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

required threshhold of faith required 4 Christians to be saved is not clear

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  
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: 10/8/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 231 times Debate No: 80701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




the requirements are either too vague, or too listy/dogmatic.

the bible says if you confess with your mouth jesus is lord, and beleive in your heart that he was raised from the dead you will be saved. it also say if you believe in the lord you will be saved. it also has all kinds of other statements.
i'm sure if you do these, that is sufficient. but what about various other scenarios, like the content of 'sinner's prayers' that dont include those things?

what or where exactly is the threshhold?

if you believe he existed or is God is that enough? probably not cause the bible says demons do likewise.

what about a list of of common beleifs? that you rely on him generally, that he is your savior, that you are a sinner, that he is lord, tha he rose from the dead, that he was incarnated, that he is God, that he is the son of God, that you believe you are saved (plenty of christians say you must believe you are saved, or you aren't saved), substitutionary atonement v 'christus victor' etc etc.

ask different christians, get a different answer, almost every time. they just have 'gut feelings' but dont have firm answers. see past debates from me on this topic, and you'll note a different answer pretty much every time.

some say you have to admit you're a sinner and that he is your savior. what if you believed all the other things and not these? or what if you believe you're a sinner, and that he's a savior, but not that he's God, or a various type of atonement belief. eg, chrsitaus victor v substitutionary.
some say that he is God is required, some say legal substitution is mandatory.

and how do you demarcate the requirements for those who are new to the faith, and those who are really knowledgeable? it might be seen a okay for a newbie to miss a thing or two, but less understandable for the expreinced etc. does this come intoplay?

so what's the magical formula?


I am the arrogant piece of Shi* that is about to debate you in this aggravating topic.

CON: The Threshhold is very clear

IT is an act of arrogance in all scenarios to be sinful. There is no ignorance for sin for any people every in all of history. There is only arrogance for sin, and no one has the right to claim ignorance under penalty of blasphemy and condemnation.

The Word of God, is undeniable even when and especially when considered as being an unwritten, unspoken, untaught truth of our reality. Denial of the Word of God is arrogance even if you never heard of or if you were never taught how to act PROPER or morally. It is arrogance to be sinful.

The threshold, thus, accepting eh Word of God, which regardless of it's nature of having been reserved, documented and kept in papers, is a Manifested part of our reality,

and I will destroy you in this debate,
regarding you as one who uses the Lord's name in vain to suggest blasphemous denial of morality is forgivable, not as a mere atheist imbecile who thinks that Morals are questionable - which is BS.
Debate Round No. 1


well i can somewhat agree with your inital points. if the threshhold is "dont sin" it's pretty clear. (though you could argue about what are sins and what are not, but i wont go there) the problem is we are all sinners and so we know to be saved we have to do something related to Jesus.

con then goes on to actually state the threshhold. (i dont know why he bothered with the first stuff) beleive the word of God. this is too vague though, as i predicted. it's too open to interpretation, the bible is. and you still have to do something that the bible requires to be saved, and that specific point is unclear. at least it hasn't been elaborated upon by con.


Dogmatism is not a property of religion*
That is the behaviour of atheists who pretend to be Religious or agnostics who are blindly repeating hat they had heard/read or have been told, like an atheists quoting a "scientist" they have never met nor observed in practice of his experiments or findings.

Religion teaches that there is no house of God, and no scriptures or religions teach that you should or need to go to a temple or church to pray or worship. NO where in the Quran does it encourage that, and the Bible condemns it.

Christians pray in Church because the Sabbath was given to us as a holiday by God,
but We get Sunday off work because Christians built this country, and Europe and conquered the world, in the Name of God, and we are so wealthy we don't need to work 6 days a week to be well off and fed. Christians fought tooth and nail against corruption and against all odds attained peace. So they got o church to commemorate that every Sunday. Because
all they have to do is show up, and:
think of the football games, thing about their schedule, play Tetris in their head, sleep, wake up, be innovative., sing, see who in the community needs help or died, find out what is going on, while they are surrounded by people they like, respect and are friends with etc...
Church. While demonstrating faith in the religion to everyone present and passing by.

We can be very elaborate and specific about this, but generally we'll wait for the next round to see if we have too.
~ ~~


Do not put tripping stones before children - raising them to be perverts or abusive or intrusive.

Do not promote anything that promotes negative lifestyles: adultery or atheism, political or cultural abominations -
because I will, had and does lead tot he abandonment neglect and disrespect of women, social injustice, glorification of the perspectives and lifestyles of criminals, womanizers, corrupt politicians etc.. blah blah blah. - by suggesting faithfulness and devotion )specifically to women( is unnessisary. {but also other things like work, family, conversation(debate), and the environment/community}

Do not promote social injustice; such as through adultery, social class, bigotry, or ABUSE (including animal abuse) etc..

And if you avoid those 3 Topics, you are essentially through the threshold:
you would have in essence Accepted the WORD of GOD, and seen the Light of the World and been saved from Condemned Nation.

Key note: point Two was not to promote adultery or Atheism*** in doing so you would be telling people morals are man made fictitious opinion statements [those people potentially including first hand, second or third hand: rapists, children, womanizers, corrupt politicians, criminals, perverts, idiots, doushbags etc.. animals**] - which only promotes the stupidest thing in the world,
I like to refer to as ATHEISM,

but can be referred to as neglect of responsibility, consequence and reality.

Putting no Moral objective or idea equal to, in comparison of, up against or apart from God is every acceptable.
That is promotion of Atheism AND point 3 SOCIAL injustice, because God's WORD is perfect as it is.
everything HAS been accounted for in it.
Only arrogant shittts deny that because they TEST God with their insolence. ie. -

"God, if you don't speak to me.. umm. I am going to be a drunken lazy video gamer who arrogantly rejects my parents wishes and advice, fawk criminals and drug addicts, congratulate the lifestyles of perverts - Not: help poor people; learn a second language; or help the community or environment by planting fruit - buy meat sold by atheist who never drain the blood - SLander you and religion ignorantly at every turn. Be indulgent and selfish

and be neutral on moral issues that make ME feel Personally out of My comfort-zone. (I will deny morality, ignore immorality and say I am "Zen", henceforth known as Neutral. Which is not Negative. It is neutral. because I say it is neutral to deny morality and ignore immorality.)
So fawk you God, I hate you."

And thus. ends the blackmailing of God by every atheist.
Debate Round No. 2


cons points are all over the board. i question how mentally balanced con is.

con gave three random, off the wall points about being thorugh the threshhold. he ignoresthat someone can believe that Jesus is God and rely on him for salvation and be saved? con just talks about raising your kids right, ot promoting negative lifestyles, and not promoting social injustice. talk about off the wall.


The Topic was, "the Required Thresh-hold for a Christian" to get into the Kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is the Word of God. - un-stipullable premise of the religion.

Jesus is known by many names - un-stipullable premise of the religion.

Jesus did not change the Jewish religion one iota - un-stipullable premise of the religion.

The debate was not founded on ones belief in the flesh of Jesus,
it was founded on the Threshhold, the Narrow Gate, the Word of God,

which is in all cases Arrogant not ignorant to deny, ignore or reject.

No where in the Bible does it suggest that he Bible is the Word of God, yet
it says Jesus is the Word of God, and Jesus is un-stipullably not a book.

The Word of God (the laws of nature/physics/philosophy etc.) tell us adultery is a sin. to Suggest that it is not is blasphemy, an unforgivable sin.
It is not a sin because God said so - God said so because it is a sin.
adultery: promotes the abandonment, neglect and disrespect of women; Glorifies unfaithfulness; enables womanizers; promotes jealousy invoked rape (which the solution for which is not forcing women to have sex with lazy men, disrespectful men, unfaithful men, drug addicts, criminals, arrogant men, fat people etc..); it promotes the lifestyles and perspectives of criminals, perverts, and corrupt politicians; it corrupts the imaginations, morals and ambitions of children; it leads to premature children which are likely subject to poverty and poor parenting; it creates lack of acknowledgement for responsibility;
Adultery is in effect the root cause of all human error and social issues.
It suggest faithfulness is unnecessary leading to depression and arrogance for those who are not " fortunate" or inconsiderate.

* If a man is lazy, rude, a impulsive liar, arrogant liar, slothenly negligent - feigning ignorant, incompetent (unprepared or incapable), un-ambitious, abusive or in any other form disrespectful to his wife --- HE IS AN ADULTERER. He did not mean his vows, did not keep his vows, did not acknowledge his vows. He was in effect a RAPIST.

NO scripture SAYS a man can rape a slave. They do not IMPLY that. Imbeciles who refuse to acknowledge what Judaism is, like to pretend they know something about religion and make false claims in order to make people hate the religion that they do not understand as much as themselves because they hold enmity against blasphemers and the corrupt atheistic system which they Presume is a valid example of the religion in practice.

I was not off the wall.
not even close.

and in effect:

All Debates require Both Parties to share Burden of Proof.

You can not put a pound on my end of the scales and keep nothing to yourself.
Pro was not debating. Pro did not contribute.
in a debate, any and every debate, the SCALES are Even. Only a fool thinks otherwise.

Anyone who thinks that the threshold is unclear, Denies the Word of God, is deemed a Blasphemer. "Not believing in God is condemnable"** (so that was obvious.)
It is very clear. Don't promote adultery, atheism or abominations.
I got One Button; the A hole.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
welp. BS. I won. Tie that ribbon on me.
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
and thank you for accepting my contributions to the debate.
Posted by asi14 1 year ago
Given I am a Christian, I think I may be qualified to debate you on this case.
No votes have been placed for this debate.