The Instigator
Renzzy
Pro (for)
Losing
56 Points
The Contender
PreacherFred
Con (against)
Winning
57 Points

Predestination

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/25/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,635 times Debate No: 2187
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (35)
Votes (33)

 

Renzzy

Pro

I saw that you were previously engaged in a debate on this topic, and it wanted to challenge you to a debate on the same topic, because it is one that interests me greatly. I have always wanted to debate somebody who is learned in the Bible on this subject, and I finally have the chance! YAY! I am going to enjoy this debate, and I am sure that I will learn how to be a better debtor in the future. I believe that the Bible teaches predestination, and that believing in free will is much like believing in faith by works. Now to my argument.

Attempting to organize thoughts...

Ok. I think I'm ready. First of all, the Bible teaches total depravity, and I think we can agree on that. From the beginning of the Old Testament to the end of the New Testament we read that man is totally depraved. For example, Genesis 6:5 says that every intent of their hearts were only evil continually. I understand that this was before the flood, but it would be wrong to say that we are better than them today, so that verse does apply. This verse is reinforced by Jeremiah 13:23, which reads:

Jeremiah 13:23---
"Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil"

The Old Testament clearly states the totally depraved state of all men. The New Testament also clearly states that man is totally depraved. In Romans, Paul makes it clear that there is nobody that is righteous.

Romans 3:10-12---
"As it is writen, 'There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
There have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.'"

Like I said above, I think that we can agree on the fact that man is totally depraved.

Now, however, a question must be asked. Is accepting the gift of God by ones own free will a good work? I think it is, and saying that you, out of your entirely depraved mind, are seeking after and accepting God is ludicrous and contrary to what the scriptures above teach. The scriptures CLEARLY teach that "There is none who seeks after God". Also, if man had the free will to choose God on his own, it would mean that anyone could come and be saved. If this was true, it would nullify what Jesus Himself says in Mark.

Mark 4:10-12---
"But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parables. And He said to them, 'To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that 'seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.'"

These verses make it clear that God did not intend for all to come to Him. Saying that men come to Him by their own free will, however, contradicts God.

Now I will defend my position as a predestination. There are many, many verses in the Bible that are evidence for predestination, the most commonly used I think would be Romans 9. I am not going to concentrate on Romans 9, however, but turn to other, more commonly looked over verses, such as the verses in John.

In John 6:37, Jesus says that everyone that the Father GIVES Him will come, and proceeds to say in verse 44 that "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him...". In verse 65, He continues, saying that nobody can come to the Him unless it has been granted to them by God. Here we have it from Jesus' own mouth that only those whom the Father calls will be raised up on the last day.

King David also understood that it is not by our human power that we are brought into the kingdom of God. In Psalm 65 he shows this by saying:

Psalm 65:4---
"Blessed is the man You choose, and cause to approach You, that he may dwell in your courts. We shall be satisfied with the goodness of Your house, of Your holy temple."

Even in the Old Testament, believers are aware that it is by GRACE ALONE we are saved. Moving back into the New Testament, we see that "grace alone" is also preached here. In Ephesians 2 Paul again makes it clear that it is not by our works that we get into heaven.

Ephesians 2:8-10---
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith, and this not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. Not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

I must put emphasis on the phrase "Not by works, so that no one can boast.".
If you say "I know I am going to heaven because I accepted Christ as my savior" you are boasting. You are saying that it was by your own free will that you accepted Christ, and you are boasting. SAYING THAT YOU ACCEPTED CHRIST ON YOUR OWN ACCORD IS LIKE SAYING "I WORKED MY WAY INTO HEAVEN". Nowhere in the Bible does it say "it is by works you have been saved", all it says is that you are saved by grace through the faith THAT GOD PUT IN YOU.

Now let me ask you a question. Do you believe that unborn babies that die go to hell? I would assume that your answer would be no. How, then, does that agree with your belief in free will? These babies have obviously not had a chance to accept Christ, so how do they fit in? well, you could say that they have not yet had a chance to sin, and therefore are perfect, but "There is no one righteous, no, not one.". Also, the have inherited the sins of Adam, which makes them guilty from the moment of conception. You must conclude, then, that God either allows them into heaven for nothing, taking away from Him the title of a completely just God, or, that He sends them to hell. If God predestined them, however, they would make it into heaven BY GRACE ALONE.

The Bible is also clear on the fact that some men are predestined for Gods judgement. This is stsed clearly in Jude.

Jude 7---
"For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ."

All of this may seen quite unfair, seeing that God picks and chooses who He wants to go to heaven, but, as Paul puts it:

Romans 9:21---
"Does not the Potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?"

Predestination does not diminish the love of God, as it would appear, but rather INCREASES it. It does this by showing us that God chose us "...while we were yet sinners..." (Rom. 5:8), deserving nothing but hell, to be with Him in glory BECAUSE HE LOVES US. He chose us, without us doing good works, (like accepting Him on our own accord) without us first loving Him, to be with Him in paradise! What about those God did not choose? They get what we all deserve. God is not obligated to save anyone, but because He loves us, he does save some, and it is amazing that He even does that.

"Amazing grace, how sweet the sound, that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost, but now am found, was blind but now I see!"

I will end with a question that I would like you to answer in your argument:

Why, as a a believer in free will, do you pray for the salvation of others? Are you not asking God to meddle in their free will?

I hope that I have made myself clear without sounding harsh, because it is not my intention at all to be harsh; but rather to be clear and concise.

Thanks!
PreacherFred

Con

Sorry, Renzzy, that I did not answer your challenge in a timely manner. Much is going on in my profession and I wanted to make certain that I could devote sufficient time to our discussion. Predestination has been debated since the early Christians so I doubt if we will establish a definitive answer to the validity of the theory of predestination. In fact, there exists two main streams of thought concerning this topic: predestination and conditional predestination. In actuality, predestination is a form of determinism but of a religious type and is especially found in monotheist systems of belief including both Christianity and Islam where omniscience is attributed to God.

From your opening statement it appears that you are a proponent of predestination in the strict sense. I, on the other hand, lean towards the conditional predestination theories. Both camps agree that God is omniscient and eternal free from limitations of time and even causality. He does see the past, present and future. Where we differ is that you believe that God does decide the eternal destinations of each person. On the other hand, I propose that while God is completely sovereign over all things, He has given each of us the gift of free will, which each person can exercise by accepting or rejecting God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ.

The debate goes back as early as 417 A.D. with St. Augustine of Hippo and the British monk, Pelagius. Even St. Augustine did not deny that man has the freedom to choose but he does assert that our ability to exercise our free will is subject to error and, on account of original sin, enslaved to sin. However, Pelagius would argue that the grace of God cures the effects of original sin setting man free to choose God's will. This is effected by God's grace working first within our soul, awakening our desire to do His will and God cooperates with man by granting our prayer requests for a greater desire and ability to choose His will.

Augustine's strict predestination is neither complete nor universally accepted by Christians. While you present Biblical quotes supporting predestinating grace, the concept of free will is also affirmed in Scripture and throughout Christian tradition.

A major problem with your view of predestination is that many things come to pass on a daily basis that are sinful and evil. If man truly does not have a free will and God ordered everything to come to pass, then God becomes the source of all the evil in the world, an idea I believe we must reject! "This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all (1 John 1:5), "When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death." "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." (James 1:13-15; 17)

What about Adam? On one hand he is commanded to refrain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (see Genesis 2:17), but on the other hand Adam's sin was preordained. God has given many laws and commands in the Bible, yet these are broken on a daily basis. Is God both the lawgiver and the lawbreaker if He ordains whatsoever comes to pass? God told Adam to leave that apple alone but Adam used his free will and chose to ignore God's command. What a wonderful life it would be if he had chose to obey instead!

There are a number of Scriptures where God commanded something, gave a decree, and what was decreed (because of human repentance arrived at by exercising free will) did not come to pass. "On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: ‘Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned." " (John 3:4). "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened." (Jonah 3:10) "In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, ‘This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover.' " (2 Kings 20:1). "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, ‘This is what the Lord, God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the Lord. I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for My sake and for the sake of my servant David.' " Especially note 1 Samuel 23:11-12. Had David remained in Keilah, Saul would have gone there and the men of the city would have betrayed David, but none of this happened because David left. Hence circumstances (human free will), and not immutable decrees or Fate, controlled these events. Rather than ordaining everything that happens, God reminds us that the future is flexible and that our choices today, whether good or bad, can alter our future. "If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed, and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned. And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted, and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it." (Jeremiah 18:7-10)
Debate Round No. 1
Renzzy

Pro

PreacherFred, thank you for accepting my debate! As I said, I have wanted to debate somone who is scripturally learned on this topic for a long time, and I thank you for that chance.

First off, let me asure you that I do not believe God ordains every one of every mans actions. I believe that God ordains the salvation of those whom He chooses, but I do not believe that He is dictating our every movement and thought. If God dictated our every move and thought, it would defeat the purpose of creating us in the first place. God created us to love and obey Him, and if He forced us to love and obey Him, what would be the point? I believe that we as men have free will that we exercise daily and in most circumstances, but God has pre-ordained our ending.

"A major problem with your view of predestination is that many things come to pass on a daily basis that are sinful and evil. If man truly does not have a free will and God ordered everything to come to pass, then God becomes the source of all the evil in the world, an idea I believe we must reject!"

Yes, we must reject this idea, because it is simply not true. God is not the founder of sin, man is. A ruler may forbid treason in his country, but that does not obligate him to do all in his power to prevent it, just as God hates sin, but allows it. It just may happen that the kingdom may learn something from the suffering that the treason brings, so that they may be better prepared to say no to it next time. The Bible makes it clear that all sin and evil are under God's perfect control. Job says thats "both the deceived and the deceiver are his", implying that God is in control of all evil. If God hates sin so much, and sin is under his divine authority, then how can you say that this makes God the author of sin? In allowing sin, God is simply using the tactic that many parents use; issue a command not to do such-and-such, and when the one who received the command continue is defiance (which in our depraved state of mind it is impossible for us to discontinue this thought process) God simply lets us proceed in the evil act so that we can learn from our mistake. This is not wrong of God, because God is not the one committing the sin, but the one allowing the sin to be committed. Is it wrong for the parent to allow the child to touch the stove after they continue to warn the child, but the child refuses to heed the warning?

In the Garden of Eden, God told Adam not to eat the fruit, but gave him the free will to choose for himself whether or not to eat it. When Adam chose to eat the fruit, man fell. This makes man the origin of sin on earth. A perfect God CANNOT be the origin of sin, because it goes against His nature. Even if Gods gift of salvation was free, it would be impossible for man to accept it, because it goes against his inherent sinful nature. I realize you addressed this in your argument, but what Pelagius said goes against what God Himself said:

Romans 3:10-12---
"As it is writen,
'There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
There have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.'"

Your last argument is, summed up, that God changes His mind, and does not therefore set anything in stone, because it all depends on what man through his free will decides. This argument I think is fatally flawed. First off, God Himself says that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. This implies that God CANNOT AND WILL NOT ever change. You actually quoted a verse that contradicts what you say in this paragraph:

"Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, WHO DOES NOT CHANGE LIKE THE SHIFTING SHADOWS." (James 1:13-15; 17)

If God changed His mind, it would go against what these scriptures teach. Also, I think it necessary to point out that saying God changes his mind implies that what He thought of doing first was wrong, taking away that title of infallible God. May I point out the fact that you have already denied God two of his attributes, which denies Him His sovereignty. Also, if God is ready to deal out justice, and then the one who He intended to judge turned and repented causing God to have to reconsider his judgement, it would imply that God did not know the person would turn and repent. This would take away the title of omnicient God. Now that makes three attributes you have denied God. I think that saying God changes his mind totally denies His deity.

My explaination, then, for the verses you present is this: It is a warning, not a promise. God, once again, is using a tactic often used by parents. He is saying, for the benefit of man, that if you do this, then this will happen, and if you do this, then this will happen. God ultimately knows what they will cjoose, but he is showing them the consequences if they disobey, and the reward if they obey.

"On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: ‘Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned." " (John 3:4)

This, then, is a warning, not a promise. Man needs this sort of thing to see exactly how terrible his sin is. God new that Nineveh would repent. Even Jonah knew they would repent, because he was mad at God for having mercy.

"When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had THREATENED." (Jonah 3:10)

This, then, is what God knew would happen all along. Here it says plainly that it was a warning, not a promise.

"In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, ‘This is what the Lord says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover.' " (2 Kings 20:1).

Once again, this is how God shows man just how terrible his sin is. God is showing Hezekiah that his sin is deserving of immidiate death, as is our sin today. However, because of God's mercy...

"Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, ‘This is what the Lord, God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the Lord. I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for My sake and for the sake of my servant David.' "

...He spared Hezekiah's life. God never intended to take his life, because He knew that Hezekiah would repent. God simply uses these warnings to remind us of what our transgressions are deserving of.

This argument applies to all of the verses that you presented to me, so because of my lack of space I will not address them all individually.

In your next argument, I would be grateful if you could address the points of my first argument that you did not in this argument, now that I have rebuttled your argument. As of right now, it still stands. I would also be grateful if you could answer my question of why, as a believer in free will, you pray for the salvation of unbelievers, and I would also like you to answer this question:

Denying God, and not believenf in Him, I think we can agree is a sin. However if unbelief is a sin, how can you say that not all people are going to heaven? Did God not die for all sin? Or is it that Jesus' death on the cross was enough for all, but was not intended for all, as Mark 4:10-12 suggests?

Thanks!

Renzzy
PreacherFred

Con

I certainly agree that, as you state, God created us to love and obey Him, but does not force us to. This very statement supports the concept of human free will. In giving man that gift, God chose to allow us to either choose to fulfill His desire for us to honor Him, or to choose not to. While the Creator does know the final score in this game of life, he allows us to play the game. In allowing us to do so, He gave us some input into that final score.

We must reject the idea that God created evil because we cannot fathom how an all-powerful God could create such a thing. The fruit produced from the Tree of Knowledge of both good and evil existed before man did, man didn't create it! So it must have been created by God. If God didn't create evil, then evil always existed. If evil always existed, then God did not create all things. Since we both agree that God created all things, then He must have created evil. "Both the deceived and the deceiver are His" because He created both.

Until Adam ate that fruit, he did not have a sinful nature. The potential for sin existed as soon as God created man with the ability to exercise free will since sin is defined as "An act that is regarded as a transgression of God's will." The Creator expressed His will by telling Adam not to eat the fruit. In choosing to disregard God's will, Adam unleashed the power of evil into the world. Adam didn't invent sin, he committed it. Adam's original sin was so great that God decreed that it would taint all succeeding generations. Man cannot transgress from God's will without the God-given ability to choose to do so. If we have the ability to choose between right and wrong then it logically follows that man can choose to follow God's will.

You choose to quote a portion of Paul's letter to the Romans but what does the whole chapter say? Paul is trying to explain that God offers salvation to all, not just the Jews. This is explicit in the verse preceding your quote: "What does all this mean? Does it mean Jews are better off than Gentiles? No it doesn't! Jews, as well as Gentiles, are ruled by sin, just as I have said." (Romans 3:9*) The summary paragraph of the chapter specifically delineates God's way of accepting people. "Now we see how God does make us acceptable to Him. The Law and the Prophets tell how we become acceptable, and it isn't by obeying the Law of Moses. GOD TREATS EVERYONE ALIKE. HE ACCEPTS PEOPLE ONLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST. All of us have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. But God treats us much better than we deserve, and because of Christ Jesus, He freely accepts us and sets us free from our sins. God sent Christ to be our sacrifice. Christ offered His life's blood, so that by faith in Him we could come to God. And God did this to show that in the past He was right to be patient and forgive sinners. This also shows that God is right when He accepts people who have faith in Jesus. What is left for us to brag about? Not a thing! Is it because we obeyed some law? No! IT IS BECAUSE OF OUR FAITH, and not because they obey the Law. Does God only belong to the Jews? Isn't He also the God of the Gentiles? Yes He is! There is only one God, and He accepts Gentiles as well as Jews, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITH. Do we destroy the Law by our faith? Not at all! We make it even more powerful." (Romans 3:21-30*) The Jews of the time claimed that only they were the chosen few who could be saved by God and Paul strongly pointed out that ALL COULD BE SAVED, IF THEY CHOSE FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST.

My last argument does state, in essence, that God does change His mind for He is a compassionate God. Nowhere did I say that God changes Himself for God will not change. He may decide to change His plans in response to our repentance from sin and acceptance of His will as the quotes I presented state. Your statement that God's ability to change His mind goes against what scriptures teach cannot be true since the scriptures I quoted give specific examples of when God chose to change His mind. None of the scriptures quoted detracts from God's infallibility. Because circumstances and events have changed my vision of a situation does not cause, as you suggest, my original vision to be wrong. The same is true of God!

Nothing I have stated denies God's sovereignty, omniscience or deity. While God certainly knows the final score of the game, he allows us to play the game by our own choices of plays and it is man who chooses which side he will end up on. God knows the outcome and, because "…I do not believe that He is dictating our every move or thought, it would defeat the purpose of creating us in the first place. God created us to love and obey Him, and if He forced us to love and obey Him, what would be the point?" Logically, it follows that if He gave us the gift of free will (to which you agree), what would be the point of that gift if He had already pre-ordained our fate? The omniscient God certainly knows the outcome but He chose not to use his power to preordain our fate when He chose to give us free will.

You state that the scriptures I quoted are merely warnings from God. I agree! God in essence was saying that unless something changes, this is going to happen. When His warning was heeded, the threatened outcome did not come to pass. God warned that Hezekiah would die. Hezekiah lamented and prayed and God relented and allowed him to live. What if Hezekiah didn't lament and pray? Are you saying God's warning was hollow and without merit? If, as you propose, no matter what Hezekiah did, his fate was preordained, then it wouldn't have mattered what he did, God would still have not have taken his life as he warned. God clearly spared Hezekiah because he chose to lament and pray!

We, as Christians, pray for the conversion of sinners. We pray that a spark of faith, of repentance, is ignited within their souls. We pray that God, in His infinite wisdom, will issue to the sinner a warning as was issued to Hezekiah and we offer prayers of hope that the sinner will heed the warning.

Jesus died on the cross for everyone to be forgiven. However, forgiveness is not effective until it is accepted. God knows in advance who will accept that forgiveness but he allows us to make the choice. His pre-knowledge of our choice doesn't decide the game, our choice does!

*Contemporary English Version
Debate Round No. 2
Renzzy

Pro

Renzzy forfeited this round.
PreacherFred

Con

I am disappointed that my worthy opponent chose not to finish this debate. It has been a worthwhile exchange of ideas. My opponent wanted an explanation of the Biblical quote presented below and it follows.

Mark 4:10-12---
"But when He was alone, those around Him with the twelve asked Him about the parables. And He said to them, 'To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that 'seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest they should turn, and their sins be forgiven them.'"

This is a recording of Jesus' explanation of why He taught in parables. Jesus saw that the Jewish church leaders of the time had already shut their eyes to what they saw before them, and closed their ears to His words, because for them to admit that Jesus could heal the sick and raise the dead meant that He was God and His words against them were true. Rather than accept the fact that "No man can do those things expect God be with him" rather than face their sin, they chose to close their eyes. So, Jesus began teaching to the multitudes, (you and me as it were) through parables: simple stories that the self-righteous rulers would see as folly, but the everyday man could understand. Simple stories that anyone with an open heart could hear, and could understand, and might turn to Christ to be saved.

People could understand the parables if they wanted to – if they were willing to seek an explanation and accept what was being said. When the disciples, and others, asked for an explanation, it was given to them. Thus Jesus was not intentionally preventing people from learning; He was the one giving them opportunities to learn, and if His words remained a mystery to his audience, it was the audience's choosing. In fact, in the verses following the passage that you cited from Mark, Jesus says: "For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, and whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear." (Mark 4:22-23)

While the title of this debate "Predestination" did not contain a question or propose a certain stand, it is clear that the proponent advocated the Calvinistic theory that only a chosen few will reach heaven, no matter what choices man has made on earth. He has cited several Biblical quotes as evidence of this theory. There are scripture passages that seem to support my opponent's view but there are at least as many, if not more, that support my stand. In fact, one has to be extremely careful in quoting scripture. While the verses are the ingredients of the Good Book, the Bible as a whole is the soup. As I demonstrated above and in my previous arguments, one should not name the soup until all of the ingredients are added. Each new verse adds to the general meaning of the whole chapter and the message of Jesus who indicated that all what anyone, not a chosen few, had to do was merely to heed His call, "Come, follow Me!."
Debate Round No. 3
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
SOLARMAN: "don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater"

Good point; Jesus had some very good teachings. "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"... "Do not pray out in public like these fools"... Even though the Bible is basically a work of fiction, that turned into a work of superstition, it would be a shame to discount the fact that before the zealots got ahold of it, it had a lot of good lessons (that unfortunately a lot of Christians don't follow).

SleepiB - another good point; it seems that the patchwork for the logical coherency of Christianity will never be complete.
Posted by sleepiB 8 years ago
sleepiB
The idea of free will never existed until someone needed an excuse for the problem of evil.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Keep at it. It is refreshing to see a believer on this site.

Your friend,

Fred
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Thank you, PreacherFred, that is a great encouragement. I will keep studying, and hopefully come back with a more informed argument. Your debating skills definatly are superior to my own, and you defiantely have a better knowledge of Bible then me. I will work towards making clearer the way I translate the scriptures I quote, and using other scripures and logic to back what I say.

Thanks again for the encouragement!

Your friend,

Renzzy
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
Renzy, you did an overall excellent job and will forward to your chalenge.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
PreacherFred,

I am truly sorry if I sounded arrogant, because that was not my intention at all. I was simply trying to make it clear what I thought, because I don't want to be vague and then have to explain myself. I really am sorry if I sounded arrogant.

I will study more on this topic, and maybe in the future challenge you again. For now, however, I will leave it as it is. I do wish I would have had time to post my last argument, but whats done is done. Thanks for the fun and interesting debate!

Your friend,

Renzzy
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
the native Americans have it much closer to reality

THE GREAT SPIRIT

in my view

the "creator" God of the bible is a myth

the morality, however , is IMPORTANT

as is CHRIST and HIS teachings

dont want to throw the baby out with the bathwater

my 2c

SOLARMAN
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
There were a couple of times that I wasn't sure if you were being arrogant or not. It is refreshing to find a young person on this site that still believes in God.

I was raised Roman Catholic but I also respect my Native American heritage. I have evolved into, perhaps, a liberal non-denominational Christian who likes to keep it simple. My moniker comes more from "preaching" recovery topics than anything else. While a non-denominational preacher, I am not an ordained minister.

My intention of our debate was to demonstrate two different views to the other readers and then let them decide which view best suits them. As such, I saw it as a trading of ideas, not a debate. Propose a new debate and I will consider it, based upon it being friendly and without rancor.

Thanks, Gary. I would only expect that you vote based upon the presentation, and not the topic. As you indicate, I think Renzy will go a long way in life and might even consider the ministry.
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
PreacherFred,
I would like to restart this debate, if you are up to it. I would like to have a chance to end ths debate with dignity, rather then appearing to back out. I would also make it longer. What do you think?
Posted by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
Thank you, easy2know. It is nice to know that some people on this site still vote acording to who they thought presented better arguments.

Thanks for the encouragement!

Renzzy
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 2 years ago
Krazzy_Player
RenzzyPreacherFredTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost conduct for forfeiting the last round.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
RenzzyPreacherFredTied
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: Pro, for me, gave more convincing analysis in the rebuttals.
Vote Placed by PreacherFred 7 years ago
PreacherFred
RenzzyPreacherFredTied
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 
Vote Placed by pcmbrown 7 years ago
pcmbrown
RenzzyPreacherFredTied
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 
Vote Placed by charles15 7 years ago
charles15
RenzzyPreacherFredTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
RenzzyPreacherFredTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
RenzzyPreacherFredTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by flatwhite 8 years ago
flatwhite
RenzzyPreacherFredTied
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 
Vote Placed by erick1 8 years ago
erick1
RenzzyPreacherFredTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by texasrulz10 8 years ago
texasrulz10
RenzzyPreacherFredTied
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