The Instigator
Mirza
Pro (for)
Losing
16 Points
The Contender
mongoose
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
mongoose
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,006 times Debate No: 9901
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (24)
Votes (6)

 

Mirza

Pro

I just read what GodSands and other people wrote on this thread: http://www.debate.org...

It looks like GodSands knows who is Christian and who is not, based on what he thinks people do that is forbidden in Christianity, and what he thinks they do willingly, not because they perhaps have a hard time warding it off. Perhaps he should understand that there is a thing called repentance, and when people sin they can repent, and sinning does not make them non-Christians. Rather, it just proves that they're sinners, and so is everybody according to the Bible, and that is why everybody should ask God to help them repel the devil's whispering.

I challenge GodSands [he did not accept this debate, so I challenge anybody] to a debate, based on what he said. I strongly disagree that people aren't Christians just because they sin, especially because my interpretation of the Bible tells me that GodSands sins too. For example, he thinks that somebody who does not worship Jesus, yet believes in the Bible, is not a Christian, but some Christians believe that those who believe in the Bible and worship Jesus are not Christians.

Round 1 is meant to be a brief summary of why we disagree with each other, and the rest of the rounds are for the arguments and rebuttals. I hope that this debate is going to be interesting to all readers.
mongoose

Con

My opponent believes that GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether or not they are Christians. However, considering the vast number of people that he has called Christians or non-Christians, he had to be correct at least some of the time.

Additionally, he acknowledges that atheists are not Christians. He is correct in doing so.

My opponent must prove that GodSands is wrong every time that he tells other people whether or not they are Christians.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
Mirza

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

To begin with, I did not say that GodSands is wrong every time he tells other people whether or not they are Christians. I said, "I challenge GodSands to a debate, based on what he [i.e. in http://www.debate.org...]."

Moving on, this debate is not about GodSands telling Atheists that they are not Christians. It is merely due to these kinds of statements: "Those who live in sin, those boys on this site who masterbate as if it meant nothing to God, and those girls who dress to draw in attention from boys without any affection to God. Those who do these things without remorse and a feeling of self corruption within, YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN!!"

He said, "Those who live in sin..." -- As I said, Christianity accepts the fact that every man sins, hence why there is repentance, and why Adam and Eve were forgiven. They also sinned, but that did not make them non-Christians [according to the Bible]. He also said, "... those boys on this site who masterbate as if it meant nothing to God..." -- This is again not making anybody a non-Christian. In order to know about God's mercy, people sin automatically, so that they can feel how God is helping them not to sin anymore. There are some things people do even though they do know it is a sin, and that God does not like it. But that simply does not make them unbelievers at all. GodSands ends the whole comment by saying, "YOU ARE NOT CHRISTIAN!!" -- I do not see where Atheists come into the discussion at all. He is clearly talking about people who masturbate or live in sin, which refers to those who say that they're Christians.

Lastly, I also never said that GodSands is never correct. I simply said that he was not correct in that specific thread. As I also said earlier, some other Christians, even non-Christians like myself, believe that he - according to the Bible itself - is a sinner, and does not stop sinning. For example, the Bible says in Matthew, chapter 7, verse 1, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." -- It means that he should look at his own sins before looking at other people's sins. According to the Amish, he is sinning by sitting in front of a computer. According to some other sect, he is sinning because he does not pray all day.

Conclusion:
Not everybody here who say that they are "Christian" are belonging to his sect, so they might be Catholics while he might be a Protestant, so he is as much of a non-Christian to them as they are to him.
mongoose

Con

My opponent claims that he is only saying that GodSands is wrong only most of the time. This is not what the resolution says. For the resolution to be affirmed, he must prove that GodSands is always wrong.

My opponent quotes a statement from GodSands written to every member who lives in sin. Naturally, many of the people who live in sin, as described by GodSands, are indeed not Christians. This means that GodSands is correct in calling them not Christian.

My opponent's conclusion makes no sense. Not all people believe that the only valid Christians are those in their sect.

In conclusion, GodSands is correct at least some of the time when he tells people that they are not Christian, thus saying he is simply "wrong" is incorrect.
Debate Round No. 2
Mirza

Pro

My opponent either misunderstood what I wrote or has no other way to prove me wrong except by saying something that is not true at all.

Con said, "My opponent claims that he is only saying that GodSands is wrong only most of the time." This is once more a false claim. I did not say that GodSands is wrong only most of the time. I clearly said that he was wrong in the thread (http://www.debate.org...). The resolution was meant the be based on what was being said on that thread. That is why I began by saying, "I just read what GodSands and other people wrote on this thread: http://www.debate.org...; -- Not so long after that I said, "I challenge GodSands [he did not accept this debate, so I challenge anybody] to a debate, based on what he <*said*>". My opponent has to understand that the resolution is based on that specific thread.

Moving on, Con said, "Naturally, many of the people who live in sin, as described by GodSands, are indeed not Christians. This means that GodSands is correct in calling them not Christian." This is also not what we're talking about. We're talking about people who call themselves Christians and may very well be Christians. GodSands said that those who masturbate as if it meant nothing to God, they are NOT Christians. This is what we're discussing. How can GodSands know whether or not those who masturbate, yet call themselves Christians, in fact are Christians? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a person who masturbates is not a Christian, for instance. Also, it may be that some real Christians do not consider masturbation being a sin.
mongoose

Con

Where in that paragraph did it say that he was only talking about those who claimed to be Christians? He never did. He was also addressing atheists and people who are not Christian, and never claimed to have been. Also, it says nowhere in the resolution or the first round that we are only discussing that topic. He also acknowledges that some people are atheists. This means that he calls them non-Christians, and he is correct. The resolution does not say that it is based on that particular thread. It is based on GodSands in general. In order for my opponent to win, he must prove that GodSands is always wrong, which he cannot do becuase he is sometimes right.
Debate Round No. 3
Mirza

Pro

I only have about 15 minutes to post my argument, but since my opponent did not come with valid arguments, other than to tell what the resolution says, as if I did not know what I wanted to debate, I am going to make a short argument.

1. As I said before, I brought this debate up because I wanted to challenge GodSands and prove to him that he is wrong when he tells others whether or not they are Christians, based on what he said in that particular thread[1]. My opponent wants me to prove that GodSands is always wrong, which is completely irrelevant to this discussion, as I do not believe that he is always wrong, nor did I say that. Of course he is not wrong when he tells an Atheist that he is not a Christian. On the contrary, he is wrong when he says that those who do the secret habit [and sins similar to that one, which do make you a sinner but not a non-Christian] as if it meant nothing to God, they are not Christians.

2. If this was a debate about GodSands being wrong all the time, then I would be CON, and I would also not have said, "It looks like GodSands knows who is Christian and who is not, <<>>"

3. My opponent wrote, "In conclusion, GodSands is correct at least some of the time when he tells people that they are not Christian, thus saying he is simply "wrong" is incorrect." I do not disagree with that, but what is the point of my opponent writing it? This debate was made to prove that GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether or not they are Christian [Ive stated the reasons why], and I never said that he is always wrong. I also did not just say that GodSands is simply "wrong". I provided good arguments proving that what he said was wrong because he referred to Christian women who dress to draw attention from males, guys who do the seret habit, and so forth, saying that they are not Christians. This is wrong for several reasons, and one of them is that the Bible does not state that a man who does any of this is a non-believer.

Conclusion:
I do not believe that GodSands is always wrong, but what he saiin that particular thread was obviously wrong, because being a sinner does not make you a non-Christian.

Reference(s):
[1]http://www.debate.org...
mongoose

Con

Why you brought this debate up means nothing. What matters is the resolution.

When you support the idea that "GodSands is wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not," this means that you must defend that he is always "wrong when he tells others whether they're Christians or not," which you have not done. Its relevant because it is what the resolution says.

He said that those people are not Christians. Well, many people who do such things are not Christians. Thus, GodSands is at least partially correct. Thus, he is not "wrong."

Well, you're PRO. That statement was NOT the resolution, and thus is NOT what we are debating over.

He never said that that paragraph was targetted at Christians. It would also apply to non-Christians. Because of this, he is at least partially correct.

Conclusion:

My opponent has seemingly forfeited everything that I have said. What he said in that particular thread was only partially wrong. My opponent has no real argument. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 4
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 7 years ago
m93samman
What a terrible result... Mongoose won because he voted for himself.
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
Roy, you've just changed a question of fact into a question of value. I don't think there's anything in the OP that could justify that swap.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
The common sense meaning of the resolution is "Godsands is wrong to be classifying people into 'Christian' and 'non-Christian' according to the method he using." The meaning was clarified by Pro's opening statement, so there was no reason to misunderstand it. Con was deliberately misreading the resolution to try to score debater's points.
Posted by XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
Writing resolutions carefully is important.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
"You do not know whether or not those who sin actually do feel shy before God. You yourself sin, so judge yourself before judging others."

Then that's why he's specifying those who don't.
Posted by Zetsubou 7 years ago
Zetsubou
@Mirza: One judges their actions all the time. Many a person, Sinner or Not, has judged their own actions time and time again. Need one know himself to know other people?
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
But if what I wrote, they did not agree with, surely they do not look at God in such way as a true converted Christian?

Jesus said, "Many will say to me in their day, we cured out demons and did many miracles in your name.' But I will say to them, 'Get away from me, you who does evil, I never knew you." Matthew 7:22-23.

Again in John 7:24, Jesus says, "Do not judge by appearance, but judge righteosly." Where am I judging by appearance? For if anyone is judging by appearance, it is those who say I am judging for they judge not righteously.

Call Jesus Christ unrighteous, but you would lose out the whole meaning to your argument.
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
And not only do you sin, but you do not consider what you do being a sin, and you definitely do not want to turn your back to it. Talk to me about judgement,
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
You do not know whether or not those who sin actually do feel shy before God. You yourself sin, so judge yourself before judging others.
Posted by GodSands 7 years ago
GodSands
No, Christians do sin, but people who confess Christ and sin WITHOUT and effection towards the righteousness of God, they are not saved. A Christian, when sins, will understand the sin and the damage of the sin and have a willingness to turn away from that sin, by growing in the spirit, hating the sin more and more.

A person who confesses Christ and does nothing about their sin, with no wanting or willingness with complete faith that Christ is the way the truth and the life to destroy their sin once and for all, is not saved from their sin. Because being free from sin is not sinning at all, but sinning with your spirit alive in the Holy Spirit. For the saved are dead to the flesh but the unsaved are alive in the flesh and are alive to sin.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
MirzamongooseTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
MirzamongooseTied
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 XimenBao 7 years ago
XimenBao
MirzamongooseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
MirzamongooseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Equinox 7 years ago
Equinox
MirzamongooseTied
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 mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
MirzamongooseTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04