The Instigator
Solomon_Grim
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
ScotiePhantom
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Christianity is the true world-view

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/29/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 623 times Debate No: 39653
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Solomon_Grim

Pro

First off, this debate is open to anyone. First round is for acceptance.

Now, I will give the basis of my debate. For a religion to be right, it has to hit on four main points: origin, meaning, moral, and destiny. To elaborate, I will explain each of the four points.

Origin- does the origin story of the religion logical and feasible. Also, is the origin of the actual religion logical and historical (this will be the main point).

Meaning- is the lessons in the religion logical. Also, is what the religion teaches works well with other lessons in said religion.

Moral- are the morals offered in the religion logical and feasible. Does it give a clear set of morals to follow, which don't contradict each other.

Destiny- does the religion's destiny make sense in its own terms.
ScotiePhantom

Con

Christianity started as a cult, only a select group of Hebrews believed Jesus was the Savior, and then Jesus and his followers got more people to join in by dying at a cross
Debate Round No. 1
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Solomon_Grim forfeited this round.
ScotiePhantom

Con

ScotiePhantom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Solomon_Grim forfeited this round.
ScotiePhantom

Con

ScotiePhantom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Solomon_Grim

Pro

My internet failed for the last few days. If my opponent wants to start a new debate of the same kind, just tell me.
ScotiePhantom

Con

ScotiePhantom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Solomon_Grim

Pro

Solomon_Grim forfeited this round.
ScotiePhantom

Con

ScotiePhantom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
I'll see if I can take a look at it, thanks.
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
I'll take a look at them, see what material the authors used as their sources for their defense regarding Jesus being a historical figure. I'm sure you've visited my page, if not, I have a book I did in fact read, which I encourage anyone to read, it's entitled "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man" by Robert M Price. He presents a very good defense to the counter act the story of Jesus by basically showing that Jesus story isn't something new, it's as old as time itself, stories of "supermen" "saviors" "demigods".
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
@SimpleObserverofThings: I have one thing you may find interesting, or you may not find it interesting. I really don't know you so I can't tell, but there are a couple of books called "Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament" and "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" both by F.F. Bruce. Obviously it's your choice whether to look him up or not, but I just figured I'd throw them out there in case you wanted to know.
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
Ok do you have the link to the Wikipedia that you quoted from? I would like to review the sources used, can't always depend on just reading Wikipedia seeing that it's an open based site for anyone to freely edit the pages, even posting false or misleading information.

There are historians that I will say are dependable but even with them we have to be aware of what they write because sometime they can easily mix legend with actual history, like in the case of Josephus speaking about Hercules as if being an actual historical person.

I don't know much about Edwin Yamauchi, I'll read up on him to see the information in order to determine if they are in fact valid.

I will say this much regarding historical figures, even if they are true, just for the sake of the argument, this doesn't validate in any way the supposed miracles that Jesus was said to have done. His resurrection can't be confirmed either, even if you go with William Craig's argument saying that the tomb is empty, which in reality doesn't prove not a single thing regarding the resurrection being truthful. With this same line of logic, if you agree with Jesus being of a supernatural origin because he is mentioned by ancient historians, then at the same time we can agree that the miracles that the demigod Hercules, were also valid. (i.e. killing giant spider, killing giant snake, and a three headed dog etc.)
Posted by dlee878 3 years ago
dlee878
In Edwin Yamauchi's report to Nero he blamed Jesus and Christians and even made reference to his death by Pontius Pilat blaming them for a fire in Rome in 64 A.D. He even references his death on the cross. His disciples were tortured and ostracized because of their beliefs and yet they still clung to a person who never existed? Why would they do that?
Below is a quote from wikipedia:

Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[1][2][not in citation given][3][4] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[5] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[6][7][8] Biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[9][10][11] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 4 BC, in the closing stages of the reign of King Herod and died 30"36 AD,[12][13][14] that he lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere,[15][16][17] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek.

Did Cleopatra really exist?
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
On what evidence, besides the bible is there that claims him to be a actual person? Eye witness account, not here say? Because unlike the Holocaust, we have not only historical record of the event, we have pictures, and videos of the massacre, the same goes for the moon landing. Is there the same evidence for Jesus? Would like to get an honest response with reputable sources and not using the bible...
Posted by dlee878 3 years ago
dlee878
Yes, he was fictional. And we never landed on the moon and the holocaust didn't happen.
Posted by TheOncomingStorm 3 years ago
TheOncomingStorm
This looks like it's going to be an interesting debate.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Well, that"s f he was a true historical character and that true historical character actually died on the cross. There is speculation that Jesus was just a fictional story in the same lines as Horus.
Posted by dlee878 3 years ago
dlee878
Think about it. Who would die on a cross for a lie? If someone claimed to be God and didn't really mean it and were just trying to get other people to follow them don't you think at the last minute they would say, "Just kidding". After being flogged and beaten and facing the cross I'm sure they would have recanted if they did not believe it to be true.
No votes have been placed for this debate.