Instigator / Pro
14
1500
rating
1
debates
100.0%
won
Topic
#6366
Resolved : Does the Christian concept of salvation primarily teach freedom or servitude.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1
After 2 votes and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
Mikal
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 6,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1597
rating
30
debates
65.0%
won
Description
Resolved: Does the Christian faith and message of salvation primarily teach freedom or servitude?
My Position: Christianity primarily centers around the concept of freedom, specifically the spiritual freedom believers receive through salvation. This defines freedom from an orthodox Christian perspective and does not deny that elements of sacrifice and servitude exist. However, the essence of the Christian message leans more fundamentally toward freedom.
RM’s Position: The Christian faith and salvation are primarily centered on servitude.
Debate Rules & Guidelines
*Debate in Good Faith
-No semantics or nitpicking. Engage with the spirit and core intent of the topic.
*Fair Voting Only
-Open voting is allowed, but vote bombing or shallow reasoning will be removed. I don't want someone to vote bomb just because it's RM.
-Votes must be substantive and well-reasoned. Moderators will review votes for quality. Even if a vote meets the basic criteria, it may be removed if deemed insubstantial.
*Moderator Highlight Requested
-I will ask moderators to feature this debate for visibility.
*No Harassment or Vote Manipulation
-Do not message or pressure others to vote a certain way.
-Any evidence of harassment or vote manipulation (e.g., screenshots, etc) will result in an automatic forfeit.
*A Note on Respect
-If RM takes this debate and defends the position, I will respect him and admit he has a backbone for defending a position.
*3 Rounds and 6k Words
- I don't want to spend a bunch of time of resourcing bombing and want to engage with the core discussion. 6k words should be enough for that.
- I will start the debate in the first round upon acceptance.
Round 1
Pro
#1
Introduction
My case argues that salvation, as understood within orthodox Christian theology, is fundamentally a message of freedom and liberation from sin, from spiritual death, and from the separation of humanity from God. While service and obedience to God are important responses to salvation, they are not its primary theological aim. The essence of salvation in Christian teaching is freedom through grace, achieved by Christ’s redemptive work achieved through his forgiveness.
I. Definitions and Theological Premises
Salvation : (Greek: soteria) in the New Testament refers to deliverance from sin and its consequences, ultimately resulting in eternal life (Romans 6:23).
Sin : is defined as rebellion against God and moral failure (1 John 3:4), resulting in spiritual bondage (Romans 6:16–20).
Freedom : in this context, refers to being set free from sin, guilt, and the inability to do good apart from divine grace (Romans 8:1–2, Galatians 5:1).
Assumptions I am going to assume RM believes (based on core Protestant/Reformed theology):
- Salvation is necessary because all humans are born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 3:23; Ephesians 2:1–3).
- Salvation is a gift accomplished by Christ’s substitutionary atonement (Isaiah 53:5–6; John 1:29; 2 Corinthians 5:21).
- Freedom from sin is one of the central promises of that salvation (John 8:34–36; Romans 6:6–7, 22).
II. Argument For Freedom
(A) Jesus in his own words define salvation as freedom:
34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. 35 The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. John 8:34-36
Jesus does not describe salvation here as entrance into servitude, but as freedom from spiritual bondage.
(B) Pauline theology consistently depicts salvation as release from bondage:
“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” — Romans 6:22
This shows a transition from involuntary slavery to sin to voluntary service to God as an act of freedom. Galatians 5:1 also reinforces this
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.”
Paul emphasizes that the intent of salvation is to live in gospel freedom, not religious bondage
III. Theological Foundations: Freedom Is the Theological Priority:
- Reformed theology affirms that without grace, humans are non posse non peccare(not able not to sin). Salvation restores the capacity for true moral agency.
- Martin Luther argues that
"A Christian is the most free lord of all, subject to none; a Christian is the most dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” [1. Freedom of a Christian]
IV. Servitude as a Consequence, Not the Essence
- Scripture often refers to believers as slaves of Christ (Romans 1:1), but this language is metaphorical and voluntary in context
- Christian servitude arises as a grateful, willing response to freedom:
- “Offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life.” — Romans 6:13
- The final vision in Revelation (Revelation 21–22) presents freedom in perfect communion with God, no longer bondage (Revelation 22:3). This shows that the culmination and intent of salvation is not eternal servitude but eternal life in liberation from sin.
V. Preemptive Rebuttals
Con may say the Bible uses servitude language for believers, doesn’t that indicate servitude is a centra theme?
This language must be understood in covenantal and historical context. Slavery to Christ is:
- Not bondage, but freedom from sin (Romans 6:18)
- Not forced obedience, but covenantal loyalty born of love and gratitude (2 Corinthians 5:14–15)
- Not oppressive, but life-giving (Matthew 11:28–30)
Con may also say If we are to obey God’s law after salvation, isn’t that servitude, but obedience under grace is not servitude in the sense of constraint, and obedience is a fruit of freedom, not a replacement for it.
VI. Conclusion
Christian salvation is not primarily about entering servitude but about being set free from sin, death, and separation from God. While servitude language is used in the New Testament, it is always subordinate to the foundational act of liberation through Christ. Freedom is the essential message of salvation, not license to sin, but freedom to become what we were created to be which is born again believers and children of God. Therefore, the central theme of Christian salvation is freedom, not servitude.
Con
#2
Char count is WAY too low, I'll fully expand in Round 2.
The analogies used for us and God are as follows:
Servant-King
Sheep-Shepherd
Servant-Lord
Child-Father (but not literally, Jesus is his only true child)
Quoting Scripture time.
All are New Testament
Slaves and Masters. 5 Slaves, be constant in your unwavering obedience to your earthly masters with fear and trembling and with the same heartfelt sincerity that you show to Christ. 6 Do this not just when they are watching you, as if you only had to please human beings, but as slaves of Christ, wholeheartedly carrying out the will of God. 7 Do your work willingly, as for the Lord and not for human beings, 8 knowing that whatever good we may do, whether as slaves or as free men, we will be repaid by the Lord.
16 As servants of God, behave as free people, but do not use your freedom as a means to cover up wrongdoing. 17 Give due honor to everyone. Love your fellow believers. Fear God. Honor the emperor.18 Recommendations for Slaves.[a] Slaves, submit to your masters with due respect, not only to those who are kind and forbearing but also to those who are harsh. 19 It is a sign of grace if you endure the pain of unjust suffering because of your awareness of God.20 What credit do you deserve if you are patient when you are beaten for doing wrong? However, if you are patient when you do what is right and suffer for it, you have earned merit with God.21 [b]This, in fact, is what you have been called to do, because Christ himself suffered for you and left an example for you to follow in his footsteps.
17 The Fulfillment of the Law.“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill them. 18 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single letter,[e] not even a tiny portion of a letter, will disappear from the Law until all things have been accomplished. 19 Therefore, whoever breaks even one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be considered least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever observes these commandments and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 I tell you, if your righteousness does not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
26 Believe the truth of what I tell you: you will not be given your freedom until you have paid your debt down to the last penny.[h]27 Adultery.[i]“You have heard that it was said of old: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that anyone who looks with lust at a woman has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is preferable for you to lose one part of your body than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is preferable for you to lose one of your limbs than to have your whole body thrown into Gehenna.31 Divorce.“It has also been said: ‘Whoever divorces his wife shall give her a certificate of dismissal.’ 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except if the marriage was unlawful, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.33 Oaths.[j]“Again, you have heard that our ancestors were told: ‘Do not swear falsely, but fulfill the vows you have made to the Lord.’ 34 But what I tell you is this: Do not swear at all, either by heaven, since it is God’s throne, 35 or by earth, since that is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, since that is the city of the great King. 36 Nor should you swear by your head, for you cannot turn one hair of it white or black. 37 All you need to do is to say ‘Yes’ if you mean ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ if you mean ‘No.’ Anything beyond this comes from the evil one.38 Retaliation.[k]“You have heard that it was said: ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you: Offer no resistance to someone who is wicked. If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn and offer him the other cheek as well. 40 If anyone wishes to sue you to gain possession of your tunic, give him your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him for a second mile. 42 Give to anyone who begs from you, and do not turn your back on anyone who wishes to borrow from you.
48 Perfection.[n]“Therefore, strive to be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Giving Alms in Secret. 1 “Beware of performing righteous deeds before others in order to impress them. If you do so, you will receive no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 Therefore, whenever you give alms, do not trumpet your generosity, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets in order to win the praise of others. Amen, I say to you, they have already received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. 4 Your almsgiving must be done in secret. And your Father who sees everything that is done in secret will reward you.16 Fasting in Secret.[r]“Whenever you fast, do not assume a gloomy expression like the hypocrites who contort their faces so that others may realize that they are fasting. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that the fact that you are fasting will not be obvious to others but only to your Father who is hidden. And your Father who sees everything that is done in secret will reward you.
24 God and Money.“No one can serve two masters. For you will either hate the one and love the other or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.[u]
Round 2
Pro
#3
Freedom Before Servitude .
RM’s Round 1 approach leans heavily on spamming Scriptures and passages that emphasize obedience, commands, and servitude. While these are legitimate biblical themes, his argument is flawed in two major ways:
- It reverses the theological order of salvation, placing servitude before liberation.
- It presents a false equivalency between biblical servitude and spiritual bondage.
I. Freedom Precedes Servitude.
The foundation of Christian salvation is not servitude, it is freedom. Salvation is a rescue from sin, from death, and from separation from God. This is not a side effect of salvation. It is its intention.
The Scriptural Order of Salvation
- First: Christ frees us from slavery to sin
“If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” — John 8:36
- Then: That freedom enables us to choose a new way of life
“Offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life.” — Romans 6:13
The pattern is consistent across all of the bible. Freedom precedes service. God does not call people to serve Him in order to be saved, he saves them so that they might serve with voluntary love.
The gospel is not: “Do more, try harder, follow blindly, obey completely, and maybe God will save you.”
The gospel is: “You were dead, but Christ made you alive. You were in chains, but Christ set you free, now follow me"
II. RM's View of Servitude Is a False Equivalency.
RM conflates the biblical use of terms like “servant” or “slave” with modern understandings of slavery which equates to legal bondage, forced labor, no agency, or oppression. This is not only a false equivalency; it distorts the theological meaning behind these terms.
What Biblical Servitude Actually Means
We are not dragged into obedience, we are transformed inwardly and choose to follow voluntarily
“Through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.” — Romans 8:2
- Paul’s use of doulos (Greek for slavery or bondservant) describes total allegiance, not forced submission. It’s a deliberate, poetic way to express his love and loyalty to Christ, not his blind obligation
For example:
“Paul, a servant [doulos] of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart from the Gospel of God” — Romans 1:1
Paul uses it to express devotion, not degradation or forced servitude.
III. Servitude in the New Testament Is a Result of Freedom, Not a Replacement for It.
Obedience, sacrifice, and service are biblical callings. But the theological foundation of these behaviors is freedom, not bondage.
Obedience is a Fruit of the spirit, not a Chain
RM’s citations suggest that verses calling for obedience somehow prove that servitude is the essence of salvation. That logic is wrong.
“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” — Galatians 5:1
If salvation were essentially servitude, Paul would not warn Christians not to fall back into “a yoke of slavery.” He would call them deeper into it. But instead, Paul’s priority is protecting freedom that was granted by salvation.
“You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.” — Galatians 5:13
The New Testament warns against Legalism heavily (trying to earn salvation by obedience)
IV. Servitude Language Is Symbolic, Not Literal.
When the New Testament refers to believers as slaves of Christ, we have to interpret this contextually and theologically, not through a literalist lens.
Paul contrasts two masters when he speaks of this
- Sin : a master that brings death, compulsion, guilt, and destruction.
- Christ : a master who brings life, love, purpose, and dignity.
That contrast is needed to frame the essence for freedom.
“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life.” — Romans 6:22
In this verse:
- Freedom comes first: “set free from sin”
- Servanthood comes second: “slaves of God”
But most importantly, that leads to life and not oppression.
If Christian life were just slavery under a new master, there would be no freedom to celebrate. But the entire New Testament and most of the Bible proclaims that in Christ, we are no longer slaves:
“The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.” — Romans 8:15
We are not slaves, we are children of God, who serve not out of fear but out of joy and love for the freedom we have been granted
V. Conclusion.
Salvation Liberates, and That Liberation Leads to Service because of Love
To summarize the argument thus far
- freedom comes before service thus is more essential than servitude
- Christian servitude is voluntary, loving, joyful, and empowered by grace and something that comes from freedom
- The gospel is about restoring communion with God, not imposing slavery or servitude. We serve with love.
RM wants to make obedience the definition of salvation. Scripture and the Gospel says the opposite; it is the result of it. Salvation is not Christ demanding servitude from sinners. It is Christ freeing sinners, so that they are redeemed. Paul’s language of slavery to Christ is best understood not as a command to live in fear or submission, but as a metaphor for total allegiance to the one who first set us free.
Con
#4
Servitude Language Is Symbolic, Not Literal.
He made this up. The slave part was not at all symbolic as Romans had actual slaves and it was scribed during Roman Empire. It clearly says more than being slavelike to God, it says be a good slave even to Earthly masters. This follows tbe line of honouring one's mother and father even if they are bad.
It even specifies the nastier the master is, the more gracious it is to endure the abuse for the right reasons. Jesus served the Romans and Pharisees that wanted to kill him in a painful, bloody manner, he humbly obeyed and let them even though he easily could have waged a civil war with his Zealot followers (he even had God power at least Father did, not sure if Jesus trapped himself into human knowledge only yet, I am learning that).
Servitude in the New Testament Is a Result of Freedom, Not a Replacement for It.
So, this is actually the same as when Pro lays out:
I. Freedom Precedes Servitude.
The only difference is his issue of replacement.
I will prove now that logically this is untrue and then give quotes, one of which is in my Round 1, to back me up.
In Christianity (Chy), we are all born sinners originally enslaved to our innate nature to sin. Despite the notion babies and children are so innocent, they are the most selfish human age group though teenagers can vary and be more extremely selfish than preteens at times. The idea of Chy is the path to salvation that does include freedom from Satan and sin is found by serving God. You cannot even fight Satan alone in Chy, you literally need God, you kneel and beg maybe pray prostrate on ground even and beg, whimper, plead.
In R1 I quoted this:
19 Therefore, whoever breaks even one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be considered least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever observes these commandments and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 I tell you, if your righteousness does not exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.26 Believe the truth of what I tell you: you will not be given your freedom until you have paid your debt down to the last penny.[h]
These are words from Jesus himself. He literally states that freedom comes after serving. Following this in Sermon on the Mount's remainder, he states how if you ever commit adultery (which is any sex outside marriage even beforehand) or sexual immorality meaning even masturbation or thinking of someone sexually (he says women but obviously meant men too) you should rather cut you eye than check a persons body out that way or rather cut your right hand off than masturbate or grope. He continues along this vein laying out the sins.
At no stage of the entire Bible is it even implied freedom comes first. I presumed Pro knew that because the only possible way around he could argue his case is that to him s merely preceded f.
Now I will explain why it is the case that Sevitude is held higher and comes first.
Absolutely everything in the religion revolves around serving God. You are free to resist him but will end up in Hell/Gehenna gnashing your teeth, writhing in agony.
The entire aim is to embody servant aura, slavelike behaviour. You want to dress plain, cover a lot of skin, speak without any curse words, control anger, lust, envy and far more. The epitome of the ideal Ch is a servant that never feels they serve well enough, it is a slave that wants their master to truly feel good and prosper whom never once complains if another slave does less for the same reward, wage, praise or whatever else.
Gospel of Matthew truly is the best place in the Bible to realise this.
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard.[a] 1 “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius[b] a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 Going out about nine o’clock,[c] he saw some others standing idle in the marketplace. 4 He said to them, ‘You also go into my vineyard and I will give you what is just.’ 5 When he went out again around noon and at three in the afternoon,[d] he did the same. 6 Then, about five o’clock,[e] he went out and found others standing around, and he said to them, ‘Why have you been standing here idle all day?’ 7 They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the workers and give them their pay, beginning with those who came last and ending with the first.’ 9 When those who had started to labor at five o’clock came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Therefore, those who had come first thought that they would receive more, but they were paid a denarius, the same as the others. 11 And when they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner, 12 saying, ‘These men who were hired last worked only one hour, and yet you have rewarded them on the same level with us who have borne the greatest portion of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “The owner replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am not treating you unfairly. Did you not agree with me to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and leave. I have chosen to pay the latecomers the same as I pay you. 15 Am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ 16 Thus, the last will be first and the first will be last.”
If you feel bad in a marriage, tough no divorce. If you feel angry with your parents better to say nothing than dishonour them. You will sin, you will break these but to assume you are free as a Christian is only true in that you are freer from Satan/evil than the non-Christian is. Eat conservatively, fast even. Avoid greed for money, serve. Obey!
Round 3
Pro
#5
I think the way RM has chosen to go about this debate is strange. There are a bunch of ways he could have tried to show the value and weight of servitude and service, but he has not really addressed any of them. In fact, he grants me two important concessions that essentially just allow this to be a free win. I will quote him below
- "Absolutely everything in the religion revolves around serving God. You are free to resist him but will end up in Hell/Gehenna gnashing your teeth, writhing in agony."
- "At no stage of the entire Bible is it even implied freedom comes first. I presumed Pro knew that because the only possible way around he could argue his case is that to him s merely preceded."
These two statements demonstrate why RMS’s case ultimately fails. The first shows that his understanding of freedom is completely distorted, if your only freedom is to obey or face torture, then you’ve misunderstood what the Gospel is offering. The second statement is even more significant: Con insists that freedom never comes first, but that’s not just a biblically inaccurate, it’s a theological contradiction.
Let’s go back to the core questions:
What is the purpose of Christianity? What is the purpose of salvation? What was God's focal point in everything He accomplished in the Bible?
The answer is not to make people slaves. The answer is redemption.
The Bible is a story of liberation:
- God freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt — “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” — Exodus 20:2
- Jesus declares His mission as liberation — “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised" — Luke 4:18
- Paul confirms this again and again — “For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.” — Romans 6:14
So from Old to New Testament, the consistent theme is not deeper servitude, but liberation from bondage.
When you receive Christ into your life and accept forgiveness, what happens?
You are immediately and fully freed from sin, from condemnation, and from separation from God. That is salvation.
- “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, for the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.” — Romans 8:1–2
- “So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” — John 8:36
- “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” — Galatians 5:1
I know I'm quoting some of the same verses, but I am driving home the importance of this.
These verses speak directly to the nature of salvation. They show that freedom is not a byproduct, it is the purpose. Everything that follows, obedience, service, and spiritual discipline, is a response to that freedom, not a prerequisite for it.
Con frames this debate as if service and servitude come before freedom, but that is completely contrary to scripture. Let’s return to one of the clearest examples: the thief on the cross.
“Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” — Luke 23:43
This man had no time for service, no opportunity to prove himself by works, he simply believed. This one moment exemplifies the entire Gospel: grace first, transformation and service later.
Paul’s writings also completely refute Con’s position.
- “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.” — Galatians 5:13
- “Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” — 2 Corinthians 3:17
- “You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.” — Romans 6:18
Notice the pattern: set free, then serve. This is Paul’s consistent structure. Even his use of slavery to Christ is contextual, describing total devotion, not literal bondage. In fact, Paul later clarifies that believers are no longer slaves at all:
“The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship.” — Romans 8:15
We serve not because we are forced, but because we are free to. That is the difference and where Cons case falls apart.
In conclusion:
- Con concedes that people are free to reject God but misunderstands that true Christian freedom isn’t about choice under threat, it’s about liberation from sin.
- Con insists that servitude defines Christianity, but Scripture and the Gospel tell us that freedom in Christ is the defining feature of salvation.
- The New Testament’s use of slave language is clearly contextual, always grounded in the fact that the believer has already been set free and is serving because of that freedom. You are not bound, you can leave. You offer service willingly because of what has been offered to you. You serve because you are free to serve. You chose to serve.
Salvation begins with freedom. Service follows but never precedes. The Gospel is not work your way into heaven; it is about the story of Christ dying for our sins to set us free. I once asked a friend to summarize the bible in 2 words.
His response "God Saves"
I then gave him 5 words.
"God saves us from sin"
That is the most eloquent way to summarize the purpose and goal of the bible and great commission. We are meant to go out unto the world and preach the gospel so that people may be saved, so that they may be set free from sin and liberated. That is what Con fails to see. Servitude and service are indeed important, but they are preceded by freedom and liberation and the choice to serve is not bondage to Christ, it's a choice to serve because of what he did for us.
Con
#6
Beat to loop: https://youtu.be/WZdBxDIvg_U?si=iETO7CAx7HgqkaXe
Free from who? Free from what?
Free to bang no man and precisely zero sluts,
Free from Satan, free from hating, kneel and serve or you stay stuck,
Free like leftover mcdonald's shared with foxes, cats and ducks,
Free like buying burger king for 4 homeless people, not for any views on youtube, tiktok alms given as private as the feathers on the belly of Donald Duck.
See you want to quote with zero context snippy picky cut, So let me school you, zero voodoo, boohoo, you lose, suck it up.
The first verse you mention says the following, really:
Surely I was sinful at birth,sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Or for Catholics:
For I am fully aware of my offense,and my sin is ever before me.
Psalm 51:5
Now if you are born enslaved to Satan what does that imply, what's the story?
You say Romans 6:6-7
I say 5-8, context was missing
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall also be united with him in his resurrection. 6 We know that our old[a] self was crucified with him, so that our sinful body might be destroyed and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For whoever has died has been freed from sin.8 However, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
Are you ready to die to be freed? Then don't lie, untamed buck, you see real Christianity turns the buck into an obedient steed,
Get on both our knees and plead,
Don't quote verses from books you didn't read,
Jesus was in agonising pain nails in hand, thorns in forehead, will you bleed?
You quote Romans 6:22... Lost sheep Mikal, see it's vital to go back 4 verses for you...
Romans 6:17-23New Catholic Bible17 Once you were slaves of sin, but, thanks be to God, you have become obedient in your heart to that pattern of teaching to which you have been delivered. 18 Now, having been set free from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness.
And I confess, your gaslighting here's a mess...
19 I am speaking in human terms because you are still weak human beings. For just as you once offered your bodies as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to greater iniquity, so now present them as slaves to righteousness for sanctification.20 When you were slaves of sin, you were free from the restraints of righteousness. 21 But what advantage did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. 22 However, now that you have been freed from sin and bound to the service of God, the benefit you receive is sanctification, and the end is eternal life.
I mean... I can keep rhyming for a flex
but thats like unnecessary, adultrous sex...
If we see over 80% of the contexts you cherrypicked from, You lied about the context of freedom or how to get free being via servitude first and foremost.
Let me show you 2 examples in your last Round even.
You quote Galatians 5:13 ignoring something vital even in the verse.
Let me quote 1 after it to make it clearer:
13 Proper Use of Freedom. Brethren, you were called to freedom. However, make sure that you do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh. Instead, serve one another in love. 14 For the entire Law can be summed up[a] in a single commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
This is servitude coming first and foremost, not freedom. Servitude to God and mankind but in a caring and protective way not servitude in unholy ways to man, is the entire north pole of the compass for a Christian.
I already showed the Romans verse backs me. Now for the middle one.
2 Corinthians 3:12-18New Catholic Bible12 The Lord Is the Spirit.[a] Therefore, since we have such hope, we can act with complete confidence, 13 and not like Moses who put a veil over his face so that the Israelites could not observe the radiance that was fading away. 14 However, their minds were hardened. Even to this very day, the same veil remains unlifted during the reading of the old covenant,[b] since only in Christ is it set aside. 15 Indeed, to this very day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts.16 However, when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now this Lord is the Spirit,[c] and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And as we gaze upon the glory of the Lord with unveiled faces, all of us are being transformed into that same image from glory to glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
It is obvious that 'freedom' there means sacrificing who we are to unite as one uniform group in Heaven later. It is simply ridiculous how much cherrypicking and context manipulation my opponent had to do to try and fail to win thia debate.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
This debate doesn’t have as much back-and-forth as I’d like, since it largely comes down to each side quote-mining verses about either freedom or servitude. It goes mostly conceded that the verses from Pro paint freedom as important and that the verses from Con paint servitude as important.
First, I’ll explain why Pro’s verses about freedom aren’t strongly contested. They pretty clearly use terms like “free from sin” and “Christ has set us free” that Con doesn’t dispute the presence of. Con’s response is just to bring up other points that emphasize servitude, which doesn’t negate these verses talking about freedom or show why the verses about servitude are more important.
Now I’ll address why I think Con’s verses about servitude aren’t strongly contested. The verses about slaves and masters are advocating servitude at least to some extent, and followers are described as bound to the service of God with God as their “master.” Pro’s response is mainly to just give other verses advocating freedom, which isn’t enough to negate the verses about servitude. There’s mention of whether the servitude is “forced” or not, but that’s not really topical since the resolution doesn’t specify whether the servitude is forced or not. If the servitude is voluntary, that of course implies some amount of freedom, but it doesn’t show that freedom is being primarily taught over servitude. Particularly with Con’s mention of Jesus himself serving people, there’s enough here that the importance of servitude can’t be swept away entirely. I’ll note that Con had a big opportunity to tie Jesus’ servitude together with the doctrine of salvation (serving people by saving them from sin), which would have made his case stronger with regard to the resolution.
Pro does engage with some of Con’s verses preemptively by arguing that slavery is defined as freedom from sin, hence any verses about slavery to Christ must help affirm the resolution. However, Con is also bringing up verses showing that some amount of servitude and following commands is expected of Christians, so slavery to Christ is not entirely removed from servitude.
There was a missed opportunity by Pro here in Jesus’ parable where he says “you will not be given your freedom until you have paid your debt down to the last penny.” There’s context in that story where Jesus is telling his followers to avoid this situation by reaching an agreement with their opponent (i.e. one should prioritize freedom to avoid servitude). But Pro never brings that up, so I just have to interpret this the way Con wants me to, where at least in one situation, servitude comes before freedom.
There’s some amount of clash on whether freedom or servitude comes “first,” but it doesn’t move the needle of this debate much in my opinion, as (a) this is mostly just argued by quote mining, which doesn’t weigh verses against each other, and (b) neither side really fleshes out why one of these preceding the other chronologically means it is primarily taught over the other.
What this debate comes down to, in my view, is topicality. The debate isn’t about Christian doctrine in general but specifically about the Christian concept of salvation. This is a point repeatedly raised by Pro but only tangentially raised by Con, as the term “salvation” only appears once in Con’s argument. Even if I buy that Christianity emphasizes servitude, it’s not made clear by Con how this ties to salvation. Is it required for salvation? Is it something that Christians will only do because they have been saved?
I’ll note that some of Pro’s points don’t strongly connect to salvation, such as freeing the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, which isn’t really what the doctrine of “salvation” is about, but there’s enough there to build a clear connection with salvation setting Christians free. For example, contextualizing verses about freedom as Jesus describing salvation in his own words, which isn’t really disputed by Con. Con never makes a similar connection between salvation and the verses about servitude. Pro also comes closer to flipping some of Con’s verses by defining slavery to Christ as freedom rather than servitude. Con’s response to Pro is almost entirely mitigation plus their own arguments, so everything about freedom is left standing. Along with the resolution emphasizing the doctrine of salvation in particular, that’s enough for me to vote Pro.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oijd1fyIaM8k127PNldokw_C8g3NDdZCuB_tEL4FFjc/edit?usp=sharing
I am awarding argument points to Pro, as well as conduct points. I'll leave sources alone since they were mostly using the same source and both used it consistently enough for it to be a tie, and I will also leave legibility alone as a tie as it wasn't a major factor in this debate.
Its just a debate, words, nothing else. Now, I would like to see an actual debate which was promised, the one about this site.
Rules around semantics always become complicated, because it's hard to determine at what point an argument or topic becomes "semantic." If the resolution says it's about something in particular, it seems like that should be taken into account. On the flip side, almost every argument could be classified as semantic since they're all made of words. It was never clear exactly what's considered "nitpicking" in this debate.
I did. He pretended he ruled out semantic abuse to win.
I figured as it was unrated and I was speaking truth of God I win either way in the eyes of God.
Mikal rushed me to accept by saying I was a coward if I didnt in other words and this is always his way.
It was a good way to test how dishonestly he would engage in the other debate he abusively tries to bait me into on his terms at a time I still need to focus on a lot irl instead of this nonsense.
I thought you contested the wording of the resolution before, so I was surprised you didn't tell Mikal to change it here as a prerequisite for accepting.
As I predicted, Mikal gets semantic win because of 'salvation'.
I win if this was about Christianity.
Sure yes ty
Do you want me to vote? I was going to recuse myself because of your distrust toward me, but if you just want more votes, I will try to be as unbiased as I can.
I knew you would call this a votebomb, I even warned Whiteflame in advance to voting in this that you would probably throw a fit. Obviously it isn’t a vote bomb as I clearly spent 4 pages articulating both debaters arguments prior to outlining why I voted the way I did.
I gave conduct to Mikal because you started insulting Mikal and dissing him randomly in round 3, not to mention accusing him of lying. It’s a debate, it’s not that serious. Meanwhile Mikal was pretty professional towards you throughout the debate.
I have no stake in Christianity debates as an atheist. I genuinely would have voted you if you made the better arguments.
It was/is a votebomb. Ty
He clearly articulated his reasoning, so I wouldn’t consider it a vote bomb. But since you asked, I’ll plan to vote on this. Might be close to the deadline, just FYI.
I eother lose anyway from a votebomb that intentionally avoided realisjg I used sources against Mikal in Round 3, or I lose with your vote on top. That means theres no real loss.
So yes. Mikal won devates on DDO by his friends votevombing him. He clearly knew Luna would do so.
It's going to take some time, but... you really want me voting?
Are you willing to vote please?
Conduct really?
This is nonsense.
Bump
Wow Mikal is fast with it
Solid start for both sides
I don’t think I’ve been this invested in reading someone else’s debate in a long time.
I will post this near the deadline. Dont expect it posted until close to it. I won't forfeit.
I cannot be on a website with holocaust denial allowed on it.
So if that continues even for my mental health I need to quit instantly.
It is a legal threat to my wellbeing.
Hitler is not necessary to bring up in this topic.
Gandhi was not even close to an anarchist. He supported different rulership. He opposed Pakistan becoming Pakistan, he wanted to force them under Indian (predominantly Hindu) rule and the Gandhi descendants mistreated non Hindus especially the Sikhs.
Gandhi was actually a hardline Hindu Nationalist. He wanted to eventuallt make all Indians Hindu and bend to Hindu law. You do not quite know him enough it would seem.
Ghandi was literally fighting for freedom from the British and for freedom from his base instincts while Hitler was fighting for control. Like you are
See my reply to LucyStarfire. It is a reply to you.
Replace the later part with that you should realise as a Christian you have no right ever to judge if I go to Hell.
Ok sorry
Umm thats not my comment lol
Gandhi did not support freedom, he literally starved himself risking death and told others to never fight. Jesus had similar 'aura' that is arguable for sure, to Gandhi. However, they did differ on a lot.
Gandhis pacifism is hardline absolute, Christian pacifism is conditional and definitely is not there if self defense situations occur.
You are not a Christian, never were afaik and cannot meaningfully speak on this topic condemning me to Hell in any real sense beyond words typed (they have no impact,k
AR you are going to hell for literally arguing God is more like Hitler while your opponent he is more like Ghandi and respects freedom
Eh it’s what he was willing to debate but it’s something I’m familiar with at least.
Fun topic!
I got into an informal debate with a church minister recently concerning a closely related topic. Effectively it was whether or not Christianity teaches us to question/analyze or to have pure obedience.
I don’t think he’d dealt with a well executed kritik before. That said, I’d call it a bit of a stalemate… I could not back up my claims scripturally, and he was reduced to moving the goalpost for being nether Catholic nor Jewish. We did however agree that various Abrahamic splinter groups are brainwashed and are obedient the wrong thing.
I put this as standard. Are you good with swapping it to rated.
I look forward to spectating this. The contention is interesting because the concept of salvation teaches both. But I wonder which one will win out and be proven the larger theme in this debate