- + New Debate
- Debate News
- About
- Debra AI More
frame
Best Recent Content
-
Do Christians have a warrant to say they are the "true" religion?
They think they do but then again they will claim their verion of Christianity is the correct one.
There are 33,000 denominations of christianity worldwide and they all dissgree on which version is the " true" one demonstrating clearly the egotistical bully boy posturing that's the norm for this lot.
In christianity there are 100's of rules and dictates one is meant to follow most christians totally ignore all that's inconvenient as like most christians going to church half an hour a week proves what a truly humble ,decent ,charitable christians you are.
If adherence to the laws and dictates of your particular book is the benchmark then Muslims win by a country mile , the Quran like the bible says death to homsexuals Muslims under Sharia law do so, Apostates are punished , pregnancy outside marriage is punished, dressing inappropriately , blaspheming etc ,etc these are all crimes in Islam and christianity also Muslims punish offenders as set out in the Quran ,Christians ignore thus disobeying gods law.
It's most amusing to see Christians in the past condemning churches like the Westboro Baptists who held up large posters at gay mens funerals saying " Roast in Hell fags" the complaint being they were not true Christians and their actions were disrespectful yet this is exactly in line with God's word as god called for stoning to death of homosexuals and said the fiery pit awaits them.
-
Do Christians have a warrant to say they are the "true" religion?
@MistakenIdentity
More importantly, it is important to realize that Christianity isn't a single set of beliefs like Judaism or even Islam. Instead, it has split into multiple Churches, and denominations and cults throughout its entire history over matters doctrinal, even to the very nature of the Trinity, their own God! A religion that cannot even agree universally the nature of their own God can hardly call itself logically sound, particularly since all the versions of said God exist to this day - each side unable to convince each other their logically sound arguments are actually true.
Excellent point! Not only could this god not preserve it's word alone; the claim that it uses human agents to 'correct' translations doesn't dissuade followers from believing the word is infallible even though with all the mistakes and contradictions their god was too weak to protect it from. Now as you point out their supposed 'holy spirit' led many followers to differing cults. -
Read the article in its entirety. Post your views on Trump´s foreign policy when he was in office.
When deciding whether the performance of a given president is better or worse than the performance of a few other presidents, a proper across-the-board analysis of their actions and achievements should be performed. This is what the author attempted to do, and I have not understood how his analysis warranted his conclusion.Delilah6120 said:@MayCaesar
Thanks for reading.
I must have missed something along the way with the past four presidents because none of the past 4 had the character weakness and gross incompetence as 45.
¨Last but by no means least, Trump’s handling of foreign policy succumbed to his own defects of character. His genius for self-promotion and remarkable ability to defy existing norms could not overcome his ignorance of most areas of policy, distrust of genuine expertise, short attention span, incorrigible dishonesty, and inability to place the national interest ahead of his own need for attention and adulation. Qualities that had sometimes worked in his up-and-down business career, in reality TV, and even on the campaign trail proved wholly unsuited to the tasks of governing, especially in the unforgiving world of foreign policy. In the end, even America’s many remaining advantages could not make up for Trump’s innate incompetence.
Stating that Trump had a few particular flaws does not lead to the statement that Trump was worse than any of the past 4 presidents. That is a lazy analysis, one in which you start with the conclusion and then derive the reasoning leading up to it.
It is also worth pointing out that certain character traits that conventionally are seen as malicious can have a positive effect in particular situations. For example, lack of empathy can be very useful in the situation where a leader must make a tough choice between two options affecting large numbers of people negatively: an overly empathic leader might be overwhelmed by the implications of the choice and end up choosing based on his guilty consciousness (which is a terrible place to act from), while a less empathic one might be able to make a pragmatic choice that works best at achieving the specified goal.
-
What Evidence do Atheists Have that there is no God?
@RickeyHoltsclaw
It's true...you hate God
You really need to look up the term Atheist.
because your lust and your penis are your god.
Talking about your wife again lusting after c-ck ......she's a right little she devil isn't she?
-
Do you follow the science when it comes to Evolutionary Theory?
I just can't understand how any delusions of the supernatural can be more fascinating then natural phenomenon...
-
Who's more authoritarian, liberals, or conservatives?
@MayCaesar
There is truth to what you say. It appears no matter what there will be some authoritative agency and dissent.
In reading your words I had a sense inedibility that no matter what government or party holds power eventually society will deteriorate. Probably because no matter how much individualism any authority respects it will never come close to satisfying everyone single person. So we just ride the waves.
-
Read the article in its entirety. Post your views on Trump´s foreign policy when he was in office.
@MayCaesar
Yeah. One of the things the article accurately discusses was trumps petulance and inexperience where running a government is concerned. Though one of his campaign promises was to 'drain the swamp' but I guess he went about it wrong. Of course what was noticeably absent from article was any mention of the unheard of level of obstructionism that was taking place too. But in the end that doesn't matter. I'd hate to imagine a Trump victory where we find out he was acting restrained in his first presidency. And less consciences about everything like you allude to.
The irony is as you point out the un-impressiveness of our last four presidents, we're stuck with one of the last two for four more years it seems.
-
Do you follow the science when it comes to Evolutionary Theory?
@Joeseph
And even the religious that accept evolution, they can't explain the necessity for a supernatural agents involvement. They equally just assert it because of un answered questions. Doesn't make sense but some members we know call that approach 'examining science'. -
Do you follow the science when it comes to Evolutionary Theory?
Evolution is fact , there are mountains of peer reviewed evidence to support it, there is not even one peer reviewed paper that challenges it, game over.
Those who claim Evolution is bunk are similar to flat earthers or fhe bunch of assorted conspiracy theorists who make up the small lunatic fringe in society.
The saddest of the lot are various religious nuts who think if somehow Evolution was disapproved it proves a god when this again is not the case.
The vast majority of religious people accept the theory of Evolution as fact, all that's left are the true beyond help religious loons who for anything they don't understand claim Goddidit, how convenient and childishly immature of them.
Rational Wiki
Goddidit is one of the masterstrokes and trump-cards that creationists and other biblical literalists have at their disposal when debating points with naturalists and rationalists.[4][note 1] It proposes that anything is and was possible because of the omnipotence of God — specifically the ability to bend the laws of time, logic, and physics. This means that arguments that focus on the feasibility of a global flood, for instance — complicated analyses of how much water would be required, if food could be provided for Noah's animals and the construction of his ark — can be swept away and ignored.
-
Do Christians have a warrant to say they are the "true" religion?
Christians throughout history have claimed that they are the exclusive religion to worship the only god that exists. Christian apologists claim the religion is the only one that is historically true, logically sound and, further, that everyone must also believe in their religion. However, the facts on the ground show completely the opposite:
Christianity is not historically true
This is proven by the fact that there are no contemporaneous reports of any of the miracles - the virgin birth, the raising of the dead, the feeding of the 5000, and most importantly neither his death, nor his resurrection. In addition, the doctrine that Jesus is the Messiah prophesized by ancient Jewish texts has been in dispute since the beginning, continuing to today, where Jews refuse to concede that Jesus was every the Messiah - specifically for not fulfilling the prophecy of bring peace to the earth.
Christianity is not logically sound
Whatever logical arguments Christian Apologists make, they have had very little effect in convincing every major religion to concede and to follow the Christian God. The reason why is that none of these arguments are meant for acts of persuasion, rather they are there to keep people within the religion - to justify pre-existing beliefs, rather than convincing new ones.
More importantly, it is important to realize that Christianity isn't a single set of beliefs like Judaism or even Islam. Instead, it has split into multiple Churches, and denominations and cults throughout its entire history over matters doctrinal, even to the very nature of the Trinity, their own God! A religion that cannot even agree universally the nature of their own God can hardly call itself logically sound, particularly since all the versions of said God exist to this day - each side unable to convince each other their logically sound arguments are actually true.
Christianity for all
Christianity's insistence on proselytization and evangelism is one of its defining features. Beginning with direct commandments from Jesus himself, that only his religion and only his god and only his special teachings are true and must be spread from a single tribe to all of humanity. Much like the lack of historical confirmation and logical consistency, there is little actual reason as to why Jesus' teachings actually need to followed - it's just a commandment where Jesus co-opted a religion's God for himself, and self-anointed as a deity in his own right! Again, wtih no actual proof.
Conclusion
The above are a few basic reasons why Christians cannot claim to be a true religion. Thoughts?
