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

The point of being a Christian is not to be a good person.

Status
Finished

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

Arguments points
0
3
Sources points
2
2
Spelling and grammar points
1
1
Conduct points
1
1

With 1 vote and 3 points ahead, the winner is ...

seldiora
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Religion
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
7
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Description
~ 133 / 5,000

This is not a debate about the existence of the Christian God. It's about what the teachings of Jesus inform us regarding The Gospel.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

An interesting read. Thank you to the participants for this debate.

The resolution is "The point of being a Christian is not to be a good person." Con, then, would have the burden of proof to show that that is the point of being a Christian. It's hard to tell whether Pro merely needs to show that that isn't the point or whether he needs to support an alternative, since the debate does not make that clear.

The debate doesn't really start until Round 2. Pro begins with an argument that Christians are saved in spite of their sin, so being a good person isn't necessary. Good works, or being a good person, are the result of a change of heart and not the point of Christianity. He also argues that it is impossible for humans to be good by God's standards. Con answers this by saying that, even though it is impossible for humans to be perfect, that doesn't mean that perfection isn't the goal. Furthermore, he points to commands such as "love one another" as evidence that Christians should strive to be perfect.

In Round 3, Pro answers Con's objections by distinguishing between salvation and sanctification. Being a good person is an example of sanctification, but that is different from salvation. He also states what he says is the point of being a Christian: "God is going to restore things to the way they were in the Garden of Eden. One in which we are in relationship with God and ruling over the Earth with Him. The point is to go back to that relationship." Con almost totally wastes his third round. He argues that many of the verses Pro has cited support the idea of being a good person and also argues that many Christians have been accepted by God by repenting and being a good person.

Pro argues in Round 4 that people are saved solely through repentance and forgiveness. To quote him, "Being a good person in our standards is worthless when the true standard to judge good implies we're all wretches." Con argues that the Bible says that we should become like God, who is perfect. Even though that is an unattainable goal, it is still the goal of becoming good.

Pro argues in Round 5 that being a good person isn't the point. They don't save, although they are a part of the process of sanctification. He again asserts that the point of Christianity is to restore the original relationship between God and man. Con argues that there is no difference between that and being a good person.

Con didn't put a lot of effort into the debate, but his arguments outmaneuver Pro's wordiness. Con's argument that the purpose Pro propose is indistinguishable from being a good person is enough to win, since Pro never really explains how they are different. Arguments to Con.

Conduct was excellent. There were no issues with S&G. Pro did cite a few sources but failed to provide links to them (the summary of Romans and the gospel). However, neither of those really impacted his arguments, so I won't dock him for that.

It would have been nice to see Con put more effort into this. He did the bare minimum required to win, which is technically enough, though not very satisfying. Pro needs to work on relating his arguments back to the point he's trying to prove or disprove. Brevity and additional clarity would have really helped his case.

That being said, this debate was good to read. Thanks to both participants.