Instigator / Pro
0
1420
rating
396
debates
43.94%
won
Topic
#3941
Bible believers should not be supportive and or engage in Christmas celebration.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
AustinL0926
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Con
2
1636
rating
33
debates
93.94%
won
Description
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.
Round 1
Hopefully what is put forth here doesn't fall on death ears so to speak.
I can already see from the comments, people are taken their own terms on what things mean to them. .
But this debate has its own terms and it's centered around biblical teaching as mentioned in the debate description.
It does not matter nor is it irrelevant that Christmas is a so called Christian holiday.
That's not the point. Why? The title of this debate itself tells you the point is concerning Bible believers and I explain the crowd I'm referring to.
Bible believers and Christians can be separated and in many cases, they are different.
Many preachers you can find online that teach you about people that actually believe in the scripture via practice versus those that call themselves christians and blanket themselves under the title Christianity which is an unfounded biblical term.
Big difference can exist here so we want to make that clear. We're talking about Bible believers.
Who and what are Bible believers according to this topic?
Well those that practice according to as it is written, not opinion, not tradition but as it is written in the scripture to do.
It is an opinion, tradition and social preference to designate the 25th of December. Why and how?
It is simply not written and found in scripture and therefore cannot be practiced according to scripture.
There's no commandment for it so where did this come from except from socially constructed tradition?
Need I say more?
Santa Claus, reindeer, North Pole, mistletoe, snowman, chestnuts roasting, stockings, songs and music.
The relationship with all this to the Bible is where?
This is all tradition and festive concoction. Then trying to mix it with Bible , I mean where does the social tradition begin/end and where does the biblical practice begin/end?
See, you can mix it all up with Christianity and these so called Christian holidays. You can't do that with hearers and doers of the biblical scriptures.
This holiday called Christmas is concerning the 25th of December, the celebration I'm speaking of is what takes place on that day.
A celebration, an observance, a tribute going up, set forth, set in motion on December 25th.
When people say Merry Christmas, they're referring to the holiday which is on the date of December 25th.
When I'm talking about Christmas, I'm talking about December 25th.
As far as I am to understand there's supposed to be a relationship between this date and Christ.
Who or what ties the relationship?
Is it the Bible?
If it's not, those that believe and practice according to the Bible should not engage or celebrate this holiday given with this date as there is no cause from the Bible to practice it, hence no effect would follow.
It's like playing Simon says and the object of doing according to what Simon says.
A person acting outside of what Simon says should not act as Simon has not said.
I'm going to see what you have to say, no pun intended and I may have to direct this in terms of what is required to refute my position.
I'll give the other side a chance first.
- 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.
Admitted. This is irrelevant, as I will not try to equate the two.
- There is no clear evidence for Jesus having been born on December 25th.
Admitted. This is also irrelevant, since the debate isn’t about whether Christmas is on the correct date. It’s about whether people who believe in the Bible should celebrate Christmas. No one knows exactly when Jesus was born, so any date would be equally arbitrary.
- Because the Bible does not endorse Christmas, then Bible believers should not celebrate it.
Denied. Lack of endorsement does not equal condemnation. For example, the Bible mentions nothing about microphones (duh), yet most Bible believers don’t have a problem with a pastor using one to address the church. In order to fulfill his BoP, my opponent must show a verse from the Bible that explicitly condemns the practice of Christmas.
4. Conclusion (aka TLDR)
My opponent’s opening speech is long, but contains very little of substance. Most of his claims are irrelevant to the resolution being debated. My framework is very simple: My opponent has the burden of proof to show that the Bible condemns Christmas. If he does not, then I win.
Round 2
"Admitted. This is irrelevant, as I will not try to equate the two."
That's very good on your part. I applaud you. I wouldn't even try to mention that.
"No one knows exactly when Jesus was born, so any date would be equally arbitrary. "
More specifically it would non-biblical to conjure up a date to celebrate or honor Christ Jesus, wouldn't it ?
"Lack of endorsement does not equal condemnation.
For example, the Bible mentions nothing about microphones (duh), yet most Bible believers don’t have a problem with a pastor using one to address the church. In order to fulfill his BoP, my opponent must show a verse from the Bible that explicitly condemns the practice of Christmas."
Ahh very good. You went right where I thought you would.
So we're left with a question. What should a Bible believer do or practice according to the scriptures?
It's because they do only practice and act according to the scriptures. That's who we're talking about.
Now, let's look at the example you gave. The scripture will have to directly or indirectly tell the believer what to do. It has to go one way or the other.
Otherwise the believer is found to be out of accordance based on no direction either way.
There's no scripture saying that a preacher using a microphone to preach on is prohibited.
So is it therefore permitted?
Perhaps there's scripture stating it's permitted. I don't believe so. We can't say it's permitted according to scripture.
Which way is the believer to go? The believer goes accordingly as it written. It works both ways, not just one way in which I believe what the opposing side is alluding to.
So according to as it is indirectly written, the scripture states to lift up the voice like a trumpet. It states to go out teaching all nations.
Being that a microphone can help to promote that, it is therefore indirectly permitting to use a microphone, blow horn , whatever to enable the direct biblical practice basically.
So that is likewise with the December 25th celebration. That date specifically, fundamentally will help us learn what we can from scriptures that believers will follow.
The date is arbitrary just as the opposing side pointed out. Society has picked a date to honor Christ as tradition.
The scripture does not say or teach to do that. Before someone says "ok there's no scripture permitting it but where's the one prohibiting it?"
It's one of which that prohibits it by making a broad declaration omitting any specifications to time such as picking a date.
By adding a specification which the scripture instructs not to do, it's in violation of adding to text and going out of accordance with the scripture that states to honor Christ the Son.
In John 5 at verse 23 "that all may honor the Son ".
A believer will honor Christ the Son according to scripture. They will not pick a date to do it because the scripture doesn't say to do it. The scripture tells them indicatively to just honor.
Just to give blanketed honor as there is no start or stop time with a date so indirectly restricting date setting such as the 25th of December which true believers should not and are not following.
True believers in accordance to the Bible will proclaim hands down to you this.
"My opponent’s opening speech is long, but contains very little of substance."
I don't know what you mean by "substance " but I don't necessarily lay all my cards on the table in an introduction.
Patience, patience, patience is a virtue.
"Most of his claims are irrelevant to the resolution being debated."
They were facts pointing out what you couldn't possibly use to refute my position because they're irrelevant just in case you were going there.
Sometimes we have to make disclaimers friend. Of course they're irrelevant but that was a disclaimer to you . No preaching to choir over here.
"My framework is very simple: My opponent has the burden of proof to show that the Bible condemns Christmas."
My yoke is easy, my burden is light.
I just had to throw that in .
I. Kritik
My opponent’s resolution can always be affirmed by a “No true Scotsman fallacy.” For example, 25% of Christians in the US view the Bible as the “literal word of God.” [1] Of these, over 90% celebrate Christmas.
However, I know my opponent will likely argue that “they aren’t true Bible believers.” In advance, I will criticize any such attempts as the logical fallacy it is.
II. Rebuttals
To put it kindly, my opponent’s speech is very fluffy. Therefore, for my rebuttals, I will trim it down into two main arguments.
1. The Bible makes no specific declaration about Jesus’ birthday, so it’s implied that we shouldn’t celebrate it. In other words, condemnation by omission.
My opponent, specifically, said “By adding a specification which the scripture instructs not to do, it's in violation of adding to text and going out of accordance with the scripture that states to honor Christ the Son.”
This is a false argument. Nowhere in the scripture does it say not to celebrate Jesus’ birthday – it merely doesn’t specifically mention when Jesus was born.
Basically, my opponent’s argument is simply the following flawed syllogism:
P1. Bible believers should not do things the Bible says not to do.
P2. The Bible says that we should not celebrate Christmas.
C1: Bible believers should not celebrate Christmas.
This is logically correct, but P2 is flawed – my opponent directly jumped from “it’s not explicitly mentioned” to “it’s condemned.” I fail to see the logic in this.
2. Jesus should be honored every day, not just on Christmas.
My opponent, specifically, said, “Just to give blanketed honor as there is no start or stop time with a date so indirectly restricting date setting such as the 25th of December which true believers should not and are not following.”
Again, this is a non sequitur. Honoring Jesus throughout the year is not mutually exclusive with celebrating his birth during Christmas. There is no “indirectly restricting date setting such as the 25th of December.” Christmas is simply a time to honor the joy Jesus brought to the world by reflecting and appreciating your faith.
Although I admit that Christmas may have been over commercialized and drifting away from religion in recent years, this doesn’t mean that religious families can’t have a simple spiritual celebration.
III. Extension:
I extend my arguments regarding burden of proof: my opponent still has not shown any verse explicitly condemning the Bible. The implicit evidence my opponent gives is insufficient to fulfill his BoP.
Sources:
Round 3
The last go round as they say. Well I wasn't looking for this to drag on longer than I can stand beating a dead horse.
Let's see what you have to say.
"For example, 25% of Christians in the US view the Bible as the “literal word of God.” [1] Of these, over 90% celebrate Christmas.
However, I know my opponent will likely argue that “they aren’t true Bible believers.” In advance, I will criticize any such attempts as the logical fallacy it is."
No disrespect but this just appears as a lack of understanding and no deficiency in confusion.
There's a difference between viewing something as whatever and then actually believing with living in accordance to it .
Really got to get that point across. It's not just titles and beliefs, there's also action involved to follow up with .
But of course according to what you just said, it appears less than 10% are true believers, that is correct.
"To put it kindly, my opponent’s speech is very fluffy."
I think there are those that enjoy fluffy cake. In other words, when it's communication you're debating against, you tend to beat it up, criticize it, name call it .
The more you remonstrate, the fluffier it'll get baby.
"This is a false argument. Nowhere in the scripture does it say not to celebrate Jesus’ birthday – it merely doesn’t specifically mention when Jesus was born."
Wow is this the best you got?
Just ignore what I just said. You need to refute the argument made based on what the scripture said.
It said to honor the Son. If I said respect your mother, does that mean pick a date to do it on ?
When you guys have no rebuttal, you straight ignore the obvious.
"Basically, my opponent’s argument is simply the following flawed syllogism:
P1. Bible believers should not do things the Bible says not to do. "
The Bible says not to kill/murder. Bible believers as described here are not to do that. How is that flawed?
You don't personally know anybody that practices biblical law faithfully do you?
"P2. The Bible says that we should not celebrate Christmas. "
You say that. Don't build a straw man. I never said that. The Bible doesn't say to celebrate it. I believed you checked with your friends on that.
"C1: Bible believers should not celebrate Christmas. "
Amen. Bible believers don't add to scripture by picking out dates to do it.
"This is logically correct, but P2 is flawed – my opponent directly jumped from “it’s not explicitly mentioned” to “it’s condemned.” I fail to see the logic in this. "
I know it's logically correct. Sometimes or many times, there is struggle in understanding.
"Again, this is a non sequitur. Honoring Jesus throughout the year is not mutually exclusive with celebrating his birth during Christmas. There is no “indirectly restricting date setting such as the 25th of December.” Christmas is simply a time to honor the joy Jesus brought to the world by reflecting and appreciating your faith. "
This is totally paradoxical. If you're doing something non-stop, there is no point in having a picked out day for it. Otherwise what is the point of the selected date?
I don't know how you're not following this.
"Although I admit that Christmas may have been over commercialized and drifting away from religion in recent years, this doesn’t mean that religious families can’t have a simple spiritual celebration. "
"Religious families", whoever they are, I'm pointing out the true Biblical ambassadors that actually live according to scripture.
Look, this is no indictment on people that holiday celebrate. If you're one of them, that's all you. I'm just stating a fact about a separate group of people which I think you're conflating with Christianity, religion and religious folk. I'm not even talking about religious individuals.
There's a difference between all of these classifications namely by lifestyle.
So it is true whether you acknowledge it or not, there are people that live and practice strictly what the biblical scripture directs.
The scripture communicates to honor the Son. It gaves no room to chop it up into dates, time-frames and preferences. It leaves it as broad , simple and straight as is. You know that. Since because you know that, you're desperately looking for or was prepared so greatly for me to hand you an argument about where does the Bible say not to celebrate the 25th of December.
You were looking for me to produce that scripture. As you should know by now, if the Bible were to fit every detail specifically in text, how many pages would that be ? I don't know.
As much as there are specific things directly spoken on, there are likewise the things that aren't but only indirectly.
Like the example with the microphone. It's the same case, so I thank you for broaching it.
By the way a spiritual celebration, whatever that means, can be an ongoing thing unless you're referring to Christmas I guess.
The remaining of what you had to say I pretty much already responded to in advance before reading it .
"I extend my arguments regarding burden of proof: my opponent still has not shown any verse explicitly condemning the Bible. The implicit evidence my opponent gives is insufficient to fulfill his BoP. "
If you can't absorb or accept what was given to you above, you don't want to accept it point blank.
Again, I say respect your mother, father whoever, I didn't say pick a date to do it.
Just like with mother's day and father's day, same thing. Scripture says honor thy mother and father. It's indirectly giving you no room to pick a time to do it.
What's your argument?
"Oh, I can still have honor for them the date after and before. "
Ok then that defeats having a set aside date. You do it constantly, duh. Shouldn't be hard to comprehend. This is the point of setting dates for things. You're setting a time aside to do a particular thing. If you're routinely doing it, it's already a part of the daily routine.
You're crying about fluff and length. Maybe if you could expound like I can, you're arguments might make a dent. But you have short , empty, substance-less points in all respect and honesty.
I'm going to celebrate the day you were born on such and such date. Then I celebrate it the day after the same way but "such and such date " was a "special" day , yeah right.
It's like I know your store is open 24 hours but what time do you close?
What the? It's open non-stop. I've made my point.
Well that horse was beaten to smithereens.
Three rounds well spent. Not much needed more than that. Surely enough.
Considering it’s the last round, introducing new arguments would be very poor form. As such, I will continue rebutting my opponent’s arguments. I will be using the “deny, minimize, outweigh, and reverse” technique to summarize my refutations. All quotes are directly from my opponent’s argument, unless mentioned otherwise.
“But of course according to what you just said, it appears less than 10% are true believers, that is correct.”
My opponent completely misses the point, and instead goes straight for a “No true Scotsman” fallacy, as I expected. If a “true” Bible believer is only one that behaves as my opponent expects, then this debate is inherently a truism. My opponent should be penalized on argument points for this attempt to move the goalposts. Denied.
“I think there are those that enjoy fluffy cake. In other words, when it's communication you're debating against, you tend to beat it up, criticize it, name call it.”
When half of your speech is irrelevant rambling, and it lacks a remote semblance of organization, of course I’m going to call it fluffy. It doesn’t really affect me, but I’m simply pointing out, that if you want to make things easier for everyone, you should start “unfluffing” your speeches. Minimized.
“Wow is this the best you got? Just ignore what I just said. You need to refute the argument made based on what the scripture said.”
As I pointed out, the burden of proof is on you. In order to win, I don’t have to refute every single one of your arguments – I merely have to show that they’re insufficient to uphold your burden of proof. Outweighed.
“It said to honor the Son. If I said respect your mother, does that mean pick a date to do it on ?”
Again, my opponent keeps claiming that honoring someone on a particular day contradicts showing them love and respect on all the other days of the year.
Every year, on Mother’s Day, I write my mom a card and get her a gift. Does that mean I don’t respect her the rest of the year? Of course not! It simply means that this day, I set aside especially for her. Indeed, I would think that a happy Mother’s Day strengthens, not weakens, our bond.
The same thing applies for Christmas. Not only is Christmas a time to celebrate the birth of Jesus, it’s also a time to especially honor him and the principles of kindness and love he upholds. Reversed.
“The Bible says not to kill/murder. Bible believers as described here are not to do that. How is that flawed? You don't personally know anybody that practices biblical law faithfully do you?”
My opponent failed to properly read my argument, and apparently does not understand that a single flawed premise is enough to render the whole syllogism flawed. I am not criticizing P1, I am criticizing P2. The second part is also some more “no true Scotsman” stuff – I actually am close friends with several devoted Christians, but I’m sure you wouldn’t count them. Literally irrelevant.
“You say that [‘The Bible says that we should not celebrate Christmas.’]. Don't build a straw man. I never said that. The Bible doesn't say to celebrate it. I believed you checked with your friends on that.”
It’s not a strawman if that’s literally what you’re arguing. In round 2, you said, and I quote, “It's one of which that prohibits it by making a broad declaration omitting any specifications to time such as picking a date.”
I believe this argument is sufficient for me to summarize your claim as, “The Bible says we should not celebrate Christmas.”
In addition, in order to prove the premise of the debate, you must show that the Bible says not to celebrate it, whether explicitly or implicitly. You’re literally defeating your own argument. Reversed.
“This is totally paradoxical. If you're doing something non-stop, there is no point in having a picked out day for it. Otherwise what is the point of the selected date? I don't know how you're not following this.”
See my response to your “respect your mother” argument. (Reversed)
“Look, this is no indictment on people that holiday celebrate. If you're one of them, that's all you. I'm just stating a fact about a separate group of people which I think you're conflating with Christianity, religion and religious folk. I'm not even talking about religious individuals. There's a difference between all of these classifications namely by lifestyle.”
See my argument at the beginning of R2. Your “no true Scotsman” argument isn’t going to cut it. Denied.
“The scripture communicates to honor the Son. It gaves no room to chop it up into dates, time-frames and preferences. It leaves it as broad , simple and straight as is. You know that. Since because you know that, you're desperately looking for or was prepared so greatly for me to hand you an argument about where does the Bible say not to celebrate the 25th of December.
You were looking for me to produce that scripture. As you should know by now, if the Bible were to fit every detail specifically in text, how many pages would that be ? I don't know.
As much as there are specific things directly spoken on, there are likewise the things that aren't but only indirectly.“
I believe that your “indirect” evidence isn’t going to cut it. Again, omission isn’t condemnation. There isn’t sufficient evidence to show that Bible believers shouldn’t celebrate Christmas. Perhaps the creator of the Bible intended us to celebrate Christmas. Perhaps he didn’t. Perhaps he didn’t even consider the concept of celebrating Christmas. We don’t know.
As long as there’s sufficient uncertainty, my opponent has not upheld his burden of proof. Outweighed.
“[various stuff repeating the same arguments from earlier]”
[see my previous arguments]
Concluding remarks:
In the end, it all comes down to this: has my opponent given sufficient evidence to prove his claim? He says yes; I say no.
I urge you to read through the rounds and give your decision. Thank you to my opponent for the interesting debate, and thank you to any voters in advance. Happy holidays.
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.