The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

absolute minimum needed to believe to be saved is not clear

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,273 times Debate No: 25427
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




what the absolute minimum needed to believe is not clear. this debate is beyond the "faith v works" debate and is simply in the realm of what faith is required to be saved. i am not saying this in terms of seeking to do or believe the minimum such as to "do as little as i have to to get saved".

i ask christians and they say "believe in jesus". then i point out that the devil does as even the bible says. so they say believe he's your savior. then i point out that some believe that different people see that differently... a good message or atonement etc. a fundamentalist would say a good message is not sufficient. so... you have to believe in atonement is one element. but then there's various beliefs in atonement, "christus victor" v "substitionary" etc.
but then the bible has lots of places where it says what to believe. "confess with your lips that he is lord and believe that he has risen and you will be saved". that doesn't really define what "Lord" is though, thoug h in any case all this atonement stuff may not be necessary after all. but what if they do beleive in atonement and all this other stuff, but dont' know to believe that he was risen? or what if they find that piece of evidence insufficient for belief but believe everything else? most christians just say "believe he's savior and you're good".
and what if you don't like this "savior" stuff given it's a loaded word. what if you just "relied" on Jesus instead, and acknowledged that you're a sinner, wouldn't that be enough? well it's not confesing and beleiving all that stuff, though no one said that was teh end all be all of what's required.
some don't believe he's god... is that okay? a dogamatic would start to list things you must believe. then i point out that that's dogmatic, and most would shy away from that. if it's too short though, they don't like the vagueness or the possibilities they are forgoing for the sake of an easy answer... it's a brutal issue when you get down to it. they want to have their cake... easy answer... and eat it too.. not giving a clear answer.
you have people who are new to the religion and one wouldn think couldn't be held responsible to everything to a T, and you have those who have honest disagreements over what doctrines should be belieeved and what shouldn't. and even if they knew of one doctrine and rejected what tehy knew... what is the minimum they'd have to believe? they can do the "confess with your mouth" stuff and reject say the trinity and be condemned for it? basically everyone is at different stages.
it seems the right conclusion is it depends on hwere you are in your walk.

so... beyond the whole faith v works debate.. even in terms of faith... what one must believe is not clear or taught very well.


Since my opponent fails to define some of the words in Round 1, let me post some.

Minimum- Absolute Least

Need of belief be Saved- The number of pencils school you need for school so you don't look like an idiot. You need to be saved from that.

I believe the absolute least number of pencils needed is 1 for school. It is pretty clear. I look forward to this fun and engaging debate.
Debate Round No. 1


how much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood. he would chuck as much wood as a wood chuck could if a wood chuck could chuck wood.

if peter piper picked a peck of picked peppers where's the pecks of picked peppers peter piper picked.

the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.


My opponent simply just states random statements, while not making an argument for the case. Therefore, he has not filled the BOP. Arguments extended. I'll also post some random statements.

"I like Trains."

"Ha ha ha, I can't read"

Person 1: "Hey, it says gullible on the ceiling"

*person 2 looks at ceiling, which says gullible*

"Oh, so it doe- Oh, you stole my lungs."
Debate Round No. 2


toy boat, toy boat, toy boat

she sells seashells by the sea shore

say those three times fast

i was born on a pirate ship

say that while holding your tongue


It seems my opponent has resorted to using tongue twisters and tongue tricks. Arguments extended, vote con. But two can play at her game.

Rub A Dub, Rub A Dub, Rub A Dub

Peter Piper loves Polly's Pickled Peanuts

Say those 3 times fast.


Say that while holding your tongue.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by RationalMadman 4 years ago
Same question as alwaysmorethanyou
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
What exactly is the resolution here?
Posted by Smithereens 4 years ago
you dont mind if i accept do you? :P
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
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: Pro didn't define anything in the round. Pro didn't even have a clear resolution. Semantics/Trolling by con wins easily :D as for pro, quit making the same topic unless your actually going to debate it.