Bible believers should not be supportive and or engage in Christmas celebration.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 15,500
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Bible believers are the ones that practice and believe to what is taught as written, specifically as written according to the Bible.
If you don't know what a Bible is, please find out or ask. Ask your questions now before accepting the debate or prior to its open participation.
It is appreciated and it is honest.
It is also noteworthy to not ignore what is being said, please.
Now that it has been said. Those believers are the ones mentioned here.
So called Christmas holiday celebration really explains itself. The observation, festive engagement, interaction socially, politically attaching the 25th of December.
- Preamble: Since the burden of proof is on my opponent, I have no need to prove my case. Instead, I only have to refute his, which I will do.
- Burden of proof: Because my opponent is making a contested claim, the burden of proof is on him to prove that “Bible believers should not be supportive and/or [sic] engage in Christmas celebration.”
- Rebuttals:
- Christians are a distinct group from Bible believers.
- There is no clear evidence for Jesus having been born on December 25th.
- Because the Bible does not endorse Christmas, then Bible believers should not celebrate it.
Pro's writing and style makes it somewhat difficult to follow his arguments. Con's structure, on the other hand is legible and stylish. Everything is labeled correctly, and he is consistent with grammar and punctuation.
Pro's point that bible-believers shouldn't celebrate Christmas is based on the lack of a mention of Christmas in scripture and not the actual birth of Jesus. Con counters these two points by stating that a lack of a mention is not condemnation and that it would be useless to try and figure out the actual birthdate because nobody knows. Pro does not refute this, nor does he counter Con's argument that the Burden of Proof is on him.
Con cites his sources directly from scripture and includes them in his following statements. After this, Pro acknowledges Con's points but only repeats his original arguments instead of providing new contentions or a rebuttal.
Usually I don't bring up stuff like this in winnner selection debates but it needs to be said.
USE THE QUOTE BLOCKS. It is a huge pain in the ass to try and keep track of quotation marks.
This is largely directed at mall since they have a precedent of doing this in the past. AustinL is new and still managed to be more legible than mall by using bold. I still prefer the quote blocks, but anything is more legible over plain text in quotes.
Legibility (Spelling and Grammar) to Con
Now to the actual debate.
Pro's argument is incredibly succinct when you get past the 'fluff'. Because Christmas isn't in the Bible, it shouldn't be celebrated by people to take the Bible as their religious text.
Con counters this with 1. things not mentioned by the Bible aren't inherently bad or condemned by the Bible, 2. a day of specific celebration isn't mutually exclusive to celebrating it every day.
The first is not countered at all, and the second is only weakly. Basically Pro repeats that the Bible doesn't give a day to honor Christ, therefore we can't dedicate a day to it.
Incorrect what people are saying here. You still don't get it. If there is a mention of celebrating Jesus, when ?
See this is where you go wrong and true Bible believers got it right.
Never mind. Lol. Pro states that just because there isn't a mention of microphones in the bible, it is said to speak clearly to preach the word of God or whatever. But there is mention of celebrating Jesus, so one could argue that even though there is no mention of a date, Christmas is a celebration of Jesus so therefore true bible believers could celebrate the Holiday.
I believe Pro may be right here. He is not saying it should be condemned, which seems to be cons strongest argument. Con is getting most of his votes for his point on omission not being condemnation if I am correct. But pro never stated that Christmas was condemned or should be condemned. Pro is stating that bible believers, people who strictly live a lifestyle based on the bible and what is clearly or not so clearly states, should not celebrate Christmas. His reason for this is really simple and clear to see. He states this because it is not mentioned at all in the bible. There is no reason to infer a celebration like this from the bible. If you were to live strictly according to the bible, then Christmas wouldn't be liable to celebrate in that sort of lifestyle.
Np!
Thanks for the votes!
The scriptures do not teach to celebrate Christmas. I can tell you the sun is in the sky. "Debartart.com" says it is not because it's night time. Typical and expected.
"You don't personally know anybody that practices biblical law faithfully do you?"
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."
Do you endorse this biblical law as a 'bible believer'?
bump
Yes just what I thought.
bump, any votes?
Non-sequitur and strawman - but the debate is over anyway, so I'll drop it.
I establish what a believer is to me. One thing you guys struggle with is accepting what somebody means when they use terms. When you communicate, this is the process. Otherwise, we can just be speaking foreign languages with one another.
I understand that there are those that expected me to show a scripture that specifically says something. That's just like expecting me to show a scripture that says do not kill James and Allan and whoever.
There's no scripture that states specifically. But because there's scripture that states do not kill, that indirectly covers James and Allan and whoever.
When you can't accept that reality, it's like fingers in your ears. You make up your mind to expect and or require a certain argument. When you're told it doesn't require what you're seeking and a counter refutation is made, it doesn't sink in right away.
Yes, news flash, things don't always go the way you prepared for them. I came back with a curve ball and no refutation to knock it out the park.
It wasn't my position that the scripture said directly and specifically there is a prohibition of Christmas celebration. It doesn't mean it's automatically permitted either. It works both ways.
I disagree - not only did I prove that the Bible has no explicit (or sufficient implicit) evidence to prove that Christmas shouldn't be celebrated, I also established that your definition of "Bible believer" is liable to goalpost-moving.
Reading through all this , I thought it was clear. I fully established what a Bible believer is. That is one living according to scripture,not just someone with the title Christian.
What is the difference between a "Bible Believer" and a "Christian"?
Oh dear lord, I can estimate the amount of triggered people in the following few weeks.
Oke, I'll check that out - ty for the help.
I just googled "Where is Christmas mentioned in the Bible". The response is as follows: The New Testament contains two Christmas stories, not one. They appear in Matthew 1–2 and Luke 1–2.
Not sure if it checks out, but you can look into it.
Also, Christmas is a celebration of the birth of Jesus; the religion devotes December 25th as the day to pay tribute, similar to All Saints day (November 1st). Your argument would suggest Christians not to celebrate All Saints day either as it follows the same thought process. Christmas is a holiday Christians have created to pay respect, not because it might have been mentioned in the Bible.
Yea, I did some research on that after accepting this topic. As long as I can prove that there's nothing in the Bible that explicitly condemns the practice of Christmas, I win the debate.
Whether or not Catholics should celebrate Christmas is a matter of personal belief and interpretation. Christmas is a Christian holiday that commemorates the birth of Jesus Christ, and for many Catholics, the celebration of Christmas is an important part of their religious practice and spiritual identity. However, some Catholics may choose not to celebrate Christmas for a variety of reasons, such as a belief that the holiday is overly commercialized or a preference for alternative forms of spiritual observance. Ultimately, the decision to celebrate Christmas or not is a personal one, and should be based on individual beliefs and values.