Conservative/liberal Christianity is unbiblical
Debate Rounds (4)
First round acceptance
From my experience, many conservatives claim thatAmerica is a Christian nation when in reality, no sufficient evidence to be supplemented.they also claim that America is chosen by God, when it was in fact Israel who was God's chosen nation. conservative ideals support things such as anti abortion, antislavery, gun rights, anti gay marriage, and many other things. The problem is that these things are not supported by Scripture. God did not command us to engage in politics and to change our political system, but preach the gospel to every living creature. there's also a lot of emphasis on dress and music when it's not scriptural. while yes the Bible commands us to dress modestly, some take this overboard.
neither are we to be too liberal with the Bible as some Christians reject miracles, claim homosexuality is not a sin, deny Jesus resurrection, etc. to do that is to simply deny God's work in the world.
The problem is with Mormons they have prophets after Jesus. Jesus warned of all future prophets.
Prophets have the ability to speak with God from thought.
1 Joseph Smith 1830-1844
2 Brigham Young 1844-1877
3 John Taylor 1877-1887
4 Wilford Woodruff 1887-1898
5 Lorenzo Snow 1898-1901
6 Joseph F. Smith 1901-1918
7 Heber J. Grant 1918-1945
8 George Albert Smith 1945-1951
9 David O. McKay 1951-1970
10 Joseph Fielding Smith 1970-1972
11 Harold B. Lee 1972-1973
12 Spencer W. Kimball 1973-1985
13 Ezra Taft Benson 1985-1994
14 Howard W. Hunter 1994-1995
15 Gordon B. Hinckley 1995-2008
16 Thomas S. Monson 2008-Present
These are supposed men to have communication with God?
Conservatives are wrong on many things, the ideology is pure greed and Old Testament.
I am thee biggest liberal you'd ever come across. Very much I lay just under the humanitarian Liberal, but close to Authoritarian as well. Very towards the left on all issues basically.
How ever devout is a loose word today but I have great fundamentals, and amazing speaking skills, I am dyslexic so I type awful. I accept the Bible as The truth but from all different perspectives. All the four = 100% true and there so close but so different it seems as though they all saw but from different angles. Luke was a traveling muckraker and picked hue from he huge story of Jesus. After he was told he believed and thought he might write down the most amazing story in Modern human history. So his must be thee lest reliable because he never met Him, Jesus, he came much after ascended.
Mark is the most, wrote quickest, while Mark never met Jesus, Peter did. Jesus gave Peter the Keys to Heaven. And he died upside down for a Church. The catholic church truly is the true church. But was corrupted later much later after Peter.
When Romans adopted Christianity they should of done much better.
I accept all Old Testament as well. But God said Gays were an abomination. Yes, to the Jews, so not every one would choose not reproduce and not create life for the tribes. Bad = Homo.
Then with Jesus you love everyone like yourself and if you believe and learn you can enter the kingdom. Good = Homo.
Back to you!
Also people back then had believes but was represented with religion. Politicos were for the Romans and High Priests.
You I assume are a liberal or somewhat on the left side of things. I do not know if you are a hardcore Humanitarian or Authoritarian Liberal. But as long as you agree with the left and if you reside in America will vote Democrat until a better left-wing gets a hold to hopefully extricate the Elephants and Tea party people.
I wrote about a 12 page short Magazine draft of Why Donkeys are better than Elephants. It is short read for a beginner and whip some cool facts and they flip out. Fun read.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con seems to have agreed with Pro from the get-go. The Pro position seems to have a clear win here, considering nobody argued the Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.