The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
zander
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

the bible does not teach that non-christians will necessarily 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: 1,353 times Debate No: 2909
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

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.
zander

Con

Your problem lies not with the scripture, but with the language. The multiple passages you cite all say "those who do not believe will be condemned".

To believe is an action, not to believe is static or inaction. In order to be saved I must perform the action of belief in Christ. Not to believe is simply the failure to perform that action. If I fail to believe, regardless of my knowledge of the gospels or Christ, I am therefore condemned. Seems simple enough.

In order for you to be correct, there would have to be a precondition in the text referring to knowledge of the gospels followed by my rejection. There obviously is not.

Again, my failure to believe is enough to get me damned. The proverbial man on the island, in all of his ignorance, does not believe. He is damned.

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

--The multiple passages you cite all say "those who do not believe will be condemned".
--In order for you to be correct, there would have to be a precondition in the text referring to knowledge of the gospels followed by my rejection. There obviously is not.

actually, they essentially say "those who reject what they heard will be condemned"
they don't say what you say.

please read them again... "i told you... if you don't believe" "preach the gosple (which implies the hearing)... those who don't believe will be condemned." "they rejected the light they saw"
notice, in every passage they heard, and then rejected.

so your belief that not believing will get you condemned is not supported by the passages, or any other bible passages that i know of. your belief is at best, probably just the traditions of man that you're trying to force into the bible where it doesn't exist.
zander

Con

My interpretation is a strict, word-for-word quote of the text. Its cool that you have your own interpretation of what it 'essentially' says, but if you read the passage for the words that are really there, instead of putting your own spin on it, you'll find my message holds.

So, lets go to the text.

You provide some valid examples. The John passage does indicate that the evil reject the light, but your proverbial man on an island isn't evil, he is indifferent. You are polarizing the circumstance. You don't have to be either good or evil, you can just be. The man on the island has not heard the gospel and therefore, hasn't accepted or rejected it. The question becomes whether or not this abstinence is damnable.

The Mark passage states "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". Clearly the man on the island does neither. So, he is damned.

The John 3 passage states "whoever does not believe stands condemned already". Again, the man on the island does not believe. I admit he hasn't rejected, but that is his downfall. Being saved requires the action of acceptance. Not believing is either rejection (the evil you mention) or abstinence (island man). Both are damnable.

If we look at the first John, John 8, the first part of the sentence presupposes we have heard the gospel by using "I told you". But, our island man has not been told, so he doesn't fit with that passage.

I am not a christian and usually don't support the Bible. But, this is just a language problem. Each of the passages you provide state clearly that those who do not believe are damned. Our island man does not believe. True, he has not rejected Christ, but that isn't a necessary step for damnation. Regardless of whether or not he has heard the scriptures, the man on the island is a non-believer and therefore damned by the texts you provided.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

--The Mark passage states "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved". Clearly the man on the island does neither. So, he is damned.

clearly i agree the man on the island does neither. but he doesn't reject the Gospel, for the text clearly says those who "reject" will be condmened. clearly he didn't reject it. the literal reading of the very quote you quoted says whoever believes will be saved.... so, if you believe you're saved. it doesn't say what happens if you dn't believe, but haven't rejected.

-The John 3 passage states "whoever does not believe stands condemned already". Being saved requires the action of acceptance. Not believing is either rejection (the evil you mention) or abstinence (island man). Both are damnable.

you haven't show a passage that says not believing while not rejecting, ie just being, is damanable. it's not in the text... you're simply forcing it where it's not. in fact, you've committed the common error regarding the very text you quoted.. cause the passage goes on to define what it means to be condemned... the passage says it means you rejected the light. the man on the island hasn't rejected the light. he hasn't accepted the gosple, but no where does it say he has to.

-If we look at the first John, John 8, the first part of the sentence presupposes we have heard the gospel by using "I told you". But, our island man has not been told, so he doesn't fit with that passage.

i'd argue the same thing you just said here, word for word. you haven't made your conclusion though. in fact, since he doesn't fit it cause he hasn't heard, he can't be said to be culpable. those in that passage here, and were culpable.

thank you for being yet another who is verifying that it does not say in the bible that nonchristians will necessarily be condemned. the passage we debated clearly do not show it,as i've clearly shown. it is you who's forcing the doctrine of man, a very terrible doctrine, into the bible where it does not exist.please reread the passages more carefully. your knee jerk response is common until one reads closer.
zander

Con

Again, I have to emphasize the fact that all of my quotes are full and from the text. You don't cite any of the text except for the parts I agree with. I don't know why you keep pushing rejection and putting reject in quotes. The word reject isn't in any of the passages you provided...at all. Not once does the word come up. So, clearly it is you who are slanting the text. I draw on the word-for-word interpretation, making my examples infinately more reflective.

"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned."

We agree that the man is neither baptized nor a believer. So, he is then automatically not saved. It specifically states "whoever does not believe will be condemned." The island man does not believe, on this we agree. So, how is he not damned? He fits every aspect of the damned in this passage.

"Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light."
"But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light"

Again, the islander does neither of these. He does not run from the light and does not embrace it either. I thought we covered this two rounds ago. The islander is abstinent from the gospel. The question of the debate is whether or not abstinence is damnable.

All of the other parts of every other passage indicate simply and clearly that "whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son". So, has the islander believed in the name of God's son? NO. So, he is condemned. It is literally right in the text word for word.

On John 8, my point was that the islander is ignorant. While he may not fit the description in John 8, he matches every other description.

All of the passages simply say those who don't believe are damned. In order for you to be correct, there would have to be some mention anywhere of having to know the gospels before being damned. There is no precondition for that knowledge in order to be damned. All that is required is a simple lack of belief, which our islander has.

I guess quoting directly from the text is forcing a doctrine now...

I am not an avid christian to say the least, but your argument is flawed from a lingual perspective. When the text condemns those who do not believe, the islander is among those. We agree that he does not believe, regardless of his lack of opportunity. Nothing in the text nor in common sense says that I have to reject the gospel to be a non-believer. There are those who reject it and they are damned, but rejection is not a prerequisite. To be damned is to fail to do something (believe). Inaction or abstinence is that failure. In order to be saved you have to believe (straight from the text). The islander does not believe and is therefore damned. While he doesn't commit negative action, his simple static behavior causes him to lack belief. He doesn't need to be evil, just neutral.

Common sense says that someone who doesn't believe is a non-believer. I thought that went without saying. Multiple examples from the text specifically say "whoever does not believe is condemned." No where does it indicate rejection. The islander, in all of his ignorance, is a non-believer by definition, rendering him damned.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 9 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Both of you debated this remarkably. I am torn on who to support. See, I agree with the belief dairygirl4u2c, based on my interrpretation of the Bible, but I think Zander is a better debater.

Well I vote for Zander, but dairygirl4u2c, I agree with you on your belief.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 dairygirl4u2c 9 years ago
dairygirl4u2c
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 Gespenst 9 years ago
Gespenst
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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 left_wing_mormon 9 years ago
left_wing_mormon
dairygirl4u2czanderTied
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