The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Theoretician101
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

You have either eternal life now or eternal death now.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Theoretician101
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 736 times Debate No: 60362
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

We all carry death sentance in our bodies, we are all in death because death is in us. We all deserve to die and we all need to be saved or we will die. Is there a Ragdoll or a Narwhale who can say they are exempt from God's justice agaisnt their sin and His right to leave them in the fire of Hell?

No postings from Pro or Con allowed in the comment section in this debate or all conduct points are forfeited.
Theoretician101

Con

- I would like to thank my opponent for choosing such a interesting, philosophical topic to discuss

Argument
The meaning of life

Generally, the meaning of life is a deep philosophical question. This inquiry asks why were we put here on this planet and why our existence is here. This has been the subject of theology, science, philosophy and history. Surely, many philosophers and great thinkers proposed marvelous answers for this inquiry. The meaning of life is a concept of evil, good, conscience, happiness, ethics, freewill and so much more. The answers are different for many people due to their cultures. For example, for those of who are religious believe that the meaning of life is to serve your God and follow his rules. But different types of religions have their own responses to this question. As for science, scientists focus more on the facts and the concepts of the universe. Science also proposes answers for well-being and morality.

Platonism: Plato was a fellow of Socrates and is considered as one of the most greatest philosophers of our time. Plato was widely known for his ideals and his beliefs of the universals. His Theory of Forms asks a question, "How can humans live a fulfilling, happy life in a contingent, changing world where every thing they attach themselves to can be taken away?" And the problem is, "How can the world appear to be both permanent and changing? The world we perceive through the senses seems to be always changing. The world that we perceive through the mind, using our concepts, seems to be permanent and unchanging. Which is most real and why does it appear both ways (http://www.anselm.edu...)?" Basically, Plato suggests that the universals do not exist physically, but they exist as heavens. The main concept of Platonism is to strive to knowledge to find the meaning on life.

Aristotelianism: Aristotle was Plato's apprentice. Aristotle was also a very influential philosopher. Aristotle debated that the knowledge of ethics is not a certain knowledge, meaning that it was general knowledge. Aristotle argued that a person had to study a lot in order to achieve virtue and goodwill. Aristotle defines virtuous as, "Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly, every action and choice of action, is thought to have some good as its object. This is why the good has rightly been defined as the object of all endeavor...
Everything is done with a goal, and that goal is 'good'."

Cynicism: Antisthenes was also a fellow of Socrates. He has argued that the purpose of life is to live a life of virtue and with an agreement with nature. In order to be happy, one must be self-sufficient and one must deny pessimism because it brings negative/sad feelings. Cynicism denies wealth, power, health, and fame because it doesn't give one the ability to be free. Humans can achieve this concept by being "natural" as Antisthenes describes. Antisthenes believed that the world belongs to everyone (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

Point 1B: Religion

Christianity: The central teaching of this belief comes from the messiah, Jesus Christ from the New Testament. The point of this religion is to forge salvation from God. The New Testament/Bible says that God wants to interact with humans in the current life and the future life. Christians believe that God created everything including them, but the Fall of Man caused humans to sin. In the Westminster Shorter Catechism asks a question, "What is the chief end of man?" and "What is man's main purpose?" and the answer for both is "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever."

Islam: Islam's main mission is to worship Allah through the interpretation of the Qur'an and respect the prophet, Mohammad. According to the Qur'an all Muslims must believe in the Allah, his messengers, his angels and the Day of Judgement. The Qur'an describes the reason for our existence, "Blessed be he in whose hand is the kingdom, he is powerful over all things, who created death and life that he might examine which of you is best in deeds, and he is the almighty, the forgiving (http://en.wikipedia.org...)."

Point 1C: Science

Science: From the perspective of science life is meaningless; it is clearly and accident, but what if there is a broader picture science could explain? The understanding of evolution has given a bigger picture of this concept, which explains that our life actually does have meaning. Well, I wouldn't start jumping to conclusions and start saying that human beings formed from animals. In order to find happiness in life we should understand psychology, specifically, positive psychology if we want to find happiness in life. Science does provide theories of the creation of life. For instance, the big bang theory, the evolution theory, panspermia, etc (http://www.worldtransformation.com...).

Point 2: Death

1. Death is enfeeble from human
2. Death is a continuation of life
3. Death is continuous
4. Death is always waiting for its victim (http://www.uky.edu...).
Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

My opponent shows a poor, if not bizarre, understanding of death. In his "Point 2" he shows four mistaken concepts of death:


Point 2: Death

1. Death is enfeeble from human
2. Death is a continuation of life
3. Death is continuous
4. Death is always waiting for its victim

1. Death is enfeeble from human? I'm not sure what this means, I think if "enfeeble" is changed to "enfeebling", it would be grammatically correct in "Death is enfeebling from being human" Death is in our genes from the moment of conception, it is part of being human. I really don't understand why my opponent is trying to say in this statement, but it is mistaken in the concept that death is separate from being human and is an enfeebling factor. My opponent needs to clarify this statement if I am not understanding his reasoning. The grammar is terrible and makes the statement difficult to understand.

2. Death is a continuation of life? Really? Have you ever looked at a corpse in a coffin and thought life was continuing there? Death is the destruction of life, not a continuation of life. This philosophical concept of death has no basis in reality.

3. Death is continuous. Not necessarily. Death can be ended if you receive eternal life from God. If you don't have eternal life, then death is continuous for you. It does not have to be continuous. You can be saved from it.
In this statement, my opponent has agreed that if you do not have eternal life, you have eternal death. My opponent fails to see the difference between life and death. Both are eternal and you have either on or the other. One leads to heaven and the other to the fire of Hell. Not believing it will not change anything. You will be swallowed up in death and cast away into the fire of Hell, or you will be freed from death and delivered into eternal life as death is swallowed up in victory by the Creator, Jesus Christ, who conquered it.

If you don't have eternal life, you have eternal death. There is no Platonic middle ground. Plato was a nut. Sorry.

4. Death is always waiting for it's victim. This is a mistaken concept in that death has already taken our bodies, and we are not victims of it but willing participators in it. We owe God nothing but one big apology, and God took the punishment of death on Himself so we can be freed from paying in eternal death in Hell.


I don't think Plato was saved. I think he never had anything other than eternal death, and he invested a lot of his lifetime trying to convince himself (and others) that it was ok. I don't buy Plato. Will you have eternal death or will you have eternal life? If you don't have eternal life, you have eternal death. There is no Platonic middle ground. Plato was a nut. Sorry.


Binding Contract:
I, God, do hereby swear by the blood of my Son, Jesus, to overlook all of your violations of my Holy Law (sin) and grant you full pardon and entrance into eternal life by the resurrection of my Son from the dead if you will agree to the following terms:

1) You must acknowledge that you are the one who deserved to die and my Son did not deserve to die.
2) You must believe that I love you so much that I died in your place in the form of Jesus Christ my Son, and you must believe that I raised Him from the dead and can do the same for you.
3) You must ask me to accept you on these terms, asking for my mercy to forgive you and believe that I am willing to forgive you. You must receive my Son, Jesus, as your Saviour by asking me in His name to save you.
This contract is written by me in the blood of my Son whom I gave to be the satisfaction for payment for your sins against me. If you honestly agree to the terms above, and will receive my Son as your Saviour, sign below.
It's not too good to be true, , I always honor my Word, and I have committed all Judgement into the hands of My Son, Jesus, who paid the price to secure this contract for you.

Sign here ____________________________________to enter into agreement with God and receive His guarantee of pardon and eternal life in Jesus Christ.
If you signed this agreement and received Jesus Christ as your Saviour, getting baptized is the next step showing you are now identified in His death, burial, (shown by submersion under water) and resurrection (shown by being raised up out of water), and share the good news!
The Gospel according to John is a good place to start reading, and of course use only the King James Bible. Then read the Letter to the Romans. And pray and talk to God every day and ask Him to show Himself to you through His Word, the Bible, and thank God and praise the LORD forever!

Theoretician101

Con

Rebuttals:

- First of all, I don't even know why I provided an explanation for death. Death is something natural, it comes and goes. I believe that I have provided enough information during point 1. According to my opponent we all deserve to dies, which is pretty bizarre. Therefore, I decided to explain to him what the meaning of life really is. From my perspective, I don't feel like I carry a death sentence in my body and most importantly I don't feel like I'm supposed to die or be saved by some kind of a spiritual being. Dear opponent, I'm trying to communicate that life is too short to worry about death.

- Secondly, my opponent says that I have provided a vague explanation about death. Well, I could assure you that there aren't any grammatical mistakes in point two, opponent. Death is enfeeble from human kind is the correct structure of the sentence. And death is a continuation of life, meaning that the people who are alive continue to move on, but not the ones that have past away. My opponent says that death isn't continuous. Well, scientifically death is continuous. And if you want to bring God into this situation that will be a whole separate debate. Eternal life makes no sense in this debate, we should've debated over God giving a being eternal life. My opponent also states that we aren't victims of death. We are victims of death, and what kind of an apology do we owe God, can you please specify. People die everyday, do you not consider them victims. Lastly, my opponent insults the great philosophical minds, Platonism. Platonism is a concept that most Christians adopt, and most Christians look up to him as the greatest philosopher of all time.

- Pay close attention how my opponent spams this debate. In fact, he is trying to preach now. I should've known not to accept this debate because I've seen my opponent do something like this before. Also, the argument that my opponent provided in round one is clearly unacceptable. An argument is a thorough explanation, not a paragraph with two sentences. If you think that my explanation about the meaning of life was thorough and clear unlike something my opponent provided, VOTE CON!!!
Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

If Platonism is the source of my opponents non-explaining explanations of death and life, I have to wonder who was smoking weed to reach such inconclusive conclusions of obscurity of meaning about life and death. The reason people have differing and complicated answers for the meaning of life is that they are denying that God is good. If the meaning of life is not given by God, then people must think the meaning of life is subjective to their intellect and they cannot reach an objective conclusion about the meaning of life.

Sorry, Real Christians believe the Bible and Jesus Christ. The Bible says Solomon was and always will be the wisest man who ever lived. Jesus Christ, referring to himself, said he was greater than Solomon. 1 Kings 3:10-12: And the speech pleased the LORD, that Solomon had asked this thing. And God said unto him.........I have given unto thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee. In Luke 11:31, Jesus referred to himself as one greater than Solomon. Jesus is God, that's why He is greater than Solomon, the wisest person whoever lived.

Death is the destruction of life. If you are dying, you need to get saved. If you have eternal life, only your body is dying. If you do not have eternal life, you have eternal death. God will forever separate death from life when all sinners are confined in the fire of Hell for the eternal destruction of their lives in eternal death. Platonism won't get you out of it.
Voting against it won't get you out of it. Denying it won't get you out of it. Getting saved will get you out of it. You can have eternal life now. I know I have eternal life now. Vote however you feel like voting.
Theoretician101

Con

Further Rebuttals

Dear opponent, telling me that I smoke weed is clearly an absurdity, why would you even bring something like this into this debate? First of all, I would like to clarify that I respect your beliefs, I'm not trying to insult your religion. You are just disproving the fact that Platonism has a great influence on Christianity. St. Augustine was deeply influenced by Plato's concepts. Many of his ideas have been adopted into some Christian doctrines. During Renaissance his ideas deeply influenced Catholicism. So, if I were you I wouldn't be judging other people's philosophical beliefs (1).

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly, I would just like to point out that it is okay to be afraid of death. Death is a natural event. It is okay to be afraid of it, even if you are saved your body will still die. In fact, being saved won't stop death. Do you mean that your soul is supposed to be saved, if that that is a whole separate debate, I believe I have mentioned this before. What if some people won't be saved, is there still an opportunity for them? And the concept of eternal death makes no sense, you have been mentioning it often throughout this whole debate, but you failed to define it.

Summary

The meaning of life is something more than thinking about death. Life is not about too short to contemplate about death. We should live life at the fullest and the last. If you agree that my entries have provided a thorough and clear explanation, vote for me.

Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
LifeMeansGodIsGoodTheoretician101Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: once again LMGIG creates an incredible debate by doing absolutely nothing productive
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
LifeMeansGodIsGoodTheoretician101Tied
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: pls stop spamming your "contract"
Vote Placed by ldow2000 2 years ago
ldow2000
LifeMeansGodIsGoodTheoretician101Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: As TheRussian said, pro repeatedly mentioned his own personal beliefs in this debate. In addition, I've mentioned this before to LifeMeansGodIsGood, but posting a contract for your opponent to sign will always lose a conduct point from me.
Vote Placed by TheRussian 2 years ago
TheRussian
LifeMeansGodIsGoodTheoretician101Tied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Quite a confusing debate. Pro repeatedly tried to bring his beliefs onto the table and make them RULES. If he wanted to play that way, he should have specified in Round 1. Pro was insulting in several situations and conduct goes to Con. Pro used only his personal beliefs while Con took examples from many sides.