The Instigator
itsnottoolate
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
darthebearnc
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Christians know of God's truths, while Jews, and muslims are still in the dark

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 3 votes the winner is...
darthebearnc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 487 times Debate No: 67549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

itsnottoolate

Pro

Christians have accepted God in the flesh as Jesus the Christ, who came to save the world from sin. Jews refuse to accept Jesus for who He is because they fear the truth, because that would mean that they killed the messiah. Muslims have a distorted view of who Jesus is, because they are following a false prophet.
Christians definitely have separated into different "religions" because they interpret scriptures differently, but for the most part, they believe all the same facts. Jews have their own covenant with God, so I believe they will be saved regardless of their views about Jesus. Muslims will not be saved because they think believing that Jesus is real is enough, but since they don't believe the truth about who He is, it doesn't count.
All three of these "religions" believe they are descendants of Abraham, and that is true, but the islamic religion has "stolen" many other truths from the Holy Bible and changed them into false stories. Christians and Jews are descendants of Issac through Abraham, which is the bloodline of Jesus. Muslims are descendants of Ishmael through Abraham which is the bloodline of Muhammed (supposedly). But God would not put Ishmael's bloodline over Issac's. He would not put Hagar's bloodline over Sarah's. But since Muslims are not allowed to read the Holy Bible, they can't figure that out for themselves. They are too deep into their culture, which consists mostly of their religious beliefs. The only good thing I can say about Muslims, is that I wish our culture was mostly our religious beliefs. Christians have allowed modern ideas, and government, and media to separate them from God. But, there are still enough of us Christians to hold strong in the light, and continue to try to pull others from the dark.
darthebearnc

Con

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for this challenge and wish him or her the best of luck in the upcoming debate! :D

1. Rebuttals - In Pro's first argument, my opponent makes a variety of claims for which there is no supporting evidence. I will now attempt an analysis of my opponent's argument and explain why it fails to support his or her initial claim:
In the beginning of my opponent's first argument, he or she states that Christianity is the only religion to have accepted Jesus as the messiah (Christ). While this could be true, my opponent has provided no scientific, observable, logical, reasonable, or otherwise supportable/falsifiable evidence that Jesus is in fact the messiah, and fails to assert that "Christians know of God's truths" while Jews and Muslims do not. My opponent then goes on to explain the various beliefs of Jews and Muslims regarding their faith in God/Jesus, and provides a series of unsupportable claims surrounding who will supposedly be 'saved'. My opponent continues in his or her argument while providing not a shred of evidence to back her initial statement, trying to explain the alleged falsehoods of Muslims and Jews only through a Biblical and Christian perspective. My opponent fails to provide any logical or supportable evidence that Christianity is more reliable than Judaism/Islam, and refuses to create an explanation that could be seen as even possibly reasonable by those who do not adhere to the exact same interpretation of religion (my opponent's claims could only be seen as valid by other Christians, as they lack universally-supported evidence that could be understood and comprehended by non-Christians). For these reasons, I, respectfully, do not believe that my opponent was able to support his or her initial claim in his or her first round of arguments.

2. Now that I have explained why I believe my opponent has yet to succeed in providing a reasonable argument for his or her contention, I will proceed to provide two evidences against the claim that "Christians know of God's Truth".
a. Biblical Contradictions - My opponent, claiming that Christians are fully enlightened regarding the word of God, must be able to show that Christianity can validate the following contradictions found in the Old and New Testaments (all information above was taken from tinyurl.com/ln29oad):
- Joseph's father is both Jacob and Heli (MAT 1:16 and LUK 3:23).
- The Son (Jesus) is both equal to and lesser than the Father (God) (JOH 10:30 and JOH 14:28).
- The righteous both live and perish (PSA 92:12 and ISA 57:1).
- Jesus's first sermon was on a mountain and in a plain (MAT 5:1 and LUK 6:17).
- Judas died both through self-inflicted hanging and through explosion/bowel-gushing (MAT 27:5 and ACT 1:18).
- Michal had both zero and five sons (2SA 6:23 and 2SA 21:8).
- Baasha died both in the 26th and 36th years of the reign of Asa (1KI 16:6-8 and 2CH 16:1)
- Jesus wore a scarlet robe and a purple robe at his trial (MAT 27:28 and JOH 19:2).
- Jesus had three different sets of last words (MAT 27:46,50 and LUK 23:46 and JOH 19:30).
- There were three years and seven years of famine (II SAMUEL 24:13 and I CHRONICLES 21:11).
b. Contradictions between the Bible and Scientific Evidence - If my opponent's claim were true, Christians would be able to explain how the word of God can validate the following contradictions between the Bible and mainstream scientific evidence:
- In Genesis Chapters 1-3, it is explained that God himself created the universe and everything within it - Biblical scholars believe that God supposedly did so around 6,000 years ago. However, scientific evidence strongly refutes the idea that the universe is only 6,000 years old. Mainstream science has collected evidence for the age of the earth using two main methods. The first of which, calculating the age of the oldest known stars, helps to estimate the universe's age using the logical principle that nothing inside the universe is older than the universe itself (therefore, the universe must be at least as old as its oldest contents). To find the age of the universe's oldest contents, scientists have researched globular clusters, or large, dense groups of stars that all formed at around the same time. Scientists have calculated the age of these stars using ample evidence that mass (measured through brightness, orbit size, and distance from Earth) determines a star's life span. Due to this evidence, science has calculated that the age of the oldest stars is between 11 and 18 billion years old - much too long for any reasonable literal interpretation of the Bible to be true. The second method scientists use to measure the universe's age is to calculate the earth's expansion rate and use it to determine when the universe first started expanding. This is done using the Hubble Constant, a measurement that determines the universe's expansion rate. Using the Hubble Constant, science can determine that the universe is between 12 and 14 billion years old - using this method combined with the star aging method, science can safely determine that the age of the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. This age is much to old for any reasonable literal Bible interpretation to be true, and shows that the Bible, as would be expected, is fallacious (tinyurl.com/ko53le).
- In Genesis 3:1, a serpent talks to Eve. There is no scientific evidence that serpents can, or ever have, been able to communicate in any form of human language.
- In Genesis 5:5, it is reported that Adam lived to 930 years old. There is no scientific evidence that any human can or has ever been able to live to such an age. In the late Neolithic period, when Adam was said to have been born, the average life span was 33.1 years for a male. This makes Adam's reported 930 year life span immensely incredible (tinyurl.com/2u3xhs).
- In Genesis Chapters 6-9, it is alleged that a global flood occurred during the lifetime of Noah and his counterparts. Currently, there is absolutely no scientific or logical evidence whatsoever that a global flood possibly could have or did occur in the past 6,000 years. If such a flood did occur, there would be ample scientific evidence showing the effects of such a large and recent flood. Proposing without a shred of evidence that a flood of such size and manner did occur is simply preposterous.
- In Leviticus 11:6, a rabbit is said to chew cud. However, all scientific evidence says that a rabbit does not chew cud.

3. As I have refuted the first part of my opponent's contention (Christians know of God's truths) by providing evidence against the validity of Christianity, I will now proceed to provide one short argument for why Judaism is more likely (not less likely) to be true than Christianity.
a. Occam's Razor - This principle, widely regarded to be valid by the logistic and scientific communities, is the theory that among competing hypotheses, the one with fewer assumptions is more likely to be true. In the religion of Judaism, the main and only widely-revered sacred text is the Old Testament. However, the religion of Christianity supports the truth of the New Testament in addition to the Old Testament. As both the Old and New Testaments are full of unproven assumptions and contradictions (See Point #2), the principle of Occam's Razor would say that Judaism is more likely to be true than Christianity due to the lower amount of assumptions. Occam's Razor shows that, contrary to my opponent's contention, Judaism has the upper hand over Christianity in knowing 'God's truths' (all information gathered from tinyurl.com/dxmph).

4. Conclusion - I believe that I have successfully refuted my opponent's arguments by providing evidence that Christianity is logically and scientifically invalid, as well as evidence that Judaism is more likely to be true than Christianity. Once more, I thank my opponent for creating this challenge, and wish him or her the best of luck in this debate. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 1
itsnottoolate

Pro

itsnottoolate forfeited this round.
darthebearnc

Con

My argument is extended.
Debate Round No. 2
itsnottoolate

Pro

itsnottoolate forfeited this round.
darthebearnc

Con

Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by TRUE-ISRAELITE 2 years ago
TRUE-ISRAELITE
It is pure ignorance to doubt that YAHUAH does exist!
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
It is pure arrogance to assume to know who god is and what god is.
Posted by TRUE-ISRAELITE 2 years ago
TRUE-ISRAELITE
Christians don't know the Bible, much less, YAHUAH (GOD)!
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
What is this debate even about?
Is it about whether what you said is true?
Cause if it is I will accept.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
"Christians and Jews are descendants of Issac through Abraham, which is the bloodline of Jesus."
No-Christianity is a religion not an ethnicity.
Christians can be anybody- but all Jews have a specific bloodline.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
Haha,
you know Christianity came from Jewish orgins.
AND Jesus was Jewish.
Right?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Your proposition makes truth faith based it is not. Truth is a non-contradictory identification of reality.
When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it. Faith pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.
So this debate will be about opinion ( which is subjective) and not facts (which is objective).
Also using metaphors will not clarify the point you are trying to make.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
itsnottoolatedarthebearncTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's rebuttals went uncontested, hence he/she wins argument points. Conduct to Con for Pro's round forfeits.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
itsnottoolatedarthebearncTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
itsnottoolatedarthebearncTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff