Religion Doesn't Make Sense

[mr. incrediball]

Wasn't Hera like anti Hercules?

hera spent most of hercules' life trying to kill him.


who can blame her? he was her husband's illegitimate son!



(see, this is why ancient greek is so much better than christianity!)

He was ONE of her husband's illegitimate children!

Just so happened to be his favorite... But wouldn't he be your favorite too?

one thing i never got, was that zeus made all these illigitimate children while disguised as animals

[Snorri1234]

Wasn't Hera like anti Hercules?

hera spent most of hercules' life trying to kill him.


who can blame her? he was her husband's illegitimate son!



(see, this is why ancient greek is so much better than christianity!)

He was ONE of her husband's illegitimate children!

Just so happened to be his favorite... But wouldn't he be your favorite too?

one thing i never got, was that zeus made all these illigitimate children while disguised as animals

Don't forget Golden Rain. Or the womans husband. (Oh and rape.)

[Gregrios]

Niether the Bible or the Koran states that Jesus is God. When Jesus says in the Bible that he and God are one in the same, he's referring to the fact that he's only on earth to remind and confirm God's word and the fact that they both serve the same purpose. Spiritually they are one in the same by way of the Holy Spirit. Jesus also states that he will have his seat beside God's thrown. Left or right, that I don't remember.

I have read 270 pages out of 1500 pages of the Koran and so far I've only come accross one contridictory statement. The part in which it is said that Jesus was not crucified or killed. There's no arguement that that is a major difference between the writings of the Koran and the Bible. I may find more differences between the two but for now this is the only one.

[unriggable]

So gregrios, by the laws of electricity, you're muslim?

[muy_thaiguy]

Niether the Bible or the Koran states that Jesus is God. When Jesus says in the Bible that he and God are one in the same, he's referring to the fact that he's only on earth to remind and confirm God's word and the fact that they both serve the same purpose. Spiritually they are one in the same by way of the Holy Spirit. Jesus also states that he will have his seat beside God's thrown. Left or right, that I don't remember.

I have read 270 pages out of 1500 pages of the Koran and so far I've only come accross one contridictory statement. The part in which it is said that Jesus was not crucified or killed. There's no arguement that that is a major difference between the writings of the Koran and the Bible. I may find more differences between the two but for now this is the only one.

Right Hand.

[Guiscard]

Niether the Bible or the Koran states that Jesus is God. When Jesus says in the Bible that he and God are one in the same, he's referring to the fact that he's only on earth to remind and confirm God's word and the fact that they both serve the same purpose. Spiritually they are one in the same by way of the Holy Spirit. Jesus also states that he will have his seat beside God's thrown. Left or right, that I don't remember.

I have read 270 pages out of 1500 pages of the Koran and so far I've only come accross one contridictory statement. The part in which it is said that Jesus was not crucified or killed. There's no arguement that that is a major difference between the writings of the Koran and the Bible. I may find more differences between the two but for now this is the only one.

Err... Not to crash your party, but unless you ascribe to one of the early heretical sects then he really is God, categorically.

[suggs]

Oh, poor Mustard, how far you have strayed from your flock-how tortured thy soul, how inconsolate thy torments.
Come with Bishop Suggs,
and i'll fill your spiritual hole my son.
Blessed are the Mustards, for they shall go darn well with beef.

Let us pray.

[OnlyAmbrose]

How can one religion claim to be right when there are other competing religions that claim to be correct? Surely Christians must be wrong or Muslims must be wrong? How can either side prove the other is talking crap.

If they can't then surely religion is fake?

That's like saying, "There are competing scientific theories in regards to the origins of the universe. Therefore, they are all wrong."

[Guiscard]

How can one religion claim to be right when there are other competing religions that claim to be correct? Surely Christians must be wrong or Muslims must be wrong? How can either side prove the other is talking crap.

If they can't then surely religion is fake?

That's like saying, "There are competing scientific theories in regards to the origins of the universe. Therefore, they are all wrong."

No. Its not. At what point did the link to 'and therefore they must all be wrong' occur? It is an interesting question when you consider the immense impact religion has on the very existence of people all over the world. People live and die for their religion in droves. You won't find advocates of differing scientific theories blowing martyring themselves, I'd wager.

[OnlyAmbrose]

How can one religion claim to be right when there are other competing religions that claim to be correct? Surely Christians must be wrong or Muslims must be wrong? How can either side prove the other is talking crap.

If they can't then surely religion is fake?

That's like saying, "There are competing scientific theories in regards to the origins of the universe. Therefore, they are all wrong."

No. Its not. At what point did the link to 'and therefore they must all be wrong' occur? It is an interesting question when you consider the immense impact religion has on the very existence of people all over the world. People live and die for their religion in droves. You won't find advocates of differing scientific theories blowing martyring themselves, I'd wager.

First of all, I still hold to my original point. DM said "there are other competing religions that claim to be correct... Isn't religion fake?"

I think it's basically the same argument... how does variety of opinion make something fake?

I guess I'll have to go into why I'm Christian.

Take the Christian story. Jesus dies, presumably for our sins. He is then supposedly resurrected. How do we know this? Because we have eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life, death, and ultimately his appearing after his death. These accounts come in the form of the 12 apostles. They are our witnesses. They could, of course, be making it all up, but I'll get to that later.

So now, let's go into the supposed origins of Christianity, according to texts written by eyewitnesses to its early growth (Acts of the Apostles). According to the author of Acts, Luke, the earliest followers of Christianity became so because they saw miracles performed by the apostles.

So why do I believe these eyewitness accounts? Mostly because the eyewitnesses never changed their story, despite most of them being given the option of either painful martyrdom or denial of the faith which they were building. Invariably, these eyewitnesses chose death. Most of the apostles were brutally martyred. We have secular historical texts of this. I'd say this verifies their story.

The evidence we have of miracles comes only from eyewitnesses. When these eyewitnesses are willing to die rather than to deny these miracles, I'm inclined to believe their story. Sure, you could argue that they're all lunatics, but out of the 12 apostles, NONE of them denied what they testified to. 12 lunatics willing to suffer brutal death rather than deny a "lie"? Not likely.

I don't see any other religion with eyewitnesses who have such credibility. Several witnesses to the Mormon faith eventually changed their story, some even converted from Mormonism. Other religions, such as Bhuddism, don't have eyewitnesses at all as far as I know, but rather, are simply philosophical arguments.

You see, religion forces you to make a circumstantial case. Meaning since it entails events that happened in the past, we didn't see with our own two eyes those central events. Therefore, we rely on eyewitnesses, and as such we are required to test the cases of those eyewitnesses, as well as evaluating their credibility.

I've already explained that I think that theism is the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence, now this is why I think Christianity is the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

[Snorri1234]

First of all, I still hold to my original point. DM said "there are other competing religions that claim to be correct... Isn't religion fake?"

DM is just trolling for the fun of it, let's ignore him here.

So why do I believe these eyewitness accounts? Mostly because the eyewitnesses never changed their story, despite most of them being given the option of either painful martyrdom or denial of the faith which they were building. Invariably, these eyewitnesses chose death. Most of the apostles were brutally martyred. We have secular historical texts of this. I'd say this verifies their story.

The evidence we have of miracles comes only from eyewitnesses. When these eyewitnesses are willing to die rather than to deny these miracles, I'm inclined to believe their story. Sure, you could argue that they're all lunatics, but out of the 12 apostles, NONE of them denied what they testified to. 12 lunatics willing to suffer brutal death rather than deny a "lie"? Not likely.

But aren't you kinda missing the important bit about you not being there?

It's not like you can actually know if the guys writing it were actually the apostles. Or that any apostle denying what he saw would be just scrapped out of the book. (Or more likely never put in.)

And if anything, 12 lunatics rather dying than admitting a lie they actually believed is not that strange. There are many people who are, for example, totally convinced they saw a UFO or an alien. This does not make those accounts true.

Witness accounts are frequently unreliable, especially when they're over 2000 years old. If people swear they saw a red camero just a day after (when there was none), I really don't think highly of witness accounts.

I don't see any other religion with eyewitnesses who have such credibility. Several witnesses to the Mormon faith eventually changed their story, some even converted from Mormonism. Other religions, such as Bhuddism, don't have eyewitnesses at all as far as I know, but rather, are simply philosophical arguments.

If anything, philosophical arguments are better. They don't rely on fragile witness accounts to prove their point. They stand on themselves and don't require you to accept something from a guy who possibly wrote about something he saw 2000 years ago.

You see, religion forces you to make a circumstantial case. Meaning since it entails events that happened in the past, we didn't see with our own two eyes those central events. Therefore, we rely on eyewitnesses, and as such we are required to test the cases of those eyewitnesses, as well as evaluating their credibility.

We need evidence, not witnesses. Traveljournies talking about islands where the people only have one foot don't count as reliable without evidence of them actually existing.

I think this is why I disagree with your initial post about origins of the universe. These theories can actually be supported by facts and credible arguments, and religious texts cannot. (Unless it's an argument, obviously.)

[OnlyAmbrose]

It's not like you can actually know if the guys writing it were actually the apostles. Or that any apostle denying what he saw would be just scrapped out of the book. (Or more likely never put in.)

Most historians agree on the authorship of the New Testament. This isn't really a debate... it's generally taken as a secular fact. Most of the works of the NT are, in fact, correspondences. Acts of the Apostles, for instance, was Luke writing to a Roman governor, I believe.

And if anything, 12 lunatics rather dying than admitting a lie they actually believed is not that strange. There are many people who are, for example, totally convinced they saw a UFO or an alien. This does not make those accounts true.

So 12 lunatics coincidentally got together to fabricate this story? 12 lunatics came up with this? And none of these 12 lunatics were willing to deny what they had "seen"?

Furthermore, the "miracles" of these 12 lunatics were witnessed by hundreds of other lunatics who also died for what they had seen? Doesn't seem likely.

You can't empirically prove history, because we can't see it with our own eyes. But we CAN make a decision based on what seems most likely due to the evidence.

Witness accounts are frequently unreliable, especially when they're over 2000 years old. If people swear they saw a red camero just a day after (when there was none), I really don't think highly of witness accounts.

We're talking explicitly recorded eyewitness accounts which sparked a religion in the Roman Empire which would suffer severe persecution and yet survive.

If anything, philosophical arguments are better. They don't rely on fragile witness accounts to prove their point. They stand on themselves and don't require you to accept something from a guy who possibly wrote about something he saw 2000 years ago.

Not true. My impression of these philosophical religions has always been that they get a philosophy and then make a religion to fit it. For instance, you can't really come to the conclusion of reincarnation through philosophy, it's a religious idea which happens to FIT a certain philosophy. But I don't see anything lending weight to that religious concept as I see things lending weight to Christianity.

We need evidence, not witnesses.

Witnesses are considered evidence for a court of law, why not for this? Especially when we have hundreds of witnesses dying rather than deny what they bore witness to.

Our understanding of history is based almost entirely on WITNESSES, and the study of eyewitness testimony. I don't see why you're getting jittery just because I'm applying this sort of study to the history of Christianity.

[Snorri1234]

So 12 lunatics coincidentally got together to fabricate this story? 12 lunatics came up with this? And none of these 12 lunatics were willing to deny what they had "seen"?

12 lunatics is not a lot dude. Mass-suicides show there are quite a lot of crazy people willing to die for whatever stupid thing they believe in.

You can't empirically prove history, because we can't see it with our own eyes. But we CAN make a decision based on what seems most likely due to the evidence.

Yes, evidence. Generally we also rely on other evidence outside of witness-testimonies. Especially when those testimonies talk about things we can't reasonably consider as true, because they are impossible to recreate.
We don't consider roman gods as existing just because people believed in them and talked about miracles.

Also, don't forget they thought it was true! They believed that Jesus was really son of god and all that, so I think they probably wouldn't just throw they're belief away.

We're talking explicitly recorded eyewitness accounts which sparked a religion in the Roman Empire which would suffer severe persecution and yet survive.

I know. Explicitily recorded eyewitness accounts are nothing. The legal system in your country doesn't consider it enough evidence either.

The problem with the bible is that most of it isn't verified by other sources. It's a stand alone account of things. And it's different from other sources too in that it's about a religion (and a means to spread it), whereas others just refer to likely and reasonable things. It is never backed by scientific evidence, or in fact any evidence at all, like Plinius' account of the versuvius outburst.

[OnlyAmbrose]

12 lunatics is not a lot dude. Mass-suicides show there are quite a lot of crazy people willing to die for whatever stupid thing they believe in.

This isn't a suicide cult, though, this is a persecuted minority religion. People saw something supernatural, and believed in it enough to die for it. Once again, I see the eyewitnesses of Christianity as unique in that not a single one denied their faith under threat of a horrible death.

And have you read the writings of these people? Lunatics is definitely not the word I'd use to describe them. St. Paul was quite the philosopher.

Yes, evidence. Generally we also rely on other evidence outside of witness-testimonies.

Yes we do. And it's there. Just like in court, we're using the eyewitness accounts of the apostles and combining them with the historical evidence of the Roman administration at the time of Jesus and coming to a conclusion. Most historians agree that Jesus existed and was crucified. We then take the accounts of the apostles and test them. There are no contradictions with each other or with the historical record. Then we observe the fact that the apostles were invariably willing to died for what they had witnessed. I fail to see why you consider this convincing.

We don't consider roman gods as existing just because people believed in them and talked about miracles.

I don't think I've ever seen any primary sources or eyewitnesses of miracles in Roman society. Ever.

Also, don't forget they thought it was true! They believed that Jesus was really son of god and all that, so I think they probably wouldn't just throw they're belief away.

And why do you think they believed it? The answer is simple: because they saw things that convinced them. They describe the things they saw in their writings, and they stick to their stories in spite of persecution and eventual martyrdom.

The legal system in your country doesn't consider it enough evidence either.

Combined with historial data we have, I find it convincing enough.

Let's put it this way. In other threads I have made a case for a "personal force" being behind the creation of the universe. Let's just assume that I have proved that a personal force is behind the creation of the universe.

We are now left with several options of belief systems in this personal force. As a theist, I am left to choose between them. Given that the initial premise of theism is true, between the available options I choose Christianity as the most likely.

Does that make more sense? This thread really has to be looked at from the theistic perspective, because otherwise we're getting on the topic of atheism vs. theism, and this thread is about choosing a single theistic religion.

[Snorri1234]

Yes we do. And it's there. Just like in court, we're using the eyewitness accounts of the apostles and combining them with the historical evidence of the Roman administration at the time of Jesus and coming to a conclusion. Most historians agree that Jesus existed and was crucified. We then take the accounts of the apostles and test them. There are no contradictions with each other or with the historical record. Then we observe the fact that the apostles were invariably willing to died for what they had witnessed. I fail to see why you consider this convincing.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I think Jesus existed and his apostles did, I just don't believe in the miracles he peformed. The miracles don't contradict any other records, because they don't appear in them.

We are now left with several options of belief systems in this personal force. As a theist, I am left to choose between them. Given that the initial premise of theism is true, between the available options I choose Christianity as the most likely.

Does that make more sense? This thread really has to be looked at from the theistic perspective, because otherwise we're getting on the topic of atheism vs. theism, and this thread is about choosing a single theistic religion.

Ah yes, this does make more sense. I can understand the notion to choose the christian faith over others, as there is quite a lot more..well people in it. If theism as a premise is true, christianity has probably the best case insofar as evidence.

[unriggable]

Ambrose, it took forty years for Mark (or was it Matthew?) to get his witness accounts onto paper, and seventy years for the rest. Try and remember something that happened forty years ago. It's very, very, very hard. In a court of law, those witnesses would be dismissed instantly.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Ambrose, it took forty years for Mark (or was it Matthew?) to get his witness accounts onto paper, and seventy years for the rest. Try and remember something that happened forty years ago. It's very, very, very hard. In a court of law, those witnesses would be dismissed instantly.

I'm not talking about specific words here. I think those were preserved by the power of the Holy Spirit, but I of course wouldn't believe in the Holy Spirit unless I was Christian.

but when I'm talking about eyewitnesses I'm talking about eyewitnesses to miracles. Would you remember if a supposedly dead guy appeared before you with all the wounds you remember him to have? I sure would... THAT is the kind of eyewitness testimony I'm talking about. And once again, they were willing to die for it.

[unriggable]

Ambrose, it took forty years for Mark (or was it Matthew?) to get his witness accounts onto paper, and seventy years for the rest. Try and remember something that happened forty years ago. It's very, very, very hard. In a court of law, those witnesses would be dismissed instantly.

I'm not talking about specific words here. I think those were preserved by the power of the Holy Spirit, but I of course wouldn't believe in the Holy Spirit unless I was Christian.

but when I'm talking about eyewitnesses I'm talking about eyewitnesses to miracles. Would you remember if a supposedly dead guy appeared before you with all the wounds you remember him to have? I sure would... THAT is the kind of eyewitness testimony I'm talking about. And once again, they were willing to die for it.

1. How do we know they remember what they saw forty years after they saw it?
2. How do we know that 'they were willing to die for it' part wasn't added in later?

[OnlyAmbrose]

Ambrose, it took forty years for Mark (or was it Matthew?) to get his witness accounts onto paper, and seventy years for the rest. Try and remember something that happened forty years ago. It's very, very, very hard. In a court of law, those witnesses would be dismissed instantly.

I'm not talking about specific words here. I think those were preserved by the power of the Holy Spirit, but I of course wouldn't believe in the Holy Spirit unless I was Christian.

but when I'm talking about eyewitnesses I'm talking about eyewitnesses to miracles. Would you remember if a supposedly dead guy appeared before you with all the wounds you remember him to have? I sure would... THAT is the kind of eyewitness testimony I'm talking about. And once again, they were willing to die for it.

1. How do we know they remember what they saw forty years after they saw it?
2. How do we know that 'they were willing to die for it' part wasn't added in later?

1. Come on. You have a chat with a dead guy at age 20 and you don't remember it at age 60? Please...
2. Historical records of the Romans torturing and executing these people.

[d.gishman]

How can one religion claim to be right when there are other competing religions that claim to be correct? Surely Christians must be wrong or Muslims must be wrong? How can either side prove the other is talking crap.

If they can't then surely religion is fake?

yes, you are correct. only one religion is the true religion (and we are counting atheism as a religion for convenience). I dont understand your argument. Just because religions argue with each other doesn't mean they are all wrong. It means that they are different from one another, thus only one religion can be correct.

[TheBro]

There isn't really a way to prove one's religion is correct over another... It's more faith than anything, it's impossible for one to claim their religion as the superior one... (Although we do) ...Including me, wooh go Protestants! Everyone else sucks because their religion is wrong!

[OnlyAmbrose]

There isn't really a way to prove one's religion is correct over another... It's more faith than anything, it's impossible for one to claim their religion as the superior one... (Although we do) ...Including me, wooh go Protestants! Everyone else sucks because their religion is wrong!

Then why are you Christian? If one religion is just as good as the other, why not just choose the most pleasurable?

[muy_thaiguy]

There isn't really a way to prove one's religion is correct over another... It's more faith than anything, it's impossible for one to claim their religion as the superior one... (Although we do) ...Including me, wooh go Protestants! Everyone else sucks because their religion is wrong!

Bah! Heretics!

[LYR]

Mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.............. we need more Jews like me playing this game to talk about these things. Don't forget that Christianity actually branched off of Judaism However, I am starting to see the faults in organized religion, and am now leaning towards deism. And by the way, OnlyAmbrose, you don't choose a religion because it's pleasurable, you choose it because you find it as the true path to God.

[InkL0sed]

Mehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.............. we need more Jews like me playing this game to talk about these things. Don't forget that Christianity actually branched off of Judaism However, I am starting to see the faults in organized religion, and am now leaning towards deism. And by the way, OnlyAmbrose, you don't choose a religion because it's pleasurable, you choose it because you find it as the true path to God.

1) You get points for Jewishness.

2) Ambrose was making the point that religions are not all equal, and that they shouldn't be chosen by how much pleasure they bestow. So you guys are in agreement.

I happen to disagree, but then I would, pragmatist and agnostic that I am .