The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
danny445
Con (against)
Winning
31 Points

bible does not necessarily teach that non-christians will be condemned

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: 2/25/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,145 times Debate No: 2910
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (10)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM HE you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).

John 3:16
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Mark 16..... 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

the only passages that might indicate the necessity of believing in Jesus are the preceeding. they all say that only if you "reject" what you've been told would you be condemned. so, the hypothetical man on the island is not necessarily condemned. i'd argue that simply hearing a man shout out damnations at people isn't hearing the gosple, or a crude understanding isn't hearing.. such that you'd have rejected, or even a misunderstood/appreciated doesn't count. but, all i have to do to p[rove my point for this thread is show that hypothetical man, who never had a chance to reject.

i'd also point out that the passage from mark is disputed by scholars are to whether it's legit, given that it wasn't in hte earliest texts.
http://www.bible-researcher.com...
but this argument is just icing on the cake, and i don't really need this argument to make my point.
danny445

Con

First of all for all of the readers of this debate I would like to state that as far as this debate goes, I have no religious or non religious affiliation, I am simply going to analyze the bible as a document and debate what it teaches. This being said I would like to thank my opponent for citing so many wonderful quotes that are in favor of my argument, in fact I will use all of those, and below each quote I will include the important part of the quote that supports my argument:

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM HE you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).

---"UNLESS YOU BELIEVE....YOU WILL DIE"---

--John 3:16 16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

---"WHOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVE STANDS CONDEMNED ALREADY BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF GOD"S ONE AND ONLY SON"---

I believe this is one of the most critical statements because your topic was that non believers wont necessarily be condemned, and this biblical passage says that if you don't believe you are condemned. Its quite comical that you provided this.

--Mark 16..... 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

once again ---"WHOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVE WILL BE CONDEMNED"

"...they all say that only if you "reject" what you've been told would you be condemned."

---if you reject what you have been told, in other words that Christ is the savior, that you can be condemned... this hints at a need to believe in Christ.

You briefly touched on the "hypothetical man", I will return to that in a moment, but first I would like to talk about the structure of the bible.

The majority of the bible is the old testament, in regard to number of pages. Because you used the word Christian in your opening argument statement, that limits this argument to discussing non-christians (those who don't believe in christ as savior) or Christians (those who believe in Jesus as their savior, as these are the standard definitions). Therefore, the old testament can really be disregarded, as the word at that point in time, according to the old testament, was a covenant between God and Abraham's descendants that were believers only. Christianity is formed upon the new testament. Since we are just looking at the new testament, it is critical to realize that the 4 gospels provide the largest core values of christianity, and that is where the quotes that you graciously gave me above came from. Therefore, analyzing the new testament reveals that those who reject the gospels and do not believe in Christ, according to the bible, and christianity, are indeed condemned.

Is this my personal opinion? It doesn't matter, our religious stances are disregarded, it is indeed the teaching of the bible, whether you believe in the bible as sacred or not.

Returning to the hypothetical island comment, you did not elaborate on that, so I will let you continue that portion of your argument in another round if you would like to debate that information. I have a response prepared,

I would also like to thank my opponent, this is a very interesting debate, and I would like to keep it as respectful as possible, and I think it is important for us to respect the voters by remaining neutral of any religious ties, just simply debating the document mentioned, and the standard definitions. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i suggest you reread the verses.

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM HE you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).

i will concede that the first verse could be construed to mean what you said that they'd be condemned, but the other verses explain more, and besides, that verse can be construed in my favor too.
if you take the presumption that you have to be told, then that verse makes sense. if you look at the rest of the bible and its verses, and lack of anything else condemnatory necessarily of the nonchristians, then there's no reason to think your interpretation is correct.

John 3:16
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

there's really nothing to debate here. most people get stuck on the fact that it says those wwho don't believe will be condemned... but it goes on to define what condemnatino means here (most verses say "and this is the condemnation" and not the "verdict")

Mark 16..... 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

there's nothing to debate here either. it says those who does not believe after having heard the gospel will be condmened. now, you could try to separate the first sentence from the second, and say all would be condemned who don't believe... but that's stripping the sentence from its obvious context.

i'm not sure what you want me to elaborate on as per the man on the island. there's no verses that says he has to believe, so he's not necessarily concnemned. i could post verses that support that he'd be judged not by any of that, but by his acting on his conscious that we all know to be true... but they are reasonably debatable verses. and, the point of this thread is to show that there are verses that say he'll be condemned.

if all you have is that first first "i told you" then you're really graphing at straws since that verse could be interpreted different, and the rest of the bible is silent on whether they'd be necessarily condemned, and the few times it does speak shows that they were rejecting something.
danny445

Con

---"UNLESS YOU BELIEVE....YOU WILL DIE"---

---"WHOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVE STANDS CONDEMNED ALREADY BECAUSE HE HAS NOT BELIEVED IN THE NAME OF GOD"S ONE AND ONLY SON"---

-"WHOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVE WILL BE CONDEMNED"

Above are the verses we have been discussing.To be completely honest, and I'm trying not to be disrespectful here, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. I don't know what you meant by the man on the island, and even if I did, you need to elaborate and explain it for everyone who will be commenting and voting, so once again if you explain that I will have a response, otherwise I have no real reason to add anything.

you said:"i will concede that the first verse could be construed to mean what you said that they'd be condemned, but the other verses explain more, and besides, that verse can be construed in my favor too."

Unless if you believe, then you are condemned, that is the message of all of these passages.... I don't see how that can be construed to mean that if you don't believe you aren't condemned... I really don't know what else to say. I reread the verse just as you suggested, and I take:
---"UNLESS YOU BELIEVE....YOU WILL DIE"---
To mean exactly what it says... How does that mean you don't have to be a believer?

You said: "if you take the presumption that you have to be told, then that verse makes sense"
Not sure what exactly you were trying to say here, I think that you are referring to this passage : "I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM HE you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).

Once again I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, but to boost my argument by this passage, it is supposed to be a direct quote from Jesus saying that he has taught them the rules, and you have to believe in him AKA be a Christian, or you will die in your sins. that is what the literal meaning of that passage is, and once again I thank you for using it to my advantage.

John 3:16
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

You said: "there's really nothing to debate here. most people get stuck on the fact that it says those wwho don't believe will be condemned... but it goes on to define what condemnatino means here (most verses say "and this is the condemnation" and not the "verdict")"

ok.... I think you are right, There is no debate here. WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM SHALL NOT PERISH, meaning if you don't believe in him, then you perish, SAVE THE WORLD THROUGH<<
Mark 16..... 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

You said: "there's nothing to debate here either. it says those who does not believe after having heard the gospel will be condmened. now, you could try to separate the first sentence from the second, and say all would be condemned who don't believe... but that's stripping the sentence from its obvious context."

--once again I am just absolutely boggled how you think that could be in your favor. That passage in other terms means, go teach everybody the gospel, aka go teach every creature the bible..... "WHOEVER DOES NOT BELIEVE WILL BE CONDEMNED".

I would also like to point out at this time that I have taken religious study courses, and some very intelligent professors stressed that the gospels were constructed purely to enforce the idea that you HAVE to believe in Christ to be saved: You need to be a Christian or you will be condemned according to the bible. Now, there were some gospels that got tossed out of the bible that had different meanings, but unfortunately for the argument you are attempting we are talking about THE BIBLE here and not other documents, therefore we have to look at the gospels, and they have a fairly clear message.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i'd think you're trying to weasle out of what the passages actually say. but you seem sincere, so i'm going to assume you have a reading problem.
i think your profs are jsut regurgitating the conventional wisdom and tradition. it's not biblcial necessarily. i'd put my knowledge against theirs anyday, as i've got just as much education on it as they do.
also i've led religious groups as president, and i've studied this stuff up to the high heavens, and taken courses etc.
i'd also add that i'm almost about to pass the bar to practice law, so i think i know how to read, and could trump you and your professors any day on credentials. at the very least, trump them on how to read and think critically.
professors notoriously simply regurgitate stuff often. they're not necessarily known for their originality etc.

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM HE you will die in your sins" (John 8:24).

i repeat what i said above. "i told you..." it's plausible that my interpretation is correct. your's i concede is more straightforward, but to deny that my interpretation is not plausible is flat out wrong andor stupid.
we have to look at the rest of the bible to understand the rest and how to approach it.

John 3:16
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

Mark 16..... 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

you seem to think that by capitalizing and separating the verses that say what you want from their context that you can make it say waht you want. this is a common biblical fallacy.

"proclaim the gospel to the world... if they don't believe, they're condmned." is essentially what it says. that means they ahve to have heard it first. you cannot separate the second sentence from the first to suit your agenda. i think you have a reading comprehsion problems if you can't understand that context can change what a sentence standing alone means.

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil."
if it says they are condemend... then it goes on to define being condemned as "but instead of accepting" rejecting, then you can't separate your passage about how if they dont believe they're condemned because you're separating it from the context.
(again most passages say "condemned" instead of "verdict" in what i just quoted. meaning they indeed did define it. but even if it says "verdict" that's the same difference and it's defining condemned.)

if you go to my other debate on this, with justcallmetarzan, even he'd concede these say what i'm saying. i remember he had a high iq he told me and that seemed plausible... so maybe it's just something the smart people can comprehend. people like you and the dude who commented below are just having problems reading and getting past your preconceived notions. that, or you're just an idiot.

the man on the island example. i thought i explained it, but didn't realize that you had absolutely no background on that issue. the man on the island example was explained by aquanis and augustine etc. they asked themselves "could it be that the man on the island secluded always from mankind would be condemned even though he never had a chance to hear the gospel?" one cocluded that an angel wuld apear to him and preach. ie interpretations could mean that he thought God wouldn't allow him to die, or he must hear. it's debatable what they ultimately thought.
i assumed you'd know that basic knowledge. i shouldn't have dne that. people like me, and i'd hope your professors, know historical facts like that.
it wasn't always so strict as modern evengelicals would have you believe either.
but the point is not all that... it's what the verses say.
danny445

Con

I must say for being so brilliant as you claim to be, you sure have lost plenty of debates. As far as being able to read... when I read "Believe or you are condemned"... I take it to mean believe......or.....you.....are......condemned. But I don't know anything about law..... as you do..... so ? Anyway, since you basically introduced nothing new here, I have nothing else to add, I shall leave it up to the voters. I would like to add on a tangent note however, that just because you got elected the president of a club doesn't really rank you next to people who have been published and have PHD's on the topic. As far as traditional responses, those professors were actually saying something untraditional: that the bible was DESIGNED to say you need Christ to be saved, instead of letting the other gospels that may have said otherwise in. As far as the man on the island, I'm just going to say that we are talking about believers or non-believers here, as for people who have never heard any of it, they aren't a non-Christian, in the context of this argument, seeing as they haven't had the chance to choose. And if you pressed the point from there, I'd have to strictly read the bible as a document and say that you have to "believe or you will be condemned" as the message has clearly been stated.....and restated.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Kleptin 9 years ago
Kleptin
What surprises me is that out of the 525,600 debates on this exact same issue started by dairy, all 525,600 of them involve her opponent not being able to understand her argument.

Yet, not one of them is any clearer than the other.
Posted by zander 9 years ago
zander
Some issues need to be rehashed, but I don't think this one requires it. I think everyone who has debate dairy on this knows that.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2cdanny445Tied
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 GrimParrot 9 years ago
GrimParrot
dairygirl4u2cdanny445Tied
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 PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
dairygirl4u2cdanny445Tied
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 THS 9 years ago
THS
dairygirl4u2cdanny445Tied
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 Roxygirlz 9 years ago
Roxygirlz
dairygirl4u2cdanny445Tied
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 nitrogen85 9 years ago
nitrogen85
dairygirl4u2cdanny445Tied
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 dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2cdanny445Tied
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 Statesman 9 years ago
Statesman
dairygirl4u2cdanny445Tied
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 zander 9 years ago
zander
dairygirl4u2cdanny445Tied
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 danny445 9 years ago
danny445
dairygirl4u2cdanny445Tied
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