Is Christianity Just Another Religion Or Its Superior

[no9t9 0]

[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".

 

[1] Of course I think murder is wrong. Did I say I was a Nazi or KKK? At no point in time did I say I have NOT been taught (or brainwashed) morality. But, I have enough sense to know that what I consider right doesn't necessarily mean it is right to everyone. That is the point. IF you don't get it, I can't help you.

[2] STD's? What does that have to do with premarital sex and one night stands? You automatically assume that premarital sex and one night stands means the frequency of sex and the number of sex partners is a lot? We are not talking about the physical consequences of it anyway. We are talking about MORALITY. Try staying with me and not going on to make assumptions about other things.

[3] Again, who cares if religion says premarital sex is wrong? Just because YOUR religion says it is wrong doesn't make it wrong. What about gay marriages? Many religions don't approve of gays yet the LAW in many places say it is ok. Again, WHO CARES what religion says? Just because YOU (or some others of your faith) care, it doesn't mean a thing to ME and those who don't believe the same thing as you. People have a CHOICE to accept what your religion says but we don't have to follow it. BUT, if you live as part of society you have NO choice but to accept what society says is right or wrong. You can't FORCE people or even JUDGE people based on your own religious beliefs. But you CAN judge people based on SOCIETAL beliefs (because it is LAW).

[4] What reasons and "facts" do you have to support your belief that premarital sex and one night stands are morally wrong? Give me some FACTS. I'd like to see how you can come up with facts to prove a moral issue.

[5] I never said it was just christians who think it is wrong. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

See [1] regarding me being brainwashed.

[6] Back then? You just proved my point. Religion DOES NOT accurately reflect TODAY's society. Besides, if you think "back then" people were NOT promiscuous, you are SERIOUSLY deluded.

[7] Yes. Good for North America. But you missed the point. YOU think it is good but not everyone does. So which is right? and which is wrong? The answer is: BOTH are right depending on the point of view.

[8] You think "many others" can understand more about a religion over time? What a joke. To "understand" a religion is to have your own INTERPRETATION. Religion is all about interpretation. When I say "understand", you have to take that into CONTEXT with the other stuff I wrote. The point of what I wrote is that one cannot understand religion the way one can understand science. If you study science more, you will come to hard facts. If you study religion more, you will just come up with more/different interpretations of the same thing which is not universal. You might say that even in science you have different interpretations, but as we improve technology, we answer many of the "interpretation" that we had. Take for example, cars. It was widely believed that 100km per hour was a speed that could not be reached and if a human went that fast, they could not take the speed. This is obviously wrong and has been proven. Now, the morality that religion tries to teach can NEVER be proven because morality is ABSTRACT.

How can you PROVE murder is wrong?

[9] What factors come into play? How can you tell me that a historic record is more accurate when it is written hundreds of years later "depending on certain factors". That just doesn't make sense.

[10] How can you be confused? Are you THAT narrow minded that you can't think just SLIGHTLY out of the box? Let me break it down. You keep a journal. Next, don't make the assumption that you write in it everyday. Let's say you write in the journal every 5 years for every day that passed in the last 5 years. Do you think it would be accurate?

[11] Are you trying to be funny? Cause it wasn't.

 

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

 

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.

 

Yes, I know that there are certain "morals" that naturally develop. But think about the natural development if you did not live in a societal group. If you were alone and isolated from other people, how would your morality develop? My point was that morality is developed from society. And yes, naturally, society considers murder wrong because murder disrupts society. All "rules" in society evolve naturally to make society function. BUT, there have been some societies that had human sacrifices. Technically that is murder. But, it was not considered wrong. So there are always exceptions.

 

To your second point, morality can be seen to "originate from God" because religion was used as a moral compass for so long. Before religion was even invented, morality already existed. I've already talked about it a bit above. I cannot say that morality does not or does originate from God because we don't know if God exists or not. And since religion (I would rather say religion than God because not all religions have a single God), was such a big part of human development over the ages, it undoubtedly helped shape morality today. Consider though a planet or society with NO religion. Do you not think that morals would still develop? You point to the theory of natural law... which is what I am trying to say. Society doesn't neccessarily NEED religion to give it morality.

 

If you study how lions interact in their social group, you will see that they have their own set of morals. Now, I am not a lion expert or anything but I don't think lions even have a concept of God (or religion). Do lions have a concept of the after life, sin, and do they ask "why are we here"? I don't think so (but I could be wrong). Despite not having religion, a pride of lions will have thier own set of "morals" in the way they interact with others in the pride. On a side note... some might argue that this is the reason why animals are animals, because we have God and they don't. God lifted us above animals... Though, would God even exist unless humans were able to think about him?

 

In the end, morality as it exists today is a mix of today's society and past religious beliefs. There is no possible way to seperate them unless someone could go back in time. To say that morality would not exist if there were no religion (or God) is premature. There is evidence that morality can exist without religion (in the case of animal societal groups). I just think that morals will be different depending on how the society develops. And the development of a society INCLUDES religion in the case of modern societies. I am not arguing that. I just wanted to raise a point about morals IF a society developed WITHOUT religion. What would those morals look like?

 

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

 

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.

I tried to understand your points but they seemed to be in contradiction. I replied as how I saw your point.

So when you say "What is in that religion is fact... follow or not follow"... do you mean that if your opinion is in line with that religion (you follow it), it becomes fact to YOU? If this is what you are saying I agree. For those that follow their religion, it is definately fact for them. But for other people, those people that follow a particular religion are looking at ONE point of view.

 

 

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.

I am not sure what stereotypical views I am displaying but it doesn't matter. I never claimed to be pure (not brainwashed). It is not possible. If you grow up in a society you will have some "opinion" on what is right and wrong. The only way you can be "pure" is if you grow up in isolation. Why do you think children are regarded as more "pure" than adults? It is because they don't have as many preconceptions of society. They are more "free". Children don't care if they stare at someone because they think that person is weird looking. Adults don't do that (or will look when they think the guy doesn't know). Society said doing that is wrong and adults teach their kids not to do that. How many times have you seen an adult tell a child to be quiet? Why should a child be quiet? There is no real right or wrong in being loud... except that society says it is wrong in certain places and certain times.

 

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.

LOL. The process by which something becomes "history" is the passage of time. EVERYTHING is history! What do you consider history? You mentioned 9/11 and no historian will study it but would study it in their "free time"... Let's get rid of the titles like historian. Do you agree that 9/11 is being and has been documented? When do you consider that history? Until decades later when they rename the documents to "the history of 9/11"? The documentation is completed "today" not as it becomes "history".

 

Next, why should I exclude the Bible or other Books from what I might consider a history book (or story book)? And I don't want to go into the same stupid religion vs science either, but someone brought it up as a parallel to understanding the Bible (or some other book).

 

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

Edited April 25, 2006 by no9t9 (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

[1] Of course I think murder is wrong. Did I say I was a Nazi or KKK? At no point in time did I say I have NOT been taught (or brainwashed) morality. But, I have enough sense to know that what I consider right doesn't necessarily mean it is right to everyone. That is the point. IF you don't get it, I can't help you.[2] STD's? What does that have to do with premarital sex and one night stands? You automatically assume that premarital sex and one night stands means the frequency of sex and the number of sex partners is a lot? We are not talking about the physical consequences of it anyway. We are talking about MORALITY. Try staying on topic.
[3] Again, who cares if religion says premarital sex is wrong? Just because YOUR religion says it is wrong doesn't make it wrong. What about gay marriages? Many religions don't approve of gays yet the LAW in many places say it is ok. Again, WHO CARES what religion says? Just because YOU (or some others of your faith) care, it doesn't mean a thing to ME and those who don't believe the same thing as you. People have a CHOICE to accept what your religion says but we don't have to follow it. BUT, if you live as part of society you have NO choice but to accept what society says is right or wrong. You can't FORCE people or even JUDGE people based on your own religious beliefs. But you CAN judge people based on SOCIETAL beliefs (because it is LAW).
[4] What reasons and "facts" do you have to support your belief that premarital sex and one night stands are morally wrong? Give me some FACTS. I'd like to see how you can come up with facts to prove a moral issue.
[5] I never said it was just christians who think it is wrong. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
See [1] regarding me being brainwashed.
[6] Back then? You just proved my point. Religion DOES NOT accurately reflect TODAY's society. Besides, if you think "back then" people were NOT promiscuous, you are SERIOUSLY deluded.
[7] Yes. Good for North America. But you missed the point. YOU think it is good but not everyone does. So which is right? and which is wrong? The answer is: BOTH are right depending on the point of view.
[8] You think "many others" can understand more about a religion over time? What a joke. To "understand" a religion is to have your own INTERPRETATION. Religion is all about interpretation. When I say "understand", you have to take that into CONTEXT with the other stuff I wrote. The point of what I wrote is that one cannot understand religion the way one can understand science. If you study science more, you will come to hard facts. If you study religion more, you will just come up with more/different interpretations of the same thing which is not universal. You might say that even in science you have different interpretations, but as we improve technology, we answer many of the "interpretation" that we had. Take for example, cars. It was widely believed that 100km per hour was a speed that could not be reached and if a human went that fast, they could not take the speed. This is obviously wrong and has been proven. Now, the morality that religion tries to teach can NEVER be proven because morality is ABSTRACT.
How can you PROVE murder is wrong?
[9] What factors come into play? How can you tell me that a historic record is more accurate when it is written hundreds of years later "depending on certain factors". That just doesn't make sense.
[10] How can you be confused? Are you THAT narrow minded that you can't think just SLIGHTLY out of the box? Let me break it down. You keep a journal. Next, don't make the assumption that you write in it everyday. Let's say you write in the journal every 5 years for every day that passed in the last 5 years. Do you think it would be accurate?
[11] Are you trying to be funny? Cause it wasn't.

[1]The way you portraid everything made it seem like you would allow such a thing, which was a bit misleading to me. I understand the point, but everyone agrees with others' opinions or points of view. Just like you've proven it has.
[2]Many people lie about their marital status. This is where "one-night stands" can go wrong. Lest, you think having sex with a married person isnt wrong.
Premarital sex (yes, i'm assuming again) is usually without protection. After all, you're gonna be spending most of your life with this other person. This is where STDs come in.
[3]You are forgetting, that even in society, there are people like us. We have the laws of God, you have the laws of man. Most of the laws came from the laws of God. Then, people started becoming "politically correct". Mostly, just cause they wanted the people to vote for them.
[4]

4. Women have a significantly better chance of marrying if they do not become single parents before marrying.

Taken from: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/Here's another one for ya: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
[5]This topic was originaly to discuss Christianity. I'd rather put words in front of your eyes, than in your mouth.
[6]Back then, politics was FOR religion. If Abraham Lincoln was alive today, he see just how corrupt the system has become, and he would change it for the better.
[7]In [1] you put yourself in the argument, but here in [7] you leave yourself out, again. Also, many people would agree, besides these business owners, that bribes is cheating the system. The system which is supposed to be morally on the right side.
[8]First of all, science does not have 100% certainty of anything. The highest is 95%. And when relating to the car, you mention that humans cant go that fast, which is proven by the car. The car is the thing that is going at such speeds, not the human. The human is only along for the ride. Also, you're forgetting science and religion does mix.

As for how to prove that murder is wrong, well i'll just quote you:

Of course I think murder is wrong.

Lest, you contradict yourself.[9]Simple, cause the person that is reading these things wasnt there at the time it was written. Meaning their sources is just from one being. Meaning that it could have been written the way someone else wanted it written. Many of the books of the Bible has many witnesses during the time it was written. Of course they're all dead, but the same can be said for other history books. That is why i said, it can go either way.
[10]This,

Let's say you write in the journal every 5 years for every day that passed in the last 5 years.

Sounds differently, to me, than

If you kept a journal and wrote entries for days that were 5 years ago

But, i noticed

Next, don't make the assumption that you write in it everyday.

Now, i'm confused again. Lol
As for being accurate, it would depend on how well the person can store information in his/her head.
There's a saying, "write it down on your hand if you dont trust your head."
[11]Well, i do try to keep the humor in things, to try and keep things in a neutral level. But, that was not the case. I was trying to prove a point using your own words.
Edited April 25, 2006 by truefusion (see edit history)

[no9t9 0]

[1] You don't seem to understand the concept of opinion and relative points of view. I WAS "portraying" that murder COULD be right depending on the person. Certain Nazi's and KKK members have no qualms about killing a black guy or a jew. Now, that doesn't mean I agree with it. Why would you assume I agreed with that? You say yourself I was trying to "portray" it. Since, you recognized that, why is it misleading? Just because I think murder is wrong doesn't mean I can't see that someone else thinks it can be right. How hard is that to understand?

[2] First, the MORALITY of one night stands has nothing to do with the morality of sex with a married person. Next, your point about STDs STILL doesn't have any bearing on the MORALITY of one night stands. Come back with some real arguements that are related to the topic.

[3] The laws of God? Do you think the laws of God will hold up in court? I hate to tell you this, but nobody is going to jail for premarital sex. I am not forgetting anything. Yes, many of "man's" laws come from religion. I've said it over and over, today's society has evolved FROM religion. Take religion out of the equation. You will see different laws. ie. no jail for promiscuity. My whole point is that right and wrong is a point of view that is defined by religion and society. Premarital sex is a contradiction between those two because the POINT OF VIEW is different. Please try to understand that your religion is only right to people who BELIEVE it is right.

[4] How does telling me it is easier for women to marry if they are not single parents proof that pre-marital sex and one night stands are MORALY wrong? That is absolutely ridiculous. There is no link between the two in terms of MORALITY. Now you are saying being a single parent is bad or that women all want to marry. Why do you assume that it is "bad" if women are not married or are single parents? There you go imposing YOUR opinion of right and wrong again.

[5] Then you should not put words in my mouth.

[6] Again with the examples out of nowhere. How can you say Lincoln would clean up today's corrupt system? What system are you talking about? government? or society? And yes, religion was used to make decisions "back then". And guess why it was removed? Because NOT ALL PEOPLE believe what you believe.

[7] I am not arguing if bribes are right or wrong. I am arguing that it is right to some and also wrong to some. You say yourself that "many" people see it as wrong but how can you ignore those who see it as right? The "system" you say should be morally on the "right" side is created by society. The "system" is created by people who have their own preconceptions of right and wrong. Besides, YOUR system is NOT the same as someone else's "system". Do you understand that the world is different depending on where you are?

[8] Where did you learn that science is only ever at a maximum of 95% right? Because you were told wrong. In my example, people thought the human body could not withstand a speed of 100km/h. Clearly this is a speed that many people travel at everyday. How can it be 95% right? Are you saying that 5% of people actually die because they have travelled at 100km/h? And your "along for the ride" comment is totally outrageous. If you are in a car moving at 100km/h, so are you. Do you think you are not moving?

You still haven't proven to me that murder is morally wrong. Just because I think it is wrong doesn't mean it is proven. That only proves that I think murder is wrong, not that it is MORALLY wrong. To prove that it is morally wrong, your proof must be agreeable to EVERYONE and there cannot be interpretation.

[9] I don't even know what you are talking about. I am guessing that you are trying to talk about BIAS. That is not an arguement because no matter when something is written, there is always BIAS. In order to do a comparison, you have to hold certain variables as constant (ie. you have to assume that the same BIAS exists now and then). I am talking about changing ONE thing and that is TIME not BIAS. Writing it at the time means you have all the "witnesses" to get information. Writing it later means you have to get it from memory or through "witnesses" of "witnesses".

[10] If you can't grasp a simple concept like this one... I really am sorry... for you. It's no wonder you cannot understand what I am trying to say and can't put together a sensible arguement. Based on this, I really don't want to continue... though... the hosting credits are nice...

[1]The way you portraid everything made it seem like you would allow such a thing, which was a bit misleading to me. I understand the point, but everyone agrees with others' opinions or points of view. Just like you've proven it has.[2]Many people lie about their marital status. This is where "one-night stands" can go wrong. Lest, you think having sex with a married person isnt wrong.
Premarital sex (yes, i'm assuming again) is usually without protection. After all, you're gonna be spending most of your life with this other person. This is where STDs come in.
[3]You are forgetting, that even in society, there are people like us. We have the laws of God, you have the laws of man. Most of the laws came from the laws of God. Then, people started becoming "politically correct". Mostly, just cause they wanted the people to vote for them.
[4]
Taken from: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
Here's another one for ya: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
[5]This topic was originaly to discuss Christianity. I'd rather put words in front of your eyes, than in your mouth.
[6]Back then, politics was FOR religion. If Abraham Lincoln was alive today, he see just how corrupt the system has become, and he would change it for the better.
[7]In [1] you put yourself in the argument, but here in [7] you leave yourself out, again. Also, many people would agree, besides these business owners, that bribes is cheating the system. The system which is supposed to be morally on the right side.
[8]First of all, science does not have 100% certainty of anything. The highest is 95%. And when relating to the car, you mention that humans cant go that fast, which is proven by the car. The car is the thing that is going at such speeds, not the human. The human is only along for the ride. Also, you're forgetting science and religion does mix.

As for how to prove that murder is wrong, well i'll just quote you:

Lest, you contradict yourself.
[9]Simple, cause the person that is reading these things wasnt there at the time it was written. Meaning their sources is just from one being. Meaning that it could have been written the way someone else wanted it written. Many of the books of the Bible has many witnesses during the time it was written. Of course they're all dead, but the same can be said for other history books. That is why i said, it can go either way.
[10]This,
Sounds differently, to me, than

But, i noticed
Now, i'm confused again. Lol

As for being accurate, it would depend on how well the person can store information in his/her head.
There's a saying, "write it down on your hand if you dont trust your head."
[11]Well, i do try to keep the humor in things, to try and keep things in a neutral level. But, that was not the case. I was trying to prove a point using your own words.

[truefusion 3]

[1]I understand, but if i were to continue, we'd be back where we started from.[2]Very well, then lets talk about rape. What if someone were to get raped, and the rapist considered it as a "one-night stand". Same can go for premarital sex. I'm sure society, or should i say, the law wont find it to be good. [3]As for someone not going to jail cause of premarital sex, step back to [2]. As for society evolving, lets call it "bad design". [4]Are you telling me that there isnt a possibility of pregnancy through one-night stands and premarital sex?[5]I have not placed any words in your mouth. For these words are not from your mouth. They are not the work of your mouth, but your hands.[6]Government, since it reflects upon society, and "manages" society. Yes, i am aware that things were made to be "politically correct".[7]Yes, i understand, but majority usually overcomes minority.[8]I was told by a scientist, who told you it wasnt?Well, i wouldnt say 5% have died, but a whole lot more. Ever heard of car crashes resulting in death?The human body is not the one resisting those speeds. It's the car that's preventing such speeds from affecting the human body. [9]Well, i'd be surprised if someone happened to have a pen and paper at the time of any event. [10]I managed to make sense of your words. My interpretation: Lets say, five years past by. Then you decided to write about the events that happened during those five years. How much would you be able to write about?See, so much simpler, and understandable. Now, i can move on and agree.

[no9t9 0]

[1]I understand, but if i were to continue, we'd be back where we started from.
[2]Very well, then lets talk about rape. What if someone were to get raped, and the rapist considered it as a "one-night stand". Same can go for premarital sex. I'm sure society, or should i say, the law wont find it to be good.

[3]As for someone not going to jail cause of premarital sex, step back to [2]. As for society evolving, lets call it "bad design".

[4]Are you telling me that there isnt a possibility of pregnancy through one-night stands and premarital sex?

[5]I have not placed any words in your mouth. For these words are not from your mouth. They are not the work of your mouth, but your hands.

[6]Government, since it reflects upon society, and "manages" society. Yes, i am aware that things were made to be "politically correct".

[7]Yes, i understand, but majority usually overcomes minority.

[8]I was told by a scientist, who told you it wasnt?
Well, i wouldnt say 5% have died, but a whole lot more. Ever heard of car crashes resulting in death?
The human body is not the one resisting those speeds. It's the car that's preventing such speeds from affecting the human body.

[9]Well, i'd be surprised if someone happened to have a pen and paper at the time of any event.

[10]I managed to make sense of your words. My interpretation: Lets say, five years past by. Then you decided to write about the events that happened during those five years. How much would you be able to write about?

See, so much simpler, and understandable. Now, i can move on and agree.

This is pointless. You don't seem to understand the concept of morality. Next, you don't seem to be able to understand basic concepts of cause and effect. For example, a person who dies in a car crash dies because of the act of crashing not because of the act of going fast. Also, rape is not a one night stand. They are two seperate things. How can you use rape as an arguement?

I really don't think you are capable of continuing this arguement.

I'm sure you don't agree but I don't care. I am not bothering to respond to your posts.

[truefusion 3]

This is pointless. [1]You don't seem to understand the concept of morality. [2]Next, you don't seem to be able to understand basic concepts of cause and effect. For example, a person who dies in a car crash dies because of the act of crashing not because of the act of going fast. [3]Also, rape is not a one night stand. They are two seperate things. How can you use rape as an arguement?
[4]I really don't think you are capable of continuing this arguement.

I'm sure you don't agree but I don't care. I am not bothering to respond to your posts.

[1]I understand the concept, but you just wont believe me, no matter how many times i tell you.
[2]Well, it could be many things. Like, speeding. Or not wearing your seat belt. Etc.
[3]I thought we were supposed to take in other people's points of view and opinions?
[4]Maybe, but it could be also that you dont want to continue.

Thanks for your time. xD

[Sprnknwn 0]

Superior why? If you are christian you may think that christianity is superior but people with other religions won?t think the same. And agnostic people won?t even mind. So ?how can we quantify "superiority" in faith? ?Do we make the worldwide faith superiority elections?

[Omegashine 0]

I would have to say its supirior, BUT only as far as religions go, not to THE god worshipping religons, they are all equal in my eyes, you arent classed socally but in HOW you worship. Ex. In Hinduism, if you just happen to be born in the wrong family, your life is basically ruined. Also Chritianity doesnt call for sacrifices of any kind, and that is pretty sweet, you want wake up one day on an offering table and having you heart cut out or pulled out indiana jones style

[PmH 0]

True, people should be able to believe whatever they like. I don't think one religion can be superior to another.However, people look at society today and see that more western nations are stronger in the international community, the US and nations in Europe: UK, Germany to name a few. Then they see that all of these countries have some form of Christianity as its major religion, so they may come to the conclusion that it is superior. But, I do not agree with this at all! Every nation or group of nations has its limelight. Look at India, the Gupta empire, did that mean that Hinduism is superior to Christianity? not a chance! Look back at the Middle Ages, Europe was in horrible shape, does that mean Catholicism is inferior, not at all. People are set in the frame of mind that whatever standards are set today will stay. Who knows what the world will be like in a thousand years, maybe religions would have completely changed, or maybe the East will govern the world. No one really knows.On an off topic note though, there is one aspect that I have found in almost every religion that does bother me, please correct me if I'm wrong, but most religions either want to force other to join or persecute those that do not have the same beliefs, either today or in the past. I'm not going to lie, I don't look forward to those kids dressed up in tuxedos to come at my door and hand me a brochure for a church, which has happened quite often, in the past though, there are several examples of people enforcing their religion, which I do not like at all.No religion is superior to another, and no one has the right to descriminate against others because of their religious or lack of religious beliefs, and they certainly do not have the right to impose their beliefs on others; however, that does not mean they have to forfeit their own beliefs in fear of offending others.Sorry for the rant, I had to get it off my back.PS. I hope I'm not too late, I'm new

[mayank 2]

Ex. In Hinduism, if you just happen to be born in the wrong family, your life is basically ruined.

Can you please elaborate on this! what do you mean by wrong family?
I am a Hindu and I dont find anything wrong in this religion...infact I dont find anything wrong in any religion as I've already posted my thoughts earlier regarding my views about religion and god.
http://forums.xisto.com/topic/35169-is-christianity-just-another-religion-or-its-superior/page-4#entry245207

And one more thing, this is for all the members who are posting in this thread and otherwise too..Please make sure that if you are commenting about any other religion then please dont forget to show the same respect which you show to your own religion.

:EDIT:

However, people look at society today and see that more western nations are stronger in the international community, the US and nations in Europe: UK, Germany to name a few. Then they see that all of these countries have some form of Christianity as its major religion, so they may come to the conclusion that it is superior. But, I do not agree with this at all! Every nation or group of nations has its limelight. Look at India, the Gupta empire, did that mean that Hinduism is superior to Christianity? not a chance! Look back at the Middle Ages, Europe was in horrible shape, does that mean Catholicism is inferior, not at all. People are set in the frame of mind that whatever standards are set today will stay. Who knows what the world will be like in a thousand years, maybe religions would have completely changed, or maybe the East will govern the world. No one really knows.

Very well said! that's the whole point - no religion is superior to other. All religion are same and equal and must be given equal respect.

[Slashx123 0]

I belive that christianity isnt superior, however isnt just another religion either. Christianity is unique in that it does have a manual to follow and is a very leniant religion. It doesnt make you do thins, or worship for that matter, but it does have celebrations wich arent forced. Christianity is a religion that promotes love and devours hate. And the fact that it implies a heaven makes people want to be christian because no one wants to just die, and never go on. Everyone is afraid of the unknown.

[PmH 0]

Christianity is unique in that it does have a manual to follow and is a very leniant religion

Not true at all. Depends on what form of Christianity you are talking about, there are so many different kinds now, there are people, still, who repent their sins by whipping themselves, which, to me at least, doesn't sound very lenient.

And, several other religions have a "manual". I can only guess that you are referring to the Bible. Don't forget Judaism: tora; Islam: Koran; Buddhism: 4 Noble Truths; 8 Fold Path; Hinduism: Andalects (although it is more holy scriptures than a guide)

[Joshua 0]

Yes, I know that there are certain "morals" that naturally develop. But think about the natural development if you did not live in a societal group. If you were alone and isolated from other people, how would your morality develop? My point was that morality is developed from society. And yes, naturally, society considers murder wrong because murder disrupts society. All "rules" in society evolve naturally to make society function. BUT, there have been some societies that had human sacrifices. Technically that is murder. But, it was not considered wrong. So there are always exceptions.
To your second point, morality can be seen to "originate from God" because religion was used as a moral compass for so long. Before religion was even invented, morality already existed. I've already talked about it a bit above. I cannot say that morality does not or does originate from God because we don't know if God exists or not. And since religion (I would rather say religion than God because not all religions have a single God), was such a big part of human development over the ages, it undoubtedly helped shape morality today. Consider though a planet or society with NO religion. Do you not think that morals would still develop? You point to the theory of natural law... which is what I am trying to say. Society doesn't neccessarily NEED religion to give it morality.

If you study how lions interact in their social group, you will see that they have their own set of morals. Now, I am not a lion expert or anything but I don't think lions even have a concept of God (or religion). Do lions have a concept of the after life, sin, and do they ask "why are we here"? I don't think so (but I could be wrong). Despite not having religion, a pride of lions will have thier own set of "morals" in the way they interact with others in the pride. On a side note... some might argue that this is the reason why animals are animals, because we have God and they don't. God lifted us above animals... Though, would God even exist unless humans were able to think about him?

In the end, morality as it exists today is a mix of today's society and past religious beliefs. There is no possible way to seperate them unless someone could go back in time. To say that morality would not exist if there were no religion (or God) is premature. There is evidence that morality can exist without religion (in the case of animal societal groups). I just think that morals will be different depending on how the society develops. And the development of a society INCLUDES religion in the case of modern societies. I am not arguing that. I just wanted to raise a point about morals IF a society developed WITHOUT religion. What would those morals look like?

Morality governs chiefly how we harm God and other people. It's for this reason that Romans 13:10 says that love is the fulfilling of God's Law because it doesn't harm others. Without others around it is hard to harm them, we then can only harm God. Only when others are around is morality outside of harming God then necessary. Therefore, to test your theory you would need people growing up isolated without prior cultural experience rather then one person alone.

As an interesting point, how long did many of those sacrificing nations exist? Many are chronicled of being destroyed in the Bible's book of Judges, something many Christianity critics point to as cruelty. While the practice continues today in the form of abortion, it is interesting to note that nations using it have consistently met a terrible demise, while Israel whose holy scriptures emphatically deny it still has their nation, original land, culture, language, holy scriptures, and history.

When you say before religion was invented, how do you determine that? The Bible says the first human's children sought to worship God, one by offering an animal, the other by offering produce. And of course Adam and Eve had a relationship with God before they messed it up. What do you then term as religion?

Ultimately, God's existence can not be dependent on our knowledge of Him. Just because I don't know you exist, doesn't mean you don't. Just because I don't hear the sound a tree makes in the forest doesn't mean a sound wasn't made (unless you define sound as something heard by someone).

As for societies without religion, they have most definitely been attempted. Lenin attempted to kill all following a religion. Both Russia and China have attempted to create religion-free countries. So then, what would you say their morals look like?

[no9t9 0]

Only when others are around is morality outside of harming God then necessary. Therefore, to test your theory you would need people growing up isolated without prior cultural experience rather then one person alone.

No. If you read more carefully, I was talking about how someone might develop morality if society, culture, religion did not exist. And by that I mean that this person can not be influenced by other "beings". You need someone who is totally isolated without any religous or cultural influence. Then throw that person into society to see if this person developed similar morality.

As an interesting point, how long did many of those sacrificing nations exist? Many are chronicled of being destroyed in the Bible's book of Judges, something many Christianity critics point to as cruelty. While the practice continues today in the form of abortion, it is interesting to note that nations using it have consistently met a terrible demise, while Israel whose holy scriptures emphatically deny it still has their nation, original land, culture, language, holy scriptures, and history.

I don't know the answer to the sacrficing nations. But, this is not the only example of murder in history in the name of religion. Just look at the crusades. In the name of religion, they murdered thousands of people. I think the original point I was trying to make is that murder being right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder. Do you think those people responsible for the crusades thought what they were doing was wrong?

When you say before religion was invented, how do you determine that? The Bible says the first human's children sought to worship God, one by offering an animal, the other by offering produce. And of course Adam and Eve had a relationship with God before they messed it up. What do you then term as religion?

The bible doesn't prove anything in this case. Humans have been proven to have been on earth for around 40,000 years. At that time, people could not communicate (written or verbal). BUT, they did live in societal groups. Do you think they had morals? It is safe to assume they did because if you study ANY family group in nature, they all have some sort of rules. But, in this case... do these humans have "religion"? Do you think they even had a concept of god?

Ultimately, God's existence can not be dependent on our knowledge of Him. Just because I don't know you exist, doesn't mean you don't. Just because I don't hear the sound a tree makes in the forest doesn't mean a sound wasn't made (unless you define sound as something heard by someone).

Yes, just because YOU don't know me doesn't mean i don't exist. But, what if NOBODY knew you. Would you exist? You walked around town and everyone acts as if they could not even see you. You talk to people and they don't provide any response. What would you think? Wouldn't you start questioning your existence? You'd probably think you were dead or a ghost. It is ironic that you use the tree example because that is the very example that has been used to illustrate my very point. You use it to argue against my point. If no one is there to hear the tree how can it make a sound? Sound is simply vibration of molecules but if no one is there to interpret those vibrations, is it really a sound? If no one had ever thought about "God" would he exist?

As for societies without religion, they have most definitely been attempted. Lenin attempted to kill all following a religion. Both Russia and China have attempted to create religion-free countries. So then, what would you say their morals look like?

The problem with those "attempts" is that those societies were trying to SUPRESS religion. I am talking about societies where religion never existed. in other words, where people have no concept of religion. Like i said earlier, it is impossible to find such societies now or in history. The closest you can come is in the animal kingdom.

[amit nigam 0]

I think this is a totally absurd topic and these kind of topics should not be started or better should not be allowed. The reason being that these kind of topics generate a kind of bad feeling in minds of we people for each other because this a very sensitive issue.Its better to have discussion on different topics like science, technology or fashion or something else and leave these kind of topics to the priests, the fundamentalists and the politicians.