Why christainity is a real religion
-
Originally posted by ThunderFbolt:
i understand your reasoning, which is also thought of before and named Pascal's wager.
however, i would like to point out 2 flaws.
1. how do you know that Christianity is the true religion? there are so many out there, what if your choice is wrong? if you chose the wrong one, would the right one send you to hell anyway? then your years of supporting the wrong god is wasted.
2. if this is why you chose the religion that you are in, even if you are right in choice of god and religion, would god take you into heaven just because you support him due to a bet that he exists? would he not be able to see what your intentions are for choosing him?
Point 1: how I know? simple . The bible says so. Not to mention personal experiences. N pls dun say it's written by man hence flawed, if that's the case... Who or how is the religion spread. Faith. If I am wrong like I said before.. I die... Or I go to hell. Not much I can do right? Unless the Almight makes concession for me deeds. I don't know... N u sure don't know too. Point 2: I m more then aware of the capabilities of the almighty. So the answer is no. Gambling like a bet without faith will not warrant salvation. N I am not making a bet. I m just describing a view under the circumstances. Like all duty, it cannot exist without faith. Point 2 :I am not saying to go against religion though, just to choose a religion for the right reasons.
-
Originally posted by laffin123
apologist,
your recommendation on this wikipedia page say this line ".. it resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Creed of Nicaea ..." under the overview section. Doesn't it concern the canon of scripture ?
The term 'canon of Scripture' refers to the collection of books that are considered scripture. At the council of Nicaea, they discussed & debated mainly the 5 issues mentioned, based on what was already regarded as scripture. Thus the canon of scripture, & the doctrines that were derived from scripture, are 2 separate things, the latter of which were discussed at the council, not the former, according to Wiki.
-
Is BadzMaro reasking ThunderFbolt questions here? ? [he left the body of his post blank]
-
Originally posted by .SBS9888Y.:
I read about Buddha that he already said he was not the one and that the one is higher than him that is coming. That's where Jesus came. There's a loophole here.
Jesus claimed to be God; Buddha claimed that there was no God as we understand him. Jesus healed people in front of witnesses; Buddha died of exposure, unable to heal even himself. Jesus worked miracles and fed multitudes; Buddha denied himself and starved his own body.
I read about Buddha that he already said he was not the one and that the one is higher than him that is coming.
which source did you read from? your reading was not particularly skillfull wasnt it. anyone can say anything.
-
Have you guys thought of those who have no religion (free thinker) but still leading a happy,healthy and long life than those who are very religious? Taoism says it depends on one's fate and luck. Buddhism says it is because he had accumulated merits from the past and present life, though it is fated but fate can be changed if one has done extreme good deeds in this life (ill fate will become better fate) and one has done extreme bad deeds in this life (good fate will become ill fate). What is christianity explanation for this group of free thinker who has no religion but leading a better, problem free, healthy and long life than those who are reiligious. Please disregard their life after death. Your thoughts please.
-
First of all, a person who has no religion is better termed a 'nonreligious' person. A freethinker, contrary to popular [but incorrect] usage in Singapore, is actually 'a person who forms his ideas and opinions independently of authority or accepted views, esp in matters of religion'. Thus even a Christian/Bhuddist/, etc can be a freethinker as long as he/she has come to believe in his/her religion out of his own inquiry, reason, experience, etc & not merely because his parents were Christians/Bhuddist, etc or because of pop culture.
As for the Christian view on the issue you raised, it is that God's will is also to bless nonreligious or even anti-religious people in this life with basic freedoms & goods. Matthew 5:45 says:
' For he (God) makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust'
-
Originally posted by apologist:
Is BadzMaro reasking ThunderFbolt questions here? ? [he left the body of his post blank]
nope, he did put in his own, but he typed it in my quote
this is his:
Point 1: how I know? simple . The bible says so. Not to mention personal experiences. N pls dun say it's written by man hence flawed, if that's the case... Who or how is the religion spread. Faith. If I am wrong like I said before.. I die... Or I go to hell. Not much I can do right? Unless the Almight makes concession for me deeds. I don't know... N u sure don't know too. Point 2: I m more then aware of the capabilities of the almighty. So the answer is no. Gambling like a bet without faith will not warrant salvation. N I am not making a bet. I m just describing a view under the circumstances. Like all duty, it cannot exist without faith. Point 2 :
i'm just lazy to reply and just chilling out for a while.
-
Interestingly, many studies done in the West have shown that religious people are happier than nonreligious people, which shouldn't be surprising anyway.
-
The article about happiness and stuff:
The Ennui of Saint Teresa
On average, religious people are much happier than nonreligious ones.For more than a half century, Mother Teresa of Calcutta was revered for her service to the poorest of the poor, and inspired people by the joy she apparently derived from pure faith and charity. But earlier this year, it was revealed that her faith and happiness might not have been all they seemed. In a newly published set of letters written over the course of her adult life, she expresses terrible sorrow about her life, describing it in terms of "dryness," "darkness" and "sadness."
For some commentators, this was evidence that if we scratch the surface of religious conviction--even that of a future saint--we will tend to find unhappiness, echoing H.L. Mencken's claim that "God is the immemorial refuge of the incompetent, the helpless, the miserable."
Does Mother Teresa's apparent misery truly expose an inconvenient truth about the happiness of religious people? A convincing answer to this question is not to be found in arguments for or against religion by believers or atheists--but rather in the abundant surveys that for years have anonymously asked people about their faith and life satisfaction. What story do the data tell?
Americans can be divided into three groups when it comes to religious practice. Surveys indicate that about 30% attend houses of worship at least once per week (I will call them "religious"), while about 20% are "secular"--never attending. The rest attend sometimes, but irregularly. These population dimensions have changed relatively little over the decades: Since the early 1970s, the religious group has not shrunk by more than two or three percentage points.How do religious Americans compare to the secular when it comes to happiness? In 2004, the General Social Survey asked a sample of Americans, "Would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?" Religious people were more than twice as likely as the secular to say they were "very happy" (43% to 21%). Meanwhile, secular people were nearly three times as likely as the religious to say they were not too happy (21% to 8%). In the same survey, religious people were more than a third more likely than the secular to say they were optimistic about the future (34% to 24%).
The happiness gap between religious and secular people is not because of money or other personal characteristics. Imagine two people who are identical in every important way--income, education, age, sex, family status, race and political views. The only difference is that the first person is religious; the second is secular. The religious person will still be 21 percentage points more likely than the secular person to say that he or she is very happy.
Researchers have found similar results in other countries, suggesting that the connection between happiness and faith probably doesn't depend on nationality. Nor does it depend on the particular faith practiced. The 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey shows that practicing Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and people from other religions--even esoteric and New Age faiths--are all far more likely than secularists to say they are happy. Furthermore, it does not matter if we measure faith in ways other than how often people go to their house of worship. For example, people who pray every day are a third likelier to be very happy than those who never pray, whether or not they attend services.
What about the folks in the middle, who identify with a faith but practice inconsistently? They are generally happier than secular people, but not as happy as regular practitioners. There is an interesting twist here, however, when it comes to the fear of death. One recent study on a sample of older Americans finds that, by the time people are in their 70s, religious and secular people are less afraid of the grave than those in the middle, suggesting that people suffer when their religious practice is inconsistent with their faith.
Obviously, not all religious people are happy--millions are not. Researchers in one 2006 study found that what makes some religious people unhappy is an image of God as severe, unloving or distant. The study shows that regular churchgoers who feel "very close to God" are 27% more likely to be very happy than churchgoers who do not feel very close to God. This may have been the trouble for Mother Teresa.Unhappy religious folks are the exception to the rule, however, and the percentage gaps in happiness identified here still translate into many, many more millions of contented churchgoers than nonbelievers. Based on the current American population, we can roughly estimate that about 67 million American adults are "very happy." About 25 million of these folks are religious--but only eight million are secular.
All in all, there is no good reason to doubt the claim that religion is associated with happiness for most people. Mother Teresa was atypical in her service and charity. But she was also atypical in her sadness, in spite of her religious life.
Mr. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Public Affairs and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Who Really Cares" (Basic Books, 2006).
-
Originally posted by apologist:
First of all, a person who has no religion is better termed a 'nonreligious' person. A freethinker, contrary to popular [but incorrect] usage in Singapore, is actually 'a person who forms his ideas and opinions independently of authority or accepted views, esp in matters of religion'. Thus even a Christian/Bhuddist/, etc can be a freethinker as long as he/she has come to believe in his/her religion out of his own inquiry, reason, experience, etc & not merely because his parents were Christians/Bhuddist, etc or because of pop culture.
As for the Christian view on the issue you raised, it is that God's will is also to bless nonreligious or even anti-religious people in this life with basic freedoms & goods. Matthew 5:45 says:
' For he (God) makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust'
I see. I remembered a young adult who is disabled since birth asked his mum this question : "why me?". What is christianity view on this? Buddhism says is karma.
-
Buddhism seems to be quite perversed. Like this than those people who are poor and disabled don't deserve any sympathy lah? And cessation of sufering means ceasing to exist. -.-???''
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Buddhism seems to be quite perversed. Like this than those people who are poor and disabled don't deserve any sympathy lah? And cessation of sufering means ceasing to exist. -.-???''
You are wrong about Buddhism. I am attracted to it because it is the most compassionate religion which till today I cannot find anything better than this. I am still trying to see if there is any other religion more compassionate than Buddhism. Humans committed sins out of ignorance. Buddha shows compassion for our ignorance.There is a Buddha who stays permanently in hell to give teachings to those who had committed sins as Buddhists believe no one stays in hell or heaven forever. Once his sins are atoned, he will be reborn again. This Buddha is able to stay in a better place but choose to stay in hell to guide these sinners. He vow to leave hell when there are no more sinners, meaning he will be the last to leave hell. Till today, I still believe no one can help to atone another's sin.
-
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Buddhism seems to be quite perversed. Like this than those people who are poor and disabled don't deserve any sympathy lah? And cessation of sufering means ceasing to exist. -.-???''
think about it, christianity focus more on faith than works, while buddhism espouse compassion
which is more 'perversed' in this sense?
-
On the Christian view, God has basically allowed natural or scientific principles to operate on earth. Thus a mother who has consumed thalidomide, for example, can give birth to defective or disabled babies.
-
any POV/religion can allow natural/scientific principles to work
and whether abortion is morally right is a matter for another debate altogether
-
Originally posted by apologist:
On the Christian view, God has basically allowed natural or scientific principles to operate on earth. Thus a mother who has consumed thalidomide, for example, can give birth to defective or disabled babies.
I have problems connecting the first part of your post with your second, could you elaborate on it a little more? -
Originally posted by Larryteo:
Buddhism seems to be quite perversed. Like this than those people who are poor and disabled don't deserve any sympathy lah? And cessation of sufering means ceasing to exist. -.-???''
I could say the same about some Christians who tell me that no matter how good a person is, he/she would still go to hell if they do not put their faith with the Christian God.And regardless of the evils that one have done, as long as they repent before their death they still get to go to heaven.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I could say the same about some Christians who tell me that no matter how good a person is, he/she would still go to hell if they do not put their faith with the Christian God.And regardless of the evils that one have done, as long as they repent before their death they still get to go to heaven.
what an unjust, unfair, unequitable and bias world order. that means heavens are full of criminals and hells are full of good people?
-
Originally posted by Rooney9:
what an unjust, unfair, unequitable and bias world order. that means heavens are full of criminals and hells are full of good people?
that is a very interesting question, isn't it? assuming there is a heaven and hell...
if the entry to heaven and hell depends on your belief in god, does that mean heaven is full of sinners and hell is full of good people?
if the entry to heaven and hell depends on your deeds in this life and place, why do you need god? isn't doing good deeds enough without the belief in the supernatural and superstitious?
-
Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:
I am attracted to it because it is the most compassionate religion which till today I cannot find anything better than this. I am still trying to see if there is any other religion more compassionate than Buddhism. Humans committed sins out of ignorance. Buddha shows compassion for our ignorance.There is a Buddha who stays permanently in hell to give teachings to those who had committed sins as Buddhists believe no one stays in hell or heaven forever. Once his sins are atoned, he will be reborn again. This Buddha is able to stay in a better place but choose to stay in hell to guide these sinners. He vow to leave hell when there are no more sinners, meaning he will be the last to leave hell. Till today, I still believe no one can help to atone another's sin.
Dawnfirstlight, my suggestion would be to look for a religion that you think that is both compassionate & true and not use the amount of compassion in the religion as the sole criterion for choosing a religion, if that's what you're doing. I can invent a religion that is more compassionate than Buddhism, say, one in which there is no hell & in which Hitler goes unpunished or one that says that if someone murders your mother, he should be forgiven & not be capitally punished or thrown into jail, but u may not subscribe to this invented religion right?
-
Originally posted by apologist:
Dawnfirstlight, my suggestion would be to look for a religion that you think that is both compassionate & true and not use the amount of compassion in the religion as the sole criterion for choosing a religion, if that's what you're doing. I can invent a religion that is more compassionate than Buddhism, say, one in which there is no hell & in which Hitler goes unpunished or one that says that if someone murders your mother, he should be forgiven & not be capitally punished or thrown into jail, but u may not subscribe to this invented religion right?
you can invent a religion more compassionate than Buddhism of course, for example one that makes people worship a 'supreme being' and if one believe in this supreme being you get compassion and allowed access to heaven even if you commit crime like Hitler
my idea better than yours right?
-
Originally posted by ThunderFbolt
if the entry to heaven and hell depends on your belief in god, does that mean heaven is full of sinners and hell is full of good people?
On the Christian view, heaven is indeed full of sinners but hell is full of greater sinners because from God's point of view, rejecting Him personally & his forgiveness is the greatest sin.
if the entry to heaven and hell depends on your deeds in this life and place, why do you need god?
The answer depends on who u ask. A Buddhist would say that u're right, cos the laws of the universe guarantee that u'll go to heaven based on your good deeds, u don't need God to judge & send u there. On the Christian view, going to heaven or hell does not depend primarily on one's deeds on earth but a person's personal response/attitude towards God.
-
Originally posted by laurence82
you can invent a religion more compassionate than Buddhism of course, for example one that makes people worship a 'supreme being' and if one believe in this supreme being you get compassion and allowed access to heaven even if you commit crime like Hitler
my idea better than yours right?
Thanks for reiterating my point that one should NOT choose a religion based SOLELY on compassion.
-
Originally posted by apologist:
Originally posted by laurence82
you can invent a religion more compassionate than Buddhism of course, for example one that makes people worship a 'supreme being' and if one believe in this supreme being you get compassion and allowed access to heaven even if you commit crime like Hitler
my idea better than yours right?
Thanks for reiterating my point that one should NOT choose a religion based SOLELY on compassion.
nope, on the contrary, its about compassion, not false compassion intertwined with the worship of a supreme being and the irony that comes with it
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
nope, on the contrary, its about compassion, not false compassion intertwined with the worship of a supreme being and the irony that comes with it
You're merely asserting that the Christian view of the afterlife is wrong by calling it false compassion, so I don't think i need to say anything more than this.