The Instigator
savedbythegraceofgod
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

God's Word Teaches Annihilationism

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 3 votes the winner is...
Mangani
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,710 times Debate No: 29158
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

savedbythegraceofgod

Pro

Rules:

The debate shall adhere to the following structure:

Round 1: Acceptance, Rules, and Definitions
Round 2: Opening Statements, No Rebuttals
Round 3: New Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 4: Rebuttals and Closing Statements (No new arguments)

Posting links is not allowed.

God's Word as referenced in the title of this debate refers to the books included in the Protestant Cannon.
Mangani

Con

I thank my opponent for proposing this challenge, and I hope we have an informative debate. As this is Round 1, and my opponent has defined Round 1 as "Acceptance, Rules, and Definitions," yet presented very little rules, and no definitions I will take it upon myself to present any which are necessary.

Though my opponent says "posting links is not allowed," I would like to assert that any references, or sources that may not be common sense, or common knowledge should be verified in some manner. Any source that cannot be viewed as common sense, common knowledge, or cannot be verified by a simple search on Google should either be rejected for the lack of a linked source, or should be verified by breaking this rule. A source that cannot be verified should not be considered reliable.

Though my opponent has stated that "God's word as reference in the title of this debate refers to books included in the Protestant Cannon (sic.)," he has failed to define which version of the canon. Furthermore, we cannot define what is "God's word" unless an actual god is defined, questioned, and documented as having presented his story in his own words. As such, we shall stick to the tried and true translation of the King James bible using the 1960 revision as the oldest one we should reference in this debate. Should an alternative meaning to the exact words in this version be referenced it must be accompanied by the Hebrew, Koine Greek, Aramaic, or Latin word referenced in the discrepancy being challenged in the KJV. If a challenge is not accompanied with original language references justifying the challenge, the KJV will be used.

Though semantic arguments are usually discouraged in debate, the translation of ancient texts wholly involves linguistics and semantics. As such it is the task of the debaters to convince the judges who is "more right" rather than "absolutely right." This debate is about interpretation, and as such, the judges should vote based on the logic in the arguments themselves, not their own philosophy and belief behind the subject. Your reason for voting should not include the fact that your pastor teaches one way or the other, as his ability to argue his interpretation does not reflect mine or my opponents ability to argue our own.

Annihilationism is defined as the growing Evangelical Christian belief that condemned unbelievers will be destroyed or annihilated after death, instead of spending an eternity in punishment in hell. It is directly related to the doctrine of "conditional emortality," which teaches that the human soul is mortal unless granted eternal life.

As my opponent is arguing for Pro, and the mainstream belief in Christianity is not annihilationism, the burden of proof is on my opponent to prove his premise. We must always remember the crux of the original premise- "God's word teaches annihilationism" should not be confused to read "God's word can be interpreted as teaching annihilationism," "some interpret God's word to teach annihilationism," etc. My opponent needs to show how any normal person reading the KJV bible would reach the rational conclusion (not through science, critical thinking, or common sense, rather through simple reading and unbiased interpretation) that the fate of those who do not believe in Christianity will be annihilated, rather than reaching the mainstream conclusion that sinners will be punished forever in the lake of fire/hell/hades/sheol.

So as to not ambush my opponent with these rules, and definitions I will allow him one paragraph to say anything he needs to respond to my Round 1 statements.

Thank you to all, and I hope we have a great debate!
Debate Round No. 1
savedbythegraceofgod

Pro

I will be debating the same topic with a fellow believer here: http://www.debate.org...

I would like to thank my opponent for agreeing to debate. Unfortunately, in this instance, I have decided not to begin the debate for the following reasons.

1. I do not accept my opponents definition of annihilationism. I would firmly contend for the idea that annihilationism is an ancient position that is not limited to the evangelical community by any means and that to simply call it the "growing Evangelical Christian belief etc." is more of an argument than a proper definition.

2. Neither would I accept this part of the definition of annihilationism presented by my opponent: that "condemned unbelievers will be destroyed or annihilated after death". I do not believe that they will be annihilated "after death" but that their fate will be death.

3. Also, in my opponents definition of annihilationism he stated that "It is directly related to the doctrine of "conditional emortality," I disagree. I have never heard of emortality, cannot find it in the dictionary and I don't see what it has to do with the subject. Of course I say this in jest. It is far more likely that this is simply a spelling error.

4. It was stated:

"My opponent needs to show how any normal person reading the KJV bible would reach the rational conclusion (not through science, critical thinking, or common sense, rather through simple reading and unbiased interpretation) that the fate of those who do not believe in Christianity will be annihilated, rather than reaching the mainstream conclusion that sinners will be punished forever in the lake of fire/hell/hades/sheol."

I am not a King James Onlyist and do not hold the position that the KJV is the most accurate translation of the text and therefore do not accept the idea that I must limit my arguments to the KJV. In fact, in the debate that I have decided to proceed with, I am using the ESV and will post all of my quotes from the ESV since I have been studying from and taking notes from the ESV (though I occasionally look into the Koine Greek).

5. I do not accept the idea that my burden of proof is such that I must show that any "normal person" (whatever that means) would come to the conclusion that the Scriptures teach annihilationism. Instead, I think my burden of proof would be to show that Scriptures teach annihilationism as this is the title of debate.

6. Neither do I accept the premise that I must prove that they would come to accept that scripture teaches it "(not through science, critical thinking, or common sense, rather through simple reading and unbiased interpretation)".
In fact, I believe that critical thinking is extremely important in understanding the bibles teaching on the fate of the wicked.

7. My opponent stated:

"So as to not ambush my opponent with these rules, and definitions I will allow him one paragraph to say anything he needs to respond to my Round 1 statements."

Definitions and rules should not be an ambush in any sense at all in a debate. It seemed as though your "rules" were a bit of an ambush and I am not sure if they would really qualify as either proper definitions or as rules. Instead it seems that you used the time to make arguments through your rules and through your definition which I find somewhat unsporting. In the future, if you would like to debate this topic or any other topic in a fair and honest manner, I recommend basing your definitions on one given by a dictionary. Moreover, I don't think that commenting on your opponents burden of proof belongs in the acceptance phase of a debate at all and I see it as a breach of the debates format. It is probable that you were even aware of this yourself as you wrote "So as to not ambush my opponent with these rules, and definitions I will allow him one paragraph to say anything he needs to respond to my Round 1 statements."

8. My opponent stated:
"Furthermore, we cannot define what is "God's word" unless an actual god is defined, questioned, and documented as having presented his story in his own words."

When I saw that my opponent was a deist I questioned why he would accept this debate challenge, especially when he would need to argue from a position which I doubt that he holds to; namely that the bible is God's Word. I am not interested in debating "is God the God proclaimed in the Scriptures" or "Is the bible really God's Word". Instead, the topic of the debate presupposes that both debaters believe that Scripture is in fact God's Word.

Because of these reasons I do not believe that I should begin this debate. Instead, I will debating another believing Christian ReformedPhilospher on the same topic here:

http://www.debate.org...
Mangani

Con

In response to my opponent's claims:

1. My opponent did not offer a definition for annihilationism in his Round 1. He didn't even offer a definition as a rebuttal to my own definition in his Round 2. Instead he claims annihilationism is an ancient position... but he doesn't explain that position.

2. My opponent claims he disagrees with my statement "condemned unbelievers will be destroyed or annihilated after death," but only offers a semantic argument, rather than genuine disagreement. He still, at this point, has not offered an alternative definition for annihilationism, rather he has merely pointed out there may be a varying interpretation of the same definition.

3. My opponent obviously recognizes this is a typo, and should realize I was referring to "conditional mortality."

4. My opponent's only rule was that sources not be linked. He didn't set a standard for which version of the Protestant canon he was referring to, so I chose the most accepted version. I offered my opponent the choice of breaking his own rule to justify using any other version with conditions. His response implies he would rather stick to the version he has studied, and the ulterior motive of suppressing alternative interpretations. My rule welcomes all interpretations with the caveat that any variance from the generally accepted true translation (the KJV) be justified with original language references.

5. My opponent seems to misunderstand my standard for the burden of proof. A "normal" person would be one using their own rationale, and objective examination of the arguments rather than their own beliefs, or what a person in position of authority taught them. This condition is presented so as to reject authoritative appelation to leaders of denominations that present their own interpretations, rather than a truthful examination of the texts.

6. Critical thinking is rejected when you accept faith. This is a standard of faith. As such, I am placing the burden on sound interpretation of the actual texts regardless of their scientific veracity or truthfulness, rather their integrity within the context.

7. My rules and definitions may have seemed like an ambush, but that is my opponent's own doing. His own rules state that rules and definitions would be laid out int he first round. He laid out only two rules: 1. Rules and definitions will be posted in the first round (along with rules for the following rounds), and 2. no posting of links. I am currently in violation of the first rule only in response to my opponent's refusal to debate.

8. My rejection of the notion that "God's word" is contained in one book does not affect my ability to accurately debate this topic. In fact, my opponent may be showing I have more of an ability to debate this topic than someone with a biased opinion, emotional attachment, and subjective investment in their position. I gave my opponent the free will to decide what he would identify as God's word, and I even packaged it in the form of variances of the KJV bible. I did not start discussing the Qur'an, nor the Baghavad Gita, nor the Book of Mormon, nor did I even suggest we should look to these other sources as the context of our debate.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Annihilationism defined:
http://christianity.about.com...
http://www.theopedia.com...
http://reknew.org...

These definitions are from very different sources, and they all agree on the basic premise of my definition.

My opponent has no rational reason for refusing this debate after posing it to begin with. I fit the criteria for accepting the debate, and I accepted an open debate. I followed the rules as much as I have been allowed to, and I've done nothing deceptive nor destructive to the integrity of this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
savedbythegraceofgod

Pro

In response to my opponent's claims:

1. My opponent did not offer a definition for annihilationism in his Round 1. He didn't even offer a definition as a rebuttal to my own definition in his Round 2. Instead he claims annihilationism is an ancient position... but he doesn't explain that position.

I am not required to offer any definitions, nether am I required to explain my position as I am not interested in engaging in a rigged debate.


2. My opponent claims he disagrees with my statement "condemned unbelievers will be destroyed or annihilated after death," but only offers a semantic argument, rather than genuine disagreement. He still, at this point, has not offered an alternative definition for annihilationism, rather he has merely pointed out there may be a varying interpretation of the same definition.

This is a genuine disagreement. I do not agree with your definition and do not hold to the position that the "condemned believers will be destroyed or annihilated after death". This is not my position nor is this a proper definition of what annihilism teaches.

3. My opponent obviously recognizes this is a typo, and should realize I was referring to "conditional mortality."

I know that it was a spelling error but you made a different mistake this time. It is not "conditional mortality" but "conditional immortality".

4. My opponent's only rule was that sources not be linked. He didn't set a standard for which version of the Protestant canon he was referring to, so I chose the most accepted version. I offered my opponent the choice of breaking his own rule to justify using any other version with conditions. His response implies he would rather stick to the version he has studied, and the ulterior motive of suppressing alternative interpretations. My rule welcomes all interpretations with the caveat that any variance from the generally accepted true translation (the KJV) be justified with original language references.

I have no "ulterior motive suppressing alternative interpretations". I will be debating this same topic with fellow believer ReformedPhilospher and will gladly accept any translation that he uses as long as it is accurately portrays the Koine Greek. I believe that he should hold me to the same standard.

I'm sorry but you wrote "As such, we shall stick to the tried and true translation of the King James bible using the 1960 revision as the oldest one we should reference in this debate." I do not agree that the KJV is the "true translation" of the text and therefore find no reason to agree to this rule.


5. My opponent seems to misunderstand my standard for the burden of proof. A "normal" person would be one using their own rationale, and objective examination of the arguments rather than their own beliefs, or what a person in position of authority taught them. This condition is presented so as to reject authoritative appelation to leaders of denominations that present their own interpretations, rather than a truthful examination of the texts.

Well, if I truly did misunderstand it then I am afraid that many other "normal" people might have misunderstood it as well.

6. Critical thinking is rejected when you accept faith. This is a standard of faith. As such, I am placing the burden on sound interpretation of the actual texts regardless of their scientific veracity or truthfulness, rather their integrity within the context.

I disagree that critical thinking is rejected when you accept faith and I find this to be one of several extremely offensive things that you have said.

7. My rules and definitions may have seemed like an ambush, but that is my opponent's own doing. His own rules state that rules and definitions would be laid out int he first round. He laid out only two rules: 1. Rules and definitions will be posted in the first round (along with rules for the following rounds), and 2. no posting of links. I am currently in violation of the first rule only in response to my opponent's refusal to debate.

My invitation to accept the debate and post rules was not a way to offer you a platform to begin your argumentation.

8. My rejection of the notion that "God's word" is contained in one book does not affect my ability to accurately debate this topic. In fact, my opponent may be showing I have more of an ability to debate this topic than someone with a biased opinion, emotional attachment, and subjective investment in their position. I gave my opponent the free will to decide what he would identify as God's word, and I even packaged it in the form of variances of the KJV bible. I did not start discussing the Qur'an, nor the Baghavad Gita, nor the Book of Mormon, nor did I even suggest we should look to these other sources as the context of our debate.

I'm sorry but I was seeking an honest debate on the topic. You do not believe that Scripture is God's Word and therefore should never have accepted this debate in the first place.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Annihilationism defined:
http://christianity.about.com......
http://www.theopedia.com......
http://reknew.org......

These definitions are from very different sources, and they all agree on the basic premise of my definition.

They may agree on the "basic premise" of your definition but they do not agree with your definition and I also reject your definition.

My opponent has no rational reason for refusing this debate after posing it to begin with. I fit the criteria for accepting the debate, and I accepted an open debate. I followed the rules as much as I have been allowed to, and I've done nothing deceptive nor destructive to the integrity of this debate.

The debate topic is not whether I have a rational reason for refusing to debate the topic but is whether "Gods Word Teaches Annihilationism". You should never have agreed to the debate if you do not agree with the topic of the debate. Moreover, you should not have used the acceptance phase of the debate as a platform to begin your argumentation.

Mangani

Con

"The debate topic is not whether I have a rational reason for refusing to debate the topic but is whether "Gods Word Teaches Annihilationism"."

You are absolutely right, and I will be sure to debate that topic alone for the remainder of this debate.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________

My opponent has refused to agree to a definition of annihilationism. Even in the debate he has referenced, he is only alluding to a definition of annihilationism. The crux of his argument is equal to the definition I have previously posted. Annihilationism is the teaching that, rather than eternal torment, the "wicked" will be immediately "non-existent" upon death, or after judgment (in any case, the wicked will not be tormented eternally). I will not continue to debate the definition, and if readers disagree with how I perceive my opponent's definition, please reference his other debate and decide for yourself if my definition is consistent with his belief. [A]

I would also like to point out that if immortality is conditional, then so is mortality. Whether the concept is called "conditional immortality" or "conditional mortality," it can be refuted. In any case, it is part of this philosophy taught by Seventh Day Adventists, Jehova's Witnesses, and other fringe groups that support the concept of annihilationism.

My opponent has also argued that the ESV (English Standard Version) is somehow different... more accurate, better translated than the KJV. I would point out that the English Standard Version is simply a later revision of the King James Version, and a different name has been applied due to the many revisions. As such, I will gladly use the ESV using the same standards.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Now to my arguments.
___________________________________

Matt. 25:46- "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (ESV)

This passage does two things. It establishes, in Christ's own words, that the unbelievers will be punished eternally, while the righteous are given eternal life. It also makes clear that the opposite of eternal life is not annihilation, rather eternal punishment. Christ does not equate eternal punishment with immortality.

Revelation 20:10-15- "10 And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever."

Here, John of Patmos makes clear that punishment of the devil, and the false prophet are eternal. Let's see what he says about the "Lake of Fire" and death:

"13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

Here we see clearly that "death" is not equated with annihilation. Neither is the "second death," or final place of torment for eternity- the Lake of Fire. This concept presented by John of Patmos was not new. Here, Christ explains literally the same scenario:

Matt. 25:41- "Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

I believe these passages make it very clear that the bible does not teach annihilationism, rather eternal punishment of the wicked. Hopefully my opponent will present a rebuttal which should give me more material to respond to, as the burden of proof is on him.

Thank you.

[A] http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 3
savedbythegraceofgod

Pro

For anyone interested, it is very likely that I will touch on some of these issues in a debate that I am currently having on the same issue.

http://www.debate.org...
Mangani

Con

My opponent, as Pro, and the position that is NOT with the mainstream, has failed to meet the burden of proof. The bible does NOT teach annihilationism.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
Really? Having read your opponent's responses, I'm sure you prefer to debate someone who really doesn't have a rebuttal. This is not "better" debate... this is called cowardice.
Posted by savedbythegraceofgod 4 years ago
savedbythegraceofgod
Lol. Yes, I meant the Cannon of Dort that was used to help win the Prussian war.

For the sake of the people who actually care about what the bible has to say about this topic I wanted to let you know that I am currently engaged in an actual debate here http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
Ryft, he said cannons... so I'm assuming he means something to do with war? :)
Posted by Ryft 4 years ago
Ryft
What are these alleged many different Protestant canons?
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
Somethings that I find strange with your debate:
1) Your definition of Gods word includes many different protestant cannons, technically, any branch of christianity that came after catholosism would be included, along with their creeds, and interpretations of the bible, which amounts to many different cannons
2) Your rule 'Posting links is not allowed.' Would therefore prohibit website sources.
Posted by savedbythegraceofgod 4 years ago
savedbythegraceofgod
Good point alwaysmorethanyou. When I wrote "God's Word" in the title I was referring to the cannon of scripture accepted by Protestant Christians.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Define 'God's Word'.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
savedbythegraceofgodManganiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried repeatedly to get out of arguing this debate, so conduct points to Con. Con's S&G was impeccable, Pro's was not. S&G points to Con. Pro had no convincing arguments. Argument points go to Con. I abstained from voting on the sources.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
savedbythegraceofgodManganiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro: "I am not required to offer any definitions" No, but when you do not offer any, it is reasonable for Con to assume standard ones. You did not rebut any of his round 3 points, and so Con wins.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
savedbythegraceofgodManganiTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: well saved by the grace of god refused to give the definition of annihilationism which is why I voted for con. I know what it means but i had to look it up.