why is any other religion wrong?

[Jake_Ellison]

Of course it always comes down to a matter of faith. But I I submitted and stand by the fact that Christianity and her scriptures have more actual historical and archeological evidence to support her claims than any other religion.

Plus, if you examine the premise of any other religion you can see how it they are devised to fit a particular need. Who would come up with Christianity? If you look at the development of religion across various cultures and the sociological/psychological development of man-made religions you can see how a human mind would go there. Christianity, on the other hand is entirely “other”. The human mind could not come up with it. It would make no sense to do so comparatively.

Further, While Islam has a concept of forgiveness of sins, which it borrowed from Judaism and Christianity, incidently, Christianity alone identifies it as the fundemantal ailment to human/Divine relations. It alone deal definitively with sin in the only manner that is commensurate with the offense.

You make a mistake when you assume my conclusion are based on mere preference without studying other religions. Many of my better have done this and come to similar conclusions. I prefer to be an authority unto myself and do whatever pleases me. I believe Christianity because it is true. With it’s supernatural elements one ultimately has to rely on faith. But the beauty and cohesiveness of the scriptures and the advance of western civilization, warts and all is strong anecdotal evidence of the benefit of Christianity to the world. Results matter.

No other religion has this linear societal advancement. Including atheism. When tested it collapses under it’s own weight. Communism the atheistic governmental/social experiment detroyed societies and took 200 million lives less than a century. Why it did not acknowledge mans inherent flaw and deal with it in the only manner that is natural to our nature.

You tell which religion or philosophy has advanced the world more than Christianity? That rhetorical, there is none. Whether it is science, art, literature, medicine, human rights good governement etc. the greatest the worlds has had to offer has always, for the past 2,000 years, been rooted in the Christian world alone. Others benefitted and borrowed but never originated.

So please tell us what you believe and how it is superior? Has it demonstrably improved mankind? Or has it merely been convenient for you?

Mel

No body makes up religion. No one person ever sat down and desided to invent Christianity or any other religion. They develop. They come from a lack of explaination and they fill the viod. They evolve, and in that way a religion lack Christianity can be created.

Christianity clearly fits a particular need. While some religions tell us how you should live your life and the good you should do, Christianity provides a get out for ‘sinners.’ People who wish to repent their sins require a religion where they can be utterly cleansed. Christianity provides this function. By teaching that everyone is tained by sin, it also shifts the responsibilty that our potential for evil entails.

How could Christianity develop? Imagine you are racked with guilt, a quite human emotion, at the thought of a murder you have committed. If your religion teaches murder leads to hell, no wonder you will look for a different view point, one which teaches salvation.

Christianity did not spontaneously appear out of no where. It began life as a Jewish heresy and does borrow from paganism. It is no different from the development of any culture in that regard.

In terms of Christianities historical accuracy, the bible does not match up. We no that certain events are incredible unlikly to have happened. There is a possiblity that they did occur, but once you study the flawed basis of these events in the bible you realise that the chance of them happening is negligable. An example is the birth of Jesus. The bible places it at a time when King Herod was in power and Quirinarius (sp) was govenor of Syria. Quirinarius was not goveneror in the reign of Herod, and Herod died in 6 BC. Jesus’s was probalby

 

[KarenNC]

**Of course it always comes down to a matter of faith. But I I submitted and stand by the fact that Christianity and her scriptures have more actual historical and archeological evidence to support her claims than any other religion. **

At what point in history did Christianity amass a sufficient level of the above evidence to become “real?” Was it less real or less of a religion before such evidence was found?

** Who would come up with Christianity? If you look at the development of religion across various cultures and the sociological/psychological development of man-made religions you can see how a human mind would go there. Christianity, on the other hand is entirely “other”. The human mind could not come up with it. It would make no sense to do so comparatively.**

So your argument here is that Christianity is superior because it doesn’t make enough sense to have been manmade???

**You tell which religion or philosophy has advanced the world more than Christianity? That rhetorical, there is none. Whether it is science, art, literature, medicine, human rights good governement etc. the greatest the worlds has had to offer has always, for the past 2,000 years, been rooted in the Christian world alone. Others benefitted and borrowed but never originated. **

So we will ignore the inconvenient little problem of Christianity basing itself almost entirely on Judaism? Of the Greek and Roman bases for the governments of most of modern Western civilization? The Greco-Roman roots of things such as medicine, architecture, science, rhetoric, literature, engineering? Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

** Has it merely been convenient for you? **

I wouldn’t say that choosing Neopaganism here in the South and in the context of an extremely fundamentalist Protestant Christian extended family and social milieu has been exactly “convenient.”

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Sorry computer trouble…

continued from last post:

Jesus’s was probalby born in Nazareth.

*You tell which religion or philosophy has advanced the world more than Christianity? That rhetorical, there is none. Whether it is science, art, literature, medicine, human rights good governement etc. the greatest the worlds has had to offer has always, for the past 2,000 years, been rooted in the Christian world alone. Others benefitted and borrowed but never originated. *

This is really a matter of opinion. I really don’t think Christians are blessed with any extra skill or intelligence. As KarenNC mentioned, 72.2% of the 517 members of the U.S, National Academy of Sciences (biology and physical sciences)did not believe in a personal God. Modern Medicine can be traced back to pre Christian times, the on set of Christianity did not change the process of discoverey. Christianity has hindered science in the past and it is not the sole contributer to it. As for art and literauture, thats a matter of opinion. I can think of examples from both that really don’t have anything to do with God. Are you saying that without Christianity these artists and authors would not have produced skillful work?

As for human rights and good government, most govenments try and isolate themselves from the church, in fact Pope John Paul II wanted this. Good deeds do not come solely from religion, likewise nor does good government. Human rights encompass all people, not just those who are religious. In fact freedom of religion (including freedom to be atheistic) is a human right. Human rights protects religion, they don’t come from it.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

So please tell us what you believe and how it is superior? Has it demonstrably improved mankind? Or has it merely been convenient for you?

Mel

Atheism is not convient for me comign from a religious family. As for its superiority I probably have the same reason as why you think Christianity is superior. I believe I am right. But I believe I am right because I have looked in detail about the nature of religion and why it might develop, and spesifically why people need it (or needed it).

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Science and religion do not seek to answer the same questions. Personally, I do not know of anyone who has been converted to any religion simply out of logical argument without any real personal experience of their God (s). Came out of, possibly, but not converted into.

Yeah, agreed. We probably have different opinions on what causes religious experences though.

If you believe in a God or Gods, thats great. If you find religion comforting or think it protects you thats also great. We all have to find ways to cope.

 

[ncgolf]

Christianity did not spontaneously appear out of no where. It began life as a Jewish heresy and does borrow from paganism. It is no different from the development of any culture in that regard.

Heresy against what?? … Judaism was so different as to change how most of the current world sees God. Many gods who controlled sun, moon were worshipped. The Jews said no … there is only 1 God. That revelation is the current model for Christianity and Moslems. What percentage of the world’s population still believes in Zeus or Hera. What population still believes in a moon god, water god etc.

 

[Polaris]

Yes Satan and his forces do try to influence people’s beliefs. See the Aztec’s ritual human sacrifices. See today’s religiously zealotous slaughter of infants in their mother’s wombs. But when Satan tries to convice us of a belief hes just taking advantage and trying to distort that natural desire God gave us to search for Him.

When the ancients felt the wind blowing they sought it’s source. They can pucker their mouths and blow. Its a simple step from there to assume a being with much more blowing power than they is blowing. Thus they invented a diety in order to seek the truth. (Just my hypothesis.)

The whole I know good from bad thing is a seperate thread too, dealing with something Catholics call natural law. At its essense we all know to do good and avoid evil, and we all can be held at that oligation.

Sorry my post is incoherent, its rather late. I hope I helped explain, or if not I’m sorry.

Here is a scarry thought about the Christian God if you view it from an outsiders position (Hindu friend of mine).

The Christian God did require the torture, mutalation and sacrafice of a human being to be appeased, and you were charged to remember it and join in it everyday by drinking his blood and consuming his flesh, to keep him appeased.

Were the aztecs that wrong when you look at it that way. There relgion did have some truth in it. The only differece between ours and theres was ours was a perfect one that could appeased God for all eternity.

 

[KarenNC]

Here is a scarry thought about the Christian God if you view it from an outsiders position (Hindu friend of mine).

It’s helpful to remember that all religions look different from the outside than they do from the inside. I am frequently amazed at the things I never questioned or considered odd about Christianity when I was inside that I do now when looking at it from a different perspective. Part of that was simple socialization that this was what was defined as normative, as it was the religion in which I grew up and the one most widely practiced in my environment.

 

[deb1]

Here is a scarry thought about the Christian God if you view it from an outsiders position (Hindu friend of mine).

The Christian God did require the torture, mutalation and sacrafice of a human being to be appeased, and you were charged to remember it and join in it everyday by drinking his blood and consuming his flesh, to keep him appeased.

Were the Aztecs that wrong when you look at it that way. There religion did have some truth in it. The only difference between ours and theres was ours was a perfect one that could appeased God for all eternity.

I am pretty open minded when it comes to my view of other religions. I see truth and beauty in most of them. But the Aztecs took captives from other tribes and sacrificed them. This is completely different then Jesus’ willing sacrifice and not comparable.

We can still appreciate and tolerate other believes without denying evil or being guilty of moral relativism.

To equate many of the religions of the world, not simply Christianity, but Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism etc with the Aztecs is mistaken.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Gardner is an excellent example of exactly what I am talking about. Have you by chance read Ronald Hutton’s “Triumph of the Moon”?

response: actually, on many other threads, I’ve cited Hutton

It is a very detailed account of the origins of Wicca. Fascinating read and I think very instructive to students of comparative religion on the way in which a new religion comes to be…

response: A logical fallacy there, it seems (apologize if I’m wrong) that you’re implying or suggesting thats how all religions began–and by extension all religions are human imagination creations (ie, “compelling fictions”)
.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

No body makes up religion. No one person ever sat down and desided to invent Christianity or any other religion. They develop. They come from a lack of explaination and they fill the viod. They evolve, and in that way a religion lack Christianity can be created.

Jesus essentially did sit down and decide to invent Christianity. Of course there have been changes in the 2000 years since, and we cannot reconstruct the first 100 years or so of church history with perfect certainty. However it is obvious that the bulk of the sayings in the gospels go back to Jesus. Otherwise they would have to go back to some great, influential, and now lost 1st century Christian leader who turns out to be effectively Jesus.

In terms of Christianities historical accuracy, the bible does not match up. We no that certain events are incredible unlikly to have happened. There is a possiblity that they did occur, but once you study the flawed basis of these events in the bible you realise that the chance of them happening is negligable. An example is the birth of Jesus. The bible places it at a time when King Herod was in power and Quirinarius (sp) was govenor of Syria. Quirinarius was not goveneror in the reign of Herod, and Herod died in 6 BC. Jesus’s was probalby

The infancy narratives are quite possibly mythical. Perfectly respectable and responsible scholars do not place them in the same category as the bulk of the material.
On little factoid inaccuracies, one possibility is that the evangelist was bascially writing a factual account and nodded, another is that he means “about the time”, another is that our information, 2000 years down the line, is in the wrong. For instance “we have no king buut Caesar” puts the gospel in the time of Julius Caesar, i.e. BC, does it not? Except that we know that other Emperors were also called Caesar, though they weren’t the Caesar. In this case the knowledge has survivied. In the case of some governor of Syria, maybe not.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Christianity dose not have more evidence then other religions. A lot of other religions have there own extensive mythologys. Even if there are differences to what extent you can verify a religion’s mythology, the fact that the population of the world is not 100% chritians shows that you just dont have a convincing argument.

response: We (Christians in general) believe we do and can point to evidence and arguments that support that claim to a higher degree of other truth claims–which may be well beyond the restrictions of this thread. Mr MacLean’s link seems like a good place to start, as well as the works of CS Lewis, Peter Kreeft, GK Chesterton, even Catholic Answers

Just because you like the message of Chritianity more then any other religion doesn’t make it right…

response: Christianity flatly rules out this basis of “belief” The Incarnation (including the Resurection of Jesus) happened and it matters or else it did not happen, it does NOT matter and our faith is foolish, in vain, and we are to be most pitied (1 Cor 15: 1-19, written 56 AD (possibly a few years earlier) at most, 23 years from Calvary–a mere skip in a oral history culture)

Finally, no religion is logical. Chritianity has its scientific and historical problems such as the birth place of Jesus, which can be argued over but never really prooved, but scientifically it is impossible for an imaculate conception to occur. Teachings like that are not logical. Listening to a voice in your head is not logical either, especally if you’ve been brainwashed.

response: What form of logic, deductive or inductive? Logic is also not synonymous with reasoning. The criteria you demand of proof is that of scientific materialism --which itself is not verifyiable by the scientific method—science can only verify that data which is subject to repeatable testing or observation, and what falls out of that limited methodolgy per se cannot be mesured or commented on one way or another. A blind person may be able to make wonderfully accurate observations about sound data but because he cannot see, should not presume to comment on a rainbow. Finally, the last bit is approching an ad hominem

 

[Polaris]

I am pretty open minded when it comes to my view of other religions. I see truth and beauty in most of them. But the Aztecs took captives from other tribes and sacrificed them. This is completely different then Jesus’ willing sacrifice and not comparable.

We can still appreciate and tolerate other believes without denying evil or being guilty of moral relativism.

To equate many of the religions of the world, not simply Christianity, but Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism etc with the Aztecs is mistaken.

I have no problem equating them to all religions. Think of when the Jews when they were invading the promised land, they killed the existing tribes by order of our God. Islam when it invaded India killed a huge population for there God, (no restraints they were not people of the book). Christianity, protestants and catholics, also has a couple of black eyes when “converting” to save the world. (Do you see many Aztecs?), and not to be unfair even Atheism killed large amounts of people when they refused to convert (Russia) and that was not even for a God. All religions are pretty equal when it comes to violence in some phase of there development.
Also in favour of the Aztecs not all the sacarafices were forced, many were also freely given. It was an honour to be sacraficed in the Aztec religion and people in there own tribe would work hard at being worthy of sacraficing. Very Christ like of them, No?

 

[Ahimsa]

I have no problem equating them to all religions. Think of when the Jews when they were invading the promised land, they killed the existing tribes by order of our God. Islam when it invaded India killed a huge population for there God, (no restraints they were not people of the book). Christianity, protestants and catholics, also has a couple of black eyes when “converting” to save the world. (Do you see many Aztecs?), and not to be unfair even Atheism killed large amounts of people when they refused to convert (Russia) and that was not even for a God. All religions are pretty equal when it comes to violence in some phase of there development.

Also in favour of the Aztecs not all the sacarafices were forced, many were also freely given. It was an honour to be sacraficed in the Aztec religion and people in there own tribe would work hard at being worthy of sacraficing. Very Christ like of them, No?

Yeah, but internet chat-room posters are the only ones who haven’t engaged in wholesale slaughter of innocents.

 

[deb1]

Also in favour of the Aztecs not all the sacarafices were forced, many were also freely given. It was an honour to be sacraficed in the Aztec religion and people in there own tribe would work hard at being worthy of sacraficing. Very Christ like of them, No?

Part of what brought the Aztecs down was the fact that surronding tribes had a lot of anger against the practice of sacrifice and were willing to assist the Spanish in overthrowing the Aztecs. So, apparently not everyone sacrificed was a willing participant.

 

[Polaris]

Yeah, but internet chat-room posters are the only ones who haven’t engaged in wholesale slaughter of innocents.

I have no idea what you are trying to say ? Im sorry

Im against abortion if you mean that, even on political grounds.

To explain furthur: My post was to defend the Aztecs. I just do not like any religion being belittled because of a view of reality you hold in a current “more enlightened” time period.

PS I have no plans on converting to the Aztec religion

 

[Polaris]

Part of what brought the Aztecs down was the fact that surronding tribes had a lot of anger against the practice of sacrifice and were willing to assist the Spanish in overthrowing the Aztecs. So, apparently not everyone sacrificed was a willing participant.

I never said that. So to break it down even simpler I was saying nicely that they sacraficed members of there own team, which is pretty fare when you compare it to other religions that just sacrafice the other teams members.

 

[Ahimsa]

I never said that. So to break it down even simpler I was saying nicely that they sacraficed members of there own team,

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

 

[deb1]

I never said that. So to break it down even simpler I was saying nicely that they sacraficed members of there own team, which is pretty fare when you compare it to other religions that just sacrafice the other teams members.

No, they did not sacrifice only their own religion’s members. They sacrificed the members of surronding tribes also. This was partly why other tribes joined with the Spanish to to bring down the Aztecs. That was my point.

 

[KarenNC]

It is a very detailed account of the origins of Wicca. Fascinating read and I think very instructive to students of comparative religion on the way in which a new religion comes to be…

response: A logical fallacy there, it seems (apologize if I’m wrong) that you’re implying or suggesting thats how all religions began–and by extension all religions are human imagination creations (ie, “compelling fictions”)

It’s only a logical fallacy if I begin from the premise that there is only one true religion or that religions are mandated by Deity, which I don’t. I begin from the premise that there is something beyond humanity and that religion is man’s attempt to and description of how to go about interacting with that something. They grow organically out of their specific time and culture and continue to do so as long as they remain an adequate means of expressing that need for interaction. You and I differ in our belief about and experiences of the nature of that something.

No, I don’t think all religions are compelling fictions or human imagination creations in the sense that they were intentionally made up by specific individuals, like a novel or a committee report.

I am talking about the religions that have survived their creators (whether that creation was documentable or not) and become something entirely on their own (sometimes quite different that any specific creator may have envisioned or even intended) because they addressed the real experiences and needs of humanity in some fundamental way. They survived because they addressed humanity’s experience of the divine.

Those that do not do so tend to die out very quickly when their leaders either die or change their postions. I find the parallels of the struggle to find “orthodoxy” or even just orthopraxy in a new religion to be fascinating.

There were many different strands of Christianity and Christian-Jewish hybrid sects and groups in the early years of the Church, some with wildly different theologies, and those are just the ones we know of today, whose information has survived all these centuries. Over time, these groups merged, fell by the wayside, or changed to coalesce into what is today known as Christianity (and the process continues of splitting and coming together).

The scholars I have read around the formation of the Hebrew Scriptures suggest a similar pattern of disparate teachings from oral traditions coming together to form at least the Torah (the documentary hypothesis ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html)). We know that there have historically been many splits and coming togethers of Jewish groups over the millenia.

Wicca and many other Neopagan religions are in a similar place today of the early Church in its infancy, which is why the movement looks so chaotic to those whose religions have a longer pedigree. It would be fascinating to see what they look like a few centuries from now. Much of Wicca, for instance, has already been radically changed from Gardner’s view, both in theology and practice.