Christians* are inconsistent politically - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


Communities

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Christians* are inconsistent politically
in Politics

By WordsMatterWordsMatter 410 Pts
*this is not a blanket statement on all Christians. This mostly applies to evengelicals as they are the leaders in Christian politics in America.

Christians in America fight to make abortion illegal and at the least discriminate against LGBT, at worst make LGBT lifestyles illegal. Both of these arguments are supported by religious beliefs. Why aren't these same groups attempting to allow discrimination against those who have premarital sex, or those who use birth control (not I'm not saying arguing against providing birth control as they already do that, looking at you hobby lobby.) Or to make tattoos illegal, or to discriminate against those who have tattoos illegal. In the tattoos case even the argument that this is from the old testament is inconsistent as the passages against homosexuality are exclusive to the old testament. 

Is this evidence of inconsistencies? Is this evidence that Christians are just prejudiced against certain groups but use religion as an excuse for that prejudice?
CameronZombieguy1987



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1257 Pts
    I would not call it inconsistencies - rather, loose and evolving interpretation of religious teachings. Let me illustrate what I mean.

    There are two states, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Both follow the same holy book (Quran), however they follow different Islamic schools of thought: majorly Sunni and Salafi respectively. In turn, the inherent difference between these two schools is mostly between minor details, that, in turn, are prone to a large array of interpretations. We see significant differences between Saudi Arabian and Qatari state practices with regards to enforcing the Islamic law. In Qatar, women are more-or-less equal to men, people have relatively wide individual and collective freedoms (if not the freedom to criticize the government or the state religion), the system of justice is more-or-less in line with what we see in the modern Western countries. On the other hand, in Saudi Arabia women are little less than slaves, the freedoms are nearly non-existent in the strong controlling totalitarian state of absolute theocratic monarchy, and the legal system is more similar to what the world typically saw 1500 years ago, not nowadays.

    Christianity is no different: the interpretation of the Bible evolves in time, and it evolves differently in different parts of the world. 200 years ago most American Christians saw slavery as being completely in line with the Biblical teachings; nowadays only a very small minority of American Christians see it that way. 1000 years ago the French interpretation of Christianity mostly consisted of conquering the neighboring territories and slaughtering the infidels; nowadays French Christianity has little more than a weekly Church service to offer to its members. 

    What we see from the side as inconsistencies, might not necessarily be seen that way from the Christian perspective. There used to be times when American Christians advocated for strong discrimination against people having pre-martial sex, and tattoos, while not strictly criticized by the religion itself, were seen as frivolous, not following the strict spirit of the Protestant Christianity. Nowadays, they prefer following a more flexible, more "user-friendly" interpretation of the religion, seeing these as, while not necessarily "fine", but, at least, not strongly morally corrupt. However, this evolution has not reached every part of the people's world view - or, at least, not to the full extent. Most Christians nowadays will agree that homosexual people should have rights and should be treated with respect - but their more traditional view on the marriage as something that has to be approved by the church does not allow for stepping away from the traditional man-woman couple. They agree nowadays that women should be free to live their life however they want, rather than abide by strict religious-inspired gender roles - but they still do not think that women aborting a fetus that has a potential to grow into a living human being is morally justified.

    ---

    Finally, something more global (not related to religion alone) I would like to note is that people rarely hold on to ideas with extreme devotion, and they often are willing to bend their views when following those ideas is uncomfortable. For example, as a libertarian, I in general advocate for a very small and weak government, for extreme decentralization, for a free unrestricted market - however, I do acknowledge the need for an effective police force and intelligence agencies. Some people could see it as inconsistencies, that I am not nearly as much in support of freedom as I claim to be. I, however, do not see it this way. Ideas are not absolute; they are a means, not a goal. I support the concept of freedom eagerly, but I also realize that freedom does need some maintenance to survive, and that maintenance necessarily has involve some degree of control. Freedom is more important than safety - but freedom is also impossible without some assurance of safety.

    Similarly, a Christian may follow the Bible mostly to the word, but be willing to sometimes bend the writings when they do not seem applicable to a particular practical situation.
    SuperSith89
  • VaulkVaulk 575 Pts
    In the tattoos case even the argument that this is from the old testament is inconsistent as the passages against homosexuality are exclusive to the old testament. 
    Your premise is false, the passage that condemns homosexuality is from 1 Corinthians 6:9 which is the New Testament and is the single most condemning passage from Biblical texts for directly listing the lifestyle as something that will keep you out of Heaven.
    with_all_humility
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • sqbarksqbark 12 Pts
    Remember that just because someone claims they are Christian, doesn't mean they truly stand for Christianity. It's about the faith, not the proclaimed 'religion.'
  • @MayCaesar

    "Similarly, a Christian may follow the Bible mostly to the word, but be willing to sometimes bend the writings when they do not seem applicable to a particular practical situation."

    Yes, and doing such a thing is called a sin.  The Bible teaches principles that are timeless and that are to be applied to all aspects of life.  That's what is to be a disciple, however, there are many who profess to be Christian but are only hypocrites.  However, this does not diminish the importance of Christ or God in any way.  
  • You are too afraid to say that about Muslims.
    Zombieguy1987
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1257 Pts
    @with_all_humility

    I do not have much experience of discussing religion with Christians, but I did encounter several individuals who promoted an intelligent approach to the Bible over a literal approach. What that means is that they understand that the Bible is written by men at a certain time, and might not reflect the exact will of the God - so they do not see it as sinful to commit actions criticized in the Bible, when those actions are morally warranted in their eyes.

    And as those people promote their views on the Christianity, Christianity itself changes and evolves. This is how the Christian world moved on from the land of theocratic dictatorship and bloody Crusades, to the land of freedoms and prosperity.
    AlofRI
  • JoesephJoeseph 552 Pts
    Christians are inconsistent in every way , they preach about caring , sharing and helping others yet most American Christians scream blue murder at the thoughts of universal free healthcare , a sizable proportion of American Christians agree with the carrying of a gun   maybe if Jesus was back on earth he would carry one also ? 

    Religion has been used to excuse atrocities in the past it’s still used to victimize and bully others as believers can hide behind the “ good book “ to justify their inhumanity to others 
    Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • *this is not a blanket statement on all Christians. This mostly applies to evengelicals as they are the leaders in Christian politics in America.

    Christians in America fight to make abortion illegal and at the least discriminate against LGBT, at worst make LGBT lifestyles illegal. Both of these arguments are supported by religious beliefs. Why aren't these same groups attempting to allow discrimination against those who have premarital sex, or those who use birth control (not I'm not saying arguing against providing birth control as they already do that, looking at you hobby lobby.) Or to make tattoos illegal, or to discriminate against those who have tattoos illegal. In the tattoos case even the argument that this is from the old testament is inconsistent as the passages against homosexuality are exclusive to the old testament. 

    Is this evidence of inconsistencies? Is this evidence that Christians are just prejudiced against certain groups but use religion as an excuse for that prejudice?
    This is their hypocrisy at it's finest
    https://www.google.com/search?q=victims+of+religion&safe=active&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=x&ved=0ahukewihu9jugorfahwkmeakhbtib00q_auidigb&biw=1920&bih=963&safe=active

    Socialism/Communism are great on paper, but all you need to do is look at Venezuela or North Korea see why these economic systems fail

    Repealing the Second Amendment is the first step to Totalitarianism, and it needs to be prevented to protect our freedom 

    http://www.atheistrepublic.com/
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch