The Instigator
pivot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Michael the Archangel is a punk

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 495 times Debate No: 60891
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

pivot

Pro

punk: definition- a worthless person
punk: adjective- in poor or bad conditions

The Pro position, (mine) is that all the Angels, (both fallen and those not yet fallen) are the enemies of the Church. As always my main source for this debate will be the Bible. Con is welcome to use any source and good luck Con.

Opening argument:
Michael, Gabriel and the Cherubim are not the good guys that they have been represented as. They have a fatal flaw. The flaw is contained in hierarchy-

1 God

1 God
2 Angels

1 God
2 Angels
3 Fallen Angels

1 God
2 Angels
3 Mankind
4 Fallen Angels

1 God
2 Angels
3 Fallen Angels
4 Mankind

1 God
2 Angels
3 Regenerated Mankind
4 Fallen Angels
5 Un-regenerated Mankind

1 God
2 Regenerated Mankind
3 Angels
4 Fallen Angels
5 Un-regenerated Mankind
dsjpk5

Con

Since my opponent is the instigator, and has made the positive claim, the burden of proof is on him/her. My opponent must show that Michael the.Archangel is a "punk". My opponent has defined a "punk" as "a worthless person". With that in mind, I have provided the definition of "worthless", and "person". Keep in mind, in order for my opponent to win, not only does he have to show Michael the Archangel to be "worthless", but he must also be able to show him to be a PERSON (and not an ANGEL). I wish my opponent luck! And now for the definitions:

worthless: without worth; of no use, importance, or value; good-for-nothing [1]

person: a human being, whether an adult or child [2]

Sources
1. :http://dictionary.reference.com...
2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
pivot

Pro

What is the prob there Con? God is a person. Is the archangel now better than God? Maybe Con does not understand hierarchy?

A general is not a captain. A captain is not a sergeant. And so forth-

The archangel is being challenged. A court marshal is in order. The archangel is falling from the top on down the ranks to an 'it'. Because that is what hell makes out of a person, an 'it'.

We will start with the 'Prodigal Son':
Identifying the characters-
1 Father
2 Older son
3 Younger son

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6)

We can identify who the father is- God

We can identify who the youngest son is- each one of us according to Isaiah

In the parable the oldest son complains saying that he never turned away from the father. So according to Isaiah the oldest son cannot be human, (excepting for Christ, but He is the one telling the parable and Christ never complained about us Prodigals). God created the angels first. And the Bible calls them sons of God in the OT. Approximately one-third of the angels did turn away from God. That would leave us with the archangel and his angels. They are the older brother in this parable because there is no one else left.

In the Book of Genesis the Cherubim prohibit mankind from the Tree of Life.

In other parts of the Books of Moses the Cherubim are depicted as covering the Mercy Seat in a cunning manner. In other words the Cherubim are between mankind and the Mercy of God.

Jude said that the archangel would not bring a railing accusation against the devil. How very pious. Or is there another reason?

In the Book of Daniel the messenger was sent with the answer to Daniel's prayer but just couldn't seem to overcome the bad guy.

But this is all just small stuff. So what if mankind is denied access to the Tree of Life by the angels. So what if the archangel won't stand up against mankind's greatest foe even though the archangel has two to one odds. So what if the Cherubim over shadow God's Mercy to us. Mankind deserves such treatment and more. So what if man goes to hell because he couldn't make contact with God Almighty. It is as Isaiah has said-

Mankind has turned his back on God.
dsjpk5

Con

My opponent didn't challenge the definitions I offered, so the issue has been dropped, and the definitions are deemed to be accepted by both parties for the remainder of the debate. With that in mind, in order to meet his/her burden of proof, my opponent STILL needs to show that Michael the Archangel is not only "without worth", but also a "human being". He/she now has one round to do so. I wish my opponent luck.

As for my opponent's second round claims, nowhere in the passages He/she quoted was Michael the Archangel mentioned. Therefore, all of my opponent's claims are self-refuting.
Debate Round No. 2
pivot

Pro

It is important to understand the point of an attack against the archangel. The archangel's position is justified by 'works'.

"Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin." (Romans 3:20)
"And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." (1 Samuel 15:22)

First of all, is there a way to pin 'the flesh' on the angels? (Con is not that far off track.)
Secondly, is obedience better than the Sacrifice of Christ?

(Sorry but I am not going to press these issues with this particular Con.)

But I am willing to go over one more verse-

"Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into." (1 Peter 1:12)

Proof enough for a Christian to understand that Michael and all the angels are worthless is that these angels did not bring us the Gospel. The angels don't even understand what the Gospel is. Proof that Christians don't have any need or use for angels is that the Holy Ghost has come down from heaven and indwells us. The Holy Ghost is our power. Not some second rate power like a bunch of ignorant angels.

But we must focus on the last part of the verse-

"which things the angels desire to look into."

Sorry for your luck all those who think that the Church is a gazing stock. The Church as the Bride of Christ is going to spend eternity in Heaven with Her Husband. We are not going to be spending eternity being stared at. What we do is none of their business. Besides the right of privacy between Christ and His Bride-

Do you really think that a jealous Husband is going to put up with a group of bores sitting around talking trash about His Bride's shortcomings, and how the bores, (read angels) never sinned and how the angels are owed by God?

Anyone who thinks that is just as ignorant as those angels at the end of 1 Peter 1:12
dsjpk5

Con

My opponent has failed to meet the burden of proof. No evidence was offered to indicate why we should believe Michael the Archangel is without worth or a human being. These definitions were accepted by both parties (see round two). Not only that, but none of the Bible passages offered even mentioned Michael the Archangel. The same goes for the word "punk". With this in mind, I have won. Asking me to prove a negative is unfair.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by GojanTorresque 2 years ago
GojanTorresque
While pro's argument makes no sense yet, con's attempt to use the definition of person semantically to win on a technicality is rather meaningless if the goal is the actually make a point.

Most people would accept non human intelligent beings to count as people. We just don't have any proven to exist so or definition only includes what we have encountered.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
pivotdsjpk5Tied
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: Saw little merit to either case. If Michael is a person as con suggests pro must prove, age would cause Michael to be "in poor or bad conditions." However this flaw in cons brief case does not make pros case suddenly sensical towards the resolution. As the default argument vote is tied, and neither have sufficiently swayed it to their side, tied is what it remains. (I am 100% certain con will win this, and I agree with that happening, I am however a very snobbish voter)
Vote Placed by daley 2 years ago
daley
pivotdsjpk5Tied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: While I disagree with Con's view that angels are not persons, Pro didn't refute this, nor did he show anything negative about Michael to make him a punk. His argument that Michael must be a punk simply by being in a hierarchy made no sense.