The Instigator
Cerebral_Narcissist
Con (against)
Winning
104 Points
The Contender
Charles0103
Pro (for)
Losing
102 Points

Convert me to Christianity

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 1/14/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,437 times Debate No: 14387
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (124)
Votes (39)

 

Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

In this debate PRO shall take the side of Christianity and, using evidence and/or logic, shall attempt to construct a convincing case to convert CON to the doctrine of Christianity. CON shall attempt to point out flaws in PRO's arguments.

Note that it is not required that PRO actually converts CON, rather that after all things are considered that PRO has made a case for conversion that has survived CON's attacks.

As PRO is making the case in the affirmative the burden of proof falls upon him. The onus is not on CON to undermine the validity of Christian belief, simply to undermine PRO's case for conversion.

Christianity: Any belief, supported by a recognised Church either historical or cotemporary that claims a Monotheistic position and claims that Christ is the son of God and/or God and/or Gods paramount Prophet and whose nature and/or teachings serve as the only route to salvation. (This is the broadest possible sensible defintion that hopefully includes as many Christian groups as possible whilst also excluding Islam, Krishna-Christ syncretism and Voodou).

I would like to thank my opponent in advance.
Charles0103

Pro

First of all, I would like to thank you for the challenge.

I would like to say that I am only 14 years old, but I would hope that you will not go easy on me.

I would like to point out evidence that Jesus Christ was crucified and ressurrected. If my opponent wants me to get into the existence of God himself, then I will.

I would like to start out with Paul. Paul was a Jewish man who lived in Christ's lifetime. Paul actually persectued anyone who would go against the Jewish Law. However, Paul claimed to have met Christ, and converted. Paul went on to preach all over the world, and he is strongly congratulated by the Church for spreading Christianity. What made Paul convert? Could it have been a dream? Could Paul have been mistaken? I highly doubt it considering Paul's strict beliefs. I highly doubt if my opponent had a dream that Jesus came to him and told him to be Christian that he would do it.

I would also like to point to the disciples. Here were 13 men (including Matthias and Judas Iscariot) that gave up their lives to follow this one man. What made these men die cruel deaths for this one man after Jesus had left them? How could this man be so convicting that they gave their lives for him? In Matthew 4: 21, Jesus came by James, John, and their Father Zebedee. They left their own father behind to follow Jesus. Why would these men do that?

The Bible says that the Pharisees accuse Jesus of being a demon or a minion of Satan of some sorts. Jesus refudiates this by saying "...Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25. In other words, the Pharisees could not deny that Jesus walked on water or raised the dead because everyone had seen him do it! Instead, they had to attack Him by saying that he was a minion of Satan.

However, for any of my points to stand, I would have to say that the Gospels are in fact historically true. My favorite example is Luke. Luke was actually a medical doctor who we believe to have lived in Rome. He had a fascination with Christianity since he had seen the faith spread like wildfire. Luke decided to set out try to see if this was true. He interviewed witnesses and is believed to have traveled with Paul for some time. The book of Luke is a compilation of what Luke learned. You could look at him like a reporter of sorts.

For the above to be true, however, you would have to believe that Luke actually existed. The Bible we know of today was compiled by Constantine in 375 B.C. Constantine was the ruler of Rome, and he wanted one religion. We give him credit for founding the Catholic Church. He got together leaders of the Christian faith from all over the world at the Council of Nasea. There, they looked through many ancient texts. They selected the most historically accurate books; they selected the writings which were the true picture of who Jesus Christ was along with the Old Testament and the writings of Paul, John, James, etc. Constantine wanted one true faith to hold his empire together. He realized that Christianity was the true religion that could hold his empire together. Why would he want to have a religion that was false? If exposed, it would have been the fall of his empire.
Debate Round No. 1
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate, and to welcome him to the site. Also I would like to reassure him that we have a number of fine debaters from all manner of age groups and demographics.

Argument from Paul.
My opponent asks that "What made Paul convert? Could it have been a dream? Could Paul have been mistaken? I highly doubt it considering Paul's strict beliefs. I highly doubt if my opponent had a dream that Jesus came to him and told him to be Christian that he would do it."

My opponent is implying that Paul had a religious experience so intense that it altered his core beliefs, and that such an experience being so intense must surely have been a genuine example of divine revelation. Indeed Paul was a zealous Pharisee who persecuted Christianity, and who apparently enjoyed a complete 'u-turn' in his beliefs after having a vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, which incidentally left him blind for three days.

However, we know that it is possible to experience clear and vivid auditory and visual hallucination. We also know that there is such a thing as psychotic blindness, in which extreme stress can render someone blind for a temporary period. We do not know what psychological stresses Paul was under, he may have been suffering a nervous breakdown, he may have been suffering guilt as a result of his persecutions, he may have not been drinking sufficient water under the hot desert conditions, his mind may have been swimming with the rhetoric of the many deviant Jewish political and religious preachers of the time. When one hears the voices of the dead, it is usual to first assume that it is insanity, there is no evidence to lead us away from this first conclusion.

The Disciples
My opponent states,
"I would also like to point to the disciples. Here were 13 men (including Matthias and Judas Iscariot) that gave up their lives to follow this one man. What made these men die cruel deaths for this one man after Jesus had left them? How could this man be so convicting that they gave their lives for him? In Matthew 4: 21, Jesus came by James, John, and their Father Zebedee. They left their own father behind to follow Jesus. Why would these men do that?"

It is clear that Jesus lived in an age of great despair, political and religious despair. Heretical preachers and their devoted followers were not uncommon. Throughout history people have followed leaders with fanaticism, the strength of their loyalty does not prove the quality of the leader. Hitler had the fanatical support of many, indeed Goebbels was so loyal that he took the lives of his six daughters, his wife and himself.

It is far more likely that Jesus was simply very charismatic, not that he was divine.

The Miracles
"The Bible says that the Pharisees accuse Jesus of being a demon or a minion of Satan of some sorts. Jesus refudiates this by saying "...Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand." Matthew 12:25. In other words, the Pharisees could not deny that Jesus walked on water or raised the dead because everyone had seen him do it! Instead, they had to attack Him by saying that he was a minion of Satan."

In actual fact I believe that this is concrete evidence against the divinity of Christ, a number of miracles are attributed to Jesus. The creation of animal golems, the feeding of the five thousand, the resurrection of Lazarus etc etc. If such miracles were true, and so widely witnessed the Jewish establishment would have converted to Jesus. The Romans would have converted to Jesus. A man of such obvious power would not have been crucified as a common criminal and heretic. The only logical conclusion is that Jesus did not present sufficient evidence of his divinity in his life, this directly contradicts and invalidates the biblical account.

The Argument from Luke
My opponent simply suggests that Luke looked into Christianity and liked what he saw, this can not obviously be seen as proof of Christ's divinity.

The Argument from Constantine
It is is interesting that my opponent cites the conversion of Constantine, because the historical record of that shows a number of discrepancies.

It is not known when exactly Constantine converted to Christianity, his mother was a Christian and he did not take part (but also did nothing to prevent) Diocletian's persecution of Christians.

Many date his conversion to Christianity as being just prior to the battle of Milvian bridge. However there is speculation that for many years he regarded the divine revelation he gained on that day as being from Apollo, and that many years later he altered the details to fit into a Christian paradigm. This does not suggest a sincere conversion. Though he did issue the edict of toleration a year later, he took no action against Paganism, the coins he continued to mint bore the images of Roman Gods, and the Arch of Constantine contain no references to Christ despite the fact that this arch commemorates his supposedly Christ given victory.

What is far more likely is that Constantine simply sought to stabilise his Empire, and that his conversion, or rather the conversion of his Empire to Christianity was simply motivated by politics. Christianity, despite it's illegality and persecution (or perhaps because of) had won the hearts and minds of his subjects. He was simply siding with the winner for his own benefit. Indeed he was only baptised on his death bed.

I do not believe my opponent has made a sufficient case for conversion, thank you.
Charles0103

Pro

I think my opponent underestimates the power of faith, especially for a man like Paul. It is highly unlikely that he had suffered from guilt or the other reasons my opponent listed. If I have a dream or some mirage of sorts that I should convert to Islam (considering I am a lifelong christian, and my faith is stronger than most adult's) I know for sure I would never do it. Seeing how strong Paul's faith was and how he persecuted these people shows us another picture. Paul witnessed thousands people dying, tortured and thrown in prison because of him. I doubt after seeing what he had seen that one dream had forced him to convert.

I agree with my opponent that Jesus must have been a very charismatic man. First of all, I would hope that everyone understands that I do not think that Jesus put these men under some sort of magic spell, Jesus was the way, so people followed him. However, Jesus being a great speaker doesn't really mean much. Was not King Herod charismatic? He certainly must have been to order the execution of every baby boy in the city of Bethlehem. Was not the Cesar charismatic? He must have been to maintain such a vast empire. Why would these people want to give up there lives to some guy who could speak well? Instead, they could follow some other charismatic guy and have an easier life.

Like with the argument for Paul, I think my opponent is missing the point here. We all have to realize that this was over 2000 years ago. If a man who did miracles like Jesus did and said things that Jesus did, there is no denying that the majority of the population would follow this man. However, at this point in time, the Romans were in charge. Under the Romans, we had the Jewish council who controlled the population of its people. In other words, the Romans told the Jewish leaders how to lead the Jewish nation. My point here is that the majority of the Jewish people did in fact convert. In fact, as Jesus entered one city, the people cried "Hossana, Hossana to the Son of David!" The Jewish people of today are just descendants of the higher up Jews that worked with the Romans. Well, why didn't Jesus rule the world? The answer to that is that you still have the Romans on top and the Jewish Council below them. In fact, the Sadducees in the Jewish council (one of the "political parties" in the Jewish community, the other being the Pharisees which I mentioned earlier) didn't even believe a Messiah would come! There could be no revolution against the Jewish leaders because the Roman Empire was right behind them. Even though the believers were at the majority (especially after the ressurection), the top dogs still held the keys. Any uprising would get them killed by the Romans.

Again, Luke was a medical doctor from Rome. At this point in time, if you were Christian in Rome, you get killed. Luke was a brave man who sought the truth. He interviewed people from all over the world who had actually met and lived Jesus. Luke interviewed hundreds of people who had seen him do the miracles. After writing the gospel of Luke, he dedicated his whole life to Christ. This reminds me very much of the case for Paul except that it happpened slowly instead of all at once. How on earth would a pagan medical doctor from Rome convert to Christianity? The answer is very simple, he looked at the facts.

My opponent states that Constantine had no sincere conversion. However, he did issue the edict of toleration (which my opponent stated). I believe Constantine's conversion was in fact very sincere, if anything, the reasons my opponent gives help support my position: Constantine did what Christ would have done and tolerated the remaining pagans. In fact, before Jesus was taken to prison, Peter cut off one of the servant of the high priest's ear. Jesus actually healed the man's ear. Obviously, Constantine looked at this passage and others like it. Constantine knew to love his enemies. Constantine most likely kept the images of Roman gods on the coins to keep the history of the Roman empire alive.

I agree with my opponenet that Constantine is not exactly Paul. However, I think his intentions were essentially pure. He wanted one stable empire worshipping the one true God. Was not everything going fine under paganism? I must also point out that while Christianity was winning in the hearts and minds of the majority of the Jewish people, you cannot say the same for the Roman people. Because their dedication was sincere (at least openly, some may have been athiest secretly), I doubt politics had anything to do with Constantine's conversion.
Debate Round No. 2
Cerebral_Narcissist

Con

My opponent states,

"I think my opponent underestimates the power of faith, especially for a man like Paul. It is highly unlikely that he had suffered from guilt or the other reasons my opponent listed."

It is almost certain that as a human being responsible for cruel persecution that he suffered at some point some measure of guilt. Only a tiny minority of human beings are able to commit such atrocities without some psychological damage. The point is that my opponent can not be certain that Paul's conversion was not caused by normal human psychology.

" If I have a dream or some mirage of sorts that I should convert to Islam (considering I am a lifelong Christian, and my faith is stronger than most adult's) I know for sure I would never do it."

My opponent can not be certain of that, indeed if my opponent endured a particularly vivid experience to that effect the rational response would be to at least consider it's truth. More importantly, my opponent can not speak for all Christians, or all religious people. People can and have converted due to such experiences, such experiences can be attributed to psychology, my opponent therefore can not cite the conversion of Paul, however out of character it must have been, to be absolute proof of the divine.

" Seeing how strong Paul's faith was and how he persecuted these people shows us another picture. Paul witnessed thousands people dying, tortured and thrown in prison because of him. I doubt after seeing what he had seen that one dream had forced him to convert."

His vision is described as a vivid image, an actual conversation with God, and blindness for three days following. Not a mere dream, this is consistent with a severe psychotic episode. It should also be noted that Paul, a religious man living before modern science with it's psychologists, neuro-scientists etc, would probably have taken the vision at face value. He had no reason not, whilst modern man would fear insanity, drugs or a brain tumour, Paul can be forgiven for not even thinking to question a vivid conversation with God, whilst fully awake.

"Jesus being a great speaker doesn't really mean much. Was not King Herod charismatic? He certainly must have been to order the execution of every baby boy in the city of Bethlehem. Was not the Cesar charismatic? He must have been to maintain such a vast empire."

I believe that my opponent has vindicated my point, the ability to inspire intense devotion, as Jesus did with the apostles, is not proof of divinity. Instead this is a ability demonstrated by Ghengis Khan, Stalin, Hitler, Buddha, all non-Christian.

My opponent states that,
"If a man who did miracles like Jesus did and said things that Jesus did, there is no denying that the majority of the population would follow this man."

However this is not what happened. He remained a minority cult figure.

"There could be no revolution against the Jewish leaders because the Roman Empire was right behind them. Even though the believers were at the majority (especially after the resurrection), the top dogs still held the keys. Any uprising would get them killed by the Romans."

However, had the Romans witness the miracles of Jesus, and they should have done being present at the time, they would have converted to Christianity. The Romans frequently adopted foreign Gods. The Romans indeed received religious revelation telling them to adopt the worship of Cybele, a cult that they found most odious. The sight of Jesus performing miracles would have caused them to convert, however strange their found Judaic monotheism to be. The fact they did not leads us to the conclusion that these miracles did not even occur.

My opponent states
"Again, Luke was a medical doctor from Rome. At this point in time, if you were Christian in Rome, you get killed. Luke was a brave man who sought the truth... How on earth would a pagan medical doctor from Rome convert to Christianity? The answer is very simple, he looked at the facts."

That Luke converted at risk to his own life I won't dispute, however that simply suggests he was convinced of the truth of Christianity. Many people have converted to dangerous positions, be they atheism, Islam, communism, and some have lost their lives as a result. Why is Luke's conversion proof of Christian fact, but other similar acts are proof of nothing?

With regards Constantine I do not believe that someone who claims direct support from a supreme monotheistic and jealous God, to engage in the political hedging of bets, by appeasing the trappings of other faiths.

In addition my opponent asks,
"Was not everything going fine under paganism?"

No, by the time of Constantine the Empire was clearly in decline. Shortly before the ascent of Constantine the Empire had endured decades of internal civil war and invasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

As a parallel I draw my opponents attention to the life of Mohammad. His visions totally transformed his life, taking him from a failed merchant who tried to refuse the dictation of the Angel Gabriel, to a prophet of God, a warlord, and Empire builder. This is just as much of a transformation as that which befell Luke or Paul. Yet my opponent must surely deny it's divinity and must surely seek to explain it through either fraud or delusion. What separates Mohammad from the stories of the disciples?

What of David Icke, a professional footballer, presenter, journalist, and even politician who after a few conversations with psychics and a visit to an ancient Peruvian graveyard transformed him a prophet of a new religion (or movement).

It is clear that such bizarre transformation, having so many alternative explanations and not being exclusive to Christianity, can not be cited as evidence of the truth of Christianity.

In conclusion I do believe that my opponent has satisfied the burden of proof, but I thank him for a good debate.
Charles0103

Pro

My opponent makes a valid point that Paul may have been guilty. However, let's look at the facts. We know that Paul was traveling with other people. When Paul had his experience, a bright light surrounded him. Was it the sun? No, it could not have been because the others with Paul saw the light themselves. The men with Paul actually could hear the voice talking to Paul! The only difference is that they could not see the figure that Paul saw. Is that proof against Paul? No, that just means that the message was meant just for Paul and no one else. Besides, how is it that when Paul visited Ananias (Like God told him to), Paul could magically see again? And here is some food for thought, couldn't have God made Paul suffer from these delusions because God wanted him to preach? I don't see why not.

I agree, charisma is not proof of divinity. However, this man turned the lives of these people literally upside down. You can argue that those figures did basically the same thing, but again, we need to look at this time period. John the Baptist was very charismatic, yet not too many people called him the Messiah. Again, I am not saying that Jesus had these people under some sort of magic spell forcing them to follow him, what I am saying is that there must be something about this man to do something as bold as he did. I think it is a fair argument that Jesus did more than those men listed (and considering all but one of the men listed ran around killing people). Besides, why would Jesus die for a lie and bring thousands of others down with him? (Considering Jesus was only 33 when he died)

My opponent says,
"My opponent states that,
"If a man who did miracles like Jesus did and said things that Jesus did, there is no denying that the majority of the population would follow this man."

However this is not what happened. He remained a minority cult figure."

I'm sorry if anyone got this out of context, but I meant that if anyone who did what Jesus did today would have a majority of the population following him. There's just no denying that.

My opponent says,
"However, had the Romans witness the miracles of Jesus, and they should have done being present at the time, they would have converted to Christianity. The Romans frequently adopted foreign Gods. The Romans indeed received religious revelation telling them to adopt the worship of Cybele, a cult that they found most odious. The sight of Jesus performing miracles would have caused them to convert, however strange their found Judaic monotheism to be. The fact they did not leads us to the conclusion that these miracles did not even occur."

Some Romans did convert, and I'm sure a lot more converted than we know of. However, you have to remember this time period. If one Roman soldier spoke out, he would immediately be killed. I'd bet many Roman citizens did convert, but they just thought they were the only ones. Therefore, they would have been afraid to ban together for quite some time.

I think my opponent does not understand what I am trying to say about Luke. Luke's case was not the case of Paul, Mohammad, or even David Icke. Luke ran around the world talking to witnesses and trying to put a true story together; his experience wasn't just a moment or 3 days long. It took Luke about 30 to put this book together. In the book of Luke, we see what Luke found to be the 100% truth about Jesus.

Anyone can argue about Constantine all day long. If someone asked me who I think an ideal Christian was (except Jesus), I would not put Constantine on the top of my list. Constantine simply knew that Christianity had to be the true religion because he chose that instead of Judaism or Paganism to hold the Empire together.

My opponent states,
"No, by the time of Constantine the Empire was clearly in decline. Shortly before the ascent of Constantine the Empire had endured decades of internal civil war and invasion."
It is true that the Roman Empire had been enduring these things. However, things like invasion and civil war happened in every age of the Roman Empire. Just look at the United States, for example. This country has endured civil war and invasion, but it still has stayed together. At any rate, my opponent's point would be valid, except for the point that the Empire fell more than a hundred years later in 496. The last remnants of the Empire were finally wiped out in the 15th century.

In the case of Mohammad, Jesus never mentioned that there would be more prophets. However, Jesus did mention "false prophets." Looking at it from another perspective, Surah 47:4 says:
"Therefore, when you meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks.." (I didn't take it out of context, the rest is just talking about how the Muslims will be rewarded for their actions.)
I don't know about you, but that seems to be the opposite of what Jesus taught! Besides, any religion that does not shun violence cannot be proof of a true, all loving God.

David Icke was first told by a psychic that he would be a great healer who brought great controversy. That alone in the eyes of most of the world is laughable. Icke traveled to some graveyard and he held his arms up and started shaking around. Literally. It's possible he may have had a seizure (that's just as plausible that Paul had a dream or mirage of sorts). Again, from a Christian perspective, Jesus only said there would be false prophets, not any more real ones.

One more thing I might add is that most scholar's agree that Jesus's tomb was empty! I find it hard to believe that a bunch of fisherman killed well trained, elite Roman soldiers, and moved a 3,500 pound boulder and stole Jesus's body. Since most scholars agree the tomb was empty, the Christian community must ask where the body of Jesus is or definite proof that it was taken if there was no resurrection.

My final point is that Christianity is very much different from other religions. When the Buddha died, he said, "I am still searching for the truth." Muhammad said, "I am a prophet of the truth." The Vedas (holy writings of the Hindus) say, "Truth is like an elusive butterfly, none will be able to catch it." And then you have this Jesus guy that says, "I am the truth!" That revolutionizes religion! I am proud to have given my life to this guy who is the truth, and I love Him with all my heart, soul, and strength.
Debate Round No. 3
124 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 20 records.
Posted by forever2b 3 years ago
forever2b
@Mangini I'll be waiting for the challenge. :)
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 3 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
"1- Your comments vs. my record on DDO, and feedback from others, coupled with the fact you are so emotionally invested in your opinion of me make that implication."

I have not checked your record, I never heard of you until you posted nonsense here. If someone says something retarded I will call them up on it.

"2- I never said that. What I said was that arguing the bible while affirming it's historicity requires faith."

Yeah... I have paraphrased your ignorant opinion.

"3- You are manipulating my statements in order to save face. What I said is you don't draw a knife in a knife fight, and that you misstated the cliche regarding "the sharpest knife in the drawer".

I have not mispresented your statements, apart from that what you have in point is partly true... despite the fact that you have it in the wrong order. You have some flaw with memory or some sort of learning difficulty possibly as the result of drug abuse?

"4- I don't refuse to debate you, rather I believe you are incapable of cordial, rational, and adult debate. I believe you are a deprived ignoramus with seriously low self esteem seeking attention on the internet. You probably have ADD, and need to get the taste slapped out of your mouth, and you need to move out of your mother's basement."

You have repeatedly refused to debate me, and indeed you have flamed me for politely pointing out that your RFD was flawed.

Are you willing to defend your own statements YES/NO

Yes and I'll write up a debate challenge, no and I know to ignore you as a retarded streak of piss that is despised by their unfortunate parents and is a living argument that it is never too late to abort.

YES/NO

All other comments are irrelevant.
Posted by Mangani 3 years ago
Mangani
1- Your comments vs. my record on DDO, and feedback from others, coupled with the fact you are so emotionally invested in your opinion of me make that implication.

2- I never said that. What I said was that arguing the bible while affirming it's historicity requires faith.

3- You are manipulating my statements in order to save face. What I said is you don't draw a knife in a knife fight, and that you misstated the cliche regarding "the sharpest knife in the drawer".

4- I don't refuse to debate you, rather I believe you are incapable of cordial, rational, and adult debate. I believe you are a deprived ignoramus with seriously low self esteem seeking attention on the internet. You probably have ADD, and need to get the taste slapped out of your mouth, and you need to move out of your mother's basement.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 3 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
1: Where did I say that.
2: You regard atheism as a Christian position.
3: You believe that in the history of combat no one has ever drawn a weapon.
4: You refuse to debate me.

Why should I accord you any respect. Debate me or fvck off. It's really that simple, obviously that is not simply to you, in your world I've probably just said strawberry-bush-wardrobe-may-I-have-another-cup-of-tea-vicar-ooh-whoopsie.
Posted by Mangani 3 years ago
Mangani
Sure, CN. Your opinion outweighs that of every other member of DDO, and I've never won a debate :/
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 3 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
@ Mangani
So basically you are a cowardly retard that spews forth incoherent gibberish and can't defend a single word that has ever dribbled out of you? In which case stop trolling my debates and please don't breed.
Posted by sadolite 3 years ago
sadolite
In my opinion a person who goes out of their way to try and nullify something that brings joy to someones life only wants to spread the misery in their life. That can't stand the fact that someone else would be happy while they aren't'.
Posted by feverish 3 years ago
feverish
Posted by Charles0103 3 days ago:
"The word Rabbi and Teacher are different in Hebrew, man."

Nah. http://en.wiktionary.org...
NT was of course written in Greek anyway. John 1:37 actually spells out the Hebrew word rabbi and explains that it means the same as teacher (didaskalos).
Posted by Mangani 3 years ago
Mangani
Forever, you shall have my challenge by tomorrow morning.
Posted by Mangani 3 years ago
Mangani
CN, not only have you not issued a challenge, but I suspect any debate wot you would be riddled with ad hominem and insults. You haven't proven yourself capable of neither rational debate, nor of accepting objective criticism of your debate. You have proven yourself to be quite emotionally immature, and rather than looking for more debate you should be seeking therapy.
39 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 2 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Cerebral_NarcissistCharles0103Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: All things considered, Con had stronger arguments at most points in the debate.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 2 years ago
royalpaladin
Cerebral_NarcissistCharles0103Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering ourgodisaconsumingfire
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 years ago
16kadams
Cerebral_NarcissistCharles0103Tied
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:30 
Vote Placed by GenesisCreation 2 years ago
GenesisCreation
Cerebral_NarcissistCharles0103Tied
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 1dustpelt 2 years ago
1dustpelt
Cerebral_NarcissistCharles0103Tied
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 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 ourgodisaconsumingfire 3 years ago
ourgodisaconsumingfire
Cerebral_NarcissistCharles0103Tied
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 socialpinko 3 years ago
socialpinko
Cerebral_NarcissistCharles0103Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: why is everyone votebombing?
Vote Placed by arturo 3 years ago
arturo
Cerebral_NarcissistCharles0103Tied
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 Nihilist 3 years ago
Nihilist
Cerebral_NarcissistCharles0103Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by MrCarroll 3 years ago
MrCarroll
Cerebral_NarcissistCharles0103Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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