The debate "Christians we aren't doing our jobs right if at all for the most part" was started by
December 31, 2016, 1:54 am.
20 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 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.
neveralone posted 36 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 9 arguments, RogueAmerican posted 14 arguments, PoliticsAsUsual posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
neveralone, redeemed, emshanley, human and 16 visitors agree.
historybuff, RogueAmerican, shuhel_2005, dapollman and 17 visitors disagree.
the history in official history books.
What history is verified?
I think it could be if the school wants it to be.let the schools choose and see.
a bunch of unverified history. we have much more comprehensive history books not embellished with supernatural superstition.
you should teach the religions of the world in the same class. at the least you teach the 3 Abrahamic faiths together as they have a shared history. a dedicated Christian class is for a relevant degree program in college or not in public schools, sorry.
a study of one of two things. the study of the Christian movement. or the history in the bible.
college maybe high school. look at what can be taught.maybe the biggest here and then the smallest.
well the Bible is a big book with a bunch of history and I would definitely put it in a high school grade at the lowest.
what exactly do you think a cultural study of Christianity would be? I can tell you it would not be bible study.
what grade are these kids you are talking about that you want to give them the choice of what they learn? college? what other grade school subjects do we let kids choose to learn?
and you want to devote an entire class to a single religion in grade school? I mean you have college classes that cover just a single war, but that kind of detail is too much for kids. how many dates and names do you expect 9 year olds to memorize?! even high school history classes cover an entire continent over thousands of years per year.
have religion classes by themselves. where if a kid wants to learn about Christianity he can. or if he wants to learn about Buddhism he can.
each religion gets its own class?
or are you referring to creation vs science?
please be less ambiguous.
I would say give them each their own class
yes it is, but similarly to my point that most pro creation in school want it taught in science equal to actual science, these same people don't want to teach world religion, they want to teach THEIR religion. and that I cannot agree with.
world culture is definitely interesting.
I think your point of teaching religion in a religion class and not equating it as fact is admirable, however the people that push creation in schools (I shall assume people you follow/agree with/support politically) are trying to teach it as an evolution alternative on equal footing, and in a science class.
your point is in line with the majority of liberals who have no problem learning about world cultures as long as it's not taught as fact and teaches about other cultures as well. it is a fascinating topic.
wether u like or not I consider u a brother.haha
Fair enough. I appreciate the sentiment.
I don't have all the answers. I have some and I'm constantly searching and learning more. I guess I'm diff. in that way. I also am not offended u don't believe. I wish u did and u pray for u and talk about it with u (as i do with all the debtors.) and I hope.
I have to know that a road exists. Lots of religions have claimed to have all the answers. Unless you can explain why yours is different, it would be a start.
that's if I give no option. can u not spread word? is atheism only confined in ur house? if they don't want Jesus that is their choice if they do then I'm overjoyed. also if it is only confined in a building how do u expect anyone to know about it?
but you didn't say that your attempts to convert people was only if they called you. if someone walks into a church and says they want to hear about Jesus that's fine. but if you go out and try to actively convert people, that is the opposite of accepting them. that is trying to change them to be like you.
I think u misunderstanding. if they do not want to know Jesus I'm not going to stop them I will only say if they need me then call me and then I will add them to my list of prayers.
I would say it belongs in a religious class not mythology. also I wouldn't ever tell somone it's fact. only that it's an option. I do not close doors until I know they lead nowhere.
I'm not sure you know what accepting means. you say we should accept everyone, but you should proselytize to try to convert everyone. that is the exact opposite of accepting.
that would be interesting. I would hope that instead of acting like children we will be able to sit down and talk about it. or by proving there is a God that we probably went into heaven which then all bets are off. God is something diff. than man so I cannot say what he will do.
if it is a religion class and is taught as mythology then I have no issue with people learning it. but portraying it as fact or putting it on the same level as evolution is rediculous.
it would be interesting to see some big pursuit of this though. good or bad.
actually my proof is my every day life. every day people cast hate at me and every day we are weakening. look at America let's say during WWII. Christians were here and it was fine to say u were of any religion.(idk about atheist though I hope u were accepted). now look at today's society. there is much less active Christians. we stay in our house and churches. how are we supposed to help people like that? I'm not saying it's atheist fault. quite the contrary. we have become passive Christians. now before somone twists my words I'm talking about helping people and asking if they want to know God. also to lead by example. I would offer it to all religions. unlike Pandora I a) don't have a tricking God and B) have multiple religions. are we not America? are we not supposed to be the country that accepts all?
if the class is Norse mythology then yeah. I didn't mean it had to be taught in a science class. I was defending the idea of it being taught at all.
even if you somehow prove a divine creator exists you will still have to prove that it is your divine creator and not Ganesh or something else. and if you do prove that it is yahweh, which of his laws are correct? is it the original Jewish laws? did jesus have the final say? or did Muhammed add another update? what about John smith?
just jesus? well is it the protestant or the Catholic version of events? and which protestant? lutheran? jesuit? etc?
you "suggest" both because of faith, not evidence. therefore once again, the God part is a maybe, not a known truth. your welcome to pursue the research, but without government grants as this is purely speculative and have, at best, minimal evidence for. I support public funding for expensive science like space travel, however detecting the divine is as far beyond our technology as detecting outside our universe, despite it sounding far more scientific. I would fund neither of the those in the near future.
you and rogueAmerican claim Christianity is under attack, yet show me one instance of government or non fringe YouTube liberals attacking the practice of religion in your churches or homes. it doesn't exist. what is being asked is to keep religion out of public schools and out of law making. what you both fail to realize is that adding your faith to the law will not put you at odds with atheists only, but also with EVERY OTHER RELIGION AND DENOMINATION THAT DISAGREES WITH YOU. very likely the Pandora's box you open will end with either another war over religion, more blood shed in your gods name, or oppression of others so that they do not resist your version of sharia law.
lol so if we said we should teach Norse mythology in science class you would fully support that? I mean you don't have to have any evidence to think it should be taught in schools.
so pretty much u have to see the road before u take the step?
If anyone shows me evidence of that I will believe it, but so far I have only seen proof of the second half.
true but I would suggest both. we being put here by God and we are like an ever evolving perfect pic.
If you singlehandedly have sufficient evidence to discredit evolution and support creation, your name would replace Darwin's in textbooks. You are right that it would likely eventually fade, but we will remember Einstein, Darwin, Gallileo, and Newton for many years for their contribution to science. If the evidence could conclusively prove creationism, that is groundbreaking and would certainly put you in their company.
I agree with ur first and third but halfway with ur second. for quite some time I agree with u but eventually people will begin to forget like they always do or the evidence of his name destroyed.time is a powerful force.
thank u for at least that. it would be hard to change the people's ideas though. as history buff and history will show people are slow to change
u don't need to dumb it down and I can agree on that point.
that's not what I meant by slander.think about it like ur the flat earth people and I'm the round earth. u present ur evidence which is as far as u can see the earth is flat. now right then there wasn't evidence. ironically the Bible halfway States it is but would u say that the earth being round should be given up because there was no evidence?
I would absolutely show it. First because science should always be the pursuit of the truth. Second because your name would go in history and science texts forevermore. Finally because there would be no end to grants for future research from people like Ken Ham. While some scientists might balk as they would be concerned their peers might not believe their results, once they had thoroughly checked to make sure they were right most would likely publish their findings.
he would show it!!!
if the evidence holds up he would start a revolution and be immortalized in history books. he would flip the entire world view.
as someone who has looked at some of the evidence creationists currently present, I doubt that scenario is very likely.
therefore, only one can be declared as true.
religion is not false, but a maybe doesn't = true.
God started evolution: maybe.
what we find with science is true. it may be incomplete, but it is 100% true. religion is never declared false by most atheists. but at best it MAY be true. it has 0 evidence, and is based entirely on faith. it's a MAYBE.
science is what we have seen, tested, and verified. and seen doesn't mean vision, I'm just dumbing down detected/measured.
but evolution has vast amounts of evidence supporting it, creationism has none. so saying that evolution is true and creationism is not is a statement that is supported by all the evidence. how does pointing this out constitute slander?
I'm not saying they have to teach it. I'm saying don't just show one to be true and slander all other.(the world not u)
People have been looking for proof of creation for thousands of years and have yet to find any. People have been looking substantially longer if you take into account that older religions each had a creation myth.
The problem with presenting them on equal footing is that a scientific theory makes testable predictions. If these predictions are demonstrated to be true, we consider it more valid. If they are shown to be inaccurate, we discard or amend the theory. Creationism has been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate and rather than change it, believers cling to it. There was no world ending flood. That has been conclusively shown through multiple lines of evidence from genetics to geology to the distribution of species. If creationists abandon that story in light of this evidence, their idea of creation becomes more likely. The problem is that would be against religious dogma, and therefore not possible. That is why it is not a valid theory that should be presented in a science class.
also as a side note to all atheist. let's say u r an scientist and u found a ton of evidence that supports creationism. would u show it to the world? or hide it?
if that faith doesn't permit it then it does.
evolution didn't have much fact to start with either it was there but not found. does that mean we should of gave up on it then to
I don't think anyone should force a priest to marry people against their will. but gay people have every right to get married. your religious beliefs don't even enter into it.
creationism is not a scientific theory. in order to classify as such you need considerable evidence supporting it. evolution has this, creationism does not. if there is no evidence then it absolutely should not be taught in a science class.
murder was just the first thing that came to mind.
"no more preventing gay marriage" I'm more about it being under God's eyes. if u want to marry somone outside the Christian religion that's fine. but it can't be done in ours. it's simply agaisnt God."no more trying to teach creationism as science" why not give that out as a theory like u do with evolution? sure it's not the biggest theory but u could at least show other options."no more religious protection of pedophiles wearing robes." haven't heard anything on this but I wouldn't support them.
The point though I do not believe is a formal excommunication.
I disagree with those actions immensely. But as you said before, it is guaranteed that some will sucomb to sinning. Its an inevitability, and is tragic to see in a Bishop.
Also the Germany thing; I do not agree with the tax; however, I believe German law requires it for every denomination. It isnt an exclusive Catholic tax, but a government entity. The problem is that if you opt out of the tax, you would have to leave the Church. That I believe is where your excommunication point comes from. Us from the United States and North America frankly obviously has an aversion to religious tax. That was one of the major reasons for coming here, but Germany isna different society.
There are 1.2 billion Catholics in the world.
Nobody claims that Catholics are the superior man. The premise of the Church is possible redemption for inherent sinners. Its a moral philosophy directed at resisting wrongdoings. Nowhere is there a guarantee for infallible members.
I would like to address your point on expertise. I guarantee they know more than me on the subject; however, it is not that their expertise is influencing their implications. For abortion, the identical research on human development could create a perfectly logical conclusion to consider life begins at conception. Another perfectly logical conclusion could be after such and such time and development. Neither one of those ideas may be conclusively guaranteed.
Without the glib Trump shot, the vast majority of Christianity is no different than any other group. Mainly decent people trying to get through the day, support their families and live a good life. The religious leaders of the world, and the Catholic Church more than any others, sit on immense wealth and pay no taxes back into the system. The try to operate above the law and protect their own at the expense of society. They sit on billions of dollars and claim to be working to the betterment of the world.
As to their expertise being as strong as yours, that is incorrect. They spend years studying the subject. You spend a few minutes doing a Google search to validate your beliefs. You cannot in one argument admit that you know you are not an expert and in the next claim to be as authoritative. There is no shame in not being an expert since no one is on every subject, but you don't get to claim that the experts have no qualifications unless you have something beyond your religious bias to back that statement.
No, that is not all I have to say of Christians. I'm sure there are some who are decent people. Unfortunately, decent people rarely rise to power since those who are greedy tend to fight harder for it.
Bypassing the renovation itself, which the bishop was suspended for, the article does detail how not paying the church tax in Germany essentially results in excommunication. You can opt out of the government tax that goes to the church, but if you do so you cannot work in a church or "church-related entity" like a hospital. Why does the Catholic Church need to be funded by tax dollars?
A degree doesnt give the expertise to determine when life begins. To describe the development in full detail, but their qualifications for determining life are as strong as mine.
I dont claim to be an expert...
All you have to say of Christianity is its a bunch of naive, greedy, pedophiles.
Good rebuttal. It added a great deal to the debate.
I don't have contempt for Christians, I do have contempt for those who would use their beliefs for justification to oppress someone else. Until you can justify why your beliefs mean someone else shouldn't be able to get married, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to stop them. I'm not seeing a Jewish movement to ban eating pork because it is against their religion, but if that were to happen would you stand with them?
My problem with religion is that it is a bunch of powerful men doing what powerful men always do, whatever they want. The Catholic Church is sitting on am immeasurable fortune, has countless works of art and could do immense good in the world. Instead they continue to do very little while asking parishioners to give generously. They hide and shelter pedophiles to protect the church's "good name". They fight against anyone who disagrees with them, no matter if they are right. The church arrested people for claiming that the earth orbits the sun. It took many years for them to apologize, meaning those whose lives they ruined were long dead. They are currently fighting a similar losing battle against evolution. They are also fighting to supress gay rights.
Also, you are not disqualified from fighting for being Christian. You are disqualified because you are not actually qualified on the subject. You are not a doctor, to know the medical aspects of the issue. You are not a lawyer, to know the legal aspects of the issue. You are one religious person who thinks you know better than everyone who is qualified on the subject. Go through medical school or law school and your opinion will have some weight. At the moment, why should your opinion have more weight than absolutely anyone else's? You are spouting your beliefs like an expert, but you have no expertise.
My goodness your contempt is seething!
Equating religion to murder may not further your position.
Murder is taking someone's life. Your religion doesn't hurt anyone unless you start trying to take away their rights. Coincidentally, that is when people start having problems with your religion. So actually that's a pretty apt analogy. You can think about whatever you want, but as soon as you start taking from others and hurting them, you should be stopped. So no more preventing gay marriage, no more trying to teach creationism as science and no more religious protection of pedophiles wearing robes. Once Christians stop using their religion as justification for hurting others and their rights, it will be hard to find people who dislike them.
well there's rogues point and also these are our beliefs. for example u believe murder is wrong. people murder. by ur same logic u r forcing ur ideas on those people. we are doing what we believe is right. just like everyone else.
So i am disqualified from saving the unborn because im Christian?
Christians try to force their views on others all the time. banning abortion for instance. or trying to ban gay marriage.
I'm not saying all Christians feel the need to force their views on people but many do. the Christians on this app seem to.
ur idea sounds much like containment. we tried that with communism. it didn't work. so we are not supposed to talk about our beliefs or lack thereof? this is our way. tell people about Jesus nd let them choose. noone is at gunpoint. there is no forced conversion. simply us letting others know God and trying to answer any of their questions.
And why must I keep my views to myself after you have been so eager to propagate yours?
i have no problem with Christians, just as long as you keep your views to yourself. the moment you try to force your views on another person or restrict another person's rights because of your beliefs then we have a serious problem.
"stopped the religious intolerance" this can be said about both sides. I know atheist that cant tolerate Christians and vise versa. but we have a God telling us No.
if that's true then u would also have to have a problem with atheism.
I think u have ur own morals individually. just like every human. i don't exactly understand why u would "attack"(cant find a better word) religion because of those reasons.
So your qualm against Christianity ia it cannot cure fallibility of man?
Nice words, but they haven't stopped the religious intolerance, violence, pedophilia and assorted crimes and atrocious throughout history and continuing today.
In his defence, look at North America. Our society shuts down in deference to Christianity. Businesses close or have reduced hours Sunday, the entire nation shutting down for Christmas, and there are many other examples of Christianity simply being a given in our lives.
Also, people have constantly said things like that about atheists. Morals come from God, so atheists have none. Atheists hate God. There have been many topics and arguments attacking the character of atheists and skeptics.
I wasn't meaning to attack his character. I didn't mean it like that. he simply has a very shall we say aggressive idea on Christians. in multiple debates he has called us hateful, controlling and has said we "shove" our beliefs down people's throats. I have debated with him on this and keep thinking it will change but it still hasn't. it is like if I kept saying atheist are hateful people. then u show how they have contributed to the world and I still say their hateful people
apologies for the insulting tone.
No i misspoke. He opposes moral philosophy my apologies.
Do you have any historical record of the church being about unconditional love beyond its founding story? How does it make it better that Jesus wanted the church to be loving and Christians gave twisted and tainted that?
I'm trying to follow your argument but the best I cam tell you are equating your inability to dictate other people's lives to condoning murder. That seems like an extreme and stupid line if argument, so perhaps I misunderstood.
Christ established the Church. Was that not unconditional love.
Do you mind murder if it takes place in one's home?
he's simply citing history. that is not a like or hate scenario. unless your going to disagree on the events that actually happened, he's right.
you can't dismiss actual events by attacking the messenger and his character. that is super weak.
we live in a pluralistic sociaty. you avoid my point every time. if you lived in a muslim, jewish, or Hindu majority country, would you like for them to make their religious values the law of the land?
with the exception of the most extreme forms of communism, secular societies don't give a shit what you do in your house, which God you pray to, or the values you hold for your own life. atheism is not attacking Christianity or any other religion. your faith is your own, but keep it out of the enforcement sector.
if you want to see this simple request as an attack on religion then so be it, but you are just being delusional. your best example is the cake maker being forced to do his very mundane job for a client. what next? will the Baker request medical records to make sure the bride is a virgin too?!
ok we get it u hate Christianity and u want to let everyone know but u r wrong. we are not "shoving" our beliefs down ur throat. we are offering another path. a choice.
To blot out Christianity. To impose upon its very essence.
can you please rephrase that? no idea what that sentence means.
is it an atheists "job" to return the favor? what favor? there was non mentioned that I saw.
Is it an atheist's to return the favor?
so you think it is a Christians job to try to force their religious beliefs on people? and to somehow love unconditionally while cruelly shove their views down their throats.
Christianity had never, in its entire history, been about loving unconditionally. so while Christianity had evolved from its evil, barbaric past, it was never actually following the teachings of Christ.
we are told many things to do. it is a lot. but one is to stand for our beliefs, love unconditionally, help people find God, and overall follow God's plan. God's plan most likely enveloping all other requirements.
we don't do this any more. instead we go to church on Sunday, then go home say our daily prayer and sleep. this is what I have seen. it's sad. for one how do u expect to have a relationship with somone by talking to them shortly over ur problems once a day? there are many wrongs that are happening in the church. like judgment. I've seen churches push put any one who was not exactly like them or not "sin free". this is wrong in many ways.
could you be a bit more specific. what exactly do you think the job of Christians is?
at no point in history did masses do anything but feed their families and take care of themselves. this is not a modern phenomena.
I hope somone can prove me wrong. I really do. I wish I wasn't right.
look at the world. does it seem to carry any of our influence? look in ur town. are u seeing Christians on fire accepting all or are u seeing a destructive grapevine? when did we just say our prayers at night and tell people we are Christian? please remember God does not want lukewarm Christians. that he will spit us out. call on the holy spirit to give the passion back.