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.
Why do christians say things are "just a theory" but think faith is any better?
What makes you think saying "just a theory" is worth anything when your beliefs are based on faith? Faith is inferior to theory, because having faith requires nothing but belief, you can have faith in anything. But to have a theory there must be evidence for that theory. Intelligent people do not simply choose to believe in things, they try to figure out the actual truth, this is why very little in science is considered a fact. A theory is not a belief, a theory is an explanation based on evidence, it does not demand that you believe in it, a theory is simply a hypothesis which has been found to conform with observable evidence. A theory is for this reason, more compatible with open and critical thought, whereas faith is absolutely useless when it comes to learning the actual truth. Faith is a blind assertion based on nothing, A hypothesis is speculation, A theory is what you get when a hypothesis has been shown to explain a phenomena. Faith= this is true because I want it to be and Theory= this is probably true because that's what the evidence suggests.
What makes you think saying "just a theory" is worth anything when your beliefs are based on faith?
You mean like theories? Both theories and faith require evidence. Unfortunately, a lot of Christians don't bother with the hard evidence and I used to be like that
Faith is inferior to theory, because having faith requires nothing but belief, you can have faith in anything.
You're right. People can have faith in anything, including a theory. The only problem though is that it sounds like you've met a lot of Christians who don't give you evidence
But to have a theory there must be evidence for that theory.
You mean just like faith in God?
Intelligent people do not simply choose to believe in things, they try to figure out the actual truth, this is why very little in science is considered a fact.
You seem like an intelligent person yet you not only chose to believe that faith is nothing more than belief that can't be backed by evidence, you also believe
A theory is not a belief, a theory is an explanation based on evidence, it does not demand that you believe in it, a theory is simply a hypothesis which has been found to conform with observable evidence.
You mean just like a belief in God? Who's demanding that you believe in God?
A theory is for this reason, more compatible with open and critical thought, whereas faith is absolutely useless when it comes to learning the actual truth.
If Christianity were true, would you believe it?
Faith is a blind assertion based on nothing,
You mean like this blind assertion?
A hypothesis is speculation, A theory is what you get when a hypothesis has been shown to explain a phenomena.
Have you read the bible honestly and formed your own theories based off what it said?
Faith= this is true because I want it to be and Theory= this is probably true because that's what the evidence suggests.
These definitions sound like your faith in your own beliefs without any credible theories to back them up
Christians have no problem with whatever theory you want to believe. The problem comes when you want to push that theory as fact onto our impressionable children.
The problem comes when you want to censor the freedom of religious expression on public land.
The problem comes when you take Christian owned busnessess to court to force them to cater things that go against their faith.
No one is trying to force your children to believe in God, and we expect the same respect from Atheists. Leave people to whatever faith or theory they follow.
But the Left refuses to respect our beliefs if it does not go along with their political correctness and theories.
The problem comes when you want to push that theory as fact onto our impressionable children
In case you haven't noticed christians push their religion onto children, I already explained that faith is a blind belief based on nothing and that a theory does not demand that you believe in it unlike religion because it is merely an explanation or idea which has been shown to correlate with available evidence, not an absolute expression of truth. I will give you a brief recap to refresh your memory
Faith= blind belief
Hypothesis= an idea or system of ideas intended to explain observable phenomena
Theory= a hypothesis which correlates with the available evidence but which is still open to be improved upon or falsified.
The problem comes when you want to censor the freedom of religious expression on public land.
Yes that is not how I would handle things if I was your overlord, I would let you express your religion in public. Even though humanity has much bigger problems than the narrow minded one dimensional mentality you are exhibiting can even imagine. You are focusing on nothing but abortion and offenses to your religion, these are the only things you ever talk about when there is so much more to worry about. You are wasting your energy, none of that poppycock will matter when the AI cloud singularity system starts tracking everything you do and your children are forced to get computer chips implanted into their brains and you live in a giant prison-like "smart city" with fluoride being injected into your thyroid and GMOs being shoved down your throat with a plunger.
The problem comes when you take Christian owned busnessess to court to force them to cater things that go against their faith.
Again,what about the chemical run off infecting the oceans and rivers? What about the people dying of poverty in droves in third world countries? What about fukushima still melting down and discharging radioisotopes into the ocean? Who gives a flying cheese bisquit cut out of George Washington's butt crack about that one time some people took some other people to court because they didn't want to bake them a cake.
No one is trying to force your children to believe in God
Yes they are, what you don't understand is that "beliefs" are unscientific, there is no such thing as belief in science unless you are a second rate nincompoop scientist. That is why we call most of our ideas hypothesis or theory and not "fact" or "law". You are the ones who force children to believe in things, now bugger off you insufferable dung nugget.
Funny how you ignore the science of biology when it comes to Homosexuality.
Jesus did live and die and is not some made up belief. There is evidence to the Christian faith. No proof just as with evolution.
It's sick how you just brush off the Big Brother's censoring of our religious expression. THAT IS HUGE and goes against everything this nation stood for.
It's sick you don't care when a big government forces its will on the people's freedom to disagree. You better start understanding what is truly important in our nation.
Jesus did live and die and is not some made up belief. There is evidence
Let's see it then.
No proof just as with evolution.
Unlike you I have read more science books in my life than ancient scriptures, maybe if you put down your bible and actually read something educational you would begin to understand that we have learned a thing or two in 2000 years that they didn't know back then.
It's sick you don't care when a big government forces its will on the people's freedom to disagree.
The thing is I do, it's just that you only care when it comes to your worthless superstitious beliefs. I am not telling you that the threat of big government is not important, I am telling you that religious freedom is only one thing they are taking away and it's of little concern compared to larger issues like the AI surveillance police state and the biotechnology being used against the general population while the rich attempt to become transhuman and the total destruction of the ecosystem.
Thank you. Wait, was that supposed to be an insult?
You think it's ok to kill Special need's babies for merely being different.
"Different" is a polite way of putting it.
With all you scientific book reading, you lack the most basic of humanity.
You lack the most basic of scientific literacy. What you call humanity is worthless without sapience because those who "lack humanity" but posses sapience can walk all over you.
You are soulless and depraved.
All humans are soulless and depraved, because souls don't exist and they need to be programmed with dogma just to treat each other somewhat decently.
People like you prove the evidence of God because without God, men become selfish animals lacking the most basic of simple human kindness.
Even if people really did need to believe in a God in order to be kind, which is not at all true, that still wouldn't prove that God exists, only that people who don't believe in one are more likely to behave immorally.
You are yet one more insecure God hating fool
It makes me very insecure to know that so called human beings are stupid enough to believe in christianity. It makes me wonder if I am really human, or if the average person is just some subhuman creature and I am one of the few humans that exist.
Scientific theories are models for the explanation of facts. For instance, if you throw a penny in the air, it drops to the ground. That's a fact. Gravitational theory is the explanation of that fact: the Earth's superior mass causes it to have a greater gravitational force than the penny, thus pulling the penny towards its centre of mass.
If you try to light a match in air, it will light, but if you do it in pure nitrogen the match won't light. That's a fact. Atomic theory allow us to explain that fact: oxygen is necessary for combustion.
Facts are facts, and scientific theories are answers to the questions: why and how is that fact a fact?
By contrast, religion does not describe facts nor are religious theories verifiable or falsifiable. Ie. Religion is based ENTIRELY upon belief despite of or in the absence of factual evidence. That's the difference between science and religion.
Those "theories" that your poor gets are getting impressed with? They're the basis for every single thing of technological, medical, or engineering worth that humanity has ever accomplished. That computer you're writing on? It's a result of the theories of computation, switching circuit theory, computational logic, etc etc.
The medicine and treatments you get when you go to hospital? Germ theory; antibiotic resistance theory; bacterial evolution; chromosome theory etc etc.
They aren't "beliefs". They're robust explanations of facts.
Facts are facts, and scientific facts of biology shows that our bodies are designed for sex between a man and woman.
Funny how scientific FACTS are ignored by you and the Left. You cherry pick which scientific theory or facts you want to stand by.
Why is it you think Homosexuality is another natural sexual orientation? Do you ignore science?
Political correctness is based ENTIRELY upon belief despite of or in the absence of factual evidence. That's the difference between science and Leftwing political correctness.
Facts are facts, and scientific facts of biology shows that our bodies are designed for sex between a man and woman
I don't disagree. Biologically, it would appear natural that copulative sex is an activity between a man with a penis and a woman with a vagina. Nature also, paradoxically, produces a plethora of species across the globe who engage in homosexuality for various reasons. Homosexuality is part of nature.
Crucially, biology doesn't have to determine social policy. They're two separate things. I find it quite irritating that you choose to accept biological characterisations as factually correct only when they suit your personal ideology, yet refuse to accept clear biological realities such as evolution or the widespread observations of homosexuality across species, when they contradict your personal beliefs.
But anyway, just because copulative sex happens between man and woman doesn't necessitate the adoption of that fact in human society as the only acceptable course for all sexual relationships.
Why is it you think Homosexuality is another natural sexual orientation?
I don't think you're fully aware of what the word "natural" implies. It implies "anything that happens in nature". Homosexuality happens in nature.
HOGWASH! You are repeating the same lies from Gay activist groups of how we have homosexual animals.
WE DON'T!
All these so called examples of male animals having sex with other male animals, are simply simply animals humping anything that moves, much like a dog humps your leg when aroused.
These same male animals are not reframing from sex with female animals.
Show us any homosexual pets or farm animals that we all observe every day. Where are they? If it's in nature, it would also be in our pets and farm animals.
Where are the Gay female animals?
It's a joke and it is sickening people like you keep reapeating this deception. I realize you have nothing else to explain the inexplainible.
So here you are doing the exact thing you claim Christians do. You are pushing an anti scientific theory of homosexuaity.
I'm currently writing a thesis about the nature of animal perception, and I've come across dozens of studies from the 40's and 50's that shoehorn human behaviours into the multiple choice model; that say "this is because of culture" or "this is learned and can be un-learned". And what's interesting is that when genetic sequencing became available and biologists really started to dig into these areas, there emerged a wealth of information to strongly suggest that the old studies had been incorrect. That, in fact, many things once thought of as results of choice or social conditioning, had distinct biological underpinnings. They're called "unconditioned responses".
The urge for a heterosexual man to have sex with a woman is no less genuine or powerful than the urge that a homosexual man has to have sex with another man. They come from the same place.
A straight man cannot choose to simply stop being attracted to women. We ought not expect the same of gay people.
As far as I am concerned, there are much more pressing things to concern myself with, than the choice of two adults to engage consensually in whatever they want to engage in.
The urge for a heterosexual man to have sex with a woman is no less genuine or powerful than the urge that a homosexual man has to have sex with another man. They come from the same place.
What is interesting is the information coming out to indicate that having a homosexual man in ones family/clan group provides a corporate survival advantage. A man who does not have his own woman and children to protect and provide for is available to help other family members protect and provide for their offspring (who carry some of his genes).
The hypothesis makes sense.
It is also partially supported by the fact that in modern American society (among others) gay men (especially couples) have the highest average of disposable income. That disposable income represents extra labor, indicating that having no wife (female, specifically) and no kids leads to excess labor is supported in human behavior.
This may have selected in favor of passing on the recessive genes for homosexuality.
Don't leave out important statistics. Having a Gay son leads to a much greater chance of having a son die from Aids or suicide. Do you understand the grief of losing a child?
Don't leave out important statistics. Having a Gay son leads to a much greater chance of having a son die from Aids or suicide.
So let's include important statistics.
In the West, having a son of any kind (rather than a daughter) (regardless of sexual orientation) leads to a much greater chance of having a child die from suicide (78%) or homicide (78%) or work related accident (97%).
Do you understand that we don't get to pick which kind of kid we get? We do not (and I believe should not) choose either the sex or sexual orientation of our offspring.
We get the kids we get, and we protect them and prepare them for the dangers of life as well as we can. That reality is inextricably tied up with the love that is the basis of why the grief of losing a child is what it is.
It was not until the industrial revolution was well underway and germ theory was widely adopted that people did not lose over 43% of their children before they were 5 years old, and 50-60�fore the age of 10 years.
It is arguable that most of the worldwide advances in technology, productivity, nutrition, medicine, and overall wealth have been the result of the drive to keep our children alive...regardless of whether they are gay or straight.
It was substantiating theories, not having faith, that made these changes happen.
NO ONE is denying people have unnatural desires for all sorts of things. We have men having desires for consenting children. We have people who desire sex with dead people!
There are all types of fetishes out there, but this does not mean we teach our children it is natural! Please use some rational thought, rather than political correct thought, when writing your thesis.
Thanks for conceding you have no Gay animals to show us. Animals who engage in sex with the same sex does not make them Gay, because they also have sex with the opposite sex!
If you are including this subject in your thesis, please include the reasons why the billions of pets and farm animals have no homosexuality. If it's in nature, it would also be in our pets!
I hope you possess the integrity to show both sides of the arguments in your thesis. Otherwise, you are just one more political correct activist.
NO ONE is denying people have unnatural desires for all sorts of things
This is misnomered.
We have men having desires for consenting children
Children can't consent.
There are all types of fetishes out there, but this does not mean we teach our children it is natural!
If an adolescent boy has an attraction towards men, then he's gay. You can't change that. There's nothing wrong with it unless you make something wrong with it. I hope you never have a gay child, because quite honestly I think you'd be the type who would end up driving him insane.
In response to "NO ONE is denying people have unnatural desires for all sorts of things"
you wrote, This is misnomered.
This response makes sense. Desire is a naturally occurring phenomenon, so it cannot really be "unnatural."
But then in response to "We have men having desires for consenting children," you wrote, Children can't consent.
I think you just changed topics from natural realities to legal rules. Sure, children cannot legally consent to sex, or, for that matter, the terms of a contract, but that is outside the scope of this conversation.
Anyone who has ever tried to get a five-year-old to eat his peas, or give grandma a kiss, or stop hitting his little brother knows DAMNED WELL that children are fully capable of freely withholding or giving consent in regard to ANY participation in ANY activity.
True, it may not be fully informed consent, or legal consent, etc., but it is consent in the same sense that so-called "unnatural" desires are natural.
If I had a Gay son, he would know it is unnatural and not something society should be lifting up as natural!
Just because we have people attracted to all manners of fetishes, DOES NOT MAKE IT NATURAL OR NORMAL!
Society should always teach our children the scientific reality of our bodies and how they are designed.
It's sick we have insecure people trying to twist biology so that they can feel better about themselves. Try being honest with yourself and quit trying to sanction unnatural sexual orientations.
You say we are animals in one breath, then attempt to dictate what is 'moral' in the next. Is it 'moral' to build a wall if crime, gang activity & terrorism goes down? Is it moral to act like an animal if you are an animal?
I'd love to enter the mind of a lib to see what kinds of drugs it takes to happily contradict your own lack of beliefs.
So, what you're saying is that if your son was attracted (through no fault of his own) to men, and not to women, you would tell him it's unnatural?
So your son spends the rest of his life thinking there's something innately wrong with the way he is? And to what end will that help him?
He's still going to be attracted to men, only now he's going to feel fucking ashamed of himself every time the feeling crops up.
Put that into perspective. I probably see at least 5 - 10 women every day who I find sexually attractive. I can't imagine how awful it would be to look at those women and feel absolutely disgusted by myself for a desire that's completely out of my conscious power to stop.
You don't just switch attraction off, and you don't just stop being gay because your moron father thinks its a perversion. YOu're not gonna change anything by being an asshole to your gay son except, hopefully, his mind about ever letting you be part of his life again
So using you faulty logic, if you had a pedophile son (who also says he is born that way through no fault of his own), who was attracted to consenting children, or a son attracted to having sex with dead people, etc. etc., you would make him feel ok about his unnatural affections?
So you would not want your son living the rest of his life thinking there is something innately wrong with being attracted to children (EVEN THOUGH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING WRONG WITH HIS UNNATURAL AFFECTIONS)?
He's still going to be attracted to children no matter what you say, so I guess you should just sanction it as natural?
You or i would never feel ashamed of being attracted to women no matter what anyone else tells us, BECAUSE BIOLOGY TEACHES US THAT WE ARE DOING WHAT WE WERE DESIGNED TO DO! IT'S CALLED BIOLOGY!
It does not matter if a person is born that way, or chooses to be that way, etc.
It matters that we teach our children the natural order to life. If they do not follow the natural order to life for whatever reason, means they have unnatural desires.
I agree that all people should be treated with respect, not bullied, etc. but that does not mean we sanction an abnormal sexual orientation as being normal just because they want to feel good about themselves.
Stop acting like a moron father, and teach your children the truth of biology, and then deal with whatever situations pop up. We will love our children no matter what, but that does not mean we deceive them through political correctness! Stop turning a blind eye to reality.
Our children can handle the truth, and we will all deal with our own problems in life whether it be fetishes, disorders, unnatural affections, gender disorders etc. etc.
There have been plenty of people who have gone back from being Gay to being straight. They have had families, children, and enjoyable lives. Quit throwing up your hands in capitulation to unnatural sexual orientations that might be able to be helped, for the sake of our impressionable children who should be taught the natural order to life.
So using you faulty logic, if you had a pedophile son (who also says he is born that way through no fault of his own), who was attracted to consenting children, or a son attracted to having sex with dead people, etc. etc., you would make him feel ok about his unnatural affections?
A sexual attraction to children is highly harmful for obvious reasons: it tends to pair a willingness to act on that urge, which in turn immensely harms children: those members of our society we all have a strong desire to protect.
Likewise, necrophilia is similarly harmful (though not as much, in my opinion) as it predisposes those who practice it to horrid diseases, and is a violation of the social contract to honour the dead.
By comparison, homosexual sex between two consenting adults causes no such social ills. It carries no more risk to those who engage in it, than heterosexual sex. Both carry the risk of STD's; both carry the risk of hurt emotions; both carry the same risks. Neither damages society in any way moreso than the other, EXCEPT that one is against the moronic teachings of religious zealots.
Remove religion from the equation and humanity still have moral reasons to oppose peadophilia and necrophilia. Not so with homosexuality.
If one is not religious, there's no good reason to be anti-homosexual. Thus, if one is not religious, let him engage in it if he so wishes.
You are 100% wrong about homosexuality not being more risky to health.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE BODY FROM HOW GAYS HAVE SEX?
DO YOU UNDERSTAND AIDS? MUCH HIGHER INSTANCES OF AIDS IN THE GAY COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE UNNATURAL WAY THEY HAVE SEX, AND THE PROMISCUOUS SEX LIVES MANY GAYS ENGAGE IN.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE MUCH HIGHER SUICIDAL RATES FOR GAYS? THEY UNDERSTAND HOW UNNATURAL IT IS AND ARE VERY INSECURE BECAUSE OF IT.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DESIRES OF MEN TO HAVE THEIR OWN CHILDREN, BUT CANNOT? ADOPTION DOES NOT SATISFY A PERSON'S NATURAL DESIRE TO HAVE THEIR OWN CHILDREN.
Remove Progressive political correct lunacy from the equation, and your cherry picked support for unnatural homosexuality, while judging other unnatural sexual orientations, makes you the typical liberal hypocrite.
You just showed your immature anti Christian bigotry and I will not waste another second with a moronic judgmental bigot.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DAMAGE CAUSED TO THE BODY FROM HOW GAYS HAVE SEX?
Less damaging than childbirth.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND AIDS? MUCH HIGHER INSTANCES OF AIDS IN THE GAY COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE UNNATURAL WAY THEY HAVE SEX, AND THE PROMISCUOUS SEX LIVES MANY GAYS ENGAGE IN.
It's nothing to do with how they have sex. HIV is spread between men and women, too.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE MUCH HIGHER SUICIDAL RATES FOR GAYS? THEY UNDERSTAND HOW UNNATURAL IT IS AND ARE VERY INSECURE BECAUSE OF IT.
Right .. nothing to do with being shunned and hated by people like you then? Fucking moron.
this does not mean we teach our children it is natural
Rather than looking to lions, giraffes, birds, monkeys, etc. to find out what natural sex looks like (you wouldn't like the answer anyway), we should teach that the standards are consent and not causing harm to those who do not consent. At times a mother will eat her own offspring - should we teach kids that it's natural??
It means you are a deceptive joke carrying the water for Gay activists. The subject was homosexual animals, and now that you lost that argument, you switch to so called bisexual animals.
All of these things will be true in the end according to the Bible.
1)Israel exists as a nation again, and Libya and Egypt are subdued.
2)Egypt exists still but with its former power ceasing to exist.
3)Syria exists.
4)Damascus exists and is reduced to rubble.
5)The beast system emerges. Islam literaly claims to be the beast system in its eschatology, and no one knew this outside the Muslim world until the Internet and 9/11.
The beast system begins genociding Christians and routinely using beheading on its Christian victims.
The odds of the beast system and Atheism jumping out of the closet at once against Christians is pretty much zilch.
6)The gospel goes worldwide, and then begins a sharp decline into secularism in its original areas.
7)Homosexuality becomes normal and accepted.
8)It becomes normal to mock God.
9)The world escalades towards world war.
10)Jerusalem is the burden of peace in the world.
11)What would now be Europe and old school theologians referred to as "the revived Roman Empire", begins mindlessly handing over its power and territory to the beast system.
12)The world begins to side with the beast system more and more against the Christians.
13)It is depicted as all manifesting rather rapidly in sequence.
If God isn't real, the Illuminati or whatever you want to call it, joined up in a 2,000 year old conspiracy, to make the Bible prophecies come true.
Either way you slice it, there's some crazy unexplainable stuff manifesting onto the world.
Either way you slice it, there's some crazy unexplainable stuff manifesting onto the world.
It may seem that way from a certain point of view, but we can see the reasons why these things are happening if we look deep enough, if you look at how the dominoes fell none of these things are that surprising. It's not divine prophesy, if anything the writers of the bible where able to use logic to reach conclusions about the future or just made a series of vague statements that where bound to apply to something at some point.
If God isn't real, the Illuminati or whatever you want to call it, joined up in a 2,000 year old conspiracy, to make the Bible prophecies come true.
That is actually just as plausible if you think about it. In fact it's more plausible. If Islam/ the illuminati really is "the beast" then it would act the same way that it would act if it wasn't the beast but it thought it was, it would try to fulfill the prophesy.
1)Israel exists as a nation again, and Libya and Egypt are subdued.
There are historical reasons for this, it is cause and effect not prophesy.
2)Egypt exists still but with its former power ceasing to exist.
This is common sense, anyone with half a brain could have figured out that egypt wouldn't be as influential in the future. Egypt was already in decline at the time the prophesy was written, and the fertility of the land was bound to decline. In fact the bible could have been way more detailed and is lacking. Even a non prophetic source can tell you using science a fairly accurate estimate of when an ancient civilization like egypt will collapse, as their existence depends upon a temporary geographical condition of abundant arable land. Using science you can predict when the soil will be depleted or when the climate will change, and using geo-political analysis you can deduce other factors which may lead to a premature collapse. With ayahuasca fueled divination in a cave you can only make vague statements. At the end of the day, egypt was bound to lose is power due to it's precarious reliance on agriculture and the inevitability of other powers rising to conquer it such as islam.
3)Syria exists.
Again, this is easy to predict.
4)Damascus exists and is reduced to rubble.
Still can be reduced to coincidence, it was bound to get destroyed at some point.
5)The beast system emerges. Islam literaly claims to be the beast system in its eschatology, and no one knew this outside the Muslim world until the Internet and 9/11.
Do you have any sources for this you could slather onto my hot breasts? I find it hard to believe that islam was actually designed to be the beast system.
The beast system begins genociding Christians and routinely using beheading on its Christian victims.
Islam beheads christians because they are culturally primitive barbarians, it doesn't mean the prophesy is true or that it's even about them.
The odds of the beast system and Atheism jumping out of the closet at once against Christians is pretty much zilch.
They didn't "jump out of the closet" simultaneously, Islam started 1400 years ago and has been attacking christians since it's conception, Atheists have been attacking christianity since the beginning of christianity and only just recently started "coming out of the closet" and growing in number at a significant rate.
6)The gospel goes worldwide, and then begins a sharp decline into secularism in its original areas.
This is very easy to predict using logic. The writers of the bible where probably often intelligent people who could make educated guesses about future trends. The bible was bound to spread because there was a serious effort being made to spread it by influential people. On top of that, they could have figured that something like the printing press would be invented and that literacy would become more common as society advanced. Also the rise of atheism and secularism where inevitable, because as people understand more about the natural world they have less need for baseless faith.
7)Homosexuality becomes normal and accepted.
Homosexuality has already been normal and accepted in various cultures for thousands of years, and it still isn't in many cultures, including the "beast system" Shouldn't the beast system, the most sinful system of all, accept gayness? But Islam doesn't. Once again, it isn't that difficult to make vague statements like this, and many of them don't even add up when you really think about it.
8)It becomes normal to mock God.
It becomes normal to mock belief systems which you don't take seriously, just as more christians where bound to accept Jesus into their inner titty space, more non-christians and former believers where bound to lactate barbeque jalepeno sauce into God's belly button.
9)The world escalades towards world war.
The world has always escalatored into war, these wars have always gotten bigger and bigger because empires have gotten bigger and bigger and international politics has gotten more complicated and inter-connected. These things are not divine prophesy,they are common sense logical predictions and vague guesses. The bibles writers where nothing but crafty fortune tellers on steroids.
you speak as if you think you are talking to a left winger, this is not the case. It is mainly chirstianity which has oppressed the fucking faggot homo queers, in greece, rome, babylon, certain parts of africa, ancient khemit (egypt) ancient japan, india etc. homofaggiality was accepted and even transgenderism was practiced and accepted in some cases.
1)Impossible. You said homosexuality had been normal all throughout history earlier.
2)The oppression of gays in Muslim areas is so beyond the pale that most gays simply don't admit to it. There are documentaries on youtube backing my claim.
It becomes normal to mock belief systems which you don't take seriously, just as more christians where bound to accept Jesus into their inner titty space, more non-christians and former believers where bound to lactate barbeque jalepeno sauce into God's belly button
Pretty lame attempt at a rebuttal. I only speak English. You should try it some time.
You know what I mean you aqua-doodling felch slogging filch fucking perrywinkle asshat berries of cucktastic faggotry in magnentomous preportionary copioucules.
These things are not divine prophesy,they are common sense logical predictions and vague guesses.
How does someone 2,000 years ago guess that Islam will form in the future and claim to literally be the beast system from the book of Revelation, thus genociding Christians and beheading them? Do tell.
Shouldn't the beast system, the most sinful system of all, accept gayness?
1)No. The fact you think it "should", shows that the prophecies aren't based on easy logic to predict the future.
2)No one said it's "the most sinful". It's the most "against Christ". Islam violently and aggressively rejects the notion that Jesus is the Christ.
But Islam doesn't.
No, but gays, who are strongly liberal accept IT, which is the Bible's claim. Not the other way around.
We also know that the beast system "hates the whore", Mystery Babylon, which is the final powerful empire and stands for everything the beast hates. The depiction in Revelation is a whore riding and petting a beast that actually hates her and then kills her. The beast is Islam according to Islam itself. Mystery Babylon is the Liberal West.
It makes absolutely no logical sense that liberals or gays would support Islam, which is even more convincing prophetically, seeing that liberals and gays have fulfilled this prophecy by doing what is the opposite of logical. Meaning, they claim to hate conservatism, yet actually defend a group that is ultra conservatism.
The liberal West pets and defends a group that hates everything about it, just as the whore does in Revelation.
shows that the prophecies aren't based on easy logic to predict the future.
Actually it shows a contradiction, the beast is supposed to promote gayness and all forms of sin.
It's the most "against Christ". Islam violently and aggressively rejects the notion that Jesus is the Christ.
For an anti-christ system it could be a lot more anti-christ. Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet, they are not against Jesus, just against the notion that he is God's son. The muslim religion actually makes more sense than christianity theologically, they believe in one supreme god, whereas christianity claims to be monotheistic but schizophrenically claims that gods son is both god and gods son which means god is his own father. It makes a lot more sense to just say Jesus was a prophet who was born through an act of God and equipped with divine powers like other prophets in the past like David and Abraham.
No, but gays, who are strongly liberal accept IT, which is the Bible's claim.
No it's not.
The beast is Islam according to Islam itself. Mystery Babylon is the Liberal West.
If Islam is the beast system I want to see where you learned that from and judge it for myself. Mystery Babylon is not the liberal west, it's a mystery school which has it's roots in ancient babylon. There is no basis to say it's the liberal west, you are arbitrarily deciding that.
It makes absolutely no logical sense that liberals or gays would support Islam, which is even more convincing prophetically
To me it just proves they are stupid.
The liberal West pets and defends a group that hates everything about it, just as the whore does in Revelation.
You could say that about a great many things. The retarded english people who adore the royal family of inbred elitists, the BLM activists who support planned parenthood and receive funding from george soros, the generation of retards being raised by youtube, smart phones and video games who love the technology that is creating a matrix of laziness and jellyfish like behaviour in their astronomical titty slapping mechanisms etc
For an anti-christ system it could be a lot more anti-christ. Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet, they are not against Jesus, just against the notion that he is God's son.
To be against Jesus being Christ is antichrist by definition, according to the Bible. The Bible warns against a prophet in the end claiming to be Jesus. Muslims are looking for a prophet in the end, claiming to be Jesus.
The muslim religion actually makes more sense than christianity theologically
Not really. They stole many of their concepts from the Jewish texts, then claim God hates Jews.
They then stole concepts from the Christian texts, and claim God hates Christians.
They then created a religion based off of the Satanic antichrist system from the book of Revelation, a religion that literally claims Muhammed was demon possessed and had interactions with demons multiple times.
they believe in one supreme god
Stolen from the Jews.
whereas christianity claims to be monotheistic but schizophrenically claims that gods son is both god and gods son which means god is his own father.
The word "monotheism" is nowhere in the Bible. If you were a time traveler, you could go back and raise yourself, talk to yourself, and exist in two persons working independent from one another. God is much more than a time traveler. Your narrative is based on linear thinking and no ability to perceive anything outside of the box.
It makes a lot more sense to just say Jesus was a prophet who was born through an act of God and equipped with divine powers like other prophets in the past like David and Abraham.
Not if that isn't true. If Jesus is some manifestation of God's image, then that's what it would make sense to say.
Don't be mad that your religion has to fulfill many of them and is doing an acceptional job. Hell you fulfilled one just in this dialogue.
I've noticed that "shut up" is your go to when you have no logical response or any rebuttal. I relish it when you have to go there because you've got nothing, and I know you don't. Of course you've never demonstrated the ability to debate well. Jolly good.
So you're going to believe a nasty old book? The bible was made by people. People with opinions that correlated with the politics of the time in which it was written. That's why you see traces of homophobia in there.
You can believe whatever you want. Just don't go around saying the world is going to end because of something a few people wrote in a book a few centuries ,or whatever, ago.
Why do christians say things are "just a theory" but think faith is any better?
I agree with everything you stated in your description, although I would point out that you are essentially arguing against uneducated religious believers--not "sophisticated"/educated believers. Now, the uneducated believers make up the overwhelming bulk, however this is generally true of religious & non-religious people alike. Typically, they haven't been exposed to the scientific enterprise or academic thought more broadly, which is why lines of argumentation such as you referred to seem sensible to them.
Now, I know of quite a few reasonably-highly intelligent & educated people that subscribe to some form of religious belief (or perhaps more accurately, quasi-religious beliefs), although their type of belief typically takes a very different form then that of the general publics as to nearly be an entirely different "game". They will almost never state "just a theory" or claim an appeal to "faith". Rather, they often contend that their (quasi)religious beliefs are in fact a sort of Philosophical Theory strongly supported/inferred by many, varied lines of evidence based on what we currently know about the state of Nature, Human affairs, ect. ect. with some real knowledge of Science, Philosophy, ect. to "back up" their worldview
Now, I know of quite a few reasonably-highly intelligent & educated people that subscribe to some form of religious belief (or perhaps more accurately, quasi-religious beliefs), although their type of belief typically takes a very different form then that of the general publics as to nearly be an entirely different "game".
rather, they often contend that their (quasi)religious beliefs are in fact a sort of Philosophical Theory
You are literally prattling on about nothing. You honestly couldn't make a point if your life depended on it. Are these people religious or are they not religious? Because you don't seem to be able to make your mind up. They claim to be religious, but you claim them to be philosophers. The problem is philosophy is the study of reason and faith is the opposite of reason. Hence, everything you have thus far said contradicts itself.
Are these people religious or are they not religious?
They are religious in the sense that they do not necessarily strictly hold to materialism (or possibly hold to materialism but have views concerning Cosmology that go beyond the established framework of our modern conception of the field). However, their actual beliefs bare little resemblance to "traditional" religious belief
They are religious in the sense that they do not necessarily strictly hold to materialism
Materialism is a school of philosophy, and I have just established for you that religion is not the same thing as philosophy. Please read the things which you reply to.
You are just writing words which you think sound impressive when placed next to each other. They are not joined together by any coherent or structured argument. A conversation with you is quite literally pointless, because all you are interested in doing is pretending that you understand what you are talking about.
I have just established for you that religion is not the same thing as philosophy.
No, you have not "established" anything of the sort. Also, the "hard line" barriers between related disciplines in Academia are largely arbitrary as many of these disciplines are intricately connected & inextricably bound to one another
They claim to be religious, but you claim them to be philosophers.
There is in fact a lot of continuity on this front. In fact, this is why people such as Newton so often wrote/thought about religious ideas, as they were attempting to uncover the "ultimate understanding" behind the Cosmos. This is a perfectly rational endeavor in many respects
Are you familiar with Paul Davies? (Side Note: I have met Davies in person)
There is in fact a lot of continuity on this front
Wtf? Let other people decide what they identify themselves as. You do not have the right to arbitrarily redefine what anybody else thinks or believes, and if you weren't such an idiot you would understand that.
Let other people decide what they identify themselves as.
This is retarded, it doesn't matter what you identify as, it only matters what you are. No one has the right to decide what anything is, there is only the objective truth, speculation and stupidity, take your pick.
There is in fact a lot of continuity on this front. In fact, this is why people such as Newton so often wrote/thought about religious ideas
What you have written is the opposite of continuity because you never gave us the "why" which you bizarrely refer to. I pointed out that you were redefining religious beliefs as philosophy, and you have responded by talking about Newton. Newton has absolutely nothing to do with you redefining religious beliefs as philosophy, unless you are saying he made the same mistake and you are just copying him.
What you have written is the opposite of continuity because you never gave us the why you refer to
People believe in all sorts of Scientifically unverified Philosophies in various areas all of the time which are not granted the title "religious". In fact, much of the "Social Sciences" are based around this point--of which many highly intellectual figures subscribe to unverified quasi-scientific/philosophy ideas as their operative worldview(s).
You are literally prattling on about nothing. You honestly couldn't make a point if your life depended on it. Are these people religious or are they not religious
Faith in God is blind in that we only see through a glass darkly, and it is subjective, just like all knowledge, because knowledge is personal.
So why scoff at those who proclaim science while denying God?
Because God is not a theory, God is The Supreme and Ultimate Reality, and if you don't believe in this, your science falsely so called isn't standing on anything.
Exalting knowledge over God is idiotic. The people who do this don't know what they are talking about, and it would be far worse for them if they did!
And what is the misunderstanding about Christ? Faith in Christ is faith in God, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality. It isn't faith in created things. Knowledge is clearly a created thing, and knowledge itself is not indication of truth.
I can know something without it being true. Just because something is science doesn't mean it is true. Besides that, just because you read something in a book that said what it told you is "scientific" doesn't mean that it is actually scientific.
Did you perform any experiments? Did you follow the scientific method? Did you meticulously toil in order to isolate as many variables as possible?
See, you aren't even truthful when you appeal to "science", because you don't actually believe in science, you just believe what the witch doctors tell you.
I know better. To me what I say is science. Unlike you arrogant doop heads, my faith isn't in my understanding but GOD, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
Yet those who question God are so weak in their faith that all they can do is attack people, ideas, artwork, culture, etc. When it comes to The One True God? There is no legitimate argument against this. What is the first thing God deniers do? They make God into a falsity. This is why THEY ARE WRONG.
God is The Truth, all others are liars. Glorify God, and stop judging God because you don't like people. Those who condemn others based on faith in their own self righteousness are clearly no better than those they point the finger at.
See, another problem is the superstitious idea of what faith is. Faith in the context of theology is sincere and strong conviction, which isn't necessarily blind or not based on evidence. Obviously, faith comes from proof, if something wasn't proven to an individual, they don't have faith. Proof doesn't necessarily have to be convincing to everyone, just the one that has had something proven to them!
So what is faith in Christ? It is sincere and strong conviction in The Supreme and Ultimate Reality.
How can those who kill Christ know what they are doing? They can be comforted to know that despite their sins against humanity and all things sacred, they have been forgiven. Forgiven by the very one they are persecuting.
Repent and believe The Good News, that It is The Truth that sets you free, and The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is Salvation!