Instigator / Pro
4
1363
rating
13
debates
3.85%
won
Topic
#2405

Biblical faith is not faith without evidence or doubt. It's ok to doubt in the Christian faith.

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
2
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
1
1

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Sum1hugme
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1627
rating
37
debates
66.22%
won
Description

No information

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

I would say that there is a fairly large fundamental difference between biblical Judaic faith and contemporary Judeo-Christian faith.
1. Biblical characters would regularly observe miracles. Elijah called fire from the heavens as empirical evidence of the strength of his god. Moses called his plagues and parted the Red Sea, Joseph foretold the famine, and Job saw cities destroyed by fire and brimstone. If I was in the shoes of these individuals or contemporaries living in a city where such blatant miracles occurred, I would obviously believe the words of these prophets. The Old Testament was an excellent time to have faith, because it was anything but blind.
2. In the New Testament, you don't see any gigantic miracles like this. No cities or armies wiped out by the wrath of God. Instead, one man made miraculous healings, turned water into wine, fed the thousands, and walked on water. As far as pure grandeur goes, this is pretty tame compared to the Old Testament. And most of the miracles Jesus performed were small and had no evidence of it occurring after the event. Even so, anyone present when he healed someone, or performed some other miracle, would be pretty convinced that he was magical if not strictly divine. I know I would be in that situation. And yet somehow, there aren't any modern occurrences of priests or prophets performing the miracles at this scale, and definitely nothing that completely flies in the face of science. In other words, modern Christianity is based on blind faith, whereas biblical faith, as depicted, was anything but blind.

-->
@Barney

I just finished your review of the debate. I appreciate you taking the time so much! Thoughtful and unbiased outside perspective it seemed to me. And you provided me some really fantastic advice. Once I'm able to move my setup and get on the computer, I can do some of this in earnest. The advice at the end of laying it out first in that way, im going to start now, but can easily do in a real way once I switch to my PC. That was fantastic advice. I really do appreciate it. I'm brand new to this and would be foolish not to take the advice of the more experienced when they take time out, that they didn't have to, to provide it. If you ever have advice you'd like to share I only see it as beneficial and please don't hesitate to provide it. Ive got a lot to learn and appreciate the help. Thanks again!

The Democrats and Republicans i can actually work with. It's actually one i really wanted to use but was afraid of the potential rabbit trails if misunderstood. So what I'm trying to say, using your example, would be if we agreed that "loving the policies" which were discussed defines what is a republican or democrat (not an argument for the policies or real world definition). Another way to say it might be. If one hates/disagrees with those policies would then definitionally exclude them from being called which ever party's policies was being outlined. This is not the Scotsman fallacy. I would say using these analogy terms that the Scotsman fallacy arrives in saying in addition to the agreed upon terms which define you as one or the other, I hold to these opinion based ones that are not in agreement between the parties. And since they dont agree with mine, they're not actually that party. It's different.

-->
@Sum1hugme

Kritiks are often done without meaning to, and they're not always invalid or cheap. In your case, you did not cherry-pick the definitions, you included multiple for each word. Still, seeing the work put in, I didn't want to just vote based on a definition without giving proper focus on the exchange (as much as definitions can't be outright dismissed either).

-->
@Barney

I mean the section that you had written in the debate format outlines you commented on my first debate

-->
@Barney

Thank you for your thoughtful vote ragnar, I read the section you had written on kritiks, but i perhaps don't fully understand it.

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

> . I feel like that's like saying don't vote for Trump because of his ____ plan. And you go on to describe the ______ plan of another candidate who says they're Donald Trump.

I think this analogy may have a mistake in listing Trump twice, instead of Trump and "not Trump"

Neatly, I think it was back during McCain vs Obama, there was a series of street interviews where their stances were switched; sadly Democrats hated Democratic policies if they were said to come from a Republican candidate and loved Republican ones when they were said to come from a Democratic candidate, and vice versa.

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

My pleasure

-->
@Sum1hugme

That was a great discussion. Thanks again for bearing with me.

The library was a great suggestion. I have a laptop. But it's hooked up with my work stuff and with 2 kids and some free time after they're in bed for my wife and I to hang. I just don't have the time to hop on. I'd have time for maybe one debate argument a day, if that, if I waited for good PC time.

Given this and other points raised, ill take the burden to better define terms and target discussions on debates in the future. I can handle a single discussion, but some of these turn into simultaneous discussions of many, major and different aspects of Christian theology.

Please feel free to tag me in any debates you are willing to put up with me on haha. I will be working to refine my style and presentation but that takes time. For now I'd simply expect a slowly evolving version of the style presented. Just trying to be honest and fair with time time I have to work. My kids won't be this young and time dependent forever.

Also, if you see anything that interests you from me, jump in! I've been opting for longer round settings to allow for a round or two of level setting, definition agreement, focusing of specific topic, etc.

Thanks again. It was fun and thought provoking.

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

well thanks man

-->
@Sum1hugme

Stellar conversation so far. I'm really enjoying it. You've got me thinking deeply and critically. You're presenting your views very rationally and while passionately, not hatefully or with ego. Thank you!

-->
@Sum1hugme

hey, I realized i kind of ignored your question trying to explain.

To specifically answer, Theres two resolves here. WHich will you be arguing?

Up to you. I think i laid better, more specific groundwork of my stance in the opening. (Thanking you for your patience) feel free to bite on which ever part of both (or both) that works for you.

-->
@Intelligence_06

that's kind of the whole premise for wanting to start this. I think the "ultra-right wing conservatives" are wrong. Furthermore, I think they are portraying what's found in the Bible incorrectly and that it's causing major issues. I feel so many of the discussions I see are about a version of Christianity that is not one found in the Bible.

I think it is ok to doubt Christian faith and only those ultra-right wing conservatives will disagree. I am not quite sure how is a faith not a faith without evidence nor doubt. An obscure belief without any evidence for nor against it is still faith, duh. I want Pro to solve this.

Woops lol I guess I'm doing this

-->
@Sum1hugme

Biblical faith is not faith without evidence or doubt. This is in contrast to the commonly held assumption i run into that Christian faith is blind belief without evidence.

It's ok to doubt in the Christian faith.
There are MANY who berate and judge and chastise for having doubts. This is not biblical.

It's this kind of two fold point I was looking to debate. I figured a legalistic Christian who's more worried about checking the boxes of religion than following Jesus. And it's a view which I think falsely portrays Christianity and pushes people from Jesus.

I wanted to engage on this topic. If im wrong, I'd like to know.

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

Theres two resolves here. WHich will you be arguing?