What is faith: Why Christianity?

I will have a go at answering your last statement:

quote:

---

According to me, the teachings of Jesus (as they probably were in truth) were, as you said, quite similar to the teachings of any enlightened individual.

---

""What we do in life echoes in eternity" Maximus"

quote:

---

Jesus taught salvation through grace - Jesus paid the price for our sin it is a free gift but we have to receive it. Every other religion teaches salvation (of one kind or another) through works - follow these rules and you will attain salvation at some point.

---

"I'll heal ur woundz I'll set u free, I m jesus christ on xtacy"

That was not a question, it was a statement. I will re-quote my question again, for the third time. Shall I assume you have a learning deficiency or that you are purposely avoiding the question?

quote:

---

Given the past history of Christianity which statistically makes peaceful religions such as Budhism more attractive, what can you tell me that logically makes it realistic for me to choose Christianity over any of these other religions?

1. You cannot explain why I should have faith in Christianity by using the bible as a factual reference (ie, the bible says this, or Jesus said that)

2. You must address the fact that Budhism is thousands of years older that Christianity, preaches one-ness with everyone and everything (thereby removing all prejudices), and why Christian doctrines are superior even though they openly preach prejudice (in regards to gays and prostitues)

---

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I will address your previous answer, however you are not permitted to respond to this until you address my question above (as AOD also re-stated it)

quote:

---

we have to receive it

---

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

I think I'll answer Decius's first question
Its the followers that count. If the entire world became monks, then we would hardly make any scientific progress perhaps, so Buddhisim is not that perfect a religion-infact it wasn't even meant to be one-it's followers made it into one. Jesus christ also didn't want his teaching to be a seperate religion, he never even hinted towards, people just started to compile his teachings.
Anyway, there is nothing wrong about Christianity itself, so all christians stop worrying this is not about attacking christianity. Similarly ther's nothing wrong about Islam or Buddhism either-that is if you use your brains when following. If you don't then being a monk you can go sit in the middle of the road waiting for the car to hit you 'as the car and you are one'.
So please stop trying to defend christianity as no one is attacking it in the first place. All that has been said is that Christianity is glorious, Jesus did that Jesus said that-wat you guyz have to concentrate on proving is why should Christianity be the only exculsively true religion.

quote:

---

Which says nothing bad or good about Christianity, just that your point is voided.

---

"I'll heal ur woundz I'll set u free, I m jesus christ on xtacy"

if Christianity is by definition about compliance and inaction then why is it that such things as the Crusades and the Salem Witch Hunts occur. Even today people are still fighting over religion, blood is being spilled. From what i know, and i dont pretend to be an expert, most religions preach peace. If this is so then why have so many people died because of their faith.

"The definistion of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results"

quote:

---

From what i know, and i dont pretend to be an expert, most religions preach peace. If this is so then why have so many people died because of their faith.

---

quote:

---

Given the past history of Christianity which statistically makes peaceful religions such as Budhism more attractive, what can you tell me that logically makes it realistic for me to choose Christianity over any of these other religions?

1. You cannot explain why I should have faith in Christianity by using the bible as a factual reference (ie, the bible says this, or Jesus said that)

2. You must address the fact that Budhism is thousands of years older that Christianity, preaches one-ness with everyone and everything (thereby removing all prejudices), and why Christian doctrines are superior even though they openly preach prejudice (in regards to gays and prostitues)

---

"All statements are false. The last statement is false.--One of these statements is true."

Hi Strongclad... glad to see you back.

I don't know if you are in a position to answer this question because it is sort of posed as a rebuttal to PeterSmith's assertion that Christianity is the only religion that provides "grace", and should be the sole object of faith amongst humans.

If you agree with his statement(s), then you are in a position to answer my questions. That being the case, i will answer yours:

1. Pertaining to your first question, I will say "yes" based on the mutual understand that you are using what you understand to be my definition of "factually probable without reasonable doubt". I say this because amongst the many Christians that i've met, many seem to believe that "trust in the bible because Jesus said this" is "factually probable without reasonable doubt".

2.

a) Although Budhism is a different belief system it is the same animal in that it provides humans some form of morality and guidance with which to live by. Hence, it is highly comparable and I don't actually think your statement about them being "altogether different" is really a deterrent when it comes to comparing their overall effect on humanity.

b) An older faith is a tried and tested faith. It is a statistic and a highly relevent statistic. If a religion that has existed for ten days has created more murder and slaughter than one that has been there for a hundred years, well, it definitely says something about the effectiveness of it.

c) Prejudices are easily defined and are not relative. Our definition can be a dictionary reference, which in essence states that prejudice is a conclusion made upon a group or person without logical knowledge of that truth. Hence, to believe that homosexuals will go to hell, by definition, is most certainly a prejudice.

I think I've addressed all your questions in regards to my question, and frankly don't think anything has really changed. The question is quite legitimate as there are far more "factually probable" premises pointing to a corrupt Christian world than a wholesome Christian world.

If Budhism logically teaches psychological guidances that logically lead to a probable eventuality of love rather than prejudice, then it must be explained why Christianity does the opposite yet is still deserving of anyone's faith.

If Budhism has existed twice as long on the planet as Christianity yet has created a small minute miniscule fraction of the death and destruction then that is a sociological conclusion based on the above paragraph on individual morality. In essence, if the individual beliefs spread love, it is less likely that as a group Budhists will kill people than Christians will. And this is proven by statistical evidence.

Hence, the question still stands, quite clearly.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Again, because of our 'stuipidity' there are flaws in every religion. A stupid person for example, if converted to Buddhism, there would be less killings perhaps but scientific progress would greatly slow down, as the first step to traditional Buddhism is to distance yourself from the world.

"I'll heal ur woundz I'll set u free, I m jesus christ on xtacy"

I don't think that's really relevent. That's like saying because a religion spreads peace it is less likely that technology will expand because of a void of wars.

If distancing oneself from slavery to material things creates peace (which if fully well thought out makes perfect sense) then you're saying a peaceful religion is flawed because it "might" lack the innovation modem religions have brought on by the onslaught of war.

But there are a thousand other reasons why the switch from man-to-man competition to man-to-himself competition would create a vastly superior system of modernization.

I'm speaking of the overall effect... on the average, which is the only difinitive method of comparing religions (if we avoid arguing about actual doctrines). There will be stupid budhists and stupid Christians... but what percentage seems to remain stupid in what religion, and most importantly what effect these stupid people have on the rest of the world determines how logical it is to have faith in one or the other.

Which, again, takes us back to my question that has still yet to be answered legitimately by one Christian believer. (specifically the tool that started this thread and seems to have tactfully vanished with the innability to answer with bullshit)

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
[  Edited by Decius at   ]

I don't understand how you advocate a religion on the grounds of social expediency. After all, the "bastards" as you call them pervert rather than represent Christianity. You can't view this matter in consequentialist terms... that would rather miss the point.

yes... why not attack the actual teachings of the religion, not the people who have represented it.

"I try my best to be just like I am but everybody wants you to be just like them."

A religion's effect is never individual. It is provided as a statistic. Just like vegetarians. If vegetarians as a statistic are less likely to commit murder than meat eaters then there is a correlation between eating meat and violence. This takes into account all the irrelevent rebuttals about "true" Christians or "false" Christians. It's called the normal curve, and it's a very general statistical concept. (with true believers on one end and harsh deviants on the other)

Unlike meat eating, however, these two populations are categorized by the same criteria that they are being compared with.

So, a similar comparison would be are vegetarians less likely to kill an animal for food than a meat eater is? Most certainly.

Both your points try to merge a legitimate critique of a comparison in a situation where it simply is not applicable.

Hence, the question still awaits an educated answer.

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."

Well, iŽll give it a shot from what iŽve read so far on the subject and post more as i get to it.

As far as Christian teachings go they are commonly misrepresented by many people Christians included. However, the Bible is not quite the Holy Book it is always made out to be, for while it is believed by Christians to be the Word of God there are things in it that are not meant to be taken literally. Christian doctrine at its core is solely the words of Christ. Thus any followers and any other parts of the Bible that contradict the words of Christ are voided and are not part of the religion. Given this situation Christian doctrine is not contradictory at all and in fact is very forgiving and tolerant of every human being.
For Buddhism, the basic teachings cannot be true as they are by their very nature false. Buddhist teachings proclaim through the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Way that human beings, through enlightenment, can become morally and spiritually superior to the gods. This statement negates the very definition and being of a god, thus expelling any gods of Buddhism as even capable of logical existence.
The argument of course is that no god can logically exist, an argument which can neither be proven or disproven, but as the exercise was to give logical reasons for believing Christian doctrine over Buddhist doctrine (and as Christian doctrine contains no negation of this magnitude nor any real contradiction of any sort for true believers) then Christian doctrine already looks more appealing. As i said before, more to come but its getting late.

"If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."

How is one to decipher Jesus' true words if they are contained in a bible that is by definition, not the word of God (for it contains contradictions indicating that even the words of Jesus may not be authentic)?

The reason your statement is somewhat invalidated is that you're really skewing what it is that makes a Christian a Christian. I have yet to meet a Christian that openly admits that the bible is bullshit, or even partly bullshit.

The "taking literally" part is voided because it's your opinion that it should not be taken literally. It was taken literally in the past. The truth is the religion's book says certain things in a certain language. You can't really dictate how that information is absorbed except by the use of language.

So, I agree that if one is to carefully do the research and pick out the correct passages from a flawed bible (which is believed to be the true words of jesus) and follow them (not literraly but based on a correct assumptious definition) then they are healthy good Christians.

But, unfortunately, the group you have outlined is most definitely not a Christian for it does not include the largest portion of Christians. Arguing semantics is pointless... budhists are those that consider themselves budhists and Christians are those that consider themselves Christians and although one small group may claim that other groups are not "genuine", it is only the largest groups that we are comparing in this discussion. (for it is the largest groups that obviously create a larger effect upon the world)

In comparing the two largest sects of "christians" and "Budhists", obviously we have statistical evidence overwhelmingly pointing to a safer choice in Budhism.

(I also wanted to point out that what you have stated as the "core" beliefs of Budhism are in fact false. Like many of the "interesting" parts of the bible, the parts you have chosen to critique are not a part of fundamental Budhism. And in fact a majority of Budhists do not believe the ideas you have stated)

"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."