Deep dish style pizza is essentially a well filled with cheese and sauce, that is contained in a buttery crust. New York style pizza is the pizza most people are used to
I would say that there are faith systems where a simple faith in the deity won't yeild a salvation from that faith systems hell. Take Islam for example. It wouldn't be enough to simply believe in Allah. You'd have to acknowledge Muhammad as his prophet and then uphold the five pillars of faith. Even then your salvation is not a guarantee.
Christianity would have a similar issue, sure one could believe in God, but you would have to go a step further and have faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. In which case you are now a Christian, not just a seeker.
The problem becomes more exacerbated when you aren't trying to communicate with any particular God, just a vague creator, because now what you're saying is yeah all that stuff might be false. There might not even be a Jesus or a Muhammed. Or a Bahuallah or a Krishna
So in other words, I do believe the honest seeker is a good attempt, and a good model of sincerity, the problem is that you can only be sincere to one faith systems at a time. If not, then you're not sincere to any of them.
Is this a joke? So someone could put out an honest and legitimate vote but have it removed for not being detailed enough, but a tie vote (which is against policy in this case because there's no explanation) that uses profanity is perfectly fine?
So far you have deleted several votes for supposedly not following guidelines, but on this debate and my other one with virtuous, rational madmans profanity has not been deleted. What's up?
Thank you, I appreciate that. I figured a little bit of light-heartedness would be good for the community. You had arguments in that debate that were definitely worth a response, it was just a matter of me being able to only respond to so much at once. Dropped arguments ever yield good debates.
I would say that, yes God spoke directly to the Jews throughout history. However, if we're to recognize Jesus as the Logos, the Word of God incarnate, I would say any rejection of Jesus becomes a rejection of God's ultimate communication. So I would say Judaism had the right God until they went on to reject the Logos, or God's ultimate Word, who is God himself. Any rejection of Jesus is a rejection of God, which is why the apostle John said if you don't have the Son, you don't have the Father.
Just my thoughts, very interesting discussion on this thread
I think I would disagree here and question the base assumption that the three Abraham faiths have the same God. If that were the case then I could see Judaism, Christianity and Islam all being the same base religion, with vastly different beliefs and practices though. If the three of us all worshipped Buddha we would all be Buddhists, regardless of anything we added or subtracted on top of that.
The issue is I don't believe are talking about the same God with the three Abrahamic religions.
Judaism:
God is an absolute unity, one being, one person, no Son named Jesus. No Tri-personal nature. God never became incarnate.
Christianity:
God is revealed as One but he also is revealed as three unique Persons. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God became incarnate.
Islam:
The greatest sin in Islam is to say that Allah has a son. Allah couldn't become incarnate because he is too transcendent. Allah has no Son.
I think these are too different to classify as the same God and thus the same religion. I as a Christian certainly don't worship Allah. My God has a Son. So I think the issue here is do they have the same God? If they did then yes I would say they could, in some very broad sense of the word be called variations of the same religion.
I'm a staunch Protestant but I don't feel it's an accurate statement to point to any denominational group and say those people are the "true" body of Christ. Christ's Church is composed of people who believe His gospel, no other affiliation necessary.
Luke 9:49-50
49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
I do believe the Trinity is strongly hinted at in the Tenakh, but it is most clearly taught in the new testament. I think the issue is progressive revelation, in that regard we don't have much common ground. I would certainly be interested in hearing your arguments against the Divinity of Christ using the new testament. I definitely am on board with the last resolution you presented
I would be interested in that. Maybe it could be a little teaser to our Resurrection debate. I think the arguments I make in favor of Christianity being rational would apply to Judaism, I don't see how you could debate against it though
Please note my "conceding" of this debate was solely to avoid having further contact with my opponent. I do actually believe my first response, showing my opponent to have engaged in argumentum verbosium still stands.
It's an hp notebook, it was running fine until a few months ago where it said it was trying to update windows 10 but didn't have enough disk space, which is not possible because there's literally nothing on it. Since then it won't load pages all the way, and sometimes the browser won't even work I have to restart the computer just to get online. I'm not sure about the warranty, I have to check, it's about a year and a half now
Well you know it's funny because I actually tried that, when I went to safe the document it said not enough dish space. Which is impossible because my laptop is relatively new. I think my laptop has a virus but I'm not sure. I lost a couple thousand characters from unexpected window closings several times, so at that point I just was trying to get the arguments posted. Sorry about the structure though, I completely understand.
Thank you for the advice. Unfortunately I was having (and still am) massive computer issues when having this debate. My tab would crash or shut down in the middle of me typing or the whole window would close unexpectedly. I literally had to email myself a round once so I would not loose it. I apologise for the disorder
I think you're on the right track, I don't know if I would have used shapes as evidence for the immaterial. Numbers can work. Where can I find "twelveness" in nature? Those analogies have their limits though. If I was trying to disprove materialism I might have gone with something like logic. The concept of logic by necessity must be immaterial for it to function at all. We could discuss that more if you'd like. Or I would bring up moral truths as examples of immaterial realities, that's always fun. Can altruism be weighed? Can you look at justice with a microscope...where in nature is the truth that you shouldn't murder people? Can that truth be experienced with the five senses? Are those truths made of particles? You get the idea. Just some more ammunition for future debates with real materialists.
Ok, I originally thought these were kind of silly, but after seeing this one I am convinced there is a great deal of poetry and planning put into these. Well done guys this was very enjoyable
A sincere thank you to my opponent for this debate, another debate between me and virtuoso is in the talk stages. I would like to hear from you guys, what would you like to see us debate next time?
I would say debating those issues would be a matter of what is doctrinally true, not necessarily if the religion in it's entirety is rational. I think a lot of that would delve into a matter of biblical interpretation, not so much defending the idea that Christianity does not cause one to espouse unreasonable beliefs. I personally espouse a literal genesis interpretation, although I do not exclude an old earth creation model from the realm of orthodoxy. I think discussing that would veer the debate off into a creation/evolution debate which was not in scope for this particular debate.
I would definitely welcome you to accept, although I think since you're Jewish you and I would share the same basic worldview that miracles are possible and belief in God is rational
It's a comical debate, it was supposed to be over the top
Deep dish style pizza is essentially a well filled with cheese and sauce, that is contained in a buttery crust. New York style pizza is the pizza most people are used to
This is the best debate I've ever seen.
I AM GOING TO MUTILATE YOU POLITICALLY
I would say that there are faith systems where a simple faith in the deity won't yeild a salvation from that faith systems hell. Take Islam for example. It wouldn't be enough to simply believe in Allah. You'd have to acknowledge Muhammad as his prophet and then uphold the five pillars of faith. Even then your salvation is not a guarantee.
Christianity would have a similar issue, sure one could believe in God, but you would have to go a step further and have faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. In which case you are now a Christian, not just a seeker.
The problem becomes more exacerbated when you aren't trying to communicate with any particular God, just a vague creator, because now what you're saying is yeah all that stuff might be false. There might not even be a Jesus or a Muhammed. Or a Bahuallah or a Krishna
So in other words, I do believe the honest seeker is a good attempt, and a good model of sincerity, the problem is that you can only be sincere to one faith systems at a time. If not, then you're not sincere to any of them.
Am I making sense?
I would say it's more rational than atheism, but the revision you propose kind of negates the idea of hell to begin with. Was that your intention?
Perhaps you and me will, just once, find ourselves in the heat of rhyme combat
Sorry I missed this one. Feel free to challenge me to a similar one, or even anything you want. I'm usually up
Plot twist, me and wrick it Ralph are actually the same person
That's how we spelled it way way way back in the day before Webster.... Or incorrectly
Is this a joke? So someone could put out an honest and legitimate vote but have it removed for not being detailed enough, but a tie vote (which is against policy in this case because there's no explanation) that uses profanity is perfectly fine?
So far you have deleted several votes for supposedly not following guidelines, but on this debate and my other one with virtuous, rational madmans profanity has not been deleted. What's up?
Would you like to challenge me and post your arguments as your opening case?
Will you be using the arguments you posted here or devising new ones?
If you are still interested in debating this topic with me please let me know
Thank you, I appreciate that. I figured a little bit of light-heartedness would be good for the community. You had arguments in that debate that were definitely worth a response, it was just a matter of me being able to only respond to so much at once. Dropped arguments ever yield good debates.
It's essentially a rap battle but we're going to try and sound as smart and sophisticated as possible. If you're interested
It is quite versatile
I am now trunkandtusk
Plot twist...I change my avatar to an elephant
I would say that, yes God spoke directly to the Jews throughout history. However, if we're to recognize Jesus as the Logos, the Word of God incarnate, I would say any rejection of Jesus becomes a rejection of God's ultimate communication. So I would say Judaism had the right God until they went on to reject the Logos, or God's ultimate Word, who is God himself. Any rejection of Jesus is a rejection of God, which is why the apostle John said if you don't have the Son, you don't have the Father.
Just my thoughts, very interesting discussion on this thread
I think I would disagree here and question the base assumption that the three Abraham faiths have the same God. If that were the case then I could see Judaism, Christianity and Islam all being the same base religion, with vastly different beliefs and practices though. If the three of us all worshipped Buddha we would all be Buddhists, regardless of anything we added or subtracted on top of that.
The issue is I don't believe are talking about the same God with the three Abrahamic religions.
Judaism:
God is an absolute unity, one being, one person, no Son named Jesus. No Tri-personal nature. God never became incarnate.
Christianity:
God is revealed as One but he also is revealed as three unique Persons. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. God became incarnate.
Islam:
The greatest sin in Islam is to say that Allah has a son. Allah couldn't become incarnate because he is too transcendent. Allah has no Son.
I think these are too different to classify as the same God and thus the same religion. I as a Christian certainly don't worship Allah. My God has a Son. So I think the issue here is do they have the same God? If they did then yes I would say they could, in some very broad sense of the word be called variations of the same religion.
Just my two cents.
I'm a staunch Protestant but I don't feel it's an accurate statement to point to any denominational group and say those people are the "true" body of Christ. Christ's Church is composed of people who believe His gospel, no other affiliation necessary.
Luke 9:49-50
49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
Feel free to challenge me to that last resolution whenever you're ready. Let's hope my computer is on board
I do believe the Trinity is strongly hinted at in the Tenakh, but it is most clearly taught in the new testament. I think the issue is progressive revelation, in that regard we don't have much common ground. I would certainly be interested in hearing your arguments against the Divinity of Christ using the new testament. I definitely am on board with the last resolution you presented
Well I'm certainly not a theologian but I'll try my best to defend it. What would you like the resolution to be?
Ok, so maybe we could narrow it down to is the Trinity coherent?
I would be interested in that. Maybe it could be a little teaser to our Resurrection debate. I think the arguments I make in favor of Christianity being rational would apply to Judaism, I don't see how you could debate against it though
Please note my "conceding" of this debate was solely to avoid having further contact with my opponent. I do actually believe my first response, showing my opponent to have engaged in argumentum verbosium still stands.
I know next to nothing about computers but I'll take your word for it
It's an hp notebook, it was running fine until a few months ago where it said it was trying to update windows 10 but didn't have enough disk space, which is not possible because there's literally nothing on it. Since then it won't load pages all the way, and sometimes the browser won't even work I have to restart the computer just to get online. I'm not sure about the warranty, I have to check, it's about a year and a half now
Well you know it's funny because I actually tried that, when I went to safe the document it said not enough dish space. Which is impossible because my laptop is relatively new. I think my laptop has a virus but I'm not sure. I lost a couple thousand characters from unexpected window closings several times, so at that point I just was trying to get the arguments posted. Sorry about the structure though, I completely understand.
Thank you for the advice. Unfortunately I was having (and still am) massive computer issues when having this debate. My tab would crash or shut down in the middle of me typing or the whole window would close unexpectedly. I literally had to email myself a round once so I would not loose it. I apologise for the disorder
ICXCNIKA
I think you're on the right track, I don't know if I would have used shapes as evidence for the immaterial. Numbers can work. Where can I find "twelveness" in nature? Those analogies have their limits though. If I was trying to disprove materialism I might have gone with something like logic. The concept of logic by necessity must be immaterial for it to function at all. We could discuss that more if you'd like. Or I would bring up moral truths as examples of immaterial realities, that's always fun. Can altruism be weighed? Can you look at justice with a microscope...where in nature is the truth that you shouldn't murder people? Can that truth be experienced with the five senses? Are those truths made of particles? You get the idea. Just some more ammunition for future debates with real materialists.
Can you stop leaving profanity and tie votes on my debates?
Ok, I originally thought these were kind of silly, but after seeing this one I am convinced there is a great deal of poetry and planning put into these. Well done guys this was very enjoyable
Bump
U
M
P
Who would like to see a part two of this debate? Reply with thumbs up
No worries 👍
Just for the record I do affirm biblical inerrancy. I explicitly stated this in the debate. I'm not sure where my opponent got otherwise
A sincere thank you to my opponent for this debate, another debate between me and virtuoso is in the talk stages. I would like to hear from you guys, what would you like to see us debate next time?
@virtuoso, you were a great opponent
Congratulations on winning. I think it was a fair outcome.
I guess I only have one option
I feel like I threw a beach ball at my opponent and got hit by a tank in response
I made an error in my least round. I stated the three kings we're Ahabs sons. Some of them were his grandsons
EDIT: I STATED THAT THE THREE KINGS WERE SONS OF JEZEBEL... SONS AND GRANDSONS WAS MORE CORRECT
But... In the spirit of good debate, I welcome you to accept and see what you bring forward
I would say debating those issues would be a matter of what is doctrinally true, not necessarily if the religion in it's entirety is rational. I think a lot of that would delve into a matter of biblical interpretation, not so much defending the idea that Christianity does not cause one to espouse unreasonable beliefs. I personally espouse a literal genesis interpretation, although I do not exclude an old earth creation model from the realm of orthodoxy. I think discussing that would veer the debate off into a creation/evolution debate which was not in scope for this particular debate.
I would definitely welcome you to accept, although I think since you're Jewish you and I would share the same basic worldview that miracles are possible and belief in God is rational
Sorry, should have specified. By inherently I mean an inseparable and fundamental characteristic. By rational I mean logically coherent and reasonable