• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why is christianity the true religion.

guns_God_glory said:
Wow shoulda seen that one comin. Much respect blogger.


Well thanks, but actually I did, my question now for those examples is when did they come to earth, get crucified, then return from the grave? Maybe they live, but then again they never died to then return to life.
 
The Bright Stuff
By Daniel C. Dennett,
Blue Hill , ME
July 12, 2003
The time has come for us brights to come out of the closet. What is a bright? A bright is a person with a naturalist as opposed to a supernaturalist world view. We brights don't believe in ghosts or elves or the Easter Bunny — or God. We disagree about many things, and hold a variety of views about morality, politics and the meaning of life, but we share a disbelief in black magic — and life after death.

The term "bright" is a recent coinage by two brights in Sacramento, Calif., who thought our social group — which has a history stretching back to the Enlightenment, if not before — could stand an image-buffing and that a fresh name might help. Don't confuse the noun with the adjective: "I'm a bright" is not a boast but a proud avowal of an inquisitive world view.

You may well be a bright. If not, you certainly deal with brights daily. That's because we are all around you: we're doctors, nurses, police officers, schoolteachers, crossing guards and men and women serving in the military. We are your sons and daughters, your brothers and sisters. Our colleges and universities teem with brights. Among scientists, we are a commanding majority. Wanting to preserve and transmit a great culture, we even teach Sunday school and Hebrew classes. Many of the nation's clergy members are closet brights, I suspect. We are, in fact, the moral backbone of the nation: brights take their civic duties seriously precisely because they don't trust God to save humanity from its follies.

As an adult white married male with financial security, I am not in the habit of considering myself a member of any minority in need of protection. If anybody is in the driver's seat, I've thought, it's people like me. But now I'm beginning to feel some heat, and although it's not uncomfortable yet, I've come to realize it's time to sound the alarm.

Whether we brights are a minority or, as I am inclined to believe, a silent majority, our deepest convictions are increasingly dismissed, belittled and condemned by those in power — by politicians who go out of their way to invoke God and to stand, self-righteously preening, on what they call "the side of the angels."

A 2002 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life suggests that 27 million Americans are atheist or agnostic or have no religious preference. That figure may well be too low, since many nonbelievers are reluctant to admit that their religious observance is more a civic or social duty than a religious one — more a matter of protective coloration than conviction.

Most brights don't play the "aggressive atheist" role. We don't want to turn every conversation into a debate about religion, and we don't want to offend our friends and neighbors, and so we maintain a diplomatic silence.

But the price is political impotence. Politicians don't think they even have to pay us lip service, and leaders who wouldn't be caught dead making religious or ethnic slurs don't hesitate to disparage the "godless" among us.

From the White House down, bright-bashing is seen as a low-risk vote-getter. And, of course, the assault isn't only rhetorical: the Bush administration has advocated changes in government rules and policies to increase the role of religious organizations in daily life, a serious subversion of the Constitution. It is time to halt this erosion and to take a stand: the United States is not a religious state, it is a secular state that tolerates all religions and — yes — all manner of nonreligious ethical beliefs as well.

I recently took part in a conference in Seattle that brought together leading scientists, artists and authors to talk candidly and informally about their lives to a group of very smart high school students. Toward the end of my allotted 15 minutes, I tried a little experiment. I came out as a bright.

Now, my identity would come as no surprise to anybody with the slightest knowledge of my work. Nevertheless, the result was electrifying.

Many students came up to me afterwards to thank me, with considerable passion, for "liberating" them. I hadn't realized how lonely and insecure these thoughtful teenagers felt. They'd never heard a respected adult say, in an entirely matter of fact way, that he didn't believe in God. I had calmly broken a taboo and shown how easy it was.

In addition, many of the later speakers, including several Nobel laureates, were inspired to say that they, too, were brights. In each case the remark drew applause. Even more gratifying were the comments of adults and students alike who sought me out afterward to tell me that, while they themselves were not brights, they supported bright rights. And that is what we want most of all: to be treated with the same respect accorded to Baptists and Hindus and Catholics, no more and no less.

If you're a bright, what can you do? First, we can be a powerful force in American political life if we simply identify ourselves. (The founding brights maintain a Web site on which you can stand up and be counted.) I appreciate, however, that while coming out of the closet was easy for an academic like me — or for my colleague Richard Dawkins, who has issued a similar call in England — in some parts of the country admitting you're a bright could lead to social calamity. So please: no "outing."

But there's no reason all Americans can't support bright rights. I am neither gay nor African-American, but nobody can use a slur against blacks or homosexuals in my hearing and get away with it. Whatever your theology, you can firmly object when you hear family or friends sneer at atheists or agnostics or other godless folk.

And you can ask your political candidates these questions: Would you vote for an otherwise qualified candidate for public office who was a bright? Would you support a nominee for the Supreme Court who was a bright? Do you think brights should be allowed to be high school teachers? Or chiefs of police?

Let's get America's candidates thinking about how to respond to a swelling chorus of brights. With any luck, we'll soon hear some squirming politician trying to get off the hot seat with the feeble comment that "some of my best friends are brights."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniel C. Dennett, a professor of philosophy at Tufts University, is author, most recently, of "Freedom Evolves.''

Reprinted with permission of the author.

Originally published in the New York Times, July 12, 2003
 
Ghost:

It is you, not I, that cried: "Give us Barabbas!"

How long do you think that Jesus would last with the likes of you? If Christ returned to earth, you would have him assassinated!
 
Nemo said:
Ghost:

It is you, not I, that cried: "Give us Barabbas!"

How long do you think that Jesus would last with the likes of you? If Christ returned to earth, you would have him assassinated!

Actually it was not people like Ghost that cried out for Barabbas. It was the Jewish people who did not believe that Christ was the messiah sent to them. The religion of Christianity is a result of Christ on earth. Those that believe he is the one true son of God are Christians. The primary thing that sets Christians apart from Jews is that the Jewish people do not believe Christ was the messiah and are still waiting for the messiah. If I read the posts of Ghost correctly he really supports no religion. It was the religious people that cried: "Give us Barabbas!"
 
". I have actually been to the red sea. And there are still chariot marks on the bottum of its depths."

Gee, that must be the purest water on earth. No wind, no waves, no silt, nothing? Or maybe its enclosed in an airtight dome to prevent sediment, huh? 2000 years should have settled a lot of crap on the bottom. Even ships lost in the civil war have been covered over with debris from the ocean. Gosh, another miricle!!
 
"How long do you think that Jesus would last with the likes of you? If Christ returned to earth, you would have him assassinated!"

That'd be dwarfed by the number of souls being currently murdered in his name. Besides, he could come to life again. No biggie.
 
Precisely. Jesus was not the Messiah (Christ died "King of the Jews"); and, for two thousand years, his name has been taken in vain.
 
Nemo said:
Precisely. Jesus was not the Messiah (Christ died "King of the Jews"); and, for two thousand years, his name has been taken in vain.

Yes, he was the messiah. Just because the Romans called him "King of the Jews" means nothing. He got that name because it was the Jews who were waiting for their messiah, once he arrived those that believe are Christians, while those who do not believe Jesus was the son of God are still Jewish waiting for their Messiah. Romans calling Jesus "King of the Jews" proves nothing.
 
Nemo said:
Ghost:

It is you, not I, that cried: "Give us Barabbas!"

How long do you think that Jesus would last with the likes of you? If Christ returned to earth, you would have him assassinated!

No sir, it is people like who said that when the Ragnarook beggins so shall your death heathen. I am a odinist, no christian sir. I am here to debate about what I believe. And I believe that christianity should be counted as a true religion I will, but dont you dare mix me in with such pessimistic religions!
You know nothing of my crys, dont act if you do.
 
I read the first page and the last 3 posts. I will have to read the other 2 pages sooner or later. But to answer the question -
Christianity has one Bible. Every prophesy in the Bible has been fulfilled or will be fulfilled (There will be "Wars and rumors of Wars" *War on Terror* "The people will cry Peace Peace, but there is no Peace" *Hello....STOP THE WAR!*)

Those were written 2000+ years ago. Someone said it earlier - Christ is the ONLY God to DIE AND RESSURECT HIMSELF.
The Quezicoatl dispute is voided - HE NEVER DIED.

As for the Peter and Judas arguement a page or so back -
A verse in one of the Gospels says "Satan prompted Judas." Judas was at least oppressed and probably possessed by a Demon when he betrayed Jesus. He also saw his wrong and was blinded by Satan. He did not relize that all he did was ensure his salvation, but since he did not see that he died and is burning in the depths of Hades.

Peter was one of the three closest friends to Jesus. Peter, James, and John.
When Peter was told he would denounce Christ three times he blurted out that he would not. Then he turned around that night and did it. He felt miserable and saw that Christ was the Christ. He "wept bitterly" in repentance.

Peter = Heaven.
Judas = Hades and later on the Abyss of Hell.

To Tanenger -
To support your "If Christ returned" statement, the Anti-Christ will come and will be killed. He will also raise to life on the third day. So you are right - we would kill Jesus.

To Nemo -
Jesus' name was not Jesus Christ. It was Jesus the Christ. Christ is Greek for Messiah. In your statement, you actually countered yourself. But not many people notice that flawed arguement. You are arguing that he died under the name "King."
Jesus was and still is Prophet, Priest, and King. He had Levitical blood (Through Mary's family.) He had Judean blood (Also in Mary's family and in Joseph's). In his birth he fulfilled 30 or more (I think it was 33 that night) alone. All of which he had no control. He could not choose to be born in Bethlehem, be called from Egypt, be referred to as a "Nazerine", be visited by Shepherds and Magi from the East.

Christ was the Messiah.

I think that was a bit long. sorry.
 
hey dude, I know the vedas were written about 4000 years ago, and they're known as the oldest religious texts known to mankind. There are tons of prophecies in that that came true. So I don't know what your arguements are tryin to say. Its all faith-based claims.
 
nkgupta80 said:
Its all faith-based claims.

Faith - a belief in an unseen thing.

For an athiest to say "There is no god" and a Buddist to say "I worship Shiva" and a Muslim to say "I worship Allah" and a Christian to say "I worship the One True God" are all types of faith. Whether or not you beleive it, you have faith. I can prove it to you. When you sat down and typed up a reply, you put faith in that your chair would sustain your weight. If you were told it could, you put faith in the simple words of another human. When you hit "Post my Reply" you had faith that the server wouldn't misword your text and make you look bad.

We all have faith - some in certain things that others don't.
I showed alot of faith in my friends when I climbed that 14 ft roof and look down a 23 ft drop of the side of the building.
Faith does not always have to be supernatural.

when you say all my claims are faith based, you are saying that you have total faith that there is no god. So there is faith and there is a very likely probablity there is a god. Why is our God real? Well... you would have to watch the dayly living of a converted druggie. It isn't and "accept him and go back" religeon. This is "accept Him, and you will be changed beyond your power" religeon. I know a few druggies that were converted... they are some of the coolest guys in the world.

hope that was clearer than when I reread it....
 
when did i EVER say there is no god. all i am saying is to say that christianity is the only true religion is to place ur faith on others. Your faith is your own. I may have faith in my friend while a stranger may have no faith in that same person. It becomes more complicated when you are dealing with something that is intangible and metaphysical. Whatever may be true to one person doesnt have to be true to another.

Anyways when i said that yhey were faith-based claims iwas pointing out that all you say about christianity is not unique to christianity itself.
 
Youth4Morals said:
Faith - a belief in an unseen thing.

when you say all my claims are faith based, you are saying that you have total faith that there is no god.
This is incorrect, at least in the way you meant it. He could have the same faith in god as you do and still say that all your claims are faith based. So, he doesn't have to have faith that there is no god to say such a thing. He may just "not know" whether there is a god, and see evidence that you really don't either.

Even when an Atheist does say there is no god, said Atheist only believes that statement provisionally. That is to say that an Atheist will evaluate arguments that contradict his/her own position, and change his/her mind. It seems to me that faith usually involves ardent resistance to changing one's mind.

You mention simple faith, such as "The sun will set today". When an atheist says that Christians base their beliefs on faith, said atheist doesn't mean that sort of faith. If you are going to re-define such practical daily beliefs as faith, then the atheist would simply qualify the type of faith that Christians have. It is "unreasonable belief without evidence".

You mention druggies conversion to clean through Jesus. You'd be surprised what you can do when you are ready, believe you can, and have the support of even imagined friends. Changes to personality are not evidence of supernatural intervention.
 
nkgupta80 said:
Anyways when i said that yhey were faith-based claims iwas pointing out that all you say about christianity is not unique to christianity itself.

Sorry, I missunderstood.

As for the "You'd be surprised by..." sentence -
Then you are saying that I could possibly "make" myself do anything within physical boundries just by simply imagining the possitive imput of imaginary friends and believing in myself?
This is where you stumble onto whitchcraft. This is "natural" but the unseen part of it is the imput of a Demon. The reason I say this is because you are relying on the unseen (Or imagined) to "assist" (Or in a subtle way - harm) you. This will make you feel powerful, almsot god-like. You will not relize it until it is too late - you've sold your soul. You didn't give your soul for the ability you desired but you all of a sudden could lift weights that you couldn't before. You can do anything without fear. You can use cards to tell the future.
This is a dangerous statement. This type of thinking almost led my cousin to beleiving she was a "Demi-god."

"Unreasonable faith without evidence..."
If an athiest/Evolutionist (^.^) says that about our belief, then how on earth could they prove theirs?
"All men worship something." The current leading religeon in the world today is --- MONEY! The almight Dollar rules everything.
What splits a home? Lack of money or foolish use of money.
What runs a man to overexert his energy? Money...
What is the #1 opposite of the Love of God? (According to the Bible)... Money. (No man can serve (Or love by other translations) both God and Money. He must hate on and love the other; or he must serve one and dispise the other.)

Athiests that claim no religeon and do not believe in Evolution worship money or self.

Athiests that claim evolution... well prove to me where the "missing" links are? When I see the complete geolical colomn in ANY place COMPLETE I wil double check my beliefs. How can we have "evolved" from apes yet constantly use less and less of our total brain power? (The average man today uses 6~9%... it was at one point 100%...)

And you are right - Claiming a faith involves "an ardent risistance to changing one's mind". When you were young, you probably got into one of those "I am right you are wrong" arguements with an adult or other child. And as they showed you your flaws, you kept stuttering over other tings and came to an "Oh Yeah? But..." and went on and were once more deterred. This is why converting someone to Christianity or ANY religeon is VERY hard. and converting a religeous person to another religeon is even harder.

(writing one or two of these a day is very tiring...)
 
Youth4Morals said:
Then you are saying that I could possibly "make" myself do anything within physical boundries just by simply imagining the positive input of imaginary friends and believing in myself?
No, but convincing yourself of these things would.
This is where you stumble onto whitchcraft. This is "natural" but the unseen part of it is the imput of a Demon. The reason I say this is because you are relying on the unseen (Or imagined) to "assist" (Or in a subtle way - harm) you.
Really? And you are able to back the involvement of demons in helping people manage their recovery from drugs with evidence, I assume?


"Unreasonable faith without evidence..." If an athiest/Evolutionist (^.^) says that about our belief, then how on earth could they prove theirs?
Atheists have evidence for the things they believe. Evolutionists have mountains of evidence for the things they believe. They have reasonable "faith" due to backing evidence.


Atheists that claim evolution... well prove to me where the "missing" links are? When I see the complete geological column in ANY place COMPLETE I will double check my beliefs.
Are you trying to claim that you require complete explanatory evidence amounting to absolute proof for the things you believe? Or have you merely decided to absolutely believe something that you have found to be plausible?
No, there is no "proof of where the missing links" are. And there is no complete geological column. Nobody ever claimed there was. But, it is reasonable to reconstruct one, which is what scientists have done. Even if there was one, it would not amount to absolute proof.


How can we have "evolved" from apes yet constantly use less and less of our total brain power? (The average man today uses 6~9%... it was at one point 100%...)
So, what are you saying here? That using less of our brain power than apes makes us lower than apes, and thus it is not reasonable to claim we could have evolved from them?


And you are right - Claiming a faith involves "an ardent resistance to changing one's mind"
I thought as much. Well, Atheists are not in the habit of ardently resisting the changing of one's mind. This is part of why you can't equate Atheist acceptance of a theory with faith.
 
Youth4Morals said:
Those were written 2000+ years ago. Someone said it earlier - Christ is the ONLY God to DIE AND RESSURECT HIMSELF.
The Quezicoatl dispute is voided - HE NEVER DIED.

Read up on the ancient Egyptian religions. Death and resurrection is not new with and unique with the christian religion. And it could be constrewed that Quetzalcoatl is a better god than Jesus since he never got killed.

Come on guys, you can do better than spout relgious dogma to prove chrstianity is true and all others are false. There has to be some proof to justify your blind faith. There is no way a bunch of people would believe something that can be proven fictional with research. (Ok , let's not count the mormon faith here, what a bunch of bloody idiots.)
 
Arch Enemy said:
I'm sorry, but creationism is the most ridiculous thing one can ever imagine. The idea that Women were made out of the rib of a male.. there's no way one can find that to be the truth.

Truth:
Women cant gain fully the equal right even in the most advanced civilization and in the year of 2005.

Should the rib be less important? Bible hints that or not?

It depends how you comprehend and interpret what Bible contexts are trying to say.

Whether you're expecting it or not, the Christian Church's are under-going a new evolution. A few fellow Church members and myself believe that Creationism is not the answer, though we still consider ourselves "Christians".

Again, what if creationism we comprehend and interpret from Bible actually means what we comprehend in general as *revolution*. Bible denies evoluiton or not?

Fact: Black Eve is one of the supported (genetically and sicientifically) theory.
 
Youth4Morals said:
How can we have "evolved" from apes yet constantly use less and less of our total brain power? (The average man today uses 6~9%... it was at one point 100%...)

You seem to be using a common tactic of non-scientific argument: stating
something as fact yet providing no support for that assumption. On what
evidence do you base those numbers?

Also, the ideas of evolution do not suggest that we have evolved from apes.
What they do suggest is that humans and apes have evolved from a
common ancestor that was neither ape nor human.
 
How can we have "evolved" from apes yet constantly use less and less of our total brain power? (The average man today uses 6~9%... it was at one point 100%...)

our brains are bigger and better. secondly those numbers usually mean that we use 6-9% of our brain at a given point in time. It was never 100% or we'd be insanely genius. Doesn't mean you don't use 90% of your brain. Thats why if I take out any little piece of your brain, you'll be f-ed up. When people can use more of their brain, what it means is that, at any given point in time, they can utilize more of their brain power.
 
dogger807 said:
Read up on the ancient Egyptian religions. Death and resurrection is not new with and unique with the christian religion. And it could be constrewed that Quetzalcoatl is a better god than Jesus since he never got killed.

Come on guys, you can do better than spout relgious dogma to prove chrstianity is true and all others are false. There has to be some proof to justify your blind faith. There is no way a bunch of people would believe something that can be proven fictional with research. (Ok , let's not count the mormon faith here, what a bunch of bloody idiots.)

Why did Christ die? That is what seperates him from the others. Now I could go on and on about why I believe in Christ and Christianity as the one true religion. But a good majority of it you wouldn't even buy into or understand. I have to question why even start this thread. Are you looking for understanding, or just things to argue about? Would you agree that Christianity is the most divided religion in the world? That no other religion is as divided against itself as Christianity?
 
"...something that does not exist"? Name some thing that does not exist.

You lost me here.

But, to answer your main question, "...is Christianity the true religion?"

"The" is rather too definitive: "a" might be more proper.

Yes, then -- all religions are true religions. Just as all Republicans are true Republicans.

A true religions may or may not have any connection to "true" gods, though. There are many true gods. This does not mean any of them are worth a shat.

Being a true Republican does not mean, necessarily, that true Republicans are worth a shat. The same can be said of Democrats.

Am I "the" true human? No, but I am a true human. This by no stretch of the imagination means I am worth a shat.

All of the above is merely subjective speculation... except for me -- I'm definitely objective speculation.:confused:






dogger807 said:
Ok, it's a given that no one can prove either the existence or non existence of something that does not exist. So my question here is not whether god exists in any format or not. What I want to know is how, assuming that he/she/it does exist how can you.

Insist that the christian religion is right and all others wrong.

How is it any different from any religion that came before (and is in fact a composite of several "pagan" religions.)

I'm not debating the existence of an all powerful being here. I'm debating whether christianity has any clue on what this being is and how he might act.
 
I'm Jewish. I like being Jewish. However, I will never subscribe to "my-religion-is-better-than-yours" bullshit. It's the same God. Why would he care how we worship him?
 
To respond to the original thread, Christianity simply has no evidence that it is the 'true' religion. The only people who believe that Christianity is truth are Christians. Now does that shock anybody?
 
anomaly said:
To respond to the original thread, Christianity simply has no evidence that it is the 'true' religion. The only people who believe that Christianity is truth are Christians. Now does that shock anybody?

Not anymore then Muslims being the only people who believe Islam is the one true religion, or Hindus believing Hinduism is the only true religion, or Buddists believing......I think you get my point.
 
Back
Top Bottom