Jesus Christ is a "zombie savior".

Contention one: My opponent has already failed to follow my rules. I stated, in my opening argument, that I would like Izbo10 "not to: make any ad hominem attacks, whether by calling me names, insulting me, or trolling, criticize other arguments not related to this debate, or refer to irevelant sources. Otherwise, all seven points will be forfeited from him." [1] He has done this by calling me "inferior-minded" and "dense", so therefore I urge voters to give me all the seven points by default. He also wrote, at the very top of his opening argument, "I would like to say right from the beginning my opponent is an idiot, so don't mind his lack of intelligence." This is an ad hominem attack since he is clearly referring me as an "idiot". Contention two: There are incredible holes in Izbo10's arguments. Resurrection is "the act of rising from the dead."[2] My opponent claims that Jesus was resurrected "bodily of course". Jesus was not only resurrected bodily, for otherwise he could not have rolled the stone back or ascend to heaven, but he also retained his faculties for speech and thought. This is seen when Jesus, before rising to the heavens, states, ""Go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation…" [3]. Since both speech and thought are outside of what one would characterize as "bodily", it implies a spiritual rebirth, or rather, a cognitive one. The resurrection that my opponent is thinking of is a combination of both bodily and cognitive/spiritual. Therefore, his entire argument falls apart. God is supernatural, but not necessary the "force" that Izbo10 states. A "force" is, among others, defined as a "mental or moral strength or power". [4] It is an abstract concept that does not indicate a sense of sentience or recognition of its existence. Izbo10 has deliberately provided his own definition, and failed to refute my own, to prove his point. God recognizes his sentience, and shows thought, recognition of his existence, and will, all of which are absent from a "force". To illustrate this, one may look at the beginning of the Book of Genesis, where God's spirit is described as stating, "Let there be light," and there was light." Again, the spirit of god, who has just created the "heavens and the earth", displays speech, and with the act of creation—and the separation of waters to form an expanse called the sky, will. "Will" is the "the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action". God's specific actions of separating the waters, in order to create the sky for the heavens, and separating light from dark [because, "God saw the light, and saw that it was good"] shows both conscience and deliberate thought and reason that is responsible for God's decisions. [5] As a result, he is a "being", whose omnipresence, but sentience, makes him so. This is the basic line of reasoning that my opponent has presented: Premise One: A zombie is a "a dead body that has been brought back to life by a supernatural force." [The "supernatural force" does not refer to god, but more specifically withcraft. This is hinted by my original definitions.] Premise Two: Jesus was resurrected. [This is supported by canon] (Conclusion drawn from Premise: Jesus was a dead body. I have shown that this is not true, since Jesus was shown addressing and communicating to his disciples. If it was only bodily resurrection, then why does Jesus appear to have both facutlies of the mind and reasoning that are not consistent with merely "bodily resurrection"?) Premise Three: Jesus was resurrected by God. (This is implied and inferred. It will be accepted, until I have evidnece from the Gospels that it was not so). Premise Four: God is a supernatural "force". [God is not necessarily as a force but more of a being that has facutlies and powers of speech and will, which is demonstrated through his act of creation. Therefore, this premise is inaccurate.] Conclusion: Jesus was a zombie savior. [This conclusion is not true since its premises have been shown to be false or inaccurate.] Being vs. Force/Energy A "being" is basically a "life form that has properties of mind…, which are deemed to be to constitute a more complex and evolved state…" [6] Since God's spirit exists, and was involved in the entire creation of the cosmos, he is "living", in the loosest terms. In addition, since the "properties of the mind" include reason, thought, emotion, and other characteristics. [7] If God speaks, and recognizes the light as good, then he should be considered to have thought, "mental activity" (i.e. seeing, naming, and characterizing the light, as "day", and the dark "as night [5]) and reason, "the mental powers of forming conclusions, judgements, and inferences" [8]. Again, one can say that God inferred that the light was good, after hovering near the waters, and decided to separate it and name it "day". He clearly shows "judgment" in assessing the goodness/badness of the two components, light and dark, and uses it to form the parts of the day: the evening, morning, and night [5] Therefore, God is a being. A "force" is a much more abstract concept that unfortunately, for Pro, lacks the qualities of sentience. Many definitons of the word "force" define it as some sort of influence, exertion of power, or so on. It is basically immeasurable. "Energy" is merely the impetus for action [9] and is a rough equivalent for "force". An energy cannot recognize its own existence, nor does it exert any signs of reasoning that a being would have. Take this hypothetical scenario to consider the properties of a "force", in modern life: There is a factory where turbines are grinded, due to the ocassional wind characteristic of the weather. The wind is the force, since it is exerting influence on the turbines. Compare this to a scenario where a man is turning the turbine. The man obviously has sentience and thought, unlike the wind. The man is the "being", while the wind is the "force". I wait for my opponent's response to prove that his argument stands. I have shown that it has fallen. [1] http://www.debate.org...] [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... [4]http://www.google.com... [5] http://en.wikisource.org... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://en.wikipedia.org... [8] http://dictionary.reference.com... [9] http://en.wiktionary.org...