Instigator
MagicAintReal avatar

The God Of The KJV Bible Intended For Humans To Sin

Debating

Waiting for instigator's argument

The round will be automatically forfeited in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Four points
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender
Mharman avatar
Description
*Rules*
Per DebateArt policy on moderation, rules and definitions are not binding on voters or debaters UNLESS both debaters request to the voters that the rules be followed and that the definitions be used when voting on the debate.
Well, this is my formal request to voters to follow the rules and to use the definitions below when voting.
1. So, to anyone wishing to accept this debate, please copy and paste the following phrase below, somewhere in your 1st round.
---Copy and Paste in First Round---
*I request that voters follow the rules and definitions of this debate.*
------------------------------------------------
2. Failure to paste this phrase in the first round will result in the debate being reset by moderation, with no impact on either debater's rating or record; a true no contest.
3. Voters cannot be dishonest about what happened in the debate.
Dishonest votes include:
a. Voters claiming an argument was made by a debater that was never made and then using this fabricated or exaggerated argument to vote that debater up or down.
b. Voters claiming a source that was provided by a debater states/shows something it does not state/show and then using this imaginary/exaggerated content to vote the debater up or down.
c. Voters claiming a source that was used by a debater for a particular purpose that was not the purpose the debater stated it was being used for or voters exaggerating/self-generating the purpose/intent of the debater in order to vote the debater up or down.
d. Voters ignoring arguments made by a debater to claim the arguments were never made then voting that debater up or down based on the claimed lack of arguments.
e. Voters ignoring sources provided by a debater in order to claim the debater didn't provide them, or to claim that the sources were not supporting an argument not used by the debater to support, or to claim that the purpose for using the source was something not stated by the debater to be or to claim that the purpose for using the source was one that was fabricated by the voter to be then using any or all of these fabrications to vote the debater up or down.
f. Voters claiming a lack of clarity where it is not obviously apparent and where the voter does not specifically explain why it's not very clear or voters exaggerating a lack of clarity without referencing content within the debate in order to vote the debater up or down.
g. Voters using ANYTHING not within the debate in order to vote a debater up or down.
4. Both debaters agree, by accepting the debate, that any votes that a) fail to address the majority of resolution-impacting points made by both debaters, b) are dishonest (see above) or lies about debater performance, or c) are vendetta votes/overtly biased will be requested, publicly, by both debaters to be removed by the mods.
5. Death23, Rational Madman, Raltar, any of their related accounts, and anyone currently restrained by moderation to interact with me may not vote on or participate in this debate.
*Full Resolution*
The god of the King James Version of the bible intended for humans to sin.
*Definitions*
god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/god
King James Version (KJV) - an English translation of the Bible made in 1611 at the order of King James I and still widely used.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/king_james_bible
bible - the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/bible
intend - have (a course of action) as one's purpose or intention; plan.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intend
human - a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/human_being
sin (v.) - commit an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sin
evil - profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/evil
May the better debater win!
Round 1
Published:
Intro

Thanks Con for accepting the debate and thanks in advance for requesting that voters follow the rules and definitions of the debate.
I request that voters follow the rules and definitions of this debate.


Resolution

As Pro, I will affirm that the god of the KJV bible intended for humans to sin given the content of the KJV bible.
Con just has to cast enough doubt on that to negate the resolution.

 
1. According to the bible, god created everything.

"For by him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether they are kings, lords, rulers, or powers. All things have been created through him and for him."

2. Also god knows the future, because the future is what he wants to happen.

"Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:"

3. God actually knows everything you think and do.

"And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works."

4. God can even put his will into others.

"And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.."

5. Being that god created EVERYTHING, he therefore created evil.

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

Given the Biblical Evidence...

God created evil and sin, god created humans with the ability to commit sin, god can will others to do things that he wishes to do, and all that happens now and in the future is "declared from the beginning" by god.

If god created sin and created humans with the ability to commit sin and god was well aware of the future since the beginning of time, then the fact that we currently sin is indicative of god's plan to:
1. Create sin, check.
2. Let humans commit sin, check.
3. Allow for a sin-filled future, check.

If god didn't intend for humans to sin, then why did he create sin in the first place?
If god intended us to do only good, and not sin, then he could have given us free will without the capacity to sin.
If god didn't intend for sin to be committed, then why did he create/allow a future rife with humans sinning?

Instead, god gave us the ability to commit sin, which he created, and he created/allowed the future of sinning to happen; if god were on trial for intent to sin, he would be found guilty.

Opponents to this logic then say, well that's a contradiction; to remove our capacity to sin would be to remove our free will and god can't allow for contradictions.
Well...

A Summarizing Thought Experiment

If we currently have free will, as KJV Christians claim we do, then there should be no limit on our capacity to act on our free will.
However, if i wish to read someone's mind completely, without any communication, I cannot, because god disallowed our capacity to read minds.

It would seem to me that, considering intentions, god did not intend for humans to read people's minds.
Con, did god intend for humans to read people's minds?
Please answer.

Then answer:
Con, did god make us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to read people's minds?
If yes, then why couldn't god make us WITH free will and WITHOUT the capacity to sin?

You currently can not exercise your free will to read others' minds; now just imagine that you can't exercise your free will to commit sin.

It's clear that god did not intend for us to read minds, as no one can do that.
So, it's also clear that god DID intend us to commit sin, because according to the bible, all humans are sinners.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"

Conclusion

All of god's human creations sin, so if he did not intend for people to sin, he then has an awful record of successful creations.
God most certainly intended humans to sin, because he created sin, he created all humans with sin, he failed to limit our capacity commit sin like he did with mind reading, and he allowed the sin-filled future to remain; this speaks to his intentions for evil and sin.

Con?
Published:
Common Sense Argument

In Genesis 1, it states repeatedly that God saw everything and found it to be good.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=KJV

Why would the God of the KJV Bible intend for humans to sin; instead of intending for humans to be good?

He intended for them to be good.

If humans are good: There’s no need to send His Son to die on the cross. There’s no need to even create a Bible since everyone would be good and believe in Him. No fuss, no mess, just perfect and good creation. Hell would exist only for Satan, and all God’s children don’t need to go to Heaven since Earth is perfect like Heaven. Surely God would want all His children to live eternally without any harm to befall them.

Common sense suggests that God would rather intend for humans to be good, as opposed to jumping through a ton of hoops intending for humans to sin.

Weeping Into Joy

There a several verses in the Bible that state the Lord turns weeping into joy. Here are two of them:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+16%3A20&version=KJV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+31%3A13&version=KJV

What we can conclude from this verse and the previous argument is that

  1. God intends for humans to be good.
  2. Any unintended sin can be used  to turn sorrow into joy for His plan.


The Lord Weeps

In John 11, Jesus weeps at Lazarus’s death, and ultimately the sin that caused him to die.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+31%3A13&version=KJV

Would God, being all-knowing, desire for humans to sin knowing these would be the consequences? That His children would die? That some of His children would be sent to Hell because they refused to accept His gift of Jesus’ sacrifice? Surely not!

Round 2
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Mharman avatar
Added:
--> @MagicAintReal
Thank you.
Contender
#17
MagicAintReal avatar
Added:
--> @Mharman
Nice work on getting it in on time...applause.
Instigator
#16
MagicAintReal avatar
Added:
--> @Mharman
Yeah, but please get it in there...you know voters
Instigator
#15
Mharman avatar
Added:
--> @MagicAintReal
Plz don't have this reset. I posted my argument with less than 20 seconds left on the clock.
Contender
#14
Mharman avatar
Added:
--> @MagicAintReal
OH SHIT
I forgot the copy and paste" I request that voters follow the rules and definitions of this debate."
Can I please do it in the second without resetting this debate?
Contender
#13
MagicAintReal avatar
Added:
Oh the trick was the word evil and that it was KJV. Virt got it right away...you need to broaden your expectations...getting old
Instigator
#12
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
That being said, it's still true that God actively intended it as you implied already.
#11
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
wow look, you did precisely what I thought you would. xD
You removed the active element of intention meaning that all accidents become intended outcomes by default by God.
#10
MagicAintReal avatar
Added:
Virt already figured it out
Instigator
#9
MagicAintReal avatar
Added:
You'll see that's wrong.
Instigator
#8
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
It definitely is. You have defined it as something much more passive than it usually is.
#7
MagicAintReal avatar
Added:
It's not the intend.
Instigator
#6
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
I will not try again. The definition of 'intend' is the key to how you'll make this axiomatic and a tautology. That doesn't mean I don't also support the genuine meaning of this resolution.
#5
MagicAintReal avatar
Added:
Nope.
Try again.
Instigator
#4
RationalMadman avatar
Added:
The semantic abuse is likely regarding the word 'intend' but even without that, it's still true.
#3
No votes yet