CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
should i give myself to jesus
ok i still dont beliieve is this jesus bullshit i believe in my god but jesus was for the jews and wasnot a god but just some jerkoff fool that fooled all you people and i dont like when people say they give themselves to jesus cause that just sounds gay
try not to be an asshole cause im trying to be serious here and ask a rael question if you are asshole i will ban you but i dont want to
There's a fair amount of historical evidence a Nazarene man named Jesus existed and started the Christian movement. So I think it's fair to say Jesus existed.
It is a matter a theological conjecture and fabrication that Jesus rose from the dead and is the son of god. I don't believe these claims, but lets pretend they're true, just for fun.
Even if Jesus is the risen son of god, he proposed such immoral doctrines as "love your enemy," "vicarious redemption," and "nonbelievers will be tortured forever." Regardless of someones divinity (or absence of it) I couldn't follow someone who is that blatantly immoral, and I don't think anyone else should, either.
Could you please give quotes for those? Also since when was love your enemy immoral? Its based on the idea of loving your neighbor (which meant all human kind) even if you do not agree with them because we are all children of God and we should respect each other.
Those weren't actually direct quotes from the Bible, I was paraphrasing and I put it in quotes to kind of separate out the different doctrines I found immoral, so the sentence wouldn't seem too terribly run-on. I would have provided the gospel and verse if I had been quoting directly.
I have nothing at all against loving your neighbor or respecting humankind.
However I don't think either of these things have anything to do with tolerating evil against yourself and those you love. "Love your enemy" is based on "turn the other cheek," which is a doctrine of Christ so morally impractical and backward it can't realistically be followed. If a crazed gunman has already shot one member of your family and is threatening the rest, your should defend your family, an action not limited to attacking back; you should not offer up another member of your family for the gunman to kill. And this applies on a global scale, as well; how many countries would respond to a direct attack by an enemy on their soil by standing down and allowing it to happen again? No! Quite rightly, quite morally, they fight back, which is not the message of "turn the other cheek" or "love your enemies."
I don't know that "turn the other check" was meant to be taken to such an extreme context. I know you can but lets be honest, it was really meant in a smaller scale setting. You say it cant realistically be followed, but it easily can in daily life. We still teach it in a way today. If you are a child and someone hits you, you don't hit back you let the adult handle it and then forgive the person. It is also true that if everyone was loving their enemy then no violence would occur in the first place, which I think is the hope of most people, and in general these doctrines are based on the idea that everyone follows them. I mean the golden rule doesn't apply well to large scale situations either. Would the family in your situation not defend themselves because if they were a gunman breaking in they would not want to be beaten up? No of course not, but we still use the golden rule all the time as a moral compass.
I disagree, I think it was originally intended to be taken in the literal context. After all you are supposed to be following the example set by Jesus, and he set a pretty extreme example by allowing gruesome, ghastly violence to be inflicted upon him and reacted to it with acceptance and obedience. And in some versions forgave those inflicting the violence upon him.
You say it cant realistically be followed, but it easily can in daily life. We still teach it in a way today.
I think that's partially because we don't want preschoolers getting into fistfights on the playground. In regards to fully developed, fully grown human beings, when was the last time someone punched you in the face and you stood your ground and offered the other cheek? Perhaps forgiving your assailant in the process? Or, if you haven't been punched in the face before, do you think you would react like that if someone did punch you?
It is also true that if everyone was loving their enemy then no violence would occur in the first place, which I think is the hope of most people, and in general these doctrines are based on the idea that everyone follows them.
Not true at all. All three monotheistic dogmas lay out pretty specific instructions on how to deal with other people of other faiths. In other words the doctrines of these religions do not require everyone to be following them in order to be applicable; quite the opposite, a number of doctrines explicitly address what to do when people of other faiths dont follow said religion, and such verses would be pointless and redundant if the expectation was everyone was a Christian. Or Muslim, or what have you.
I mean the golden rule doesn't apply well to large scale situations either. Would the family in your situation not defend themselves because if they were a gunman breaking in they would not want to be beaten up? No of course not, but we still use the golden rule all the time as a moral compass.
Then it should be called the "golden guideline" or the "golden suggestion" if it doesn't apply to all situations with acceptable results.
Jesus' death represents the idea of whole heartily believing in your faith, principles and in God. Most people do not interpret that as saying that everyone then should lay down die. In fact it is highly specified that since Jesus did, no one else should.
You don't have to actually offer the other cheek, but even as an adult if a person punches you once, is there a point to punching them back? The bible (especially new testament) is full of metaphors and exaggerations. The idea of the other cheek is that A) You do not show violence back and B) That when offered the other cheek the original perpetrator would not in fact hit again but be startled and by being forgiven would in fact see their sin and stop. Yes it is an ideal situation, but you have to remember this was written thousands of years ago, and in a world of people who felt very strongly about God, and about what sinning meant to their life.
While monotheistic religions do include the idea of harming the wicked, Jesus specifically did not. If we are only speaking of his teachings and their truth or not, he stated that you should love and help Jews, gentiles, sinners, everyone.
And fine then its the "golden guideline" but most Christians do not see the bible as the literal truth and always the rule (no one is suggesting we stone rape victims right?) but instead as guidelines for life.
That's a very moderate interpretation of the text, and one that gets along with the rules of modern society pretty well, too. But I don't think it explains or addresses the immoral idea of "loving your enemies," and I don't think (personally) that responding to violence with nonviolence is inherently moral (because I believe in self-defense, justice, and retribution, and I don't expect these things to come in another life, I want them dealt with here and now, in this life) so your point kind of falls of deft ears.
While monotheistic religions do include the idea of harming the wicked, Jesus specifically did not.
Excuse me, did Jesus preach of hell and the final judgement of the damned, or didn't he? He did, if I remember correctly, so you have no basis for saying Jesus did not promote the idea of harming the wicked. Quite the contrary, he proposed harming them in a way much more permanent than any major prior religious movement had, punishment that lasted for an eternity after death.
But this shouldn't be surprising. After all, Jesus did say he came "not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matt 10:34).
And fine then its the "golden guideline" but most Christians do not see the bible as the literal truth and always the rule (no one is suggesting we stone rape victims right?) but instead as guidelines for life.
Which is fine, but it means that the Bible is not any kind of absolute authority. It's rules or guidelines or what have you need to be filtered through your personal, subjective moral philosophy in order to be applied and not land you in prison. Which is why I don't see the Bible as being of a whole lot of worth. If you can't use it as a moral guideline without having to literally correct it according to your own personal morals, I don't see why you don't just rely on yourself as a basis for morality, and dump the Bible.
Even if dealt with here and now, do you always deal with your own justice? If that could happen why do we need courts or police or any laws. Even if its dealt with in this life, you do not always deal with it yourself.
Nothing is morally right all of the time. You can not get morals anywhere in life (parents, school, religion) that you do not yourself have to apply with good judgment or edit yourself. Everyone's personal morals are made of a compilation of things that work in the right situations that they have taken from some maxim and altered as needed. You need to correct everything that you are told to fit the situation, its part of taking knowledge and using it practically.
Even if dealt with here and now, do you always deal with your own justice? If that could happen why do we need courts or police or any laws.
No. I never said I personally dish out justice every time I'm wronged, just that I want justice to happen and I want it to happen in this life. So thank you for pointing out I'm not always judge, jury, and executioner, but it in no way refutes my point.
The rest of your post you seem to be agreeing with me, so I'll leave that alone.
I notice you left alone my argument regarding the immorality of "loving your enemies." Why?
Also (I should have wrote this in the other post, but better late than never):
You corrected me, saying that Jesus doesn't condemn the wicked to "hell" but to "Gehenna," a common mistranslation of "hell." Well, Gehenna is a term used to describe a physical location in the holy land, a place where apostates used to sacrifice their children. Yet this place is used in the Bible as the opposite of the "Kingdom" the righteous shall inherit; a place of condemnation and suffering for the wicked. A place described in the Bible as having tongues of flame and the power to crush body and soul and where the sinners will burn in unquenchable fire. So were they describing the actual physical place "Gehenna" (and, if so, what drugs were they on when they viewed it to think it was covered in fire and spiritual damnation) or were they using "Gehenna" as a metaphor for a non-physical place, representative of the place sinners go when they die to suffer? It seems to me if they are describing the actual location we should dismiss everything they say about it, because they were obviously experiencing some pretty powerful hallucinations. If they are using "Gehenna" as a metaphor, it seems perfectly acceptable to use the word "hell" in place of it, as they are both describing the same thing. So it doesn't seem like a mistranslation at all, to me.
Also (looking back over this) you've been debating semantics on one particular complaint I had about Jesus, but my complaints are legion, and I listed just a few in my initial post. How can you reconcile the idea of following, serving, and worshiping a supposed entity who tortures nonbelievers for an infinite period of time? How can you think the concept of vicarious redemption (the idea that god sacrificing his son 2000 years ago makes him okay with the flaws he created you with in the first place) in any way represents a moral agreement?
And, given how clearly immoral this character was, why should we even respect him, much less follow, serve, or worship him? Or, to be precise, the idea of him; perhaps his ghost. Even if he was the son of god, does that for some reason mean he couldn't have been a complete jackass? Perhaps he was an enlightened, revolutionary thinker for his time, but by the standards of modern society he was just another brutal, primitive, simple-minded savage, and I would be embarrassed to find myself referring to a man like that as some kind of moral guide when any preschooler nowadays has more moral sense in their little finger than Jesus had in his whole body.
You keep speaking of Jesus promising eternal damnation to those who weren't Christians, but I find way more evidence of him promising salvation for all. (John 12.23) He makes 12 references to "Gehenna" in all four gospels, which is often mistranslated as hell, still that is much fewer than the many references to heaven, and eternal salvation. In some cases the reference to nonbelievers or sinners talks about being punished but not forever, and in many cases even those who are sinners are given eternal life in heaven. (Mat. 21:31)
As to your statement about worshiping, you can believe in an idea or statement without worshiping it. People believe in the ideas of the declaration of independence, though they don't have shrines to Jefferson. My argument is that Jesus was moral, and that in general following his teachings is not immoral as you said it was. I don't feel people have to worship him. I think the words about life attributed to him are moral and good, regardless of if he's son of god, or a random man.
What are your personal morals? Do you believe that none of them were said by Jesus ever? I'm not saying you need to have found them in the bible but by saying that everything Jesus said is immoral, does this mean none of your views line up with the gospels at all?
Once again that's a very liberal and moderate way of interpreting things. I don't happen to think the authors (or, rather, the people the authors of the Bible based the gospels on) of the Bible were liberal, moderate individuals, I think they were uneducated savages, and I think they probably intended the idea of hell to come across as accordingly frightening.
Why does it matter how frequently hell is mentioned in the Bible relevant? There's only one verse that directly deals with homosexuality and no verses that specifically mention abortion, yet Christians frequently use the Bible as a moral guide on these two issues.
As to your statement about worshiping, you can believe in an idea or statement without worshiping it. People believe in the ideas of the declaration of independence, though they don't have shrines to Jefferson.
The Declaration of Independence doesn't demand that you worship Thomas Jefferson; the Bible does demand that you worship god. The Sabbath is a day specifically set aside for worshiping god; to do things other than worship god on the Sabbath is, according to god, a crime punishable by death. So you could believe in the idea of god or agree with the idea of Christian morality, but if you don't worship god I don't see how you can call yourself a Christian. If you respect Jesus, fine, I respect Gandhi, but that doesn't make you Christian anymore than it makes me Gandhian; it's the belief that Jesus is the risen son of god worthy of our worship and servitude that makes one a Christian.
What are your personal morals? Do you believe that none of them were said by Jesus ever?
I know for a fact some of my personal morals line up with some of the moral codes in the Bible.But what of it? Literally no moral message found in the Christian Bible is unique to Christianity; nothing Jesus said or preached was anything that hadn't been said a thousand times before. I.e. Treat others the way you would be treated? Obviously. That's clear to anyone who has thought about their own wellbeing and the wellbeing of their fellow man.
You seem quite intent on not worshipping Jesus so why ask the question? I think Religion is a personal thing and only you can decide which Religion or not you think is right and follow that one.
jesus IS NOTHING AND MEANS NOTHING TO ME SO I WILL STAY IN MY OFFICE AND LOVE MY GOD OF MONEY AND POWER GIVING ME WHAT I WANT AND DESIRE . MY GOD NEVER LETS ME DOWN SO GO TO HELL jesus god damn it .
Jesus is true. From the Bible: Luke; Matthew, Mark; and John, it is clear that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God. The purpose Jesus come to this world is to release human from the bondage of sins. The Good News of the Messiah is never only for Jews, but for everyone. From the book of Acts, we can clearly see that God granted the Gentiles repentance unto life. Besides, giving yourself to Jesus is sacrificing your life, preaching the Good News of the Kingdom of God.
Seriously, you hear four guys names and automatically think "gay orgy!" That seems more like a personal issue rather than something you can blame on the Bible's part.
Depends on your theology. There are those who think God loves those who worship him, and hates those who dont (unless they do end up changing their minds and following him). There are also those who think that God loves everyone without exception, similar to how a parent loves their children (not always happy with them, but still loves them unconditionally).
But that's impossible to say because everyone who reads the bible will interpret it in some way, so then it becomes how you interpret it. To my knowledge the bible/God/Jesus does not say definitively either way. If it did there wouldn't be such a huge range of views on the topic, or such a large amount of debate between theologians.
All, I can say is that Jesus is true. However, don't bother accepting him or trying to believe in him if you're still in doubt, which it sounds like you are.
Also, just because you don't believe in him does not mean he is wrong or a fake. You have no right to say that. I don't see you criticizing Muhammed or the Hindu gods now do I?
I don't think you benifit from this debate. Choosing to follow any religion is a deeply personal choice and no amount of advice, least of all from stangers on a website, can ultimatly make your decision any less personal. From you debate summery it sounds like you already made you decision, altough i would still recomend you speak with some typical church goers to get an idea of what normal, non-fanatical religous people are like.
I don't know that I would separate this into Jesus being wrong or true. I think you can say he is right without saying hes the son of God. He told people to love their neighbor, love god, help those in need, forgive others, and don't give up on people. All of those things sound like good ideas to me, no matter who said them.
Jesus is real because Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all four wrote about Jesus and what He did on this earth for us. And those are all 4 other people who witnessed Jesus and there was other people who were there that also witnessed Jesus.
Jesus died on the cross for both you and I and He rose again on the 3 day.
P.S RandomDude I am just trying to be nice here I am not trying to cause trouble so please reframe from banning me from debates like you always do and I am trying to help you out here if you would just listen to me and not go on your own ways.
Yes you should because Jesus loves you and he is wiating for you he is amazing he has changed my life in so many ways and if you give yourself to him you spend the rest of your in heaven with him
No, Jesus doesn't hate you, He loves you no matter what the worst sin you committed He will have open arms for you and He will forgive you of your sins. But you have to make that choice to believe in Jesus.
Dude chill out please. Without Jesus Christ we would have no way to heaven. Jesus even said in John 14:6 New International Version (NIV)
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Meaning you can not go to the Father unless you accept Jesus Christ into your life as your Lord and Savior.
Also what the Bible says about Jesus is in John 3:16-17 New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.
God did not send Jesus into this world to condemn anyone, but to save everyone through Him. He loves you soooo much RandomDude. He suffered and died in your place so you would not have to pay the price. Give Him a chance please, i know you wont regret it :D
Jesus is true. All of these things, they're all Jesus's creations! You just need to believe and trust Him. I promise, all that i had said, it's all from my heart. It's not a lie. Receive Him as your Lord and savior and you'll succeed. Receive Him before it's too late! :)
In my own opinion, Jesus is true. There are also non Christian sources who can attest to Jesus' historical existence. Like, Cornelius Tacitus, who wrote that there was a certain, "Christ" who began a pernicious superstition when Pontius Pilate was the governor of Judea.
Second, is Flavius Josephus, who wrote that Jesus is a wise man put to death by Pontius Pilate. And there are many more. You can even see for yourself :http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/history_of_jesus.htm
I was going to ask the same thing as the debate creator seems to have already made his mind up about Jesus, I think he just created this to bash other peoples beliefs
