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

Is there a place for Christianity in Todays World

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
PRS25 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 734 times Debate No: 106300
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (0)




In today's society full of religious pluralism and reeling on the effects of postmodernists moral relativity, we ask is there a place for Christianity in today's world? I hold that the Christian worldview provides the most fulfilling life here on this planet. More importantly it allows for the forgiveness of sin and provides hope not only now but for eternity. If other religions eliminate the self or conclude there is no soul or it is not eternal, what hope does that provide for man's longing as an eternal being. I would love to hear back on this issue and have a an enriching exchange on the matter. Thanks


I will be responding not to my opponent's general position - that Christianity has a place in today's world - but rather to his more defined position in his opening. This does not mean I am ignoring his general premise, only that I accepted this debate based on his more refined position in his opening. Unfortunately, I still need clarification on most of his points before I can substantively respond with any depth. I want to avoid falsely presuming I comprehend what he means, even if I feel like I can.

-Pro's Positions-

"The Christian worldview provides the most fulfilling life here on this planet."

After this contention, he does provide some anecdotal support for this position but he does not address what defines a Christian worldview. I would also argue that his position begs the following questions: What constitutes a fulfilling life? And how do we objectively measure the standards by which any given society, as a whole, is leading a fulfilling life? If the answers to these questions are predicated only on Pro's contention that the Christian worldview is the only way of having a fulfilling life, he will need to expand upon that to provide support for what objective standards we use to measure it. Is a fulfilling life one without war? Disease? Depression? Poverty? Happiness? These are important questions to answer in order to evaluate whether a definition of the Christian worldview provides the most fulfillment.

"It allows for the forgiveness of sin and provides hope not only now but for eternity."

This begs too many questions that that need to be answered because I need proper definitions and qualifications of the meaning: 1) What constitutes sin? 2) Who constitutes as the legislator of what sin is? 3) Why must it be forgiven? 4) Why does the forgiver desire to forgive the forgivee? 5) Does forgiveness of sin improve fulfillment in life? And if so, how? And if how, why? 6) What constitutes hope? 7) What do you mean by eternity (Eternal consciousness? Eternal physical and conscious life?)? 8) Why does being forgiven of sin, and having hope for eternity, equate with a more fulfilling life than other relative worldviews?

"If other religions eliminate the self or conclude there is no soul or it is not eternal, what hope does that provide for man's longing as an eternal being?"

Again, too many questions for me to posit: 1) What other religions are you speaking of? 2) What do you mean by "eliminate the self"? 3) Have these religions concluded that there is no soul, or it is not eternal? If so, which? 4) How does a conclusion that there is no soul, or it is not eternal, equate with hope, as you define hope? 5) How can one that concludes that the soul is not eternal, long to be an eternal being? [Longing to be an eternal being would require the belief in the possibility of eternity; but that isn't the case if you already don't hold that belief] 6) Why does the lack of belief of a soul, or an eternal soul, equate with a measurable scale of fulfillment?

I would provide my own position but I believe that based on Pro's position, I cannot state my position until most of these questions are at least given some attention. I apologize if it sounds like I am deflecting. I just do not want to waste time arguing against the position if I am not clear on what you mean in your own. It would seem fair to both of us to avoid having a disjunctive debate before we get too far into it. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent brought out some pertinent questions, which I will attempt to tackle at a large scale in order to advance the debate.
1)For a quick definition of Christian worldview, we hold there are 4 basic precepts, 1) a Holy God, the malady of sin, God"s provision of salvation and 4) the works of Christ. (1)

2)For the purpose of our debate let"s suppose a most fulfilling life would be founded not on material gain, and the pursuit of power, position, fame or fortune, but one that is genuinely reward-able to the believer by helping his fellow man, serving the community, caring for one another, because he believes he is an heir in eternal life. He still faces everyday challenges yet considers this belief as an heir, his most cherished gift, thereby he considers himself most fulfilled.

3)As objectively measuring the fulfillment, we can take the believer at his word that he is most fulfilled, it may not be measurable to you or I if it is a belief he holds, (the inheritance). Yet we contend his interaction with society and community advances everyone's well being, including his and still provides him with fulfillment.

4)Yes he is susceptible to war, poverty, disease and still pursuits happiness, yet his lifestyle doesn"t guarantee the elimination of pain, or the assurance in the this life of surplus. Yet he considers himself most blessed of all men. He still hopes for peace and health, and blessings from the providence of God but regardless of those manifestations he claims complete fulfillment.

5)We believe in the inherent depraved nature of man which requires the forgiveness of sin and can only be acquired by faith in the perfect works of a sinless God incarnate, the person and works of Jesus Christ. This is the forgiveness spoken of. God defines sin, God is the legislator. God as the forgiver desires to forgive the forgivee to allow for a relationship once again with his creation, yet un-holiness cannot dwell in His presence, a forgiving process must take place. And yes forgiveness improves fulfillment of life because the person has recognized his eternal inheritance. The person can live out their life without the sting that death brings with it. Personal relationships with family, and loved ones can be permanently maintained even if temporally interrupted. This is one of the greatest fulfillments in this life.

6)We do believe all mankind longs for a relationship with his God and longs for eternal life. This is the hope and longing we speak of. So to several of your concluding questions, such as Do we mean eternal physical and conscious life? (We do, we believe in the resurrection of both the body and soul and continuation of consciousness), and Why does being forgiven of sin, and having hope for eternity, equate with a more fulfilling life than other relative world views? .....we might ask,

If you do not believe in the eternal soul, wouldn't the person who is set to gain an eternal life be living a more fulfilled life, knowing he is set to gain that. If life holds anything of intrinsic value and worth, love, happiness, peace, relationships, isn't forever as a quantity of it, better than seventy or eighty years of it? I understand that desire requires believing the possibility first, but what if the understanding came with the worldview? If the promise of this inheritance of eternal life was part of the Christian worldview, that one could accept, once one understood that, wouldn't he then reasonably long for it?

In regards to the other religions for the purpose of keeping the debate on track, Buddhism contends, "People cannot satisfy their souls with anything because they do not have souls (i.e. enduring substances) "so the person has no essence; it is only a collection of states called skandas." (2)

I look forward to your commentary, thanks.

(1)Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2011) 40.
(2)Ibid, 573.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 11 through 16 records.
Posted by PRS25 3 years ago
I can respond here by around mid-day today. Thanks, I should've paid more attention to the time period you had laid out.
Posted by bobr 3 years ago
PRS25 post a comment here as your 2nd round response and I will post 3 and you can post 3, or else restart and start with your 2nd round response and i will respond. either way on Wednesday I will post if you do. Thanks
Posted by PRS25 3 years ago
I'm not going to have time to do this round. He didn't submit until around 11:30 last night and I am at work. I forgot we only get 12 hours to respond. If you can give me an extension until tonight then I can get it in. Sorry about that.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
How do you make moral improvements to a dogmatic belief system? An objective morality can not come from opinion and any faith based belief is simply an opinion. Beliefs and faiths do not establish "truths" or facts. It does not matter how many people believe or for how many centuries they have believed it. It does not matter how reverent or important people think of them, if it does not agree with reality, then it simply cannot have any validity in reality.
The Christian god has to many descriptive failings, contradictions and limiting attributes to be real.
Posted by bobr 3 years ago
I would be very interested to know why you believe Christianity is lies. I do not believe the same on that point. I do believe post-modernism is really bad philosophy as you indicated. Post modernism, the self, and relative morality is very prevalent today. In contrast I for one would hold that objective morality can be known and lived.
Posted by DrAnomaly 3 years ago
Christianity is lies
Post-modernism is just really bad 'philosophy'
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.