• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why believe in Christianity???

W

WALMART

Guest
i haven't read much of anyone's opinon,



but why not believe in christianity? why believe in allah? why believe in buddah, or hinduism, or evolution, or atheism, or agnosticism?

why believe in anything?



cause we're all lookin' for answers. some are just more apt to dig deeper down the rabbit hole.
 

gmanyo

sswwwaagggg
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
275
MBTI Type
ENTP
Why would Christianity be ''the truth"!!! Why wouldn't it be Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, or even Egyptian and Greek mythology.
Well something is true, and many things are false. If Christianity is true then the base principles for Islaam are false, although the teachings might have some truth to them.

On a serious note Id like to say that though I am not one, I do believe Catholics are the only real Christians because they adore Mary as mother of God, bringing a balance of masculine and feminine, and they tend to believe in the actual teachings of Jesus ... You know, like take care of the poor and the sick and the dying.
From what I've seen Catholics like to do rituals not explicitly (or implicitly) prescribed by the Bible and have strange beliefs about exclusivity in the church through the Papacy due to very weak interpretations of one or two verses which really don't say much. Most, although not all, Christians that I see taking care of the poor are non-Catholic (and being from a missionary family, I've seen a lot) although admittedly this could easily be a bias (I am tentatively a Protestant myself). That's not to say that Catholics aren't Christians, but I don't see how they're the only "real" Christians.

*a bunch of stuff*
There can only be one truth. If one religion says that God is a pig and the other says that God is a monkey, they can't both be right. I guess she could be some sort of pig-monkey thing, but then there is still an objective truth, and both of them were partially right. Also, with such polarized religions it would be very difficult for them to both be correct, even in a partial sense. For many of their claims, either one is right or the other.

There is definitely one objective truth. I guess, like with your math analogy, there could be multiple ways of getting there/different understandings of the same thing, but there is definitely only one answer, and you can definitely be wrong. If one person says the answer is "there is no value for x" and the other says "x equals five", they cannot both be correct. If one person says x is 3 and the other says x is 5, there is a very small chance that they are both correct, although neither would have the complete answer ( [x-5]*[x-3]=0 would yield x=3,5 as its answer). With truth claims being so different, it is highly unlikely that they are both right, especially when considering opposing views (God is real vs. God is not real).

Also, while "all religions are essentially paths to the same thing" is often said with good intentions it is not only ignorant, but can actually be insulting to people with solid beliefs. You are essentially saying that one person's beliefs are the same as another's, and this can offend people. When you look into it, beliefs of different cultures are vastly different.

(highlighted because I feel that it is a point not frequently made and easily missed)
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There can only be one truth. If one religion says that God is a pig and the other says that God is a monkey, they can't both be right. I guess she could be some sort of pig-monkey thing, but then there is still an objective truth, and both of them were partially right. Also, with such polarized religions it would be very difficult for them to both be correct, even in a partial sense. For many of their claims, either one is right or the other.

There is definitely one objective truth. I guess, like with your math analogy, there could be multiple ways of getting there/different understandings of the same thing, but there is definitely only one answer, and you can definitely be wrong. If one person says the answer is "there is no value for x" and the other says "x equals five", they cannot both be correct. If one person says x is 3 and the other says x is 5, there is a very small chance that they are both correct, although neither would have the complete answer ( [x-5]*[x-3]=0 would yield x=3,5 as its answer). With truth claims being so different, it is highly unlikely that they are both right, especially when considering opposing views (God is real vs. God is not real).

Also, while "all religions are essentially paths to the same thing" is often said with good intentions it is not only ignorant, but can actually be insulting to people with solid beliefs. You are essentially saying that one person's beliefs are the same as another's, and this can offend people. When you look into it, beliefs of different cultures are vastly different.

There may be only one objective truth. In a sense, that is part of the definition of objective: 2+2=4 for everyone, however one arrives at it. Religion, however, is not in the business of finding objective truth. That is the job of science. It is precisely when religion tries to assert objective truth that the kinds of conflicts you describe occur, and believers look either like ignorant children or closed-minded fanatics. If your "beliefs" are so solid as to rest on objective facts, they are not beliefs, but simple acknowledgment of objective reality.

Religion reveals subjective truth, which by definition, will look different to each believer. There will be similarities, enough so to make it possible and satisfying for humans to form faith groups around common interpretations and practice. The goal of a believer, then, is more like the goal of a lover than that of a mathematician: to have a satisfying relationship with a partner/spouse. Many people are working toward that goal, though each couple will realize it differently.
 

gmanyo

sswwwaagggg
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
275
MBTI Type
ENTP
There may be only one objective truth. In a sense, that is part of the definition of objective: 2+2=4 for everyone, however one arrives at it. Religion, however, is not in the business of finding objective truth. That is the job of science. It is precisely when religion tries to assert objective truth that the kinds of conflicts you describe occur, and believers look either like ignorant children or closed-minded fanatics. If your "beliefs" are so solid as to rest on objective facts, they are not beliefs, but simple acknowledgment of objective reality.

Religion reveals subjective truth, which by definition, will look different to each believer. There will be similarities, enough so to make it possible and satisfying for humans to form faith groups around common interpretations and practice. The goal of a believer, then, is more like the goal of a lover than that of a mathematician: to have a satisfying relationship with a partner/spouse. Many people are working toward that goal, though each couple will realize it differently.

So you're basically saying that people should believe not true things just to help guide them through life? How is religion not in the business of finding objective truth? It is only in modern (or, postmodern, I guess) culture that people have decided that "religion" (whatever that even means anymore) is no longer allowed to make truth claims, and only "science" can do that. Because "religion" and "science" have to be separate for some reason.

If one religion is true, then it should work perfectly with science. It would be strange if one were only allowed to make objective claims from an atheistic standpoint, which is what I have to assume you mean by "science" since I don't see how science and religion should conflict.

I guess from an atheist's perspective it would be fine to believe untrue things simply because they help you get through life, but you'll have to come to terms with the fact that they are, objectively, wrong. Your religion wouldn't be a path leading to the right answer, it would just be a lifestyle, and a very inconsistent one at that. And believing everything is simultaneously true requires an huge logical gap. You can't really say "I'm a Christian, I follow the Bible, my God is true to me, but other religions can be true, too" because Christianity is, by definition, dogmatic and exclusive. You'd have to realize that the entire foundation of Christianity is wrong.



On another note, can we abandon the word "religion" and instead use "worldview"? It's a much better term. The word "religion" is bogged down by centuries of misuse, overuse, and misunderstanding.

world·view
noun /ˈwərldˌvyo͞o/ 

A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world
- I have broadened my worldview by experiencing a whole new culture
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So you're basically saying that people should believe not true things just to help guide them through life? How is religion not in the business of finding objective truth? It is only in modern (or, postmodern, I guess) culture that people have decided that "religion" (whatever that even means anymore) is no longer allowed to make truth claims, and only "science" can do that. Because "religion" and "science" have to be separate for some reason.

If one religion is true, then it should work perfectly with science. It would be strange if one were only allowed to make objective claims from an atheistic standpoint, which is what I have to assume you mean by "science" since I don't see how science and religion should conflict.

I guess from an atheist's perspective it would be fine to believe untrue things simply because they help you get through life, but you'll have to come to terms with the fact that they are, objectively, wrong. Your religion wouldn't be a path leading to the right answer, it would just be a lifestyle, and a very inconsistent one at that. And believing everything is simultaneously true requires an huge logical gap. You can't really say "I'm a Christian, I follow the Bible, my God is true to me, but other religions can be true, too" because Christianity is, by definition, dogmatic and exclusive. You'd have to realize that the entire foundation of Christianity is wrong.
Do not put words in my mouth. It takes both objective and subjective truth to comprehend the world and act constructively in it. It is not a matter of what religion is allowed to do, but rather of what it is able to do. It can try, for instance, to determine the age of the earth all it wants, but if it does so by counting generations in the Old Testament, it is doomed to failure.

Religion and science are as separate as male and female, day and night, sound and silence. They are two sides to the same coin; complementary ways of looking at the world. They work best together, each making use of its particular strengths, much as coworkers with disparate skills collaborating on a project team. Any religion which operates in this manner can "work perfectly with science". Actually, the fault is not so much with the religions per se, as with specific (groups of) believers who want to claim more for religion than it can deliver. Science, similarly, cannot tell us why we are here, what our purpose in life is, or what is moral and good.
On another note, can we abandon the word "religion" and instead use "worldview"? It's a much better term. The word "religion" is bogged down by centuries of misuse, overuse, and misunderstanding.
Use whatever terms you like, as long as the definitions are clear. To me, the difference between religion and world-view is that religion includes the idea of a deity, while a world-view need not.
 

raindancing

actinomycetes
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
346
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Not everyone is capable of objectively discussing religion with people that have different beliefs.

I myself wonder if to some extent it is because those people have been 'forcefed' their beliefs to them, not wanting to hear anything about other beliefs or opinions, because they would feel like they might start questioning their own faith, which is a blasphemy to them and their society.

Minor observation to support this notion:

Every theist I have met that has chosen their beliefs later in life themselves, or are reformed because they wanted to, are always people that seem open to objective discussion with anyone from any other belief. They don't need to question their own belief.

I've wondered this as well... Have certainly seen some people that support it. I was raised in a very religious family. (Baptist, specifically.) There was certainly no tolerance for other religious views. The funny thing is, a lot of people seem to genuinely think they are being objective. At least superficially. I do wonder how much they analyze their thought patterns and motivations. (Which in turn makes me wonder, if it is so easy for humans to delude themselves regarding their reasoning, how many delusions am I living under :unsure:) Anyway, they're happy to engage in 'debate', certain that they can convince you of the truth of their beliefs. It hardly matters if you point out things that don't make sense... they know they're right. Any disagreement or question on your part is merely nit picking, obtuseness, or a hardened heart. (That last one really gets me. I have heard this scripture used numerous times: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." And because a lot of these people are family I feel like I'm going to implode from biting my tongue...)

On a little side note, I have noticed a lot of mistrust about anything labeled as 'Philosophy'. Many of the religious people I know seem very wary, even threatened by it. Or else see it as some pseudo religion that needs to be disproved.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I've wondered this as well... Have certainly seen some people that support it. I was raised in a very religious family. (Baptist, specifically.) There was certainly no tolerance for other religious views. The funny thing is, a lot of people seem to genuinely think they are being objective. At least superficially. I do wonder how much they analyze their thought patterns and motivations. (Which in turn makes me wonder, if it is so easy for humans to delude themselves regarding their reasoning, how many delusions am I living under :unsure:) Anyway, they're happy to engage in 'debate', certain that they can convince you of the truth of their beliefs. It hardly matters if you point out things that don't make sense... they know they're right. Any disagreement or question on your part is merely nit picking, obtuseness, or a hardened heart.
Reasoning is a process, and is only as sound as the facts and assumptions from which it starts. (Garbage in, garbage out.)
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Homo sapiens has the ability to respond to the imagination in almost the same way we respond to reality.

This ability to suspend our disbelief gives us art and poetry, movies and music, opera and ballet, ideology and religion.

So to ask whether a religion is true or false is just as silly as asking whether a poem is true or false.

So the question we should ask of a religion is whether it supports freedom and equality for all.
 

swordpath

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
10,547
MBTI Type
ISTx
Enneagram
5w6
Homo sapiens has the ability to respond to the imagination in almost the same way we respond to reality.

This ability to suspend our disbelief gives us art and poetry, movies and music, opera and ballet, ideology and religion.

So to ask whether a religion is true or false is just as silly as asking whether a poem is true or false.

So the question we should ask of a religion is whether it supports freedom and equality for all.

What if we want oppression and condemnation?
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
What if we want oppression and condemnation?

Well, we will now be able to see this acted out in reality, as the Egyptians, the Libyans, the Tunisians, the Iraqis, the Afgans have chosen to be Islamic States ruled by Islamic Law called Sharia.

And Sharia, as you know, is not based on freedom and equality, but rather submission and inequality. And this is submission and inequality freely chosen as an act of faith in Allah.
 

swordpath

New member
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
10,547
MBTI Type
ISTx
Enneagram
5w6
Well, we will now be able to see this acted out in reality, as the Egyptians, the Libyans, the Tunisians, the Iraqis, the Afgans have chosen to be Islamic States ruled by Islamic Law called Sharia.

And Sharia, as you know, is not based on freedom and equality, but rather submission and inequality. And this is submission and inequality freely chosen as an act of faith in Allah.

I'm moving to Iraq!
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So to ask whether a religion is true or false is just as silly as asking whether a poem is true or false.

So the question we should ask of a religion is whether it supports freedom and equality for all.
Yes. It is senseless to judge a subjective expression by objective standards, just as it is senseless to judge an objective activity (like a scientific experiment) by subjective standards (e.g is it pretty?)
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
[MENTION=10240]gmanyo[/MENTION]

well Im a Taoist but I grew up Protestant (methodist, church of god, then Lutheran on my own as a young adult) and what I didn't comprehend even at 12 or 13 was the Christian attitude toward women and sex. Being appalled about the treatment of gays and other irrational facets of doctrine came later. I was even drawn to Irish and English pagan religions until I decided they too were irrational, because of the honoring of the earth and because of a sacred attitude toward women and sexuality. I realized only as an adult that Taoism is the only thing that made rational sense to me and also seemed like something I had inwardly known my entire life, like I read it and said "yes."

Catholics however continually get my respect because yes they're pretty much the only Christians who perform work for the poor and sick that they actually own hospitals where they dont turn anyone away, and they are organized enough that they are the only church that could even potentially replace the government in terms of social programs in the immediate world, not just evangelizing over in Africa.

They're also HIGHLY educated people, their schools are far beyond public schools and their priests have PhDs, which is probably why the average Catholic isn't enough of a moron to wear shirts that say things like God Hates Fags Dead.

I really respect Catholics and if I ever converted to Christianity, Catholicism is the way Id go.

Not only do they honor the sacred feminine in their own chaste way, but they honor art and music and architecture as being part of God.
 

gmanyo

sswwwaagggg
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
275
MBTI Type
ENTP
[MENTION=10240]gmanyo[/MENTION]they're pretty much the only Christians who perform work for the poor and sick that they actually own hospitals where they dont turn anyone away, and they are organized enough that they are the only church that could even potentially replace the government in terms of social programs in the immediate world, not just evangelizing over in Africa.

Do you really think that Catholics are the only Christians who do good for the poor? Are you basing this solely on anecdotal evidence from your own life? A 2003 study shows that protestants are actually the most generous with donating money and volunteering. I literally just got back from a trip to a mostly protestant non profit organization in the Philippines that runs a school and multiple orphanages for kids in the slums. I could easily list dozens of protestant organizations that do many things for the poor.

but they honor art and music and architecture as being part of God.

I can't remember one Christian that doesn't believe this, Catholic or not, and I've met hundreds of Christians from dozens of different denominations and countries (many of whom I've met while in different countries).
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't know if all modern believers think this way. If you think about it historically, you need to wonder about a lot of things and I think it's healthy to question your own faith. I think a lot of Muslims are actually pretty accepting of Christianity and Judaism and many of the rituals of different religions have similar goals. Thankfulness, repentance, worship, all that moral stuff. If you look at a lot of the great prophets, it's like they all said similar things, and even like old Hindu religions and stuff tend to follow the "truth". I think we are naturally just moral beings and have an inclination towards believing in certain things, everything else that follows is just details. There are still many really old fashioned people out there who follow their faith and believe that there is only one true faith, true rituals, etc. That's what they need to do here on Earth to relate to God and their religious communities. However, I think that time has proven that it's up to each person decide how they can grow spiritually and understand God and the universe. If people who follow rituals and traditions and dogma bugs you too much to follow a faith, so be it. You will have to answer to yourself in the end.
 

Tigerlily

unscannable
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
5,942
MBTI Type
TIGR
Enneagram
3w4
My personal believe is that most people need religion because they're fearful/anxious. I was religious many years ago, because like [MENTION=6877]Marmie Dearest[/MENTION] pointed out, my parents told me to be. I'm 95% sure that it's nonsense, but that 5 % is the fear that was instilled in me all throughout my life. My mother still can't believe that I'm not a "believer", even though she hasn't set foot in a Church in forever! She totally freaks out whenever I try and discuss religion with her. This is what pretty much goes on with nearly everyone I know. I did meet a woman recently who's an Atheist, which is really different, considering we live in the Bible Belt.
 
R

Riva

Guest
Everyone likes to feel secure (materialistic, psychological, physical, etc ), because security is happiness. Belief in God temporarily brings you this feeling of security. But the feeling is happiness (which is temporary) and not permanent (blissful).

Bliss is also the ultimate security. The opposite of bliss is stress. So the answer for bliss is to get rid of stress.

There is a huge deference between the two.
 

Eric B

ⒺⓉⒷ
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
3,621
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
548
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Jennifer, can you discuss that in more detail? All of the variants of Christianity I'm aware of are pretty clear on their assertion that all the other variants are wrong and either will not be saved or will go to Hell, depending upon their belief system.

How can you be an actual Christian (rather than simply a deist or pantheist who thinks Christ a.) probably existed and b.) was a good guy) and still believe that, say, a Buddhist will also be "saved"? Do you consider "salvation" synonymous with "enlightenment"?

(Just a note: if this came across as an attack, it's not. I'm genuinely curious.)
There are plenty of "watered down" forms of Christianity that no longer push hell, but believe that whoever is "good" will get to Heaven. Perhaps a lot of the old "mainliners". Even though the Creeds in the back of the pews might still teach particularism, in practice, a lot of that has fallen by the wayside.

Then, you have people like Rob Bell, as was mentioned.

There's also a view called Pantelism or Comprehensive Grace, which stems from Preterist eschatology, where all the prophecy of the Apocalypse (including the Return of Christ) and the abolition of spiritual death was fulfilled with the destruction of the Temple system in AD70, which represented the Law that condemned man to Hell in the first place. So Grace has spread to all, and is not contingent on believing the right things, so there is no longer any "true religion that must be believed in".
This based on taking the Bible seriously, rather than watering it down.
 

Trunks

I'm not Trunks
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Messages
333
i've been raised by the background of christian parents. i go to church by the age of 9, my dad is pagan or buddhist. i stopped go to church for years now. Now, the only member of my family going to church is my mum and my oldest sister, me and other siblings have make our own path. i do believe in christianity but doesn't have heart to continue my faith, i dislike talk about religious things the most and i didn't like to read bible, however i respect others in their believes even i'm not at the same path with them.
 

sculpting

New member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
4,148
Well, we will now be able to see this acted out in reality, as the Egyptians, the Libyans, the Tunisians, the Iraqis, the Afgans have chosen to be Islamic States ruled by Islamic Law called Sharia.

And Sharia, as you know, is not based on freedom and equality, but rather submission and inequality. And this is submission and inequality freely chosen as an act of faith in Allah.

I have often seen belief in god to be a way for individuals within society to feel the protective comfort of submitting to a more dominant member of society in exchange for perceived protection, without having to suffer the loss of social status that would occur if that more dominant individual was actually another member of the social group. But submission means deference, even in spite of reality, thus intrusions upon one's protective reality cannot be tolerated.

Internally I feel god could be described as love and transcends notions of religion-a continuum of humanity sees god as more than what is described above. Maybe god is something we have created through our own belief, the belief of billions. A perfect right triangle is an ideal that will never be seen, yet we can all agree on what that would look like, even though we can never reach it. Was the ideal of a right triangle real before someone came up with the idea? God may be the value based version of a right triangle..
 
Top