no religion is above the other nor church,God remains God only with different methods of worship

First I would like to break down the resolution into its component parts and set the boundaries for victory. A) No religion is above the other - I take this to mean that two competing religions (Christianity and Hinduism for example) are both equally valid, hold equal salvific (the ability to save) authority, and have equal truth values. B) No Church is above another - Due to his example in his first argument, I take this to mean that no earthly Christian church is more valid than another. That all earthly Christian churches hold equal salvific authority, and have equal truth values. C) God remains God only with different methods of worship - There is one ontological (existential) entity who is a divine and supreme being. This entity is the object of all earthly religions and therefore all earthly religions worship this entity. In order to win this debate, Pro would have to prove that all three contentions are true. Con will be the victor in this debate if any one of the contentions are shown to be false by proving that any religion holds a truth value that is either untrue or logically impossible, that any Church holds a truth value that is either untrue or logically impossible, or that any religious system worships a different ontological entity than another or does not worship any ontological entity. I believe the poster to have a deeply flawed and logically inconsistent view. Con of Contention A) Consider the Law of Non-contradiction. The Law of Non-contradiction is logical construct that states that a thing cannot be A and not-A. For example, I can not be both human and not human. If you would like to get a more detailed explanation of this law, it is available at the University of San Diego's website. [1] Now, in order for Contention A to be valid. .. my opponent has the burden of proof to show that all religions hold equally valid truth values in their ascertains. I must simply prove that any one religions holds an invalid truth value in their ascertains. If even one religion is invalid, then we must conclude that not every religion is valid. Take the example of Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Judaism is the worlds oldest known Monotheistic religion. It asserts that YHWH (the formal name of the God of Judaism) is One, or that YHWH is the only God. [2] Hinduism on the other hand is an ancient (yet still practiced) polytheistic religion. It asserts that there are many Gods. One website, created by Hindus identifies 27 gods[3], however many Hindu resources would identify many more. Now consider Buddhism. Buddha himself argued that there was no God or gods, and that in fact. .. belief in divine beings was a hindrance toward enlightenment. [4] Essentially we have 3 statements that violate the law of non-contradiction -Judaism - God is One -Hinduism - God is Not One -Buddhism - God is Not Since in order for all three of these religions to hold an equally valid truth value, they would need to violate the Law of Non-contradiction. .. they cannot all be equally true. To attest this would be to attest the same law that states that I can be a human, and not be a human. It is not necessary to prove WHICH of the three is correct, only that all three cannot be correct and thus that at least one of them is incorrect and holds a false truth value. Con of Contention B) This is a difficult contention to refute, as the Bible is pretty clear about the fact that all believers are equal in the sight of the Lord. However, we must recognize that not all Christian churches are equal in their truth values. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Virgin Mary remained a Virgin until her death and still remains a Virgin. Various branches of the Protestant Church teaches that Mary had sex with her husband Joseph and produced other offspring. These two positions violate the Law of Non-contradiction and by definition cannot both be correct. Roman Catholic Church - Mary is a Virgin Protestant Denominations - Mary is not a Virgin Again, the Law of Non-contradiction prohibits this from being true, and again. .. I am not burdened to prove which one is wrong. .. only that one is wrong. Since both cannot be right, one must be wrong. Con of Contention C) This point has been dismantled in my treatment of the first contention, so I shall be brief. Buddhism is an atheistic religion. How could a religion that does not believe that God exists, make him an object of their worship? Is the complete denial of existence a form of worship? Have you ever had anyone prove their devotion to you by ignoring the fact that you exist and saying that belief in you was a distraction to true enlightenment? No, since even one religion does not worship the ontological entity in question, contention C fails. Since I have shown that at least one religion does not worship any ontological entity, it is impossible to say that all religions worship the same ontological entity. A few minor rebuttal points that I will explicate further in round 2 if needed. If every religion has VALID accusations against the other, than this does not prove that all religions are valid. .. it proves that all religions are invalid. I suppose that this would prove that no religion is above the other, but that does not really get at the meaning of the resolution which claims that all religions are equally valid in terms of their worship methods. The book of Revelation does not find fault in all 7 churches. The Church of Smyrna [5] and the Church of Philadelphia [6] both receive no fault in their address. The other 5 Churches do indeed receive chastisement, so the point made in my opponent's argument is based on inaccurate evidence and therefore is null. God does remain God regardless (irregardless isn't actually a word, and if it was it argues the opposite of the sense you are using it) of religious affiliations. However, as I stated before, this does not mean that those religious affiliations are true or equally valid, as your resolution contents. I would like to thank the readers and voters for taking time to read through this. I look forward to Pro's rebuttal. However, I urge you all to take heed of the logic inherent in my argument. Just as I cannot be human and not human at the same time (viz the Law of Non-contradiction). .. I cannot be right and not right at the same time, and I am right. Please vote Con when the time comes. Thank you. [1]. http://orpheus.ucsd.edu... [2]Deuteronomy 6:4 - . http://esv.to... [3]. http://www.sanatansociety.org... [4]. http://buddhism.about.com... [5]Revelation 2:8-11 - . http://esv.to... [6]Revelation 3:7-13 - . http://esv.to...