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.
As far as I know Scientology doesn't contradict itself in it's own writings, so that would make it more illogical to be a Christian, where contradiction is rampant.
Matthew 27:11-14 -- "Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” Jesus said, “You have said so.” 12 But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many things they testify against you?” 14 But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed."
He was not silent the entire time.
Mark 15:2-5 -- "And Pilate asked him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” And he answered him, “You have said so.”And the chief priests accused him of many things. 4 And Pilate again asked him, “Have you no answer to make? See how many charges they bring against you.” 5 But Jesus made no further answer, so that Pilate was amazed."
Here He is talking also.
john 18:33-38 -- "33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?” 36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” 37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” / After he had said this, he went back outside to the Jews and told them, “I find no guilt in him."
Talking here as well.
It is quite convenient that you do two things here:
(1) You exclude the parts that change the premises completely, which is that He was talking.
(2) You are assuming that they are all talking about the same conversation and discussion. People don't just stay on the same topic.
Be intellectually honest next time: there is no contradiction here.
I believe it is clear by the context of each chapter that these three passages are about the same event, they are all talking about Pilates Judgement of Jesus. Not only are the answers to the question "Are you think King of Jews?" inconsistent, but what follows is inconsistent as well.
Yes, it is misleading for my exclusion of the previous verse for Mathew and Mark, but to include it in John. This is the most recent contradiction I had looked into but didn't know the specific verses so I did a quick search for them. For that I do apologize.
This is just a matter of interpretation, I will concede defeat on this one, but will provide another.
I think this one is specific enough to avoid interpretation. Please read as much of the context as necessary, I don't intend to purposely mislead.
I believe it is clear by the context of each chapter that these three passages are about the same event, they are all talking about Pilates Judgement of Jesus. Not only are the answers to the question "Are you think King of Jews?" inconsistent, but what follows is inconsistent as well.
You missed the point; my point was that not everything in the exchange was written down, which means that certain points would have been excluded most likely, which means that what you read is not necessarily the whole story of what happened there.
1 Kings 15:1-2 -- "Now in the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam the son of Nebat, Abijam began to reign over Judah. 2 He reigned for three years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Maacah the daughter of Abishalom."
The mother is Maacah.
2 Chronicles 13:1-2 -- "13 In the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam, Abijah began to reign over Judah. 2 He reigned for three years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Micaiah[a] the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah." 2 Chronicles 13:2 Spelled Maacah in 1 Kings 15:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2013:1-2&version;=ESV
His mother is Micaiah, which is spelled differently but still the same thing.
Two sub points:
(1) Genealogy was not the same throughout the world; people recorded differently, which means that these could both be true but are talking about different family members.
I'm very glad to be having this discussion with you. I am willing to disregard any proposed contradiction so long as you provide a convincing objection, which you have been doing. I'm not attempting to mislead people, I'm just reading different contradiction, reading the chapter they occur in, and if the contradiction appears valid I present it.
"Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for[e] him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed[f] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name."
It says, "the Lord God had formed", which means a past tense.
Genesis 1 says that man was made after animal as you have stated.
There is no contradiction here; there are no contradictions in the Bible.
18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
This leads me to believe that at this point, man is alone, and God is about to create a suitable helper for him.
19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky.
Based on the previous verse, and the word "Now", I read this as the animals being created at this time. Had the previous verse not said "I will make a helper suitable for him." I might see your point on the word "had".
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam[f] no suitable helper was found.
This leads me to believe that God believed Adam would find one of the animals as a suitable helper.
I think the word "now" is important, and while I don't speak Hebrew, in English Now can be interchanged with "at this time", and the word "had" is used because at the time this was written, the creation of animals had already happened.
After reviewing the first two chapters again, it appear that everything not in quotes is phrased as past tense, which explains the word "had".
So for example, species would be dogs; where as a kind would be a Chihuahua. That would be even more unbelievable considering there are already around 30 million species on Earth. There were probably even more back then.
Are you saying 'a dog is a kind, idiot' or ' a dog is kind but is also an idiot'? I'm going to assume you were calling ME an idiot, which is ironic considering all of the gramatical errors you made in the process.
Species- "An individual belonging to a group of organisms (or the entire group itself) having common characteristics and (usually) are capable of mating with one another to produce fertile offspring. Failing that (for example the Liger) It has to be ecologically and recognisably the same"
A dog IS a species. When someone asks you what kind of dog do you have, you say the name of it's breed. When someone asks you what kind of animal you own, you say a dog. The word kind can substitute for both species and breed.
I don't know the answer to either one. It could still be around and have reproduced a mutated dog that kept going, while the ancestor stayed. However, it could have become extinct.
I believe the writing said two of every kind. Not necessarily two of every species.
Kind could refer to genus, family, possible even order.
Taking two of every non-aquatic genus is still likely bullshit.
Family, perhaps. That's still a LOT but its at least been narrowed down to something remotely feasible. Breeding pairs of each family could conceivably have diversified into the many genera and species we see today.
Order would certainly be doable in terms of quantity, but I don't believe evolution could account for the diversity we see today if only 2 representatives of each order were brought.
I suppose it all depends on what 'kind' we're talking about. Especially considering that even within the same species there are different 'kinds' Look at the many different breeds of canis lupus familiaris! Look at the various races of homo sapiens!
The real question for this passage is "How is 'kind' defined?"
I wouldn't say Christianity is stupid, because everyone can believe in what they want to, but all I'm here to say is that it is really confusing. 1. Now, let's say that God really created the earth and all. If this happened, where in there did the dinosaurs evolve? After all God created the species that live on this planet now, and in science, they evolved from dinosaurs. But the Bible doesn't say anything about that, does it? 2. Adam and Eve: They're portrayed as homo sapiens sapiens, but the homo sapiens sapiens evolved from the homo sapiens neanderthalensis. The bible doesn't say anything about that either. Still, I respect whatever you want to believe in, because it's your own personal choice, but personally I believe more in science than christianity.
I actually bought into Christianity growing up and I even thought Scientology was stupid then. Now I think they're both ridiculous but Scientology is still tough to beat.
I like to think that i am a tolerant person, but Scientology is one of the very few belief system that i dislike with a passion. I honestly do not even consider it to be a religion. I see it as a dangerous cult.