The Instigator
Harlan
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
girlforgod21
Con (against)
Winning
61 Points

Christianity is a polytheistic religion.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,493 times Debate No: 7434
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (40)
Votes (13)

 

Harlan

Pro

I start this debate because it seem so me that Christianity's very foundation is the concept that there is 2 different gods, yet all Christians advocate that there is only one god.

Polytheism- "the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods."

Alright, Christian mythology has 2 gods: "God" and "Satan". They are both omnipotent beings which transcend the physical world. They are merely 2 sides to the same coin, and are actually identical in concept. The only difference is that one of them is "good" and one of them is "bad". Good and bad can only be defined as the opposite of each other, however, so good and bad are the same in concept.

But even if "Satan", the one which is often said to not be a god, is "bad", he is still very much a god. Morality does not define whether or not something is a god. A god does not necessarily need to be good at all, or cooperate with other gods.

This same thing can be seen in Greek mythology, in which there are several gods which do not work together. In fact, there is even a god of the underworld, "Hades". Can a clear parallel not be seen between "Hades", who is considered a god, and "Satan" who is considered not to be a god?

Satan is considered to not be a god generally, I think, because Christianity has built up a concept that a god can only be a god if it is "good". This is not per the generally accepted definition of god, however, and Satan as described by Christian mythology is clearly a god.
girlforgod21

Con

First, I would like to thank my opponent for opening up this controversial topic for debate. Now, to address his arguments:
The whole basis behind Christianity is that there is one Supreme Being, who created all things - key word there being "one". Satan is not a god, he is the devil. Although opposites are technically "two sides to the same coin" as my opponent states, the word opposite is defined as "contrary or radically different in some respect" - dictionary.com. Just because they are "the same coin" does not mean they are the same concept.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Satan does not hold power in the physical world. He can be influential in our world, as we see most often through the media. Satan can also send demons to possess someone, but I do not believe that demons can possess a Christian, or someone who has given their life completely to God. Satan has the power to attack, but not the power to rule.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Another point: Satan is not omnipotent. Satan can be in the physical world, yes, but he cannot be everywhere at once. Only God has the ability to do that. God created Satan, as Lucifer, his "right-hand man". According to Christian mythology (the Bible), Lucifer tried, in essence, to be God, and God cast him down to earth for it. Isaiah 14:13-15 says "You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.' But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit." -NIV. God was saying in this verse that Satan could never be God, or a god, and therefore Satan is not considered a god.
____________________________________________________________________________________

My opponent states: "Satan is considered to not be a god generally, I think, because Christianity has built up a concept that a god can only be a god if it is "good". This is not per the generally accepted definition of god, however, and Satan as described by Christian mythology is clearly a god." This point, however, does not hold true; God is defined as "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe" - dictionary.com. This is defining the Christian God, the God of the Bible. The Bible never says that Satan is a god, and therefore neither does Christian mythology, which is essentially the Bible itself.
Debate Round No. 1
Harlan

Pro

Christianity has more than one god, but has merely revised the definition of god so that it is seen to have only one. Satan is a god, he is just not called thusly in the bible. They are the same in the respect that they are both conscious, spiritual entities who have power in the physical world. They are the same concept in that regard. It is only the specific details which differ.

My opponent stated: "Satan does not hold power in the physical world. He can be influential in our world, as we see most often through the media."

My opponent has contradicted herself in this statement. The "media" is in the physical world and influence and power are almost synonymous in this context. If he can affect things in any way that occur in our reality (the physical world), than he holds some power in it.

My opponent corrected me that Satan is not actually omnipotent. I had a misunderstanding about Christianity, but it does not serve to undermine the Devils godliness. We can look to other past religions such as Greek mythology or Norse mythology and observe that the gods were not necessarily omnipotent. Different gods focused on very specific aspects of reality, and their power was limited to this aspect.

My opponent's quotation from the bible is meaningless, as a god does not necessarily need to be "the Most High" in order to be a god. In all polytheistic religions there are both major and minor gods. And despite this, we are not using the bible's definition of god, we are using the generally accepted idea about what a god can be, as provided by the various religions which have been had by Humanity.

My opponent ends her argument with this definition of god: "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe"

This is one definition of god which can only be applied to monotheistic religions. It is clearly faulty to ONLY submit this definition, considering it would declare almost all of the gods that Humanity has believed in no longer gods. It is self-evident that this definition cannot be applied given the nature of this debate.

These are the definitions of god provided by dictionary.com,

"1.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3.(lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5.Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.(lowercase) any deified person or object.
8.(often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
a.the upper balcony in a theater.
b.the spectators in this part of the balcony."

Definition 4 would be the most applicable to this debate, not definition 1, since this is a debate about whether christianity is polytheistic. When I used the word god, it is obvious that I was referring to definition 4, since I would be contradicting myself if I stated that there was more than one of the God described by definition 1.
girlforgod21

Con

This, being a debate about Christianity being a polytheistic religion, and my taking Con's side, fully entitles me to stating my opinions; therefore, I will be showing arguments that Christianity is a monotheistic religion. This debate is also a religious debate, and therefore quoting from the Bible is perfectly acceptable. That being said, I will now address my opponent's arguments.
____________________________________________________________________________________

I would like to ask my opponent to show me proof (solid, clear evidence) that the devil is, in fact, a god. All he has said so far is that Satan is a spiritual entity that has power in the physical world - I could say the same thing about demons and angels and spirits of people who have passed, but it doesn't make it true, and it also does not make these spirits gods. (I would like to note that this is merely an example, I in no way believe this). If my opponent would not like to only use the definition of the Christian God, then he should not be arguing that Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The definition that my opponent referred to in his last argument, "(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy" is not referring to the Christian God, but rather a god of a different religion or culture. Greek mythology has nothing to do with Christianity, and therefore bringing it up as a defense to the argument that Christianity is a polytheistic religion is futile. My opponent states: "It is clearly faulty to ONLY submit this definition, considering it would declare almost all of the gods that Humanity has believed in no longer gods. It is self-evident that this definition cannot be applied given the nature of this debate." We are not talking about "all of the gods that Humanity has believed in", we are talking about the Christian God, the God of the Bible. I am not undermining the gods of other religions, I am simply stating that this debate is not concerning gods of other religions. My opponent also states: "And despite this, we are not using the Bible's definition of god, we are using the generally accepted idea about what a god can be, as provided by the various religions which have been had by Humanity." Again, we are not discussing other religions, we are discussing Christianity. If you are going to proclaim that Christianity is polytheistic, you need evidence to back yourself up, rather than just saying that Satan is a god but isn't called that in the Bible. The Bible is the book that all Christians rely on as a source of history that is completely accurate. If the Bible does not say that Satan is a god, but rather the devil, then Satan is not considered a god in Christianity.
____________________________________________________________________________________

I will admit that, although not purposefully, I did contradict myself by saying that Satan has no power in the physical world but that he is influential in the media. I should rephrase that - Satan does not hold the same power as God, and he only has the ability to try to influence humans away from God. We most often see this through the media, because Satan uses humans who are not Christians to do his "dirty work". He doesn't hold power over them, he influences them because they are vulnerable and do not have God protecting them from Satan's evil ways. Influence and power are not almost synonymous here, they are two different things.
____________________________________________________________________________________

My opponent states that the gods of other religions were not necessarily omnipotent, but that they focused on different aspects of reality. The basis behind Christianity is that God (the ONE God of this religion) is omnipotent and omnipresent and can do all things. Satan can not do all things. Satan is not a minor god either, because Christianity does not have minor gods. Find a verse in the Bible or some Biblical text that says directly that Satan is a god.
____________________________________________________________________________________

My opponent closes his arguments by stating that he was very obviously referring to the fourth definition given by dictionary.com, and not the first one. However, this being a debate about Christianity, it was not absurd for me to have assumed that he would be using the definition of the Christian God.
____________________________________________________________________________________

I leave my opponent with the burden of proof. I wish him luck.
Debate Round No. 2
Harlan

Pro

Before I get much into my argument, I would like to clear this whole issue up about which definition of god I was using. Consider this, one word can mean many separate things, correct? This is true with the term "god", which can refer to the specific christian concept of god, or it can refer to the generally accepted definition of god. Unfortunately, the English language has not produced a system of distinguishing these two terms, and so even if I am referring to the latter, I still use the same word. Now, when I started this debate, I meant that Satan was a god per the generally accepted definition of god, not that he is described as a god by the bible. It is absolutely self-evident that I was using the word god to mean the general idea of what god is, because otherwise I would be contradicting myself. And since it is the only logical way to use the word in the way I used it, there doesn't even need to be argumentation about what my own words mean. Trying to convince me that I meant something different than what I actually know I meant is futile.

If we are using the Christian definition of god, than I would be declaring that lucifer and yahweh are the same people, which is clearly a contradiction. To assume that this is what I meant is silly.

It matters not what a religion calls their gods. A religion could call it's gods "bananas", but the English word that describes those things is not "bananas" it is "gods". So when speaking English, we refer to things which meet the definition of god as "gods" despite how religious people call it. The dictionary is more reliable than the bible when trying to find the meaning of words.

My opponent says that Satan is not a god because he has limited power in the world. Many religions have had gods with limited power. In fact, one of the definitions of god on dictionary.com is "a supreme being according to some particular conception". This is one meaning of the word god which implies a god with limited power. Satan fits this criteria, and could therefore be called a god. The god of influencing Humans to sin or something along those lines.

My opponent stated: "...Christianity does not have minor gods. Find a verse in the Bible or some Biblical text that says directly that Satan is a god."

I can provide proof without quoting the bible. First of all, we both agree that Satan is a spiritual entity which has influence on one aspect of reality, correct? Well, this fits the afore mentioned dictionary.com definition, and therefore he could be considered a god. *I am not speaking Christ-ish, I am speaking English, and in the English language, the word god can mean the god of one aspect of reality.*

My opponent stated: " However, this being a debate about Christianity, it was not absurd for me to have assumed that he would be using the definition of the Christian God."

Yes, it would be completely absurd, because it would be a contradiction. What you assumed is irrelevant now, though. I have already clearly told you what definition I meant, yet you continue to "assume" that I meant a different definition. Sometimes a word means 2 different things and you have to clarify which one you meant, but you can't ignore that.
girlforgod21

Con

My opponent opens his last round by making quite obvious which definition of "god" he was referring to: "Consider this, one word can mean many separate things, correct? This is true with the term "god", which can refer to the specific christian concept of god, or it can refer to the generally accepted definition of god." However, this debate, as titled by my opponent, is "Christianity is a polytheistic religion". In order to say that Christianity is a polytheistic religion, you have to look at the religion rather than just saying that two deities of the "Christian mythology" (the Bible) are both gods. If you knew what you were talking about, Harlan, you would know that this is not true. The Bible clearly states that Satan is NOT a god. To prove that Christianity is a polytheistic religion, you cannot compare it to Greek mythology or Norse mythology, as you did in round two, because Christianity is a religion all it's own, completely unique in itself. I would like to note that I am not trying to "convince" you that you meant something else. I am saying that what you meant is inaccurate and should be rethought before you bring it up again.
____________________________________________________________________________________

"If we are using the Christian definition of god, than I would be declaring that lucifer and yahweh are the same people, which is clearly a contradiction. To assume that this is what I meant is silly." I did not say that you were saying they are the same person. You continue to misquote me over and over again.
____________________________________________________________________________________

"The dictionary is more reliable than the bible when trying to find the meaning of words." The dictionary may be useful for looking up the accepted definitions for certain words, yes. However, the Bible is used to find the meaning of life, and the Bible says to follow the one true God. *Note, since we are discussing Christianity here, it is perfectly acceptable to use truths known of the Bible. Do not tell me that it is irrelevant, because it is completely relevant to this debate.*
___________________________________________________________________________________

Saying that God and Satan are both gods would totally change the whole entire meaning behind Christianity. You would have to throw out the whole Bible, which is not only historically accurate but it is the word of God, written through man. If Christianity had two gods, it would not be Christianity. Christianity is named after Christ, God's son, who is God.
____________________________________________________________________________________

"Well, this fits the afore mentioned dictionary.com definition, and therefore he could be considered a god." The aforementioned dictionary.com definition is not referring to Christianity, WHICH IS WHAT THIS DEBATE IS ABOUT! I continue to be dumbfounded as to what is so hard to understand about how you cannot use the definition of other religions' gods to describe Christianity.
____________________________________________________________________________________

"Yes, it would be completely absurd, because it would be a contradiction. What you assumed is irrelevant now, though. I have already clearly told you what definition I meant, yet you continue to "assume" that I meant a different definition." I don't think you have been contradicting yourself, I think you are clearly misinformed. My assumption is not irrelevant, because based on the title of this debate that YOU chose, my assumption should have been 100% correct. Although you have told me what definition you meant, that definition holds no meaning in this debate because it refers to other religions. I do not continue to "assume" that you meant a different definition; I fully understand which definition you meant, but that definition cannot be applied to Christianity.
____________________________________________________________________________________

My opponent has yet to prove that Satan is a god without using, over and over again, the same definition that he got from dictionary.com, which is irrelevant in this debate. I am still anxiously awaiting my opponents' clear, concrete proof from a reliable source that proves that Satan is a god.
Debate Round No. 3
Harlan

Pro

My opponent makes the assertion that since this is a debate about Christianity, then therefore we must logically use the Christian definition of god. This is untrue, however. I could have said that "Satan is a supreme being according to some particular conception", but it is much easier to simply state "Satan is a god" since they mean the exact same thing. I do not see it as unreasonable to state that "Satan is a supreme being according to some particular conception" and thus is what I meant when I stated that he was a god. He fits the criteria for what a god is, and we could therefore use the English word "god" to talk about him, when analyzing the religion from an objective standpoint.

The bible's description of Satan (and all of the other angels and spiritual entities who have power in the world) could be described as a "god" because that is the word for that. The bible merely does not use that word to call it that. It calls them "angels". What term the bible uses to describe them, however, is not important, since it has the same meaning as "god".

I would like to clearly establish that I am fully aware that the bible does not use the word "gods" to describe it's angels. I am not asserting that the bible calls them gods, I am asserting that they meet the definition of what a god is.

Whether a religion is polytheistic or not is not determined by the wording of it's texts but the MEANING of the texts. Any religious person should know to respect the spirit of it rather than the way it was written down on paper. "Angels" and "gods" have the same MEANING.

My opponent stated: "I did not say that you were saying they are the same person. You continue to misquote me over and over again."

You said that my words should be interpreted using the Christian definition of god. The Christian definition of "God" is Yahweh. If I were saying that Lucifer was a "God", using the Christian definition, than I would be saying that it is Yahweh.

My opponent conceded the reliability of the dictionary when defining words when she stated: "The dictionary may be useful for looking up the accepted definitions for certain words, yes."

She later states: "My opponent has yet to prove that Satan is a god without using, over and over again, the same definition that he got from dictionary.com, which is irrelevant in this debate."

In this debate, we are both speaking English, no? So, as long as we are going to be on the same page by speaking with the REAL meaning of words, provided by the dictionary, which you said yourself was reliable for looking up the definitions of words. We are not speaking some made-up language created by the bible, we are speaking *English*. I am accurately using an English word to describe a Christian concept. You state that it is absurd to use this accurate word to describe it, but once more, I am speaking English.

My opponent stated that: "since we are discussing Christianity here, it is perfectly acceptable to use truths known of the Bible. Do not tell me that it is irrelevant, because it is completely relevant to this debate."

I am not saying that it is irrelevant at all. In fact, I think it is very important to acknowledge that one of the truths known to the bible is that angels are spiritual entities who have supernatural abilities in the physical world. Oh wait, the word for that is "god".

"Saying that God and Satan are both gods would totally change the whole entire meaning behind Christianity."

That false, the meaning would stay the same. Only the wording would change. Satan, being an angel, is a supernatural entity. Satan, as a god, is a supernatural entity. Same meaning... different wording.

"I continue to be dumbfounded as to what is so hard to understand about how you cannot use the definition of other religions' gods to describe Christianity."

And I continue to be dumbfounded as to what is so hard to understand about accurately using a word to describe something which perfectly fits it's definition.

Let's say there is a recipe for something which includes the ingredient "Rocket". Well, this so happens to be another term for the plant "Arugula". They mean the same thing. Let's say that I am listing the ingredients of the dish to someone later, and I tell them that it contains Arugula. Would I be false in saying that? No. Even though the recipe does not call it Arugula, Arugula is an English word which describes the same thing as Rocket. They have the same meaning. Is this really very hard to understand?

It is not false for me to state that Lucifer is an entity which has power in the physical world, and it is therefore not false for me to say that he is a god. Language is a means to an end, and therefore you need to stop focusing so much on what of the many synonyms I choose to use, and try to understand the MEANING of my argument.

"I am still anxiously awaiting my opponents' clear, concrete proof from a reliable source that proves that Satan is a god."

Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
********2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality*********
3: a person or thing of supreme value
4: a powerful ruler

(merriam-websters)

Ok, we have agreed that Satan fits that criteria, and therefore the term "Satan is a god" is correct, since he IS a god, according the that definition of god. But despite whether you wish to call it a god or an angel, it means the same thing, and Christianity is indeed a polytheistic religion.
girlforgod21

Con

Harlan has decided to dig up as many definitions of the word "god" as he can find that would mean he is the winner, however i must point out that his first flaw was not setting a definition of the word "god" in the first round. This would have made the debate so much clearer and we could have actually focused on the debate at hand, rather than what the word means.

However, my opponent is confusing the link between religions, I am not saying that Satan is a god, but even if it did fit his 15th or so definition of the word, it is irrelevant. You can take any religion, or any amount of people that believe he is a god but it does not matter, if you look at his definition of polytheistic it states

""the doctrine of or belief in more than one god or in many gods."

That is simply stating that our belief is the one that counts in this debate, now in his last round he brings up Merriam Webster's definitions of the word "god" this shows a plea that he is desperate for a fitting definition that he cannot find.

He states that his 4th definition of the word god is the commonly accepted definition of the word? Then why is it fourth on the line? He is simply confusing the commonly accepted definition with what other religions believe with their Gods.

We Christians do not believe in more than one God, we believe in the first definition which states the one supreme being the creator of the universe, other people can twist that however they want but just because other people see it that way, does not mean that they are gods.

Angels and Satan are not gods, they may be to you and other people and (or) religions but not to Christians, which according to your definition of polytheistic are the ones that count.

My opponent again, is confusing what other people believe our religion is about, with what our religion means to other people, which other people's opinions are irrelevant.

It is very weird to me that he is taking irrelevant definitions of the word god and comparing them to the devil and angels, just because other religions and other folk may do so.

You cannot simply find other definitions of words that are irrelevant, and attempt them to tie to our religion, there are many words with different definitions like the "Gay" analogy that Alex used in the comment section, you replied to him that it is completely different, but it's really not. Your just trying to find irrelevant word definitions that contradict the actually meaning to the religion, but saying that other people, in other circumstances cannot do the same.

If he wanted to debate that Satan fits the criteria for the fourth definition of god, then he should have put the definition in his opening argument, and he should have named the title something more like "There is more than one god in Christianity"

But since he did not put his definition of the word god, and he also decided to debate what we Christians believe, his definitions are irrelevant, and our belief is that the devil and angels are not gods, and that God is the one supreme ruler, creator of the universe the only God, I urge a vote for Con.

And again if you'd like me to bring it up again...For your other definition that were apparently debating as well...Satan does not hold power in this physical world..God (The one supreme being, creator and ruler of the universe) Is the only God, as well he is the only God that actually holds power in the universe, i also urge a vote for Con since the burden of proof lay on Harlan, and he did not actually prove that the devil holds power in this world.

I would rebut our other arguments, but they were getting us nowhere and he did not actually successfully defeat them, he only thought he did because of irrelevant definitions and his own opinions..I think we should just focus on his error in debating the wrong thing, since we are actually debating what Christians believe, like he stated in the first round.
Debate Round No. 4
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by salsabowl2015 2 years ago
salsabowl2015
This all comes down to definitions. Although girlforgod21 denied that Harlan could use "4th line" definition, what other method can be used to frame this debate? Of course, christians and the bible claim a monotheistic religion. That was the debate girlforgod was making, but thats not the way I understood the question. Its like trying to decide if something is "good" or not. If you use the definition of "good" you still can only apply your personal feelings. Harlan used actual arguments to advance his position, while girlforgod used personal feelings. In every other religion, the leader of the "underworld" (hades, pluto) is a god. If you admit that Satan is the equivalent, then he must be a god.

This argument is also not an attack against christianity. if you believe satan to be a lesser god than "God", it doesnt destroy your religion. After all, 10 commandments, "have no other gods before me" essentially admits that there are other gods out there. Why not Satan?
Posted by Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
both of you need to learn how to cite sources and to use hyperlinks.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
One could almost argue that there's four gods in Christianity. By this logic, the pro side is saying that Satan could be a god. However, what about Jesus who is practically god incarnate and the holy ghost?
Posted by PhreedomPhan 7 years ago
PhreedomPhan
I was raised a Christian, but am now a hopeful agnostic. I'm hopeful that there is a just god presiding over this universe and that we will all receive rewards and punishments after death consistent with the lives we've led. I don't believe, however, that anyone will spend eternity in hell. That does not seem a just punishment for evils we might do in such a relatively short time here. I do believe some will receive much more punishment than others, and some may jump immediately into paradise if their balance sheets of good and evil done warrants it. I also believe that, if there is a just god, all creatures cognizant of their own existence will eventually lead a happy eternal life. If I were to return to religion, I would be a Deist.

My own opinion of Christianity is that it is polytheistic but has rationalized belief in the second god by calling him the devil. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit have been rationalized in the same way. To justify this remnant of polytheism, Christianity has rationalized it into the Trinity, "God in three persons." In other words, God suffers from multiple personality disorder.

Still another person elevated to godlike status by the Catholicism of Rome was the mother goddess, Mary.

Some scholars even argue that the Judaism of Moses was not monotheistic. This is evidenced by the First Commandment as I learned it: "I am the Lord THY God. Thou shalt have no other gods BEFORE me." This can and has been interpreted by some as meaning Yahweh or Jehovah is the god of the Hebrew tribes and must be worshiped by them ahead of the gods of other lands and peoples, but not necessarily exclusively. Anyway, the whole argument is philisophical.
Posted by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
An interesting debate. My vote goes to Con, since Pro modified his definition of god during the debate (removing the "omnipotent" part), and neglected to give an explicit definition of god from the beginning.
Posted by Alex 7 years ago
Alex
Well Satan, or the devil is not actually an angel anymore Harlan, an angel is an attendant of God, he once was an angel, supposedly the most powerful, and most beautiful angel. However that was not enough for him, he wanted more, to be a god, that is when God cast him out of heaven. After that point he was/is not actually an angel anymore.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Posted by Brewmaster 2 hours ago: [to my profile]
'Glad to see your sophisticated sense of humor can differentiate between serious discussion and joking amongst friends.'

Thanks! and I'm glad to see your's encompasses sarcasm as well as puerile insults.
Seriously though I didn't mean any offense, was just surprised at your serious comment after glancing at your 'debate.'

Apologies to everyone for taking up room here, but as Brewmaster doesn't allow messages or profile comments from non-friends it was the only way I could reply to him.
Posted by Harlan 7 years ago
Harlan
"the ENTIRE focus was about the split between God and Lucifer, and the duality between good and evil."

Actually, the latter was only mentioned by me, and only in the first round. It wasn't really a theme of the debate, it turned out.
Posted by feverish 7 years ago
feverish
Hey Brewmaster, thanks for making the same points I made before.
Funny to see you asking for more depth in debates after reading your 'you suck' debate!
Posted by Harlan 7 years ago
Harlan
I'm fluent, sure, but not knowledgeable enough about Christianity to really know that much about saints and what not. I learned a bit in this debate (that the devil is an angel, and that angels are actually acknowledged entities by christianity).

The point is, though, that a truly monotheistic religion would only have one spiritual entity- not different spiritual entities that interact with eachother. Just one stream of holy consciousness.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
Harlangirlforgod21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
Harlangirlforgod21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Xie-Xijivuli 7 years ago
Xie-Xijivuli
Harlangirlforgod21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by sorrylol 7 years ago
sorrylol
Harlangirlforgod21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
Harlangirlforgod21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Harlangirlforgod21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by girlforgod21 7 years ago
girlforgod21
Harlangirlforgod21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheRaven 7 years ago
TheRaven
Harlangirlforgod21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by trendem 7 years ago
trendem
Harlangirlforgod21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by the_Beast 7 years ago
the_Beast
Harlangirlforgod21Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07