The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Christians should use peaceful conversion methods.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Dkice4 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/7/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 396 times Debate No: 94504
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I think that Christians should use peaceful conversion methods as opposed to forced conversion methods. I really do not see the other point of view, if there even is one. All that will happen if Christians resort to violence is it will galvanize the non-Christian community.

Peace is the way of Christ in my opinion. Just for starters the 6th commandment is thou shalt not kill. [0] Also, Christians are supposed to obey man-made laws.

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." [1]

There is no doubt in mind that Christians should use peaceful conversation tactics. Hardly any government would tolerate forced conversions in contemporary western culture. Thanks for reading, interested if anyone has an opposing viewpoint.



I accept this debate.

I first want to make a point concerning so called "forced conversions". Unless we are speaking in a completely historical context, there is no modern example to use concerning conversion methods. In fact, despite claims by Christians (and yes I am a Christian), Christianity is on the decline in America and Europe (1). Similarly, the only instance of any form of "forced" conversion would take place within a family setting- the well known attribute of disowning due to a change in religious beliefs among family members. So, I will instead debate historical accounts and traditions of Christianity concerning conversion.

To begin, the most well known and written about account (in my opinion) of historical Christian conversion by force would be that of the early Christian church in the Middle East, North Africa, and certain parts of Europe. Due to the fact that the Christianity was so "new", any form of heresy would be catastrophic to orthodoxy. Nonetheless, it is extremely clear what form of Christianity was considered biblical correct. Of course, throughout time, various denominations spring from the original apostolic faith- but they are still considered being a part of the Church (Body of Christ in this context). Modern groups such as the Mormons, or the Jehova's Witnesses are NOT canonical and are better considered cults. Just in the same way that the Arians of the 3rd and 4th centuries. Therefore, forced conversion of these peoples to true apostolic canon would, at the time, be considered acceptable. In other words, in order for the church to have survived, any form of dissension would be catastrophic toward Christian structure.

Debate Round No. 1


The idea of a true faith is interesting. You don't make it clear what the true faith or faiths would be. This is interesting, since your entire argument revolves around destroying faiths that deviate. Many consider Catholicism to be heresy. This is for many reasons but one is that the pope wore a fish hat symbolizing a pagan God. "The Mitre hat that is worn by Catholic priests, cardinals and the Pope, represents Dagon the Babylonian fish god." [1]

Because Catholicism is so popular, this begs the question, which is the one and only true faith? I will argue that using force resulted in more heresy. Instead of using logic, words, and biblical evidence force was used. Meaning heretics could force their way and corrupt Christianity.

Thanks for debating.

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by David_Debates 2 years ago
Straying towards the No True Scotsman fallacy, aren't we, JesusIsGodForever? I mean, I agree with you, but that is the literal wording of a fallacy.
Posted by JesusIsGodForever 2 years ago
No real Christian will accept this debate. In Romans 12 it says to be at peace with all men. So yeah it will be interesting if someone actually accepts this.
Posted by SM29 2 years ago
No one except an insane zealot is going to take the Con side of this debate. Jesus Himself preached non-violence over and over. If anyone actually does take the Con side this will be an easy win for Pro.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.