SmartyPants:


Why is that sir?

Because there is no religion without the suspense of reason and logic and Christianity is just one of many myths that some people choose to cling to.

mmsen:


Because there is no religion without the suspense of reason and logic and Christianity is just one of many myths that some people choose to cling to.

Pardon me sir, take it that i am unlearned. Can you define logic and explain how religion requires a suspension of it?

SmartyPants:


Pardon me sir, take it that i am unlearned. Can you define logic and explain how religion requires a suspension of it?

Logic

A branch of philosophy and mathematics
that deals with the formal principles, methods and criteria of
validity of {inference}, reasoning and {knowledge}.

Logic is concerned with what is true and how we can know
whether something is true. This involves the formalisation of
logical arguments and {proofs}


Religion consists of a series of fantastical statements made without proof. Therefore religion and logic are at opposite ends of the scale.

LiberaDeus:


Let me give you an answer, a very simple one for that matter

Mithraic religion meets all four conditions
Hinduism meets all four conditions

There is no mithraic religion in existence today. Thus ab initio this one is not even worth looking into.

I can't accept Hinduism because it seems based around rules for good conduct. I also believe that there is not reason behind some of their mystical beliefs such as cow worship.

mmsen:


Logic

A branch of philosophy and mathematics
that deals with the formal principles, methods and criteria of
validity of {inference}, reasoning and {knowledge}.

Logic is concerned with what is true and how we can know
whether something is true. This involves the formalisation of
logical arguments and {proofs}


Religion consists of a series of fantastical statements made without proof. Therefore religion and logic are at opposite ends of the scale.

It is wrong to say religion does not offer proof. It does offer proof. If religion is true, it will be proven in the afterlife.

Is this not proof?

You said Christianity is a myth. What is your proof?

Note that the absence of proof is not the proof of absence. So have you any proof?

SmartyPants:


It is wrong to say religion does not offer proof. It does offer proof. If religion is true, it will be proven in the afterlife.

Is this not proof?

You said Christianity is a myth. What is your proof?

Note that the absence of proof is not the proof of absence. So have you any proof?

The idea that one must die to find out the truth of a religion is nonsensical.

That is the biggest scam in the history of man kind.

If you make outlandish claims you should have sufficient evidence to support those claims, so far (after 2000 years) xtians have none.

mmsen:


The idea that one must die to find out the truth of a religion is nonsensical.

That is the biggest scam in the history of man kind.

If you make outlandish claims you should have sufficient evidence to support those claims, so far (after 2000 years) xtians have none.

So far you're not doing very well on the logical front since you are offering no proof at all.

Still waiting on your proof for your claim that Christianity is a myth.

It costs you nothing to become a Christian, and only makes you better. How then can it be a scam?

SmartyPants:


So far you're not doing very well on the logical front since you are offering no proof at all.

Still waiting on your proof for your claim that Christianity is a myth.

It costs you nothing to become a Christian, and only makes you better. How then can it be a scam?

You're adding lie upon lie - there is no proof that becoming a xtian makes anyone or anything better. In fact the most religious nations are typically the ones most beset by social issues and institutional failure. Africa is full of xtians, in what way is it better than the other continents?

As to your question about proof - a myth is a story for which there is no evidence and there is no evidence for the virgin birth; the resurrection; the feeding the five thousand or the various other fairy tales.

And being a xtian does indeed cost, churches are amongst the most profitable businesses/scams in Nigeria. They didn't get that way by accident.

mmsen:


You're adding lie upon lie - there is no proof that becoming a xtian makes anyone or anything better. In fact the most religious nations are typically the ones most beset by social issues and institutional failure. Africa is full of xtians, in what way is it better than the other continents?

As to your question about proof - a myth is a story for which there is no evidence and there is no evidence for the virgin birth; the resurrection; the feeding the five thousand or the various other fairy tales.

And being a xtian does indeed cost, churches are amongst the most profitable businesses/scams in Nigeria. They didn't get that way by accident.

You guys are quick to accuse people of lies. lol.

Christianity's teachings are designed to make you love others and do good in this world. If you obey, of course it would make you better. The most religious nations are actually at the forefront of the world today. Religious christian nations like the USA and the UK and much of Europe, were predominantly christian at the time of their rise. Do you want to dispute this? From where did Christianity come to Africa? Was it not from Europe??

Logically it is easier to argue that Africa's problem has to do much more with low education than high religion rates. Africa is also full of other religions and much of our problems come from adherents to these.

As for this:

"And being a xtian does indeed cost, churches are amongst the most profitable businesses/scams in Nigeria. They didn't get that way by accident."

Becoming a Christian costs nothing. Going to certain Churches may cost something. How does the actions of those who run certain Churches have anything to do with the truth about Christianity?

Finally, like i said earlier, one tenet of logical reasoning is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You have no proof that Christianity is a myth, so that statement is indeed highly illogical.

MISHIGAS!

Deicide:

There is no one single fact in the Bible

NOBODY TRIED to exterminate KING TUT for 300 years, like they did CHRISTIANITY.

The False Apostle Paul went and told Caesar Augustus Nero, that of he could kill enough Christians, he would force "JESUS "to appear to him, to beg him to stop. He tried his best, but failed, because PAUL'S Testimony was a LIE, and he delivered it, at the cost f his own life, in the hope of bringing down all of Christianity with him.

It nearly worked.

Therefore, the Roman Empire destroyed every Christian Artifact it could lay its hands on, over TEN IMPERIAL REGIMES.

Until CONSTANTINE and EUSEBIUS concocted the Roman Catholic Church.

Why are you pretending not to know this History?

SmartyPants:


There is no mithraic religion in existence today. Thus ab initio this one is not even worth looking into.

I can't accept Hinduism because it seems based around rules for good conduct. I also believe that there is not reason behind some of their mystical beliefs such as cow worship.

Mithraism is still practised today. The link below shows that

http://www.mithraeum.info/mithraismtoday.htm

- Who are you to say hinduism is based around rules and conduct. Christianity has more rules than central hinduism.


If you feel there is no reason for cow worship please tell me the reason there is for believing in virgin births. You havent read about the cow worship and you are already believing there is no reason. Please tell me the reason and need for a trinity.

And while you are at it, please read the following link and tell me if hindus actually worship cows( at least its from the horses mouth)

https://www.nhsf.org.uk/2007/05/why-do-hindus-worship-the-cow/

oaroloye:
MISHIGAS!



NOBODY TRIED to exterminate KING TUT for 300 years, like they did CHRISTIANITY.

The False Apostle Paul went and told Caesar Augustus Nero, that of he could kill enough Christians, he would force "JESUS "to appear to him, to beg him to stop. He tried his best, but failed, because PAUL'S Testimony was a LIE, and he delivered it, at the cost f his own life, in the hope of bringing down all of Christianity with him.

It nearly worked.

Therefore, the Roman Empire destroyed every Christian Artifact it could lay its hands on, over TEN IMPERIAL REGIMES.

Until CONSTANTINE and EUSEBIUS concocted the Roman Catholic Church.

Why are you pretending not to know this History?

And the History after that the church ruled.........................more worst shit for us

SmartyPants:


You guys are quick to accuse people of lies. lol.

Christianity's teachings are designed to make you love others and do good in this world. If you obey, of course it would make you better. The most religious nations are actually at the forefront of the world today. Religious christian nations like the USA and the UK and much of Europe, were predominantly christian at the time of their rise. Do you want to dispute this? From where did Christianity come to Africa? Was it not from Europe??

Logically it is easier to argue that Africa's problem has to do much more with low education than high religion rates. Africa is also full of other religions and much of our problems come from adherents to these.

As for this:

"And being a xtian does indeed cost, churches are amongst the most profitable businesses/scams in Nigeria. They didn't get that way by accident."

Becoming a Christian costs nothing. Going to certain Churches may cost something. How does the actions of those who run certain Churches have anything to do with the truth about Christianity?

Finally, like i said earlier, one tenet of logical reasoning is that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You have no proof that Christianity is a myth, so that statement is indeed highly illogical.

What forefront are you talking about? The US is the world's biggest bully, waging war ever so often to fuel it's economy. In a similar fashion the UK did likewise in the 18th and 19th centuries. Where was their religion when they were invading Iraq under false pretenses?

Besides, the UK is largely an agnostic society, same for most of Europe.

The nations with the largest church attendance are the most unruly, most unequal and most dangerous. The US is certainly amongst that number, as is Brazil, South Africa, Jamaica, Bahamas and Nigeria. People hide behind religion when they feel like that they cannot trust their neighbor or their state institutions.

Also, religious observance tends to decrease with higher education and exposure to a wider variety of ideas and texts. Only the most traumatized of educated people cling to religion, Nigerian society is full of such people.

LiberaDeus:


Mithraism is still practised today. The link below shows that

http://www.mithraeum.info/mithraismtoday.htm

- Who are you to say hinduism is based around rules and conduct. Christianity has more rules than central hinduism.


If you feel there is no reason for cow worship please tell me the reason there is for believing in virgin births. You havent read about the cow worship and you are already believing there is no reason. Please tell me the reason and need for a trinity.

And while you are at it, please read the following link and tell me if hindus actually worship cows( at least its from the horses mouth)

https://www.nhsf.org.uk/2007/05/why-do-hindus-worship-the-cow/

This is the tagline of the site you sent me:

"Modern explorations into the worship of Mithras, that make no claim to be the ancient Mithraic Mysteries."

Again, ab initio, not worth looking into.

I am not against rules of good conduct, however a religion has to offer more than that. That's the point. We already have our own rules of good conduct, and every religion has rules of good conduct. So religion must offer a unique connection with God. The Buddhists offer mediation for example, (though i disqualify them based on my other points).

SmartyPants:


This is the tagline of the site you sent me:

"Modern explorations into the worship of Mithras, that make no claim to be the ancient Mithraic Mysteries."

Again, ab initio, not worth looking into.

I am not against rules of good conduct, however a religion has to offer more than that. That's the point. We already have our own rules of good conduct, and every religion has rules of good conduct. So religion must offer a unique connection with God. The Buddhists offer mediation for example, (though i disqualify them based on my other points).

Why are we going around in circles? did you bother to read the site at all?

Let me give you a glimpse of some of the content

Is a solitary Mithraist still a Mithraist?

Our answer is yes, provided that those who practice a modern path of Mithraism out of necessity do not confuse such practice with ancient Mithraism. Many pagan religious paths have been revived in the modern world over the past few decades. Experience has shown that real problems occur only when accurate history is lost, and modern adaptations are confused with ancient tradition.

The goal of Modern Mithraism is to keep Mithraism alive, not to replace the ancient Mysteries with something new. If individuals can keep themselves involved and make Mithraism interesting to others - it will make a reconstruction of the organized Mithraic Mysteries that much more possible.

Modern vs. Ancient Practice

As an organization, Mithraeum hopes both to encourage Modern Mithraism, and ensure that modern rites do not interfere with a rebirth of the ancient Mysteries as accurately as possible. In our view is a Modern Mithraic practice necessary for the survival of Mithraism as a path? Yes. In our view, is Modern Mithraic practice "just as important" as the ancient Mysteries? No, but that doesn't mean that modern rites are completely invalid either. If you seek Mithras with a sincere heart and a desire for knowledge, you will find him even if alone.

It is our great hope that Modern Mithraism will become a valuable tool for the rebuilding of accurate Mithraic Mysteries, not a watered-down modern replacement for them. Our goal is to make Mithras and his Light more available to the modern individual - even as we instill a desire for accurate scholarship and reconstruction.

The key to making Modern Mithraism a useful aid to rebuilding the Mysteries is clear labeling. Modern rites, rituals, festivals, prayers, ideas and writings should be clearly labeled as such. We must not confuse modern efforts with history today if we hope to rebuild something that is historically accurate in the future.

Hinduism has much more to offer than just rules. You have a very narrow unflattering view of any of your other religious brethren. Is it because you see all of them as worshipping the devil or demons?
Hinduism offers meditation, spiritual practices, prayers, fasting and most importantly a personal relationship with their gods and its avatars(Shiva, Krishna, Brahman etc). So i say once again Hinduism meets all those conditions you mentioned.
So ask yourself smartypants, why arent you a Hindu?

mmsen:


What forefront are you talking about? The US is the world's biggest bully, waging war ever so often to fuel it's economy. In a similar fashion the UK did likewise in the 18th and 19th centuries. Where was their religion when they were invading Iraq under false pretenses?

Besides, the UK is largely an agnostic society, same for most of Europe.

The nations with the largest church attendance are the most unruly, most unequal and most dangerous. The US is certainly amongst that number, as is Brazil, South Africa, Jamaica, Bahamas and Nigeria. People hide behind religion when they feel like that they cannot trust their neighbor or their state institutions.

Also, religious observance tends to decrease with higher education and exposure to a wider variety of ideas and texts. Only the most traumatized of educated people cling to religion, Nigerian society is full of such people.

Hehehe.

This is what you originally said:

"In fact the most religious nations are typically the ones most beset by social issues and institutional failure. Africa is full of xtians, in what way is it better than the other continents?"

Is largely, Christian North America not better than other continents? Christianity may be on the decline in North America today, but it stands incontrovertible that countries like America were built largely by Christians.

So also in Europe, today, Christianity may be less popular but it is incontrovertible that it was built by Christians. As atheism and other belief systems take root, we can see that America and Europe are experiencing higher rates of suicide in young people, higher rates of divorce, higher rates of drug abuse, etc. These great civilizations are heading down hill just as fast as they are turning away from God.

And you would have us believe that these countries - Brazil, South Africa, Jamaica, Bahamas and Nigeria- are more unruly and dangerous than Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen etc? Amazing...please tell me more! Or rather, let me tell you more!

Brazil is at the forefront of South America, in all indices you can think of.

South Africa is at the forefront of Africa in every index you can think of, from number of milionaires to healthcare.

Nigeria has the continent's largest economy.

LiberaDeus:


Why are we going around in circles? did you bother to read the site at all?

Let me give you a glimpse of some of the content

Is a solitary Mithraist still a Mithraist?

Our answer is yes, provided that those who practice a modern path of Mithraism out of necessity do not confuse such practice with ancient Mithraism. Many pagan religious paths have been revived in the modern world over the past few decades. Experience has shown that real problems occur only when accurate history is lost, and modern adaptations are confused with ancient tradition.

The goal of Modern Mithraism is to keep Mithraism alive, not to replace the ancient Mysteries with something new. If individuals can keep themselves involved and make Mithraism interesting to others - it will make a reconstruction of the organized Mithraic Mysteries that much more possible.

Modern vs. Ancient Practice

As an organization, Mithraeum hopes both to encourage Modern Mithraism, and ensure that modern rites do not interfere with a rebirth of the ancient Mysteries as accurately as possible. In our view is a Modern Mithraic practice necessary for the survival of Mithraism as a path? Yes. In our view, is Modern Mithraic practice "just as important" as the ancient Mysteries? No, but that doesn't mean that modern rites are completely invalid either. If you seek Mithras with a sincere heart and a desire for knowledge, you will find him even if alone.

It is our great hope that Modern Mithraism will become a valuable tool for the rebuilding of accurate Mithraic Mysteries, not a watered-down modern replacement for them. Our goal is to make Mithras and his Light more available to the modern individual - even as we instill a desire for accurate scholarship and reconstruction.

The key to making Modern Mithraism a useful aid to rebuilding the Mysteries is clear labeling. Modern rites, rituals, festivals, prayers, ideas and writings should be clearly labeled as such. We must not confuse modern efforts with history today if we hope to rebuild something that is historically accurate in the future.

Hinduism has much more to offer than just rules. You have a very narrow unflattering view of any of your other religious brethren. Is it because you see all of them as worshipping the devil or demons?
Hinduism offers meditation, spiritual practices, prayers, fasting and most importantly a personal relationship with their gods and its avatars(Shiva, Krishna, Brahman etc). So i say once again Hinduism meets all those conditions you mentioned.
So ask yourself smartypants, why arent you a Hindu?

Everything you quoted about mithraism paints the clear picture of people trying to revive a dead religion. If the religion could die, and requires someone to start if up again, it is a mere contrivance. More importantly, it is not even established, they are still trying to build it up. Its a waste of time discussing it.

To tell you the truth, i have not studied many religions in detail other than Christianity and Islam, I won't pretend to be an expert of Hinduism.

However, my research into Hinduism does not corroborate any of your claims:

http://www.hinduismfacts.org/basic-beliefs-of-hinduism/

So where are your assertions sourced from?

SmartyPants:


Everything you quoted about mithraism paints the clear picture of people trying to revive a dead religion. If the religion could die, and requires someone to start if up again, it is a mere contrivance. More importantly, it is not even established, they are still trying to build it up. Its a waste of time discussing it.

To tell you the truth, i have not studied many religions in detail other than Christianity and Islam, I won't pretend to be an expert of Hinduism.

However, my research into Hinduism does not corroborate any of your claims:

http://www.hinduismfacts.org/basic-beliefs-of-hinduism/

So where are your assertions sourced from?

Very funny. There are people who still worship Thor and Odin and they are called Asatru heathens. its the same way there are still followers of Mithra no matter how few they are. When did the number of adherents start to matter to you? I thought it was just the 4 conditions you cared about? A religion meets the four conditions and you start talking about the number of adherents. There are more than 10,000 mithra followers in the world and even if its just 1 person, according to you if it meets the 4 conditions then it is true. SO why are you looking for escape routes or copouts.

Secondly, you posted a link about basic tenets of hinduism. Why dont you perform a research on Hinduism based on the four conditions you named and see whether it doesnt meet it.

Its good you admitted you dont have much knowledge about religion other than christianity and islam. So please do yourself a favor and read or should i say IQRA. Learn about other belief systems and enlighten yourself that you are not alone in your special delusion.

LiberaDeus:


Very funny. There are people who still worship Thor and Odin and they are called Asatru heathens. its the same way there are still followers of Mithra no matter how few they are. When did the number of adherents start to matter to you? I thought it was just the 4 conditions you cared about? A religion meets the four conditions and you start talking about the number of adherents. There are more than 10,000 mithra followers in the world and even if its just 1 person, according to you if it meets the 4 conditions then it is true. SO why are you looking for escape routes or copouts.

Secondly, you posted a link about basic tenets of hinduism. Why dont you perform a research on Hinduism based on the four conditions you named and see whether it doesnt meet it.

Its good you admitted you dont have much knowledge about religion other than christianity and islam. So please do yourself a favor and read or should i say IQRA. Learn about other belief systems and enlighten yourself that you are not alone in your special delusion.

My condition number 1 has implicit conditions attached to it. You just never really understood it that's why I haven't specifically invoked it in the mithraism discussion. Mithraism has a creation story, however the religion itself has no links through to the beginning of time. There is no link that shoes how the mithraic god handed the religion in to "his creation". That is a violation of condition 1. Furthermore, implicit in the condition of having existed as a religion from the origin of life un its own historical narration, is the condition that it must continue to exist. Mithraism completely died out at some point in history. So does that mean the mithraic god stopped caring about humanity?

Now about Hinduism, you made assertions and the onus is on you to provide sources to prove them. You say Hinduism meets the four conditions. What is your source?

SmartyPants:


We must agree to disagree. You have to remember that i only made the argument about the existence of God as a prelude to my actual argument on the true religion.

Yes you did! In fact, your actual argument is inexorably dependent on your wildly speculative prelude.

I must say, though, that i believe that if we can admit that we do not know, then that calls us to be careful and cautious.

I agree that we must be cautious, but elevating speculations to the status of facts is the exact opposite of that!

Practicing a religion is better than taking a total gamble on your life after death.

What life after death? This is just a rehashing of the oft invoked Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager is a probability function that proposes which of the two choices between your version of the afterlife and the lack of belief in one would lead to the best possible outcome. Of course, the wager would make eminent sense if these were indeed the only two options. However, by pitting your version of the afterlife against the lack of belief in the afterlife, Pascal's wager creates a false dichotomy that presumes wrong, every other version of the afterlife story; and by extension, their requirements for success. This is a real dilemma for you, since as you've "freely admitted", your conclusions are based on conjectures. There are thousands of other conjectures that equally support the thousands of other religions that exist or have ever existed. Therefore, the real probability you have to contend with isn't your proposition vs the absence of one, but your one proposition divided by the thousands of others in existence. Correct your wager this way, and you'll see how vanishingly small the chance of you being correct really is! Your chance of a blissful afterlife is almost as insignificant as mine, so rejecting your proposition doesn't give me extra worries, but, you, on the other hand, should be very worried about this terrible gamble!

Religion only enriches the lives of intelligent people, while no doubt the gullible will be taken advantage of. However this is not the fault of religion. You should have nothing against it.

Religion only enriches the lives of those who are made restless by a perfectly natural phenomenon called ignorance. There are those who are comfortable in the knowledge of their own ignorance, because they know that ignorance does not preclude intelligence. In many ways, admitting one's own ignorance enhances intelligence, for it is only in this state of admission that one is given to reasonable arguments.

SmartyPants:


My condition number 1 has implicit conditions attached to it. You just never really understood it that's why I haven't specifically invoked it in the mithraism discussion. Mithraism has a creation story, however the religion itself has no links through to the beginning of time. There is no link that shoes how the mithraic god handed the religion in to "his creation". That is a violation of condition 1. Furthermore, implicit in the condition of having existed as a religion from the origin of life un its own historical narration, is the condition that it must continue to exist. Mithraism completely died out at some point in history. So does that mean the mithraic god stopped caring about humanity?

Now about Hinduism, you made assertions and the onus is on you to provide sources to prove them. You say Hinduism meets the four conditions. What is your source?

Please show me how your god handed over christianity during the creation at genesis. Even judaism didnt exist then.
Were adam, eve, cain and abel jews or christians. I am honestly tired of your lies and deceit.

Your religion claims to be connected to the creator god and mithraism also claims that, so please whats the difference.
You are just twisting and turning. Please show me any place in genesis chapter 1 to chapter 5 that talks about christianity or judaism.
Mithraism never died out just like the asatru religion it just lost numbers and influence. Even the greek religions never died out, they just lost influence. So stop twisting this. Mithraism meets your pathetic 4 conditions

I had said it over and over again that hinduism meets those conditions, when you claimed christianity met your conditions, did you provide links or proof? No. At least you assumed that we were smart enough to have read the bible at some point to confirm that it meets those pathetic conditions. Because you are ignorant about other religions doesnt mean you should continue wallowing in perpetual ignorance. I will list how hinduism meets your conditions and i wont do you the favor of providing links for you to read. If you cant find them then thats your business but any learned person that has studied religion will agree with this;

1. Hinduism allegedly starts at creation by Brahman as stated in their hindu vedas.
2.Hindu central characters are the avatars of Brahman e.g Lord Krishna. if we are to believe their book the way you believe your bible then they were all perfect.
3. Hinduism surpasses a set of rules as it also focuses on meditations, visions and a relationship with their gods
4.Early hindus faced persecution from their foes the northern indians

I am not responding to you again because you have shown yourself to be a typical christian apologist, shifting the bar when it suits you and using lies and deceit tactics.
Bye

LiberaDeus:


Please show me how your god handed over christianity during the creation at genesis. Even judaism didnt exist then.
Were adam, eve, cain and abel jews or christians. I am honestly tired of your lies and deceit.

Your religion claims to be connected to the creator god and mithraism also claims that, so please whats the difference.
You are just twisting and turning. Please show me any place in genesis chapter 1 to chapter 5 that talks about christianity or judaism.
Mithraism never died out just like the asatru religion it just lost numbers and influence. Even the greek religions never died out, they just lost influence. So stop twisting this. Mithraism meets your pathetic 4 conditions

I had said it over and over again that hinduism meets those conditions, when you claimed christianity met your conditions, did you provide links or proof? No. At least you assumed that we were smart enough to have read the bible at some point to confirm that it meets those pathetic conditions. Because you are ignorant about other religions doesnt mean you should continue wallowing in perpetual ignorance. I will list how hinduism meets your conditions and i wont do you the favor of providing links for you to read. If you cant find them then thats your business but any learned person that has studied religion will agree with this;

1. Hinduism allegedly starts at creation by Brahman as stated in their hindu vedas.
2.Hindu central characters are the avatars of Brahman e.g Lord Krishna. if we are to believe their book the way you believe your bible then they were all perfect.
3. Hinduism surpasses a set of rules as it also focuses on meditations, visions and a relationship with their gods
4.Early hindus faced persecution from their foes the northern indians

I am not responding to you again because you have shown yourself to be a typical christian apologist, shifting the bar when it suits you and using lies and deceit tactics.
Bye

You do not belong in any intellectual forum. If you ask me for a source for any religious claim that i have made, i will not hesitate to provide it. Your only proof of your assertions is "any learned person that has studied religion will agree with this". Pure comedy!

Any where you go in the world, you will be ridiculed, in the company of intellectuals, for making such a ludicrous claim. As a matter of fact, if this was a discussion between only the two of us, i would immediately stop talking to you right there. However this is a forum so for the sake of the silent participants in this debate, i will suffer your unscientific and highly illogical approach.

1. You seem to be deliberately obtuse. I have pointed out to you repeatedly, that the name Christianity, came from men (Acts 11:26: The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.) yet you ask this[b] "Please show me any place in genesis chapter 1 to chapter 5 that talks about christianity or judaism"[/b]; Have you no ability to understand?

Religion, which i defined since the beginning of my thesis, is a set of rules for worship. In Genesis 2:15, God gives Adam and Eve the first set of instructions for worship. He continues to relate with man from that point on, through to Mathew, where He sends His son Jesus. This is the same God from Genesis to Revelation. There is nothing to argue about.

2. I should not argue your points on Hinduism since i have checked multiple sources and found nothing of what you said. I posted one of the sources for you. I then asked you for sources but you cannot provide even one. You are clearly not very well exposed to scientific methods. However, for the benefits of others, i will suffer your ways.

3. Even a surface perusal of your claims reveals how farcical your entire rejoinder is. "Early hindus faced persecution from their foes the northern indians". What a joke. Hinduism is defined everywhere i have searched, as not a particular religion, but the religious beliefs of the people of India as a whole. To claim that Hindus were persecuted by the people of Northern India is proof that you are either completely ignorant, or a typical half-baked self-imagined intellectual, a fraud at best. You think me saying i don't know much about Hinduism means i don't know anything about it, and you can therefore get a way with what you think are unnoticeable lies?

If anything at all, the invasion of the Northern Indians in the time period you make reference to, is what created the amalgamation of beliefs known as Hinduism today. What a fraud you are. I guess that is why you cannot offer any sources for your claims.

As for Mithraism:

Mithraism disappeared from overt practice after the Theodosian decree of 391 banned all pagan rites, and it apparently became extinct thereafter.

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/m/Mithraic_Mysteries.htm

When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian empire about 330 bce, the old structure of society appears to have broken down completely, and about the worship of Mithra in Persia no more is heard.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mithraism

It is difficult to trace when the cult of Mithras came to an end. Beck states that "Quite early in the [fourth] century the religion was as good as dead throughout the empire."10 Inscriptions from the 4th century are few. Clauss states that inscriptions show Mithras as one of the cults listed on inscriptions by pagan senators in Rome as part of the "pagan revival" among the elite.11 There is no evidence that the cult still existed in the 5th century.12

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=main

AgentOfAllah:

Yes you did! In fact, your actual argument is inexorably dependent on your wildly speculative prelude.

I agree that we must be cautious, but elevating speculations to the status of facts is the exact opposite of that!


What life after death? This is just a rehashing of the oft invoked Pascal's wager. Pascal's wager is a probability function that proposes which of the two choices between your version of the afterlife and the lack of belief in one would lead to the best possible outcome. Of course, the wager would make eminent sense if these were indeed the only two options. However, by pitting your version of the afterlife against the lack of belief in the afterlife, Pascal's wager creates a false dichotomy that presumes wrong, every other version of the afterlife story; and by extension, their requirements for success. This is a real dilemma for you, since as you've "freely admitted", your conclusions are based on conjectures. There are thousands of other conjectures that equally support the thousands of other religions that exist or have ever existed. Therefore, the real probability you have to contend with isn't your proposition vs the absence of one, but your one proposition divided by the thousands of others in existence. Correct your wager this way, and you'll see how vanishingly small the chance of you being correct really is! Your chance of a blissful afterlife is almost as insignificant as mine, so rejecting your proposition doesn't give me extra worries, but, you, on the other hand, should be very worried about this terrible gamble!

Religion only enriches the lives of those who are made restless by a perfectly natural phenomenon called ignorance. There are those who are comfortable in the knowledge of their own ignorance, because they know that ignorance does not preclude intelligence. In many ways, admitting one's own ignorance enhances intelligence, for it is only in this state of admission that one is given to reasonable arguments.

There was nothing "wildly speculative" about my prelude.

Follow this train of thought and show me where the wild speculation is:

a. Life must have had a source. The source is either God or something else currently unidentified.

b. God is identified as the supreme creator of the universe who was not created but exists of Himself. That implies that God:

i. is the source of life
ii. has no source Himself
iii. is intelligent

b. Life is the product of evident design. If life came forth arbitrarily, it stands to reason that life itself would continue to exhibit arbitrary traits. But life is way too ordered and structured right down to the minutest detail to be considered arbitrary or coincidental.

What we observe of life, is that inanimate things are incapable of intelligent design, and all orderly things are the creation of an intelligent being capable of intelligent design. This suggests that intelligent and ordered life must be the product of an intelligent creator.

c. We must have, therefore, as the source of life, a source which can have no source, and which is intelligent.

d. This surpasses our currently understanding of the realms of possibility. We are forced to believe in what might be thought of as being scientifically improbable.

e. This means we must be open to beliefs which you may ordinarily consider to sound unscientifc

d. You must therefore accept the possibility, strongly of their being a God.

That is where my prelude ends, as i move on to my main argument, on how to identify the true religion.

On your elucidation of Pascals Wager, you see, you have missed the point again. For an atheist, you know that you are either right or wrong. To be wrong means you are in deep trouble, since you will face the punishment for missing out on God.

For the religious person the choices are also i am either right or wrong but for one set of religious people, whether they are right or wrong, they have a win-win solution. If i am right about my religion, then i will win in the afterlife. The only way to choose the right religion and lose is if all religion is wrong. But if i am wrong about all religion, then i will still win in the afterlife.

So the logical goal of any rational person, should be to seek out the right religion, with the knowledge that if i am right i win, and if i am wrong i still win.

My essay, in the opening post of this thread, is a guide as to how to tell the right religion from all others.

SmartyPants:


You do not belong in any intellectual forum. If you ask me for a source for any religious claim that i have made, i will not hesitate to provide it. Your only proof of your assertions is "any learned person that has studied religion will agree with this". Pure comedy!

Any where you go in the world, you will be ridiculed, in the company of intellectuals, for making such a ludicrous claim. As a matter of fact, if this was a discussion between only the two of us, i would immediately stop talking to you right there. However this is a forum so for the sake of the silent participants in this debate, i will suffer your unscientific and highly illogical approach.

1. You seem to be deliberately obtuse. I have pointed out to you repeatedly, that the name Christianity, came from men (Acts 11:26: The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.) yet you ask this[b] "Please show me any place in genesis chapter 1 to chapter 5 that talks about christianity or judaism"[/b]; Have you no ability to understand?

Religion, which i defined since the beginning of my thesis, is a set of rules for worship. In Genesis 2:15, God gives Adam and Eve the first set of instructions for worship. He continues to relate with man from that point on, through to Mathew, where He sends His son Jesus. This is the same God from Genesis to Revelation. There is nothing to argue about.

2. I should not argue your points on Hinduism since i have checked multiple sources and found nothing of what you said. I posted one of the sources for you. I then asked you for sources but you cannot provide even one. You are clearly not very well exposed to scientific methods. However, for the benefits of others, i will suffer your ways.

3. Even a surface perusal of your claims reveals how farcical your entire rejoinder is. "Early hindus faced persecution from their foes the northern indians". What a joke. Hinduism is defined everywhere i have searched, as not a particular religion, but the religious beliefs of the people of India as a whole. To claim that Hindus were persecuted by the people of Northern India is proof that you are either completely ignorant, or a typical half-baked self-imagined intellectual, a fraud at best. You think me saying i don't know much about Hinduism means i don't know anything about it, and you can therefore get a way with what you think are unnoticeable lies?

If anything at all, the invasion of the Northern Indians in the time period you make reference to, is what created the amalgamation of beliefs known as Hinduism today. What a fraud you are. I guess that is why you cannot offer any sources for your claims.

As for Mithraism:

Mithraism disappeared from overt practice after the Theodosian decree of 391 banned all pagan rites, and it apparently became extinct thereafter.

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/link-suggestion/wpcd_2008-09_augmented/wp/m/Mithraic_Mysteries.htm

When Alexander the Great conquered the Persian empire about 330 bce, the old structure of society appears to have broken down completely, and about the worship of Mithra in Persia no more is heard.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mithraism

It is difficult to trace when the cult of Mithras came to an end. Beck states that "Quite early in the [fourth] century the religion was as good as dead throughout the empire."10 Inscriptions from the 4th century are few. Clauss states that inscriptions show Mithras as one of the cults listed on inscriptions by pagan senators in Rome as part of the "pagan revival" among the elite.11 There is no evidence that the cult still existed in the 5th century.12

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=main

Why does this little dimwit tempt me to answer him again.

If you like, redefine christianity to mean whatever you want.

In the garden of eden, the only rule was to dominate and multiply
In the exodus, hundreds of rules were given by Moses and that formed judaism
In the new testament, the sacrifice and commandments of Jesus make a new religion

So which one do you follow? Mr.SmartyPants
Please tell me the one you follow.

Look at this dumbass redefining christianity. Is that not the most dishonest thing ever? Wont your imaginary JESUS be ashamed of you

You say its the same god. Well according to the story is the same god but does worshipping the same god mean you have the same religion
Your religion is christianity you dimwit and it started 2000 years ago, why do you find that hard to understand. Whether you borrowed from judaism or not, it doesnt matter. What matters is that your mode of worship and the deities you worship(jesus,yahweh,holy spirit) were fully defined 2000 years ago.

Please mr.christian can we kindly go to a local jewish synagogue in jerusalem, lets see how well you will fit in.
And meanwhile, make sure you circumcise your male child 8 days after birth. And hannukah is coming so make sure you dont miss out.
Are you not ashamed of yourself? Saying because its hypothetically the same god then the practice doesnt matter
Let me bring a definition of religion for you

A "religion" is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental.

So claim judaism just to prove a point if you like. Claim that Pastor benny hinn and Rabbi Menachem are members of the same religion. Do whatever you want just to win a useless argument thats generally baseless.

I wont respond to your other useless conditions. I even gave you respect by arguing with your stupid 4 conditions that pulled from nowhere. You see that freethinker cares about your baseless conditions. Even in arguing with you, you still had to change the meaning of your first condition to suit your purposes

Enjoy your useless thread. Stupid religious bigot/dimwit. Continue lying for your christ

SmartyPants:

First of all, we must believe that God wants humanity to relate with Him, and that if any religion is true, it must have been given to man directly by God. The second assumption that logically follows this is that if God gave man a religion to follow because He wanted us to connect with Him,

hello.. how did you arrive at the conclusion that a “religion" is needed as a way to connect with God?

and God existed before the creation of man, then He would have given mankind this religion (set of instructions for worship) right from the beginning. This logically tells me that any religion which does not logically trace its origin to the beginning of time cannot be the true way.

following your “true way" analogy.. would you agree with me that any religion that traces its origin to a false beginning of humanity is also “false"?

Christianity, through Judaism, traces its origin all the way back to Adam and Eve, who are held to have been the first people created on earth.

two things
1. Judaism didn't start from Adam and eve..
2. origin of humanity is believed to be from Africa.. not the middle east

Secondly, the human founder or human proponent of any religion must have been a perfect example of the principles of that religion. Being the point of contact and therefore, the focal point, to which people would make reference, it stands to reason that God would choose the best representative of His true religion to stand as an example to all the followers thereof.

different religions have different focal points.. so the perfection needs to be in the way or view or scope of the religion.. also, many religions today were not founded by their central figures but were founded around the lives of those figures.. although a some had a little touch from outside works.. i said many.. not all.. also, different religions have different views of God.. so what the God in one religion might deem perfect is different from what the God in another might deem perfect

Thirdly, the true religion must make sense but only in a way that surpasses what, for the purposes of this article, we have come to understand as arithmetic logic. Anyone can come up with a set of rules for human living, and certainly this is a component of almost all religions.

please refer to points above

Christianity is the only religion that is entirely built on a series of such beliefs. That Jesus was born of a virgin, and that He died and resurrected are all understandable in terms of why they had to happen that way. Jesus was God and man at the same time, therefore He could not come into this world through the union of a man and a woman, which would imply having an earthly father. It was also necessary for Him to die as a sacrifice, and to rise again, casting off the human form, in order for His followers to have a hope and a promise of a life that transcends human life. These beliefs can be understood in terms of the why; but in terms of the how, there is no human explanation. We are again at the analogical point of infinity. It is important at this point to observe that the characteristics of true religion must be consistent with the characteristics of God, and if God can only be understood by faith then true religion can only be accepted by faith, and any religion whose principles can be explained in arithmetic logic must be considered too restrictive to be true.

what makes the above qualities conditions or prerequisites for a central figure of the “true religion"

The authenticity of the testimony of the earliest witnesses of Christianity is the fourth reason why I am compelled to believe in Christianity.. This is why Christianity is the only religion for me. [/quote]

i am not in any way trying to oppose your right to be a Christian or believe in Christianity.. I'm just showing you some premises which seem to be out of place in determining the “true religion"

Wilgrea7:

hello.. how did you arrive at the conclusion that a “religion" is needed as a way to connect with God?


following your “true way" analogy.. would you agree with me that any religion that traces its origin to a false beginning of humanity is also “false"?


two things
1. Judaism didn't start from Adam and eve..
2. origin of humanity is believed to be from Africa.. not the middle east



different religions have different focal points.. so the perfection needs to be in the way or view or scope of the religion.. also, many religions today were not founded by their central figures but were founded around the lives of those figures.. although a some had a little touch from outside works.. i said many.. not all.. also, different religions have different views of God.. so what the God in one religion might deem perfect is different from what the God in another might deem perfect


please refer to points above



what makes the above qualities conditions or prerequisites for a central figure of the “true religion"

The authenticity of the testimony of the earliest witnesses of Christianity is the fourth reason why I am compelled to believe in Christianity.. This is why Christianity is the only religion for me.

i am not in any way trying to oppose your right to be a Christian or believe in Christianity.. I'm just showing you some premises which seem to be out of place in determining the “true religion"

I defined religion, or if you prefer - religious belief, in the broader sense as the relationship between God and man. So there's no argument of needing religion to connect with God.

Lol!

Regarding point 1, I must admit that if i were sitting at the opposite end of the table from myself, that would have been my first argument. I would not have a defense against such an argument, yes.

With regards to this: two things
1. Judaism didn't start from Adam and eve..
2. origin of humanity is believed to be from Africa.. not the middle east

I suppose my communication was not very clear. What i meant to make reference to was Jewish and christian belief that starts with the five books of Moses, ie Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (not necessarily in the right order).

As to your last statement, are you asking why i chose the particular four values i chose?

SmartyPants:


There was nothing "wildly speculative" about my prelude.

Follow this train of thought and show me where the wild speculation is:

Okay

a. Life must have had a source. The source is either God or something else currently unidentified.

b. God is identified as the supreme creator of the universe who was not created but exists of Himself. That implies that God:

i. is the source of life
ii. has no source Himself
iii. is intelligent

Wild speculation 1: How do you know the universe has a supreme creator?

b. Life is the product of evident design. If life came forth arbitrarily, it stands to reason that life itself would continue to exhibit arbitrary traits. But life is way too ordered and structured right down to the minutest detail to be considered arbitrary or coincidental.

What we observe of life, is that inanimate things are incapable of intelligent design, and all orderly things are the creation of an intelligent being capable of intelligent design. This suggests that intelligent and ordered life must be the product of an intelligent creator.

Wild speculation 2:
(1) Life isn't way too ordered and structured. There's a lot of disorder in life.
(2) Even if it were, there is no clear evidence that ordered things need be designed. I've seen the TEM images of too many naturally forming crystal lattices that are perfectly ordered just by the electronic interactions between participating atoms. This shows that order does not require intelligence!

c. We must have, therefore, as the source of life, a source which can have no source, and which is intelligent.

Wild speculation 3: Unsupported!

d. This surpasses our currently understanding of the realms of possibility. We are forced to believe in what might be thought of as being scientifically improbable.

Nonsense! Ignorance should never force anybody to take a position on anything!

e. This means we must be open to beliefs which you may ordinarily consider to sound unscientifc

Again, nonsense! You're not obliged to be open to any belief that doesn't quell your skepticisms.

d. You must therefore accept the possibility, strongly of their being a God.

Nonsense!

That is where my prelude ends, as i move on to my main argument, on how to identify the true religion.

In all, you have provided no sound arguments. Instead, you have speculated about the existence of a supreme creator; incorrectly stated that life is wholly ordered; speculated, incorrectly, that orderliness can only come from intelligence; and then proposed that our ignorance should compel us to accept as strong, the possibility of a god. It is baffling how you don't see the monumental weakness in your "line of thought". I'm not even sure you put any thought into that at all.

On your elucidation of Pascals Wager, you see, you have missed the point again. For an atheist, you know that you are either right or wrong. To be wrong means you are in deep trouble, since you will face the punishment for missing out on God.

For the religious person the choices are also i am either right or wrong but for one set of religious people, whether they are right or wrong, they have a win-win solution. If i am right about my religion, then i will win in the afterlife. The only way to choose the right religion and lose is if all religion is wrong. But if i am wrong about all religion, then i will still win in the afterlife.

So the logical goal of any rational person, should be to seek out the right religion, with the knowledge that if i am right i win, and if i am wrong i still win.

My essay, in the opening post of this thread, is a guide as to how to tell the right religion from all others.

This is a most bizarre interpretation of probabilities. Of course the choices are either right or wrong for everyone! The real question is: What are the chances you are right? Now, there are thousands of possible options out there, you've choose 1 and somehow think your odds are great? Let me do the Math for you. Let's say there are 5,000 religions(let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that atheism is also one), each having their own supporting conjectures as to why they are the right one. Now, you choose one along with its set of supporting conjectures. That leaves a possible 4,999 others which could be right, but which you believe are wrong. Given the numbers, the probability that you're correct is 1/5000 = 0.02%. This is the odds you'll have a blissful hereafter, using the wager. This means there's a 99.98% chance you'll probably end up in someone else's hell fire, or that you'll simply vanish from existence, if the set of conjectures you chose were the wrong ones.
The only way you can possibly interprete the wager in the way you have, is if you claim that all religions are correct. But in doing so, your preference of one set of conjectures over the others becomes meaningless and thus, superfluous.
I hope you grasp the math, because if you don't, I'm not sure how you're so confident in your capacity for logical thinking?

SmartyPants:


I defined religion, or if you prefer - religious belief, in the broader sense as the relationship between God and man. So there's no argument of needing religion to connect with God.

there are different concepts of God... so first you need to identity the concept you're dealing with.. also, spirituality is what connects to God.. not religion.. but I'll still welcome any explanation as to how religion is COMPULSORILY needed to connect to God

With regards to this: two things
1. Judaism didn't start from Adam and eve..
2. origin of humanity is believed to be from Africa.. not the middle east

I suppose my communication was not very clear. What i meant to make reference to was Jewish and christian belief that starts with the five books of Moses, ie Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy (not necessarily in the right order)

i understand... the books claim that the origin of the human race is from the garden of Eden.. but there are also contrary claims..

As to your last statement, are you asking why i chose the particular four values i chose?

i understand you have the right to choose whatever you want.. i was just pointing out some premises that were seemingly biased

AgentOfAllah:
Okay


Wild speculation 1: How do you know the universe has a supreme creator?


Wild speculation 2:
(1) Life isn't way too ordered and structured. There's a lot of disorder in life.
(2) Even if it were, there is no clear evidence that ordered things need be designed. I've seen the TEM images of too many naturally forming crystal lattices that are perfectly ordered just by the electronic interactions between participating atoms. This shows that order does not require intelligence!


Wild speculation 3: Unsupported!



Nonsense! Ignorance should never force anybody to take a position on anything!


Again, nonsense! You're not obliged to be open to any belief that doesn't quell your skepticisms.


Nonsense!


In all, you have provided no sound arguments. Instead, you have speculated about the existence of a supreme creator; incorrectly stated that life is wholly ordered; speculated, incorrectly, that orderliness can only come from intelligence; and then proposed that our ignorance should compel us to accept as strong, the possibility of a god. It is baffling how you don't see the monumental weakness in your "line of thought". I'm not even sure you put any thought into that at all.


This is a most bizarre interpretation of probabilities. Of course the choices are either right or wrong for everyone! The real question is: What are the chances you are right? Now, there are thousands of possible options out there, you've choose 1 and somehow think your odds are great? Let me do the Math for you. Let's say there are 5,000 religions(let's assume, for the sake of this discussion, that atheism is also one), each having their own supporting conjectures as to why they are the right one. Now, you choose one along with its set of supporting conjectures. That leaves a possible 4,999 others which could be right, but which you believe are wrong. Given the numbers, the probability that you're correct is 1/5000 = 0.02%. This is the odds you'll have a blissful hereafter, using the wager. This means there's a 99.98% chance you'll probably end up in someone else's hell fire, or that you'll simply vanish from existence, if the set of conjectures you chose were the wrong ones.
I hope you grasp the math, because if you don't, I'm not sure how you're so confident in your capacity for logical thinking?

1. That was my definition of who God is. As you noted in your first reply, we need a definition. Are you recanting from that position now? This definition is the subject of the postulations beneath it.
2. What do you mean “life isn’t way too ordered and structured”. It seems like you’ve not understood almost the entirety of this post. What I said or implied was life is way too ordered and structured to have happened randomly. I never said life is wholly ordered and structured. You have inserted that into my comments to make your argument easier.

I would have thought it obvious what I meant by the orderliness and structure of life, but I see an explanation is needed. Well, life is ordered and structured in terms of how everything can be grouped into living or non-living, genus, specie, family, class, gender etc. These phenomena are way too complicated to have been random occurrences. They bear the hallmarks of intelligent design.

It requires more than chance for the contraption of conception to work the way it does. It is way too complicated to have simply just happened.

3. This is a truly odd claim. Surely the fact that atoms interact on the basis on their electrical charges is itself evidence of intelligent design! Someone created those atoms with electrical charges, and programmed them to behave the way they do! Your assertion here is akin to that of a village man who arrives at an ATM and believes bankers are useless because the ATM’s can dispense money on their own.

4. I never said you should take a position. I said you should remain open-minded!

Your conclusion, quoted below, on the first part of my previous reply is completely off point since it is entirely based off a series of misunderstandings and mis-readings.

“In all, you have provided no sound arguments. Instead, you have speculated about the existence of a supreme creator; incorrectly stated that life is wholly ordered; speculated, incorrectly, that orderliness can only come from intelligence; and then proposed that our ignorance should compel us to accept as strong, the possibility of a god. It is baffling how you don't see the monumental weakness in your "line of thought". I'm not even sure you put any thought into that at all.”

On the second part, you need to take your time and read me well. First of all, your mathematical calculations do not take into account the possibility of one religion being true. If one religion is absolutely true, then all probability calculations are meaningless.

You speak of probability as though we are tossing a fair die here. But we are not. It is fairly easy to examine different religions to sift out those that are less likely to be true. It is like a football match between Man utd and Enyimba. Mathematically, the probability of either side winning is 0.5, yet if you go to bookmakers, the odds will be stacked entirely in Man Utd’s favor. Paper maths is of no use here.

If there are 5000 permutations, each of which is contradictory then we know that only one is right, and its truth is a reality that is unaffected by some abstract misapplied probablities. Your probability calculations only apply if I were to pick any one of the options at random. Hope you understand the premise of probability??

And if you find the right religion (or choose the religion most likely to be true), then it means even if religion is wrong, you are still going to win either way. You cannot dispute this with a straight face!

For the atheist however, there is no win-win solution.

Wilgrea7:

there are different concepts of God... so first you need to identity the concept you're dealing with.. also, spirituality is what connects to God.. not religion.. but I'll still welcome any explanation as to how religion is COMPULSORILY needed to connect to God


i understand... the books claim that the origin of the human race is from the garden of Eden.. but there are also contrary claims..



i understand you have the right to choose whatever you want.. i was just pointing out some premises that were seemingly biased

How do you differentiate between religion and spirituality?

Any contrary claims about the origin of life are limited ab initio, because the fact that the skull of the oldest human yet discovered was found in Africa, does not mean that this skull belonged to the first living man.

LiberaDeus:



1. I can also say christianity changes the names. The names in the Quran are the arabic variant and they are much closer to the jewish /hebrew version. Islam didnt change the names and the stories, if you think so then show me proof of the fact that Islam changed the names of OT characters. While you are searching, pls tell me why you dont call Jesus Yahshua, why you dont call David Daud and Solomon Shelomo because i am positive that the King James Bible or even the NKJV uses the english names does it mean they changed the names? Why doesnt the NKJV use the original hebrew names

Also if you say true religion must have been shown to have existed from creation, who told you that the Judaism creation story is the authentic one. This is what i have been telling you, you think the world revolves around Judaism and other creation stories and religions are useless. Why dont you consider the greek creation story that talks about Zeus and the gods and the creation of man? I also asked you why you conveniently ignore Obatala's creation story and even Amadioha's creation story. Every tribe that has existed has had creation stories so please stop using that of the ancient hebrews as the yardstick for truth, why not use the chinese story or the Japanese story or the Igbo or yoruba story why that of Judaism? Its just because thats the only one you know and are exposed to. Thats the thing about religion, for it to thrive in your mind there must be a sufficient amount of cultural ignorance and exposure.

2. You just mentioned Jesus, Buddha and Muhammad. Please are those the only 3 characters of religion?
What of Mithra? read about Mithra and tell me where sin existed in him
What of Lord Krishna? Read about it in the vedas and tell me where sin reigned in him. But am sure you never will because you already fear it as demonic. Your mind is only comfortable with that which is familiar to you. There are over 50 religious progenitors that claimed to be gods and also were seen as perfect. Please stop using 3 characters as your standard.

3. The same thing wrong with worshipping cows is the also wrong in believing in a human blood sacrifice. If you want to use logic pls answer these questions

- Is it logical to believe that blood of humans make people perfect
- Is it logical to believe in a talking snake or a talking donkey
- Is it logical to believe in manna falling from heaven

You are failing to see that all religions are illogical. Pls dont excuse your darling christianity. Just like other religions, christianity is built on lies, fables, mythology, fairy tales, superstition etc and is sustained by coercion, childhood indoctrination, lies, conquest, politics, obsfucation of other world views. Like all other religions, christianity is a terrible mess

Even the stories in the old testament were plagiarised. They copied the myths and legends of the ancient Babylonians and Sumerians and recast them wearing the characters in new robes.
The exodus for example has no historical basis outside the Bible(the Egyptians were a literate people, well known for keeping records, yet not a single document, artefact has been found in Egypt for the enslavement of the Isrealites for 400 years).
Archaeologist have made several finds within that region that corresponded with certain hitherto documented history of places, persons and events that predate those mentioned in the bible but they have dug in vain to find artefacts that correspond with claims like the exodus, the journeys in the desert, the famed Kingdom of David and Solomon, the glorious temple of Solomon etc, nothing, nada, poof!

There are assertions that the names of places in Genesis were not in existence as that time but rather names which existed at the time the books of Genesis and the Pentateuch were written.

In my estimation, any religion written in a book is false, it's the work of Man for God cannot act one way in nature and act otherwise in Scripture. There's no single act of nature that is written in a book. Where do trees grow, sun shine, rain fall? In a book? No! So why should God speak a message for the whole world in a book written to a specific people at a specific time but whenever the sun shines it shines on all without discrimination? ( Never does nature say one thing and wisdom another . . Friedrich Von Schiller)
The greatest lie of all is that he chose some people to be his special people. And to top it up nobody was there beyond the circle of the chosen people to corroborate this act and yet people are blind to see that it's just propaganda.

Jesus is called life. Why can't we just breathe him in, if he were life he'd be as natural to humanity as drawing breathe. No! We must be told about him, accept him, give him our lives to have spiritual life. Lies!!!.

SmartyPants:


I've told you the name christian came from men. It was not used by Jesus, and it came a while after His death. This is stated in the Bible. So to premise your argument on the title, Christian, means you do not have an argument. The mode of worship may have changed. It doesn't make it a different religion. Both Judaism as you understand it, and Christianity as it is called by men, revolve around the Christ. The Jews believe in the Christ and look forward to His coming, whereas Christians believe He has already come.

I repeat, to premise your argument on the title, Christian, means you do not have an argument

"True religion of god that claims that god came to save the whole world must be useful and reachable to all men if not then how can you claim god is perfect."

No religion is reachable to all men in the sense in which you mean, so for the purposes on this debate, this point has no relevance. This debate is on Christianity vs other religions. And clearly christianity has reached many more people than any other religion.

If you want to worship stones that is fine. just make sure your stone worshiping religion can answer all the 4 questions.

Don't you ever say that Judaism and Christianity(as it is called revolve around Christ). You know nada about Judaism. Who do you think the Jewish Messiah is? Judaism revolves around none other than the Jewish people and their quest to rule over the world. The Messiah they are looking up to is their own age long messianic hope fulfilled in the tribe's long for desire to rule the world. Christ came and attempted to spoil that dream. They nailed him to the cross. Who told you that they are looking forward to your Christ? Hahahaha hahahaha. Kai! I pity Christians. Read this:

1879 letter from Baruch Levy to Karl Marx:
The Jewish people as a whole will be its own messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this new world order the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.

You are rapping ignorantly about Judaism revolving around Jesus. Do you know that the Talmud says that Christ was born of fornication by Mary a hairdresser from her illicit liason with a Roman soldier named Pantera and that he (Jesus)is in a boiling cauldron in hell?

Get it into your head today that Christianity based on the Gospel and Judaism are not the same. You look at the old testament and reach those conclusions but boy you are so deceived. Judaism relies more on the Talmud than the torah!