I don't think there is a superior religion. As a non-believer (christian orthodox by birth) I am sure there isn't a very big difference between the 2 main religions: Christianity and Islam. History made the dfference between those two. In Europe Christianity lived throught what we call the Dark Ages and I think that period made Christianity much more mature religion. They changed their view from "Earth is the center of the Universe" and kill anybody who says different to "Maybe the evolution theory is true?!?".
Meanwhile in the far east nothing changed everything remained and still is like it was in the 14th century. But there is no way you can say a religion is better. Yeah the Christian world is far more richer then the Islamic world, but that is not entirely because of religion. History is the main player. If we were born in Africa we would have still starved like people do right now.
So basicly what I want to say: There is no superior religion; and if you think deeply you'll realise that the difference between them is not that great. They have the same objective: give people hope and enforce some rules (and as a personal opinion... the sum of that two ultimately leads to control of the people; fact seen in the dark ages)

 

 

 

Reply

I think this world would be in chaos without religion.

Christianity does not teach to feel superior to other religions. I don't think any religion teaches that. In Islam they are taught to respect Christians and Jews as they are the People of the Book.

The bible is not only a religious book but it has history, philosophy, and prediction of future events. After centuries of persecution and attempts to destroy it the bible still stands.

It's just different viewpoints of the bible that has divided Christianity into many sects.

I'm a Catholic and we believe in the Virgin birth of Christ. People say it's impossible, but this is God we are talking about, nothing is impossible.

And what is that guy talking about that Jesus was a "racist"? It was Jesus' teachings such as to spread the word not only to Jews but also non-jews. What about the time Jesus healed the Roman Centurion's servant?

Reply

I never said Islam was the greater religion. I was just replying to some people's comments. But in the Middle East it is no longer like the 14th century. Arabs were beginning to go the best full length. They were extremly clever and had many scientists and so on who discovered many things. Gradually the Ottoman empire died and the Western world took over.



I would not agree with the 'Bible still stands' but i agree with your comments so far.



Not really the Bible that divided the Christians into sects. More the corruption. Now the Christians high in power are not actually corrupt anymore. Thank God.

Also when i was talking about Jesus, i was trying to prove a point that he was not sinless.

 

 

 

Reply

Everyone has their own ideas about religion. You can't tell anyone if one religion is right or wrong. Just accept other people's ideals and learn to respect them. I personally don't think christianity is that superior. Why would it be? Since you hear about all their bad deeds done by the church. It has a history of committing sins and yet, people still learn to follow it. Its probably a more tradition thing.

Reply

In response to "Jesus was defeated by the woman's wisdom":
(You could have used quote tags).
Although, it used to prove that Jesus is not God, it seems that you also use to this to "prove" that Jesus has sinned.

Indeed, Jesus was sent to do something else, first. But, Jesus was only testing her faith. Sin would have been doing what the disciples said,
This goes to show just how faith saves people. This is also another proof that Jesus was tempted by evil, but did not give in. What you call "defeating" Jesus, isnt really defeating, cause He did not give in to sin. Since, the canaanite woman wasnt using evil to "lure" Jesus in. She wanted help, and got it.

Anywho, moving on:

Missing the obvious? Kinda hard not to agree that the Bible still stands, just cause you dont think it does. If it still didnt "stand" many people wouldnt be using it. Mind explaining your reason?


Who says the dead arent saved? Sure, many of them arent, but who says, they all aren't? I'm pretty sure i've read something about the dead being saved in the Bible.

Reply

I agree. People need to learn to live peacefully with one another. Some states do not recognise some major religions because they do not want them to exist. They need to change their attitude.




Well actually if you had read what i wrote, i said something like:






Jesus said taht non-Jewish woman and people in general are equivalent to dogs. Anyway this is not the place to debate on whether Jesus was sinless or not. If you want to debate on that PM me or start a new topic and PM me the hyperlink please.





I do not make snap judgements. I do not say the Bible does not stand because I do not want it to stand. It would take me quite a while and a lot of typing to explain why. Would you like me to PM you and show you why it does not stand as the Words of God anymore?

God bless you all.

Reply

I don't really want to get into a arguement on religion (and I don't really know what you are talking about because you are all over the place). I just find it extremely funny that you cannot see that religion is an OPINION and a POINT OF VIEW. You think murder is wrong because you have been taught that it is wrong. Murder happens all the time and depending on the person's point of view, it can be right or wrong. Just ask the Nazi's or the KKK. You think they cared if they killed a black guy? I don't think so.

Next, you mention that society can be corrupt and is why society cannot determine morals (or right and wrong). What do you think corrupt means? Corruption is just another viewpoint. If society thinks it is okay to have one night stands, why should it be wrong? In fact, I don't think it is wrong at all. Who cares if religion says it is wrong? Why should it be? Because you have all been taught (or brainwashed) to think that premarital sex is wrong. Who cares if a true strict christian thinks it is wrong to have one night stands? They do not represent society's values in this case so the christian is the one who is wrong.

Another example of "corruption" is bribes. In North America and most of western europe, it is unacceptable to take bribes in business. but in many countries in asia and south america, it is expected and even worked into the budget.

The second thing I find extremely funny is the fact that someone is comparing religion to science in terms of "accuracy". Of course the more we learn from a scientific point of view, the more accurate it is. How can the parallel be drawn for religion? It is simply ridiculous! Religion is not something we will understand more over time because it is abstract! The reason why the oldest book is the most accurate book is that all books are essentially telling a story (history - if you believe it is true). What is more accurate, a history book written AT THE TIME history happened or hundreds of years later?

If you kept a journal and wrote entries for days that were 5 years ago, how much would you remember? Most of your ideas would be lost and distorted!

Open your mind. Everything in this world is relative and depends on your point of view. You are taking a hard view from the religious point of view. Step back from your teachings (brainwashing) and try to see thing from other's point of view. Religion is not a bad thing but it is bad when people close their minds because of it.

Reply

[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".

Reply

Actually, any one religion is going to teach more then just peace. Ultimately however, we can't say what God will or will not find acceptable, we must rely on that info from somewhere else. If we try to figure it out through human concensus, we will all disagree, therefore, we must determine a different source since humans will disagree and thus truth can't come from us, and then determine the reputability of said source.

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



You should've read the rest of the passage, God must've known you'd say this 2 thousand years ago because it's set up perfectly to beat your argument before it even got started! For one thing, Jesus said this before even speaking that to her!



Just that right there destroys your racism theory instantly.



Sorry Loyal, but you missed out on this verse:

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

Here, Jesus doesn't just say the Father loved Him before the beginning of the world... it says He EXISTED WITH THE FATHER "BEFORE THE WORLD WAS."

Furthermore, your idea of proof is backwards. Just because it's possible for God to love someone before they were born in no way means that Jesus wasn't God. Simply because something is possible does not mean it is plausible and certainly not that it is proven, especially when the text specifically states a different alternative like the one I just gave.

The King of Salem is considered a theophany, i.e. incarnation-like appearance by Jesus in flesh/angelic form before His time here when we know Him as Jesus. Some consider it to be simply a person used as a symbol of Him because the King of Salem had no known recorded DOB. Either view would be a possibility.

Finally, your last question assumes that Jesus is separate from God. But of course you have yet to prove that, and that is contrary to what the Bible says:




If the peace is not eternal, how much does it really matter?

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



I would agree with you that there isn't a very big difference between Catholocism and Islam. I find it a common misconception for people to confuse Catholocism with Christianity for some reason. However, Galileo, Newton, and Pasteur were all Biblical Christians, but ones the RCC disapproved of. I believe it was the anabaptists, hutterites, donatists, montanists, and others who were slaughtered for 1200 years by Catholocism who were the true continuers of Christianity. Catholocism as we know it did not even begin until hundreds of years after the crucifixion, and was started by the very Roman government which killed Jesus and whose Nero so brutally slaughtered the first Christians! The Babylon spoken of in Revelation as a great city/institution/government/church is I believe the Catholic Church, or at least includes it, and continues the institution of the New Testament Pharisees. This statement then, about it, is quite apt:



Whether it is truly as evil as presented here I don't know, but I certainly think it possible. Anyway, if you look back to the dark ages, you will learn of groups called the anabaptists among the others I mentioned, and how they refused to fight back and were slaughtered by the thousands! They died loving and forgiving their enemies even as many do today in foreign countries!

There is an interesting dissertation called "The Anabaptist Vision" with numerous quotes to be found here, here is a section of it:





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.

Reply

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.



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.

As for bribes, they are a whole new issue.



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.





I got it from a website so it is not my theory. I wrote that down...Anyway i do not want to talk about Jesus in this thread. Though you are proably right about what you said below. Remember it is from a website not from me. I like to verify what i believe in. I was just using that as an example that Jesus was not sinless. Please like i said before, this is not the place to argue it.

Like i said to someone else. If you really want to argue about Jesus please PM me and i will have no problems with it there. Here is not right place really...

However since there are no posts here, i will respond quickly:



But that is the point i am making! I said that the prophets and messengers were made before the existence of universe let alone God.
Also: 'King Melchizedek of Salem was an eternal priest with no records of his beginning and ending. (Heb. 7:1-3). No Christian would admit, based upon this stated of "eternal life span", that the King of Salem was God, so how can Jesus be who claimed his existence before Abraham?'



It does not state an alternative. Please actually read what i typed. And this is the question i ask you again:

Jesus said; "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free". When Jesus was asked: "What commandment is the foremost of all?" Jesus answered, "The foremost is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is One Lord; And you shall LOVE the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength."

Reply