This is the thread to explain why your religion is right. In this thread you canno't use the reason "BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAID SO YOUR GOING TO HELLL!!!!!!!1111111!@@@1!" or things similar. Explanation is required and please, act like adults, even if just for one post.

Lets call it an idea, I prefer to try to keep my mind open. Though I tend to shift over back and forth on what to identify myself as... so i will just be looking for truth, and its no more than an opinion. so far as i can see it.

And as for why its right, its not its just an idea.

no "religon" as we know it is right. anyone who says otherwise is ignoring facts and lack there of. what i believe in is based on logic and i suppose a little faith.im not saying "this is how it is" i keep an open mind. but there IS more to existence than we know and it most deffinitly isnt jesus,heaven and hell.hell is most likely the single most retarded thing ive heard of..read my other post on this board.

Buddhism?

Well,

Buddhism is the only major religion which acknowledges a large area of ignorance about external matters. Unlike other religions, it does not even attempt to answer questions like 'What is the purpose of life, the universe and everything?' . Buddhism regards such questions as at best unanswerable and probably intrinsically meaningless. The only purpose of life is what we personally give to our own lives. Buddha suggested that the most meaningful use of life was to seek liberation from ignorance, suffering and the cycle of samsaric rebirth, both for one's self and others. But this 'meaning' does not reside 'in the sky' or in any way outside of the individual, and it cannot be imposed, but must be freely chosen.

Most other religions go further than Buddhism, and if asked 'What is the purpose of life, the universe and everything?' will usually come up with an answer along the lines of 'To fulfil the will of God.'

This invites the further question of 'What is the will of God', which usually brings forth an answer to the effect that 'God's will is to create life, the universe and everything'.

personally,

im not quite sure why religion was ever really created.is it a bunch of people who all believe the same shit and needed to feel like they weren't alone so created a few beliefs,got some followers together and gave it a name such as example 'christianity'?

i dont quite know why any 'specific' religion should exist just based on the fact of beliefs or answers...if you believe something,well good for you..why would you have to concider yourself different from anybody else such unless your of a different race?

can you imagine if there was no religions and just a whole world of people who each had thier own ideas and hypotheses's on how man came to be and evryone had thier own beliefs but just were'nt put into steryotypical categories which personally i concider religion as being?..

did you know,just because of what i think and the reasons i come to my conclusions due to reality,good judgment,science,and logic...that because i dont believe in any gods or any of that stuff..that i am still concidered a part of some damn religion?..they call it athiesm.

can i not just believe in anything anymore without being categorized?

i mean these are my thoughts they might be flawed,(but concider the fact that im writing this at 4:30am i think im saying what i mean),just think about that stuff for a moment and let mo know what you think...



~kwon~

No religeon is right and no religeon is wrong. They are just different pathways to the same thing.

I say choose your own pathway that suits you. Life is a religeous process.

I was attempted to be raised christian, and as a result, have an exrtemly open mind towards every religon.

my thoughts are that religon is to keep the masses in line.



and this religon is right because it is logical.

Without using the bible, you can construct the following things from history: that a bloke called Jesus existed, he was crucified by the Roman Empire, and that shortly after his death his tomb was found to be empty and many people in the city of Jerusalem and later the entire Roman empire proclaimed him to have seen him alive post-death.

The best explanation for this undeniably historical course of events? That Yeshu was indeed the Son of God, and demonstrated his absolute power over death.

Religion is a lot like communisim, on paper it looks good, but the actual application is extremely difficult, due to the convenience that power in these circles generate.

That's why Christ didn't start a religion, rather he called people to come out of religion and instead "follow me".

My religion is right because not only does it incorporate several different philosophies, but it is also the most practical. It combines Force and Principle, the Lightning and the Sun (Savitri Devi Hinduism), the power of the physical being (Fascism, Shakti yoga) as well as the transcendence of that same illusory sense of being (Traditional Buddhism), not to mention it incorporates archetypal images connected to my bloodline (Norse paganism).

As a wise man once said:

The way to the Gods is to be Prosperous (Ing and Freia), Mighty (Donar), Just (Tiw), and Wise (Wotan). Get a decent job, train for battle, live with honor, and know thyself.

Hail Grimwulf!

SST

my religion is best because i made it up myself, i dont even try to get other people to even recognize it, it has no rules that i dont like, by my religion im a good person by the standards of almost all organized religions.

also i can change any part of it whenever i want. i dont have to do anything. i do what feels right at the time. i fallow no particular diety, some of them are assholes sometimes. i worship myself, i make deals with the immortal.

I consider myself a Buddhist, a Taoist, and a pantheist. They are all "right", because they are right for me. Buddhism helps me to find some level of self-discipline, to eliminate negative feelings (to any extent), and provide me with a basis for my personal ethical code, and makes perfect sense to me. Taoism helps me find peace and balance within and without myself. Pantheism works well for me, because the only god I could ever come to relate to is existence and the universe in general, and for ME, anyway, this thought is much more comforting than agnosticism. Together, the three form a sort of religion inside of me, with Buddhism providing the logic and ethics, Taoism providing the philosophy, and pantheism providing the spirituality.

I am a Christian because I am a disgustingly evil perverted fuck but Jesus told me that He still loved me anyways, and He will have His Father adopt me into His eternal Family.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Without using the bible, you can construct the following things from history: that a bloke called Jesus existed, he was crucified by the Roman Empire, and that shortly after his death his tomb was found to be empty and many people in the city of Jerusalem and later the entire Roman empire proclaimed him to have seen him alive post-death.

And how can I construct said things from history without using the Bible or any other Holy doctrine?

quote:Originally posted by SEN D-F:

And how can I construct said things from history without using the Bible or any other Holy doctrine?

Didn't you take history yet? Jesus is mentioned in several other historical records besides the Bible and 'Holy doctrine'. Josephus' records are a good example (he was a Jewish historian, working for the Roman's), they even state that he did miracles and may be the Messiah.

quote:Originally posted by StoneMan:

Didn't you take history yet? Jesus is mentioned in several other historical records besides the Bible and 'Holy doctrine'. Josephus' records are a good example (he was a Jewish historian, working for the Roman's), they even state that he did miracles and may be the Messiah.

Yes Ive taken history. And Im not disputing that Jesus existed, but rather that there are historical documents [aside from religious texts] that Jesus rose from the dead. And even still, you'll find a lot of the things talking about Jesus, while not Holy texts, still have somewhat of a religious bias to them.

And that aside. One can state that they feel someone to be the Messiah, but in order for someone to believe that they first have to believe that a Messiah has/ever will exist. Its essentially the same idea as using the Bible to prove thigns about Christianity to an Atheist. It has value to someone who believes in those things, but to someone who does not it means nothing.

And as for the miracles, as Ive mentioend before [not in this thread of course] I feel that people were very misinformed/ignorant/confused in Biblical times. Something that may seem minor or normal to us may have seemed miraculous to them as they lacked the luxury of science to explain certain things. Take soemone like David Blain [a magician] back into Biblical times and Im sure it would be quite easy to convince people he was the son of God. He could do things they wouldn't be able to explain, and they'd be quick to accept any answer that justifies what they had seen. For all we know Jesus was a good illusionist.

quote:Originally posted by StoneMan:

Jesus is mentioned in several other historical records besides the Bible and 'Holy doctrine'. Josephus' records are a good example (he was a Jewish historian, working for the Roman's), they even state that he did miracles and may be the Messiah.

There is decent evidence that the references made in Josephus were added later by Christian scribes. Not to mention that Antiquities (the book where the references are found) wasn't written until around 90 AD, long after Jesus is said to have died.

Other historians, such as Tacitus are often mentioned in reference to Jesus' historicity, but generally only make reference to Christians and their beliefs, rather than Jesus himself.

And, of course, they were all written decades after Jesus was said to have lived.

there are many reasons to believe one religion above anotherbut it comes down to view points,

you'll beleive one thing because you have been conditionned for it, and so you'll find most atheists come from an atheist background or they have had events in their life which make them refute god

logical agruments into gods existanc only come about afterwards. so saying god must exist because the big band happened so well is down to convincing oneself of ones belief.

saying god can' exist because the universe started with the big band is just as valid a view point for an atheist though

so what makes your religion right is your own beliefs and your free will to hold those beleifs.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

There is decent evidence that the references made in Josephus were added later by Christian scribes.

The references weren't added, they were changed to say that Jesus WAS the Messiah. Josephus originally stated that Jesus MAY HAVE BEEN the Messiah, and DID perform miracles.

quote:Originally posted by dr_rock:

you'll beleive one thing because you have been conditionned for it, and so you'll find most atheists come from an atheist background or they have had events in their life which make them refute god

This is a huge generalization. I was raised by fairly devout Christians (my mother taught Sunday School classes), and never had a crisis that I didn't think God would have allowed to happen.

My atheism came about as a result of not seeing (experiencing, detecting, whatever) God in the real world. I have no reason to think It exists, so why should I?

I know plenty of atheists with similar stories. I don't think I know anybody raised with an atheist background (non-religious, yes; but that's not at all the same).

There are a few who deconverted as a result of things getting fucked up, but I'd say they're a minority.

quote:so what makes your religion right is your own beliefs and your free will to hold those beleifs.

Your beliefs cannot change the reality of the world, therefore your beliefs cannot make your religion right (unless it makes no claims about the universe - can't think of any religion that does that, though)

Craftian is exactly right, your "beliefs" don't have any inherent reality. How you act on them may have an effect on the world, but it doesn't neccessarily make them "right".

The statement about "constructing from history" is very different from "history proves"... the problem with argument SEN-DF is that when the texts that make up the NT were written I doubt there was any intention of them becoming scripture or "holy texts"- most of them were letters!

You are right however in one of the problems- people would generally only accept the testimony of a non-christian author saying Yeshu was resurrected. However if that same person considered him to have been, its highly unlikely that they would see such event as anything less than proving that he was the Christ. Its a bit circular...

I will openly admit that the extra-biblical support for the resurrection is less than the other areas, but this is to be expected. However, the texts refer to the fact that the resurrection account was being circulated at the time. If the tomb was not empty, this would have not been able to be perpetuated as the lie would have been immeadiately exposed. See the "Can you explain the events..." thread.

People are probably just as misinformed /ignorant/confused today as they were then. Although science has destoyed much of the use of the supernatural to describe events- there are still many things which it fails to provide adequate explanations for (that not to say that it may not in the future).

Simply because an event is explainable through science doesn't necessarily make its occurance any less meaningful.

I agree with you on the Christian-nonChristian-circular thing, and it's hard to get around. But I wouldn't accept the testimony of a Scientologist on the benefits of Dianetics, either.

If Christianity were the only religion around, or one of a few, or if it stood out from the others in some way, there might be justification to give it special treatment. As it is, the world is full of people that believe thousands of crazy things, most of which are mutually exclusive. Not accepting their testimony is simply a necessary means to avoid the piles of bullshit we'd be buried in otherwise.

Part of the problem is that there are so many people of the time in that area that did not become Christians, and the lack of evidence for any movement to seriously discredit the Christian account.

If there was anything to it I would expect the Jewish priests of the time to either be all over trying to stop their congregations from converting or just convert themselves.

I mean, Jesus was supposed to be the messiah for the Jewish people, but he must have done a pretty shitty job of it if he only had a tiny segment of the Jewish population at the time and 2000 years later there are still people waiting for the messiah.

Yes, your exactly right, I don't think it does deserve any special treatment, yet I can't think of any religion or belief system that has been subjected to as much sustained and agressive criticism, at every level.For 2000 yrs its detractors have been prenouncing its impending death. And, somehow, it still manages to stand.

Your expectation of the times is exactly right as well- IF he was the messiah that is exactly what you would expect. I know you don't take the accounts in the bible as trustworthy, but I do- not because its the bible and it says that it is, but rather compared to everything else that we have from the period, it is (but thats another story). So the first part of this argument will be probably be useless to you.

The accounts given in Acts and the following letters implied all of the things you pointed out- large numbers of Jews and others in Palestine were becoming christians, including members of the organised religion: synagogue rulers, members of the sanhedren etc., also that after a while, the level of persecution of "followers of the way" by Jewish authorities increased and many of the Christians bailed out of Jerusalem.

From the extra-biblical accounts, you can see that James, the brother of Jesus was executed by the Sanhedren (Josephus), that 5 of his disciples were condemnded to execution (Talmud), there are numerous accounts attributing Jesus' birth as illegitimate (Talmud and other Jewish writting). There is, however, some considerable criticism regarding the lack of writings by early jewish christians (i'll post the lnks if you want).

"The debate over the divinity of Christ may never end, but historical evidence has become more supportive of the fact that Jesus can be proved historically to have lived, to have been a dominant figure during his lifetime and of a major concern to the establishment of the Temple and of Rome."- This quote came from a critical, non-christian article. nonhttp://www.sonic.net/sentinel/naij3.html

Another important aspect is the expectations the Jews had of their Messiah, especially at that time. Due to the occupation of Palestine and the generally bad state of affairs, people were very much looking for the Messiah's arrival. The Messiah they were expecting was one that would be a king, a triumphant political/military leader that would overthrow their enemies and restore the hebrews to their former glory. Yeshu was anything but that- he was rejected as a bastard child, a deceiver, and a blasphemer. Executed by the religious leaders, at the hands of the enemies that he was supposed to defeat.

As far as I understand, he didn't fit their expectations- this can be seen even in the gospels accounts of the disciples expectations of the Messiah- and I'd say the same of Jews today.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Yes, your exactly right, I don't think it does deserve any special treatment, yet I can't think of any religion or belief system that has been subjected to as much sustained and agressive criticism, at every level.For 2000 yrs its detractors have been prenouncing its impending death. And, somehow, it still manages to stand.



Judaism has experienced a lot more aggressive criticism on at least as many different levels for quite a bit longer, and hasn't had the privelege of being a majority religion anywhere in the last 2000 years, with the exception of Israel.

My religion is right because it makes unpretentious claims based on proof from ther very outset, rather than making fanciful claims and waiting to be asked to prove them. My religion is right because it doesn't claim to have all the answers; it's right because it isn't, nessecarily. My religion is right because it's based on logic and reasoning, on well documented evidence and records that are certain to have come from people who have experianced the events leading to the beliefs first-hand, as opposed to trying to fit some old dead guy's writings about the general social situation at the time in with the events 'detailed' in my single religious text.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

Your beliefs cannot change the reality of the world, therefore your beliefs cannot make your religion right (unless it makes no claims about the universe - can't think of any religion that does that, though)

Your beliefs here can't change ultimate reality, but this is relative reality. The true power of Jesus was his thoughts, of compassion, and such. Which are slowly but surely changing the world even as we speak, not to mention the others like him, who are doing the same thing, namely all of us.

We do not cause feelings due to what our body does, that is sensation not feeling. Feelings and emotions are produced from a state of being, which is processed by the mind and expressed through our bodies.



[This message has been edited by ilbastardoh (edited 04-11-2004).]

Has it?

We're the ones mentioning Jesus, giving energy to the concept of his being, not the other way around.

I wonder what would happen if we quietly forgot about Jesus and no one paid that supposed person any more attention?

if somthing falls within the boundries of logic and physics it is belivable

for me at least

i have belife in no god

nor do i belive in god

What is religion?

Why do ppl worship different gods?

If god gives us free will to do what we want, then what's the point of god?

Did god create everything to have a purpose, only to lose His own?

Here are a few questions to ponder and/or reply to. BTW I don't have a religion. And that doesn't mean I'm atheist.