The debate "Christianity is the truth" was started by
August 27, 2019, 9:39 pm.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 62 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
jrardin12 posted 48 arguments to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 29 arguments, historybuff posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
jrardin12, romeroa251, Repent_4_The_End_Is_Near, Delta_Force01 and 22 visitors agree.
historybuff, JDAWG9693, cavargas3, ziyu, Markos, fireball4thewin, Sleepless, HusamAli, Manuel, Aiyaz, codyray16, Batman, Shrivali_16, K1VK2DF, marky, PeaceSafe and 46 visitors disagree.
name a creationist experiment, study, or any form of research undertaken to actually prove creation.
they are not creationists. they are anti-evolutionists. nothing they do tries to demonstrate creation, they just assume if they disprove evolution, creation will be the default alternative. their only arguments for creation are 1000 year old and nothing they contributed to.
name an experiment.
Creation scientists actually are actual scientists. They do experiments that debunk evolution and prove creation.
Evolutionists cannot do experiments either. When was the last time they made a reptile turn into a bird? When have they made the Big Bang happen?
They are censored because they are right. Evolutionists do not want there to be a God.
Einstein was not a Christian, but he did believe that God created.
Isaac Newton was a Christian.
are we closed minded for ignoring the repeatedly debunked, isolated apologetic sources?
or are you naive for ignoring the lions share of accredited research and scientific consensus?
these creationists *try* to poke logical holes in evolution, but the only defenses they have for creation are thousand year old philosophical arguments from anslem. how exactly are they scientists? they are little more then pundits who cherry pick information in order to reach a conclusion they want to reach. thats intellectual dishonesty.
flat earthers have whole websites claiming they are being censored as well. so do anti vaxxers and all sorts of kooks.
its funny that you yourself acknowledge that the creationists scientists spend their entire time debunking evolution and do *ZERO* actual creation based experiements.
theres a difference between being closed minded and not believing every piece of silliness. im assuming you gave that creationist website the same level of scrutiny as you did for the source of your misinformation about jews. you should reevaluate your the quality of your information.
They're not censored, they're wrong. Their articles get published elsewhere, just not in scientific studies because they were wrong. There's no conspiracy.
What is "its job"? I would say that you would say the job is survival, which it does rather despicably for the reason I previously mentioned and more. Evolution would say that "its job" if you can call it that, would be to reproduce, which it does well enough but could easily be done better, especially from an all powerful God.
Yeah, and people claim that the earth is a disk; people can be stupid. Even really smart people can believe really stupid things. You're Christian, right? And I bet you would call Einstein really smart? He was not Christian; case and point. Evolution is demonstrably true; that's why it's a scientific theory and creationism is a hypothesis at best, and more realistically a myth. There is a mountain of evidence against creationism and for evolution.
"If by "creation scientist" You mean someone who poses the creationist hypothesis."
You say that, but I am sure you have not really studied it. On the other hand, the creation scientists have studied evolution meticulously. Which is why they have a whole website showing how unscientific evolution is. They do this by looking at science.
However, DNA still does its job perfectly.
"not peer reviewed or published in any revered scientific communities or publishers."
Maybe because they are censored.
All those problems you mentioned are due to sin.
If by "creation scientist" You mean someone who poses the creationist hypothesis, then they are a piss-poor scientist as they are demonstrably wrong.
I don't care if it's an apologist source, really, but I know for a fact that the link you shared (which I did look at, by the way) was not peer reviewed or published in any revered scientific communities or publishers.
If DNA is perfect, then why do we age and die? Why are we constantly diseased? Why are there birth defects? Why are we vulnerable so near everything? Why is so much of the DNA worthless? Why do we have parts of our DNA present that would seriously help us survive, but those parts are "turned off," to put it simply?
Also, define "perfect/perfection"
Creation scientists are just as much scientists as evolution scientists.
"Only give non-apologetic and properly peer reviewed sources, please."
Are you really that closed minded?
A designer makes things as perfect as possible. DNA was made perfect. Evolution is blind, it cannot make DNA.
The Miller Experiment was a failure and it was influenced by man. Also, the early earths climate is only an assumption.
Only give non-apologetic and properly peer reviewed sources, please. And here, when we give a source, it's customary to summarize it because many of us don't have all day to read your articles.
I never said that it wasn't complex, I was simply demonstrating the subjectivity of what is "complex". Also, being complex does not mean being designed. In fact, complexity is the hallmark of poor design. Any engineer will tell you that a good engineer's (designer's) job is to make things as simple as possible, so there is little room for future error. Evolution, however, has no such goal.
And, evolution and abiogenesis are two different things, please don't conflate them. And DNA came from RNA, to my understanding, which came from amino acids which have been proven to be able to form on ancient earth climates.
What is natural is what is observable, supernatural the unobservable. If God is real, and you argue that he is observable, then he is natural.
God is not natural. DNA is.
DNA is even complex for geneticists and both creationists and evolutionists geneticists recognize its complexity. Also DNA must have all its parts at once. If evolution is true, DNA could not have evolved. It had to have just appeared, but that would be magic.
DNA is complex, yes, but what is more or less complex is completely subjective. An encyclopedic in French will be more complex to an english geneticist that DNA.
Also, define information and then explain why that can't come about naturally
And, if DNA is so complex and needed a designer to be so, is God not equally or more complex than DNA? If he is, how did he come about naturally when lowly DNA can't even do that??
DNA is evidence. The information in it is more complex than any encyclopedia. Information cannot come about by natural processes.
Well, why don't you show what you think is evidence of design and I can show you how it is either horrible design or natural processes. Or both.
Or, if it is design, it is one of the worst designs that I have ever seen.
Okay. Where is it? Just like historybuff, I see evidence of a natural process
There is design. There is evidence.
Do you see design or is there design?
Is it your truth or is it true? If it is true, then it is provable
I see design in all of nature.
I look at nature and i see a natural process of evolution. I don't see any evidence of a "god" in a natural process.
I've never seen God in nature and I know others who feel the same. So, who's to say you're right and others aren't?
It means nature shows us that God exists.
Is that a quote from the Bible? If so, I said outside of the bible. If not, what is that even suppose to mean??
Sure, "The heavens declare the glory of God."
Do you have any proof of YHWH outside of the Holy Bible?
Because He is logical, actually created logic, unlike polytheism. He is consistent, He does not contradict Himself, as Allah does.
So, granting that there is a deity, how do you know that it is YHWH?
God can dispense justice because He is God. Man, however cannot be just. Hence the reason why murder is a sin is because murder comes out of uncontrolled anger and revenge. Jesus explains this in Matthew 5.
The concept of hell mentioned in the New Testament is in harmony with God's sense of justice in the OT. God many times tells of a day of wrath and in Daniel it is mentioned as being eternal.
I guess that's true.
Okay, so, one would argue that pulling out is a capital crime? Or homosexuality? Or adultery? Or holding a different religious belief? Or that slavery should be condoned?
he said thou shalt not kill. thats a one way command.
Not my justice, God's. God said not to kill, then goes forth and kills countless
if they assume the messiah has not come, where does it say, in Judaism, that they are currently all damned? Judaism doesn't really talk much about the afterlife at all.
passover is a celebration of liberation. Yom Kipur is the day for atonement of sins.
That may be according to your justice, but God is not beholden to your idea of justice. Why? Because He is Holy and you are not.
Atonement for sin is found throughout the Old Testament. The Jews had several sacrifices for different things, but the Passover was the most important because it was to forgive their sin for that year.
Is God then cruel for taking away their way to salvation? Or did the Messiah already come to do that job as Isaiah 53 says?
I go to the Book of Hebrews which ties it all together. The Old Testament is a good source as well.
When the crime was non-obedience, yes. Like when Onan pulled out and 'spilled his seed,' God killed him. That was unarguably murder
that is false. sin is not a prominent feature of judaism and it is attoned for without sacrifice on a specific holy day set aside for it via deeds. the sacrifice need not be blood, although it often involved it in addition to grains etc due to gods inexplicable preference for it.
the reason jews do not do it is not a lack of desire but a lack of location. the temple is where the sacrifice happened, as close to god as possible, and until that longed for temple is rebuilt, in the exact spot it once stood, there is nowhere to sacrifice.
its not like we care about killing animals for this to be a big modern morals deal... wherever you got your information is grossly false.
I never said the New Testament did not require a blood sacrifice.
No, He gave justice. Is a judge a murderer for sentencing people to death for crimes?
Yes, but you said that the new testament didnt require a blood sacrifice when it does
Exactly, Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of Him paying the ultimate sacrifice.
He literally committed genocide, mass murder, and countless homicides
God never murdered.
The Mormons and Muslims say Jesus was not God. Mormons have many practices that go against Scripture. Also Mormons believe in many gods. They are also very illogical many times.
The new testament also requires blood sacrifice. Jesus was the blood sacrifice. But, because "Jesus is eternal," his sacrifice is eternal, but that doesnt mean that he wasn't a blood sacrifice
Was it okay for God to murder?
It is immoral to murder.
The Old Testament requires a blood sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin. They were to do this once a year. They have not done this since the AD 70. Instead they have substituted a works salvation instead of a salvation through sacrifice.
ba'hai: I know that it has many logical inconsistencies. I do not have that information now, but when I do I will create a debate about it.
i hope you dont think im leading you. i plan on comparing those contradictions to possible contradictions between the old and new.
also how are jews not practicing old testament judaism?
how do they contradict christianity?
The difference between Muslims and Mormons vs. Christianity is that Muslims and Mormons contradict the Old and New Testament. Christianity does not contradict the Old Testament. Also, since Jesus is the Messiah, as the Old Testament prophecies, then Christianity is the follow up of the Old Testament. The Jews today do not practice Old Testament Judaism.
Okay, so is it immoral to murder/kill?
and also what all the christian offshoot cults with their reborn messiahs and prophets. perhaps one of them is right, perhaps several. but it doesnt make it convincing.
thats the same thing muslims and mormons say...
as a counter argument, i will say that within the context of a good god, i would say the b'hai faith is the truth. im sure you never heard of them but it is essentially the 4th version of the abraham god after islam (mormons are still ignored tho)
i do love their explanation for the many faiths and contradictory message. it doesnt involve an imperfect or devious god, just a goal oriented one. different people, at different stages, required a different message via a different messenger. magnificent (imo).
Nemiroff, I will have to say you are wrong about Christianity being a cult of Judaism. Christianity is the extension of Judaism. In other words the rest of the story.
Well, I guess I would be a fundamentalist, so yeah, us as well.
then you cant limit the context to just christianity.
what is the difference between cult and religion? pre 20th century the distinction was quite simple and not negative. age. a young religion is a cult, an old cult is a religion.
early christianity, when it was a charmisatic individual and a small group of followers was a judaism offshoot cult. christianity was technically the same thing as mormonism: judaism with an extra book out of nowhere.
A literal reading of the bible. Little to no nuance or metaphor unless specifically designated like a parable or something. Young earth, no evolution, world flood, etc.
What do you mean by fundamentalism?
Of course, Christianity is absolute truth.
the debate is christianity is truth. i would assume you mean absolute truth in context of everything. obviously christianity is truth within the context of christianity. thats not a point worth making.
There are many denominations that are Bible based.
Name a denomination
Okay, so what form of christianity do you claim to be true?
Okay, but you recognize that a cult can be near anything? There are Christian cults, but being related to Christianity is not a prerequisite of being a cult
I am talking about cults in the context of Christianity since that is the point of my debate.
so if some crazy man in india starts talking claiming to be a hindu god, and gets a following that does crazy stuff contradictory to hinduism.... thats not a cult?
what if it isnt related to an existing religion, instead is completely new and made up, but still involves a crazy guy getting a following that does crazy stuff due to spirituality numbo jumbo, or alien worship of something.
And, how did you come to this definition? Because claiming Christianity has never been part of the definition previously
I have not heard of Heaven Gate's? Other pagan religions are not cults if they do not claim to be Christian.
What about the Heaven's Gate Cult? Or the cults of various pagan gods?
so if they don't claim to be Christian they are not a cult?
A cult is a religious institution that claims to be Christian, but their belief goes against the Bible.
but hinduism is a religion, or do you also consider it a cult?
the question was what is the difference between a religion and a cult. you said cults put their writtings over the bible... hinduism puts its writtings over the bible. does that mean hinduism is a cult?
Hinduism is not Christian.
Jehovah Witnesses actually take out verses in the Bible that disagree with what they believe. Both Witnesses and Mormons religious books contradict what the Bible says. Not to mention that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a novel with no historical evidence.
what about other religions, like hinduism. what makes it a religion vs a cult?
Actually, Jehovah's Witnesses stick very firmly to the bible before all else and so do mormons, they just believe that they have a few more biblical books. Both, however, are fundamentalists. The only difference is that you don't believe in their translation/extra books.
Because cults put their writings over the Bible.
what is the difference between a cult and a religion?
do mormons and witnesses think your sect is a cult?
i don't know what that includes.
why are mormons and witnesses cults and not biblical?
Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are considered cults.
which christianity is it? catholic? orthodoxm? mormon? jehovahs witnesses? lutherans? Episcopalians?
i recently got a pamphlet from some denomination claiming that mormons and catholics were not Christians and the watchtower was the trap of satan. it doesnt seem that even most christians will agree on what christian is!
and how could you possibly prove that claim without using circular reasoning?