The Instigator
jar2187
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
SkepticsAskHere
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Is Christianity the Religion of Pity?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 5 votes the winner is...
SkepticsAskHere
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/26/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,138 times Debate No: 16722
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (5)

 

jar2187

Pro

If you take this debate, you agree to accept the following terms:
What is good?--Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.

What is evil?--Whatever springs from weakness.

What is happiness?--The feeling that power increases--that resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency.


Now:
We should not deck out and embellish Christianity: it has waged a war to the death against this higher type of man, it has put all the deepest instincts of this type under its ban, it has developed its concept of evil, of the Evil One himself, out of these instincts--the strong man as the typical reprobate, the "outcast among men." Christianity has taken the part of all the weak, the low, the botched; it has made an ideal out of antagonism to all the self-preservative instincts of sound life; it has corrupted even the faculties of those natures that are intellectually most vigorous, by representing the highest intellectual values as sinful, as misleading, as full of temptation.

Christianity is the religion of pity.

Pity stands in opposition to all the tonic passions that augment the energy of the feeling of aliveness: it is a depressant. A man loses power when he pities. Through pity that drain upon strength which suffering works is multiplied a thousandfold. Suffering is made contagious by pity; under certain circumstances it may lead to a total sacrifice of life and living energy--a loss out of all proportion to the magnitude of the cause. This is the first view of it; there is, however, a still more important one. If one measures the effects of pity by the gravity of the reactions it sets up, its character as a menace to life appears in a much clearer light.

Pity preserves whatever is ripe for destruction; it fights on the side of those disinherited and condemned by life; by maintaining life in so many of the botched of all kinds, it gives life itself a gloomy and dubious aspect. Mankind has ventured to call pity a virtue (--in every superior moral system it appears as a weakness--); going still further, it has been called the virtue, the source and foundation of all other virtues--but let us always bear in mind that this was from the standpoint of a philosophy that was nihilistic, and upon whose shield the denial of life was inscribed. By means of pity life is denied, and made worthy of denial--pity is the technic of nihilism. This depressing and contagious instinct stands against all those instincts which work for the preservation and enhancement of life: in the role of protector of the miserable, it is a prime agent in the promotion of decadence--pity persuades to extinction....

Of course, one doesn't say"extinction": one says "the other world," or "God," or "the true life".... This innocent rhetoric, from the realm of religious-ethical balderdash, appears a good deal less innocent when one reflects upon the tendency that it conceals beneath sublime words: the tendency to destroy life. The instinct of life should prompt us to seek some means of puncturing any such pathological and dangerous accumulation of pity, that it may burst and be discharged....

Nothing is more unhealthy, amid all our unhealthy modernism, than Christian pity. That is why Christianity is the religion of pity.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

“Christianity is one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread.” D.T. NILES

I say thanks to my opponent for offering such an interesting resolution and I look forward to the debate.

If you take this debate, you agree to accept the following terms:

Definitions are not terms


What is good?--Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.

What is evil?--Whatever springs from weakness.

What is happiness?--The feeling that power increases--that resistance is overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but efficiency.


All three of my opponent’s definitions are completely inaccurate and he provides no sources. Let’s see some legitimate definitions.

Good - morally
excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious

Evil - the wicked or immoral part of someone or something

Happiness -goodfortune;pleasure;contentment;joy

Pity - sympatheticorkindlysorrowevokedbythe suffering distress,ormisfortune ofanother,oftenleadingonetogive relieforaidortoshow mercy

Humility - modestopinionor estimateofone'sownimportance

http://dictionary.reference.com...

No my opponent presented a case that already assumes that Christianity is the religion of pity. He does not make a case against it, he simply assumes the resolution is in his favor without showing any evidence from the Bible or history. He then goes on to make several subjective remarks on how pity will lead to extinction. Well I would like to be very clear that this is not a debate about opinions, but rather what is actually true. I will comment on a few of the things my opponent has said.

Nothing is more unhealthy, amid all our unhealthy modernism, than Christian pity. That is why Christianity is the religion of pity.

Well why is it unhealthy? Show me some evidence why it’s unhealthy or shall you just continue with your subjective points?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I’m going to present my case.

My case will be based around one contention.

Contention 1: Christianity is the religion of humility. Now obviously there are Christians in this world who pity others because they think they are lesser beings. However, Christianity should not be judged on the actions of the sinners, but rather what it teaches. So let’s see what scripture has to say about all of this.

Referring to everyone:

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” – Romans 3:23

“For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” – Romans 10:12-13

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28

All of these verses make the claim that we are all the same, and we all sin.

Referring to Christians:

“For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” – Luke 14:11

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves” - Philippians 2:3.

“I am gentle and humble in heart” - Matthew 11:29.

Now what do any of these verse have to do with the resolution. Well when we examine these verse we see that every has fallen short of the standard that God has set, we are equal to each other, a Christian should be humble and consider others greater than themselves! So we know that Christians should not give help due to suffering, however they should rather treat everyone greater than themselves because that is exactly what Christ did.


Sources:

http://thinkexist.com...

http://dictionary.reference.com...

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

“Christianity is one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread.” D.T. NILES

Debate Round No. 1
jar2187

Pro

Unfortunately, this entire debate is ultimately subjective. In fact, you've chosen definitions that would ultimately support your worldview. And since you did not address my arguments, please extend my arguments.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

Unfortunately, this entire debate is ultimately subjective.

Why should any debate be 100% subjective? Who’s to say that one opinion is better than another? Even opinions can be backed up by statistics, facts theories, etc. I provided Christian scripture and showed why Christianity is not the religion of pity. My opponent provides nothing, and could easily be making up everything he has presented

In fact, you've chosen definitions that would ultimately support your worldview.

My definitions do not support my worldview; I looked them up (instead of making them up like my opponent did). I provided a source for my definitions while my opponent provides none. He has “provided” definitions so that he could alter the reality of this debate, which is a fallacy in itself.

Since you did not address my arguments, please extend my arguments.

I also said that your entire is based on your assumption that Christianity is already the religion of pity. Please show me some reasons why it is the religion of pity! Show me some scriptures, statistics, or anything that would indicate this is true. However, I doubt my opponent will provide nothing more than his opinions.

My opponent did not attack my case whatsoever and was simply upset that I didn’t adhere to his made up definitions. All my arguments are extended, so let’s review what they are.

In the previous case I presented several verses that would indicate how Christians should treat others. Everyone in the world has fallen, we are all on the same level, and Christians should humble themselves, and then treat others as greater than themselves.

This is not pity. They are exalting others in their place. It has come to my attention that really becoming a Christian is not discovering how great we really are, but rather how much we sin and much we really need the grace of God.

For these reasons and more I urge a strong Con ballet and I look forward to how my opponent response to this.

“Christianity is one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread.” D.T. NILES

Debate Round No. 2
jar2187

Pro

My opponent's entire argument is also based on assumptions that Christianity is already the religion of humility - which is subjective towards his worldview. Besides, since my opponent accept this debate, he accepts the terms of the debate. If my opponent couldn't do that, then why take the debate? What definitions weren't "made up" at one point? Dictionary terms describe usage, but the terms are not objective. If his definitions do not support his worldview, why is he using these definitions to support his worldview? And why should he want me to use scripture to debunk his case (is this a made up source, or merely ancient opinion, or both?), when I could simply use my definitions? My opponent didn't adhere to my case, so why should I adhere to his?

My opponent still did not touch my case nor did he attend to the rules of the debate. Perhaps he knows that under my case, undeniably, Christianity is the religion of pity? Instead he has resorted to preaching. Please extend my arguments.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

Is this a joke? Really? My opponent refuses to debate me whatsoever. He admits that his definitions are made up, yet he still tries to use them to win an argument. This debate is absolutely ridiculous. I have attacked my opponent's case every round by saying he gives no reason why his side is supported. I have given Christian scripture to show that Christianity is not the religion of pity. My opponent obviously doesn't want to debate, but rather state his opinions and assume their superior. Is that an adequate basis for important theological decisions? Absolutely not. There are things that should be based upon opinion, like what is my favorite ice cream flavor. This topic is not subjective, because Christianity cannot be the religion of pity and not the religion of pity at the same time. That violates the laws of logic (law of non-contradiction)!

My opponent's entire argument is also based on assumptions that Christianity is already the religion of humility

My opponent is incorrect in saying this. I do not believe that Christianity is not the religion of pity because it suits me (unlike my opponent), I say it because it is not Biblically supported.

My opponent still did not touch my case nor did he attend to the rules of the debate. Perhaps he knows that under my case, undeniably, Christianity is the religion of pity?

I attacked your case every round yet my opponent has not refuted anything, nor has he attacked my case whatsoever. If you can give me an actual reason why Christianity is the religion of pity, then I will believe it. However my opponent hasn't presented anything so far.

Besides, since my opponent accept this debate, he accepts the terms of the debate.

I already said that defintions are not terms. My opponent never stated in the first round that I must accept his definitions. He merely said If you take this debate, you agree to accept the following terms: he then goes on to define words without giving any terms. These defintions are rediculous and should not be held credible whatsoever, however I have provided an actual source for my defintions.


My opponent once again tries to win the debate by claiming that his worldview is better.

I urge a strong Con vote when the debate has ended.
Debate Round No. 3
jar2187

Pro

"My opponent never stated in the first round that I must accept his definitions. He merely said If you take this debate, you agree to accept the following terms"

Please extend my arguments.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

My opponent once again refuses to debate me and instead took one line of my last round out of context. I will accept that round as a forfeit.

I will extend my ownly contention:

Contention 1: Christianity is the religion of humility. Now obviously there are Christians in this world who pity others because they think they are lesser beings. However, Christianity should not be judged on the actions of the sinners, but rather what it teaches. So let’s see what scripture has to say about all of this.

Referring to everyone:

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” – Romans 3:23

“For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him,for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” – Romans 10:12-13

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” – Galatians 3:28

All of these verses make the claim that we are all the same, and we all sin.

Referring to Christians:

“For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” – Luke 14:11

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves” - Philippians 2:3.

“I am gentle and humble in heart” - Matthew 11:29.

Now what do any of these verse have to do with the resolution. Well when we examine these verse we see that every has fallen short of the standard that God has set, we are equal to each other, a Christian should be humble and consider others greater than themselves! So we know that Christians should not give help due to suffering, however they should rather treat everyone greater than themselves because that is exactly what Christ did.


Sources:

http://thinkexist.com......

http://dictionary.reference.com......

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

“Christianity is one beggar telling another beggar where he found bread.” D.T. NILES

I have presented the evidence for us to know that Christianity is not the religion of pity, however, more like the religion of humility.

Since my opponent refuses to debate me I urge a vote for Con, Thank you

Debate Round No. 4
jar2187

Pro

My opponent has refused to debate me or take on my arguments. Why should I take on his arguments, when they are simply a red herring to mine? I maintain, that every verse in the New Testement is for people who pity, for those who are pitiful and for those who demand that they be taken pity on. Isn't this what Jesus commands our Christians? - to pity those who need it (charity), to pity those who aren't saved (non-believers), to pity all people who sin (and so what if I sin, why do you pity me for it?), Christians themselves (the beautitudes)?

And then, for him to argue that one is called to be humble, and humble because of it, to affirm one as being humble, and even claiming that the Christian religion is one of humility, proclaiming it, maintaining it, rejoicing in humility, and that we should affirm it as such - negates everything my opponent pretends to argue for - as an exalted parody of the prideful! This too is pitiful of Christians, but in a strangely different way than I was arguing for.

Christianity is pitiful - a religion of pity. Thank you.
SkepticsAskHere

Con

Isn't this what Jesus commands our Christians? - to pity those who need it (charity), to pity those who aren't saved (non-believers), to pity all people who sin (and so what if I sin, why do you pity me for it?), Christians themselves (the beautitudes)?

Here my opponent has offered his first arguement for the resolution. It's a shame that he has waited until round five to finally present it. My opponent says that Jesus commands Christians to pity others when this is not what he commissioned us to do at all. He told us that we're all in the same boat. Pull the plank out of your own eye, before you take the speck out of your brother's eye. That is what Jesus taught, was that we're all sinners and equal, and we should put others before ourselves.

My contention 1 also stands, because my opponent has once again failed to attack it.

I urge a strong vote for Con for a few reasons:
1. My opponent has offered made up definitions to support his worldview
2. My opponent did not attack my case until round 5.
3. My opponent basically forfeited last round. (4)
4. My opponent offered no sources and his arguments were entirely subjective.
5. My opponent has not debated me at all.

For all these reasons I urge a strong vote for Con.

I thank my opponent for offering this debate, and thank you for the good debate.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KeytarHero 6 years ago
KeytarHero
Headphonegut, I find it ridiculous you speak against SkepticsAskHere for not accepting the ridiculous definitions set forth by Jar, when in fact you accepted a debate on whether the number four was even and dismissed the definitions the Instigator gave, using your own definition.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 6 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Agreed, your definitions were, in a sense, senseless.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Jar2187,

When you post an argument that essentially attacks the very foundation of Christianity... who else do you expect to take it. You clearly wanted to debate a Christian, but you defined your terms in ways that even most non-Christians wouldn't agree to and certainly Christians would not.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 6 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
No because I actually have evidence for what I believe in.... XD
Posted by jar2187 6 years ago
jar2187
I believe what I said is true and I believe it because I think it's true. You believe what you say is true and you believe in because you think it's true. We're both defining "truth" as that which already agrees to our interpretation of it. I just admit to doing that. That's the real difference. Other than that, we're the same. Isn't that what your "humble argument" was predicated on?
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 6 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
No you see the difference between me and you is that you believe something is true because you believe it, while I believe in something because it is true
Posted by jar2187 6 years ago
jar2187
ReformedArsenal, who said that christians were obligated to debate me? And SkepticsAskHere, isn't the true intrepretation the one you just happen to believe? That's relativistic. I'm just able to admit it.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 6 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
True, yet there are right and wrong ways to interpret the Bible, but he hasn't offered any counter interpretations as of yet
Posted by Priceless29 6 years ago
Priceless29
I'm not saying whether or not it is a subjective issue. I was simply trying to help jar2187 with Nietzsche's philosophy. And there is a large difference between mathematics and religious morality and literature in the amount that it can be subjective. The bible itself is literature and therefore can be interpreted different ways.
Posted by SkepticsAskHere 6 years ago
SkepticsAskHere
Yes but this is not a subjective issue. It's like saying what does 2+2 equal? Some people may say 5, some may say 3, but the fact of the matter is the answer is 4. You use basic mathematical laws to show why you are correct. So I'm simply using basic Christian doctrine to show why I am correct.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by medic0506 6 years ago
medic0506
jar2187SkepticsAskHereTied
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 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: Poor effort on pro's part.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
jar2187SkepticsAskHereTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has a point, you accept then you accept.
Vote Placed by KeytarHero 6 years ago
KeytarHero
jar2187SkepticsAskHereTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Jar didn't debate. He made up terms and threw a fit that the Contender wouldn't use his made up definitions (which were obviously made up so that he could have the strongest case possible). Clear victory to Con.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
jar2187SkepticsAskHereTied
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 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: Pro set forward faulty definitions for words central to the topic. Con refuted these with actual definitions and built an argument, which Pro refused to contend with.
Vote Placed by headphonegut 6 years ago
headphonegut
jar2187SkepticsAskHereTied
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: nice try false premise no engagment on the topic and when you accept the debate you accept the terms of the debate and it's definitions