Direct Intervention From God Is Worse Then Rape

It is my honor to be the first member on DDO to debate Con on a religious topic. I also congratulate my opponent not only on his perfect win record, but on this being his 35th debate, a goal that Con has apparently had ever since joining DDO. In this debate I hope to give a run or his money. Introduction One of the most controversial topics of the Christian religion is the doctrine of Hell. Christianity teaches that all of mankind is doomed to Hell because of their sin nature, but that all of mankind also has the opportunity to believe in Jesus (the son of God), and consequently become redeemed into eternal bliss in Heaven. Now, the issue with this is that not all are going to be saved, because inevitably not all are going to choose God. To remedy this, there are those who argue that God should make all of mankind choose him, that is, he should override the free will of those who reject him and cause them to choose him. I am vehemently opposed to this view, as I consider it an action worse then rape. In this debate, I hope to substantiate my position with philosophical and biblical argumentation. Once again, I would like to reiterate that I am arguing against a situation in which God specifically overrides a person's free will and causes them to choose Him. So Why Is Rape Wrong? Before we can determine why Direct Intervention is relatable to rape, we must first understand why rape is wrong. Now, we all intuitively know that rape is morally wrong, and the Bible specifically teaches against it. But what is the real reason for why rape is wrong? Perhaps one could argue that it is because rape causes personal harm to a person. But why is it exactly that causing personal harm to someone is bad? After all, we know that causing harm in of itself isn't objectively wrong. For example, causing harm to soldiers in a war is not necessarily objectively wrong, and we certainly know that causing harm to animals is not objectively wrong. Therefore, why should the mere act of causing harm be objectively wrong? This is why I maintain that rape is morally wrong because it is something done to a person without their consent, that is, against their will, not because it causes harm. Of course, in the case of rape, that is a sexual act done towards a person not only without their consent, but against their will. Imagine, for the sake of example, a sexually promiscuous person who is also a masochist named, for the sake of example, Jill. Jill's sole obsession in life is to achieve orgasm while being physically and emotionally tortured. One day, Jill is raped by someone she did not wish to be with. So then, was it wrong for her to be raped? I argue that yes, even in this situation, it was still wrong. Because even though she desired the torture and the sexual pleasure, she did not desire it from the person who gave it to her. The sexual act was forced upon her without her consent, and was consequently wrong. Therefore, it is morally wrong to rape someone because you are doing so without their consent, not because. Now, one may argue that if this is true, is keeping someone from committing suicide wrong? It would appear that the answer is yes. However, this is not necessarily the case. Suicide causes emotional harm to those around you, either by them directly experiencing your suicide, or by having your contributions to society robbed from them. Therefore while keeping someone from committing suicide is morally wrong, there is a morally sufficient reason for preventing suicide. Indeed, the most detestable aspect of rape is the fact that it is forced onto a person, not that it causes harm. A person's sexual purity and privacy is one of their most precious rights. To violate that and force a person to engage in sexual acts they do not wish to partake in is absolutely repulsive. As human beings we intuitively understand that our right to choose whatever path we want in life is one of our most precious rights. In conclusion, rape is wrong because it is done without a person's consent and against their wishes, not necessarily because it causes personal harm. While causing personal harm is wrong, it is wrong because it is against a person's desires, not because causing harm is objectively wrong. So Why Is Direct Intervention Wrong? Keep in mind that we've already established that rape is wrong because it is done without a person's consent, against their personal wishes. While Jill desired tortured sexual pleasure, she did not desire it from her rapist. Now, how does this relate to Direct Intervention? If God forces you to choose him and consequently be saved, this is being done without your consent. In that situation God would be forcing his will for your future into you. It is important to note here why exactly this is against a person's consent. Everyone has a desire for pleasure, and it is certainly likely that everyone has a desire for eternal bliss. However, remember Jill: she had a desire for tortured sexual pleasure. However, she did not wish for it from her rapist. Similarly, while every human being may have a desire for eternal bliss in Heaven, they may not necessarily desire that eternal bliss via believing in Jesus Christ. In fact, it is inexplicable why the greatest desire of all men is eternal bliss, yet men consistently jeopardize their eternal bliss by doubting and rejecting belief. After all, if everyone wants to go to Heaven, why do so many endanger their possibility of attaining eternal bliss by embracing emotional or rational arguments against the existence of Heaven? Indeed, this speaks of another greater desire, one that overrides one's desire for eternal bliss, that is, a desire for control. An illustration of this would come from Satan, the first deceiver. While he was the worship leader in heaven [1] and already in eternal bliss, as a free will being, he chose a desire for God's throne over his desire to remain in eternal bliss: "How you have fallen from heaven,morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart,“I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throneabove the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High. "-Isaiah 14: 12-15 [2] So if an angelic being who headed the worship leading in Heaven choose pride over living in eternal bliss, why then should human beings not be capable of such a feat? Therefore we see that Direct Intervention goes contrary to a person's greatest desire. An Illustration From Romance Now, reader, I would like you to imagine your first love. Whether a small crush or a life-long relationship, imagine the first stage in which you entered into a relationship with that person. Before that relationship could commence, there had to be a point in which you both chose each other. However that happened, there was a point in which you both communicated to each other that you had chosen each other. No matter how smitten you were with your crush, you wouldn't dream of forcing her to choose you. After all, the idea is absurd! If you forced her to choose you, well, she didn't really choose you, now did she? You chose you. Indeed, such an act would be the very antithesis of love. Why is Direct Intervention Worse? It's simple. The effects of rape against a person's will are temporal, whereas the effects of Direct Intervention against a person's will are eternal. Direct Intervention is eternally worse, because the effects last eternally longer. Therefore, Direct Intervention is worse then rape. [1] Ezekiel 28, . http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] . http://www.biblegateway.com...