idea of Jesus being crucified, especially if Jesus himself was just God putting on a fancy human costume and playing the role of 'son' while actually being God, is nothing more than theatric apology from God for screwing up big time and making us sin. If that is the case and Jesus dying was a masochistic apology, Christianity should be condoning self mutilation and suicide as means of apology and furthermore should be making clear that nobody actually can end up in Hell since God hurt himself to say sorry for screwing up. Also how did an omniscient and omnipotent being 'screw up'? Perhaps he gave into tempation and corruption but that makes something else really not work out...
Heaven and hell and the whole moral framework of Christianity get torn to pieces!
Let me rewind before I get distracted, we didn't explore the alternate scenario where if Jesus is not God and instead is an independent messiah and preacher that is the chosen son of God, what does it exactly mean? God would then have been an absolutely abusive father to his son, due to his omniscience making him aware and predicting everything and omnipotence making him at the very least a completely willing bystander to his beloved son undergoing severely unfair and undue things because some woman named Eve swallowed an apple...
In fact, please let me lead into point 2 here.
Further warning THE FOLLOWING HAS SLIGHT REFERENCES TO MATURE CONTENT (BOTH SEXUAL AND GORY) THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO ME TO HIGHLIGHT the immorality involved than to explain the absurdity and severity.
Christianity cannot work unless we gloss over the PSA entirely. Most modern and intelligent pastors very carefully tread the topic of Jesus' sacrifice framing it instead as symbolic (as well as Eve's sin which on top of how Eve was made is just misogynistic spiteful fairytale, implying her being impulsive and eating an apple is why all humans should die and suffer... What absolute ethical absurdity?)
The idea is that prior to PSA, the sin of one woman and her boyfriend (oh yeah, did you think they were married? What happened to sex outside of marriage being wrong? Maybe that was what the apple symbolised, we will never know what really went down Eve's throat) we are punished forever, literally for them... Then God has his son (or God's flesh suit and split personality, it hasn't been confirmed) believe that he was sent to spread the good word of his father (or father persona) and then gets sniched on, brutally nailed to a cross (bleeding out from wounds and hanging on nails is excruciating, his bodyweight should actually have caused his hands to rip and to hang on stretched out skin and flesh...
In fact, the real death of Jesus if you know how Romans and Jews both worked wouldn't be his body respectfully left in a tomb, first vultures and such would scavenge his dead body, the guards would disrespectfully dump it somewhere until it got burnt for cremation but due it's possible that while on that pile some who liked him talked the authorities into getting his body into a cave... I just don't think it's realistic. The entire thing is absurd.
The fact that his son (or split personality roleplaying as a son) had to undergo humiliation, isolation, persecution and all kinds of things to 'forgive' us and 'cleanse' us of the sins that primarily revolve around some women eating an apple... It's just absurd.
It would literally, not metaphorically but literally, be like me grabbing some random person, talking them into killing themselves and saying 'they died for your sins' and releasing every single prisoner that I could release since they no longer did their crimes. Why did I say random person? Jesus himself wasn't among the sinners... So...
Or, was he? I don't even follow because if Jesus was human and came out of the womb of Mary wasn't he stained with the sins of Eve and those who followed her too? By 'followed' I mean existed since then and sinned, apparently we all share blame so then how do we get judged as individuals and not a collective when at the gates with St. Paul and such and told whether we go straight to heaven, undergo rehabilitative purgatory or go straight to hell? I genuinely don't comprehend it.
What exactly were we cleansed of then? Was everybody after Eve sinned and prior to PSA via Jesus Crucifixion going to Hell? Did Jesus need to die for God to forgive us and consider some worthy of heaven? Did Jesus dying flip it around then and send everyone to heaven since we were cleansed of sin?
It's all so incoherent, I can't rebuke Pro until Round 2 as per debate structure but expect more researched and precise attacks there.
Round 2
Pro
#3
Thanks, RM.
OBSERVATIONS:
- PRO reminds voters of PRO’s BoP: PRO must demonstrate that PSA is ethically tenable, that is, it is defensible to the point that it is not “obviously or demonstrably unjust.” Thus, for the purposes of this debate, as long as the question of PSA is sufficiently indeterminate to the voter, PRO has fulfilled their BoP. Similarly, if PRO can successfully sway voters that PSA is just, PRO has fulfilled their BoP.
- CON offers four main premises that he seeks to prove. PRO observes that these premises essentially boil down to two main claims: first, that God has structured the order of reality in an unethical way, which by extension condemns PSA as unjust, and second, that the “arrangement” of PSA was unjust as it was “abusive” in nature.
That said, the essence of CON’s case is simply this: “God’s ethical obligation was to structure the world such that PSA would never have been necessary.” PRO will respond to this claim.
REFUTATIONS:
A/2 Irrelevancy.
PRO urges voters to drop the following statements from CON, as they are utterly irrelevant to the topic of our debate:
- “...how exactly did God inhibit himself and why was God of a particular race, body type and even gender/sex of human, why isn't God a hermaphrodite? Jesus (known back then as Yeshua) was a male, probably more Hewbrew and Indian looking than anything like the simply brunette caucasian type of bodily, facial and hair structure that we see.
- “Why was this the form of God? What exactly was the idea? Even more interesting is that if God is capable of undergoing wilful split personality disorder on command, are the rest of us actually just personas that God has inserted into? This entire notion tears apart the fabric of Christianity. Why did God then mutilate himself at will by wilfully ignoring his omniscient awareness of Judas and the plot? Also, why did God let Jews, Hindus (of the Shaivism and Vaishnavism variety) and plenty of pagan variations of faith exist deluded and having an unfair shot at the test that determines if they end up in Christian heaven or hell beforehand.”
A/2 “God made us sin, and therefore PSA is absurd.”
“Theists often will negate the idea of God being responsible for Eve's sins by the idea of 'free will' which is why I said, body, brain/mind and soul. That is a huge Kritik to their 'free will' scapegoat and drives home a point that does not require me to back atheism whatsoever. God makes the souls, knows their nature and has absolutely infinite precision and accuracy in knowing how they will respond to scenarios and react, in tandem with body and brain structure as well as hormones, to any stimuli, environment, situation so on and so forth that God provides them.What I am accusing God of is the idea of God itself/himself being responsible for Eve sinning, responsible for all of our sins.”
CON uses God’s sovereignty and foresight as a basis of condemnation, stating that God is the ultimate actor responsible for the sins of each individual… And thus, God being “responsible” for evil’s existence, he has acted unjustly, and for him to die on our behalf is an “apology” for that mistake. A few things.
- Compatibilism:
First, PRO reminds voters that, in order to explore the topic at hand fairly, both PRO and CON must deal with Christianity as presented in the Bible and as best understood by Christian theologians. Otherwise, CON is not debating the genuine doctrine of PSA at all, but rather a new doctrine of his own invention.
Therefore, it is important that voters recognize that CON’s rigid, artificial dichotomy between human free will versus God’s predestination as the sole operative determinant in our choices and actions (e.g. in choosing whether to sin) does not align with what the Bible teaches.
Aside from the “free will only” camp and the “predestination only” camp, both unbiblical, there is the Biblical position of compatibilism.
While it is true that, theologically speaking, all choices must be made under the framework of God’s sovereignty (or “plan”), any serious theologian should maintain that that reality does not encroach upon the freedom of each created being to choose willfully. The specific mechanics of how this works are said to be beyond human knowledge.
GotQuestions.org states:
“Promulgated originally from a philosophical viewpoint by the Greek Stoics and later by numerous philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and David Hume, and from a theological viewpoint by theologians such as Augustine of Hippo and John Calvin, the compatibilist concept of free will states that though the free will of man seems irreconcilable with the proposition of determinism, they both do exist and are “compatible” with one another.”
Let’s demonstrate the validity of this viewpoint with Scripture.
Proverbs 16:9 states: “The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps.” Man exercises his will to choose his path, but God helps direct him as he walks.
However, it can not be said that this direction and guidance crosses the line into coercion, especially regarding sin.
Consider James 1:13-16, which states: “Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.”
James argues that, while God may allow us to sin, he certainly does not tempt or entice us with sin. Thus, it is our own desire, our own “will” that leads to our sinning.
CON will certainly object on some logical basis. “How can this doctrine be true? It is illogical!”
Several responses. First, remember, this is not a debate of whether the Christian doctrine of PSA (or its associated doctrines) are true, logical or even coherent. This is a debate of whether they are patently unjust. Thus, any logical objection CON brings to dismiss this doctrine is outside the scope of this debate. CON must reconcile with the fact that this doctrine is present in the Bible and recognized by prominent theologians, whether it is logical or not.
Second, recall that, just as the Trinity lies beyond human comprehension under Christian theology, so also does the relationship between God’s sovereignty and our free will. Remember that, as CON himself observes, the Christian God is omniscient. He retains infinite knowledge that far surpasses our own. God is also holy under Christian doctrine, meaning that he, as a perfect being, has a sense of justice, morality, logic, and rationality that far surpasses our own. He is infinite, we are finite. Thus, it should be completely expected that these sorts of truths (that is, truths relating to the deepest mechanics of how the universe is ordered metaphysically) should be far beyond our grasp. Therefore, no logical objection CON brings will be problematic for the Christian.
All of this is important, because it means that, Biblically speaking, CON’s entire argument is based on a gross misinterpretation of how God relates to humanity.
If humanity’s free will is not encroached upon by God even while God is sovereign, God can not be accused of being “responsible” for the sins of Eve and humanity as a whole.
- Meta-Ethics:
Even if voters do not buy Compatibilism as a response, and even if CON can somehow prove that God is the primary actor behind sin Biblically in spite of everything PRO has said, PRO’s Meta-Ethics point from R1 also resolves this perceived dilemma.
RECALL & EXTEND: “Under the Christian perspective, moral law for humankind arises out of God’s command, and God’s command itself arises out of God’s own, invariable divine nature. Because of God Himself being the standard of morality, the Christian argues that God’s justice is necessitated and assumed by virtue of his Godhood, thus rendering any action he partakes in beyond human scrutiny. Thus, one ethical defense of the atonement is simply that it lies beyond human scrutiny. If this sounds like a simple cop-out, consider that human fallibility is highly assumed in Christianity.”
RECALL & EXTEND: “it should be completely expected that these sorts of truths (that is, truths relating to the deepest mechanics of how the universe is ordered metaphysically) should be far beyond our grasp. Therefore, no logical objection CON brings will be problematic for the Christian.”
CON may object to God’s behavior, yet due to this doctrine the atonement remains ethically defensible.
- Philosophical Considerations:
Even if voters buy nothing PRO has said thus far, and even if voters buy CON’s argument that God is responsible for evil, God can still be justified through some philosophical considerations.
First, God may have allowed evil’s presence in the universe simply because “good” is meaningless without it. How can we have any conception of what is “good” without also knowing (or having made manifest) its opposite? How can there be any truth without there also being falsehoods? Voters should recognize that, in order for God to make “goodness” of any ultimate value, “evil” was a necessity.
Second, throughout the Bible, there is a constant theme of God, as the literal definition of “good,” revealing His character through Creation for His own glory.
Romans 9:22-23 says: “What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory?”
Therefore, another plausible explanation to the issue of evil may be that the “good” of God glorifying Himself through evil’s presence is so potent that it outweighs the “bad” of evil’s presence in the universe. Perhaps, by allowing evil to exist, God is allowed to do the “greatest good” of demonstrating his mercy through PSA. This is not how we normally think, ethically speaking, but RECALL & EXTEND: “it should be completely expected that these sorts of truths (that is, truths relating to the deepest mechanics of how the universe is ordered metaphysically) should be far beyond our grasp. Therefore, no logical objection CON brings will be problematic for the Christian.”
A/2 The “Alternate Scenario.”
RECALL & EXTEND: “PRO reminds voters that, in order to explore the topic at hand fairly, both PRO and CON must deal with Christianity as presented in the Bible and as best understood by Christian theologians. Otherwise, CON is not debating the genuine doctrine of PSA at all, but rather a new doctrine of his own invention.”
On this basis, CON’s “alternate scenario” of “Jesus is not God and instead is an independent messiah and preacher that is the chosen son of God” can be dismissed outright without further discussion. No orthodox Christian holds (or ought to hold) that position (Colossians 2:9 states that “whole fullness of deity dwells bodily” within Jesus).
A/2 Original Sin Strawman.
“The idea is that prior to PSA, the sin of one woman and her boyfriend (oh yeah, did you think they were married? What happened to sex outside of marriage being wrong? Maybe that was what the apple symbolised, we will never know what really went down Eve's throat) we are punished forever, literally for them... “
This blurb from CON is non-topical, as this debate is not over whether the doctrine of Original Sin is just, but whether PSA is just (with all other doctrines assumed).
Even if voters don’t buy this,
RECALL & EXTEND: “PRO reminds voters that, in order to explore the topic at hand fairly, both PRO and CON must deal with Christianity as presented in the Bible and as best understood by Christian theologians. Otherwise, CON is not debating the genuine doctrine of PSA at all, but rather a new doctrine of his own invention.”
Unfortunately for CON, he grossly misrepresents this doctrine. Original Sin does not state that humanity is condemned to Hell because Eve ate an apple. Original Sin states that the parental figures (the original representatives of humanity) of humankind chose to reject God (defying His commands in spite of God duly warning them of the consequences) and that out of that rejection, humanity as a whole has been judged. PRO points out to voters that, Biblically speaking, Adam and Eve’s initial status as the representatives for humankind means that their rejection of God constituted humanity’s rejection of God.
CON may reply that a punishment that extends to the rest of humanity is still disproportionate to the crime. PRO argues that the punishment of God was proportional on the basis of Adam & Eve’s level of responsibility. Not only were Adam and Eve tasked with being humanity’s representatives, but they were sinless beings who knew God personally. Therefore, their rejection of Him was all the more severe.
Regardless, again, voters should prefer orthodox Christian doctrine over CON’s strawmen.
A/2 The Gory Details.
CON gives a long description of the gory details of crucifixion. In and of itself, this does not constitute an argument. RECALL & EXTEND PRO’s case concerning the crucifixion event.
Further, PRO reminds CON and voters that we are going off of the Biblical description of the crucifixion event. Jesus’ body was not ravaged by vultures in the Bible.
“The fact that his son (or split personality roleplaying as a son) had to undergo humiliation, isolation, persecution and all kinds of things to 'forgive' us and 'cleanse' us of the sins that primarily revolve around some women eating an apple... It's just absurd.”
RECALL & EXTEND PRO’s case concerning the crucifixion event. PRO reminds CON and voters that, while Original Sin may have corrupted humanity, this was a self-imposed punishment on the part of humanity, and we do indeed choose sin out of our own desire (James 1:13-16), meaning that our guilt before God is justified.
A/2 Questions Concerning Jesus and Judgment:
“It would literally, not metaphorically but literally, be like me grabbing some random person, talking them into killing themselves and saying 'they died for your sins' and releasing every single prisoner that I could release since they no longer did their crimes. Why did I say random person? Jesus himself wasn't among the sinners... So...Or, was he? I don't even follow because if Jesus was human and came out of the womb of Mary wasn't he stained with the sins of Eve and those who followed her too?”
RECALL & EXTEND: “PRO reminds voters that, in order to explore the topic at hand fairly, both PRO and CON must deal with Christianity as presented in the Bible and as best understood by Christian theologians. Otherwise, CON is not debating the genuine doctrine of PSA at all, but rather a new doctrine of his own invention.”
On this basis, CON’s suggestion that Jesus may not have been sinless (however illogical he thinks that is) can be rejected outright.
“apparently we all share blame so then how do we get judged as individuals and not a collective when at the gates with St. Paul and such and told whether we go straight to heaven, undergo rehabilitative purgatory or go straight to hell? I genuinely don't comprehend it.”
Non-topical.
“…Was everybody after Eve sinned and prior to PSA via Jesus Crucifixion going to Hell?...Did Jesus dying flip it around then and send everyone to heaven since we were cleansed of sin?”
Although I doubt CON seriously wanted an answer for these questions, Biblically speaking, the answer to the first is that those who lived before the events of PSA unfolded are still saved (given their own faith in God) by PSA because its effects are not temporally bound. Romans 4:3 says: “For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
The answer to the second question is that, no, salvation is not universally given, as salvation is a gift that one can either accept or reject. Mark 16:16: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
Summary:
RECALL & EXTEND: “PRO reminds voters of PRO’s BoP: PRO must demonstrate that PSA is ethically tenable, that is, it is defensible to the point that it is not “obviously or demonstrably unjust.” Thus, for the purposes of this debate, as long as the question of PSA is sufficiently indeterminate to the voter, PRO has fulfilled their BoP. Similarly, if PRO can successfully sway voters that PSA is just, PRO has fulfilled their BoP.”
Much of CON’s case is either non-topical or uses strawmanned doctrine. And for what remains, it fails utterly to demonstrate that PSA is “obviously or demonstrably unjust.” Thus far, PRO has fulfilled their BoP.
Back to you, RM.
Con
#4
I remind all readers that just because Pro says something, doesn't mean it's true. Just because Pro tells you all Christians believe something about Adam and Eve doesn't mean that's the correct interpretation.
I will put effort into keeping my countercase concise since that is what Pro seems dedicated to as well.
Pro's framework is flawed. If Christians support an ethically untenable thing, it is ethically untenable even if they all support it. Furthermore, if I can prove their own ethical framework in other areas contradicts the entire purpose and viability of PSA, I have proven that they are wrong about their own ethics being tenable in the first place.
Ethical tenability ought to rely on the framework that within that ethical realm there is a logical and justifiable way for the actions in PSA to match coherently and consistently with the rest of the ethics that you, as a reader, can say is correct and tenable to uphold for a Christian.
For instance, if God punishes himself in human form there is already a huge dilemma that Pro seems to gloss over consistently; the sacrifice was not really a sacrifice.
This character Jesus was basically a sockpuppet that god played like if the creator of a game with a lot of AI made his own manually controlled character. That is the only possible way that Jesus could be God in the flesh, there is no other way and anything Pro tells you otherwise ignores the very premise of Jesus being God in the flesh as opposed to a separate entity that is God's son and has his own soul and free will.
It can't be 2 ways, that is totally and utterly untenable. The fact we keep getting mixed messages on what Jesus is, even references to him being a starry being and fiery like Lucifer (the morningstar) mean there are so many strange hints and contradictions about who Jesus may be in the Bible but we can agree there is a consensus that ultimately he's just God playing a human characer/role.
I wish to cast doubt on Pro claiming that anything deontological is made clearer by PSA, instead it is an event of extreme obscurity, hypocrisy and unfortunately... ethical hilarity and irony.
Stage 1: What and who is Jesus in relation to the Christian paradigm?
Jesus as morning star:
Isaiah 14:12“How you have fallen from heaven,O star of the morning, son of the dawn!You have been cut down to the earth,You who have weakened the nations!2 Peter 1:19So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.Job 38:7When the morning stars sang togetherAnd all the sons of God shouted for joy?Revelation 22:16“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”Revelation 2:28and I will give him the morning star.Numbers 24:17“I see him, but not now;I behold him, but not near;A star shall come forth from Jacob,A scepter shall rise from Israel,And shall crush through the forehead of Moab,And tear down all the sons of Sheth.
Lucifer the morningstar:
If this passage contains a reference to the fall of Lucifer, then the pattern of this passage would seem to fit that of the Ezekiel 28 reference—that is, first a human leader is described, and then the dual reference is made to a human leader and Satan.
It is significant that the language used to describe this fits other passages in the Bible that speak about Satan. For example, the five “I wills” in Isaiah 14 indicate an element of pride, which was also evidenced in Ezekiel 28:17 (cf. 1 Timothy 3:6 which makes reference to Satan’s conceit).
As a result of this heinous sin against God, Lucifer was banished from living in heaven (Isaiah 14:12). He became corrupt, and his name changed from Lucifer (“morning star”) to Satan (“adversary”). His power became completely perverted (Isaiah 14:12,16,17). And his destiny, following the second coming of Christ, is to be bound in a pit during the 1000-year millennial kingdom over which Christ will rule (Revelation 20:3), and eventually will be thrown into the lake of fire (Matthew 25:41).
Is PSA Lucifer coming down as Jesus to get back into God's good books and be forgiven? Perhaps that is why Jesus only refers to Satan and the Devil (perhaps a darker side to God himself) and never once to Lucifer. Perhaps he is referring to his own split personality, that would make sense if Jesus is God as well as Lucifer and thus Satan on top. Which is a theory I personally have had for a while.
The problem is not only if Jesus is Lucifer, it's who and what Jesus even is. Is he a messenger? Is he the one to worship? Is he a prophet or more of an archangel? None of these are answered, the only thing apparent is while in the form of Yeshua on Earth he is not in angel form.
Jesus either being a delusional egomaniac or correctly informing us that he is just God playing a characer/role more concretely than any other verses and book within the Bible:
5“Lord,” said Thomas, “we do not know where You are going, so how can we know the way?”
6Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. 7If you had known Me, you would know My Father as well. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him.”
8Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and that will be enough for us.”
9Jesus replied, “Philip, I have been with you all this time, and still you do not know Me? Anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own. Instead, it is the Father dwelling in Me, performing His works. 11Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves.
12Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If you ask Med for anything in My name, I will do it.
The problem of this split personality concept isn't that Christianity can't function if God is playing a role as Jesus, instead it's that PSA then is God not being deceived by Judas at all, it's God engineering his own demise.
Stage 2: Christian God literally has no limit to its omniscience and omnipotence. He let himself get backstabbed by Judas as a show, theatre if you will.
Omnipotence:
Matthew 19:26And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”Genesis 18:14Is anything too difficult for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, at this time next year, and Sarah will have a son.”Job 42:1-2Then Job answered the Lord and said, “I know that You can do all things,And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.Isaiah 26:4-5“Trust in the Lord forever,For in God the Lord, we have an everlasting Rock.“For He has brought low those who dwell on high, the unassailable city;He lays it low, He lays it low to the ground, He casts it to the dust.Luke 1:37For nothing will be impossible with God.”Acts 26:8Why is it considered incredible among you people if God does raise the dead?Jeremiah 32:27“Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh; is anything too difficult for Me?”
Psalm 147:5Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.1 John 3:20For whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.Hebrews 4:13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.Proverbs 15:3 The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.Jeremiah 1:5 ESV / 253 helpful votes “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”Isaiah 40:28 ESV / 241 helpful votes Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.Acts 1:24 ESV / 216 helpful votes And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosenMatthew 10:30 ESV / 216 helpful votes But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.1 Chronicles 28:9 ESV / 215 helpful votes “And you, Solomon my son, know the God of your father and serve him with a whole heart and with a willing mind, for the Lord searches all hearts and understands every plan and thought. If you seek him, he will be found by you, but if you forsake him, he will cast you off forever.Jeremiah 23:24 ESV / 189 helpful votes Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? declares the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? declares the Lord.Romans 11:33-36 ESV / 168 helpful votes Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.Psalm 147:4 ESV / 164 helpful votes He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names.Isaiah 40:13-14 ESV / 154 helpful votes Who has measured the Spirit of the Lord, or what man shows him his counsel? Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?Job 28:24 ESV / 145 helpful votes For he looks to the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens.Romans 11:33 ESV / 138 helpful votes Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!Isaiah 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’Isaiah 42:9 Behold, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now declare; before they spring forth I tell you of them.”Psalm 139:1-4 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. O Lord, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.Psalm 139:4 ESV / 128 helpful votes Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether.Psalm 147:4-5 ESV / 123 helpful votes He determines the number of the stars; he gives to all of them their names. Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.Psalm 139:1-6 To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David. O Lord, you have searched me and known me! You know when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from afar. You search out my path and my lying down and are acquainted with all my ways. Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O Lord, you know it altogether. You hem me in, behind and before, and lay your hand upon me. ...John 21:17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep.Psalm 56:8 You have kept count of my tossings; put my tears in your bottle. Are they not in your book?Job 34:21 “For his eyes are on the ways of a man, and he sees all his steps.Job 37:16 Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge,Matthew 6:8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
Ultimately, what I am getting at here is that the entire Adam and Eve story is irrelevant to the PSA. It is in fact part of the ethical untenability.
God knew what Adam and Eve would do with the apple, he knew about the snake, he knew of Lucifer and Judas and all of it before it even unfolded and allowed it to happen, intentionally. He is also responsible for their creation, body, brain, soul, life experiences and all.
There is absolutely nothing going on here that isn't sheer theatre and that leads me swiftly to stage 3.
Stage 3: You cannot possibly punish Jesus for all human sins if free will exists and heave and hell system of justice is ETHICALLY TENABLE!
Sometimes Christianity preaches that no matter what you did all you need is to ask for forgiveness and poof you're forgiven:
1 John 1:9“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”Hebrews 8:12“For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”
So... Why was PSA needed at all? Because Adam and Eve did something stupid that means all other humans did? Then are we all collectively sent to hell and heaven?
At other times it tells us that we are responsible individually, judged solely on our own deeds:
Leviticus 5:17
If anyone sins, doing any of the things that by the Lord’s commandments ought not to be done, though he did not know it, then realizes his guilt, he shall bear his iniquity (Lev 5:17).Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin (Deut 24:16).Job 19:4
And even if it be true that I have erred, my error remains with myself (Job 19:4).Proverbs 9:12
If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; f you scoff, you alone will bear it (Pr 9:12).Jeremiah 31:29-30
In those days they shall no longer say: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. But everyone shall die for his own iniquity. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge (Jr 31:29-30).Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself (Ez 18:20).Ezekiel 33:6
But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any one of them, that person is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand (Ez33:6).Matthew 12:36-37
I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned (Mt 12:36-37).Romans 14:12
So then each of us will give an account of himself to God (Ro 14:12).2 Corinthians 5:10
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil (2 Co 5:10).Galatians 6:4-5
But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. For each will have to bear his own load (Ga 6:4-5).1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8).Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you (Heb13:17).
So, it should then be impossible and ethically untenable for firstly the original sin to have led to God punishing the rest of us and later lead to PSA alleviating us all of our sins. You are never judged on a collective in Christianity, you are on a personal, individual test and judgement system where at the end, prior to afterlife God judges you solely on your own actions.
This means that PSA is not only unnecessarily sadistic but is pointless.
The actual idea behind it is somebody committing suicide and self-harming so that the rest of us can be better off. It is akin to Satanic cult sacrifice rituals.
Round 3
Pro
#5
Thx RM.
This will be relatively brief.
Uncontested Points:
CON has chosen not to clash with virtually all of PRO’s case and most of PRO’s R2. There are only a couple points of real contention as of now (that PRO shall address later)...
Thus, as PRO’s R1, and much of PRO’s R2 has more or less been ignored by CON until now, and because this will be PRO’s last chance to respond, on this basis, the voter can consider the following points as dropped & conceded:
- PRO’s BoP: “PRO must demonstrate that PSA is ethically tenable, that is, it is defensible to the point that it is not “obviously or demonstrably unjust.” Thus, for the purposes of this debate, as long as the question of PSA is sufficiently indeterminate to the voter, PRO has fulfilled their BoP. Similarly, if PRO can successfully sway voters that PSA is just, PRO has fulfilled their BoP.”
- PRO’s statement that: “in order to explore the topic at hand fairly, both PRO and CON must deal with Christianity as presented in the Bible and as best understood by Christian theologians. Otherwise, CON is not debating the genuine doctrine of PSA at all, but rather a new doctrine of his own invention.”
- PRO’s argument regarding Meta-Ethics: “Under the Christian perspective, moral law for humankind arises out of God’s command, and God’s command itself arises out of God’s own, invariable divine nature. Because of God Himself being the standard of morality, the Christian argues that God’s justice is necessitated and assumed by virtue of his Godhood, thus rendering any action he partakes in beyond human scrutiny. Thus, one ethical defense of the atonement is simply that it lies beyond human scrutiny. If this sounds like a simple cop-out, consider that human fallibility is highly assumed in Christianity.
& “it should be completely expected that these sorts of truths (that is, truths relating to the deepest mechanics of how the universe is ordered metaphysically) should be far beyond our grasp. Therefore, no logical objection CON brings will be problematic for the Christian.”
- PRO’s argument regarding the framework of threshold deontology:
“In other words, given moral considerations of a certain weight, the rigid axioms of deontology can be permissibly suspended, such that party A’s unjust treatment of party B would be justified in the cosmic court of law in favor of minimizing other, disastrous moral ramifications.”
& “While Jesus may have been unjustly treated, the totality of God’s behavior was justified within the framework of the cosmic moral system He established because of the sheer weight of certain situational factors. The voluntary and consensual nature of Jesus’ treatment, His status as both Judge and victim, [Jesus’ subsequent glorification and exaltation as King of Kings and Lord of Lords as recompense] and the paramount task of dispensing salvation to all of mankind to avoid their collective demise are all key factors that make Jesus’ treatment justified.”
Therefore, as these points stand uncontested, CON has resigned himself to using PRO’s deontological framework and to admitting that he ought not strawman Christian doctrine. The only way CON can win is by demonstrating that there were additional situational factors to PSA so heinous that they effectively override the factors PRO has listed above, or by demonstrating that his own presentation of the PSA event is in fact, not a strawmanned version of Christian doctrine, but the orthodox view.
CON has done neither, and because he can not respond with new points of contention (as this is PRO’s final round), PRO’s win is ensured.
Final Remarks:
Now for some final remarks.
“Pro's framework is flawed. If Christians support an ethically untenable thing, it is ethically untenable even if they all support it. Furthermore, if I can prove their own ethical framework in other areas contradicts the entire purpose and viability of PSA, I have proven that they are wrong about their own ethics being tenable in the first place.Ethical tenability ought to rely on the framework that within that ethical realm there is a logical and justifiable way for the actions in PSA to match coherently and consistently with the rest of the ethics that you, as a reader, can say is correct and tenable to uphold for a Christian.”
CON grossly misses the point. PRO is not saying that, by virtue of popularity, a Christian doctrine is ergo ethical. PRO is simply stating that, in order to properly examine the question of whether a Christian doctrine is ethical, we ought to understand the doctrine as the Christian would. CON has been repeatedly setting up and shooting down a twisted, strawmanned version of Christianity, rather than engaging the topic in good faith (pun intended).
For instance, CON’s suggestions that Jesus could potentially be Lucifer, among other trinitarian heresies, while ultimately irrelevant (as Christian doctrine not making sense to CON does not translate to it being unethical in any form or fashion), are strawmen of the highest caliber.
RECALL & EXTEND: “…remember, this is not a debate of whether the Christian doctrine of PSA (or its associated doctrines) are true, logical or even coherent. This is a debate of whether they are patently unjust. Thus, any logical objection CON brings to dismiss this doctrine is outside the scope of this debate. CON must reconcile with the fact that this doctrine is present in the Bible and recognized by prominent theologians, whether it is logical or not.
Second, recall that, just as the Trinity lies beyond human comprehension under Christian theology, so also does the relationship between God’s sovereignty and our free will. Remember that, as CON himself observes, the Christian God is omniscient. He retains infinite knowledge that far surpasses our own. God is also holy under Christian doctrine, meaning that he, as a perfect being, has a sense of justice, morality, logic, and rationality that far surpasses our own. He is infinite, we are finite. Thus, it should be completely expected that these sorts of truths (that is, truths relating to the deepest mechanics of how the universe is ordered metaphysically) should be far beyond our grasp. Therefore, no logical objection CON brings will be problematic for the Christian.”
For the remainder of CON’s R2, regarding the dilemma between God’s sovereignty and human free will, as well as regarding the substitutionary punishment of Jesus despite His innocence, CON fails to present anything PRO has not already responded to adequately. Voters can simply cross-apply PRO’s R1 & R2.
RECALL & EXTEND: A/2 “God made us sin, and therefore PSA is absurd.”
RECALL & EXTEND: PRO’s R1.
Back to you, RM.
Con
#6
My entire case fundamentally contests Pro's point. Whether or not something is deontologically revealing or not, it can be ethically untenable... This is just word games Pro is playing, my case cuts Pro's entire religious framework at its core by juxtaposing a lot of it to PSA and making it untenable within (and excluding) Christian ethics.
Imagine this debate flipped around, meaning I am pro that it's ethically untenable, that is basically what has happened. I have actually shouldered slightly more burden of proof onto myself. I am actively proving untenability where Pro would prefer I solely attack his supposed 'tenability' which isn't what was really offered.
Pro gave you a lot of poetic filler/waffle speech in Round 1 and 2 even, it addressed the 'deontological' significance of the PSA.
The word deontology derives from the Greek words for duty (deon) and science (or study) of (logos). In contemporary moral philosophy, deontology is one of those kinds of normative theories regarding which choices are morally required, forbidden, or permitted. In other words, deontology falls within the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do (deontic theories), in contrast to those that guide and assess what kind of person we are and should be (aretaic [virtue] theories). And within the domain of moral theories that assess our choices, deontologists—those who subscribe to deontological theories of morality—stand in opposition to consequentialists.
If you look past the fancy word, all Pro said was negated by me directly, via my case. My thesis is that it is not deontological at all, since it is anti-deontological to kill someone for the sins of others and equally absurd to deontologically punish all humanity for what some chick Eve did with her throat and swallowing something Adam enjoyed...
It's all a bit iffy. Temptation, snakes and all that and then self-harm and suicide for others. Both ends of the PSA spectrum are deontologically absurd and ethically untenable in Christianity and outside of it in all honesty.
In Christianity, you end up judged alone, I showed in Round 2 that it pushes forth that you are judged on your own sins and own contributions. If you're the least generous member of a generous group, you're probably getting judged as a relative sinner and if you're the most generous of a group of scumbags, who helps the others regularly and shows mercy to the victims of your gang, you're probably viable for heaven.
Christianity never suggests that being part of a group known for its morality is how to get into heaven (well, except Christians or your sect itself). It strongly pushes forward the idea that you answer for your own sins and that your own repentance is the key to forgiveness, it has nothing to do with Eve and Adam giving into temptation or Yeshua/Jesus being a human-double for God and sacrificing himself.
It's all theatrics, absurd on an ethical level in every way.
It is not encouraged to harm yourself to free others of their sins and certainly not to risk suicidal antics in order to be some pariah turned messiah. There are direct violations of Chrisitan ethics going on with the PSA.
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:
Through much of the debate, it felt as if pro and con were simply talking past one another, never actually addressing much of their respective points. However, the burden of proof favours pro pretty heavily in this debate. If I am left feeling as if Con does not show PSA to be untenable, I ought to vote for him. Much of the Cons' arguments were arguments far beyond the topic, such as arguing that Jesus may be Lucifer and other such things far beyond the topical discussion.
Pro argument 1:
Pro makes an argument for the idea that PSA is simply incomprehensible for the human mind to understand. He admits people may see this as a copout, and for the purpose of logical discussion, it ought to be viewed as a copout in a debate. Anyone could create an appeal to ignorance argument on essentially any topic to win, so pro doesn't get any points on that argument from me even if it's true.
Pros threshold deontology is not directly addressed, while Con addresses it indirectly as irrelevant by pointing out supposed contradictions in the Bible.
Pro argument 2:
In my opinion, the best rebuttal and argument from the pro in my eyes is his argument for human free will still being justified within the Christian faith. Through his argument and sourcing from the Bible, he shows God does not tempt people to sin but simply gives them the path to be able too. Unless he can refute this point, all of the cons' arguments for a lack of free will and God causing people to sin are moot. and subsequent round 3 arguments for Adam and Eve seem irrelevant to me because of this.
Cons arguments:
Most cons arguments are non-sequiturs and redherrings, simply acting as distractions from the debate. Such as arguing that Jesus looks like an Indian man or might be Lucifer, just irrelevant stuff.
The best argument from con, in my opinion, was simply him arguing that Jesus's sacrifice was unnecessary if we could be saved without Jesus dying for us on the cross. However, this struck me more as damage control or lessening the impact of the crucifixion as opposed to making it wholly unnecessary.
Considering pro arguments for God being omniscient, simply being irrelevant to making people sin, and this point going uncontested by Con except through damage control, I have to give my vote to Pro.
Conclusion:
Much of the opposition's arguments feel more like damage control or downplaying the significance of Jesus' sacrifice rather than disproving it as a good altogether. I believe he would have to show God was the reason why we sin, but since pros argument to compatibilist free will goes unresponded too, I remain unconvinced of it being an untenable framework.
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:
This debate is largely two ships passing in the night. Both sides largely stick to their own arguments and ignore their opponents' points, with Con doing this across all three rounds and Pro doing it to a slightly lesser extent, but largely missing the opportunities to respond to Con's central points. This places both sides in a more precarious position, though to evaluate just how precarious, we need to start with the burdens analysis. Pro gives me the sole analysis to that effect, and while his R1 leaves the door more open on this front, his R2 is rather specific, arguing that he has to show that "PSA is ethically tenable, that is, it is defensible to the point that it is not “obviously or demonstrably unjust.”" That's an important distinction, since it effectively places the burden onto Con to show that it is unjust in some very clear way. In that sense, Pro's opening round provides a means of viewing PSA as ethically tenable, and it's up to Con to either present an alternate framework that he believes outweighs it and demonstrates that it is unjust, or to argue on Pro's framework that PSA is unjust. Con never tries the latter, so the focus is on the former.
There's a lot in Con's arguments that just doesn't matter for the purposes of this debate, though I'm only going to focus on the points that Con emphasized rather than issues like the Jesus-Lucifer connection that are entirely irrelevant. There's an effort to attach the issue of original sin to PSA, and while there might be some association between the two in terms of establishing what sins are being atoned for, these responses at best serve to mitigate the sins that PSA was meant to address. Both sides acknowledge individual sin, so though I'm left questioning whether Christianity upholds a collective sin as well (the sources appear to disagree on this one), that only suffices as one part of the picture. Con could have argued that PSA necessitates proof that collective sin exists, but I don't see that as necessary to prove Pro's point. Even if it was, Con is arguing that, based on several parts of the Bible and his frustrations with original sin, it is illogical and contradictory for original sin to apply collectively. That doesn't mean that it does not actually apply, just that there are contradictory parts of the text with regards to this issue, which renders this more of an issue of whether original sin ought to apply rather than whether it does. For sin in general, Con does suggest that free will might not exist, but when presented with compatibilism from Pro, he provides no responses.
But the main thing that sticks out to me from Con's argument is a lack of a clear framework. There's quite a bit of analysis of deontology from Con... in R3, when it's too late. Much of Con's arguments focus on how illogical and problematic some elements of Christianity are, but never a clear framework that he uses to challenge the threshold deontology framework that Pro provides. We get lots of points about how the Trinity makes PSA appear nonsensical, though again, the resolution regards its ethics and, at best, this questions the value of Jesus's sacrifice rather than the ethical tenability of that sacrifice. That might have yielded some points about how a symbolic gesture is an empty one or even a negative, but I don't see Con taking that tack, largely just leaving the point after clarifying why he is and we should be incredulous. Expressing incredulity is the vast majority of Con's argument, and while that does challenge Pro's claims on some level, it largely skirts around the issue of whether PSA is ethically tenable. The most he does is minimize how important PSA is.
There's actually very little in the way of offense relevant to the PSA from Con's case, since the lack of an ethical framework through which to analyze the PSA effectively means that he is arguing on Pro's framework the entire time, yet his engagement with that framework is too minimal (or too late) to meaningfully challenge the central tenets that Pro sets up. All of this might have been enough regardless if the burdens weren't set up to so distinctly favor Pro's side. He outright tells me that "as long as the question of PSA is sufficiently indeterminate to the voter, PRO has fulfilled their BoP." Con never challenges that. By not furnishing an opposing framework (the most I can take away from Con's case is that original sin and collective sin are morally problematic), Con's best case scenario is that I discard Pro's framework and am left without one entirely. Assuming I do that, I have no good way to analyze PSA, and am thus left with no ethical framework to assess it. That leaves it indeterminate. So whether I'm buying some elements of Pro's case (and I kind of have to, since Con drops the vast majority of it), or I buy Con's framing that we should discard his framework, I'm still left with the same decision: I vote Pro.
I'll leave the other point allocations tied.
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:
Arguments: CON
PRO came out the gate really strongly in round one with a very strong argument from deontology. But PRO ultimately failed (further along in the debate) when he argued that PSA should be understood the way Christians understand it, and then failing to defend how his understanding is THE proper Christian interpretation as opposed to CON's understanding of it. PRO relied on a couple Christian answer websites that openly admit their biases toward a certain type of Christianity in the websites themselves, and two (three?) theologians to claim what the "proper" Christian believe was. While these sources would normally be good usage, PRO said his argument rested on the understanding of PSA for "the Christian." He did not, at any point, prove that most Christians understand Christianity in the way he is describing it. He cited about 4 different experts, but not a collective view of Christianity. Therefore, PRO failed to prove his view of PSA was the real Christian view.
CON also failed to do this. But CON did not make the claim that we must understand PSA according to how Christians understand it. He claimed the Christian understanding is flawed for reasons he gave. Remember that both parties already agreed to a definition of PSA. They did not agree to perceive it as a Christian would. That claim was put forward by PRO and therefore the burden of proof is on PRO for such claim. PRO offered no such proof for his claim. He offered anecdotal evidence of two or three theologians and then interpreted the Scriptures according to the theologians' interpretations and not the other way around.
This is important for one reason: PRO and CON both implicitly agreed that the Scriptures are the primary source document. And CON made his argument from the primary source document, whereas PRO made his argument from choice theologians who supposedly spoke for all Christians, and then shoehorned the primary source document to agree with his experts.
Therefore, CON simply gave better arguments, since he did provide justification for his beliefs on Christianity when asked by PRO, according to the implicitly agreed upon primary source document. He also showed ample evidence from the primary source that his beliefs are Christian.
I would like to say more on the other topics, but the TOS for voting makes it impossible to judge the other three parts of the debate based on a lack of standards from the debate description and outside sources for criteria not being allowed. Oh well.
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:
RFD in comments. I did not feel anyone did severely better sources nor much better conduct. RM tends to talk a bit harsh but it didn't pop out too badly in my eyes.
Going over previous statements I think I misread something that made me think you were going to remove undefeatable's vote. I apologize.
No one's vote is being axed. No one reported Undefeatable's vote.
I am disputing what I see as bad takes on this debate because I think they are rooted in objectively incorrect interpretive frameworks. That's all. Undefeatable and/or Public Choice can do literally whatever they want with that information, or do absolutely nothing with it at all. I literally don't care. RM can give his takes too (insofar as he is not literally directing voters how to allocate points for the stated purpose of maximizing his own gain).
The drama is unnecessary.
Whiteflame imperatively needs to stop making incompetent moderation decisions. I don't believe this has anything to do with MrChris, however, and on the face of it, he appears to have won this debate.
I’m sorry, when did I say or hint at any aim or willingness on my part to remove Undefeatable’s vote? I’ll say it now: his vote would not be removed if it was reported. I’ve said multiple times now that if you re-posted your vote as you had written it, awarding only arguments, that it would stand. Both of you justified your choices to award arguments sufficiently.
I think it is abundantly obvious that MisterChris's status as a former mod is heavily manipulating whiteflame's moderating of the vote section.
Undefeatable cast his vote, and now that MisterChris isn't satisfied, whiteflame is thinking about removing it.
Undefeatable, funnily enough, noticed the same things I did, said the same things I did in more detail, and not his vote is about to be axed too unless whiteflame changes his mind.
This comment section is literally evidence of mod voter suppression and mod circle jerking and it amazes me.
MC is encouraging the voter to consider other arguments and recontextualize their decision. I’m not going to argue that his purpose in doing so is solely informative, as he clearly would prefer a decision in his favor, but again, since his focus is on the logic being used rather than the choice to award the points as he did, I wouldn’t call this manipulation.
Again, there’s a difference between engaging with how someone went through the debate and analyzed the given arguments and actively saying that someone who had their vote removed should then modify their point allocations and analysis to actively favor you. I don’t view engagement with the voter on their logic as manipulation because it’s about the substance of their vote and not the specific points they chose to allocate.
Can you give me a sine example of where Chris is not directly encouraging the voter to allocate the points in his favour vs what they did?
I can provide plenty of them. He is just not saying it explicitly.
What kind if insanity is that?
I can convince a voter that they wringly allocated a point but as long as I pretend I am noy convincing them to change their point allocation, I am not manipulating their vote?
Part of debating is deception, part of it is getting away with fallacies. You have completely enabled voter manipulation and actually also let the debater increase the power of their fallacies. There is no stage in a debate where you get to talk judges into changing their judgement after they put it but here there seems to be.
I don’t know what you want me to elaborate on here. You can engage with what a voter says happened in a debate, i.e. their logic. You cannot direct or suggest point allocations.
In your opinion, has Chris tried to manipulate votes here more than me? Is the moderation fair?
Please elaborate on the difference, so i know how to get away with doing the opposite. :)
You want to play games, let us play.
Arguing that the logic used by a voter is problematic or supporting that logic has always been above board. Specifically directing someone to change their point allocations in your favor is a different story.
Between Chris and myself, who do you feel/think has violated a supposed rule against voter manipulation during these comments?
Do you feel/think whiteflame has justly muzzled us equally?
He is absolutely talking undefeatable into changing his vote and trying to influence any voters who read his comments.
CAN I argue back and convince undefeatable to stand by his vote?
Yes or no?
I want Barney to answer this as well.
Pretty sure you don’t need me to explain why disagreeing with a voter isn’t voter manipulation.
Sure thing.
I apologize for being rather curt. I assumed you were not a Christian. I checked your profile and it appears you are one.
I completely apologize for assuming things without verifying them with you personally.
A good lesson in fact checking ourselves before we do things, eh?
During my fall break, that is something I could do. Let's plan on it.
I would like to debate you on combatabilism as an orthodox doctrine.
Simply because I believe the Bible does not, in any way, shape, or form argue for it. Neither do any of the Apostolic Church Fathers or any seriously revered church father until Augustine.
You have grossly mistaken my point. Let's acknowledge a distinction between doctrines which are ubiquitous and/or Orthodox, and those which are contested, shall we?
When I talk Orthodoxy, I'm talking things like God's sovereignty, human fallibility, the Trinity, and the Gospel account itself. Things which are essentially basic to Christianity.
Then there are the things which theologians debate over. Such as, the mechanics of salvation and/or predestination vs. free will.
I NEVER claimed compatibilism as the only doctrine of Orthodoxy, but I chose to argue it as the strongest position based on Scripture, which was something I fully intended to defend, except it was never seriously challenged, yet you of course assumed the role of "debater" instead of "voter," and forcefully crammed your own views into your vote (that I never sufficiently defended what was never contested).
One more thing, GotQuestions.org is run by a calvinist who wrote long articles explaining why Calvinism is the true Biblical position, not compatabilism.
But, you know, your two random theologians are completely infallible and agree with your position.
Nevermind the reformed tradition. Nevermind Augustine. Nevermind the books of Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews, Galatians and more.
Nevermind how both the Orthodox and Catholic churches argued literally for centuries that calvinism was wrong and arminianism was correct (arminianism predates Arminius by about 1200 years, fyi. They simply named it after him because he was the most recent guy to popularize it).
Compatabilism is the "orthodox" position.
As a Christian myself I find it laughable that you want to absolve any dependency to orthodox Christianity when your OPENING STATEMENT was that we must understand PSA as a Christian would.
You then go on to state blatant falsehoods about Christianity such as calvinism and arminianism being unbiblical and then argue for compatabilism as the orthodox tradition.
What are your sources for this? A couple theologians I have never heard of in my life, and that is saying something as I went to a Christian college and minored in Theology after trying to double major in theology and Communications. I have read, spoken to and/or debated Orthodox, Catholic, Messianic Jewish, Pentecostal, Lutheran, and True Reformed people from across the theological spectrum and most of your sources were people I had never come across nor were cited by any of the people I spoke with and debated.
Nevermind the fact that we literally have thousands of pages of Church teaching going back to AD 100 from Church Fathers and you can find people like Augustine in AD 400 touting predestination and rejecting compatabilism as a doctrine.
You can also find people like Irenaeus arguing for Arminianism flat out.
But, you know, both are unbiblical and not the "orthodox" church position, even though very revered church fathers taught them.
You can have your own beliefs on Christian orthodoxy, but please don't pass it off as real orthodoxy. I actually studied early church theology and have read large sections of the Apostolic Fathers and I studied many of Luther and Calvin's writings in addition to others. You honestly have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to Church Orthodoxy.
At least RationalMadman realized we agree that the Bible is what is orthodoxy and not concepts spouted by theologians. Since there are hundreds of thousands of them, after all.
Moreover, the official Catholic position is not compatabilism. It is Arminianism. They actually anstematized Calvinists for many years in Catholic Church history until Vatican II.
Orthodox also has a similar view to Catholicism.
So. Like, get off your soapbox. I am sorry that the thousands of pages of Christian church teaching collected over 2,000 years does not prove your statements. But that really isn't our problems as voters. It is yours for saying you wanted to understand PSA the way a Christian would, and then not actually understanding it as the Christian would.
Your vote is good, do not reinterpret the debate based on what Chris pushes. Part of skill in debate is understanding how people will interpret it on their initial read.
I expect the fullest punishment for Misterchris manipulating voters below.
I'm not going to advocate your vote's removal or anything, but for future reference, my fundamental problem is that you (not just you, I am noticing a trend in the voting here) imposed a burden of proof onto me (to substantiate basic, ubiquitous Orthodox doctrines -- things I would normally assume are fairly straightforward) that not even CON did. CON never challenged the vast majority of my argument on a Biblical basis. If he had, I would have presented more of the Bible in response.
Your job as the voter isn't to do CON's job for them and argue that I did not substantiate a common knowledge doctrine (I'm not claiming anything new or unusual. This isn't exactly rocket science, in the theological realm at least) enough. It's to examine whether CON actually put up a fight and made that argument themselves. They didn't. In debate, if you drop an argument, it stands unchallenged. It's not the voters job to take the place of the opponent and start fighting for them. That's demeaning to all parties involved.
You also (as well as the previous voter) ignored the resolution, ignored the burden analysis I did that CON outright dropped, and simply imposed your own interpretive framework in its stead.
No offense, but if "God is beyond us" is all you got from my case and responses, you only took about 20% of my rounds into account for your calculus.
I was kind of flipping back and forth, Con didn't make the strongest argument from Wiki where "oh, yeah, all we know is he's far beyond us. With infinite power, why not infinitely evil?"
Still, con asked a lot of clarifying questions. Might've been better off as a discussion since your case just stood there and he was trying to show God doesn't really answer his questions and you just say "he's beyond everything, you can't judge him". Which kind of shrugs it off. I don't really buy it since you didn't give any sources from Bible, you just kind of ... gave it as it is.
Thanks for the vote. I have a lot of problems with it, but the effort is appreciated.
Thanks for the vote! :)
I intentionally didn't overly engage with his case and planned my Round 1 to be very apart from his (well basically my Round 1 was pretty much going to be similar regardless). The structure completely enables Con to choose to safely avoid Pro's case and present a constructive counter-case of Con's own, destroying Pro's ability to control the flow of the debate because in Round 2, Con has complete ability to justify tweaking more rebuttals against Pro's rebuttals or against Pro's Round 1, since the debate structure forces the dilemma onto Con.
I decided to just stick at a debate where my countercase is the focus, which meant Pro's Round 1 sits there for voters to neutrally judge against the one I reinforced, making a structural bias in my favour (depending how strong they believe his Round 1 is, of course).
I disagree that I'm subjectively applying the standards. I'll note that, in my explanation for the removal, I directly quoted the standards I was using from the voting policy. I also responded to you on that claimed impossibility, though no, I didn't go into great detail about why. It was the middle of my workday and I wasn't going to get into specifics. I never said that "we enforce the rules however we want" and I'm honestly baffled that you think that's how I moderate. Again, if you want to go into the standards in more detail, I'm willing to do so in order to explain how I'm coming to these conclusions.
There's a difference between being asked to follow the standards and being asked to follow someone else's opinions of the standards.
I agree with you on my lack of explanation for grammar and conduct, because I did not provide concrete examples.
But your opinion of how I graded the sources and argument is being a Kritik, not trying to objectively apply rules. I cited examples and I gave justifications for my reasons. But you told me I was wrong for basically no real reason.
And then when I clarified how this one is impossible to vote on based on the TOS, you said, essentially, we enforce the rules however we want and if you don't like it, oh well.
Tell me how that is being a good moderator?
RFD pt 3.
Of course, Pro thinks he is marching off to victory. He stresses that he just has to prove the ethically justness. He tells us that Con has not addressed the omnipotence and divine nature. Which, he admittedly has not. He also says the "totality of God behavior" has not been refuted, and that the PSA has to be heinous enough to override the factors he wrote. He also says Con missed the idea with popularity, he is merely saying that Christian viewpoint has to be understood. He arbitrarily extends that the Christian doctrine does not have to be coherent, but doesn't say why, probably since he thinks it's enough that "God is beyond us, so we don't have to question him". The issue here is that he depends on the inherent trust that there is already infinite trust in the God. He is essentially arguing that anything cannot be refuted, because God's nature already made him beyond any way we can judge him.
Con continues his idea of putting more doubt into Pro's ideas. He tells us that the untenability was shown, especially with inconsistent regarding judging alone versus judging collectively. He concludes about the idea of you repenting, with nothing to do about Adam and Eve.
Con's counter isn't crystal clear, however, Pro's case is tailored towards many assumptions, flowing along and implying that no matter how many contradictions or unclearness arrives, the Godly Divine nature cannot be refuted, and thus we have to place our trust. That's the idea I'm getting here. There's too many holes in the logic, in my opinion. You are basically already saying God is infinitely Good, therefore the action is infinitely Good. And that just doesn't work together in my opinion. I need more support from Pro, especially from scriptures or basic ideas that show we shouldn't care if God contradicts. Maybe he should say God's morality depends on context, so the personal repentance can work together with collective. I did not get this idea. Or maybe that, God's form is vague and thus the Lucifer Morningstar does not really matter. Either way, pro's ideas don't seem convincing as is.
[Personal Note/Advice: Con probably could have alluded to not knowing if God is infinitely Evil versus infinitely good, since Pro can only prove it was transcendental to humans; making the assumption that God was already divinely good]
RFD pt. 2
Pro addresses God's omnipotence, first arguing that Con's talk about human free will vs predestination wasn't what bible teaches. In particular, there is compatibility -- he states all choices have to be under the "plan", hand waving away specifics. Well, he does say Man can choose the path, but God directs. In particular, God allows the sin, but doesn't tempt or entice. He also stresses the PSA doesn't have to be logical or coherent, but rather unjust. Alright. Anyways, God repeats the idea that the God's truths are beyond human, so there is no way to question them. (Seems rather circular, but I'll let it slide for now.)
Pro presents a new idea that Good needs Evil to oppose it, and that the God glorifying himself outweighs evil greatly. In addition, he dismisses the possibility that the deity is fully within Jesus. He also says the Original Sin was very misinterpreted: The parent kind were rejecting God, thus becoming judged in kind, ad representatives. He says the punishment matches the level of responsibility. Okay.
Con stresses that the Christians' support doesn't mean the idea is ethically tenable. The God in human form is an issue, since we don't really know what Jesus is, especially that, if he was God's playing a role, then it would have no meaning. He further suggests passages talking about Lucifer possibly being Jesus. Adding on that all you have to do is ask for forgiveness and proof, thus contradicting the need for Jesus to sacrifice himself. Finally, he delivers quite a few lines of passage telling us that we are judged individually, thus the collective sacrifice done by Jesus seems contradictory.
Nice work! Let's see the final round...
RFD pt. 1
I know next to nothing about the morality of religion, so I'd say I'm one of the most unbiased folks to vote on this.
Pro opens up with saying about God being invariable -- lying beyond human nature. This makes sense, if God was transcendent, he can't be judged by human standards. Next, he uses Deontology, thinking about the Duty to treat others. Carlson's quote states, Thus based on this, the forgiveness, salvation are all possible, were because another took them unjustly. The overall God behavior seemed justified based on the judge/victim stance. Jesus's resurrection further highlighted the result of being rewarded for his sacrifice.
Pro follows by saying the threshold of deontology seemed ambiguous. He talks about how sin's result is death, and that the collective sin was infinite injustice, thus there must have been atonement. (I think. Pro is losing me a bit here.)
Con's case is a bit clearer. He opens up by listing the ideas he wants to prove: The horrid son-suicide arrangement unjust since God's omniscience was the foreground for the arrangement, and that the idea was sadistic and immoral. He argues that since God knew the exact nature of the soul, he was responsible for all the sins. In particular, the God's suicide seemed to encourage suicide type of situation. He frames the atonement as apology for screw up. Going back to Adam and Eve's first sin, though asking questions about Jesus's confusing upbringing. Especially if he was human or not.
Alright, let's go to round 2.
You’re not the first to have problems with the standards for each of these and, frankly, there’s always room for improvement. I’m not arguing that they’re perfect, and I’m not going to pretend that they are. It’s not my goal to sit here and tell you why you should follow the standards, especially not in the comments of someone else’s debate, only what you have to do to meet them. I understand if you are frustrated by them and don’t want to put in additional effort to meet them, but none of the standards require a dissertation. The goal isn’t to make you write an inordinately long RFD, though justifications for multiple point allocations can make them run a little longer than normal.
At this point, it’s your choice whether you feel it’s worth the effort to re-post your RFD, alter point allocations and/or add onto your RFD. If you want to walk through specific ways to improve your vote to meet the standards, I can help with that. If you want the standards clarified with regards to what can and cannot factor into a decision, we can walk through the voting policy and I can cover specifics. You don’t have to agree with the existing system in order to abide by it.
That wasn't my point. My point was you blatantly stated you were going to be offensive and then were.
I personally don't care. But conduct is actually an award in this debate so I voted on it and my reasoning was that, if someone says they are about to be offensive, then they get docked for conduct. Seems pretty straightforward.
I did not call you an asshole.
I do not understand what your 'asshole meter' works on but there is absolutely no way to politely and respectfully reveal that:
1) I believe Eve gave Adam a blowjob when she swallowed the apple and that explains also what the snake actually was referring to.
2) I believe that when Adam partly swallowed an apple he was less literally reciprocating and instead was just embracing the experience, the sin was lust as opposed to gluttony or greed.
3) I think that God is responsible for all sinners if Chrisianity is true.
4) Jesus was just a theatrical sockpuppet for God that engaged in a Satanic sacrifice ritual to pretend to rid us of the sins that Eve never really 'gave' us in the first place.
5) None of this makes any logical sense to have affected the judgement regarding sins of other humans than Even, Adam and/or Jesus (if he is a human).
"Assessing conduct violations requires more than a debater's statement that they are likely to offend people,"
So people admitting they are going to do something doesn't count as a reason to state they did so? RationalMadman literally stated "I am not obligated to speak to Christians about their religion with deep respect while tearing a central idea in it to pieces. Let me have my fun and forgive me, cheers Christians."
This is a blatant admission of guilt of using bad conduct. RationalMadman blatantly stated he doesn't want to be respectful and would rather "have fun."
I have no idea what a standard of good conduct is if people who openly admit they are about to be an asshole then shouldn't be judged based on their admission that they are going to be an asshole. Why else would they give the warning if they weren't intending on being an asshole at all?
Whiteflame said: "Assessing spelling and grammar requires that one of the debaters made it substantially more difficult to understand their arguments as a result of how they were written." What? Grammar is grammar and spelling is spelling. Neither are reading comprehension, which is entirely different. Someone can have completely flawless grammar and spelling and still not be understood. Why even bother grading on grammar at all if we are actually grading on communication effectiveness? Just call it that instead.
Whiteflame said " it does require doing more than just stating that one type of source is automatically better than another." What more do you want? A Cambridge dissertation on why original sources are better than people repeating them? I can't do that because that would require going to outside content. Additionally, the Bible is hundreds of thousands of words long. To cite one or two sentences of it according to your statement "Assessing sources requires digging into what specific sources say", would leave the whole premise of the argument and become me grandstanding my opinions on what the sources themselves say. And isn't that illegal by the very TOS I just cited?
Whiteflame said "I think you're applying them much more harshly than we would." They are rules, are they not? Do we apply rules arbitrarily as we feel or are they objective and have one meaning and purpose? It certainly seems here to me that they are being applied arbitrarily.
Really BS deterrance of someone voting for me.
There is quite a bit of leeway provided to voters when it comes to what kind of logic you use to come to a decision on arguments. It was not my goal, nor is it now, to tell you that there is a problem with the way you assessed the arguments given in the debate. How you decide who had the better arguments here is up to you so long as you show that you did the work going through the debate, which you already did. Like I said, you can literally copy-paste your vote without the justifications for the extra points, award arguments, and it will stand.
When it comes to other point allocations, the standard for awarding those points is pretty specific. Assessing sources requires digging into what specific sources say rather than generalizing about the quality of a set of sources because of what they cover. Assessing spelling and grammar requires that one of the debaters made it substantially more difficult to understand their arguments as a result of how they were written, not just that one side had fewer grammatical errors. Assessing conduct violations requires more than a debater's statement that they are likely to offend people, since it should be made clear that they did actively offend and how.
I understand your perspective on using epistemic logic and, in some cases, the differences might be blatantly obvious. However, when it comes to awarding extra points as you did here, we hold voters to a high standard when it comes to justifying those points. With regards to sources, that doesn't mean that a voter is solely restricted to assessing sources and other aspects of the debate in the same way that the debaters did, but it does require doing more than just stating that one type of source is automatically better than another. If a given source fails to provide sufficient support for a given argument, or if it just clearly falls short of a contradictory source from the other side, then that's what needs to be assessed. That may come down to issues of primary vs. secondary sourcing, but it has to specifically address the given sources.
I understand if you don't want to go through all this, and I understand if you feel your previous vote was justified. It's your choice what you do given the information you have about the voting standards, though I will say that I think you're applying them much more harshly than we would given how your explanation of how you see the debate as "ungradable without violating the TOS".
So, I won't be voting for a third time because there is insufficient grading material present in the debate rules to adhere to the TOS:
"Related to this, votes based on outside content are deemed insufficient; said content may still be commented upon if made clear it is not a determinant."
And this section:
"To award any category, a voter must explicitly perform the following three steps:
Provide specific references to each side’s utilization within the said category.
Weigh the impacts against each other, including if any precluded others.
Explain the decision within the greater context of the debate."
I need to rely on outside content to grade the sources, grammar, and conduct. So this debate is ungradable without violating the TOS. In relation to the sources, neither side actually fully engaged with the other person's sources. They never really explained why one source was worse than another. This was because they both seemed to implicitly agree that the Bible was the primary source and the theologians were secondary sources. But saying this out loud would violate the voting TOS because neither party argued for why the other source wasn't a good source, so I literally have NOTHING to grade for that category.
I find this thread is devolving into what it sought to avoid.
I apparently breached some sort of etiquette by sticking to epistemic logic as my analysis of the debate. Apparently my problem was I made assumptions that universally-held debate standards applied to a debate where they were not mentioned (this is my interpretation as to why my second vote was removed. Please explain if I am wrong here) and that I shouldn't grade the quality of sources based on universally held standards for sources, even though I am asked to grade sources as part of the voting process.
This is why I specifically asked for the TOS on voting, because I didn't feel I did anything wrong other than fail to point out specific grammar errors or specific instances where RationalMadman said he was going to offend people, because I thought they were abundantly obvious.
I apologize for assuming things, I guess. Because, in Epistemic Logic, there is this idea of universal truths that are apparent upon observation alone. Things like grammar errors and people blatantly stating things such as "I am going to offend people now" didn't really seem to be needed to be pointed out, since they are so painfully obvious you would have to hold extreme comprehension issues to miss them. But I guess I will note for future debate votes not to hold the debate to any sort of outside standard and stick solely to the debate rules themselves.
Which, in this case means neither side actually won. Because the debate rules aren't specific enough. No definition of good sources, no definition of which types of arguments are to be accepted and rejected. No commonly agreed upon definitions for 99.9% of the words used, etc. So neither side actually accomplished anything if I can't use some sort of outside measuring standard. The debate rules make it impossible to grade the debate by the metrics asked for.
Also, I think that, if anything, a moderator removing votes he doesn't like based on his own opinions of what was and was not explained is significantly more voter manipulation than someone giving pointers while blatantly stating they have a vested interest in doing so, e.g. admitting their bias up front for why they are giving pointers. But that's just my 2c.
I explained how his justifications fell short and provided him with specifics on how to ensure that his justifications meet the standards. You gave specific pointers on how he could support the two point categories that he was already giving to you, and said he should eschew the other two, recognizing that both of those outcomes would benefit you. And yes, there is a difference between someone in the debate doing it in a way that specifically slants the points they would allocate in their favor.
if that exact post from me came from anybody else, minus the vested interest, you'd have 0 issue with it because it correctly helps public-choice amend his vote.
When whiteflame tells you on PM exactly what I told you here, please revote, or don't apparently it's manipulation to ask.
Vote to your own beliefs, not what you feel pressured to.
I literally did nothing wrong here at all.
I told him exactly what you did, in clearer words.
@RM
...Seriously? That's a pretty flagrant attempt at voter manipulation, dude, and you pretty clearly realize that when you say that you have "a vested interest" and that you have "selfish reasons" for advocating that he ties certain points. This isn't just you giving him information that will help him support his point allocations, it's outright biasing what you believe he should do in your favor. Consider this a warning. Don't do it again.
@Public-Choice
If you have more questions about how you could justify each of your point allocations after you've read those parts of the voting policy, feel free to PM me and we can discuss them. RM is correct that you could just copy-paste your previous vote and award arguments as is, but we can discuss ways to improve on the justifications for the other point allocations if you want to keep them.
Thank you!
Thanks for being willing to vote. Looking forward to your take!
Well done here.