Why

Jorgen Sigvardsson

does a christian become a christian, muslim a muslim, hindu a hindu, etc. Why are there so many different religions? Why are all of them wrong? (From one religions point of view, it is the true way to heaven/enlightenment, thus all other religions must by definition be wrong). If so many people, with different beliefs, believe they're right, mustn't they all be wrong? -- You see me driving down the street I look so f-ing good, yeah! We're smokin' weed and doing dirt in my Tommy Hilfiger hoodie, ha yeah, ha yeah, uh! We're gonna keep talking bullshit about you Cuz nobody be frontin' me and my crew! Cuz I'm a hip hopper, yes I am! Sarcasm...

JoeSox

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Why are there so many different religions? (Causality) + (Free Will); :) Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If so many people, with different beliefs, believe they're right, mustn't they all be wrong? According to my beliefs, God loves all men and their souls(which I think souls are a part of nature like lightning). "Indeed, before you the whole universe is as a grain from a balance, or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth. But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things; and you overlook the sins of men that they may repent. But you spare all things, because they are yours, O LORD and lover of souls." http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/wisdom/wisdom11.htm[^] "But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath. Indeed, if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, how much more, once reconciled, will we be saved by his life. Not only that, but we also boast of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. " http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans5.htm[^] Later, JoeSox "Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." -- Baruch Spinoza joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest

Jorgen Sigvardsson

It still doesn't explain a thing :) -- You see me driving down the street I look so f-ing good, yeah! We're smokin' weed and doing dirt in my Tommy Hilfiger hoodie, ha yeah, ha yeah, uh! We're gonna keep talking bullshit about you Cuz nobody be frontin' me and my crew! Cuz I'm a hip hopper, yes I am! Sarcasm...

Sebastian Benitez

You became a christian because you had a father or mother that teached that to you. Think about growing without some that told you about religion. What would happen with the time? Nothing. You would be coding in C++ ;p without thinking about god or even writing a message like that. :) "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.

Sebastian Benitez

Wow, religion is useless, it makes you lose your time ;) "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.

JoeSox

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: It still doesn't explain a thing Hey! I said.... (Causality) + (Free Will); :rolleyes: "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." - AE See, you seek too many details, God doesn't work like that. See... :) http://www.sinfest.net/d/20000213.html[^] Later, JoeSox "Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice." -- Baruch Spinoza joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest

Shog9 0

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If so many people, with different beliefs, believe they're right, mustn't they all be wrong? Short answer: yes. Long answer: If i were to describe a certain citrus fruit, i might say something like, "it is orange in color, a sphere, and weighs four ounces." This would all be wrong. Someone else might say instead, "it is greenish-orange in color, round, and weighs 113 grams." This would also be wrong. Both descriptions would, however, would usually be close enough to get the point across. Such is the nature of our human perception and language. Now throw in a few self-serving souls who'd give you an answer such as, "it's brown, cylindrical, and smells like crap. Give it here, & i'll dispose of it for you." Why? Some people are like that. Anyway, now take those descriptions, shake, and serve chilled, and you've a truckload of different combinations, some more correct than others, but none *exact*. "For now we see through a glass, darkly" seems an apt way to put it. But take the quote in context (NIV translation quoted for clarity):

8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When i was a child, i talked like a child, i thought like a child, i reasoned like a child. When i became a man, i put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now i know in part; then i shall know fully, even as i am fully known.

(Paul's first letter to the Corinthians)

We're working with... at best, we're working with a patchwork knockoff of the Truth, a thick gumbo cooked from what we've been told, what we've observed, and...? Watching, working, waiting, hoping to fill in the gaps. And, we will... Z

no one puts flowers

on a flower'

Joel Holdsworth

I believe that all the other movements/religions except chirstianity are false. I'll try not to score cheap points in answering this question - that would just be mean :) Firstly I am not a polytheist - I belive that not all religions can be right because they make statments whch will directly contradict statments made by other religions. Some movements can easily shown to be wrong - pure and simple: For example the mormons faith is based on the christian bible with some extra bits. So the question is does the added section cohere to the original material? And for mormans the answer is a resounding no! For example the old and new testaments talk about a single God throughout - mormons believe that there are many many gods - the spirits of dead mormons. So there is example of an extension not matching base. So does christianity pass that test? Does the material of the New Testament complement or conflict with the Old Testament - the Jewish torah and prophets? The answer is yes, it does fit - the prophesies made in the old testament are fulfilled in the new testament down to a tee. Look at Matthew 12:30-31. Jesus said "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." This is a paraphrase of the ten commandments - he's saying exactly the same stuff as the pharises did. I could go on - but there little or no contradiction between parts of the bible. Amazing considering it was written by many many different people all with different approaches and standpoints - another indication of God's influence here. But why is christianity true, and hinduism for example false in my opinion? Let's look at who Jesus claims to be - he claims to be God. There are quite few people in history who have made this claim, Herrod Aggripa I for example - and we label these people as insanly arrogrant and dissolusioned. Now herrod Aggripa I claimed to be god but we know he wasn't because he had a [not so] hidden motive - he wanted more fame/power. How about Jesus then? He could be one of three things: A: A Madman - A man who had mental problems - Difficult to believe since the things he said were so coherant and sane. Even 2000 years ago they knew what madness looked like. B: A Liar - A man who spread untruth to further his own motives - This is wierd because the stuff Jesus was preaching was of the high moral quality - he simply did not act like a bad ma

Sebastian Benitez

Joel Holdsworth wrote: A: A Madman - A man who had mental problems - Difficult to believe since the things he said were so coherant and sane. Even 2000 years ago they knew what madness looked like. B: A Liar - A man who spread untruth to further his own motives - This is wierd because the stuff Jesus was preaching was of the high moral quality - he simply did not act like a bad man! In fact he never lied at all (if you believe he wasn't lieng about his deity) nor did he cheat, steal, hate... etc. etc. to any of the people around him, or any of the other sins talked about in the OT. C: He was who he said he was the sone of God - Makes the most sense if you can believe it. A: yes sure, you think is coherent that someone tells you that he will resurrect? So we can say that there are a lot of insane people that are sane because they say they can resurrect. A contradiction. B: How do you know he didn't cheat or hate? C: well, it's all about faith, i guess. "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.

Shog9 0

Sebastián Benítez wrote: well, it's all about faith, i guess. Most things are, Sebastián. ;) Z

no one puts flowers

on a flower's grave

Joel Holdsworth

Yes, but from my interpretation of the evidence I see before me, Jesus did actually rise from the dead - the Apostles didn't just go back to their old jobs mourning their friend and hero, and a body was not produced to disproce the resurection stories, and the tomb was protected by guards 24/7 and so on. These things might have happenened had it all been humbug, but they didn't - You talk about Jesus being mad because he said he'd rise from the dead, I say he's God, because as far as I can tell he actually did!

Sebastian Benitez

Ok, you win :) I can see your faith is great, so I won't say you are wrong even if you are (which I don't know). "semper aliquid haeret", Bacon. -- Sebastián.

J Dunlap

Sebastián Benítez wrote: A: yes sure, you think is coherent that someone tells you that he will resurrect? So we can say that there are a lot of insane people that are sane because they say they can resurrect. A contradiction. But He did! See Joel's post. Sebastián Benítez wrote: B: How do you know he didn't cheat or hate? The Pharisees and other enemies were constantly trying to catch Him on anything that they could. If He had lied, cheated, or stolen, it would have been sure to have been publicized widely. But, to the contrary, no evidence or even writing of this has been found - either in the Bible, or in other writings. Sebastián Benítez wrote: C: well, it's all about faith, i guess. It's faith, but not just faith - it's facts too. See this post: http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=699179&forumid=2605#xx699179xx

**"The real and lasting victories are those of peace, and not of war." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

FLUID UI Toolkit | FloodFill in C# & GDI+**

Jon Newman

:cool:

Jonathan 'nonny' Newman blog.nonny.com [^]

Joe Woodbury

Joel Holdsworth wrote: How about Jesus then? He could be one of three things: Your three choices are fallacious. It presupposes that the scriptures are entirely accurate and all encompassing, which they clearly are not. There are, in fact, plenty of alternate explanations. For example, Jesus' claims of divinity could have easily been attributed to him by later writers. Perhaps they believed he was the son of God or perhaps they simply made it up. It's even possible they made up the entire story of Jesus. Even more problematic is that your argument could also apply to Buddha, Mohammad and many others, including some modern claimants. Finally, the forced binarial choice that Christianity, or any religion for that matter, is either true or false is absurd. Even if Jesus wasn't the son of God, or didn't exist at all, doesn't negate the basic Christian ethic. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

Joe Woodbury

Joel Holdsworth wrote: Yes, but from my interpretation of the evidence I see before me What evidence? There simply isn't any. There are only claims in writings made long after the fact by believers. Truly contemporary writings, which recorded the existance of many Messiahs, didn't record anything about Jesus or his resurrection. To assert that the existance of Christianity proves that Jesus rose from the dead is nonsensical. By this reasoning--the number, and sincerity, of followers proves the truthfullness of a religion--Islam and Buddhism must also be true. As must many, if not most, other religions. Religion is a matter of faith. And that's not just me talking; Paul said the same thing. Even Jesus told Peter that Peter's faith came from the spirit, not from anything he [Peter] saw. Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

PJ Arends

Joe Woodbury wrote: What evidence? There simply isn't any. There are only claims in writings made long after the fact by believers. Truly contemporary writings, which recorded the existance of many Messiahs, didn't record anything about Jesus or his resurrection. Links to articles about roman and jewish historians that lived at or about the same time as Jesus, who mention him in their writings. http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_TC.html[^] http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_JOS.html[^] http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_ST.html[^]

[

](http://www.canucks.com)Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little "You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!

Joe Woodbury

Putting aside the question of authenticity (it is very likely not), Tacitus was writing in the second century and was talking about the persecution of Christians by Nero. In this context he explains whohe is talking about by repeating the claims of Christians themselves. Josephus makes two veiled references to Jesus. One of these is certainly fraudulant. The reference that is plausible is a passing mention in the context of James's trial. Most interesting is that Josephus not only describes other "messiahs", but John the Baptist, yet does not discuss Jesus. The Suetonius reference to "Chrestus" has nothing to do with Jesus or even Christians for that matter. (The passage, describing events of about 50 CE, reads "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.") Historical documents actually put the new Testament account in bad light. For example, Herod's slaughter of the Innocents is not mentioned by a single contemporary, especially his enemies, who spared almost no words in described just how bad Herod was! Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke

PJ Arends

All your points are refuted in the links I supplied, I will not repeat them here. Any one interested can read it for themselves.

[

](http://www.canucks.com)Sonork 100.11743 Chicken Little "You're obviously a superstar." - Christian Graus about me - 12 Feb '03 Within you lies the power for good - Use it!

Roger Wright

Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If so many people, with different beliefs, believe they're right, mustn't they all be wrong? Very poor logic. A better question would be, if so many people have so many beliefs, and only one of them is correct, what are the odds that the correct one is yours? Why assume only one is correct when so many have large subsets of tenets in common? Isn't it more likely that the common core of beliefs shared by a majority comprise the whole of the known truth, and the differences are mere window dressing? "Another day done - All targets met; all systems fully operational; all customers satisfied; all staff keen and well motivated; all pigs fed and ready to fly" - Jennie A.