The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
8 Points

Is it ok to debate God in from a Christian viewpoint (Christian to Christian)

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/21/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,227 times Debate No: 27418
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (2)




1st round Acceptance
2nd how so
3rd proof of why we can or cant
4th closing argument
Anyone except my challenge to argue if we should debate God or a so called Universal creator.


For round one I accept, but given such a strangely worded resolution and your total lack of providing any definitions for the terms in the resolution I’m going to have to establish a few things.

You made the resolution “Is it ok to debate God in from a Christian viewpoint (Christian to Christian)” Obviously to be pro means defending answering this question YES, and to be CON means answering this question NO.

The phrase “from a Christian viewpoint (Christian to Christian)” is fairly straightforward, but for the sake of clarity as a Christian I’m going to give a definition for “Christian viewpoint” and that’s the paradigm where one believes in the bible, that its true, and of course that God exist. As a Christian who has the Christian viewpoint I am completely authorized to give the definition of what that viewpoint is.

The part of the resolution that is confusing is “to debate God”. I interpret this to mean “try and argue with God himself (example ‘god I don’t think you should have made Hell’) or a second possible interpretation of it meaning to argue about God (example ‘I argue that God is all-powerful first, all-loving second’)

Given you said “from Christian to Christian” it makes sense to rule out the first one (arguing with God himself) and that you more likely meant the second one (arguing with another Christian about God).

Personally I think I have the right to set the terms and definitions since you did not yourself do so in your opening round. But because I have no problem arguing Pro for either interpretation and am interested in making a case for either one I’m going to let you pick Con at the beginning of your next round.

Should you try to define the resolution differently than one of the two ways I have done so in my opening round, I will not accept your definition and will argue to death to the very last round that the resolution can be interpreted no other way? I will also make my case for why doing any such thing should lose you the conduct point, trying to set terms of the debate AFTER your opponent accepted the challenge without seeing them

One such definition I will not accept is by ‘debate god’ you mean ‘debate that god exist’ do to the fact that that is contradictory to the Christian viewpoint itself spoken of in the resolution. Not that I couldn’t make a case for that interpretation as well, but I’m not interested in bothering to and the definition is simply not implied by your resolution anyway.

I await Con’s opening round.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank you for taking this argument seeing that I am a Christian and I speak to another Christian or Christ follower. I believe religion is a word used by men to classify themselves better than one another therefore I will not take pride in saying I am of the Christian religion but a Christ Follower.
Now to get to it. To debate the topic of your second guess should we debate the subject God with another Christian or to a person without faith I believe we should not. The bible says that we are not to. Jesus himself showed us that we are not to debate about the father because in doing so we are trying to be right. I believe that Jesus when he walked away from a debate he didn't flee. Instead he showed that he had faith in the father and he was not willing to debate a subject he knew, instead he would show the people, or the Pharisees a group of people in the Jewish religion that thought themselves holier or better than the other, that he knew he was correct and he had utter faith in his Father.
To be a so called Christian you show that you have faith and you show that you can simply explain your point without argument or debate. Instead there are alternatives to debating such as that of giving a point but when you debate you say things to prove the other wrong with in a way the goal of winning and being better than the other. I don't take a debate and think it is a debate if we are to not give point to our actions and try to come out on top. I believe it is a fight and to win is to win. There is a victor and this victor will come out. To continue something with a blind man and explain the color of the sun with the blind is hopeless but to open his eyes over time and hope he understands is what a true Christian would do. As how we are both Christ Followers, We can see ourselves as equals like Paul who wanted us to be equal on a humanistic scale,""Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality." 2 Corinthians 8:13 NIV. And yet we are not equal to God, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," Philippians 2:6 NIV I hope that we see eye to eye. I believe that the bible says we are to not fight between ourselves and overcome one another but be equal and simply explain our points and look to God.

1. The Bible (2 Corinthians 8:13 NIV, Philippians 2:6 NIV, Acts 19:9, Jeremiah 9:23 )
2. Pastor and Jim Bennett
3. Dr. an Pastor David Lr. Bergen


Back in the day there was man named Socrates. He would debate with people he met about anything and everything but particularly issues of morality and he had a famous method for how he would go about doing it. A good example of how his method worked can be shown in one of his debates on Courage. Socrates heard a man proclaim “Courage is a fine thing” and that man thought he was not saying anything radical or too extreme by saying that. But Socrates asked him if he thought ignorance was a fine thing and the man agreed it was not, so Socrates then argued you could be courageous in ignorance and that this courage was not a fine thing. While the other man did not drop his basic view he had from the start that Courage was fine, but he did refine his view on how he would have to phrase his resolution of courage is fine to “informed Courage is a fine thing”

Basically this famed example of the Socratic Method of finding something to agree on first that has bearing on what they don’t agree on, was a semantic argument. Socrates brought the man to realize he cant just say things without defining exactly what he means by them or he could end up saying bat crazy stuff when a viewer of the statement takes the word to mean something it generally means to them but its not exactly the thing another person will hear when they hear that statement.

I attempted to derail this debate and put the terms in my favor by offering definitions for the phrase “debate God” sense my opponent offered none to prove a point. But it seems that did not help me at all. The term I should have had defined was not the phrase “debate God” but just the term “debate”.

Any of you with a passion and interest for debate on this website probably spotted exactly what I did in my opponents argument and that was the changing definition of how my opponent used the term debate.

we are not to debate about the father because in doing so we are trying to be right.

Hear my opponent used debate in the sense he wants to argue against in the resolution…..but the term debate wasn’t negative in his whole argument….in fact the term debate changed its uses in the same sentence below…

Instead there are alternatives to debating such as that of giving a point but when you debate you say things to prove the other wrong with in a way the goal of winning and being better than the other.

Within that single sentence my opponent stance lost all of its weight against his resolution stance “debating god with fellow Christians should not be done” the resolution he wants to debate. Like the man Socrates confronted about Courage he must refine his view and change it to “debating with self-serving purposes among fellow Christians about God should not be done”. Or at the very least keep his resolution but change the term ‘debate’ with ‘argue’ and create a distinction between the use of the two terms, in much the same way I have heard most of us here at DDO define “arguing” and “debating” as. When we say “arguing” we most of the time mean that ‘bad’ kind of debating my opponent started debating against. When we say ‘debate’ though we most often mean the second kind my opponent advocated doing as an ‘alternative’.

As for my opponents scripture references, I would like to point out they are all about how to look at people, and that’s with a humble heart. Below I have listed some scriptures that actually do pertain to debate.

1 Peter 3:15-16

Isaiah 41:21

Acts 19

also as for what Jesus himself said concerning debating, he did not say don’t do it. he said if you have a quarrel with another Christian you try and convince each other to resolve your dispute. If still in disagreement you get 3 friends to help back you up as you debate, and then if your not in agreement then you bring your conflict before your entire church congregation and if still not then you be done with this fellow Christian of yours and go your separate ways. So actually Jesus suggested if debating does not help you out you should debate even more with more people involved when you think about it.

Now I’m going to make my positive case for why we should debate using all three interpretations of the resolution I spoke of last round, including the one I said I would not because I have come to see in light of new events that it serves my purposes to do so.

#1 Debate with God himself:

We should debate with God himself if we have a problem with him even if we are his follower. Jacob would have never grown into Israel if he had not first wrestled with God, and the Israelites would have all been killed except for Moses had Moses not made a case for there lives to God when he said he would kill them all and keep his covenant to Abraham through Moses alone. Now perhaps you might dispute that God intended to really do that, he knew Moses would speak up, but what is not disputable is that God wanted Moses to speak up. If we hide are doubts from God by trying to just not think about them they will remain a stumbling block for us, if we offer them up to God though he will tare them down for us.

#2 Debate with other Christians thoughts about God

Its important we do this for personal study and our spiritual growth. Suppose a brother Christian in your church has come to reason there is no way to deter people from a path to hell because they believe God predestined them to live a life that would make them chose hell before they were born. So your brother Christian finds no motivation to witness for it is trying to change something that’s always been out of his hands. Suppose you know this thinking is faulty for one reason or another and you want to correct him so he goes on to witness again because it is the Great Commission to do so, The only way your going to get through to your brother in Christ is if you debate with him on the issue trying to teach him there is hope for reaching the unsaved.

#3 Debate the existence of God with fellow Christians

This one by its very nature implies the debaters are arguing devils advocate since they are already in agreement on the issue that God exist, so obviously this is not a case where one is “trying to be right” over the other person. It is good and important for us Christians to debate devils advocate debates like this among ourselves to train ourselves to witness to the unsaved non-believers. In my experience every atheist on this site, while they might be able to recite all the cases against belief in God that have ever been made, there is usually just 1 or 2 that matter to them emotionally. And they will not give faith a chance until someone can satisfactorily refute that particular cause for doubt. For one atheist I debated with it was clearly a charge about there being lots of religions out there to have faith in, and they could not see why have ‘faith’ in ours and not those others. If I argue devils advocate with you as a practice mock debate, you will have time to memorize what your response is to a classical atheist made point like that. Should you just go witness on the streets though and end up hearing that reason for doubt for the first time you might freeze up without an answer or give one that’s not effective, and lose the opportunity to plant a seed of doubt in there reason for doubt.

So those 3 interpretations have let me describe 3 different reasons for why we should ‘debate’ with our fellow Christians. The benefits are Growth, Study, and Witnessing.

I thank my opponent for this debate and await his response.

Debate Round No. 2


Many years ago, a man and God among the people took position against a force. A force so strong that there were only few that could go against it. This was because few people had complete trust in God and they didn't have full faith in Him. So to get back to the tale. This man went into the desert. A place surrounded and clouded with temptation. The source of all evil was in this place and the man knew it. He went unto this place and the evil showed itself. The evil knew the man knew he was there so this is why he showed himself. The man was a man pure at heart and loving in all ways. The demon tried to tempt him into sin but he could not. No matter what he did the man believed and prayed to his God. He prayed and fasted and resisted the temptations bestowed before him. The demon took him into the holy city even, and continued to tempt him. In the desert though the man spoke saying, ""Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.""

In case you could not tell who this was this was to the son of God. This was a being that I talk of that was fully man and fully God. Jesus resisted temptation from even the biggest source of it. He over came sin and never questioned not even pleaded with his father to die on a cross to pay for the sins of the world. With this we find that he never questioned God or even needed to debate but instead allowed himself to be a lamb wanting to be slaughtered. He showed us through dying on the cross that we are not to fight but instead be a sign ourselves for others. With Jesus showing these things to us we are to show them to others. Beside the passage I was looking at was Matthew 4:1-25 where it says, "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. And the tempter came and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." But he answered, "It is written, ""Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."" Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple ..." This verse, when you get down to it is a verse talking of how Jesus went against temptation but he never argued with Satan; instead he told the devil something of truth from God and did not fight him. He never argued but simply stated a fact and the devil could not fight it.

Beside this I would like to look at your point of my statements "we are not to debate about the father because in doing so we are trying to be right." and
"we are not to debate about the father because in doing so we are trying to be right."
These points you said held no weight but I would like to mention that I also stated "guess should we debate the subject God with another Christian or to a person without faith" You say that my argument holds no weight so as to make me look dumb and ignorant of what I talk about but I would like to make you aware that he overlooked this one sentence. He overlooked it or was afraid to put this statement which is completely relevant and ties together my argument . I also would like to ask why you think my points don't carry any weight because I believe in my argument I made it crystal clear what I was talking about.

The Counter:
I would like to make my audience also aware that yes these men did have humble hearts but it these texts were also written by men that yes they were blessed by God but they were not God. Beside this I also would like to make you aware that none of these passages make aware the fact that in your passages the only things they say is make your point made. They have no mention of debate but simply trying to make a point. All three of your verses state,

"Present your case," says the LORD. "Bring forth your strong reasons," says the King of Jacob. Notice they only use CASE meaning yes an argument coming from a heart of the unrighteous and also REASONS is another key word meaning they have reasons but no actual argument because they come before God with excuses. God knows the idols have no case and therefore uses the word REASONS.

And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. 9 But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. Acts 19:8-9. I do not understand why you would use this quote when clearly it says seasoning and persuading them. This quote is not a quote that mentions debate but to reason and convince. The point I make is that this quote should actually proves my argument correct because you are not to debate but to convince the other with reasons, based on like how Paul is a Godly man, that come from the heart and from God and therefore if it is from God then it is no debate but a statement of fact. Now when these men went away because they could not convince these men then this was a sign that they knew what they were talking about but they did not want to debate due to it being un-Godly.

Your final verse you used was, "but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,". The bible does not state that you must debate but give a defense of fact and be sure to win and because it is for God you must do so in earnest counsel with him and prayer. You must not debate because to debate is to be put in a desperate situation to win or loose but late in the verse it says you must so called win so you can defend the name of the Lord.

For our Lord God says we need not debate if we have faith in him like Jesus did. Jesus overcame sin and hell itself and when doing it he did not complain nor did he try to debate the Father simply because he knew it was right and it was a sin. He was told by God to do something and he did that. He was a model for us that we might be show others that we not fight others with words but with how we act we tear them down by being better than them while still having a humbled heart. We are to try to like Paul did, "entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading" and try to persuade the people that our God is the real one and when in a conflict with a fellow Christian go in counsel with the father and look through a tool he has bestowed us this being the ultimate prize the Bible.

I would like to thank my opponent for his gracious speech and await his reply.


Dr. and Pastor David Bergen
Youth Pastor at Harvest Baptist Church Lance Medina
Pastor Mel Sharp

1. Acts 19
2. Isaiah 39-41
3. 1 Peter 3:15-16
4. Matthew 4:1-25
5. Jeremiah 17:5-6


Here is a link on all the definitions on the web you could possibly find for the term “debate”

as you can see they include;

A formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward

a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal

consider: think about carefully; weigh;

the formal presentation of a stated proposition and the opposition to it (usually followed by a vote)

discuss the pros and cons of an issue

is a formal method of interactive and representational argument.

An informal and spirited but generally civil discussion of opposing views

the formal expression of a member's views for or against a matter.

It would seem to me that none of these online definitions truly match as a description for whatever it is you think your talking about when you say the term “debate” and for that matter incorrectly believe I too am saying when I say the term “debate”.

For me personally in terms of this debate, as well as what I would tell you if you asked me what I mean when I say debate if you asked me outside of this debate as well I would define it like so…

Debate: to make a defense of the facts, to use reasoning and logic with a goal of persuasion, to make a case for a viewpoint, a side in a dispute, to formally fight for and advocate something you believe to be truth by making a case to others hoping they will find it to be the truth as well.

That would be my definition for debate. And I know from my experience on this site that I’m not alone in defining it like that.


Jesus argued all the time with the Pharisee’s. Do you not remember his epic argument using the scriptures about who could David have been calling his Lord when he said in the Psalms “my Lord said to my Lord”? Do you not remember when he argued he was not demon when he said “Satan does not cast out Satan, for a house that stands against itself cannot stand”? Or when he made a debate case defending his healing on the Sabbath by referring to a hypothetical scenario if a sheep had fallen in a pit on the Sabbath? Once Jesus even insisted on making the person coming to him for a healing have faith enough to offer a debate rebuttal to Jesus before he healed her when he said “its not right to take the children’s food and give it to the dogs” then she rebutted “that’s true but even the dogs get to eat the crumbs that fall of its masters table”


My opponent, I have observed anytime I or anyone has offered you rebuttal whether it be hear or in the comment section and I can only assume the forums as well, you have taken it as a personal assault. That somehow I’m trying to make you look dumb by telling you how you are completely wrong and the facts that you have clearly not considered or taken into account. This is not true and you should take a good long hard look at the ‘alternative’ to debate last round which I said is still a form of debate and its difference from the thing you are freely calling a debate.

The only difference between the two is in one case, the good kind of debate which you rhetorically try to label “its not debate its making a case, defending a point, its stating a fact” you are letting the process of debate stand for itself (with a different label). In the other case you are casting your human judgment on the participant in the debate, causing me to recall when Jesus said ‘judge not least ye be judged’.

You are not in a position to cast judgment on my or anyone’s motives for debating you. The fact that you are pessimistic no more makes my goal in debating you to make you look dumb than had you been an optimist it would mean I’m trying to persuade you to the truth. Whoever you debate, their reasons for debating you will be indifferent to the level of respect you are prepared to treat them with by default, and its indifferent to how much of the benefit of the doubt you give a man you know nothing about other than he has decided to contend something you have said with a case that at the very least he thinks was a well reasoned one, well reasoned enough to rebut your statement.


Given the turn this debate/discussion has taken that’s really all the rebuttal this round called for but I feel the need to point something else out first before bring this round to a close.


My opponent did not give any particular rebuttal to my 3 points about our spiritual growth, study, and witnessing. He has chosen only to respond to the scriptures I gave link to rather than those 3 points I gave a reasoned case for, which I guess I can respect. Not all have healthy respect for all 4 points of John Wesley’s Quadrilateral, Reasoning, Experience, Tradition, and Scripture. Some just want to debate from and on Scripture alone. But it leaves my 3 points standing with no case against them. I ask my opponent to please take the time to tell me how I am wrong about the use of debate in witnessing, or personal study, or spiritual growth.

And last of all why my opponent has been dumping on the act of debating lets remember that to do so he is being a grand Pharisee level hypocrite. Because after all he is in a debate right now, we are debating about if our Lord and savior Jesus, part of the triune godhead, did or did not debate in the bible and if other parts of the scripture written by those who were under the guided inspiration of the holy spirit when they wrote it (another of the triune godhead) was telling us to debate or not, to give our strong reasons. So while my opponent may supposedly be against ‘debating god’ personally, he is not so against it that he was not willing to abandon his convictions to participate in ‘debating god’ right now in this very debate. My source for that statement is the address in the address bar at the top of your screen. Just highlight it and click enter and it will load this page and you will see what I am talking about.


I await my opponents response.

Debate Round No. 3


Seeing this is my final round I would like to make this n atmosphere of underbidding and explaining. To learn from the other and not argue. I would not like to debate but to allow us to have counsel with each other and our God. I thank my opponent for his answers to my statement of fact and I thank him for his input. I do want to make a comment about how he said "debating god'. I do take offence to this in a way just because you are not respecting God through this by capitalizing the g but I would like to ask you not to do this but check over all God spelling in further debates.


Now... You made a comment that I did not make a "rebuttal" to your argument and I apologize due to the fact that I was running out of room. Now I shall explain how you are wrong in this round but I would like to focus on your point number 2 and 3. Seeing that this is all about what this debate is all about I would like to bring forth what I believe on this and what I believe the Bible says about this case.


Point 2:

-For your defining of point two I believe you should not debate your fellow Christian. The bible says, "Go ye unto all the world, and preach the Gospel." (Mark 16:15). If a person is so blind that they will not do this and don't have faith that they have a chance to convince others then they are truly not walking in faith with the Spirit and the Lord. Without faith that you can not do something that the Bible declares you must surely not be walking in the faith. Like how sin is the same no matter what sin you commit, no matter what act of faith you disclaim from your Christian life they are all the same. For example if you say the Lord will not come again when I am alive and if you compare that to you not thinking idolatry is a sin then you are wrong. The bible states this and therefore if you do not have faith in any part of the Bible then you do not have faith in God. In conclusion things such as this can not be approached with debate but simply by finding guidance in the Bible.

Point 3

-I believe your point three is wrong in but one way. I do not believe that debate is a better lesson than actually teaching one to debate I believe that we should refer to biblical study and biblical study rather than come up with our own ways of teaching and debate the other.

Now to your latest statement-
-I would like to first start at the very beginning of you debate in round three, I would like to do this because in the beginning you stated your definitions of debate. Because you posted this you must believe this so here is what is wrong with what you did. I believe that your argument is unsatisfactory in this being due to you having all of these be related to voting in some circumstances which is irrelevant and many of them say to argue. The link on which you posted said this, "An argument about a particular subject," and, " in which opposing arguments are put forward". Do these points not say to argue which is not only an action but it is and action brought out of wanting to make yourself better. The act of teaching would be much better because it is giving something to someone else so they might understand clearly and they will want to move forward in their learning of the subject and not simply leave it at that.
Beside this I saw that you said, "Jesus argued" I very much disagree. I believe the Pharisees argued and Jesus was teaching them. In my opinion and Dr and Pastor Davis Lr. Bergen Jesus was trying to teach them and not debate them because in every circumstance Jesus was never angered and always in every citation was 100% God and had grace so therefore he would not talk with anger nor would he criticize the other like the Pharisees did. Point being Jesus did just about the exact opposite as the Pharisees.


I must go soon to church and I woke up early to complete this so it will be short. I say that you must not debate with any person especially with non-believers about religion or in nother words our God because
1. It has a bad influence on the other
2. We are not pure of hearth when doing so
3. We should be teachers and not lower ourselves to their standards.
I say there are two people in life, debtors and listeners" as Pastor Jim Bennett would say. This meaning the debater's you can only hope to plant seed and then maybe it will grow but the listeners, the listeners are the ones that will and are thirsty for the Word of God. In conclusion we should teach so the people are less ignorant and give them guidance with the Bible Christians and non Christians and furthermore we need to do so with a kind heart like Jesus did the Savior of the World. A great man he was and a great God he is.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and I would like to thank him for his view on religious debate and my view on it and I would also like to thank him for helping me to understand how to debate better. With best of luck in all things you do

Dr. and Pastor David Lr. Bergen
Pastor Jim Bennett
Mark 16:15


You know its really quite a shame you couldn’t just invite these two people who I guess are probably your pastors to come on this site and defend there opinions themselves rather than defend and wear there opinions yourself. I’d be more than happy to take either or both of them on sometime. As a source though for you to quote for yourself, you might as well of just you made up the arguments yourself because I nor do I suspect anyone else cares who these little known Pastors are. Now if you were quoting a major famous pastor that are renowned enough that people actually take seriously on a national if not global scale, like Adam Hamilton or Kent Hovind or Mike Huckabee or Charles Stanley, that would be different.

And there is a reason I suspect these pastors you reference are small enough in who they influence. More people are never going to start listening to a Pastor that says something as stupid (forgive me for needing to be derogatory about this one thing please) as “the world is made of 2 people debtors and listener”. Those are not even opposites. Or describe things that could in anyway be envisioned as mutually exclusive. The world is not full of people who are “debtors or something other than that” because everyone without exception is a debtor. The bible says “all have fallen short of the glory of God” and so we have all ‘trespassed’ or ‘debted’ or ‘sinned’. By all means invite your Pastor Jim Bennett to this sight if you think I’m not serious in saying this and I will debate him on the resolution “saying the world is divided into debtors and listeners is stupid” me being PRO to that resolution.

Anyway I need to give one more note before returning to the matters of the debate, grammatical errors of any kind cannot be taken as acts of disrespect. If I could just remove my errors you would quite seeing me make them all together in all my debates but alas struggle so much with any such thing that errors of all kinds remain in near all of my debates regardless of the topic, this is not going to change any particular word at any one time, if it could I’d stop it all times for all words not just the word God.

On to the debate……

The Definition of Debate:

It seems I have reached an impasse with you personally since you are so brainwarped into always hearing a very negative default meaning when you hear the term ‘debate’ or ‘argue’ probably because as you have grown up you have only been exposed to foolish old people who used to go to churches that would preach “thank God for my ignorance” treat the term debate in such a negative way that when I say ‘Jesus debated with….” I might as well of said “Jesus sinned….’ to you.

Meanwhile I have been exposed in my life to the works of C.S. Lewis who write up the evil demons like screwtape speaking of arguments as a failing tactic to win souls to Hell, and where debating and “presenting a case” and “showing your process of reasoning against another’s to teach them there errors” are synonymous concepts.

You are so brainwarped that you considered it a legit rebuttal to my sources of online dictionary definitions “Do these points not say to argue which is not only an action but it is and action brought out of wanting to make yourself better”. As if the lone inclusion of the word ‘argue’ altered the definition of debate altogether from what posted. No Argue does not mean any of that. Debate or Arguments is like Money and Bricks. They are all A-moral, they are not evil or good but they can be used for either. With a brick a can bash your skull in, or I could build a hospital with it, the brick does not care.

To further make my case on this (and this is for my opponents benefit alone, this new argument cannot be considered an aid to me in my side of the resolution, I feel I have already succeeded at that anyway) I consider the possibility you consider the ‘debate’ and ‘argue’ to be a kind of sin because maybe you have read verses in the bible where the term ‘quarrel’ is used in some translations of the bible in context like its describing sin (I think I remember reading some passages that do but I cant recall any of them, but for discussion sake lets just say it is in there like that).

If that’s your reason for thinking debate in any situation a sin, let me ask you about another sin then, do you consider it a sin when Adam lusted for his wife Eve? (he definitely lusted or they never would have reproduced). Or was David breaking any commandment when he Murdered Goliath? David and Adam did not sin in those instances though (they did in others of course) because the Lust for ones wife if the Godley thing spoken of in the Song of Solomen, not the sinful act God commands us to not do. The killing of an enemy soldier on the battlefield is not the same as the sinful act god commanded us to not do. And the well reasoned refutation of another’s arguments against God or for false depictions of him is not the same a sinful kind of quarrelling that’s only purpose is to be difficult and promote oneself against the truth.

If you Lust for your wife, its not a sin but it is still called Lust (for simplicity sake I guess)

If you Murder your assassin in self defense, its not a sin but it could still be referred to as Murder

And If you have Argued with your accuser so you can promote the Truth, its not a sin but it is still called Arguing, or Debating, or even Quarreling.

Sometimes in these debates on this site, to help our discussions not go off course and make sure our opponents are having the same discussion as we are, we clarify the different meaning by arbitrarily assigning them to the term and assign there other interpretations to there synonyms. Like perhaps dividing us Murder into the terms Slaying, Killing, and Murder. Or Debate into Debating and Arguing and Quarreling. We never set out those distinctions at the start of this debate so they are all still interchangeable in it.

Debate is not a term that by default denotes anger, it can be done without anger

It is not a term that denotes pride by default, it can be done without pride

Jesus did it without anger or pride

Does this mean I’m saying no ever debates in anger or pride? No sometimes they debate with bad motives just like sometimes a brick is used to build Nazi concentration camp, or a twenty is used to bribe someone.

I really have nothing left to say, the meaning of the term ‘debate’ has really been the only issue we have deferred on this entire debate. I hope one day you gain the wisdom to see Jesus entered into holy and righteous debate with the pharoses making theologically epic status quo changing arguments. I also hope for your own sake you quite going to Pastor Bergen & Bennett’s church if you have represented them accurately. And even if you have misrepresented there good names by taking there statements out of context leaving would still help you since you have a tendency to do that to there statements.

The fact that you have an account on this site though I think shows you know something is inherently wrong with there negative view of debating and you yourself feel a calling to debate so much you have to test your boundaries with what kind of ‘debate’ is okay.

If you are called to debate though then DEBATE ON my friend and DEBATE FOR GOD!!!

Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Marauder 3 years ago
basically, just out of pure spite and a need to be contrary even when I was actually agreeing with your rant about emotions and truth and you said in response "My heart doesnt deceive me because it is not invested in fairy tales :)"

you so did not like the taste of my repeating the same position you had said you had but in the form of a bible quote that you felt a need to revert on your old statement just to look like your at odds with the bible.

either we are in agreement that something 'feeling right' or phenomenology does not make something truth, or your are in disagreement with me and the Bible and you yourself advocate phenomenology. Its either one way or the other. you cant both disagree with my statement and with phenomenology.
Posted by bergeneric63 3 years ago
But I already know how old the earth is. Beside biblical standards science and many scientists only believe it to be about 8 thousand years old. I believe however it is a bit over 6 thousand years old. Another point I would like to bring up is were does your energy go when you die. What happens to you. Do you simply sleep forever and never wake knowing that you are dead but not able to move or do anything about it. Do you simply just rot. Where does your thinking go. Where does your energy go? and where does your concheince go.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
begeneric, to answer your question about the planets age it is 4.72 BILLION. :)
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
marauder, point out specifically where I said emotions effect the outcome of truth so I know what you are crying about.

Now while youre doing that, lets get back to big kids stuff :)

BigKids 1:18--We have now emotionally evolved and can now effectively satisfy the emotions of love, hope, and faith, when we allow our intuition, intellect and instinct to finally stretch their legs :)

DevientGenie 12:15--The Genie realizes NOT everybody likes intelligent people, but then again, not everybody is concerned with intelligence, logic and reason, they are more concerned with worshipping a religion that involves human sacrifice instead. Are you smart or human sacrifice dumb? Its your life and your children, if ignorance is what you want to infect your children with, I have good news, every Sunday you can take your child to a building called a church and they will inject ignorance into your childs mind for you, how convenient :)

BigKids 11:49--Science says the source or reason for everything is undetermined and undefined. We dont know how it all started, we only know what happened after it did start. Religion says nothing is undetermined or undefined, the reason for everything only works six days a week and throws flood parties then is too lazy to make 2 of each creature again, just have an old man build an ark and cram the world in there :)

Ideas 6:5--Here's an idea. Grow up and leave the outdated bronze aged beliefs written in the holy binky where they belong, with the leprechauns at the end of a rainbow :)

DevientGenie 8:8--The correct term for the Genies scripture is, Poetic Incorrectness, because although the true scripture is poetic in its use of the truth, its currently considered not nice to simoultaniously make fun of the holy binky :)
Posted by Marauder 3 years ago
picking up from where you left off with me deventgenie, you just got done with a rant about emotions not having bearing on truth, and now you want to say your emotions do just to be of a contrasting stance to us? you cant have it both ways. either you claim you were wrong about there being a problem with beliefs that 'feel right' inherently, or you keep your charge that there's something wrong with that and admit you are in agreement with us that our 'hearts' or emotions are deceitful and not a grounds for saying somethings is Truth for truth is indifferent to emotions.

either we are in agreement on that or you actually think just because something 'feels right' it must be for you.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
I have read the bible. I and an increasing number of intelligent people, see the bible for what is in the 21 st century, as childish, wicked, and immoral.

FourHorsemen 3:15--Science we are told should NOT tread on the toes of theology. But why should scientists tiptoe respectfully away? Its time for people of reason to stand up, and say enough is enough. Religious FAITH discourages independant thought, its divisive and its dangerous--Richard Dawkins :)

STUDS 7:2--Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science "to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering." :)

DevientGenie 8:22--Believers in a god do good for the sake of getting a reward and avoiding punishment after death, non believers in Bronze Aged fiction, do good becasue theyre nice :)

Owyuken 2:6-- The Religous views on Science: Grrrrr, or, thats kinda neat and/or weird....huh, or devil, or conspiracy, or money grubbing lazy stupid scientists, or incomplete or inadequate, or so what?, whats scinece have to do with anything?, or just flat out impossible to be even close to correct. The brilliant mind of a highly educated person in all areas of all industries in society says about science: Wow...Each discovery is INSPIRING, because it gives me HOPE for the future, and I feel the LOVE with a closer connection to the universe, and I have FAITH that science will find a way to BLESS AND SAVE me and make life better, whenever it can, because it is simply the most BEAUTIFUL AND MAGICAL simply becasue we know its real, and because we know how it works. Science is done by brilliant minded individuals who win Nobel Prizes , NOT idiots, or pedophiles" :)

BigKids 8:23--Humanism is a philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity because we want to, that doesnt sound too difficult right
Posted by bergeneric63 3 years ago
And how do you think the earth is 750 million years old. How can you believe evolution when there are so many flaws when there are so many things wrong with it? Not to mention you never answered my question I will restate it Do you read the Bible and have you ever studied it? Until you answer my question you can not make any such remark as to evolution and/or me being supposedly delusional.
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
DevientGenie 4:44--Commercial use of fairy tales may pay, however, no fairy tale pays like religious tale :)

GoodGuys 4:8--The book of Numbers is jam packed with knowledge on love. Example: Numbers 31:14-18...14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army "the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds"who returned from the battle.

15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam"s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord"s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

LOVE 36:18--Evidence of all loving is in the book of Numbers 15:32-36.....32 And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day.

33 And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

34 And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.

35 And the Lord said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

36 And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses :)

Awwwww....What a sweetheart that lord is :)

RIDDLES 14:7--What do politicians and a personal god have in common? We want to have faith they know how to make things better but it never happens :)
Posted by devient.genie 3 years ago
now youre really showing signs of serious delusion the more poison that spews in your comments.

The earth being 6,000 yrs old, is like saying the distance from Phoenix, Az to Boston Mass is 15 ft :)

You have no business discussing science if you believe the planet is only 6,000 yrs old anymore than a plumber from scranton, pa discussing fractal geometry and the Higgs Boson in front of thousands of people :)
Posted by bergeneric63 3 years ago
Oh and I am sure my friend here would love to debate that you are wrong but I would like him to refrain from doing so. Please Marauder Thankyou
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
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: Resolution unclear until PRO defined it. Poorly worded argument leads to conduct and grammar deductions for CON. PRO was simply more convincing.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstguy was only marginally coherent. His point seems to be that Christians can discuss god, and even dispute about the topic, so long as they don't do so in a prideful way. That is, he has a personal definition of the word "debate" meaning something like "debate in a cocky manner." He admitted that it's okay for Christians to debate about god (so long as they aren't trying to win), so he loses the debate. Secondguy was offensive in his first post. He tried to set the rules after Firstguy no longer had a chance to get out of the debate. And he tried to bully and intimidate Firstguy out of challenging his rules on the grounds that Secondguy no longer had a chance to get out of the debate. If it's wrong for Firstguy to do, Secondguy shouldn't be doing it either. And in any case, these debates aren't supposed to be about intimidation. Persuasion to Secondguy. Conduct to Firstguy.