The Jesus Myth Debate

Hi. I'm Justin. I will be representing the Affirmative team in this round. (Pro) I stand resolved, both in this debate and personally: Jesus Christ was God's only begotten Son. He died for our sins, and rose again. Whoever believes in Him will not perish in Hell, but have eternal life. Now I'll show you why I believe this. (I'm sorry in advance. If referring to you in the third person bothers you, I'll try and stop next round. I'm a policy debater so I like to "talk to the judge") I understand my opponent has laid out some very thought-provoking ideas. I will first summarize his arguments as I understand them. I'm open to correction if I'm wrong. 1. Hell contradicts the biblical God's (we will refer to Him as just "God" in this debate round, if that's ok.) very nature, and therefore can't exist alongside God. 2. Hell was invented by human beings to console themselves, that evil-doers would pay for any unrighteous actions. (He also made the argument that this falls in line with the "callous nature of our world") 3. Sacrifices are outdated, having been proven false, and bearing no consequence in reality. IMPACT: Therefore, by this reasoning, Jesus' sacrifice also bears no real consequence. 4. Sin is just natural animal urges that are harmful to our well-being. (It would seem the fittest survive and pass along their traits to their offspring, as per Natural Selection) 5. (To paraphrase) A person simply can not believe in these things without fear or brainwashing being involved. While I don't appreciate the condescending tone or vulgarity in my opponent's arguments, they are still valid points. Questions that deserve answers. After all, there is no such thing as a stupid question. So I will give my responses and tag them to each of my opponent's arguments. R1. (or response to argument 1.) I disagree with this point wholeheartedly. It is the very nature of God Himself that requires Hell to exist. He is all loving, yes. But because of this, He let's us choose Him (or deny Him). You know the saying, "If you love something, let it go. If it loves you, it will return."? God wants to have a relationship with us, His creation. However, He also wants to allow us to choose Him, rather than mindlessly serve Him with no choice in the matter. This is why Satan was allowed to tempt man. He wanted to see if we loved Him. Sadly, according to the Bible, Adam and Eve fell into sin, and allowed it to enter our world. Satan, already condemned to Hell for denying God, is now on a mission to take as many human souls with him as possible. Satan knows that God can't dwell with those who reject Him, but it breaks God's heart to see someone He loves deny Him, just like it would you and me. If you had a child, and they ended up committing suicide due rather than be with you, it would hurt you, too. That's why there is a hell, because people have the choice to reject God, because He loves us. R2. I believe that Hell was naturally required because God allows us to make a choice. God hates it us much as you and I, but He doesn't want us to be drones. I think that the very fact that we have a basic moral compass of right and wrong in each and every one of us, even the fact that we have such a concept as "morality", shows that Hell isn't the invention of man. If everyone was truly free to do what they wanted from the beginning, no one would've ever had to manipulate one another. A man could kill another man to take his things, free of remorse. No one would think anything of it. That is, until I decide to do the same thing to you, because I saw you now had something shiny. Morality has to start somewhere, and I think that Hell wouldn't exist if we had the choice. Why would we create a punishment for ourselves if we didn't abide by self-imposed rules? And why would we need to manipulate anyone in the first place (to do wrongs in secret) if it didn't cause any ill will (due to lack of a moral compass)? R3. Sacrifices in the Bible were never about causing crops to grow. They were about reconciliation for wrongdoing. They were about mending a relationship that was constantly being broken. God wanted to have a relationship with us from the beginning, but our sinful nature keeps pushing us to reject Him. So, while my opponent's right, killing an animal never directly caused your corn to grow, it was about saying to God "I'm sorry for what I did. Please can I be with you again?" And God would say yes. But, as the Bible refers to Israel many times, we're like habitually adulterous spouses, we return to our sin. And simply put, we couldn't live righteously enough to be with God. And we didn't have enough cattle to keep apologizing. That's why He sent Jesus Christ, Who, by sacrificing Himself, made a covenant with God that we could believe in Him and have everlasting life. Like you said, as far as resurrection, you can't debate evidence one way or another. But since it scientifically hasn't been proven false, it is still valid because it can be assumed to be true. Assuming God is Almighty, resurrecting Himself wouldn't be an issue. Assuming He's not... well... then that's your choice. But what would be the point to this discussion anyways if your mind wasn't open? R4. My opponent argued that sin is just natural animal urges. I agree somewhat. In the Bible, our sinful nature is repeatedly referred to as "the flesh", or our carnal nature. We want things selfishly and physically/emotionally. Now, while God gave us physical needs and emotional needs, we get immense satisfaction out of satisfying these needs. And we can overdo it in our sinful nature. So God set up guidelines to protect us. (E.G. No premarital sex because of BOTH the diseases involved AND the emotional torture it inflicts on us, even if we don't realize it. For example, the natural feeling of guilt, or the jealousy or uncertainty of finding out your spouse has had sex outside of your marriage) So in a way, yes, this is true. However, no animal ever was born with the desire to kill itself. Animal instincts have always been about survival, while sin is about self-destruction. This is why sin can't be claimed as an animal impulse, or urge. R5. Lastly, my opponent implied that no rational/logical being could believe in the Bible and the Biblical God without being brainwashed or incredibly fearful. However, that is not the case in my opinion. Not only can I testify personally that there is NOTHING more freeing than God's salvation, but there is simply illogical about God. If what I said above stands, then God makes sense, (at least on these issues) correct? He makes sense logically and rationally. Also, the second biggest fear in the western hemisphere, and the largest in the world, is death. What could be worse than death? Hell. So my opponent is trying to say that people are fearful of Hell, so they don't question God. However, to show one flaw in this argument, it all had to start somewhere. If Christianity was fabricated, then those who started it to gain power would have known they were lying. Yet, not only did Jesus Christ, Himself, die on the cross, as recorded in history. But almost every one of the apostles who followed Him originally, including those who would've been responsible for hiding Christ's body (if it had been hidden), died for their faith. Why would men die for a lie when they knew it was a lie? The only answer I can derive is that they didn't die for a lie. They died because Jesus Christ arose from the dead and they knew He was God. So, I will recap quickly. 1. Hell is required, due to God giving humans free will. 2. Hell is not the result of a need for punishing bad behavior. Because then where did morality come from? 3. Sacrifices had nothing to do with trivial matters. They were about reconciliation with God. Hence, Jesus being the Last Sacrifice. 4. Sin is carnal, but is not "animal" due to its self-destructive nature. 5. A logical being can believe in God without fear. Thank you.