Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?

2007-10-31T01:03:26Z

Markos88: /* Ridiculous */

{{debate-religion}}

==Yes==

[[Christianity]] is the best religion because it derives from [[Judaism]], the religion through which [[God]] guided the ancient [[Israelite]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:36, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:By this logic, why isn't Judaism the best religion? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

There are only two kinds of religion: '''''The true one and the false ones.''''' As a Christian, I beleive that christianity is the true one and is therefore superior. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 08:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:Everyone believes their religion is true. Therein lies the conflict. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:''The true one and the false ones.'' - Even God doesn't say that. He never denies the reality of other Gods, He only commands that you should worship and call upon only Him (and punishes those who do not). (See: Exodus 20:3, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 6:13, Judges 10:13 etc, etc, etc.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:05, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:: "Even God Doesn't say that....". You need to look a little closer at the Bible before you make statements like yours above. (See: 1 Corinthians 8:4 - "Therefore concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that '''there is no God but one.'''" [Added Emphasis mine], 1 Corinthians 10:20 - "No, but I say that the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." both texts from NASB) --[[User:HSDad|HSDad]] 14:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::God ''doesn't'' say that, it is Paul who says that. How can we accept this statement when it contradicts God's own word? (Exodus 20:3 - The First Commandment) Are you suggesting that Paul's word is more authoritative than God's? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 10:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

I will say this before and i will say it again, the bible is not a book that was written by a single person or even group of people who all attempted to accurately record historical events. The bible was written by hundred of people, none of whom knew each other, a lot of it was written from hearsay and word of mouth stories and myths, the vast majority was written hundreds of years after the events, and even when the whole lot was finally finished, it has been changed, translated several times by different people and finally 'improved' by other authors. To hold up a book like that and say that you can take parts of it literally is just plain silly. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:19, 22 April 2007

The bible isn't like that. Prodestant canon was written by far fewer people than even ONE hundred. The bible has 66 books, and several books were written by one person. Moses wrote 5, Paul wrote 13[http://www.conservapedia.com/Paul]. To say they didn't know each other is also false. Psalms was written by David, Proverbs was written mainly by Soloman, David's SON. In the New Testament, there are EVEN MORE connections. Matthew and John, both part of the 12, wrote gospels, and they certainly knew eachother. Mark knew Peter, and Luke travelled with Paul.
Very little was written from word of mouth, and the space between the writing of the Gospels and Jesus' life was short for myths to develop. Most were written fairly close to the event, except Genesis. Moreover, the bible hasn't changed. The Old Testament was carefully maintained by the Israelites, and the New Testament was equally kept. There are few discrepencies, and the ancient Dead Sea Scrolls even showed that our modern bibles have not changed since then. The bible is <s>perhaps</s> definately the world's most reliable manuscript. [[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]]
:[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] - Matthew and John part of the 12? [[Matthew the Apostle]] is only ''traditionally'' [[Matthew the Evangelist]] - modern biblical scholarship seems to disagree on this point. [[John]] wasn't an Apostle at all. Please check your Bible before citing it, otherwise mistakes may occur. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 16:19, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Oops. Well, I was rushed when I made that edit. It doesn't really change the bible's reliability, though. --[[User:Conservapedian|Conservapedian]] 14:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==No==

*That's like asking which piece of fiction is better than any other - it's personal perference. If, like me, you are an atheist, then they are all equally poor. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 06:49, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
*Stating that one religion is superior to others directly leads to religion-based wars and oppression of other opinions.

You know, the only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

I afree with Cgday. That's like arguing if the cat and the hat is better then hop on pop. Both are in the same catagory, but its all a matter of opinion. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

I am an Athiest but I see Judaism as the most respectable monotheistic religion, as it is the orginal monotheistic religion from which Christianity and Islam branched. Judaism seems to also be more believable... saying Jesus was the son of God is like saying Ghandi was the son of God. Sure, he was a good person but he wasn't divine. --[[User:Helios|Helios]] 23:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

No, God is beyond the comprehension of man and thus beyond the scope of any one religious doctrine or organization. God reveals his mysteries to us in many ways. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

God reveals his mysteries in many ways and in many religions, so shouldnt the superior religion be the religion that accepts all prophets from all religions, like buddist. --[[User:Loveandpeace|Loveandpeace]] 12:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

: No. At the end of the world, Paul says we will all fall short of God's wishes for us. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

==Is the Truth superior to fiction?==
When you go before your Creator I think then you will know the answer to that question. Or instead of just posting baiting questions here you actually go on a personal journey to find out for yourself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Ridiculous==

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your religion is superior to those of others?

Just how exactly do you intend to prove your deity exists and those of others don't?

Just when exactly will you realize that you live in the 21st century, not the dark ages: these days they have this thing called "freedom of religion".

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:I find your lack of faith... disturbing. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 11:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

That's hardly an answer to my questions...

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

I find your lack of faith inspiring. It shows that you are comforrable within your life without needing to ask an invisible being to make it better. And i would like to see a religious person come up with an answer to those questions. [[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 09:16, 22 April 2007

I just saved a ton of money by switching to Geico...
That sounds ridiculously off topic, but when confronted with such a hideously slanted question.
I understand the website's desire to set itself apart from WIKI, but asking such a narrow-minded question,
isn't going to win anyone over, in fact, if I didn't have a profound curiousity in this site, I'd already
be long gone...--[[User:Markos88|Markos88]] 21:03, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

==Bandwagon==
Notice that only one religion has been picked as superior instead of asking which religion is superior and why? The subject is expected to attack such a unfair premise since it has targeted the one that seems to be a popular target for many of the commentors. This is the bandwagon propaganda technique.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 14:58, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?

2007-10-29T02:38:48Z

Markos88: /* Why? */

If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?

== Nothing ==
We dont need to be saved...Thanks for the offer though

Human beings have no power to save souls. God has the power to save souls. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 09:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Of course, but don't you believe we have the duty to evangelize? Aren't we commanded to convert others to Christian faith? --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 10:09, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I suppose they're just like Buddists, Confuscians, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Jains, Pagans, etc. People almost never abandon their faith. You might not appreciate it if some Muslims tried to convince you that Jesus was a fraud and that you'd go to hell unless you converted to Islam. Why would they accept a Christian doing that to them? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Who says any one religion is the right one for everyone to follow? A good Christian would accept their religion and faith as their own beliefs and not persecute them for believing in something different. "Save their souls" <-- that's almost a laughable statement. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is Conservapedia. Writing about things from a Christian perspective is one of its aims. - BornAgainBrit

:::I thought writing about things from a ''conservative'' perspective was one of its aims? There are liberal Christians, just like there are conservative Atheists.--[[User:Charlesincharge|Charlesincharge]] 01:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think something should be said to the fact that they still believe in the same God it's just called by a different name Allah.

Some of these comments do not hold up to what the Bible says. Jesus said "Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:42, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: I think all should just honestly leave well enough alone. Religion belongs as a private matter.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Religion is the bond between God and his creations. We are expected to worship Him. As believers, we have an obligation to those less-fortunate who have been suckered into praising false idols. Altruism is expected, and to sweep it away as an invasion of privacy is offensive. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 22:45, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Aaaaaaaaand that's what led to the Crusades. Super.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:49, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Let's set the record straight. There was nothing wrong with the first crusade - that went well. As for all the others, well, that was a result of poor tactics and inadequate devotion of resources. Children?! They just can't fight the spawn of Satan as well as one would think. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 22:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Phew, you're being sarcastic.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

The only true difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a sharp disagreement over who God’s last true prophet was. If you are a Jew, it is one of those Old Testament dudes. If you are a Christian, it was Jesus Christ, if you are a Muslim, Mohammed was the last true prophet. I’m not counting all the other offshoots of the major religions of course. For example, I think the Mormons would consider Joseph Smith a prophet, whereas other Christian denominations do not. Dw1237200

== Shouldn't you convert to their religion? ==

Hah, I find this discussion amusing. It acknowledges that basically, your religious beliefs, if any, are inspired by what your parents and countrymen believe, yet there is still the tacit assumption that Christianity is the correct religion. Don't you ever wonder that, just possibly, if there is a God, it isn't the one you're worshipping, and you're in deep, deep trouble spiritually. There have been literally thousands of different religions and cults throughout history. Yours just happens to be popular at this point.

Personally, if there has to be a God, or pantheon of Gods, I'm banking on the Norse. The whole thing has the ring of revealed truth to me, it's definitely how Gods would behave if they existed. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 22:52, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Of course I've considered it, but decided on Christianity. The Bible has the power of predictive prophecy in its favor, such as the messianic prophecies. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: You know that all those prophecies were re-analyzed ''ex post'', right? -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In that case, why Christianity and not Judaism? According to the Catholics, Jews are all going to hell. Even religions with the same God are damning each other to the nether regions for all eternity. Most Christians I've asked this of tend to say they feel moved by the spirit, or some such. This always strikes me as a circular argument. Why do you believe, because the spirit moves me. Why doesn't it move me too, then? Because you don't believe. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 23:11, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:::WOW, I'm just wondering if you are a Catholic? If you are, you are seriously misguided about the views of the Church, if not, the same rule applies. Catholics (myself included) DO NOT belive that all, cited from the Catechism

::::The Church and non-Christians

::::839 "Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways."325

::::The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

::::840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

::::841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."330

::::842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

::::All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331
::::843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

::::844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

::::Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
::::845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone saves from the flood.334

::::"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

::::846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

::::Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
::::847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

::::Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
::::848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

[http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#839]

::::That is the true Catholic doctrine.The Christian faith has two lines of thought, either the Muslims are just like us or they are going to Hell. The Catholic church likes to take a middle ground. Men with much more time on their hands and many more religious texts have thought of this for years years since the time of Christ himself. My personal belief is that the Christian faith is the one true path to salvation, but if you are not a Christian it does not mean God abandoned you. I think that those of other faiths who try to live their lives loving each other as themselves can be saved because God is forgiving. It seems that the Catholic Church backs that up with its statements. BUT NEVERTHELESS I AM NOT GOD, SALVATION IS HIS DECISION.

--[[User:CRD|CRD]] 00:05, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

Also, please read this article [http://www.carm.org/catholic/muslims.htm] The statement is not mine so I will merely link to it. It shows an interesting insight into many teachings of the Quran. This is a post script but is has me baffled. PLEASE READ

:I've heard that claim, but do not personally believe it. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::
::Good argument. With reasoning like that, nobody should believe it. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 22:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:: That's cool. Faith is faith.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 22:58, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, somewhere down the line you have to come to the decision to believe or not one way or the other. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:00, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:See, I think MountainDew's point here is very legitimate. It goes to my whole feelings on "creation science." If you believe creationism, but admit that it's just on faith, that's cool. Just when YECs push creationism into science, or the public sphere, and outside of the realm of private faith... that gets me angry. And you wouldn't like me when I'm angry. But personal faith is unassailable, because it's just that - personal.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:01, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point of disagreement. I'm still of the philosophy that if something makes sense - you can intelligently explain it. If it doesn't make sense, you shouldn't believe it. --[[User:Rustyjd07|Rustyjd07]] 23:02, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

You assume that the truth will necessarily make sense? --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:12, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

And you have to use good arguments. For instance, "the fact that the earth is young proves the Bible"... don't think so. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:04, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Fair, Rusty, I guess it's just that I adamantly believe that personal faith isn't my business until it encroaches on others' faith. It's informed by my understanding of the Establishment Clause, and founder's intent, et al. This also explains my entire presence on this site: I don't want to prove to people that creationism is WRONG - I just want them to admit that it's personal faith, nothing more, nothing less, and that that's okay.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:06, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::: There is no such thing as an article of faith or belief that doesn't affect other people. If a person believes something, it informs every decision they make. One might argue that some beliefs, such as Christianity, are beneficial or harmless, but not that one can practice Christianity without effect on those around you. If nothing else, it tends to affect the freedom of religion of any children they might have. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 23:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no problem being a Christian, but I don't feel a duty to evangilize. I think people's religions are a relative matter. Besides, I think that if God was truly just, he wouldn't damn people to hell because humans failed to convert them. What if there was someone who never had a missionary come and tell him about Christianity? Does he go to Hell by mere circumstances of his birth? That's also not even taking into account I don't really see Hell and Satan and literal entities, but non withstanding, even if they are, I don't think God would do something like that.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why?==

Why would you try to convert someone, and what makes you think they need saving? No one should stick their nose in other peoples bussiness to try to mess stuff up.[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:25, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:It's sorta an evangelical belief from what I understand.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:48, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
::Because, while they dont realise it as long as they live, they will be extremally thankful for it afterwards. The new testament is very clear on this: There is only one route to salvation, and that is Christ. - BornAgainBrit.

We install huge, huge, speakers the size of a Hummer (That's grotesquely huge), all over the Persian/Arabian land and then...we pump out good ole' '''SOUL''' beats...Marvin Gaye, you know what I'm talking about?--[[User:Markos88|Markos88]] 22:38, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

Debate:If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?

2007-10-29T02:38:31Z

Markos88: /* Why? */