The Instigator
SitaraPorDios
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
JayCaesar12
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is no need for Jesus the Savior if all roads lead to god.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/19/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 691 times Debate No: 36820
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

SitaraPorDios

Pro

Let me explain my point of view. I believe that Jesus is the only way to be saved. Jesus came to earth to die and be raised from the dead so that we may be saved if we repent of being a sinner and accept Jesus. Allow me to show you some relevant Bible verses.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Acts 4:12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."
Romans 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
JayCaesar12

Con

I will be glad to take you up on this challenge, and I am looking forward to an interesting debate.

As to your topic, "There is no need for Jesus the Savior if all roads lead to God," although I am a devout Christian, I humbly disagree. There is still a need for Jesus as the Savior, even if universalism ends up being correct, one would just have to change what it would mean for Jesus to be the Savior. There are still many other areas where Jesus could be the Savior, and his message would still not be diluted or decreased.

Assuming the doctrine of universalism, that ultimately all will return to God and to Heaven, there still remains a large area where people would spend their lives, here on Earth. While everyone's spiritual lives would be secured, as everyone would have access to Paradise, mortal existence would be still remain as is. By that I mean, people would still be oppressed, people would still be starving, people would still be mourning, there would still remain large segments of the population without education or shelter or freedom or any of several other terrible and unimaginable afflictions. While man may be free in Heaven, man would still be enslaved on Earth. Here, Jesus would still be needed as a Savior.

A Savior to the broken, miserable lives than us on Earth still face. He would be able to save the orphans, the widows, the poor, the hungry, as the Bible declares that he is their eternal advocate. He said to the poor and hungry of his time not to worry about food, "because the birds of the air neither reap nor sow," (Matthew 6:26) but that the birds never went without what they needed. He said to the widows and the orphans, "blessed are those that mourn" because they would be laughing and comforted in the world to come (Matthew 5:4). Even though his death would not be a sacrifice for the sins of the world, the focus would then become his life, a life of love and compassion that brought comfort and attention to marginalized groups who would otherwise be ignored by the people in power of their time.

Because of this, Jesus could remain a Savior, but we would have to look to him, not as a metaphysical Savior who brought about some redemption between God and Man, but rather as a human Savior who redeemed people who were/are ignored and mistreated by their fellow man. Look at what Jesus declares in Luke 22:26, "the greatest among you be ...him who serves." So Jesus becomes just as much a Savior of mankind, who saves mankind from itself, except not from some ontological break with the Father but rather saving man from the excesses and dangers than man inflicts on each other. This is just as divinely inspired, just as merciful, just as loving, just as compassionate, just as Godly.
Debate Round No. 1
SitaraPorDios

Pro

That makes no sense. If we do not have to know Jesus to be saved, anyone can be saved by works, and you know that Ephesians 2:8-10 contradicts that. Universalism is not compatable with the Jesus is the only way view.
JayCaesar12

Con

I think we are unclear as to what the nature of Jesus "being a savior" means. From what you are arguing, Jesus can only act as a Savior if it is reference to delivering mankind away from their sins. So by that extremely narrow definition of what it would mean to be a Savior , the conclusion would obviously be that if Universalism is true, then Jesus as Savior would be false.

Yet, I am arguing that being a savior (which I will refer to with a lower case "s" from now on) could extend to other areas of Jesus' ministry other than for the sins of the world. Therefore, it is possible that if Universalism is true, then Jesus as savior would also be true. The definition of what it would mean to be a savior would just be adjusted to reflect the assumption that all people go to Heaven.

This whole argument is based on whether the title of "S/avior" would be applicable to Jesus Christ in any form were it proven that mankind needed no specific religious obligation to Jesus for entrance into Heaven. If Savior is defined strictly as being "a being who becomes the path to Heaven," then if Universalism is proven true, then that definition of Savior would be thrown out. However, if the definition of savior were to include "role model, hero, advocate for the disenfranchised, martyr for his support of the dispossessed classes of man" then even if Universalism is proven true, then Jesus would have a role as savior for the actions and teachings he brought about during his ministry. This argument, in theory, should be one over the nature of the definition of "S/savior" rather than necessarily what the Bible preaches theologically. This is due to the title question assuming that:

1. The world exists.
2. Multiple religions exist.
3. Heaven exists.
4. Jesus existed, taught, performed particular actions, and was crucified.
5. Everyone shall go to heaven regardless of how they acted in life.
6. Jesus was a savior.

Premises 1,2,3,4, and 5 are assumed to be in this argument how the world is. The question now is, whether premise 6 is possible if the first 5 premises are true. Because we are operating under different definitions of what premise 6 would entail, you are reaching a contradiction.

1. The world exists.
2. Multiple religions exist.
3. Heaven exists.
4. Jesus existed, taught, performed particular actions, and was crucified.
5. Everyone shall go to heaven regardless of how they acted in life.
6. Jesus was a savior.
7. A Savior acts to allow people to go to Heaven.

By arguing that Savior is limited to leading people to Heaven in a world where Universalism is assumed true, that naturally leads to the contradiction. You cannot create a hypothetical world where everyone can go to Heaven, but then declare that there is only one way to get to heaven.

In regards to your scripture quotations, I respond with the Epistle of James, written by the Brother of Jesus Christ himself, who declared that the only religion that God acknowledges is " to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." (James 1:26). Your use of Ephesians is also misunderstood, as Paul is referring to the works of the Mosiac Law. Paul is arguing that being circumcised and obeying the dietary laws will not save you, NOT that good works such as caring for the poor and downtrodden are useless in the eyes of God. So Paul believes that works will not save mankind from sin, which is true, but he is referring to a very specific type of works: works of Jewish custom and dietary laws.

Forgive me if I sounded like I was ranting too much. I find this topic fascinating to think about. The implications are an interesting one. Thanks for letting me think this all out! :)
Debate Round No. 2
SitaraPorDios

Pro

SitaraPorDios forfeited this round.
JayCaesar12

Con

I am going to be perfectly, honest. I don't know how to respond to the forfeiture. I will not add any further arguments as I feel mine stand strongly against opposition. Thank you and have a good day. :)
Debate Round No. 3
SitaraPorDios

Pro

SitaraPorDios forfeited this round.
JayCaesar12

Con

JayCaesar12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
SitaraPorDios

Pro

SitaraPorDios forfeited this round.
JayCaesar12

Con

JayCaesar12 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Bannanawamajama 3 years ago
Bannanawamajama
If you could clarify that and switch your official position to reflect what you state in your opening round, I'd be interested in debating this with you
Posted by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
To avoid further confusion. I suggest changing the resolution to "Jesus is the only way to be saved".
Posted by Bannanawamajama 3 years ago
Bannanawamajama
I think you are on the wrong position for this debate.

Also, if someone accepts this debate, how exactly would it go?
If you are using the Bible as your only source, then of course its impossible
to beat you because thats like a main tenet of Christianity, but then again, I could
just as easily pull a quote from Buddha that says everyone CAN go to heaven regardless
of their religion. It seems like this would be hard to resolve if you are maintaining
purely scriptural evidence.
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
If you want to defend the resolution then you should be Pro, instead you are arguing against the resolution, so you should really be Con... You should change your position.
No votes have been placed for this debate.