Instigator / Pro
10
1373
rating
12
debates
4.17%
won
Topic

Your definition of Christianity/a Christian is likely incorrect

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
0
9
Sources points
4
6
Spelling and grammar points
3
3
Conduct points
3
1

With 3 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...

oromagi
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
19
1946
rating
91
debates
100.0%
won
Description
~ 1,244 / 5,000

I want to try something a little different, I'm not forcing anyone.

The con position will outline their definition of what Christianity is. Basically, what are Christians required to do and believe to call themselves a Christian.

My hope? To use a Biblically based argument to show that the statistically observed lean towards incorrect assumptions (based on my observations, I'm not trying to be presumptuous. I hope we initially agree and I just have to spool another one up) are in fact incorrect. Or I'm being dramatic and it's not as prevalent as it seems and I don't need to at all. I suspect I'll get some good discussions going and I wanted to try. I don't intent to offend.

If you're a professing Christian, I'd think you'd want to see if you're in line with Jesus. It's something I personally do with those I trust who follow Jesus with my own theological understanding.

If you're not Christian, I just hope to better target the objections and arguments raised against Christianity for future discussions. I think there are some really good arguments and points of conflict out there and I want to explore them. I just feel bogged down by the incorrect assumption discussions mid theological debate on one or many other topics.

Round 1
Pro
I think a starting definition will use common Christian words which commonly are used in different meanings and contexts. 

So may I first ask us to agree upon what is and isn't the definiton/true of the following terms:
-Sin. Does breaking a rule suffice?

-Believing in Christ, in the context of the required belief spoken of which leads to salvation. That "whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life " (or be saved). This belief. 

Biblical faith when referring to belief in the existence of God, the diety and resurrection of Christ. That kind. 

The defined purpose and importance of good works.

The defined purpose and importance of baptism.

The Christian definition of your status when born. Born sinners, that kind of thing. 

Let's start here as these are the most often areas I see unbiblical definitions used to argue against Christianity. Well and also by loads of Christians not citing the true teachings of Jesus. Some id go as far to agree with the Bible and say they're not true Christians. 





Con
Thx, UpholdingTheFaith, for instigating this debate.

YOUR DEFINITION of CHRISTIANITY/CHRISTIAN is LIKELY INCORRECT

DEFINITIONS:

YOUR means "CON's" or in this particular my, "oromagi's"

DEFINITION is "a clear instance conforming to the dictionary or textbook definition."

CHRISTIANITY is "an Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ"

CHRISTIAN is "of, like or relating to Christianity"

LIKELY is "probable; having a greater-than-even chance of occurring"

INCORRECT is "erroneous or wrong"

BURDEN of PROOF:

WIKIPEDIA advises:

  • "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.   This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."
    • CON is the instigator of this debate as well as the maker of extraordinary claims (that any given definition of one commonplace word is probably wrong). 
    • PRO bears the burden of proof in this debate.
CON interprets PRO's resolution to mean that PRO must prove that CON's dictionary sourced definition of CHRISTIANITY is erroneous.

PRO1:INQUISITION

I think a starting definition will use common Christian words which commonly are used in different meanings and contexts. 
  • Agreed

what is and isn't the definiton/true of the following terms:
-Sin. Does breaking a rule suffice?
  • SIN is "a misdeed, a flaw"
  • Christ was condemned for rule breaking but what Christian could call such an act a misdeed?  I don't think every broken rule is sin any more than every sin need be a violation of law.

-Believing in Christ, in the context of the required belief spoken of which leads to salvation. That "whoever believes in Him shall have eternal life " (or be saved). This belief. 
Biblical faith when referring to belief in the existence of God, the diety and resurrection of Christ. That kind. 
  • Open to highly individual interpretation according to context and culture.
  • BIBLICAL FAITH is not a belief that some bibles exist but rather more a presagement of some argument favoring one's superior interpretation above other interpretations.  (i.e. My faith is BIBLICAL because of interpretations x, y, and z. Your faith is not BIBLICAL because of interpretations x, y, and z.)
The defined purpose and importance of good works.
  • Broadly speaking, the prioritization of projects, enterprises and policies estimated to derive the greatest benefit for the most people in an effort to improve overall human satisfaction and sustainability.  Spiritually speaking, the outward expression of agape; the instrument of God's benevolence.

The defined purpose and importance of baptism.
  • Membership ceremony

The Christian definition of your status when born. Born sinners, that kind of thing. 
  • Human
Let's start here as these are the most often areas I see unbiblical definitions used to argue against Christianity. Well and also by loads of Christians not citing the true teachings of Jesus. Some id go as far to agree with the Bible and say they're not true Christians. 
  • As a reader of the Bible, I don't interpret Christ as encouraging humans to separate the true Christians from the false Christians.  I think Christ would say treat all your fellow humans as you would any true Christian and leave the judgement to God.  In the Parable of the Weeds, Christians should emulate the wheat, not the reaper.
CON1:RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:

      • Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
      • Implicit to this right is the freedom to identify ourselves by any we choose to nominate.  No other human holds the right to define an of age human's religion for them.
CON2:THEOLOGY

    • Likewise, CON asserts that no religious or doctrinal test according to one individual's biblical interpretation may with justice apply to another individual's spiritual self-identification.
          • "a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater defends the generalization of a group by excluding counter-examples from it. For example, it is common to argue that "all members of [my religion] are fundamentally good", and then to abandon all bad individuals as "not true [my-religion]-people". This can occur in two ways:
            • During argument, someone re-defines the group in order to exclude counter-examples. Instead of backing down from "all groupmembers are X" to "most groupmembers are X", the debater simply redefines the group.
            • Before argument, someone preemptively defines some group such that the group definitionally must be entirely "good" or entirely "bad". However, this definition was created arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on the actual qualities of the group.
            • In short: both arguers should agree on a definition and stick to it."
              • In this case, PRO has asked CON to supply the definition and CON has done so, now let's stick to it.
        • PRO asked me to define the terms of this debate and I chose to go with generally agreed upon, dictionary sourced definitions.  No ad hoc re-definitions of Christianity according to minority theological principle should override any human's right to define their faith as they see fit, within or without Christianity.
    CONCLUSION:

    • If one wishes to uphold and promote the word of Christ, the best approach is to invite any willing to call themselves Christian to the table.  A big table at which many questions can be asked is more like Christ's example than a small table held behind some ideological portcullis.  This is not to invalidate the myriad interpretations of those words or the passion with which those interpretations are expressed but rather to consul Christians everywhere to commune with their brothers and sisters first as Christians together and leave the sectarian labeling and disharmony until everybody has enjoyed their deserts.
    • I look forward to PRO's R2.
    SOURCES

    Round 2
    Pro
    Some gracious users here have helped me better understand where I can be more specific. I want to acknowledge the awkward setup and premise of the debate and thank CON for their willingness to engage. Let me say, I'm not trying to be disenguous or set anything up to guarantee wins. I truly think the general societal understand i see is wrong. Mine has changed dramatically since studying the Bible. My hope with this topic is to open a discussion and make counter arguments to Christianity more targeted and accurate. I want to explore these questions too. Unless the CON finishes and says essentially, wow, yeah i see what you mean and you're right. Ill gladly take the loss. Here we go, bear with me im new. Trimming heavily for character space. 


    YOUR means "CON's" or in this particular my, "oromagi's"

    DEFINITION is "a clear instance conforming to the dictionary or textbook definition."

    CHRISTIANITY is "an Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ"

    CHRISTIAN is "of, like or relating to Christianity"

    LIKELY is "probable; having a greater-than-even chance of occurring"

    INCORRECT is "erroneous or wrong"

    BURDEN of PROOF:

    WIKIPEDIA advises:

    • "When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.   This is also stated in Hitchens's razor, which declares that "what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence." Carl Sagan proposed a related criterion – "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" – which is known as the Sagan standard."
      • CON is the instigator of this debate as well as the maker of extraordinary claims (that any given definition of one commonplace word is probably wrong). 
      • PRO bears the burden of proof in this debate.
    CON interprets PRO's resolution to mean that PRO must prove that CON's dictionary sourced definition of CHRISTIANITY is erroneous.
    Agreed. However. For Christianity, I have one request. To then agree upon what is meant by followers. I should hit that below, if not ill call it out at the end. 




    what is and isn't the definiton/true of the following terms:
    -Sin. Does breaking a rule suffice?
    • SIN is "a misdeed, a flaw"
    I should have added more,specifically breaking a rule does not suffice by itself. Sin is more than breaking a commandment. May i offer the working definition of an action which not only violates a standard set by God but also destroys the relationship between God and fellow humans (neighbor). When asked to summarize the commandments to one, Jesus could have simply went with don't sin. Instead he said love God, love neighbor. Preserve relationship between. This specification is highly relevant to then what is meant when someone says something like Christ died for my sins. That's my motivation in specification at the very least. 

    • BELIEVING is the "act or process of having faith, trust, or confidence in"
    • CHRIST is a "title given to Jesus of Nazareth"
    Agreed. Also, yes thank you. Christ is, in fact, not Jesus' last name.

    • So, let's say that BELIEF in CHRIST is "trust or faith in at least one Christian element"
    I agree from a strictly defined terms lumped together perspective. However. For something like "believe in Jesus and you will be saved". I heartily disagree. If you're OK with me posing a new definiton, I will. If not, please provide reasoning why. My point of need for specification here is because what's described in scripture is not simply that (me to provide this definition if you're willing to discuss a new one). Biblical deduction to justify my need is as follows (I'll provide verses if necessary, but it's more a logic question). Matthew records an encounter between Jesus and a man possessed by multiple demons. Christian worldview, these are intelligent beings with unique consciousness. They recognize Jesus, admit to his divinity (they believed), and yet were not saved. If the simple standard is believe and be saved, the demons should have been saved by definition. They were not. This suggests a different definition which ill provide. 


    Yeah I'm with you here. Given your definitions,  your examples are accurate. I just want to differentiate the different meaning of believe to be saved. It's only a facet.


    The defined purpose and importance of good works.
    • Broadly speaking, the prioritization of projects, enterprises and policies estimated to derive the greatest benefit for the most people in an effort to improve overall human satisfaction and sustainability.  Spiritually speaking, the outward expression of agapethe instrument of God's benevolence.
    Thanks for grouping. The one I'm interested in here is the spiritual one above. Also, my goodness. I am impressed at dropping agape and I REALLY like that definition. Mind if I steal it, to be used as "a definition i heard once I really like is"?  I might offer to let me think outloud at you and pay you to whittle down to definitions like that. Awesome!



    The defined purpose and importance of baptism.
    • Membership ceremony
    Actually... I can totally work with this. As long as we specify it's in no way required. Optional membership ceremony?

    The Christian definition of your status when born. Born sinners, that kind of thing. 
    • Human
    Awesome. Yes. Can I ask to use as a workable definiton (expanding on status within the worldview): human, with no sin having been committed, but a sinful nature (sinful nature defined as a craving to sin, stronger in some areas than others for each person)?


    • As a reader of the Bible, I don't interpret Christ as encouraging humans to separate the true Christians from the false Christians.  I think Christ would say treat all your fellow humans as you would any true Christian and leave the judgement to God.  In the Parable of the Weeds, Christians should emulate the wheat, not the reaper.
    I agree with everything said here, with one potential exception upon clarification. In the first part, "encouraging to separate ", I'm with you unless you would say the following is considered encouraged to separate:
    I believe Christians are called to point out theological fallacy in other believers and deliver this correction with humbleness, gentleness, and respect. Specifically core points which would classify the errant believer as not actually a Christian (a false Christian). One such example. A "Christian" saying God doesn't exist. Silly but gets to the point. Biblical justification:
    "Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil people and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. "
    2 Timothy 3:12‭-‬17 ESV


    Agreed. Can I add a distinction. For a God to create free creatures, he must grant then freedom of choice in religion. Otherwise not free beings. However, if all other religions make contradictory truth claims to Christianity (they do), then it follows if Christianity is true, the others, by definition, must be false. 


    Trimmed for characters. To respond to your part on the No True Scotsman, I most certainly will not do that. But, may I ask to agree upon a distinction. Someone acting in conflict with the tenants of their religion is not a true follower of that religion, regardless of any claims to identify as that religion. Again a silly example, but so I'm clear. If the Bible says worshipping other God's is a sin and someone says they're a Christian and for them it's perfectly fine. They're not actually a Christian. Ill give an acronym for this. PFB, or professing false believer. My reason for caring, it's unfair to argue in opposition to any religion based on actions or beliefs of an individual claiming to be a follower, but are in direct conflict with that religion. I wouldn't argue why Jesus isn't God as a Christian even if every professing Christian said He wasn't. Because that's not what the Bible clearly says. 

        • PRO asked me to define the terms of this debate and I chose to go with generally agreed upon, dictionary sourced definitions.  No ad hoc re-definitions of Christianity according to minority theological principle should override any human's right to define their faith as they see fit, within or without Christianity.
    I hope my request for specification does not come across as an ad-hoc attempt at redefinition based on minority view, but instead as one of a call for preciseness based upon what the Bible says. One justification would be, looking at anything from the New Testament in an English Bible relies on a Greek to English translation. There's time precision matters. English says love, we have many meanings, the Greek more than one word. It matters which is chosen, outside of opinion, there are times it's very clear. If I say I love my wife and love my kids, it's very clearly an obvious different meaning. We just need the context of how to agree. Which we would I assume. 


    Thank you very much. Interesting and stimulating so far!


    Con
    Thx, UpholdingTheFaith

    YOUR DEFINITION of CHRISTIANITY/CHRISTIAN is LIKELY INCORRECT

    DEFINITIONS:

    • All definitions agreed except one.
      •  For Christianity, I have one request. To then agree upon what is meant by followers
    CHRISTIANITY is "an Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ"

    • Someone acting in conflict with the tenants of their religion is not a true follower of that religion, regardless of any claims to identify as that religion. Again a silly example, but so I'm clear. If the Bible says worshipping other God's is a sin and someone says they're a Christian and for them it's perfectly fine. They're not actually a Christian. Ill give an acronym for this. PFB, or professing false believer. My reason for caring, it's unfair to argue in opposition to any religion based on actions or beliefs of an individual claiming to be a follower, but are in direct conflict with that religion. I wouldn't argue why Jesus isn't God as a Christian even if every professing Christian said He wasn't. Because that's not what the Bible clearly says. 
    • Since we have agreed that our DEFINITIONS should conform to dictionary or textbook definitions, let do that.
    A FOLLOWER is "one who follows, comes after another."  But a FOLLOWER can also mean servant, retainer, imitator, pursuer, an Australian rules ruck rover, a courtier, a cow or a debt collector.  PRO wants to define FOLLOWERS as something like "adherers to the Bible" but Christ placed no such qualification on his followers and indeed the Bible did not yet exist in Christ's lifetime.

    • The Bible expressly forbids charging any kind of interest but many bankers call themselves Christian without controversy.
    • The Bible expressly forbids any work or travel from sunset every Friday to sunset every Saturday most Christians violate this commandment weekly.
    • On the subject of ousting sinners, Jesus himself advised "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone"
      • "When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?  She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
    • On Christian membership Jesus advised
      • "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.  Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?  Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."
        • Christ's advice to PRO is to forgive the sinner at least 490 sins before casting one's brother from the ranks of Christian fellowship.
    • CON argues that if we follow Christ's teaching, then following Jesus need mean no more coming together in Jesus' name.  Since every denomination that calls itself Christian satisfies Jesus's definition, no  latter-day man-made purity test should override the qualification.
    BURDEN of PROOF:

      • PRO accepts the burden of proof in this debate.
    PRO agreed that he must prove that CON's dictionary sourced definition of CHRISTIANITY is erroneous but has already conceded all that definition except the word FOLLOWERS.  Now PRO must prove that Wiktionary's definition of FOLLOWERS can only include strict adherents to PRO's interpretation of the BIble. 

    PRO1.2:INQUISITION

    "Sin is more than breaking a commandment. May i offer the working definition of an action which not only violates a standard set by God but also destroys the relationship between God and fellow humans (neighbor). When asked to summarize the commandments to one, Jesus could have simply went with don't sin. Instead he said love God, love neighbor."
    • The Wiktionary definition closest to yours is "violation of God's will or religious law" which suggests nothing about influence on our relationship with the divine.  On the contrary, Jesus says nothing about severing God from his creations, rather Jesus taught Christians to ask God for forgiveness (after we forgive our neighbors)
      • "forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us."
        • and God shall always readily forgive:
      • "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"
        • Christ seems to accept sin as an ordinary, even daily, human condition (ye then, being evil). I'd call my Wiktionary definition closer to Jesus' intent than PRO's-  like a misdeed, sin is a condition in need of correction, such as forgiveness, not a violation demanding some destruction of social ties. If no sinners are Christians and all Christians are sinners, wouldn't it follow that there are no Christians? If all Christians are alike in sin and so all have destroyed their relationship with God, what is the function or value of Christ's sacrifice?

    Matthew records an encounter between Jesus and a man possessed by multiple demons. Christian worldview, these are intelligent beings with unique consciousness. They recognize Jesus, admit to his divinity (they believed), and yet were not saved. If the simple standard is believe and be saved, the demons should have been saved by definition. They were not. This suggests a different definition which ill provide. 
    • The question of salvation is non-sequitur.  Not all followers of Christ are necessarily saved, nor all non-followers damned by any generous interpretation of Christian salvation. We are discussing how to define Christian.  Salvation is a separate religious test not mentioned in Wiktionary's definition.
    • PRO is positing as evidence two literal demons, sentient but non-corporeal intelligences that first share one human body and then instantly inhabit a herd of 2000 pigs who immediately, collectively commit suicide.
      • CON argues that he has never seen evidence supporting the possibility of
        • More than one intelligence controlling one human,
        • 2 intelligences controlling 2,000 pigs or
        • the transference of intelligence from human to pig.
          • CON assumes most demon talk in the Bible represents pre-scientific representations of mental illness or neurologic disorders such as epilepsy.  For this story to serve as evidence supporting PRO's argument, PRO must prove that demons are some  real non-human but sentient species.  Otherwise, we are just talking about a sick man who felt better.


    Mind if I steal [good works definition]?
    • No, I don't mind.
     Optional membership ceremony?
    • Fine
    Can I ask to use as a workable definiton (expanding on status within the worldview): human, with no sin having been committed, but a sinful nature (sinful nature defined as a craving to sin, stronger in some areas than others for each person)?
    • I'd say some degree of fallibility is inherent in the human condition.
      • "Good-Nature and Good-Sense must ever join/ To err is human, to forgive divine." -Alexander Pope
    I believe Christians are called to point out theological fallacy in other believers and deliver this correction with humbleness, gentleness, and respect. Specifically core points which would classify the errant believer as not actually a Christian (a false Christian). One such example. A "Christian" saying God doesn't exist. Silly but gets to the point
    • Here we disagree.  However humble the original intent, has there ever been a bloodier or more sinful purpose than Christians pointing out the theological fallacies in others?  Many have their own individual interpretations of Christ's word but the notion of "correction" upholds one man's interpretation as superior to another's and in that presumption of superiority a host of harms is justified.  
      • By CON's definition of Christianity, an atheist can also be a Christian.
        • The philosopher George Santayana identified as both atheist and Catholic.
        • The present dictator of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko identifies as both atheist and Orthodox.
        • According to research in 2007, only 27% of Catholics in the Netherlands considered themselves theist while 55% were ietsist or agnostic deist and 17% were agnostic or atheist.
    CON1:RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:

    if all other religions make contradictory truth claims to Christianity (they do), then it follows if Christianity is true, the others, by definition, must be false. 
    • Disagree.  Since religions mostly agree that the nature and will of God is unfathomable by humans, CON must assume that all religions are alike in ignorance.  None can know the extent to which any interpretation reflects the ultimate, metaphysical reality and so all interpretations should be held alike in legitimacy (or lack thereof).
    CON2:THEOLOGY

    • Yes, arguing that no true follower of Christ would worship other God's fails CON's definition of Christian as an appeal to purity.  I know many Christians that prioritize money before piety but I would not yank their their Christian credentials or even fault their faith.
    • Yes, arguing that no true Christian would deny God's existence fails CON's definition of Christian as another appeal to purity.
    CONCLUSION:

    • PRO agreed that he must prove that CON's dictionary sourced definition of CHRISTIANITY is erroneous but  PRO has mostly already conceded all that definition except for a special religious test for FOLLOWERS, which CON refutes an appeal to religious purity.
    • I look forward to PRO's R2.
    SOURCES

    Round 3
    Pro

    FOLLOWER is "one who follows, comes after another."  But a FOLLOWER can also mean servant, retainer, imitator, pursuer, an Australian rules ruck rover, a courtier, a cow or a debt collector.  PRO wants to define FOLLOWERS as something like "adherers to the Bible" but Christ placed no such qualification on his followers and indeed the Bible did not yet exist in Christ's lifetime.
    -- I may actually need to add one point of additional contention for Christianity, Apologies! This was intended for the follower section but as I wrote my answer i realized I in fact should have simply added text to the definiton instead of thinking it was a facet of one of the words. I dont want it to seem like I'm trying to sneak something in. I'm just new. I agreed to Christianity if we agree to follower. But I'll need to add text instead. I'm so sorry if I wasted your time. That said, id propose this as a definition I would agree to. 
    an Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ where the follower has obtained salvation according to the standard set by Jesus Christ.
    (Unless originating is pushed to mean made up instead of which spread starting with)

    This standard for salvation set by Jesus Christ mentioned above is Biblically defined for an individual as belief in the diety of Christ, the acknowledgement that they are a sinner, that Christ died sinless. 


    • The Bible expressly forbids charging any kind of interest but many bankers call themselves Christian without controversy
    • The Bible expressly forbids any work or travel from sunset every Friday to sunset every Saturday most Christians violate this commandment weekly.
    -- This is explained by the understanding the categories of Old Testament law and how Jesus changed aspects of this. A separate discussion im happy to have. Let me know. 

    • On the subject of ousting sinners, Jesus himself advised "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone"
    --Ousting sinners is different than using scripture to correct errant thinking. Fellow believer correction in theology has a different set of rules. Separate discussion im happy to have. Let me know. 

        • Christ's advice to PRO is to forgive the sinner at least 490 sins before casting one's brother from the ranks of Christian fellowship
        • -- this is not a weird way of saying 490. It was common in the first century in their culture to use certain numbers to mean certain things. These are playing of the ancient usage and understanding of 7, 10 as they pertain to perfection, harmony, and completion. Multiplying 10*7 (or seventy) and then to say that times 7 again. It's calling to, not arithmetic, but scale of the ideas in play. It's not spelled out just like I wouldn't add a preface that I don't mean I think you're a combustion chemical reaction if I call you a fireball or that I think you're made of thread if I called you a wet blanket. But those might look just as out of place in a text thousands of years since those terms were used to have a specific and different double meaning. 

    • CON argues that if we follow Christ's teaching, then following Jesus need mean no more coming together in Jesus' name. 
    --In the above provided definitional sense yes. In the sense that Jesus referred to when he talked about dying to yourself and picking up your own cross daily, I disagree. 

    • Since every denomination that calls itself Christian satisfies Jesus's definition, no  latter-day man-made purity test should override the qualification.
    ---id prefer to shelf any discussion of denominations. They are man made,, not found in the Bible, not im existence for years following Christ's death and resurrection.




    PRO1.2:INQUISITION

    "Sin is more than breaking a commandment. May i offer the working definition of an action which not only violates a standard set by God but also destroys the relationship between God and fellow humans (neighbor). When asked to summarize the commandments to one, Jesus could have simply went with don't sin. Instead he said love God, love neighbor."
    • The Wiktionary definition closest to yours is "violation of God's will or religious law" which suggests nothing about influence on our relationship with the divine.  On the contrary, Jesus says nothing about severing God from his creations, rather Jesus taught Christians to ask God for forgiveness (after we forgive our neighbors)
      • "forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us."
        • and God shall always readily forgive:
      • "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"
        • Christ seems to accept sin as an ordinary, even daily, human condition (ye then, being evil). I'd call my Wiktionary definition closer to Jesus' intent than PRO's-  like a misdeed, sin is a condition in need of correction, such as forgiveness, not a violation demanding some destruction of social ties. If no sinners are Christians and all Christians are sinners, wouldn't it follow that there are no Christians? If all Christians are alike in sin and so all have destroyed their relationship with God, what is the function or value of Christ's sacrifice?
    -- ill have to just conceed. I can make an argument here but it's longer. I'm happy to start a separate topic, let me know. 

    Matthew records an encounter between Jesus and a man possessed by multiple demons. Christian worldview, these are intelligent beings with unique consciousness. They recognize Jesus, admit to his divinity (they believed), and yet were not saved. If the simple standard is believe and be saved, the demons should have been saved by definition. They were not. This suggests a different definition which ill provide. 
    • The question of salvation is non-sequitur.  Not all followers of Christ are necessarily saved, nor all non-followers damned by any generous interpretation of Christian salvation.
    --Using strict follower definition you're not wrong. Anything further is my putting assumed meanings on you. Great call out. 

    • We are discussing how to define Christian.  Salvation is a separate religious test not mentioned in Wiktionary's definition.
    • --my only point and this will directly relate to my addition (haha you realized I needed it before me). A Christian must be saved to be called a Christian. 


    • PRO is positing as evidence two literal demons, sentient but non-corporeal intelligences that first share one human body and then instantly inhabit a herd of 2000 pigs who immediately, collectively commit suicide
    --perhaps claiming the Biblical text says is more accurate. 

          •   For this story to serve as evidence supporting PRO's argument, PRO must prove that demons are some  real non-human but sentient species.  Otherwise, we are just talking about a sick man who felt better.
    -- you are clever and very attentive to detail. This is 100% correct. My claim (separate discussion, happy to, let me know) is that some cases were literal sentient (not species) but created spiritual being. Not one who was created with a earthly body. And in other cases definitely what we know to be disease. I would lay out that in the cases Jesus healed a "possessed" person who was just sick with a mental disorder or bacterial infection, that Jesus was meeting them in their current knowledge, was focusing on the sick (somehow) then healed and what this means for the message im about to deliver. Otherwise, he'd essentially have spent all his time teaching about math and invisible things in your body etc. But again separate discussion. 


    • Here we disagree.  However humble the original intent, has there ever been a bloodier or more sinful purpose than Christians pointing out the theological fallacies in others? 
    -- Simple discourse and Biblical discussion (all thats called for) can never be bloody. Unless you pass out from excitement and hit your head. Another discussion i suspect with some more terms needing laid out. As before. I'm down let me know. 


      • By CON's definition of Christianity, an atheist can also be a Christian.
    --This is where we would differ greatly and I think my add in accounts for this for the further discussion. We can't judge correctness on the actions of failable people. Modern day Christians have a strong claim that these theological ideas will be cite-able in the Bible and independent of actions of humans by those claiming without verification to be acting in accordance with the faith. If I say I'm a believer in the US constitution and am acting in accordance with it's text, but don't treat all men as created equal. Does the constitution not support that or am I just wrong?

    CON1:RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:

    if all other religions make contradictory truth claims to Christianity (they do), then it follows if Christianity is true, the others, by definition, must be false. 
    • Disagree. 
    --Let me try again. Alluding to my expanded definition. You must believe Jesus is God to be saved. To be a Christian. Jesus is God is a truth claim of Christianity. If a religion who makes a truth claim in contradiction to this and if in reality, Jesus is God, I would claim it has to follow the contradictory truth claim is now false. A religion is based on a set of truth claims about the world. If one is false, the religion is false. I didn't see how this is wrong from your last response. I apologize. Could you try a different approach?

    Out of space. I think theres a lot to engage on above. If I dropped something you'd like revisited, please preface next round. Sorry!! I can't think where to trim more above. 


    Con
    Thx, UpholdingTheFaith

    YOUR DEFINITION of CHRISTIANITY/CHRISTIAN is LIKELY INCORRECT

    DEFINITIONS:

    • All definitions agreed except one.
      •  For Christianity, I have one request. To then agree upon what is meant by followers
    R2:FOLLOWER is "one who follows, comes after another.

    id propose this as a definition I would agree to. an Abrahamic religion originating from the community of the followers of Jesus Christ where the follower has obtained salvation according to the standard set by Jesus Christ.
    PRO's job here is to prove the dictionary definition of CHRISTIAN is INCORRECT. Obviously, if PRO changes the dictionary definition of FOLLOWER from "one who follows" to "one who believes in the deity of Christ," then PRO will have changed the dictionary definition of CHRISTIANITY/A CHRISTIAN to  somebody else's non-dictionary, totally customized definition of CHRISTIANITY/A CHRISTIAN, namely UpholdingTheFaith's definition.  Since that definition is not the subject of this debate and oromagi's definition is the subject of this debate CON argues such a proposal would be non-sequitur.  

    • The Bible expressly forbids charging any kind of interest but many bankers call themselves Christian without controversy.
    • The Bible expressly forbids any work or travel from sunset every Friday to sunset every Saturday most Christians violate this commandment weekly.
    This is explained by the understanding the categories of Old Testament law and how Jesus changed aspects of this.
    • CON does not accept that Christ OK'd usury and moved the Sabbath but the point was that PRO wanted to exclude some unBiblical sinners and label those people PFBs- professing false believers while permitting other unBiblical sinners to qualify as Christian. 
      • The Old Testament is just as biblical as the New Testament after all or perhaps PRO wishes to specify the segregation of some Christians according to New Testament sin?
    • On the subject of ousting sinners, Jesus himself advised "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone"
    Ousting sinners is different than using scripture to correct errant thinking
    • Yes, but here you are doing both, ousting certain sinners from the group called Christianity as a consequence of errant thinking by your standard.  Certain followers of Jesus can't be Christians in PRO's book because they don't share PRO's beliefs regarding the deity of Christ.
      • Of course, CON has no test that confirms Christ's divinity using some objective and repeatable standard, I don't even know what a God test might look like.
        • CON does not pretend to know whether a man who lived two thousand years ago was God. 
      • PRO has no more non-biblical evidence than CON of Christ's divinity but nevertheless applies that unproven condition as the test for "true" belief. 
    • Christ's advice to PRO is to forgive the sinner at least 490 sins before casting one's brother from the ranks of Christian fellowship.
     [490]'s calling to, not arithmetic, but scale of the ideas in play.
    • Ok, so more than 490 then.
      • Jesus advises PRO to forgive the sin of "failing to believe in Jesus' divinity" more than 490 times before ousting a brother Christian from your ranks.
    • CON argues that if we follow Christ's teaching, then following Jesus need mean no more coming together in Jesus' name. Since every denomination that calls itself Christian satisfies Jesus's definition, no  latter-day man-made purity test should override the qualification.
    --In the above provided definitional sense yes.
    • Here then, PRO concedes that his definition of FOLLOWER of CHRIST differs from Jesus' definition of FOLLOWER of CHRIST. 
      • Christ applied no "believe that I am God" test for  his followers.
    In the sense that Jesus referred to when he talked about dying to yourself and picking up your own cross daily, I disagree. 
    • PRO must provide evidence that JESUS said that FOLLOWERS of CHRIST must die to themselves and pick up crosses or else fail to qualify as FOLLOWERS.
    BURDEN of PROOF:

      • PRO accepts the burden of proof in this debate.
    PRO agreed that he must prove that CON's dictionary sourced definition of CHRISTIANITY is erroneous but PRO has already conceded all that definition except the word FOLLOWERS.  Now PRO must prove that Wiktionary's definition of FOLLOWERS is in error and that dictionary entry must only include those followers who believe Jesus was a supernatural being. 

    PRO1.2:INQUISITION

    • SIN is "a misdeed, a flaw"

    -- ill have to just conceed. I can make an argument here but it's longer.
    • The question of salvation is non-sequitur.  Not all followers of Christ are necessarily saved, nor all non-followers damned by any generous interpretation of Christian salvation. We are discussing how to define Christian.  Salvation is a separate religious test not mentioned in Wiktionary's definition.
    Using strict follower definition you're not wrong.
    • PRO concedes salvation need not be a condition for CHRISTIANITY
    If the simple standard is believe and be saved, the demons should have been saved by definition. 
    • For this story to serve as evidence supporting PRO's argument, PRO must prove that demons are some  real non-human but sentient species.  Otherwise, we are just talking about a sick man who felt better.
    This is 100% correct
    • To be clear, CON has already argued that Atheists who admire and study the word of Christ can call themselves Christian with as much authority as those who believe that Christ is a deity. 
    Simple discourse and Biblical discussion (all thats called for) can never be bloody
    • By CON's definition of Christianity, an atheist can also be a Christian.
     If I say I'm a believer in the US constitution and am acting in accordance with it's text, but don't treat all men as created equal. Does the constitution not support that or am I just wrong?
    • The self-evident truth that all people are equal opened our Declaration of Independence from England, not the US Constitution.
    • The US Constitution instructs and restricts government, not the people.
      • The US Constitution makes no provision either way for non-believers in ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence  
    • Let's explore PRO's metaphor completely.
      • PRO instigates with "your definition of US Citizen is wrong"
      • CON replies that his definition of US Citizen is "all persons born or naturalized in the United States"
      • PRO replies OK but let's define person as non-racist
      • CON argues racists are still people and so still US Citizens
      • CON's  definition of US Citizen stands
        • non-racist is a ideological test not warranted by the condition "born or naturalized in the United States"
      • Likewise, 'Jesus is God' is an ideological test unwarranted by the condition "follower of Jesus," PRO's standard,
        • or even "gathered in Jesus' name," Jesus's own standard.
        • CON's definition of CHRISTIAN stands
    CON1:RELIGIOUS LIBERTY:

    A religion is based on a set of truth claims about the world. If one is false, the religion is false
    • Many Christians argue that Noah's Ark is true although many details in Genesis are well and famously disproved by geology, archeology, history, biology, math, physics, and genetics.
    • PRO would argue that for those Christians the Sermon on the Mount comes from a false religion if Noah's Ark is shown false.
    • CON doesn't believe that any human has the whole truth figured, and nobody's personal perception of religion much matches the next.
    • No religion is based on a set of well-evidenced truth claims about the world.
    • CON's observation is that there's truth and falsehood in every religion he's ever studied.
      • If so, PRO's test argues that all religion is false. 
        • But CON argues against such fundamentalism-
          • we humans should be free to find the truths and falsehoods in any religion as we see fit
          • and if we decide to call that truth Christian,
            • even if that Christianity only comes by culture
              • or upbringing
              • or association
              • and even if that Christianity is skeptical that Jesus is God
          • who are others to say that kind of Christianity is definitionally less "true?"
    CON2:THEOLOGY

    • Yes, arguing that no true follower of Christ would worship other God's fails CON's definition of Christian as an appeal to purity. 
      • CON drops NO TRUE SCOTMSAN
    CONCLUSION:

    • PRO agreed that he must prove that CON's dictionary sourced definition of CHRISTIANITY is erroneous but  PRO has mostly already conceded all that definition except for a special religious test for FOLLOWERS, which CON refutes an appeal to religious purity.
    • I look forward to PRO's R4.
    SOURCES

    Round 4
    Pro
    There are a few points I'd like to contest and a few things I still didn't do a good enough job of explaining.  But with the remaining time, id not have room. And I feel they're off topic (solid objections none the less) from what the true BOP is. My fault entirely. 

    I again want to acknowledge the poor setup on my part. The time and attention to detail from my opponent has served as a great learning opportunity. 

    I feel in a much better place to better set terms and intentions. I felt half picking random points to try and form a rebuttal from only a 30000 ft view or trying to better explain my non concise points. My patient opponent engaged and kept true to conditions set. 

    First a huge thanks to my opponent. Without you I would not have learned how to better engage and communicate. I also want to fully concede and give victory to my opponent. I basically figured out what I wanted to say and how to set things up because of my first few rounds. Not good for this debate. Good for me and the life span of my next opponent. Far less to wade through.

    Please give all votes to my opponent. I have failed to satisfy BOP as both parties agreed to early on. Thank you again so much. I had a lot of fun and I have some follow ups to dig into for sure. 

    Con
    Thx, UpholdingTheFaith


    YOUR DEFINITION of CHRISTIANITY/CHRISTIAN is LIKELY INCORRECT

    • PRO has graciously conceded. 

    VOTING

    • CON recommends arguments to CON in light of PRO's concession
    • CON recommends conduct to PRO in light of PRO's concession. 
    • Thanks to UpholdingTheFaith for instigating this debate and
    • Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.


    Round 5
    Pro
    I will in fact raise a rebuttal post concession!

    CON recommends conduct to PRO in light of PRO's concession. 
    I claim the CON should, in light of this comment, change to a recommendation for a tie on conduct, if not a vote for CON.

    I'll support this with 2 points

    1. Perhaps, you could say I was eager to discuss, eager to learn, and open to feedback. 
    2. My opponent stuck to a concise, well formatted flow while remaining gracious and patient the whole time. In the face of, im sure frustrating, conditions, delays, and PRO instruction on format of debate ideas.

    Therefore again. Minimum cast it as a tie. However, the CON has went above and beyond in PRO opinion and should sweep the vote! 

    Vote for (not) me!

    Con
    Thx, UpholdingTheFaith1

    Just to reiterate/extend from R4.


    YOUR DEFINITION of CHRISTIANITY/CHRISTIAN is LIKELY INCORRECT

    • PRO has graciously conceded. 

    VOTING

    • CON recommends arguments to CON in light of PRO's concession
    • CON recommends conduct to PRO in light of PRO's concession. 
    • Thanks to UpholdingTheFaith for instigating this debate and
    • Thanks to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.