Christianity ruins families.

[giblets]

The question is whether or not these 'extraordinary' claims are true. If it's true, it's not silly anymore, is it?

It would still be extraordinary.

Poor documentation relative to what? Lady Gaga's latest meal? Excuse me if I'm rather underwhelmed by your argument that ancient sources clearly must have supportive documentation to match modern ones.

So why insist on believing in ancient religions when ancient events are poorly documented? Maybe based on faith, you can.

I'm going to accept their claim, yes, unless there is evidence contrary to what they say. Arguing, "people don't rise from the dead' is begging the question.

How about "people make up supernatural bull**** all the time"

[Berzerker]

Genesis 1.1:"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

"Heavens" would be everything above the Earth, ie the universe. Look up in the sky, and you see stars, right?

Heaven cant be everything above the Earth, there are waters above and below it.

The Earth would include all that is on it, right? Well, in verse 2 and then verse 6+7 and 9, we get water:

"Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

"And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

So, in verse 2 we hear of "the surface of the deep", which is explained as "waters" in verse 6. Then we see that some water is held in the sky(rain) and some on the ground. Then comes verse 9 along, and we see that we've got land and seas.

Where did the water come from? Your translation notwithstanding, the word "Earth" is defined as "dry land", dry land that was revealed when the waters were gathered together into Seas. And what does that say about the use of the word "create"? God didn't create the Earth, he revealed it... Before the dry land was revealed,

the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

These waters and the world they covered - biblical tehom - preceded creation. In the story God names Heaven - the firmament placed amidst the waters. Waters that were already there, above and below Heaven. And nowhere in this story do the authors say God created the waters. They go out of their way to tell us the waters were here first...

In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

2the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

3and God saith, `Let light be;' and light is.

4And God seeth the light that [it is] good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness,

5and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.

6And God saith, `Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.'

7And God maketh the expanse, and it separateth between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so.

8And God calleth to the expanse `Heavens;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day second.

9And God saith, `Let the waters under the heavens be collected unto one place, and let the dry land be seen:' and it is so.

10And God calleth to the dry land `Earth,' and to the collection of the waters He hath called `Seas;' and God seeth that [it is] good.

Young's Literal Translation - adding an s to Heaven doesn't change the fact the waters were above, below, and before Heaven or Earth appeared.

This is getting ridiculous. You know that Jesus died and rose on the third day. Everyone knows this even if they aren't Christians.

But he didn't really die, right? He's alive... So he didn't die for our sins, he took a 3 day leave of absence and was brought back. When people die, they dont come back in 3 days. And you didn't answer my question, who was Jesus talking to when he prayed?

[Ben Kenobi]

So why insist on believing in ancient religions when ancient events are poorly documented? Maybe based on faith, you can.

For the same reason you believe in Roman Emperors despite their poor documentation.

How about "people make up supernatural bull**** all the time"

Great reasoning, except that's all you and not on the documentation we do have.

[giblets]

For the same reason you believe in Roman Emperors despite their poor documentation.

It's not hard to believe given the amount of evidence that there was a roman empire.

Great reasoning, except that's all you and not on the documentation we do have.

I've already explained that if Jesus wasn't some divine being who rose from the dead, then he was pretty much a nobody. I don't see any reason why a nonbeliever would have written about Jesus. Naturally if his believers have much more motivation to write about him then whatever record we have is going to be heavily biased in favor of Jesus being a divine zombie. When the historical record is biased I'd say skepticism is warranted.

[Ming]

He still hasn't provided any proof that Jesus rose from the dead or that he was the son of god. But he doesn't believe what happened with the roman empire... what a moron.

[Jon Miller]

Ben, I think you are getting dragged into the wrong discussion. Those who argue about the truth of Jesus's divinity and his rise from the dead are not going to be convinced by historical argument. I wasn't when I was an atheist. I think the proper course is to agree to disagree on historical issues and pray for divine understanding. People don't accept Jesus by being convinced that his story was historical; they accept Him by feeling his divine presence and encountering the supernatural.

JM

[Jon Miller]

On the historicity argument, the correct point to make is that there isn't an abnormal lack of historic evidence. There is the same amount of historic evidence available as would be reasonable expected based on the Bible and religious tradition/etc.

This means that claiming that those that believe are unreasonable based on historic arguments is false, not that those who disbelieve are doing so in the face of overwhelming historic evidence.

Note that this is for the claims that Christ was the Son of God. Those who don't think that Christ ever existed are unreasonable, based on the availability of historic evidence.

Jon
(Not wanting to read Ben posts or those arguing with Ben)

[Jon Miller]

What are you talking about gribbler. Moses lived for 900 years, you hedonistic and sacrilegious mother****er.

The number of 120 or so given in the Bible is a reasonable number. A lot of people, without access to modern medicine/etc, claim to live/have lived/etc similar amounts of time.

Additionally, numerical ages/etc which are more likely to be approximations/estimations/etc.

Jon

[Robert]

Factually? On what are you basing the comparison for persecution. Is it actual deaths, or something else. Please provide some real details to support this persecution.

I hope you noticed the part where I wrote that this 'fact' didn't mean anything?
What exactly is your problem? Do you disagree with what I say, or do you want to see sources for everything I claim?

the claim I made (or better: agreed with) (christians are persecuted the most) is not really controversial or unbelievable. It even makes sense for non-religious people. Yet you choose to fight it. Do you have an unhealthy mistrust for what others say? Or do you just have the healthy attitude to be critical to everything someone else says?

I can't be bothered to look up some sources that you will accept. Most of all because, like I said before, this fact doesn't mean anything to me. It's not at all important.

But since there are 2.2 billion christians, 1.3 billion muslims, 0.7 billion hindus and 0.3 billion buddhists in this world, it only makes sense that the largest group is most probably persecuted the most, for statistical reasons alone. Add to that that the 2nd largest group is the only group that on large scales persecuted people with different (or none at all) believes, that the 3rd and 4th group are very strongly focussed on geographical locations where they are the majority religion.

Add to that that a lot of christians also live in countries were communism persecutes religions (China, North Korea) and where minorities are persecuted because of anarchy (South America).

So my question to you is: why do you doubt this? It's hardly hard to believe this 'fact'. Do you really doubt it, or are you just eager to question anything someone brings forwarth with whom you disagree in general (or in part, as it concerns the both of us) on this topic?

I think it's a little bit of the latter

[Robert]

Why am I over the top... and since when did I ever say people can't express what they believe in. I do get angry when I see people use their supposed religion to infringe on the rights of others and think they are above the laws of man. Doesn't that make you angry

You're over the top because you also get 'angry' when people claim they hold the truth.
I think that's over the top because believing that you follow the truth is a valuable part of life. The opposite of believing you're following the truth (not only on religious topics, but in fact on everydays topics) is living in doubt about everything.

Why can't people have and express a claim to hold the truth? Why does that bother you so much? They can be wrong, they can be right, so what?
I have no problem at all with atheists, muslims, hindus, agnosts, etc. to claim that they know the truth, and that their way of live is the best.

And I see people use their opinion to infringe the rights of others all the time. That's politics. A society can not exist without limiting the right of members of the society. The problem is not if people want to limit rights of others. The problem is if they want to do it without following democratic paths and procedures. Just only talking about it is ok. I am against people ignoring red traffic lights, killing others, stealing stuff, abusing their employers, discriminate on onrelated topics, etc. etc.
Infringing rights is good, anarchy is the alternative.

First.. you have no clue what I actually believe...

I am responding to what you say in this thread.
I'm not claiming to know what you hide behind that mask

what's your point. Nobody can claim that their opinion is superior.

Why not?
What's your problem with people claiming things? People can claim things, even if they're wrong. The matter is not if they claim it, but if it's acknowledged. You can decide to ignore a claim, laugh about a claim, consider a claim, or acknowledge it. We make claims all the time. Even your phrase that "nobody can claim that their opinion is superior" is a claim. Why can you claim that nobody can claim?

But the truth of the matter is, I haven't seen anybody yet post a single reason or fact why their religion is better, or should be considered better or more true than any other...

That's quite a claim to the truth you post there.
apart from the fact that it's a ridiculous claim (I have read books by atheists that gave good reasons for why their opinion is true) (and so did I with muslims and christians, I also read quotes from buddhists that gave good arguments and reasons)

Also this thread had some arguments.
You should be able to seperate "good arguments you disagree with" from "bad arguments". There are in fact 3 kinds of arguments:
- good ones that don't do it for you
- good ones one agrees with
- bad ones.
(ok, maybe 4: also bad ones one agrees with anyway)

People often think that the first one doesn't exist. Everything they disagree with is bollocks immediately. That's a pathatic way of reasoning.
There are very good arguments to believe that christianity is a fairy tale. Many of them are considered by me all the time. I reject them in the end anyway, but may adapt to them later. How's that with you, Ming? Are all arguments only good or bad in your opinion? Or do you also know arguments of people you disagree with, that do not 'convert' you, but are still respected by you?

It looks like you are holding a 'reasonable' ground here, but still your way of argumentating is very black/white. In fact it all comes down that others can't claim the truth, but you can claim that others can't claim though. You need some self reflection here apply your own norms to yourself

yet the claims of superiority continue.

Maybe there are other reasons to make such a claim as well.
Reasons that aren't scientific, but related to unmeasurable things one acknowledges himself. Is something only true if it's scientificly provable?

Proof... it's all myths at best.

That's quite a claim you make.

There are no proofs.

Another claim you can't proof.

You use the term "ignorant"... and refuse to accept "it"... like somebody is ignoring that 2 plus 2 = 4.

No, I am using "ignorant" as in we simply don't know it yet, but science may tell us in 500 years. It's not a negative 'ignorant'.
You even claim to know that there's nothing important regarding religion that we are still ignorant about. (or at least you imply that). That's quite a claim Ming, why can you make these claims, while others can't make these claims?

I'm not talking about 2+2=4 stuff.
I'm talking about what if we are able to get into contact with the spirits of the death that are on their way to reincarnate (hinduism). We find out that they are somehow physical approachable, but just communicating/existing on another level then we know about so far. (like dogs can hear sounds we can't?)
We don't know what we don't know. I'm not claiming here that this kinda stuff will prove any religion in the future. I am showing you that you can't make the claim that we never will. Especially you claim quite a lot in your attempt to block others from claiming

In reality, the whole basis of religion is simply faith... faith in something that has never been proven.

BS.
My faith is also based on the way I know myself, and how this is reflected by the Bible. It is based on rational, it's based on how todays actuality is in line with what the Bible tells me. It is based on emotion. I may be wrong on all accounts, but my believe is not only based on faith. I'm not kissing Hank's ass because he tells me to do it. You have a simplistic view on the faith of others.

One might argue that somebody who believes in ancient myths and superstition is the ignorant one

You seem to misunderstand the concept of 'ignorant'.

Robert Plomp: I refuse to believe that all religions are equal. Buddhism, in example, has a very very rational and sane vision on life, from an atheistic perspective.
I'm not a buddhist, but I do respect buddhism for taking the right conclusions from their starting point.
Islam, in example, is imho a less sane religion, constructed out of bits of other religions, more based on the ignorance of it's founder and his anger with the followers of those other faiths, then based on a unique vision on life.
Old pagan faiths, where the thunder is a god, and the gods live on the mountains of olympia are just faiths of the gaps.
But religions like confucianism or taoism are about bringing social order and structures in societies. They have factual advantages.

Simply your opinion... many people think Chrisitianity is an insane relgiion.
Whose opinion is worth more?
It's no surprise you want to support your own relgion and claim it's the best.

Did you even read my text?
I did not even mention christianity. I wrote about how Buddhism is a sane religion. Not about christianity. I on purpse left christianity out.
I also gave reasons for this.

You have a prejustice that all religions are equal.
I think that's a very ignorant position. Not all religions are equal. Some religions ask for child sacrifices. Some are based on the thought that the sun is a god around which everything circles. But you are most probably not very knowledgable about religions. The way you talk about them gives me the idea that you are someone who maybe ever tasted one brand of wine, and from that conclude that all wines are the same, and it all only matters what tastes you prefer which one you like most.

Do you know what Islam is about, Confucianism? Daoism? Buddhism? Zarathostrianism? Old pagan religions? Modern pagan religions? Do you know the difference between Shiites and Shunites? Or are you just holding up the prejustice that it all doesn't matter because it's all the same anyway?

It's impossible to compare buddhism to old-paganism.
Someone who claims that it's a matter of personal opinion if Zeus is better then Buddha is simply ignorant. The believe in Zeus is simply insane (though understandable on the knowledge of those days). Buddhism though is quite a sane religion. I would rank Buddhism much higher then followers of Zeus, every moment of the day.
Only someone who is ignorant about both of them could claim that it depends on personal opinions.

I rank the keynian economic model much higher then the Marxistic one. that's not a matter of personal taste. Marx just had unrealistic views on humans. That's why his ideas are inferior. History has provent his. I'm not keen on Keynes either though.

Simply your opinion... many people think Chrisitianity is an insane relgiion.
Whose opinion is worth more?

To start with, the one who at least knows what (s)he's talking about.
There are personal arguments (the ones apparently only exist in your opinion). But there are also general arguments. Arguments that could be convincable to people who are open to it. There are people who have reasons to state that christianity is insane. I'm not saying that their opinion is worthless. They base what they say on good grounds. To me it's clear that there are good reasons for such a claim. There are things in christianity that are difficult to follow. I'd also say that their claims aren't personal. They raise good questions to christianity. Both to the institute church as we know it (which may have lost touch with the original values of christianity) as to the Bible.

It's no surprise you want to support your own relgion and claim it's the best.

I did?
So far I have been debating this from my scientific theological background, I left christianity out on purpose, and only used examples from other religions, and compared other religions with each other. (I may have used christianity though, a couple of times by accident )

I think that you are debating me from prejustice. Not based on what I say. (this is already proven above where you draw the claim that I think that "christianity is the most sane" from a phrase of me where I didn't even mention christianity at all)

But again, the whole point I'm trying to make is that everybody feels the same about their own relgions and beliefs. That their faith is as strong if not stronger than yours.

Another baseless claim.
A lot of people follow a religion because their parents did or their neighbours do.
A lot of people do it because of emotional reasons, it makes them feel better.
A lot of people are thinkers, they base their religion on their ratio.
A lot of people follow religions that are more about rituals, and just like it.
For al of people it's a mix of things.

You can't claim that all religious people have the same feeling about their own religion or belief.
Like not all maried people have the same feeling about their marriage. Some are locked in a marriage, some are happy, others don't bother, others like it becuase it works, others because of the sex, others because they share kids. For some it's a mix.
It's ridiculous to claim that that all married people feel the same about their marriage. It's also insane to claim(!) that all religious people feel the same about their religion.

Some follow their god(s) in love, some in trust, some in anger.
Some do it because their government will kill them, some because they want to stay in touch with their parents. Some because they don't know what their religion is about.

You seem to want to belittle other faiths for no other reason than it's not yours...

I did not.
Not at all, I might say.
And even if I would, I would never do that "for no other reason than it's not yours..."
That's an absurd statement you make based on what I say. (did you even read it?)

yet ignore the fact that it's simply opinon

Not everything is opnion.
And not everything that's a fact matters.

It's a fact that christians are persecuted the most, but that doesn't matter at all.
It's also a fact that the Greek pantheon is based on wrong understanding of nature, and that it's therefore been a useless faith. It's also a fact that Buddhism is based on rational principes. The principle that "suffering comes from unfulfilled desires" is quite sane. Their solution to end all suffering by stop desirering is therefore sane and rational.

It's an opinion if you want to follow such a teaching, or if you say that the occasional suffering is worth it to get fulfilled desires once in a while. Or to say that there's also joy in an unfulfilled desire because hope has value.

You must be able to seperate opinion from rational statements.
The latter can be wrong or right. The first can reject or accept the latter one, no matter if the latter one is wrong or right.

On neutral grounds it is in part possible to rate religions. It is save to say that the hindu caste system has done a lot of horror for the people in India. Hinduism is for that reason not equal to buddhism. That's not an opinion. It's a fact drawed from a common value we hold. It's of course an opinion if you do not share a base value like human equality. But that's a world common value right now. If we all hold the value that all man are equally valuable, then we can conclude that based on that, some religions are more valuable then others.

Of course you can decide to make everything in an opinion. In that case even rejecting murder based on yealousy can be seen as only an opinion. I can make the statement that the survival of the fittest will aid humanity in the end.

and that you have NOTHING to support your own claims of superiority beyond your personal beliefs.

Quite a claim. First: where did I claim that I was superior?
2nd: how do you know in advance that I would have nothing to support it, if I would even make such a claim?
It's your believe that there's no such a support. And you're free to have that believe, but what do you base it on?

Robert Plomp: I disagree with the idea that all religions are different branches of the same product.
Like you buy coca cola or pepsi cola. no, some religions are like cars while others are like a day to a spa. Uncomparable. And some have a heigher quality then others.

Ming: There you go making value judgements about other people's beliefs again.
You are trying to dismiss other people's beliefs and not as good as your own.

What?
You get that from that quote of me?
Where did I dismiss other people's beliefs?
Where did I say that they are not as good as mine?
Seriously, where are you getting this from?

Or do you just random put a couple of lines of me in a qoute, and then give a random comment to it in which you assume that I said some things?
Did you seriously read what I wrote before you commented?

Robert Plomp: As with all visions on life. Facism, communism, socialism, liberalism, nationalism, anarchism, etc. etc. They're all visoins on life and society. But not all are equal in quality or result.

Ming: Comparing the above to relgions... not even close

????

I personally believe, Ming, that you have little knowledge of the concept of religion and religions themselves. I think that you just hold on to a dogma that it's only about opinion and faith.

[Robert]

@Ben:

Not if you are a Christian.

I doubt that the majority of the christians believe that Helena found the real cross.

That's not all that exceptional wrt to archaeology.

Not to find such an old piece of wood.
But Helena was not an archeologe.
And one needs to be one to date it, place it in it's context.

The Christians preserved it.

Helena believed that the christians did that.
There's no reason to believe such a claim.

If you had read her account (or Eusebius's retelling of her account), she had three crosses to choose from. One of them healed the sick, the others did not.

So that's why it was Jesus cross?
The cross on which God doomed his son can now be used as a tool to heal the sick?

I'm sure you can find plenty of reasons to doubt the account, but if you believe that miracles can happen, then you don't really have a leg to stand on.

A miracle doesn't exist in itself. It has a goal.
The entire roman catholic reliqui theater is not a goal I have much trust in.
It is 99% idolatery perhaps with 1% christianity.
Roman catholicism, especially in the middle ages, was more about incorporating paganism (and being taken by paganism) then about keeping paganism out of the church. Many saints are just new versions of old pagan gods and heroes.

I have no reason to believe that christianity is about sacret materials.
Even the temple has no more value.
I know that I can never convince you here, but roman catholicism is three steps back from christianity. Sacret places, sacret things, sacret people..... how could the letters of Paul be more corrupted.

[Ming]

You're over the top because you also get 'angry' when people claim they hold the truth.
I think that's over the top because believing that you follow the truth is a valuable part of life. The opposite of believing you're following the truth (not only on religious topics, but in fact on everydays topics) is living in doubt about everything.

You should take a lesson in reading as well. One more time... I do get angry when I see people use their supposed religion to infringe on the rights of others and think they are above the laws of man. I get angry about the catholic church covering up and protecting the priests that raped innocent children instead of turning them over to the authorities.

Why can't people have and express a claim to hold the truth? Why does that bother you so much? They can be wrong, they can be right, so what?
I have no problem at all with atheists, muslims, hindus, agnosts, etc. to claim that they know the truth, and that their way of live is the best.

Again... show me where I say it bothers me. I do find it funny that there are a bunch of different religions who all claim they are the true/one relgiion, with none of them having any proof to support their claims. It's a FACT that they all can't be right... It's possible that Chrisitianity isn't the one religion

And I see people use their opinion to infringe the rights of others all the time. That's politics. A society can not exist without limiting the right of members of the society. The problem is not if people want to limit rights of others. The problem is if they want to do it without following democratic paths and procedures. Just only talking about it is ok. I am against people ignoring red traffic lights, killing others, stealing stuff, abusing their employers, discriminate on onrelated topics, etc. etc.
Infringing rights is good, anarchy is the alternative.

Bombing abortion clinics... Killing doctors... holy wars... letting priests get away with raping children... sounds like anarchy to me.

I am responding to what you say in this thread.
I'm not claiming to know what you hide behind that mask

Many times in this thread, people have been trying to put words in my mouth about what I believe... and nowhere in this thread do I make any statements of my religious beliefs.

Why not?
What's your problem with people claiming things? People can claim things, even if they're wrong. The matter is not if they claim it, but if it's acknowledged. You can decide to ignore a claim, laugh about a claim, consider a claim, or acknowledge it. We make claims all the time. Even your phrase that "nobody can claim that their opinion is superior" is a claim. Why can you claim that nobody can claim?

Claim all you want... I've been trying to point out that every real relgion can make the same claims, and that none can support those claims with real facts. So in reality, most of the claims have to be false

That's quite a claim to the truth you post there.
apart from the fact that it's a ridiculous claim (I have read books by atheists that gave good reasons for why their opinion is true) (and so did I with muslims and christians, I also read quotes from buddhists that gave good arguments and reasons)

Again... all the claims are not supported by any real facts. They are opinions, and personal. I've heard/read some good arguments as well. But at the end of the day, they are opinions, and not supported by real facts.

It looks like you are holding a 'reasonable' ground here, but still your way of argumentating is very black/white. In fact it all comes down that others can't claim the truth, but you can claim that others can't claim though. You need some self reflection here apply your own norms to yourself

I'm not the one making the claims... the relgious people are the ones claiming to be the one true faith. The ONLY thing I've been saying, is that all relgions can make the same valid claim, with none of them having any stronger position to back them up since none of them have any real proof. And with that being the case, it's a FACT that they all can't be true. That's not a claim, but reality.

Maybe there are other reasons to make such a claim as well.
Reasons that aren't scientific, but related to unmeasurable things one acknowledges himself. Is something only true if it's scientificly provable?

Again... where have I ever said anything like that... You continue to miss the whole point... I have made no claims, and just continue to point out that every religion (not cults or wack jobs) has the same right to their opinions. Since they all can't be right, many MUST be wrong

Another claim you can't proof.

Then please provide real facts that it isn't just a myth. With all the relgions thinking they are the true one, there has to be a lot of relgious myths out there, since they all can't be right

No, I am using "ignorant" as in we simply don't know it yet, but science may tell us in 500 years. It's not a negative 'ignorant'.

OK... I buy that.

You even claim to know that there's nothing important regarding religion that we are still ignorant about. (or at least you imply that).

Simply your interpretation... I don't even come close to claiming that.

We don't know what we don't know. I'm not claiming here that this kinda stuff will prove any religion in the future. I am showing you that you can't make the claim that we never will. Especially you claim quite a lot in your attempt to block others from claiming

And once again, where have I EVER said that we will never be able to prove it. ALL I have claimed is that there is NO PROOF now. NO religion can provide real proof... And also yet again... you can claim all you want. My point is that only ONE relgiion can be right (and none are right if there is no god) so all the relgions but one are WRONG in their claims

BS.
My faith is also based on the way I know myself, and how this is reflected by the Bible. It is based on rational, it's based on how todays actuality is in line with what the Bible tells me. It is based on emotion. I may be wrong on all accounts, but my believe is not only based on faith. I'm not kissing Hank's ass because he tells me to do it. You have a simplistic view on the faith of others.

Interesting that you use the term BS... because faith is only emotion and opinion. It's your interpretation... personal... and just an Opinion. You sound like you have strong faith... good for you. But faith doesn't make something true. Maybe "true" to you, but not to others. You seem to be the one with a simplistic view of what faith really is.

Did you even read my text?
I did not even mention christianity. I wrote about how Buddhism is a sane religion. Not about christianity. I on purpse left christianity out.
I also gave reasons for this.

Sure I did... But nothing you said changes the fact that many people consider your relgion insane. The fact that you find some other religion sane is irrelevent.

You have a prejustice that all religions are equal.

Everybody keeps saying that... but that's not what I've been saying.
I have been saying that all real religions can make the same claim that they are the one true relgion, and that makes a lot of those claims wrong since there can only be one true relgion based on what they claim.

I think that's a very ignorant position. Not all religions are equal.

If you look back and actually read what I've been saying... I did say that all relgions are different. I've never said that they are all equal. However, they all have an equal claim to believe they are the one true religion.

But you are most probably not very knowledgable about religions. The way you talk about them gives me the idea that you are someone who maybe ever tasted one brand of wine, and from that conclude that all wines are the same, and it all only matters what tastes you prefer which one you like most.

Obviously you now are trying to claim I don't know anything since I disagree with you, with no facts to back up your slander. You are welcome to your opinion. But at least I have a mminor degree in religious studies, so I must have learned something about religions. But feel free to keep thinking that anybody that disagrees with you has no real knowledge of relgions if it makes you feel any better.

Do you know what Islam is about, Confucianism? Daoism? Buddhism? Zarathostrianism? Old pagan religions? Modern pagan religions? Do you know the difference between Shiites and Shunites? Or are you just holding up the prejustice that it all doesn't matter because it's all the same anyway?

Yep... My studies in college where all about researching the similarities and differences of the many different relgions. And yet again, I've never claimed they are all the same, and have even STATED that they are indeed different.
So why do you keep making this BS up? Find something real to attack and stop the slander.

It's impossible to compare buddhism to old-paganism....

AND THE IRRELEVENT RANT CONTINUES... Read my above statements one more time. Maybe this time, you might actually get it.

To start with, the one who at least knows what (s)he's talking about.
There are personal arguments (the ones apparently only exist in your opinion). But there are also general arguments. Arguments that could be convincable to people who are open to it. There are people who have reasons to state that christianity is insane. I'm not saying that their opinion is worthless. They base what they say on good grounds. To me it's clear that there are good reasons for such a claim. There are things in christianity that are difficult to follow. I'd also say that their claims aren't personal. They raise good questions to christianity. Both to the institute church as we know it (which may have lost touch with the original values of christianity) as to the Bible.

So you agree with the point I was making... thanks.

I think that you are debating me from prejustice. Not based on what I say. (this is already proven above where you draw the claim that I think that "christianity is the most sane" from a phrase of me where I didn't even mention christianity at all)

And you seem to be debating the wrong argument.

ONE MORE TIME. Relgions claim they are the best/true relgiion. Real relgions all have the same basis to make this claim. There are NO REAL facts to support one claim over another. So most of them are false claims, since only one can be the true relgion. Relgion comes down to FAITH and NOT FACTS!

Another baseless claim.
A lot of people follow a religion because their parents did or their neighbours do.
A lot of people do it because of emotional reasons, it makes them feel better.
A lot of people are thinkers, they base their religion on their ratio.
A lot of people follow religions that are more about rituals, and just like it.
For al of people it's a mix of things.

You can't claim that all religious people have the same feeling about their own religion or belief.

I have stated earlier, which again, you seem to have missed that I agree that the level of faith by individual to their relgion VARIES! And that every relgion has followers with different degrees of faith. I have stated that some have the same or even higher levels of faith than you do. Some moron (editorial opinion) that blows himself up is either really stupid or has a very high level of faith in his relgion/god.

Some follow their god(s) in love, some in trust, some in anger.
Some do it because their government will kill them, some because they want to stay in touch with their parents. Some because they don't know what their religion is about.

You are correct... and I've never said differently.

I did not.
Not at all, I might say.
And even if I would, I would never do that "for no other reason than it's not yours..."
That's an absurd statement you make based on what I say. (did you even read it?)

Gee... your whole argument in this post is based on stuff I have never said... are you even reading what I post

Not everything is opnion.

But relgion is all opinion and personal beliefs, with no real facts to support them. You can talk all you want about your emotions, how you feel, what you believe... fine. Good for you. But at the end of the day, it's PERSONAL, and just your beliefs and faith.

And not everything that's a fact matters.

But wouldn't it be nice if you actually had some real facts to support your opinion

It's a fact that christians are persecuted the most, but that doesn't matter at all.

Again, some might argue that "fact" based on their own interpretation of the definition of term persecution. But since I wasn't the one that introduced it into the debate, I agree it doesn't matter at all.

It's also a fact that the Greek pantheon is based on wrong understanding of nature, and that it's therefore been a useless faith.

And in the future, if a FACT comes out that Christianity is wrong, that will make it a useless faith as well.

It's also a fact that Buddhism is based on rational principes. The principle that "suffering comes from unfulfilled desires" is quite sane. Their solution to end all suffering by stop desirering is therefore sane and rational.

Sure, Buddhism is based on rational principles. So what's your point?
Some might argue that Buddhism really isn't a relgion. Yet some followers believe that Gautama Buddha was devine and had special powers. There are no facts to support this...

[quote]
On neutral grounds it is in part possible to rate religions. It is save to say that the hindu caste system has done a lot of horror for the people in India. Hinduism is for that reason not equal to buddhism. That's not an opinion. It's a fact drawed from a common value we hold. It's of course an opinion if you do not share a base value like human equality. But that's a world common value right now. If we all hold the value that all man are equally valuable, then we can conclude that based on that, some religions are more valuable then others.
[/qyuote]

I've never had a problem with what you are saying... Again, it seems like you keep wanting to claim that I've said that all relgions are equal. I haven't.
All I've said is that the real relgions all claim to be the true one, and that they can't all be right. And that somebody with equal or better levels of faith in their relgion can hold the opinion that you are wrong in your beliefs, and be as correct/wrong as you.

Of course you can decide to make everything in an opinion. In that case even rejecting murder based on yealousy can be seen as only an opinion. I can make the statement that the survival of the fittest will aid humanity in the end.

Classic strawman argument... bring up murder. Great JOB, but totally irrelevent.

Quite a claim. First: where did I claim that I was superior?
2nd: how do you know in advance that I would have nothing to support it, if I would even make such a claim?
It's your believe that there's no such a support. And you're free to have that believe, but what do you base it on?

Well... I base it on the simple truth that there are no real facts beyond faith If there were real facts out there, maybe there wouldn't be so many different relgions out their all claiming to be the one true one

What?
You get that from that quote of me?
Where did I dismiss other people's beliefs?
Where did I say that they are not as good as mine?
Seriously, where are you getting this from?

OK... let's make a deal, you stop making up crap and implying strange interpretations of what I say, and I will do the same for you. DEAL?

Or do you just random put a couple of lines of me in a qoute, and then give a random comment to it in which you assume that I said some things?
Did you seriously read what I wrote before you commented?

Right back at you...

I personally believe, Ming, that you have little knowledge of the concept of religion and religions themselves. I think that you just hold on to a dogma that it's only about opinion and faith.

And while you are welcome to your opinion, you are again trying to make the argument that since I disagree with you, I must not not know anything.

And yes, I do really believe that relgion is all about opnion and faith. And I make no judgements on whether that is good or not, right or wrong, or whatever. Because there are NO real facts, so that's all relgiion can truly be about. Relgion is all about FAITH, and not facts!

[Ben Kenobi]

I doubt that the majority of the christians believe that Helena found the real cross.

I'd wager most "Christians" don't believe in miracles either.

Not to find such an old piece of wood.
But Helena was not an archeologe.

She did excavate the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. There's certainly no reason that she couldn't have found the True cross.

And one needs to be one to date it, place it in it's context.

So you doubt the miracle? I'm not surprised. Most "Christians" don't really believe in them.

Helena believed that the christians did that.
There's no reason to believe such a claim.

Why is this?

So that's why it was Jesus cross?
The cross on which God doomed his son can now be used as a tool to heal the sick?

At the time, yes. We don't have it any more though.

A miracle doesn't exist in itself. It has a goal.

This one had a goal, to identify his cross.

The entire roman catholic reliqui theater is not a goal I have much trust in.

Again, this has nothing to do with the medieval cross. This was 700 years earlier. The distance between Helena's cross, and the medieval one is greater then our distance from Da Vinci. I know this is hard to fathom, but 300 AD is a very long time ago. It wasn't used as a reliquary back then. It stayed in the Church of the Holy sepulchre until the Sassinids seized it and Heraclius recovered it.

It is 99% idolatery perhaps with 1% christianity.

;zzz;

Same old protestant crap. Miracles don't exist, bla bla bla.

Roman catholicism, especially in the middle ages

Helena was 700 years before what you are referring too. It's got nothing to do with the middle ages.

was more about incorporating paganism (and being taken by paganism) then about keeping paganism out of the church. Many saints are just new versions of old pagan gods and heroes.

Except that they aren't. I was a protestant. This is all crap. All of the saints are Christians and the reason why they are venerated is because they are considered models of the faith.

Say for an example, Thomas Aquinas, or Catherine of Siena, or Theresa of Avila, or Gregory the Great, or Theresa of Lisieux. Are these all pagan gods?

I have no reason to believe that christianity is about sacret materials.

Then why do you have a cross at the nave of your church?

Why do you partake of the eucharist?

Why do you baptise with water?

I know that I can never convince you here, but roman catholicism is three steps back from christianity. Sacret places, sacret things, sacret people..... how could the letters of Paul be more corrupted.

I see no evidence of your claims. They are the only ones standing by Christianity, while everyone else goes their own way, and founds their own religion.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is the same amount of historic evidence available as would be reasonable expected based on the Bible and religious tradition/etc.

With all due respect, you are a physicist Jon. The manuscript evidence of scripture is overwhelmingly large compared with any other source that we have from the time.

[Ben Kenobi]

He still hasn't provided any proof that Jesus rose from the dead or that he was the son of god. But he doesn't believe what happened with the roman empire... what a moron.

What proof would you find sufficient?

oh, and if you actually read my post, all I ever argued is that Scripture and the Romans should be trusted to be true, Scripture moreso than any Roman historian.