Is Christianity Just Another Religion Or Its Superior

[arcticsnpr 0]

Jesus reigns, no sence in debating what is insignificant. The Lord is commin back one day, if you reject that, your blind to the truth, and I pray with all of my heart you will see what blinds you.

[Europe 0]

absolutely just another religion!! i believe in god! my god i think religion is a personal thing that everyone should follow as he/she wishes!!! i believe in a god that created the world though i don't believe in a god that separated the sea in two...

[Joshua 0]

absolutely just another religion!! i believe in god! my god i think religion is a personal thing that everyone should follow as he/she wishes!!! i believe in a god that created the world though i don't believe in a god that separated the sea in two...

Definitely! The anabaptists and others who preceded the Baptists of which I am called were quite strong on free will and freedom of religion. God has given us all the ability to choose or to reject Him, it is why we were able to do so at the beginning of creation. God didn't want mindless zombies or robots, He gave us free will so we could choose to love Him and have a relationship with Him, even though it meant we had the ability to reject Him. We weren't created with an innate sin nature or knowledge of evil, we didn't have an inclination to evil in the beginning. All that came only after we made a conscious choice to reject God and gain a knowledge of good... and EVIL so that we became truly corrupted, creatures of evil which God did not intend for us to become.

If God, then, has given us all free will, who are we to try and take that away from our fellow human beings? I may not agree with you but I can respect your God-given right to free will, to choose or to reject Him, and am still called to care about all regardless of their choices, even as God loves and cares for us all.

[mayank 2]

I dont know why everyone over here is so much concerned about these religion things. I think religion's are there to help people in finding what is right and what is wrong and if I am correct every religion teaches one thing and that is PEACE and if everyone is teaching that then JOSHUA your point of mutually exclusive thingy is wrong because teachings of PEACE is not bad at all. Secondly, why cant people just follow one religion and that is the religion of Humanity. I am Hindu but I have no problems in visiting a church or a mosque, I find same peace over there as I find in a temple.So, why dont you guyz leave this topic of which religion is superior and which is not and rather think on these terms...Brotherhood and humanity and I am sure a person who will follow these will be loved by GOD.

[loyal 0]

I'm am not believe in God at all so I have, in my opinion, a very objective point of view. If we will think about Jedaism, Christianity and Islam, I can't understand why people brought up Christianity and Islam.

Judaism is the oldest monotonic religion in the world. When Rome empire killed Jesus, His students made him as a God. As to me, it is very stupid. First of all Jesus was jewish, as a result, he was the son of Avraham, so he was the son of God, like all the Jews. Moreover, He made a lot of wrong deeds, due to them he was killed. In the Jedaism there is a part of it with the name Kabalah (Madona studies it now). with the help of it we can make like "Miracles". But there are very few people who knows it and it is forbiden to use it. He Has known it and used it for walking on the water and more.... That's why he was killed. From the other side, He believed in Judaism, where there is only one god and it is forbiden to believe in anything else, when he was killed his students made him as a God. I have many more facts. Tell me if you accept it....Thanks...

 

Look i know about the Kabalah and i warn you not to know it. It is an evil thing. Even the Bible and Qur'an tells the story of how two angels were ordered to give the knowledge to the humans as a test to see if they will use it. Do not use it! Jesus was a natural person with God-given powers. He is a prophet.

I warn you to stay away from Kabalah.

 

sorry, I can't agree. First of all, Jesus NEVER SINNED. He was perfect in every way. He was tempted, but never sinned. OK, I accept the fact you disprove Christians (in which I am), but I have a question: what if it is true? because if it is, your not lookin so good dude. how would you like to burn FOREVER! Never stops! Don't get me wrong, God isn't mean because he sends ppl to hell. He is loving, and he WANTS you to be with him. But since we sinned, we can't enter God's kingdom. Christianity is not a religion! It's a personal relationship. Dude, He loves you. I can't express it. I don't know you, but I would certainly want you in heaven! Its real! No joking, it's reality! You can't escape it. I know you probebly think this is silly. But think about this. "have you ever been wrong when you thought you were absolutely right?" I love you, whoever you are. I hope you come to thhis realization. nickmealey1@hotmail.com for any questions.

 

quoted from answering-christianity:

Jesus was defeated by the woman's wisdom:

 

"A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession. Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, 'Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.' He [Jesus] answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.' The woman came and knelt before him. 'Lord, help me!' she said. He [Jesus] replied 'It is not right to take the children's [Jews] bread [blessings and miracles reserved for them] and toss it to their dogs [the Gentiles].' 'Yes, Lord' she said, 'but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus answered, 'Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.' And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 15:22-28)"

 

It's funny how Jesus supposedly in the book of man-made alterations and corruption, the New Testament, instantaneously ABROGATED his views and decision about the non-Jewish woman and people in general being equivalent to dogs when compared to the Jews. It is important to note that the woman, in this corrupted book, from the very start showed that she is a "believer" (what ever that meant back then). So it wasn't a matter of a "disbeliever" or pagan seeking Jesus' help.

 

The woman's wisdom defeated Jesus, the so-called "Creator of the Universe"! Jesus, within a second, changed his racist and trash-mouthed views against her from being a "dog" to a human being who deserves to be helped.

 

 

 

"I was sent ONLY to..." clearly and irrefutably means that Jesus initially claimed that he wasn't sent to other than the Jews!

 

So what if the woman failed with Jesus??

 

It seems that Jesus in the corrupted book of the new testament changed his racist and filthy views only because the woman begged him. I wonder if the woman never did this and instead answered him inappropriately after he called her and all gentiles as "dogs", would the gentiles today still be considered as the Jews' dogs? Most probably yes. It doesn't take much for a racist to go back to his old habits and generalizing evil beliefs.

 

 

 

Again, don't forget that the woman initially showed that she was a believer! Jesus rejected her only because she was a Gentile!

end of quote

 

That is why Jesus cannot be god.

 

hi everyone ...

 

i am a muslim living in australia. i have recently begun to explore and try to look for the confilct between Christianity and islam and i was a really suprised when i discover how much similarities between these two great religion.

 

but i could not understand the concept of Trinity. i ask several christian about it and it was shocking that most of them do not know what this concept means. they just believe it as a something which cannot be explained. however some people do asnwer my question. then, i get confused again when i saw the movie " the passion of the Christ", Juses was calling somebody at the bigenning of the movie " father ... father". logic would clash with that. was he calling himself? seems not.

 

them i said i should go to the Bible. i realised that it is not the word of Juses, so i tried to find Juses' words because if he is a god, he would not let people in a such confusing situation. what i discovered was: Juses never said anything about Trinity which is just an idea that was developed after Juses leave. He never said i am a son of god. He never said i has been sent for the entire world.

 

Christians also claim that Juses has been crucified for the sins of humans? can anyone explain to me which sins are forgiven?

 

i am not trying to be rude or unrespected for Christianity and if i did i am asking for forgivness. i just wanna the image to be clearfied and things to be understood.

thanks

There are LOT of similarties, yes. Lol the biggest similarity has to be worshipping the same god. When Christians do not worship Jesus or the holy spirit, then they worship Yahweh (God) (Allah) who the Muslims also worship.

 

And it is not really shocking that noone understands the trinity because noone understands it. They made it so complicated that it is too hard to be understood.

Also the Bible is believed by Muslims to be the corrupted Word of God.

 

The idea is that all the sins of humanity are forgiven. Too bad the guys who are dead and the guys in the future were not forgiven.

 

 

Happy to talk with you about them Salem.

 

You seem to question what Christ said about Himself. The whole reason the Jews tried stoning Him so many times and hated Him enough to crucify Him was precisely because He did claim to be God, and they said as much. Here are His words:

 

John 8:42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.

 

That is not saying i am god. That is saying God sent him. God sent all the prophets.

 

John 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

 

He saying not to be arrogant.

 

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

 

Why would a god hide from some people?!

 

When confronted by Jews; Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58)

Perceived by the "man of extraordinary faith": This proves; a) Jesus existed before his birth.

Jesus was the same entity who replied to prophet Moses when he asked his God; What was His name? What shall he say to his people? From behind the Burning Bush God replied; "I AM THAT I AM." (Exodus 3:14).

 

Answer:

a) Jesus was consecrated (anointed) by God before he was born and so was prophet Jeremiah. The Bible records, God came to prophet Jeremiah and said to him; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jer. 1:5.

 

God "loved" his chosen prophets before they were born. The Bible confirms; God "loved" Jesus before the foundation of the world. (Jn. 17:24). This act of loving by an entity called God, undoubtedly proves that Jesus was not God "Himself", before he was born or after he was born. Jesus was a distinctly separate entity that was "being loved" by God, records this verse for the people who are upright and open minded.

 

King Melchizedek of Salem was an eternal priest with no records of his beginning and ending. (Heb. 7:1-3). No Christian would admit, based upon this stated of "eternal life span", that the King of Salem was God, so how can Jesus be who claimed his existence before Abraham?

 

The entire concept is based upon a simple conjecture. In the foot notes of Exodus 3:14 the editors of K.J.V. write;

 

"Jesus probably alluded to this name of God in John 8:58, 'Before Abraham was, I AM." The use of phrase "probably alluded" indicates; this does not happen to be an established truth or certainty.

The Greek words "ego eimi" are here translated as "I Am". However, the literal translation mentioned in the marginal notes of the New American Standard Bible reads; "I have been". Study Supportive Passage:

Repeating the same phrase "I am", Jesus said; "I am (he), and that I do nothing on my own; but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things." (John 8:28). God of Moses had no instructor. If he had one, then that entity would be the God's mentor or boss!

 

A question for you:

Jesus said; "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". When Jesus was asked: "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is One Lord; And you shall LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength." A TRUE DISCIPLE WOULD NOT DIVIDE HIS LOVE BETWEEN "LORD GOD" AND MESSIAH THAT WAS SANCTIFIED BY GOD. Jn.10:36.

I'm still deciding whether or not I should get into stuff like this as much as I once did, it seems mostly to just lead to arguing with no conclusion. I will say this which we should be all able to agree on: all religions cannot be right, nor can all philosophies or beliefs. The laws of logic tell us that mutually exclusive things can't be correct. God can't be all-good and all-evil, they are mutually exclusive concepts. God can't be all-powerful and semi-powerful, they are mutually exclusive concepts. Therefore if one religion says one thing that's mutually exclusive and another religion something mutually exclusive in the same category so that both can't be right, then by the laws of logic, only one of those religions can be right.

 

 

Therefore, not all religions can be right nor can they lead to God. Concerning Christianity, let me just say this: Anyone can die for what they believe while fighting. When you can find those who not only die for what they believe in, but do so peacefully while showing love, kindness, and even forgiveness for their enemies... what is more contrary to human nature?

 

Yes, there are many so-called Christians who do not do that, and fight rather then show peace. But there are also millions of Christians worldwide who die daily for their faith in Christ, and even love and forgive their enemies to the end. Jesus Himself said many who claim to follow Him would be liars or deceived (read Matthew 7). But what other religion so seems to have those who so deny the essential basics of human personality and nature? It is not merely Jesus and the disciples who died peacefully forgiving their enemies, but even today, people die in such ways every day for the name of Christ!

 

Could Napoleon be wrong?

 

He can be All Good. Evil is not the opposite of good but the absence of good. And nopolean is just a man of course he could be wrong.

 

Jesus reigns, no sence in debating what is insignificant. The Lord is commin back one day, if you reject that, your blind to the truth, and I pray with all of my heart you will see what blinds you.

He will come back but it depends on what you believe

 

 

Definitely! The anabaptists and others who preceded the Baptists of which I am called were quite strong on free will and freedom of religion. God has given us all the ability to choose or to reject Him, it is why we were able to do so at the beginning of creation. God didn't want mindless zombies or robots, He gave us free will so we could choose to love Him and have a relationship with Him, even though it meant we had the ability to reject Him. We weren't created with an innate sin nature or knowledge of evil, we didn't have an inclination to evil in the beginning. All that came only after we made a conscious choice to reject God and gain a knowledge of good... and EVIL so that we became truly corrupted, creatures of evil which God did not intend for us to become.

 

Yes that is entirely true! God gave us free will. We should use that free will to either accept or reject God.

 

I dont know why everyone over here is so much concerned about these religion things. I think religion's are there to help people in finding what is right and what is wrong and if I am correct every religion teaches one thing and that is PEACE and if everyone is teaching that then JOSHUA your point of mutually exclusive thingy is wrong because teachings of PEACE is not bad at all.

Secondly, why cant people just follow one religion and that is the religion of Humanity. I am Hindu but I have no problems in visiting a church or a mosque, I find same peace over there as I find in a temple.

 

So, why dont you guyz leave this topic of which religion is superior and which is not and rather think on these terms...Brotherhood and humanity and I am sure a person who will follow these will be loved by GOD.

Peace is the solution. Peace of the soul. Peace of the mind. Peace of our society.
Edited April 22, 2006 by loyal (see edit history)

[adriantc 0]

I don't think there is a superior religion. As a non-believer (christian orthodox by birth) I am sure there isn't a very big difference between the 2 main religions: Christianity and Islam. History made the dfference between those two. In Europe Christianity lived throught what we call the Dark Ages and I think that period made Christianity much more mature religion. They changed their view from "Earth is the center of the Universe" and kill anybody who says different to "Maybe the evolution theory is true?!?". Meanwhile in the far east nothing changed everything remained and still is like it was in the 14th century. But there is no way you can say a religion is better. Yeah the Christian world is far more richer then the Islamic world, but that is not entirely because of religion. History is the main player. If we were born in Africa we would have still starved like people do right now.So basicly what I want to say: There is no superior religion; and if you think deeply you'll realise that the difference between them is not that great. They have the same objective: give people hope and enforce some rules (and as a personal opinion... the sum of that two ultimately leads to control of the people; fact seen in the dark ages)

Edited April 22, 2006 by adriantc (see edit history)

[CroSpartacus 0]

I think this world would be in chaos without religion.Christianity does not teach to feel superior to other religions. I don't think any religion teaches that. In Islam they are taught to respect Christians and Jews as they are the People of the Book.The bible is not only a religious book but it has history, philosophy, and prediction of future events. After centuries of persecution and attempts to destroy it the bible still stands.It's just different viewpoints of the bible that has divided Christianity into many sects.I'm a Catholic and we believe in the Virgin birth of Christ. People say it's impossible, but this is God we are talking about, nothing is impossible.And what is that guy talking about that Jesus was a "racist"? It was Jesus' teachings such as to spread the word not only to Jews but also non-jews. What about the time Jesus healed the Roman Centurion's servant?

[loyal 0]

I don't think there is a superior religion. As a non-believer (christian orthodox by birth) I am sure there isn't a very big difference between the 2 main religions: Christianity and Islam. History made the dfference between those two. In Europe Christianity lived throught what we call the Dark Ages and I think that period made Christianity much more mature religion. They changed their view from "Earth is the center of the Universe" and kill anybody who says different to "Maybe the evolution theory is true?!?". Meanwhile in the far east nothing changed everything remained and still is like it was in the 14th century. But there is no way you can say a religion is better. Yeah the Christian world is far more richer then the Islamic world, but that is not entirely because of religion. History is the main player. If we were born in Africa we would have still starved like people do right now.

I never said Islam was the greater religion. I was just replying to some people's comments. But in the Middle East it is no longer like the 14th century. Arabs were beginning to go the best full length. They were extremly clever and had many scientists and so on who discovered many things. Gradually the Ottoman empire died and the Western world took over.

I think this world would be in chaos without religion.
Christianity does not teach to feel superior to other religions. I don't think any religion teaches that. In Islam they are taught to respect Christians and Jews as they are the People of the Book.

The bible is not only a religious book but it has history, philosophy, and prediction of future events. After centuries of persecution and attempts to destroy it the bible still stands.

I would not agree with the 'Bible still stands' but i agree with your comments so far.

It's just different viewpoints of the bible that has divided Christianity into many sects.
I'm a Catholic and we believe in the Virgin birth of Christ. People say it's impossible, but this is God we are talking about, nothing is impossible.

And what is that guy talking about that Jesus was a "racist"? It was Jesus' teachings such as to spread the word not only to Jews but also non-jews. What about the time Jesus healed the Roman Centurion's servant?

Not really the Bible that divided the Christians into sects. More the corruption. Now the Christians high in power are not actually corrupt anymore. Thank God.

Also when i was talking about Jesus, i was trying to prove a point that he was not sinless.

[grnjd 0]

Everyone has their own ideas about religion. You can't tell anyone if one religion is right or wrong. Just accept other people's ideals and learn to respect them. I personally don't think christianity is that superior. Why would it be? Since you hear about all their bad deeds done by the church. It has a history of committing sins and yet, people still learn to follow it. Its probably a more tradition thing.

[truefusion 3]

In response to "Jesus was defeated by the woman's wisdom":

(You could have used quote tags).

Although, it used to prove that Jesus is not God, it seems that you also use to this to "prove" that Jesus has sinned.

Also when i was talking about Jesus, i was trying to prove a point that he was not sinless.

Indeed, Jesus was sent to do something else, first. But, Jesus was only testing her faith. Sin would have been doing what the disciples said,

Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us

This goes to show just how faith saves people. This is also another proof that Jesus was tempted by evil, but did not give in. What you call "defeating" Jesus, isnt really defeating, cause He did not give in to sin. Since, the canaanite woman wasnt using evil to "lure" Jesus in. She wanted help, and got it.

 

Anywho, moving on:

I would not agree with the 'Bible still stands' but i agree with your comments so far.

Missing the obvious? Kinda hard not to agree that the Bible still stands, just cause you dont think it does. If it still didnt "stand" many people wouldnt be using it. Mind explaining your reason?

 

The idea is that all the sins of humanity are forgiven. Too bad the guys who are dead and the guys in the future were not forgiven.

Who says the dead arent saved? Sure, many of them arent, but who says, they all aren't? I'm pretty sure i've read something about the dead being saved in the Bible. Edited April 23, 2006 by truefusion (see edit history)

[loyal 0]

Everyone has their own ideas about religion. You can't tell anyone if one religion is right or wrong. Just accept other people's ideals and learn to respect them. I personally don't think christianity is that superior. Why would it be? Since you hear about all their bad deeds done by the church. It has a history of committing sins and yet, people still learn to follow it. Its probably a more tradition thing.

 

I agree. People need to learn to live peacefully with one another. Some states do not recognise some major religions because they do not want them to exist. They need to change their attitude.

 

 

In response to "Jesus was defeated by the woman's wisdom":

(You could have used quote tags).

Although, it used to prove that Jesus is not God, it seems that you also use to this to "prove" that Jesus has sinned.

 

Indeed, Jesus was sent to do something else, first. But, Jesus was only testing her faith. Sin would have been doing what the disciples said,

This goes to show just how faith saves people. This is also another proof that Jesus was tempted by evil, but did not give in. What you call "defeating" Jesus, isnt really defeating, cause He did not give in to sin. Since, the canaanite woman wasnt using evil to "lure" Jesus in. She wanted help, and got it.

 

Well actually if you had read what i wrote, i said something like:

 

"A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, 'Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession. Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, 'Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.' He [Jesus] answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.' The woman came and knelt before him. 'Lord, help me!' she said. He [Jesus] replied 'It is not right to take the children's [Jews] bread [blessings and miracles reserved for them] and toss it to their dogs [the Gentiles].' 'Yes, Lord' she said, 'but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus answered, 'Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.' And her daughter was healed from that very hour. (From the NIV Bible, Matthew 15:22-28)"

 

 

Jesus said taht non-Jewish woman and people in general are equivalent to dogs. Anyway this is not the place to debate on whether Jesus was sinless or not. If you want to debate on that PM me or start a new topic and PM me the hyperlink please.

 

 

Anywho, moving on:

 

Missing the obvious? Kinda hard not to agree that the Bible still stands, just cause you dont think it does. If it still didnt "stand" many people wouldnt be using it. Mind explaining your reason?

 

 

Who says the dead arent saved? Sure, many of them arent, but who says, they all aren't? I'm pretty sure i've read something about the dead being saved in the Bible.

I do not make snap judgements. I do not say the Bible does not stand because I do not want it to stand. It would take me quite a while and a lot of typing to explain why. Would you like me to PM you and show you why it does not stand as the Words of God anymore?

 

God bless you all.

[no9t9 0]

It is not always a point of view. Would you say murder or perhaps even rape is wrong? Becuase if you did then you would contradicting your argument. There such a thing as right and wrong but not always.

 

Ah, but society can be corrupt. For example in the united kingdowm many people think it is harmless to have a one night stand or have sex with someone before marriage. But suggest this to a true strict Christian and they will be horrified. Now i cannot say that sex before marriage because the western society as a whole does not think it is bad. Murder is bad but that may become good. It is impossible to tell someone to judge themselves by society when the society is doing exactly what their religion is saying NOT to do.

 

I don't really want to get into a arguement on religion (and I don't really know what you are talking about because you are all over the place). I just find it extremely funny that you cannot see that religion is an OPINION and a POINT OF VIEW. You think murder is wrong because you have been taught that it is wrong. Murder happens all the time and depending on the person's point of view, it can be right or wrong. Just ask the Nazi's or the KKK. You think they cared if they killed a black guy? I don't think so.

 

Next, you mention that society can be corrupt and is why society cannot determine morals (or right and wrong). What do you think corrupt means? Corruption is just another viewpoint. If society thinks it is okay to have one night stands, why should it be wrong? In fact, I don't think it is wrong at all. Who cares if religion says it is wrong? Why should it be? Because you have all been taught (or brainwashed) to think that premarital sex is wrong. Who cares if a true strict christian thinks it is wrong to have one night stands? They do not represent society's values in this case so the christian is the one who is wrong.

 

Another example of "corruption" is bribes. In North America and most of western europe, it is unacceptable to take bribes in business. but in many countries in asia and south america, it is expected and even worked into the budget.

 

The second thing I find extremely funny is the fact that someone is comparing religion to science in terms of "accuracy". Of course the more we learn from a scientific point of view, the more accurate it is. How can the parallel be drawn for religion? It is simply ridiculous! Religion is not something we will understand more over time because it is abstract! The reason why the oldest book is the most accurate book is that all books are essentially telling a story (history - if you believe it is true). What is more accurate, a history book written AT THE TIME history happened or hundreds of years later?

 

If you kept a journal and wrote entries for days that were 5 years ago, how much would you remember? Most of your ideas would be lost and distorted!

 

Open your mind. Everything in this world is relative and depends on your point of view. You are taking a hard view from the religious point of view. Step back from your teachings (brainwashing) and try to see thing from other's point of view. Religion is not a bad thing but it is bad when people close their minds because of it.

[truefusion 3]

I don't really want to get into a arguement on religion (and I don't really know what you are talking about because you are all over the place). [1]I just find it extremely funny that you cannot see that religion is an OPINION and a POINT OF VIEW. You think murder is wrong because you have been taught that it is wrong. Murder happens all the time and depending on the person's point of view, it can be right or wrong. Just ask the Nazi's or the KKK. You think they cared if they killed a black guy? I don't think so.

 

Next, you mention that society can be corrupt and is why society cannot determine morals (or right and wrong). What do you think corrupt means? Corruption is just another viewpoint. [2]If society thinks it is okay to have one night stands, why should it be wrong? In fact, I don't think it is wrong at all. [3]Who cares if religion says it is wrong? [4]Why should it be? [5]Because you have all been taught (or brainwashed) to think that premarital sex is wrong. Who cares if a true strict christian thinks it is wrong to have one night stands? [6]They do not represent society's values in this case so the christian is the one who is wrong.

 

Another example of "corruption" is bribes. In North America and most of western europe, [7]it is unacceptable to take bribes in business. but in many countries in asia and south america, it is expected and even worked into the budget.

 

The second thing I find extremely funny is the fact that someone is comparing religion to science in terms of "accuracy". Of course the more we learn from a scientific point of view, the more accurate it is. How can the parallel be drawn for religion? It is simply ridiculous! [8]Religion is not something we will understand more over time because it is abstract! The reason why the oldest book is the most accurate book is that all books are essentially telling a story (history - if you believe it is true). [9]What is more accurate, a history book written AT THE TIME history happened or hundreds of years later?

 

[10]If you kept a journal and wrote entries for days that were 5 years ago, how much would you remember? Most of your ideas would be lost and distorted!

 

[11]Open your mind. Everything in this world is relative and depends on your point of view. You are taking a hard view from the religious point of view. Step back from your teachings (brainwashing) and try to see thing from other's point of view. Religion is not a bad thing but it is bad when people close their minds because of it.

 

[1]I find it funny that if something from a "point of view" were to happen to you, you'd consider it wrong, EVEN IF the other person thinks it's right. If someone killed your love one, based on your explaination, "Oh, wells..", right? If someone ripped off your arm, and found it to be good, "Oh, wells..", right? You'd just be in pain for a very long time, and no longer have an arm for the rest of your life, but as long as the other person found it to be good, "Oh, wells..".

 

[2]Yes, lets forget about the STDs. After all, they're not life-threatening.

[3]Missing the obvious?: We, apparently do.

[4]Because, many many reasons support it, and no not cause it's someone's opinion. Facts.

[5]You seemed to be brainwashed yourself. And it isnt just the Christians who think it's wrong.

[6]I can understand why you're taking into account about today's society. But, back then it was not as bad as it is today.

[7]Good! (cept for asia and south america)

[8]Maybe not you, but many others have.

[9]Many factors come into play, each weighing to either side.

[10]I'm a bit confused at this one. Cause if you kept a journal, it would be so things wont be lost or distorted.

[11]Thinking about things being an opinion, or someone's "point of view" "is not a bad thing but it is bad when people close their minds because of it".

Edited April 24, 2006 by truefusion (see edit history)

[Joshua 0]

I dont know why everyone over here is so much concerned about these religion things. I think religion's are there to help people in finding what is right and what is wrong and if I am correct every religion teaches one thing and that is PEACE and if everyone is teaching that then JOSHUA your point of mutually exclusive thingy is wrong because teachings of PEACE is not bad at all. Secondly, why cant people just follow one religion and that is the religion of Humanity. I am Hindu but I have no problems in visiting a church or a mosque, I find same peace over there as I find in a temple.

So, why dont you guyz leave this topic of which religion is superior and which is not and rather think on these terms...Brotherhood and humanity and I am sure a person who will follow these will be loved by GOD.

Actually, any one religion is going to teach more then just peace. Ultimately however, we can't say what God will or will not find acceptable, we must rely on that info from somewhere else. If we try to figure it out through human concensus, we will all disagree, therefore, we must determine a different source since humans will disagree and thus truth can't come from us, and then determine the reputability of said source.

==================================

It's funny how Jesus supposedly in the book of man-made alterations and corruption, the New Testament, instantaneously ABROGATED his views and decision about the non-Jewish woman and people in general being equivalent to dogs when compared to the Jews. It is important to note that the woman, in this corrupted book, from the very start showed that she is a "believer" (what ever that meant back then). So it wasn't a matter of a "disbeliever" or pagan seeking Jesus' help.
The woman's wisdom defeated Jesus, the so-called "Creator of the Universe"! Jesus, within a second, changed his racist and trash-mouthed views against her from being a "dog" to a human being who deserves to be helped.

"I was sent ONLY to..." clearly and irrefutably means that Jesus initially claimed that he wasn't sent to other than the Jews!

So what if the woman failed with Jesus??

It seems that Jesus in the corrupted book of the new testament changed his racist and filthy views only because the woman begged him. I wonder if the woman never did this and instead answered him inappropriately after he called her and all gentiles as "dogs", would the gentiles today still be considered as the Jews' dogs? Most probably yes. It doesn't take much for a racist to go back to his old habits and generalizing evil beliefs.

Again, don't forget that the woman initially showed that she was a believer! Jesus rejected her only because she was a Gentile!

end of quote

That is why Jesus cannot be god.

You should've read the rest of the passage, God must've known you'd say this 2 thousand years ago because it's set up perfectly to beat your argument before it even got started! For one thing, Jesus said this before even speaking that to her!

Matthew 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Just that right there destroys your racism theory instantly.

a) Jesus was consecrated (anointed) by God before he was born and so was prophet Jeremiah. The Bible records, God came to prophet Jeremiah and said to him; "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jer. 1:5.
God "loved" his chosen prophets before they were born. The Bible confirms; God "loved" Jesus before the foundation of the world. (Jn. 17:24). This act of loving by an entity called God, undoubtedly proves that Jesus was not God "Himself", before he was born or after he was born. Jesus was a distinctly separate entity that was "being loved" by God, records this verse for the people who are upright and open minded.

King Melchizedek of Salem was an eternal priest with no records of his beginning and ending. (Heb. 7:1-3). No Christian would admit, based upon this stated of "eternal life span", that the King of Salem was God, so how can Jesus be who claimed his existence before Abraham?

The entire concept is based upon a simple conjecture. In the foot notes of Exodus 3:14 the editors of K.J.V. write;


"Jesus probably alluded to this name of God in John 8:58, 'Before Abraham was, I AM." The use of phrase "probably alluded" indicates; this does not happen to be an established truth or certainty.
The Greek words "ego eimi" are here translated as "I Am". However, the literal translation mentioned in the marginal notes of the New American Standard Bible reads; "I have been". Study Supportive Passage:
Repeating the same phrase "I am", Jesus said; "I am (he), and that I do nothing on my own; but as my Father has taught me, I speak these things." (John 8:28). God of Moses had no instructor. If he had one, then that entity would be the God's mentor or boss!

A question for you:

Jesus said; "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". When Jesus was asked: "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is One Lord; And you shall LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength." A TRUE DISCIPLE WOULD NOT DIVIDE HIS LOVE BETWEEN "LORD GOD" AND MESSIAH THAT WAS SANCTIFIED BY GOD. Jn.10:36.

Sorry Loyal, but you missed out on this verse:

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Here, Jesus doesn't just say the Father loved Him before the beginning of the world... it says He EXISTED WITH THE FATHER "BEFORE THE WORLD WAS."

Furthermore, your idea of proof is backwards. Just because it's possible for God to love someone before they were born in no way means that Jesus wasn't God. Simply because something is possible does not mean it is plausible and certainly not that it is proven, especially when the text specifically states a different alternative like the one I just gave.

The King of Salem is considered a theophany, i.e. incarnation-like appearance by Jesus in flesh/angelic form before His time here when we know Him as Jesus. Some consider it to be simply a person used as a symbol of Him because the King of Salem had no known recorded DOB. Either view would be a possibility.

Finally, your last question assumes that Jesus is separate from God. But of course you have yet to prove that, and that is contrary to what the Bible says:

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Peace is the solution. Peace of the soul. Peace of the mind. Peace of our society.

If the peace is not eternal, how much does it really matter?
================================

I don't think there is a superior religion. As a non-believer (christian orthodox by birth) I am sure there isn't a very big difference between the 2 main religions: Christianity and Islam. History made the dfference between those two. In Europe Christianity lived throught what we call the Dark Ages and I think that period made Christianity much more mature religion. They changed their view from "Earth is the center of the Universe" and kill anybody who says different to "Maybe the evolution theory is true?!?". Meanwhile in the far east nothing changed everything remained and still is like it was in the 14th century. But there is no way you can say a religion is better. Yeah the Christian world is far more richer then the Islamic world, but that is not entirely because of religion. History is the main player. If we were born in Africa we would have still starved like people do right now.
So basicly what I want to say: There is no superior religion; and if you think deeply you'll realise that the difference between them is not that great. They have the same objective: give people hope and enforce some rules (and as a personal opinion... the sum of that two ultimately leads to control of the people; fact seen in the dark ages)

I would agree with you that there isn't a very big difference between Catholocism and Islam. I find it a common misconception for people to confuse Catholocism with Christianity for some reason. However, Galileo, Newton, and Pasteur were all Biblical Christians, but ones the RCC disapproved of. I believe it was the anabaptists, hutterites, donatists, montanists, and others who were slaughtered for 1200 years by Catholocism who were the true continuers of Christianity. Catholocism as we know it did not even begin until hundreds of years after the crucifixion, and was started by the very Roman government which killed Jesus and whose Nero so brutally slaughtered the first Christians! The Babylon spoken of in Revelation as a great city/institution/government/church is I believe the Catholic Church, or at least includes it, and continues the institution of the New Testament Pharisees. This statement then, about it, is quite apt:

Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Whether it is truly as evil as presented here I don't know, but I certainly think it possible. Anyway, if you look back to the dark ages, you will learn of groups called the anabaptists among the others I mentioned, and how they refused to fight back and were slaughtered by the thousands! They died loving and forgiving their enemies even as many do today in foreign countries!

There is an interesting dissertation called "The Anabaptist Vision" with numerous quotes to be found here, here is a section of it:

In the same year Bullinger wrote that "the people were running after them as though they were living saints." [6] Another contemporary writer asserts that " Anabaptism spread with such speed that there was reason to fear that the majority of the common people would unite with this sect." [7] Zwingli was so frightened by the power of the movement that he complained that the struggle with the Catholic party was "tub child's play" compared to the conflict with the Anabaptists. [8]
The dreadful severity of the persecution of the Anabaptist movement in the years 1527-60 not only in Switzerland, South Germany, and Thuringia, but in all the Austrian lands as well as in the Low Countries, testifies to the power of the movement and the desperate haste with which Catholic, Lutheran, and Zwinglian authorities alike strove to throttle it before it should be too late. The notorious decree issued in 1529 by the Diet of Spires (the same diet which protested the restriction of evangelical liberties) summarily passed the sentence of death upon all Anabaptists, ordering that "every Anabaptist and rebaptized person of either sex should be put to death by fire, sword, or some other way." [9] Repeatedly in subsequent sessions of the imperial diet this decree was reinvoked and intensified; and as late as 1551 the Diet of Augsburg issued a decree ordering that judges and jurors who had scruples against pronouncing the death sentence on Anabaptists be removed from office and punished by heavy fines and imprisonment.

The authorities had great difficulty in executing their program of suppression, for they soon discovered that the Anabaptists feared neither torture nor death, and gladly sealed their faith with their blood. In fact the joyful testimony of the Anabaptist martyrs was a great stimulus to new recruits, for it stirred the imagination of the populace as nothing else could have done.

Finding, therefore, that the customary method of individual trials and sentences was proving totally inadequate to stem the tide, the authorities resorted to the desperate expedient of sending out through the land companies of armed executioners and mounted soldiers to hunt down the Anabaptists and kill them on the spot singly or en masse without trial or sentence. The most atrocious application of this policy was made in Swabia where the original 400 special police of 1528 sent against the Anabaptists proved too small a force and had to be increased to 1,000. An imperial provost marshal, Berthold Aichele, served as chief administrator of this bloody program in Swabia and other regions until he finally broke down in terror and dismay, and after an execution at Brixen lifted his hands to heaven and swore a solemn oath never again to put to death an Anabaptist, which vow he kept. [10] The Count of Alzey in the Palatinate, after 350 Anabaptists had been executed there, was heard to exclaim, "What shall I do, the more I kill, the greater becomes their number!"

The extensive persecution and martyrdom of the Anabaptists testify not only of the great extent of the movement but also of the power of the vision that burned within them. This is most effectively presented in a moving account written in 1542 and taken from the ancient Hutterian chronicle where it is found at the close of a report of 2,173 brethren and sisters who gave their lives for their faith. [11]

No human being was able to take away out of their hearts what they had experienced, such zealous lovers of God were they. The fire of God burned within them. They would die the bitterest death, yea, they would die ten deaths rather than forsake the divine truth which they had espoused....

They had drunk of the waters which had flowed from God's sanctuary, yea, the water of life. They realized that God helped them to bear the cross and to overcome the bitterness of death. The fire of God burned within them. Their tent they had pitched not here upon earth, but in eternity, and of their faith they had a foundation and assurance. Their faith blossomed as a lily, their loyalty as a rose, their piety and sincerity as the flower of the garden of God. The angel of the Lord battled for them that they could not be deprived of the helmet of salvation. Therefore they bore all torture and agony without fear. The things of this world they counted in their holy mind only as shadows, having the assurance of greater things. They were so drawn unto God that they knew nothing, sought nothing, desired nothing, loved nothing but God alone. Therefore they had more patience in their suffering than their enemies in tormenting them.

. . . The persecutors thought they could dampen and extinguish the fire of God. But the prisoners sang in their prisons and rejoiced so that the enemies outside became much more fearful than the prisoners and did not know what to do with them....

Many were talked to in wonderful ways, often day and night. They were argued with, with great cunning and cleverness, with many sweet and smooth words, by monks and priests, by doctors of theology, with much false testimony, with threats and scolding and mockery, yea, with lies and grievous slander against the brotherhood, but none of these things moved them or made them falter.

From the shedding of such innocent blood arose Christians everywhere, brothers all, for all this persecution did not take place without fruit.

I don't really want to get into a arguement on religion (and I don't really know what you are talking about because you are all over the place). I just find it extremely funny that you cannot see that religion is an OPINION and a POINT OF VIEW. You think murder is wrong because you have been taught that it is wrong. Murder happens all the time and depending on the person's point of view, it can be right or wrong. Just ask the Nazi's or the KKK. You think they cared if they killed a black guy? I don't think so.
Next, you mention that society can be corrupt and is why society cannot determine morals (or right and wrong). What do you think corrupt means? Corruption is just another viewpoint. If society thinks it is okay to have one night stands, why should it be wrong? In fact, I don't think it is wrong at all. Who cares if religion says it is wrong? Why should it be? Because you have all been taught (or brainwashed) to think that premarital sex is wrong. Who cares if a true strict christian thinks it is wrong to have one night stands? They do not represent society's values in this case so the christian is the one who is wrong.

Another example of "corruption" is bribes. In North America and most of western europe, it is unacceptable to take bribes in business. but in many countries in asia and south america, it is expected and even worked into the budget.

The second thing I find extremely funny is the fact that someone is comparing religion to science in terms of "accuracy". Of course the more we learn from a scientific point of view, the more accurate it is. How can the parallel be drawn for religion? It is simply ridiculous! Religion is not something we will understand more over time because it is abstract! The reason why the oldest book is the most accurate book is that all books are essentially telling a story (history - if you believe it is true). What is more accurate, a history book written AT THE TIME history happened or hundreds of years later?

If you kept a journal and wrote entries for days that were 5 years ago, how much would you remember? Most of your ideas would be lost and distorted!

Open your mind. Everything in this world is relative and depends on your point of view. You are taking a hard view from the religious point of view. Step back from your teachings (brainwashing) and try to see thing from other's point of view. Religion is not a bad thing but it is bad when people close their minds because of it.

You raise an interesting point concerning the origin and validity of common morality. Have you ever studied natural law? It's a philosophical term basically referring to the study of how there are basic essentials to human beings and their civilizations worldwide regardless of culture, location, nationality, language, etc... For example, we all hold common beliefs that murder is wrong, theft is wrong, there should be sanctions on marriage, etc... In other words, murder being wrong isn't just something we're taught, but something inherent within our very natures! Paul speaks of this in Romans 1:19 when he says that God has clearly put that which needs to be known of Him in creation and even in our very natures! Within us is what is needed to realize that God exists.

However, let me show you where an "all is relative" view must inevitably lead. You are dead right, morality cannot exist by humans alone or human concensus. It must originate from God to exist at all. Otherwise all indeed is relative as you suggest, for then morality is dependent on us, and we will change it to suit our whims that we may appear justified before others. But if so, and God does not exist to have instituted a moral Law to the universe then morality does not exist. And if morality does not exist, then as you pointed out, how can we consider murder wrong? If all is relative why should we place inherent worth or value on other people? You can say we should do it for the good of society. And I know there's that stupid (and I do think it so) theory that if we act in our own self-interests we will serve society. However, if there is no morality and no ultimate purpose to our existence, we are reduced to the level of merely advanced computers with faulty programming in that we value others so that we let foolish emotion hinder our chances of survival in some circumstances. If we are merely globs of protoplasm, "dancing DNA" as Richard Dawkins of Oxford would say, then all is indeed relative and what reason is there to value other people? Why should we act on the behalf of others when we can for ourselves? Why act for the good of society rather then our own good if there's no meaning to it anyway? To deny the existence of God is to deny morality, to say all is relative, and to say that genocide, rape, murder, theft, and basically all-out chaos should be permissible and expected in our society. However, the Bible says God instituted governments to prevent that very thing. You do bring up a highly interesting topic however.
Edited April 24, 2006 by Joshua (see edit history)

[loyal 0]

 

I don't really want to get into a arguement on religion (and I don't really know what you are talking about because you are all over the place). I just find it extremely funny that you cannot see that religion is an OPINION and a POINT OF VIEW. You think murder is wrong because you have been taught that it is wrong. Murder happens all the time and depending on the person's point of view, it can be right or wrong. Just ask the Nazi's or the KKK. You think they cared if they killed a black guy? I don't think so.

 

I am not over the place because i used quotes. Also what you said is what i meant. I thought i made that clear...

And i was using muder as an example. Murder is considered wrong now but can be good in the future.

I think religion is an opinion. What you believe in, is opinion. What is in that religion is fact. You have to either follow, not follow.

 

 

Next, you mention that society can be corrupt and is why society cannot determine morals (or right and wrong). What do you think corrupt means? Corruption is just another viewpoint. If society thinks it is okay to have one night stands, why should it be wrong? In fact, I don't think it is wrong at all. Who cares if religion says it is wrong? Why should it be? Because you have all been taught (or brainwashed) to think that premarital sex is wrong. Who cares if a true strict christian thinks it is wrong to have one night stands? They do not represent society's values in this case so the christian is the one who is wrong.

 

Another example of "corruption" is bribes. In North America and most of western europe, it is unacceptable to take bribes in business. but in many countries in asia and south america, it is expected and even worked into the budget.

 

That is my point. That society can not be solid while religion is. Society is always changing its views. And even YOU are displaying the typical views of society. Which is sometimes sterotyped. You say that i have been brainwashed into thinking. Well i can also say you are brainwashed into thinking it is good.

 

As for bribes, they are a whole new issue.

 

 

The second thing I find extremely funny is the fact that someone is comparing religion to science in terms of "accuracy". Of course the more we learn from a scientific point of view, the more accurate it is. How can the parallel be drawn for religion? It is simply ridiculous! Religion is not something we will understand more over time because it is abstract! The reason why the oldest book is the most accurate book is that all books are essentially telling a story (history - if you believe it is true). What is more accurate, a history book written AT THE TIME history happened or hundreds of years later?

 

 

Actually all history books are written hundreds of years later/decades later. The sources may be primary sources but history does not study 'today'. For example no historian is truly/offically studing 9/11 even though they may be studying it in their free time. And once again you are displaying society's typical views. It is often commonly believed that science is true and religion is a load of nonsence. Well when you say that the religion's Holy Books are just history books you should be clear you are only talking about the Bible. All other scriptures are completely different. I do not want to compare religion to science because that would require a new thread.

 

 

If you kept a journal and wrote entries for days that were 5 years ago, how much would you remember? Most of your ideas would be lost and distorted!

 

Open your mind. Everything in this world is relative and depends on your point of view. You are taking a hard view from the religious point of view. Step back from your teachings (brainwashing) and try to see thing from other's point of view. Religion is not a bad thing but it is bad when people close their minds because of it. y

 

You are talking about the Bible. A Christian reply would be: 'they were inspired by God.' And religion is not brainwashing! Yes there are some lunatics that believe in religion. This 'brainwashing' for example in Christianity (I am not Christian) is forgiving people, charity, letting strangers sleep in their homes. And so on. I am not saying atheists have no morales. But the amount of people who have the same morales is very small compared to the sane people in religion.

Also about this closing of the mind. I sadly agree with this. Almost all religions, i think, say something like 'open your mind and consider the evidence'. But sadly many people do not do this. Since my experiences are mostly with Christians, i cannot say anything on the closing of the mind about Jews, hindus, buddhists and so on. Many Christians refuse to see the evidence. But it is not only the religious people but the atheists too. Infact i see it almost everytime i mention the word 'God' near them.

If i say to someone: "let me try and convince you God exists" then they immediatly start unconciously refuse all the evidence before they recieve it. They make a rule in their mind that no matter i say they make a rule not to believe what i say. I have seen it with religious people too. So this is not only to religious people.

 

 

You should've read the rest of the passage, God must've known you'd say this 2 thousand years ago because it's set up perfectly to beat your argument before it even got started! For one thing, Jesus said this before even speaking that to her!

 

Matthew 15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Just that right there destroys your racism theory instantly.

 

I got it from a website so it is not my theory. I wrote that down...Anyway i do not want to talk about Jesus in this thread. Though you are proably right about what you said below. Remember it is from a website not from me. I like to verify what i believe in. I was just using that as an example that Jesus was not sinless. Please like i said before, this is not the place to argue it.

 

Like i said to someone else. If you really want to argue about Jesus please PM me and i will have no problems with it there. Here is not right place really...

 

However since there are no posts here, i will respond quickly:

 

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

Here, Jesus doesn't just say the Father loved Him before the beginning of the world... it says He EXISTED WITH THE FATHER "BEFORE THE WORLD WAS."

 

But that is the point i am making! I said that the prophets and messengers were made before the existence of universe let alone God.

Also: 'King Melchizedek of Salem was an eternal priest with no records of his beginning and ending. (Heb. 7:1-3). No Christian would admit, based upon this stated of "eternal life span", that the King of Salem was God, so how can Jesus be who claimed his existence before Abraham?'

 

Furthermore, your idea of proof is backwards. Just because it's possible for God to love someone before they were born in no way means that Jesus wasn't God. Simply because something is possible does not mean it is plausible and certainly not that it is proven, especially when the text specifically states a different alternative like the one I just gave.

 

It does not state an alternative. Please actually read what i typed. And this is the question i ask you again:

 

Jesus said; "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". When Jesus was asked: "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is One Lord; And you shall LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength."

Edited April 24, 2006 by loyal (see edit history)