The Instigator
Farooq
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
smith76
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

The Christian day of worship and rest should be the seventh-day, not Sunday as is common.

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  
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: 2/15/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,625 times Debate No: 2691
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (31)
Votes (13)

 

Farooq

Pro

So far on debate.org I have kept to debating politics and an assortment of other issues, but have continually kept away from issues of Faith, despite the importance it plays in my life. I've seen a lot of broad philosophical views of religion- usually a direct a shallow confrontation between Deists, Christians and Atheists. But for the purpose of this debate, I would like to instead debate a fellow Christian of any denomination in a particular point of doctrine. Please keep in mind that for the purpose of this debate, one is encouraged to use the Bible as a reference and way of backing up your arguments.
The point of doctrine I have chosen is that of "Shabat", that is the Fourth Commandment, which allocates the seventh-day as a memorial to the majesty of God's creation and intends it to be used for rest and worship. Among more observant Jews, this practice is continued to this day. Meanwhile, for some reason, Christians (which seem to acknowledge indisputably the other nine commandments) ignore it, believing it no longer theologically viable or that the day of the Resurrection has somehow taken precedence over the eternal sanctification of the Sabbath.
There were many fundamentals among the Judaic religion before Christ's time. Although it is generally perceived in the Christian community that many of the 603 ordinances were part of a setting-specific legal code that is malleable enough not to be continued in today's society, the 10 Commandments were written on STONE and placed inside the MIDDLE of the Ark, wherars the ordinances were written on PAPER and placed at the SIDE, signifying they were not as important as the stone tablets. Now, when Christ came to this world to fulfil His Mission, He manifested a fresher bout of theological thought and made fulfilled many parts of the Law, namely replacing the sacrificial system with Himself, but explicitly recorded such amendments. If he were to take one of the oldest and most directly explained fundamentals of the Church, and replace it with a Sunday sabbath or none at all, would one not assume He would have clarified more than the vague scriptures used by opponents of the Sabbath?
Rather if one is to study Church history one realises that the Early Church did congregate mainly on the Sabbath, and kept it as Christ had. It was only when Constantine tried to bring politics into the Church by appeasing Sunday-congregating pagans that it became common practice. Looking back, is not a more sound theological descison to respect the Word of God (the 10 C's were the only thing actually written by God in the Bible) rather than a human tradition?
smith76

Con

While I could care less, I have a hard time agreeing with you because I seriously doubt that God would care if the day of rest is on "The Seventh Day", or on "Sunday". Besides, is not the measure of time, and the labels we put on time, i.e. days, months, etc., a secular principle? Why would god care is we rested on "Saturday" or "Sunday"? To challenge an establishment based on the reason that you are arguing is foolish and useless.
Debate Round No. 1
Farooq

Pro

Yes, it is true that there were secular calendars, including our midnight based Gregorian one is among these. But the principle of setting aside a day of worship is not. God explicitly inserted it into the 10 Commandments, which now lie in the centre of the Ark, which was a symbol of His Presence, the holiest relic ever put on the face of the Earth. Do you also beg to differ that the commandments regarding idolatry and adultery should be removed as well from Christian fundamentals? What does matter is the principles that correlate with the command- a defined work ethic, and a specific time set aside for God. Disregarding these for a mere humans tradition is not at all in the spirit of the Bible.
smith76

Con

You just conceded your whole point. You admit that all calenders in use today are secular, and that all God says is that a day be set aside for worship/rest. No one is disregarding the 10 Commandments. A day of worship is still set aside by those who practice this religion, correct? Does it really matter to God if that day happens to not be the seventh day according to a secular calender? I think not. I think he cares that we set a day aside to rest/worship.
Debate Round No. 2
Farooq

Pro

No I have not conceded my point- just the opposite in fact. The seven day cycle has been continous, and Shabat was a time estbalished by God pertianing to rest rest and worship. In the Torah, and the 4 commandment specifically, Sabbath is defined as the seven day, sunset to sunset. Since it is so very specific, why is it we Believers have disregarded it en masse? If one belives they have the authority to alter a Divine Decree and replace it with "a tradtion of man", than one should seriously consider why one is doing such. And if Ancient Israel, Jesus, the Early Church all practised such a celebration as according to the Will, by what authority did Constantine alter this Divine Decree? Moving the Christian day of worhsip to Sunday was purely done for poltical reasons at the time in an effort to fuse together Roman pagans and Roman Christians, but not for proper theological reasons. Personally I would prefer to celebrate in obedinace the decreed tradtion of God, than a polytheist custom.
smith76

Con

SSORRY, ACCIDENTALLY POSTED THIS IN THE COMMENT SECTION............

First of all, only a fool would do EVERYTHING the bible states literally; the Bible condones slavery, are you saying that it is a biblical tradition to have slaves? Your entire point about the seventh day is self imploding. You are basically that the calender in use today considers Saturday to be the seventh day. The Gregorian calender was enacted in the 1500's thousands of years after the Ten Commandments, and after the rule of Constantine. That being said, the seven day week has only been around since the 1500's. Based on these facts, how can a set of commands command you to do something (rest on the seventh day) if the seven day week cycle that exists now didnt even exist then? Sure they could have rested once every seven days, but they did not know what the seventh day was in relation to the other days, just that it was every seven days. Basically, if they got their days mixed up, they could not refer to a calendar and fugure out that it was the seventh day. Secondly, the concept of a seven day calendar was not intruduced until the 3rd century. Again, how could god give a commandment to worship on the seventh of the week, if the week did not exist until the 3rd century? Before the 7 day week, thee was an 8 day week. Finally, who is to say that Sunday is the "first" day of the week? Why cant it be the third, forth, first, second? If you say that that is how the calendar is designed, then you have just proved my point. You will be saying that the calendar did not exist when god gave the commandment and thus those who worshiped before the enactment of the 7b day week that we know now were unable to follow it. Besides, the Bible says that we should remember the seventh day. Doesnt Sunday fall every 7 days? I think God means that every 7 days, we should rest and worship. No matter if it is in Mondays, or Saturdays, or Wednesdays.
Debate Round No. 3
Farooq

Pro

Sigh...

Yes the Gregorian Calender is recent but it is based on the seven cycle established at Creation by our Lord, a cycle that was affirmed both by Moses and Jesus so that we know no days were lost or miscalculated. Also, God is very specific that His Day is Sabbath, and specifically dubs it to be Saturday, as it was in the begining. What you think God means is a very malleable idea that can be twisted any which way, so why is it that one would replace the commandment of God, and act of love and obediance towards your Creator, for a personal preference or human tradition? T

he Sabbath is a sign between God and his people, a symbol of the rest they shall enter (Hebrews 4), and is described to be celebrated in Heaven (Revelation 21, i think) so we know God did not intend to have it made obosolete.

Thank you.
smith76

Con

You offer only the bible as your only source for evidence, yet you to fail to realize that the bible was written by hundreds of people, full of contradictions, and was put together by the Romans. I would hardly consider this a legitimate source by anyone's standards. Secondly, you say that God's day is Saturday. Again, where is the word Saturday mentioned in the Bible? You downplay my interpretaion of the Bible by saying that I twist its meaning. Yet you are offering an interpretation. Are we to believe that you have some divine insiht into the meaning of the bible that the rest of man kind lacks? Also, you say that God specifically commands Saturday be his day of worship, yet Saturday did not exist until the Gregorian calender, how is this possible? I again assert that the meaning of this command is that we observe a day of rest every seven days, not on a specific day that has a specific name that didnt exist until 1300 years after the command was given. By resting every seven days, we are still recognizing that God rested on the seventh day. Are you saying that God rested on Saturday? Though there was no one on earth at the time inorder to keep time? Marke the date? Write the word down?
Debate Round No. 4
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by lightningtongue 6 years ago
lightningtongue
The TEN COMMANDMENTS on the stone is not binding at Christians.

It is part of the OLD COVENANT, and a "mere shadow" of the things to come.

You can challenge me on a debate regarding Sabbath.
Posted by Rousseau 8 years ago
Rousseau
I'm glad someone else that was intelligent posted.
Posted by Thoreau 8 years ago
Thoreau
ou continue to say that he is wrong in everything else. If Rousseau is purportedly so wrong about everything, how do we know that he isn't wrong about how he voted? He may indeed be lying, as he brought up. You certainly have no proof otherwise, and if we're going off of his word then he says that he didn't. Your argument is invalid.

Then you say that you're taking the high road. What ordained you to be the ultimate judge of morality? You can't say debate.org here, because it doesn't have the authority to decide what is moral and what isn't. Nor can you say the government. So tell me, who DID decide that you're the most perfect human being ever?

You point out that his metaphor (or actually, YOUR metaphor) isn't a perfect representation of the situation you're discussing. What you ignore is that any metaphor that isn't the exact situation in question is going to have minor flaws here and there. Obviously, burning children and voting against someone are two highly different things, yet you fail to recognize that. Another invalid point for you.

In your next post, you lie about the evidence you have, although you've actually done that all along, and then basically say that Rousseau is biased. Excellent observation, I'm biased too. I bet YOU'RE biased, too! We're all biased, aren't we? Even if he is biased against you, that doesn't change your role as a debater: To convince us that you're right. If he's biased against you, that makes your job harder, but that doesn't mean that he's unconvinceable. I'm sure that if you came up with some real arguments, then Rousseau would come around and vote for you.

I don't have time to attack your last statement, but alot of what you've said afterwards is basically some repetition of what I've already refuted, so I don't really feel it necessary anyway. I've sufficiently proven that you're wrong.
Posted by Thoreau 8 years ago
Thoreau
that Rousseau shouldn't fool himself, he does indeed vote against you. You're not thinking clearly, or you would have caught this logical conundrum, unless I'm overestimating you. I urge you to calm down, think about what you're saying, and ask yourself if you really want to say it. When all of your posts are pure rant, you are kind of discredited.
If he has no authority to vote, which you can't even prove that he did, then what authority do you have to even argue? Since the site is about voting and arguing, one would assume that the authority to vote or argue comes from...the site. Or, if you're American, then you can say that the government ordains voting and speaking. In any case, he has every right to vote. It is not outside the rules to do so. You have every right to contest his vote, I'll give you that. But I have a right to point out how what you are saying is wrong.

You say that he is trying to indoctrinate, but isn't that the same as what you're doing? Prove to me that your way of thinking is better than his, and you'll have won this argument. Unfortunately for you, you can't prove it, and so this argument is lost for you.

Next, he says that voted him down, exactly like you were complaining that he did to you. You asked for proof. But Rousseau is right, that is incredibly hypocritical of you. Asking evidence, where you are accusing him of doing the exact same thing that he apparently did to you, is undeniably an unintelligent and hypocritical thing to do.

Even if your argument is honesty, then Rousseau can still vote you down, because based on how you have argued here, I honestly believe that it would be very easy for you to lose. From this sample of your debate, I can honestly say that I don't believe you won any debates. Honesty is being upheld, and no integrity is lost from the site.
And it's obvious that he's not teaching you a lesson, because you're not learning anything.

You next say that he admitted to voting you down. However, y
Posted by Thoreau 8 years ago
Thoreau
A compounding of what smith76 has said, with refutation:

"We as CHRISTians observe our day of rest on Sunday because CHRIST rose again on the 3rd day, defeating death."

Actually, the religion is not named for the day on which we rest, it's named based off of what we call our Savior. We do not rest on Sunday because Jesus rose on that day, since the Sabbath has definitely been around since before Jesus' time. Since you seem absorbed by who has evidence (although you are lacking), then here: Jesus was, several times, attacked by the Pharisees for performing miracles on the Sabbath. So obviously, it was around before him.
Now, how do we know that Christians celebrate the Sabbath the same day as Jews? Well, that shouldn't be too hard to see, considering that Christianity is really only different from Judaism in one major point: We believe that the Savior has already come and gone, and will come again, whereas they believe that the Savior has not come yet, but will come.

Your next comment basically criticized Rousseau for voting against you, when a) you don't have your all-important evidence to back it up, so by your own creed, what you said doesn't count there, and b) he provided a reason for his voting against you, so it clearly wasn't just "voting against you for the sake of voting against you". Invalid point.

Next you say that he was punishing you for disagreeing, when, again, you have no proof whatsoever. Then you said that the site didn't work, and had a rant, basically. Honestly, it sounded more like you were just angry than actually trying to make a point.

In your next comment, you said verbatim: "If you are SINCERELY not convinced, then by all means vote against me. Because in the end, that is how everyone on this site votes, even you." What exactly do you mean here? Do you mean that everyone on this site votes against you? Because that's clearly not true--you have atleast five votes. What was your point, that everyone votes? Really. You said
Posted by Rousseau 8 years ago
Rousseau
Yep, kind of thought so. You woefully under covered my points whenever the comment got long. Alright, that's fine.

I'm sure your method works fine for you, but I believe mine is more fair. I was simply illustrating a point of how yours could go wrong. Had I voted off of arguments, you would have won your debates (save this one). However, we are from different ends of the ideological spectrum, we inherently disagree on things. Therefore, you never convinced me of anything, and thus my vote.

I was merely trying to prove that smith's way of voting is inherently flawed, and he turned it into a reason to vote against me (Without truly reading the debates) and attack me.

As for whether or not ad hominem attacks are immoral, I believe they are, and morals are defined by the people.

P.S.: I never lied.
Posted by Rousseau 8 years ago
Rousseau
cont.

<4. Voting me down without even reading the articles in order to "teach me a lesson" as if you have some moral authority to do so.>

I have the right to voice my opinions and I have been simply trying to get you to see the error of your ways. I am debating you. You continually make this about me, personally. I'm not seeing why.

< In voting me down, you not only prove that you are an ignorant fool who is unwilling to change your ways because you believe you are right, but you fail to disprove my method of voting because you did not vote using my method of voting, which is based on sincerity of being convinced.>

Alright, I hate to use IM slang, but I did just laugh out loud. "you are an ignorant fool who is unwilling to change your ways because you believe you are right". Are you seriously preaching to me about stubbornness? A conservative protestant republican who is arguing about how his way is better than mine by attacking me personally. Interesting.

Also, can you prove I didn't vote fairly? You most certainly cannot. The only evidence AT ALL is my word. Again, if you don't believe me, that's your own problem. Your main argument in this debate was god "not caring". How is that convincing by any stretch of the word?? Additionally, it seems likely you voted me down without reading the debates. Again... Hypocrite.

<When have I been hypocritical. I have asked him this question, but have not received an answer.>

First, I have answered several times. Your style of debate is the always funny, seldomly used "ignore tactic". You continually ignore many points, statements, and questions. That is why I believe I'm right. In fact, were I a betting man, I'd bet you woefully undercover my posts.

Also, see this post and the previous one for references to your hypocritical-ness.
Posted by smith76 8 years ago
smith76
There is no point trying to argue with you because no matter what I say, it all boils down to your personal vested interest in your voting methods, and mine in my voting methods. I actually wont post back, but will leave you with this, I have attempted to remain as honest as possible, I have not lied, I have simply interpreted your statements as you have mine. I have made all attempts to protray the same messages (meaning not being hypocritical). For the record, ad ominem attacks are not inherintly immoral, as you have stated, but lying is.
Posted by Rousseau 8 years ago
Rousseau
Alright, I guess I was wrong. I'll be posting at least one more time, as I'd like to correct some lies smith76 has been perpetrating.

<You make these false claims, do not back them up with evidence, and then idolize yourself by informing us that you will not grace us with your presence again.>

What claims are false? What evidence did I not provide? And how does telling you I wouldn't be posting back as the conversation was fruitless fall under the category of "informing us that you will not grace us with your presence again"?

<I dont think anyone cares if you will post back, because I can almost gaurantee that you will read this comment.>

Sound logic!

<You attempt to make yourself look superior by by pointing out minor typos and errors in my statements.>

Anyway, you kept misspelling "site" and I thought it would be nice if you knew. Part of being convincing is using grammar. I thought you would take the help willingly. Oh well.

<Yet all my arguements are backed up by evidence.>

Are they now? Well, a lot of your claims have been WRONG? Is that what you were trying to say?

There IS a difference between Attacking, and arguing about whose views are correct, you know.

<Openly lying about your actions on this site (which further backs up the fact that you have a personal bias in this case).>

I merely said you cannot prove I did something. It's just a point.

Again with the putting words in my mouth. You make it sound like I don't realize the cruelty involved. OF course it's effective, but it's cruel. But did you mention I had said that? No. What you are doing are pointless ad hominem attacks that are not only irrelevant, but more telling of you than I. You keep saying that I'm pretentious and unmoral, while you continually use ad hominem attacks. Chalk another one under the hypocrite box.
Posted by smith76 8 years ago
smith76
You make these false claims, do not back them up with evidence, and then idolize yourself by informing us that you will not grace us with your presence again. I dont think anyone cares if you will post back, because I can almost gaurantee that you will read this comment. You attempt to make yourself look superior by by pointing out minor typos and errors in my statements. Yet all my arguements are backed up by evidence. Which is more than I can say for your statements. Since we are thanking people, let me thankyou for the following:

1. Attacking my personal views on the nature of a theoretical debate because I believe that voting becasue one side did not convince you is a correct way to vote (sounds like ou have a personal bias in this instance).

2. Openly lying about your actions on this site (which further backs up the fact that you have a personal bias in this case).

3. Advocating child abuse as a way of "effective teaching".

4. Voting me down without even reading the articles in order to "teach me a lesson" as if you have some moral authority to do so. In voting me down, you not only prove that you are an ignorant fool who is unwilling to change your ways because you believe you are right, but you fail to disprove my method of voting because you did not vote using my method of voting, which is based on sincerity of being convinced.

Finally, I will pose this question to anyone that would like to answer, because apparently the great Rousseau will not be coming back after lying: When have I been hypocritical. I have asked him this question, but have not received an answer.
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Marauder 6 years ago
Marauder
Farooqsmith76Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
Farooqsmith76Tied
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 Thoreau 8 years ago
Thoreau
Farooqsmith76Tied
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 AndrewNietzsche 8 years ago
AndrewNietzsche
Farooqsmith76Tied
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 Nietzsche3245 8 years ago
Nietzsche3245
Farooqsmith76Tied
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 Rousseau 8 years ago
Rousseau
Farooqsmith76Tied
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 bigdog 8 years ago
bigdog
Farooqsmith76Tied
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 Farooq 8 years ago
Farooq
Farooqsmith76Tied
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 jinzy 8 years ago
jinzy
Farooqsmith76Tied
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 claypigeon 8 years ago
claypigeon
Farooqsmith76Tied
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