Instigator / Pro
4
1363
rating
13
debates
3.85%
won
Topic
#2428

Your definition for Christianity may not be Biblical and should therefore not be called Christianity

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...

halmoni
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One day
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
7
1513
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Description

As I've spent more time getting acquainted with debate art. I find myself, on both sides, seeing arguments for or against Christianity that are not actually Christianity. I'm specifically saying, core tenants of the faith. To specify one, Jesus is not a created being.

To those interested in having this conversation, here's the premise I'll lay out:
The person engaging will outline their definition of what Christianity is. Basically, what are Christians required to do and believe to call themselves a Christian? We can save the optional stuff for another debate (e.g. baptism).

My burden upon the outlining of the other person is 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!) are in fact incorrect. The fact that many, many Christians have the correct definition (I'm trying my best through constant study to be one of them) and this is the full motivation of adding the words 'may not be' in my title. To just show i don't think I have some unique view or special understanding. Not at all.

If I agree at the outset, awesome! Sorry to have wasted your time. I've done this only a few times with people, but have yet to find an area that we couldn't discuss.

I'm not looking to set something up to ridicule and try and puff my ego through some forced, unfair "victory". How silly and what a waste of both our time. If I'm making opinion based arguments, I fail.

Thus, we must assume the Christian worldview for this discussion. For example, but how do you know God exists, isn't a relevant question for the purpose of this.

If you're a professing Christian, I'd think you'd want to confirm if you're in line with Jesus' teachings. I sure do. If im misunderstanding, what a great way to surface it! It's something I personally do with those I trust who follow Jesus with my own theological understanding all of the time.

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 across topics.

-->
@Intelligence_06

As I tried to explain. I'm trying something a little different. There isn't an option for this so I'm just trying to be clear in the description. I'm not at all forcing anyone. I've gotten really good engagement from multiple people and they've understood why I did it this way after we got going.

If you're very strict on the debate style then please, just hang out and watch if interested in the topic. I also should say that if we fail to come to a good understanding of terms or to pull a truly concise conflict statement out, I take the full burden due to this set up and will concede the debate. If you're someone who thinks this is a cheap win for you then just hang out and watch if interested. The only way I feel I deserve to have a vote for my position is if, at the end, the opposing side feels they understand this weird set up, we indeed pull a point out that my title refers to, I've shown that to be in error, and (importantly) basically says yeah I get it, I concede. Otherwise by all means please take the win. The burden falls to me and my setup.

Since I am getting engagement, and very good conversations too I might add, I don't really want to abandon this. Just refine my description for clarity.

-->
@UpholdingTheFaith

You bear the BoP so I don't think just asking questions is a good idea. You are supposed to defend your idea.

-->
@MisterChris

Yeah. I need to do a better job in the description but i see it this way.

If, as has happened in a few of these, we quickly engage on a specific topic, id suppose the voting would go in favor of who best debated from that point on.

It's a little different starting with a vague premise then using the first round or two to set terms.

If someone is very in the model of the truest sense of debate in terms of argument flow and final weighing of points discussed, then probably not the debate to take.

For those that tend to end up more so having a discussion which often times ends up more vague at the end anyway. As a ton that I ive engaged in do. Then my hope is this weird start can actually help focus the further rounds.

Otherwise I've noticed we try to cover half of Christian theology, very deeply, all at the same time and only in a few rounds. Not really that do-able if the topic has any depth. Most do.

I'll work to refine my description. I've offended and set off more than one person without intention. But I don't want to stop this avenue of discussion all together as I've gotten into some really, really solid focused discussions this way.

-->
@MisterChris

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/r0d7b/the_definition_of_atheism_and_christianity/

This is a kind of truism. Yes, the contender's definition of Christianity MAY be wrong biblically. There is always a chance.