Christians believe it is more important to be a Christian than it is to be a good person.

"Christians, from my understanding, do not view being Christian and being a good person as two different things, rather, they view it as one thing." But this is logically impossible. One can easily imagine a person who does good things but is not a Christian. For example, there are billions of Buddhists. Very many of them are good people, yet they are not Christians. Also, there was the tale of the man who died on the cross next to Jesus. I forgot his name, but this man was a thief and was therefore NOT a good person. Yet, because he believed that Jesus was the son of God just before he died, Jesus said he would go to Heaven. So, here is a biblical example of someone who was a bad person but also a Christian. Lastly, I am an atheist, yet it is important to me to be kind and generous to people and I do my best not to be selfish or cruel. Does that make me a Christian? If being Christian and being Good were logically the same, then I would either have to be lying when I say I am an atheist or we would have to say that I was not a good person even though I am kind and generous and treat people with respect and dignity. Therefore, it is simply not the case that to be Christian is logically the same as being good even if some Christians think it is. But more importantly, in a debate you have to agree on the parameters of the discussion. My point was that IF you agree with my assumptions, then you must agree with my conclusion. It is somewhat unfair to challenge me by saying you don't agree with my assumptions. For example, and I apologize for getting a little off track here but this is important. If I say: 1) All men are heathens. 2) Socrates was a man. 3) Therefore, Socrates was a heathen. This argument is absolutely valid. Validity only applies to whether or not the conclusion of the argument (#3) necessarily follows from the premises of the argument (#1 and #2). Just because premise #1 is false doesn't mean the argument is invalid. If I say that I believe that IF you believe #1 and #2 then you MUST believe in #3, then I am absolutely correct. It doesn't matter that #1 is false. I made clear at the beginning of this debate that I was operating under the assumptions that: 1) A person is a Christian if and only if they believe that the only way to get to Heaven is to believe that Jesus was the son of God at the time of their death. and 2) A good person is someone who strives to do good things. That is, someone who strives to treat others with dignity and respect, and who is generous and kind rather than selfish and mean. My argument is that IF you agree with #1 and #2, then you must agree with: 3) Christians believe it is more important to be Christian than it is to be good. Now, I haven't even made my case yet, but there seems to be little point if you are going to insist that one or both of my premises are false and claim that, therefore, my argument is invalid. As I have pointed out, the validity of an argument only refers to whether or not the conclusion logically follows from the premises, not on the truth-value of the premises. However, I don't even believe YOU believe that either of the premises are false. For the reasons I mentioned at the beginning of this post, it is obviously clear to any right-thinking individual (and I assume my opponent is right-thinking) that being and doing Good is logically distinct from being a Christian. This point seems obviously clear to me even though some Christians may disagree. After all, some people disagree with a lot of things that are true. That doesn't make those things false. It just makes those people incorrect in their beliefs. So, in short, I still maintain that the two premises of my argument are true even though my conclusion can be valid regardless of the truth of my premises. I also maintain that my opponent doesn't believe my premises to be false. In fact, he practically says so by saying that "Christians, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, do not view..." (emphasis added). In other words, he is not stating what he believes but only what he believes other people believe. And, again, it doesn't matter what those other people believe because their beliefs could easily be false and, in this case, it seems obvious that they are. So, finally, I would like to get to the meat of my argument, which is this: Imagine a Christian having to make the following choice: A) To lead a good life but die a non-Christian. or B) To lead a wicked life but die a Christian. A Christian MUST chose B over A, otherwise they can not be a Christian. Why? Because to a Christian, the ultimate goal is getting to Heaven and being close to god. But all you need to do in order to get to Heaven is believe that Jesus was the son of God at the time of your death. Again, go back to the story of the thief on the cross. He lived a wicked life and yet Jesus blessed him and said he would go to heaven simply because the man decided, just minutes or hours before his death, that Jesus was the son of God. What about this choice of preference: A) A world in which all people were good but only some people were Christian. B) A world in which all people were Christians but only some people were good. A Christian would have to prefer B over A since they assume that the ultimate goal of life, which is defined by god, is to get access to Heaven and, the only way to get to heaven is to believe in Jesus when you die. Therefore, it is BEST (not in the sense of Goodness, but in the sense of doing what it is God wants you to do) for each person to die a Christian. This was a somewhat long post and I apologize for rambling on about whether or not the premises of my argument are true and having to illustrate why (even though they are obviously true) their truth does not matter for my argument to be valid. I'll stop here and look forward to my opponent's response.