The Instigator
johnlubba
Con (against)
Tied
12 Points
The Contender
wrichcirw
Pro (for)
Tied
12 Points

I believe God exists, So the story of the Christ is un-necessary

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/9/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,657 times Debate No: 27992
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (42)
Votes (6)

 

johnlubba

Con

This debate is not set out to prove the existence of God, it is to be assumed that God exists with infinite attributes, once agreed upon it is my opponents burden of proof to convince me why we have to also accept a human ( Christ ) alongside God, as God, and having the glory and power of God.

In other words, we can assume the universe was manifested by a creator, using simple logic such as the fine tuning argument, this is not putting the fine tuning argument in the dock, but it is to be accepted as true. once agreed that the universe was indeed created by a very highly intelligent source, God, Then it is my opponents duty to show me why we should necessarily attach the Christ to this awesome power of God.

Also all points should be given for most convincing argument only, I am not as good as most debaters on here and could be simply voted out just for my bad grammar skills.

I look forward to a worthy opponent and will try to make this an interesting debate. Many Thanks
wrichcirw

Pro

I thank johnlubba for hosting this debate. Just to clarify, I interpret that this discussion does not discriminate between religions. It assumes that God exists, and that a figure LIKE Christ, as embodied in scripture like the gospels, is unnecessary. While God exists, His existence is undefined, and indeed undefinable. The Bible is not held to be definitive truth in this context.

I will take the opposite position, that a figure LIKE Christ is necessary to stand alongside God.

Unfortunately I disagree that points should be only for convincing argument, because I have participated in debates where grammar became such an issue that I simply could not ascertain my opponent's logic. Proper grammar and sentence flow adds a lot more to a debate than just form and formality.

Although it is not stipulated in round #1, I will give my opponent the lead and just accept this round. I will also ask that round #5 be reserved only for closing statements, with no new arguments and/or citations presented.

Thanks again, and good luck. Accept.
Debate Round No. 1
johnlubba

Con

I thank my opponent for taking the debate,

I gather my opponent will argue that a figure LIKE Christ is necessary to stand along side God.

I am a bit confused here because my opponent is deterring away from the meaning of the Christ I intended to put forth, which is the Biblical Christ.
However I will let my curiosity be satisfied by allowing my opponent to go first, and let him construct an argument for why a figure LIKE Christ is necessary to stand along side God and show why he should share in the power and glory of God.

Also by request, my opponent wants votes to be awarded for grammar skills, to which I accept.

I hand the debate to wrichcriw.
wrichcirw

Pro

Well, this is by far the most civil beginning to a debate I've had on this website lol.

I thank my opponent for letting me lead. As he stated, I also agree that grammar be weighed ONLY IF it interferes with the argument (i.e. only if grammar is so bad it interferes with meaning), otherwise, grammar is completely neutral - format should not be considered for awarding points.

First, I will aim straight for the Christian argument.

Anyone familiar with Christianity is familiar with the concept of the Trinity to some degree. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God, yet for some reason we seek to create separate distinctions for them.

In math terms, this makes complete sense, as if you divide infinity by three, you still get infinity. I illustrate this simple principle to demonstrate that such distinctions are less an actual separation of divinity than they are for people to be able to comprehend divinity in our limited fashion. Christ is God, yes, but only in the sense that it helps us to understand one specific aspect of God, His love via sacrifice (John 3:16). Such love is defined in the New Testament by the story of Christ, but is almost a foreign concept in the Old Testament - Abraham and Job are examples where sacrifice is demanded from God's people, but God does not ever sacrifice FOR his people.

To have God demonstrate such a concept as self-sacrifice to His creation thus sets an example for His creation to emulate it. Without a Christ figure, it is impossible to find in the Bible where God reciprocates his love to the extent demanded from his people. Without such reciprocation, God's love is not manifest. To the extent that God IS love (I John 4:7-8), to not have the Christ in Christianity would be synonymous to Christianity not having God.


Now I will demonstrate Christ-like figures in other religions.

First of all, the Bible without Christ is almost synonymous with Judaism. Although Judaism does not have a figure where man=God, it does have figures that were so filled with the Spirit that they were able to commune with God and provide a link from God to man - these people are the prophets. [1] Like Christ, these prophets led and taught through their connection to divinity, and set the example for others to follow. Like Christ, Abraham was willing to sacrifice what was most dear to him (Isaac) to show his love for God. Job, while not a prophet, was certainly a man the "Spirit of God hath made" (Job 33:4), who set an example that all Jews and Christians do well to follow. Without these prophets, the link between God and man simply would not exist.

In Buddhism, it is also a man, Gautama, who achieves enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, thus providing a path to Nirvana for all to follow. To the extent where Nirvana represents an otherworldly existence free of suffering, the Buddha thus connects man to the divine. Without the Buddha, this connection would not exist.

The Egyptian Osiris myth is another interesting example. Osiris was descended from divinity and brought the Egyptians agriculture, but is much more known for being the god of the dead. To the extent that overcoming death is itself a divine power, and that Osiris was the one to "admit all people to the Duat, the gentle, fertile land in which the righteous dead lived, that had lived a good and correct life upon earth," [2] Osiris also embodied a Christ-like figure to no small degree. That he became popular due to the attraction of the afterlife is a direct precursor to the popularity enjoyed by Christianity hundreds of years later.

A more contemporary example manifests in the movie Contact. [3] Although the Jodie Foster character is an adamant atheist, she falls in love with a priest, and indeed has an encounter with otherworldly beings that in many ways resembles a contact with divinity, what she deems as indescribably beautiful. (video) This divinity manifests itself to her by taking the form of a man, specifically her father, in order to communicate in a fashion that her limited consciousness could understand.


Throughout all these examples, one clear pattern emerges - the need for a human, empowered by the divine, to communicate the wishes of the divine to man. Without this divinely inspired human, mankind would be left in the dark, without vision or guidance, and forever left to its imperfections. To the extent that religions seek to inspire men to perfection (i.e. entrance to heaven, Nirvana, technological transcendence, etc), to not have this core link, this divine man, would be akin to not having the religion at all. Without the religion to proclaim the existence of God, God would not exist to man.

CONCLUSION

In Christianity, God manifests through Christ to demonstrate love. As God IS love, to not have the Christ would be akin to not having God. Therefore, to have God, one MUST have the Christ.

In other religions, in order for man to perceive God's existence, God must somehow manifest in the form of a man in order to display His divinity. Without this display, mankind would be ignorant of God's existence. Therefore, such a man is absolutely necessary in order to prove God's existence.

Given this logic, it is impossible to believe in God without a Christ-like figure, be it Christ or a similar figure in another religion or belief system. The Christ figure is absolutely necessary to establish God's existence.



[1] http://www.jewfaq.org...
[2] http://www.egyptianmyths.net...
[3] http://www.imdb.com...



Debate Round No. 2
johnlubba

Con

Thank you

Firstly I will begin by stating for the sake of the argument, that we both accept God exists. That being said I will bring up further points in relation to this statement a little bit further down.

What my dispute is, Why should a human being be elevated and be made to be equal to God's status.

The Christ I intended to dispute has been acknowledged by my opponent as Jesus Christ the Biblical Character,
I was confused as to why my opponent stated she would argue that a figure LIKE Christ is necessary, I was dubious as to how she would try and swing the debate. Because I never made it clear enough that I intend to debate the character of the Biblical Christ in my opening round, I just said the Christ. it seems my opponent has created a loophole and would like to argue for the Biblical Christ and any figure LIKE Christ.

Therefore confirming that God already exists, I will contend that no human figure in the history of mankind is necessary or moreover are they worthy enough to be promoted to the status as being on equal level and terms with a character such as God.

I will now look at my opponents argument for the Biblical Christ being on an equal level with God.

Opponents argument

1 Anyone familiar with Christianity is familiar with the concept of the Trinity to some degree. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all God, yet for some reason we seek to create separate distinctions for them.

Rebuttal 1, Being familiar with a concept does not make the concept any truer. You are saying, Because it is a familiar concept it has some validity. I offer an answer as to why you can distinguish between Jesus and God below.

Opponents argument 2,
In math terms, this makes complete sense, as if you divide infinity by three, you still get infinity.

Rebuttal 2
God alone is infinite, that is a characteristic of God, First you have to prove Jesus was also infinite.
This is what my whole argument rests on, God has certain attributes that make God, God.
If God did not have these attributes then he would simply not be God.
For example God must be in the very least, Supreme.

Allow me to repeat on this. God simply must posses certain attributes otherwise he simply would not be God. In the very least God must be called Supreme, otherwise he would not be worthy of the title of God.

A definition of Supreme

su"preme (s-prm)
adj.
1. Greatest in power, authority, or rank; paramount or dominant.
2. Greatest in importance, degree, significance, character, or achievement.
3. Ultimate; final

If God is not any of the above, he would not be God, Someone else would be worthy of the title.
No one can be equal to God or surpass God. You have to offer more proof of Jesus having the qualities and attributes such as God would have by definition. Jesus does not carry these attributes by definition. Logically God has to posses these attributes.
...............

No one can be equal to God or surpass God. You have to offer more proof of Jesus necessarily having the qualities and attributes like infinity such as God would have.
.........................................

My opponent further points out that God has asked for sacrifices from his people according to the Biblical story and points to the story of Job and Abraham as examples of US having to offer a sacrifice to God, but states that God has never sacrificed anything for us. .....

Rebuttal 3 My opponent only refers to Biblical scripture, as evidence for an authoritative source for this claim. As my opponent accepts the use of eastern philosophy into the debate by building his own case, I will use a little eastern philosophy of my own to rebuttal the claim that God does not sacrifice for his people.

Indeed I will show below how in the Indian Vedic Literature God himself is the supreme sacrifice.
.......................

But it is I who am the ritual, I the sacrifice, the offering to the ancestors, the healing herb, the transcendental chant. I am the butter and the fire and the offering.

Chapter 9. The Most Confidential Knowledge

TEXT 16

http://www.asitis.com...

Theories on the date of composition of the Gita vary considerably. Scholars accept dates from fifth century to second century BCE as the probable range. Professor Jeaneane Fowler, in her commentary on the Gita, considers second century BCE to be the likely date of composition.[4] Kashi Nath Upadhyaya, a Gita scholar, on the basis of the estimated dates of Mahabharata,

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The date of God as the sacrifice dated back before Jesus had to be sacrificed, In Hinduism God is the actual sacrifice, Everything is actually contained inside God and is non separate from God, meaning nothing is apart from God, He is the source of all creation, The moment God decided to begin creation, was already the ultimate sacrifice. As stated above God is everything, nothing is separate from God. But at the same time it doesn't mean that everything is God.

And here we can make the distinction.

Just because everything exists within God does not make everything as God.

For example Plato quoted.

Therefore, we may consequently state that: this world is indeed a living being endowed with a soul and intelligence ... a single visible living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.

Plato...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Further more the universe is a living entity containing all other living entities, which by their nature are all related.....

So just because we exist inside God or Gods energy and share this chemical attribute, it doesn't make us one as God.

Just because people exist on earth and are made of earth, it doesn't qualify anybody to call themselves the whole planet. Which is what the Character Jesus tries to do, elevate himself to God status.
.......

Just like a drop of water from an ocean shares the same chemical atributes, the drop of water can not call itself the whole ocean

I will also continue to say that my opponent argues the case of the Buddha being a figure that is necessary for reaching the divine. and defines divinity as God throughout the debate.

Buddhists do not concern themselves wit ideas of God and Buddha rejected the Vedas,
I hope you concede this point.

I also hope you realise that no figure is necessary to be elevated to Gods status for God to still keep his status.

I hand the debate back over to my opponent and look forward to her response.
wrichcirw

Pro

I thank my opponent for his candid response.

Before I begin, I want to remind readers that PRO and CON are reversed in this debate, and that I am arguing that "a figure LIKE Christ is necessary to stand alongside God." To make it less confusing I will address my opponent as "my opponent" instead of CON.

1) I want to clear up a gross misconception made by my opponent. Not once have I mixed religions. The Bhagavad Gita DOES NOT DEFINE CHRISTIANITY IN ANY MEANINGFUL SENSE. Only Christian doctrine defines God and Christ within the confines of Christianity. Other documents from other religions are wholly invalid in discussing the Christian God in ANY MANNER (with few exceptions such as Judaism, as they share many texts). They are only relevant to their own distinctive religions.

Therefore, to the extent that "God exists with infinite attributes," each religion defines what those attributes of God may be WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE RELIGIONS. When my opponent quotes the Bhagavad Gita, he is discussing the Hindu version of God. This has no relevance in defining the Christian God.

Along these same lines, what Plato thinks of the Christian God is also wholly irrelevant in defining the Christian concept of God. Plato may have an idea of what he would consider a God-like entity, but this entity has no relevance or relation to the Christian God, other than that they both "exist[] with infinite attributes."

If my opponent wants to describe Plato's beliefs and the Hindu concept of God, he is welcome to do so as long as he does not mix religions.


2) My opponent's use of the word "Supreme" is wholly irrelevant to this debate. Even if he insists there is only one God in the Christian canon, I have already agreed to such an assertion. I have already stated that "such distinctions [like the Trinity] are less an actual separation of divinity than they are for people to be able to comprehend divinity in our limited fashion." I have already argued that such distinctions are "absolutely necessary to establish God's existence."


3) My opponent asks: "Why should a human being be elevated and be made to be equal to God's status." My answer is simple. Jesus is the Son of God. He IS God, as demonstrated through scripture that cite the existence of the Trinity (see Isaiah 43:10-11 below).


4) My opponent brings up that in the Buddhist belief, "Buddhists do not concern themselves wit [sic] ideas of God and Buddha." However, they do believe in an entity with infinite attributes, this entity being Nirvana:

"Nirvana is eternal because it is beyond space, there is no causation, no boundary, no concept of self and not-self and thus Nirvana is infinite." [1]

Nirvana fits the definition of "God" as proffered by my opponent in Round #1 - Nirvana "exists with infinite attributes." Is it the Christian God? Absolutely not. But it does indeed fit the definition of what God may be outside of Christianity. I remind my opponent and voters that Nirvana has no relevance whatsoever to the Christian version of God.

To reiterate, within the confines of the Buddhist religion, Buddha does indeed provide the link between man and Nirvana - without Buddha's enlightenment, this link would not exist, and thus "God" would not exist to Buddhists. They would be unable to comprehend the concept of "God" to any degree without the Buddha.


5) To rebut my opponent's rebuttals,

a) I found rebuttal #1 to be irrelevant to the debate topic, other than to say that he considers the Trinity to not be a valid concept. I will cite Scripture to rebut his rebuttal presently.
b) Rebuttal #2: my opponent states: "God alone is infinite, that is a characteristic of God, First you have to prove Jesus was also infinite. This is what my whole argument rests on, God has certain attributes that make God, God."

I have no idea why my opponent thinks that "God alone is infinite," or why "that is a characteristic of God." or specifically that he thinks the Trinity is invalid. I can cite plenty of Scripture however that indeed makes the distinction between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit (thereby validating the concept of Trinity):

Matthew 28:18-20 "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you, and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’"

Luke 3:21-22 "Now it came about when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also was baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, ‘You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.’"

1 Corinthians 2:10-11 "For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God." (The Holy Spirit knows all things)

Acts 5:3-4 "But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men, but to God.’" (The Holy Spirit is God)

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God [qeo;" h\\n oJ logo"]. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." (Jesus is God)

Isaiah 43:10-11 "‘You are My witnesses,’ declares Yehovah, ‘And My servant whom I have chosen, in order that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no El formed, and there will be none after Me. I, even I, am Yehovah; and there is no Savior besides Me.’" (The Father Claims to be Savior alone) [2]

Keep in mind that for the purposes of defining the Christian God, Biblical Scripture is THE AUTHORITY. NOTHING TRUMPS SCRIPTURE, AND IN SCRIPTURE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE ARE THREE SEPARATE DISTINCTIONS - THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THAT ALL OF THESE DISTINCTIONS ARE GOD.

I can keep going with Scripture, but I am running out of room.


Outside of these statements, my opponent made irrelevant comparisons with Hinduism and Platonic philosophy, and attempted to use them to define the Christian God, which is totally unacceptable given the confines of Christianity. He also did not establish them as their own separate creed or religion.


Therefore, I will simply reiterate my conclusions from the prior round as I have found them to be uncontested:

In Christianity, God manifests through Christ to demonstrate love. As God IS love, to not have the Christ would be akin to not having God. Therefore, to have God, one MUST have the Christ.

In other religions, in order for man to perceive God's existence, God must somehow manifest in the form of a man in order to display His divinity. Without this display, mankind would be ignorant of God's existence. Therefore, such a man is absolutely necessary in order to prove God's existence.

Given this logic, it is impossible to believe in God without a Christ-like figure, be it Christ or a similar figure in another religion or belief system. The Christ figure is absolutely necessary to establish God's existence.


[1] http://www.buddhanet.net...
[2] http://www.layevangelism.com...; (not a source, just a reference for Trinity Bible verses)

Debate Round No. 3
johnlubba

Con

Thank You.

I want to bring it to the audiences attention that my opponent started out by saying she will defend a figure LIKE Christ as being on equal terms in power and status as God. As well as the Biblical Christ.
In round two my opponent presented arguments from a Buddhist point of view and in also an ancient Egyptian point of view and also Jodie Foster in the film contact, as examples of those who are not Christians but have the ability to link and communicate with God.

I will now point out that above in round 3 my opponent claims that using other religions as references are not prohibited although he himself was the first to cite such references outside of Christianity.

I will ask the audience here to make a special not of how my opponent wishes to cite sources outside of Christianity to further strengthen her arguments, but when I do so he claims it is irrelevant to the Christian God.

I will also like to point out that I do not argue a for or against the Christian God.

I make no reference to God as being confined by he narrative of Christianity or any such religion, all I offer is examples of equally established authoritative religions that contradict each other.

For example my opponent claims God makes no sacrifice himself for humanity, until the arrival of Jesus, According to Christianity.
Although we can accept Christianity as one authority source, there are other religions who can claim equal authority, and can conclude quite the contrary, as I have shown above in my round two, by quoting the Gita. God indeed is himself the ultimate sacrifice.

I see no reason why the Christian narrative of God should be used as the only authoritative source, and I make no special reference to the Christian God as being the one true God, therefore I can simply ignore the arguments presented by my opponent as bias to only one version of God I gave my definition of God in round one as the creator of the cosmos, and a highly intelligent being, also in my round three I said God must carry certain attributes to be qualified for the title God, such as being supreme.

This establishes Gods position in this argument, God is God full stop, If somebody is higher in rank than God, then God o longer qualifies to be God, as there is somebody else who is now superior to God, that would make that somebody the highest in rank, and would qualify them for the title as God. time I mentioned that this is in the very least how we must define God.

Now we have established by logic that God must necessarily be the highest in rank or the supreme being, we now have to workout how A man called Jesus is to elevated to being on an equal level to God in power rank and authority.

Just because my opponent states a Biblical scripture in which Jesus himself declares himself as being given ultimate authority, is not enough to convince me that just because it is written in the bible it is true He states.

Matthew 28:18-20 "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,

Even C.S Lewis, Claims Jesus is either a liar a lunatic or Lord.

If you ask me, I do not believe Jesus, but I could be wrong, but one thing I do know is that the answer to C.S Lewis claim, is that the answer ultimately rests on faith. A faith believing in what Jesus said was true.

I don't believe it.

I see no reason why Jesus has to adopt the highest ranking authority as being God.

Assuming this is true for a minute
Notice how Jesus says

Matthew 28:18-20 "And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

So even according to this scripture, authority was given to Jesus by a higher authority, meaning Jesus was never God but was made superior to God, by gaining ultimate authority.

I consider Jesus as an impostor, the definition of an impostor is somebody who assumes the identity of another. Jesus elevates himself to having the ultimate authority of God, this is blasphemy in the highest sense.

Also Nirvana is a Buddhist state of mind, it is the ultimate goal, it is not a reference to God, at all. indeed Buddhist do not concern themselves with God.
wrichcirw

Pro

Again, I thank my opponent for a candid response.

I also want to remind voters again that PRO and CON are reversed in this debate, and that I am arguing that "a figure LIKE Christ is necessary to stand alongside God."


A) It seems my opponent is still confused by what I mean by "Christ-LIKE". Although I thought we had resolved this before we started the debate, I will repeat what I described in round #2:

"...the need for a human, empowered by the divine, to communicate the wishes of the divine to man. Without this divinely inspired human, mankind would be left in the dark, without vision or guidance, and forever left to its imperfections. To the extent that religions seek to inspire men to perfection... to not have this core link...would be akin to not having the religion at all. Without the religion to proclaim the existence of God, God would not exist to man."

This human is indeed "Christ-LIKE" in that without this human, the connection to (a non-denominational) God would not exist. How these other religions and belief systems define God is their business, and irrelevant to Christianity.

Again, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF CHRISTIANITY, without Christ, there would be no concept of God's love. As God IS love (I John 4:7-8), to not have the Christ would be akin to not having God.


B) I remind my opponent (again) that I am a male. I would appreciate it if he stops confusing this simple fact...it is getting on my nerves. We are not in a debate about prostitution, and I am no longer arguing for gender equality:
http://debate.org...


C) I will now address my opponent's new slew of myriad and unfortunate mishaps in mixing religions, and also rebut any counter-arguments:


1) My opponent states: "I will ask the audience here to make a special not [sic] of how my opponent wishes to cite sources outside of Christianity to further strengthen her arguments, but when I do so he claims it is irrelevant to the Christian God."

First of all, my opponent is correct in his assertion. However, my opponent remains confused here in that he thinks it is proper to mix religions. Again, he is welcome to cite sources outside Christianity to further strengthen his arguments. However, he must keep those sources WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE RELIGIONS. Those sources are indeed irrelevant to the Christian God.
For example, I would not use Biblical Scripture to describe Nirvana. That would simply be inappropriate. Similarly, I would not use the Bhagavad Gita to describe the Christian God. That is also inappropriate.


2) My opponent states: "For example my opponent claims God makes no sacrifice himself for humanity, until the arrival of Jesus, According to Christianity. Although we can accept Christianity as one authority source, there are other religions who can claim equal authority, and can conclude quite the contrary, as I have shown above in my round two, by quoting the Gita. God indeed is himself the ultimate sacrifice."

Again, my opponent is MIXING RELIGIONS HERE. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS TO THE CHRISTIAN GOD IS CHRISTIAN SOURCES, SPECIFICALLY BIBLICAL SCRIPTURE. If he wants to make a case about Hinduism, he must first define the Hindu God, and then demonstrate that a Christ-LIKE figure is unnecessary for Hinduism. To my knowledge my opponent simply has not done so - he continually applies the Bhagavad Gita to Christianity. To my knowledge, Hinduism does not make any substantive claim that God IS Love to anywhere near the extent that it defines Christianity. Not only that, my opponent's source does not define the sacrifice as God. In fact, from my opponent's source (not including wikipedia), I cannot even deduce what the Hindu concept of God would be.

However, if I include his source in Wikipedia, I find that indeed a CHRIST-LIKE FIGURE IS NECESSARY FOR HINDUISM AS WELL:

"The sacrifice known as jyotistoma is also Krsna, and He is also themaha-yajna."
http://www.asitis.com...
"Bhakti yoga: (contains 20 verses) In this chapter Krishna glorifies the path of devotion to God. Krishna describes the process of devotional service (Bhakti yoga)."
"Purusottama yoga: (contains 20 verses) Krishna identifies the transcendental characteristics of God such as, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence"
http://en.wikipedia.org...


KRISHNA (not God) IS THE SACRIFICE. KRISHNA IS THE LINK IN HINDUISM FROM GOD TO MANKIND - KRISHNA IS THE ONE WHO EDUCATES HINDUS ON THE HINDU CONCEPT OF GOD. KRISHNA IS THE CHRIST-LIKE FIGURE IN HINDUISM.


3) My opponent states: "I see no reason why the Christian narrative of God should be used as the only authoritative source, and I make no special reference to the Christian God as being the one true God, therefore I can simply ignore the arguments presented by my opponent as bias to only one version of God"

When it comes to the CHRISTIAN GOD, ONLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES DEFINE IT. When it comes to the HINDU GOD, ONLY HINDU SOURCES DEFINE IT. When it comes to the BUDDHIST "GOD", ONLY BUDDHIST SOURCES DEFINE IT.


4) My opponent states: "also in my round three I said God must carry certain attributes to be qualified for the title God, such as being supreme."

This was NOT PRESENTED IN ROUND #1. I have no reason to accept this new definition of God when God was already defined in round #1. My opponent is equivocating here.


5) My opponent states: "Just because my opponent states a Biblical scripture in which Jesus himself declares himself [sic] as being given ultimate authority, is not enough to convince me that just because it is written in the bible it is true He states."

My opponent apparently did not read one of the verses I sourced:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God [qeo;" h\\n oJ logo"]. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." (Jesus is God)

The very first verse in the Book of John clearly states that the Word = God = Flesh (Jesus). These were not Jesus's words, these are the words of the Gospel. If you don't believe in the Gospel, then you do not believe in the Christian God.


6) My opponent states: "If you ask me, I do not believe Jesus, but I could be wrong, but one thing I do know is that the answer to C.S Lewis claim, is that the answer ultimately rests on faith. A faith believing in what Jesus said was true."

My opponent is waffling on his own position here. He concedes he may be wrong about his position. To the extent that my opponent concedes his position, he concedes this debate.

On faith, I agree with my opponent. It is faith in Jesus that determines whether or not someone accepts Jesus as true. It is faith in the Christian God that determines whether or not someone accepts the Christian God as true. It is faith in Buddhism that determines whether or not someone accepts Nirvana as true.

HOWEVER, IT IS NOT FAITH IN BUDDHISM THAT DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE ACCEPTS THE CHRISTIAN GOD AS TRUE.



I have nothing to add, since my opponent still has not contested any of my conclusions from round #2 and is indeed considering forfeiting this debate, so I will again restate them:

In Christianity, God manifests through Christ to demonstrate love. As God IS love (I John 4:7-8), to not have the Christ would be akin to not having God. Therefore, to have God, one MUST have the Christ.

In other religions, in order for man to perceive God's existence, God must somehow manifest in the form of a man in order to display His divinity. Without this display, mankind would be ignorant of God's existence. Therefore, such a [Christ-LIKE figure] is absolutely necessary in order to prove God's existence.

Given this logic, it is impossible to believe in God without a Christ-like figure, be it Christ or a similar figure in ANOTHER RELIGION OR BELIEF SYSTEM. The Christ figure is absolutely necessary to establish God's existence.


In my closing statement I will cite I John 4:7-8 and John 3:16, as I am now out of room.
Debate Round No. 4
johnlubba

Con

You are playing unfairly and using semantics

You begin by saying you want to argue for a figure LIKE Christ, Then you argue for the actual Biblical Christ and any other figure who is like Christ.

This is where you are confusing the debate.

Either you are arguing against the Biblical Christ or not.
I do not see why you have to include other figures as being like Christ, when my contention is that Chris should not be be elevated to God status.

You say you wish to reject my definition of God as supreme, Ok
So you reject the Christian God is supreme,

That makes the Christian God subordinate to another entity. If God is not supreme or the highest in rank, then somebody is higher and deserves the title instead.

I do not see why my opponent claims only the Christian God is applicable to this debate, I never once refer to the Christian God as being the ultimate God.

I only state God is the creator of the cosmos and is highly intelligent. and further state God in the very least in supreme.

If Jesus is God as you wish to claim, you must prove how he created the Cosmos, not just referring to Biblical scripture and say things like in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word is God.
That is humbug.

I want to see hardcore factual evidence that Jesus is responsible for creating the Cosmos.

I want hardcore factual evidence that Jesus is the highest in authority all over the Cosmos,

Not just references from a Biblical narrative.

I could simply counter argue with Hinduism, which is what I was actually doing, not to claim it as factual, but to show that other narratives have similar claims.

What makes Jesus so special in comparison.

My contention is, I believe in God so the story of the Christ is un-necessary to have a relationship with God.

Indeed lots of Muslims and Hindus and all types of religions have a relationship with God, am I to believe because all these people reject Christ that they are not able to communicate with God.

That is absurd.

To think the Christ is necessary to reach God is preposterous.

We already agree that God exists, so if God exists, he does not need any assistance or for anybody to speak on his behalf and neither is anybody equal to God.

What Jesus is actually doing, is stealing Gods limelight. instead of people having a relationship with the creator, they are instead diverted to praying to a man that once lived and claimed to die for us,

Even if his claim that he died for us was the intention of Jesus, it does not necessarily make it true.

Only according to the Christian religion did God not offer any sacrifice for humanity until Jesus, but other religions claim the contrary, as I pointed out, in Hinduism God is the actual sacrifice. Certain parts of Hinduism claim Krisna is God, who incarnated into a man, similar to the story of Jesus, if my opponent can not believe Krisna is God, then why should I accept Jesus was.

I make no special case for the Christian God as being THE TRUE GOD.

This is only my opponents opinion, I hold no such opinion.

Jesus is not worthy of being equal to God. simply because he never portrayed any such feats a God is able to perform, Such as creating the cosmos or even a planet within the cosmos.

Jesus did however turn water into wine, and walk on water, heal the sick and raise the dead.

all of these feats are performed by modern day magicians, such as Dynamo who turns a bottle of coke into a fanta and vice a versa, Dynamo walks across the river Thames in broad daylight in front of hundreds of spectators.

Some people think he is God. But he unlike Jesus, admits it is nothing but illusion.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

http://www.thesun.co.uk...

Also healing the sick is easily achieved with the use of stooges,

I have no way of knowing if Jesus really raised the dead, but I am sure some magician somewhere can convince unwitting bystanders it's possible.

It's interesting how people can be easily deceived.

Jesus is only a man who performed some magic and convinced people he is God.

But It is clear he is not God and should not be assumed so, no more than any other figure or character should be assumed so.

Jesus is an impostor who assumes the identity of another God.

I thank my opponent for taking this debate, althoguh I think he uses to much semantic by claiming to argue for a figure LIKe Christ instaed of trying to just argue the case for christ.

It seems he would like to have his cake and eat it.

Vote Pro.
wrichcirw

Pro

First, I want to begin by reminding voters that both PRO and CON agreed that grammar would not be an issue unless it interfered with meaning. While my opponent is evidently confused, I do not see any egregious instances where his grammar interfered with his ability to argue. Therefore, on behalf of my opponent, I ask that grammar be weighed neutral in this debate.

I also want to remind voters of my argument as established in round #1, that "I will take the opposite position, that a figure LIKE Christ is necessary to stand alongside God."


I will now (again) attempt to cure my opponent of his confusion:


1) My opponent states: "Either you are arguing against the Biblical Christ or not."

My opponent is correct. I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST THE BIBLICAL CHRIST.


2) My opponent states: "So you reject the Christian God is supreme, that makes the Christian God subordinate to another entity."

Incorrect. I stated that "My opponent's use of the word "Supreme" is wholly irrelevant to this debate." I can care less who is subordinate to whom. It does nothing to advance the argument at hand.


3) My opponent states: "I do not see why my opponent claims only the Christian God is applicable to this debate..."

I never made this claim. My opponent is putting words into my mouth. I said that " for the purposes of defining the Christian God, Biblical Scripture is THE AUTHORITY." "If [my opponent] wants to make a case about Hinduism, he must first define the Hindu God."

My opponent does not seem to understand that there are many religions in the world, all of which claim their concept of God to be the One True God. All of these concepts of "One True God" coexist, even if none of the religions would acknowledge the existence of other God(s).


4) My opponent wants "to see hardcore factual evidence that Jesus is responsible for creating the Cosmos."

At this point, we are ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN CONCEPT OF GOD. THEREFORE, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF CHRISTIANITY, SCRIPTURE IS THE AUTHORITY. I QUOTE AGAIN THE SAME SCRIPTURE:

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God [qeo;" h\\n oJ logo"]. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." (Jesus is God)

According to Christianity, JESUS IS GOD. That is all.

Perhaps my opponent is stating that Jesus has no religious significance outside of Christianity. Besides this observation's worth as a non-sequitor, if that is the case, see my next point.


5) "Not just references from a Biblical narrative."

It seems my opponent does not subscribe to Christianity when he talks about God. I did not realize this...he gave every indication he was talking about the Christian God when he referenced God and Christ:

"...it is my opponents burden of proof to convince me why we have to also accept a human ( Christ ) alongside God..."
"Ok, in your first round you state in capital letters LIKE Christ, I'm a bit confused as to your approach here, I am claiming the one and only Christ, Jesus. The Christ we are talking about." (in comments section when negotiating how we were going to debate)



Given this turn of events, I will simply state that MY OPPONENT IS CREATING HIS OWN RELIGION:

a) He has a concept of God that neither you nor I know or understand.
b) His concept of God does not conform to any one religious doctrine.
c) He aims to communicate his concept of God to you and me.
d) He aims to convince us that his views are correct.

MY OPPONENT IS THUS ASSUMING THE CHRIST-LIKE ENTITY IN HIS OWN RELIGION. Like Christ himself, and John Smith (Mormon), Elijah Muhammad (NoI), the Jewish prophets, Buddha, and Osiris, these "prophets" claim that they see God in His True Splendor, and it is up to them to communicate God to us.

My opponent thus fits EXACTLY into my definition of a Christ-LIKE entity:

"In other religions, in order for man to perceive God's existence, God must somehow manifest in the form of a man in order to display His divinity. Without this display, mankind would be ignorant of God's existence. Therefore, such a man is absolutely necessary in order to prove God's existence."

Without my opponent, I would most certainly be ignorant of what his concept of God would be. At this time I am still somewhat ignorant of his concept of God, although I know more about it now than I did before the debate began.


6) My opponent states: "My contention is, I believe in God so the story of the Christ is un-necessary to have a relationship with God."

I now understand that my opponent is NOT TALKING ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN GOD. Again, I will assert that my opponent is creating his own religion. I have demonstrated that even in his own religion, a Christ-LIKE entity (my opponent) is absolutely necessary in order for mankind to know that his God exists.


7) "Indeed lots of Muslims and Hindus and all types of religions have a relationship with God, am I to believe because all these people reject Christ that they are not able to communicate with God."

Again, MUSLIMS HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE MUSLIM GOD, AND HINDUS HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE HINDU GOD. MY OPPONENT HAS A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS OWN VERSION OF GOD. ALL OF THESE RELIGIONS NEED A CHRIST-LIKE FIGURE IN ORDER FOR MANKIND TO KNOW THAT THEIR GOD EXISTS. Muslims have Mohammad, Hindus have Krishna, and my opponent has himself.


8) "To think the Christ is necessary to reach God is preposterous." "Jesus is an impostor who assumes the identity of another God."

MY OPPONENT IS DEFINING ONE ASPECT OF HIS RELIGION HERE. IF NOT FOR MY OPPONENT, I WOULD NOT KNOW THIS ABOUT HIS VERSION OF GOD. THEREFORE, MY OPPONENT IS THE CHRIST-LIKE FIGURE IN HIS OWN RELIGION.


CLOSING COMMENTS:

I did not expect my opponent to be this confused by my argument. I also did not expect my opponent to proffer his own concept of God that does not conform to any of the world's religions. Regardless, through the course of this debate, everything I have said in round #2 holds, and indeed, IF ONE BELIEVES GOD EXISTS, A CHRIST-LIKE ENTITY IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

I will repeat my round #2 arguments:

In Christianity, God manifests through Christ to demonstrate love. As God IS love (I John 4:7-8), to not have the Christ would be akin to not having God. Therefore, to have God, one MUST have the Christ.

In other religions, in order for man to perceive God's existence, God must somehow manifest in the form of a man in order to display His divinity. Without this display, mankind would be ignorant of God's existence. Therefore, such a [Christ-LIKE figure] is absolutely necessary in order to prove God's existence.

Given this logic, it is impossible to believe in God without a Christ-like figure, be it Christ or a similar figure in ANOTHER RELIGION OR BELIEF SYSTEM. The Christ figure is absolutely necessary to establish God's existence.

My opponent has done nothing to refute these assertions.


I will now also cite two verses in Scripture to define the Christian God, and how Christ is absolutely necessary
to Christianity:



I John 4:7-8
(7) Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God
and knows God. (8) Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

John 3:16
(16) For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him
shall not perish but have eternal life.

http://www.biblegateway.com...
http://www.biblegateway.com...



My opponent needs to realize that if he considers himself a Christian, to not believe Christ is necessary is heresy. I'm not sure if my opponent believes in Christianity or not, just pointing that out to him.

I'm not sure my opponent knows where he is going with his argument. However, I am certain I know where I am going with mine. I have stayed consistent throughout, and have easily affirmed that IF ONE BELIEVES GOD EXISTS, A CHRIST-LIKE ENTITY IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

I thank my opponent for hosting this debate, and I thank the voters in advance for voting my position.
Debate Round No. 5
42 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
It's worked for me a couple times.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
It never works, I have tried many times in the past.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
report comment button with the big red flag.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
How do we get rid of the spammers.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Think about it this way.

I can discuss Christ without having to accept he is God, Just because within Christianity Christ is God,

Again it does not make it true, First the Christian God needs to be shown why he can not be God unless he reinstates the Character of Jesus.
My contention all along, is that God is self suffiecent and does not lack anything, this is the nature of God, He does not need to adopt the character of a human being. If anything, to say God needs to do this or that to establish Himself, is only diminishing the awsome power of God.

You are right by saying I define my on God, but
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
Then I am talking abut Christ within Christianity, But not as God. Only as a human.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
"I am talking about Chrstianity, But only concerning Christ not God."

You just made a contradiction. Christ IS GOD in Christianity.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Let me ask you something.

If you decided to not define God within the context of Christianity, why would anyone think you were defining Christ within the confines of Christianity?

In this sense, I was wholly justified to argue along the lines of a Christ-LIKE entity, which is exactly what I did.

You need to be MUCH MORE CLEAR about your resolution if you want to argue something this specific.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
I am talking about Chrstianity, But only concerning Christ not God.

Chist is only God according to the Christian narrative.

Not in my opinion of God. God is not only defined in the Christian sense. God can be defined by many religions and non religions, such as Deism.

Anyway I know I made a lot of mistakes in this debate and don't feel like I did that well.

So Good luck to you. and me, me thinks. :)
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
"Yes the Christian view on Christ, not on God.

I do not accept Christ is God. for the same reasons I do not accept any man as God."

1) You never specified this.

2) In Christianity, Christ IS God. I had absolutely no reason to think that when you said God in the context of Christ, that you were not talking about Christianity.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
johnlubbawrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I felt required to honor agreements made by both contestants that I score only the "Convincing Arguments" category, and award S&G only if errors became so numerous that they prevented the debate from being understandable. Further, I was required here to assume that a god of some kind actually exists. To this: the argument presented by Pro is that inclusion in the godhead is a necessary component of Christ: "The Father, the Son.." I agree that this is an accurate read of Abrahamic literature, but Con asserts in R3: "I do not argue for or against the Christian God." From here, I felt that the debate was impossible to score. Much of Pro's argument was built on an understandable idea that the debate was to discuss a Christian concept (Jesus). I came to the following conclusion: 1- Jesus is incompatible with any other god than the Christian one, and 2- It really seemed that this was a Christian-centric debate. I will disappoint all sides, and award no score at all.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
johnlubbawrichcirwTied
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: BOP was established to be on Pro to determine the necessity of believing in Christ. However, at no point was it determined what believing in Christ is necessary *for* which is a requirement.
Vote Placed by Jordeef 4 years ago
Jordeef
johnlubbawrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Wrichcirw had better coduct than johnlubba. I find johnlubba guilty of strawman in arguing against Pro's use of comparitive religions to explain the importance of the role of Christ. Pro used more more relevant sources in the Bible. Pro's argument was better as a whole.
Vote Placed by miketheman1200 4 years ago
miketheman1200
johnlubbawrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter voting Azul145. Hate to waste a vote but its only fair.
Vote Placed by Azul145 4 years ago
Azul145
johnlubbawrichcirwTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I think wrichcirw had this one
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 4 years ago
InquireTruth
johnlubbawrichcirwTied
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: This debate was not very satisfying all around. But I was not at all convinced by wrichcirw's arguments for the necessity of Christ or quasi-christs. My route would have been different, in that if logic leads us to the necessity of God, I think it also leads us to the necessity of God incarnated in Jesus the Christ, a Nazarene.