Instigator / Pro
7
1546
rating
7
debates
57.14%
won
Topic
#3209

THBT Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven

Status
Finished

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

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

After 1 vote and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

949havoc
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
2
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

The traditional Lord’s Prayer contains a positive attitude; one of hope, not despair, of courage, not fear. It does not ask that God might do something, expressing doubt; it assures God’s actions. In this manner ought we pray, not in weakness, but in strength. Not as a pansy, with wilting pedals, but as a rose with thorns.

Therefore, when it asks for the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven, “thy kingdom come,” it is a declarative statement; it will come. It’s not a “maybe,” it’s not a wilting “oh, pretty-please.” I wonder of God even listens to such pathetic entreaties as these.

God is looking for the likes of Peter and Paul, not the willowy, pissed-by-the-wind men and women as depicted by medieval artisans, who even had the gall to present Christ as such a weak, lowly excuse of a man. Such is the definition of “meek” by such artisans. The paradisiacal Earth will not be inherited by weaklings.

Some believe Christ waits to return until Satan's power is at an apex, but I believe that condition already exists; that we already see a greater abundance of evil in the world than even at the time of destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah. Therefore, Satan's power is not the trigger, but rather, our own.

My burden of proof is that Jesus will come when the intended strength of humanity will invite the return of the Lord, for I believe we are already past the advent of debauchery that invited the destruction of Sodom and Ghomorrah. It is not Satan who will bid Christ to come, but men and women who have proven worthy to receive the Lamb of God at their table by their evidence of good works against the mayhem of evil in the world. His coming will abolish all such mayhem; he will establish the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Only then is the Lord’s Prayer answered in full.

My opponent’s BoP is will necessarily rebut the proposal as defined.

Note: this debate challenge assumes as valid that the biblical Jesus existed and is prophesied to return to Earth at a future time not designated by any meaningful clock, including the biblical claim [Matt. 24: 34] that the return would occur "in this generation," "this" being the operative word often concluded to be that of the first century.

Rules:

BoP is shared

Any one forfeited round is a loss of debate.

No new arguments in final round.

Definitions:

Jesus [Christ]: accepted as a biblical figure, the Son of God.

Return: [In the case of Jesus Christ] A physical return to Earth in prophesied power and glory.

Sufficient number of people: admittedly, a vague number which may not even be the equal of half of all living on Earth when Christ returns, but a sufficient number to help administrate the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, just as many are required to administrate an earthly kingdom such as the United States, or the Roman Empire, etc.

The Kingdom of Heaven: A physical and spiritual kingdom administrated on Earth for and on behalf of the entire human population of Earth, entirely for their benefit and progress, by Jesus Christ as the King of the Kingdom.

-->
@Intelligence_06

I understand why in your view there is ground for the "K". But you're not disputing the fact that the intention of the debate was very obvious, and you took advantage of what is at worst a relatively small error (compared to the major errors that make most of these tricky Ks justified) and at best not an error at all to alter the course of the round.

-->
@Barney

Thank you for voting

-->
@Username

It is Pro's blunder for not exclusively include the Bible as the one true source for this debate. Just because the topic is related to the Bible does not automatically make it an actual source. The debate "Hogwarts is a real place" would definitely be related to Harry Potter, but would they be good sources for saying that yes, Hogwarts is indeed a real place?

"Then we'd never be able to have productive conversations about anything."

If we assume a predefined area of knowledge as true before the debate started, then the story would be different. However, Pro ruled not the Bible as a reliable source, what he should have done.

-->
@Intelligence_06

Just because a point may be true doesn't mean that you can cite it in any context. Then we'd never be able to have productive conversations about anything.

-->
@Intelligence_06

That may be true but the debate clearly seems to be about what the Bible says. Not whether it's accurate.

-->
@Username

Because the bible is not an accurate source nor proven to be so nor accepted to be so.

v0te bump

Why deliberately derail a debate that was clearly supposed to be an argument about what the Bible says by making the argument that the Bible isn't actually true?

vote bump

Bump

-->
@Ramshutu

voteeeeeeeeeeeeeee

hmmmmmmmm ive seen this argument structure before........

https://www.debateart.com/debates/3183-a-stopped-clock-would-still-be-considered-right-two-times-a-day

Voters, please vote.

aaa

-->
@Intelligence_06

So we begin! Thank you, Intelligence_06, for accepting the debate. I look forward to our contest. Good lock!

-->
@949havoc

Belief should not be condemned......No matter how "vague" the basis of a belief might be.

-->
@949havoc

> I really don't feel obligated to define Con's rebuttal BoP. I intended to merely suggest one. Con may disagree however wished, and whatever BoP is determined by Con to present.

Judges are going to look at how you're defining the BOP so you should either remove what you've written for CON or replace it with what I wrote.

> Perhaps I ought to remove a suggested BoP for Con, and make it clear it is open season.

That would be fine, or you could replace it with what I wrote.

> I am very familiar with the embedded story of the grand inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's "Brothers."

Dostoevsky was a better author than Schiller was a playwright. lol

-->
@coal

Thanks for your commentary. I really don't feel obligated to define Con's rebuttal BoP. I intended to merely suggest one. Con may disagree however wished, and whatever BoP is determined by Con to present. I present my BoP. Perhaps I ought to remove a suggestede BoP for Con, and make it clear it is open aeason.

I am very familiar with the embedded story of the grand inquisitor in Dostoyevsky's "Brothers." I have composed a number of essays on the subject at various times in my life, but had not really thought of it when developing this challenge, but is definitely related.Not so familiar with Schiller.

-->
@Barney
@949havoc

I agree with Ragnar. The resolution states "THBT Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven." Clarification would be helpful here.

The burden of proof for the resolution as written is shared, and PRO must prove that "Jesus will return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven"; whereas CON must prove that "Jesus will NOT return when a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven."

While you correctly note that one way to negate is to argue that "Jesus will return," the alternative you propose ("his time has past and no longer needed") is NOT the resolution's negation. Rather, the way to negate the resolution would be to prove that "a sufficient number of people are ready to establish the Kingdom of Heaven" is NOT the determining factor for the second coming.

Rather, the alternative you propose is simply a reason WHY Jesus might not return (and is therefore subsumed into the preceding method of negating), presumably based on either Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor recited by Ivan to Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov or Friedrich Schiller's play, "Don Carlos."

-->
@Bones

Thank you, glad to be here

-->
@Intelligence_06

That reduces the matter to semantics. A rose by any other name...

Another theist to add to the list...

Welcome to the cite.

Kingdom of heaven? Why a kingdom? Why not a republic or a state of anarchy?

-->
@Barney

thanks, good to be here. Yes, that kind of qualification would be helpful. As a matter of fact, since I've just challenged a debate, I could employ that advice.

-->
@949havoc

Welcome to the site.

This debate could use some scope statements. Such as "assuming Jesus exists as shown in the Bible."

That BoP is begging for a solid kritik.