For Those Who Do Believe In God...

[tigerbob]

I for one am sick of the attacks on my faith. Faith is faith, I don't have to prove it to anybody. I don't have to back up what I believe because someone else doesn't understand my faith.

As long as you don't demand that your religion is fact or the only true religion or try to legislate it, then you don't have to prove it to anyone.

Absolutely right. Faith is, and should be, a private thing.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Those who answered my questions without hostility seem to be saying that one doesn't choose to believe, that it either just sort of happens or you are almost chosen to believe.

Those with the least hostility in their answers also seemed to accept that perhaps they aren't the only right religion and everyone else will burn in Hell forever. They believed because they did, they didn't care if I did, they answered my questions because they wanted to talk about their beliefs, and although I started this thread to challenge people's faith by posing questions based in logic, I've actually learned to better understand why people have faith even if I don't have it myself or understand faith itself.

Those who did answer defensively or with hostility, perhaps you should consider how that represents your faith and how those who don't have faith perceive adherents of your faith and your faith itself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If there is a supreme being who gives a shit about this planet, what the fuck happened?

-Joe

Are you saying that if humans fuck something up and God doesn't fix it then clearly he does not exist?

Or if a human experiences something tragic and God doesn't intervene to make it all better then he doesn't exist?

Essentially, what you appear to be saying is that if God is loving and compassionate and yet still the world can be such an awful place, then either he doesn't exist, or if he does then he's a sadist. Or am I reading your post incorrectly?

I'm saying that if God exists, he either doesn't care about the suffering of his children at the hands of his other children, his 'plan' includes needless suffering of his children at the hands of his other children or he is too weak to stop it.

Or perhaps His plan and intentions simply supercede your childishly simple viewpoint on the universe. Hell, the parenting skills of the average person on the street gives the lie to this nonsense, let alone the plans of God Almighty.

My kids suffer at the hands of other people sometimes. Sometimes they deserve it, and sometimes it's completely pointless. And often, I could prevent it and choose not to. Why? Well, it's not because I don't care or don't love them, nor is it because I'm too weak to stop it.

Why don't you think about it and see if you can come up with the answer?

If it is part of his plan, he'll not be worshipped by this average Joe.

Well, I'm sure that God will immediately sit down and rethink His ultimate plans for humanity based upon the fact that they don't come up to your personal standards.

The only other option is acknowledging that giving The Great Commission to the antecedents of Western Civilization was a huge mistake on Gods part.

-Joe

That's the only other option if one starts from the flawed premise that you are the Oracle of All Possible Wisdom, handing down the Ultimate Truth of how the universe really works.

Otherwise, there's the third option that you just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe as I believe and everyone else has the right to believe as they believe, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.

This may be correct, but...

I for one am sick of the attacks on my faith. Faith is faith, I don't have to prove it to anybody. I don't have to back up what I believe because someone else doesn't understand my faith.

Faith is delusional. Beliefs not rooted in logic make no sense... why not have faith in Russell's teapot?

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May I be one of many to ask you why you feel so driven to denigrate the beliefs of others? What's it to you if they're "delusional" or not? What pathological need does this fulfill in you, because it's a sure bet that's the only thing your posts COULD be accomplishing. They sure as hell aren't achieving the result of convincing people to change their minds OR the result of making them like or respect you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And once again, an attack, gee what a surprise.

I posed a question, not an attack. Why don't you have faith in Russell's teapot?

No, you posted an attack masquerading as a question, so that you could disingenuously pretend that you aren't all about anti-religious hostility.

Speaking of delusional . . .

 

[Cecilie1200]

If I wasn't interested in other peoples' delusions, I wouldn't post on a political forum.

Clearly, but I said "why".

Isn't criticizing others' beliefs and viewpoints part of debate?

I'm interested in these particular delusions because they've been masqueraded as incontrovertible fact throughout their entire history. It's time for people to wake up and smell the cognitive dissonance.

You remind me of those people who say, "No offense, but . . ." right before they say something so heinously offensive and rude that they deserve to have their faces slapped, and then stand there with a faux-bewildered look, going, "What? Why are you so upset? I SAID I wasn't trying to offend you!"

 

[Father Time]

You remind me of those people who say, "No offense, but . . ." right before they say something so heinously offensive and rude that they deserve to have their faces slapped, and then stand there with a faux-bewildered look, going, "What? Why are you so upset? I SAID I wasn't trying to offend you!"

Oh but that's so much fun. Especially if you pile on the offensive humor.
Speaking of which you remind me of the Aristocrats
*runs away*

 

[AVG-JOE]

Are you saying that if humans fuck something up and God doesn't fix it then clearly he does not exist?

Or if a human experiences something tragic and God doesn't intervene to make it all better then he doesn't exist?

Essentially, what you appear to be saying is that if God is loving and compassionate and yet still the world can be such an awful place, then either he doesn't exist, or if he does then he's a sadist. Or am I reading your post incorrectly?

I'm saying that if God exists, he either doesn't care about the suffering of his children at the hands of his other children, his 'plan' includes needless suffering of his children at the hands of his other children or he is too weak to stop it.

Or perhaps His plan and intentions simply supercede your childishly simple viewpoint on the universe. Hell, the parenting skills of the average person on the street gives the lie to this nonsense, let alone the plans of God Almighty.

My kids suffer at the hands of other people sometimes. Sometimes they deserve it, and sometimes it's completely pointless. And often, I could prevent it and choose not to. Why? Well, it's not because I don't care or don't love them, nor is it because I'm too weak to stop it.

Why don't you think about it and see if you can come up with the answer?

If it is part of his plan, he'll not be worshipped by this average Joe.

Well, I'm sure that God will immediately sit down and rethink His ultimate plans for humanity based upon the fact that they don't come up to your personal standards.

The only other option is acknowledging that giving The Great Commission to the antecedents of Western Civilization was a huge mistake on Gods part.

-Joe

That's the only other option if one starts from the flawed premise that you are the Oracle of All Possible Wisdom, handing down the Ultimate Truth of how the universe really works.

Otherwise, there's the third option that you just don't know what you're talking about.

O.k. Cecilie, you tell me... Western 'Civilization' is, if not the most brutal organization in the history of humanity, certainly the greediest. Why would a God who supposedly loves all humans 'like children, created in his own image' give The Great Commission to spread His love to the world to the antecedents of Western Civilization and allow it and the religious practices that sprang from Judaism and Jesus be used by it to subjugate by horrendous violence the more "primitive" peoples of the world?

I am asking here with complete sincerity... I love the concept of Jesus; God Himself donning the flesh of man and walking in our moccasins for a lifetime... if someone can explain the planetary suffering and greed of the last 2,000 years at the hands of Western Civilization - the one group of people who should have known better, I will rescind and apologize for what I've written in this thread.

Unfortunately, there are only three rational reasons I can think of why God would allow such disgraceful behavior by his 'children', much of the worst of it coming in His name or the name of his church:

His 'plan' is more important than His children and he doesn't care about them.​

He is indifferent to the suffering of His children.​

He is impotent and too weak to stop it.​

Those three are all I can think of as reasons why our planet can have both God and our history... I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the smartest guy on the board, but damned if I can justify it. Can you?

My only conclusion, for myself and no one else, is that we, as a species, are on our own and equally responsible for our history and our future as well as our present in the flesh.

Spiritually, we can only speculate in the privacy of our own minds, sharing ideas and hoping that our neighbors will give us the same respect that we give them. Are we, as a species, ready for that kind of freedom?

-Joe

 

[tigerbob]

I'm saying that if God exists, he either doesn't care about the suffering of his children at the hands of his other children, his 'plan' includes needless suffering of his children at the hands of his other children or he is too weak to stop it.

Or perhaps His plan and intentions simply supercede your childishly simple viewpoint on the universe. Hell, the parenting skills of the average person on the street gives the lie to this nonsense, let alone the plans of God Almighty.

My kids suffer at the hands of other people sometimes. Sometimes they deserve it, and sometimes it's completely pointless. And often, I could prevent it and choose not to. Why? Well, it's not because I don't care or don't love them, nor is it because I'm too weak to stop it.

Why don't you think about it and see if you can come up with the answer?



Well, I'm sure that God will immediately sit down and rethink His ultimate plans for humanity based upon the fact that they don't come up to your personal standards.

The only other option is acknowledging that giving The Great Commission to the antecedents of Western Civilization was a huge mistake on Gods part.

-Joe

That's the only other option if one starts from the flawed premise that you are the Oracle of All Possible Wisdom, handing down the Ultimate Truth of how the universe really works.

Otherwise, there's the third option that you just don't know what you're talking about.

O.k. Cecilie, you tell me... Western 'Civilization' is, if not the most brutal organization in the history of humanity, certainly the greediest. Why would a God who supposedly loves all humans 'like children, created in his own image' give The Great Commission to spread His love to the world to the antecedents of Western Civilization and allow it and the religious practices that sprang from Judaism and Jesus be used by it to subjugate by horrendous violence the more "primitive" peoples of the world?

I am asking here with complete sincerity... I love the concept of Jesus; God Himself donning the flesh of man and walking in our moccasins for a lifetime... if someone can explain the planetary suffering and greed of the last 2,000 years at the hands of Western Civilization - the one group of people who should have known better, I will rescind and apologize for what I've written in this thread.

Unfortunately, there are only three rational reasons I can think of why God would allow such disgraceful behavior by his 'children', much of the worst of it coming in His name or the name of his church:

His 'plan' is more important than His children and he doesn't care about them.​

He is indifferent to the suffering of His children.​

He is impotent and too weak to stop it.​

Those three are all I can think of as reasons why our planet can have both God and our history... I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the smartest guy on the board, but damned if I can justify it. Can you?

My only conclusion, for myself and no one else, is that we, as a species, are on our own and equally responsible for our history and our future as well as our present in the flesh.

Spiritually, we can only speculate in the privacy of our own minds, sharing ideas and hoping that our neighbors will give us the same respect that we give them. Are we, as a species, ready for that kind of freedom?

-Joe

Maybe his plan is for humankind to reach a point where it behaves as he always hoped it would. In the meantime, Christianity teaches that people are judged by how they have lived their lives. If this is true, there are probably a lot of Christians who are in for a big surprise when they reach the pearly gates.

On the other hand, it could be that it is all a big delusion. We're all grown ups, and we should make up our own minds. Clearly you have your views, and I know what I think.

Maybe Cecilie will have a go at answering your questions - if so, good luck to her. But I'm not sure that asking anyone to second guess the will of God is going to provide a reliable answer.

 

[Kalam]

I don't believe that Againsheila made any representations about them being either factual or incontrovertible. You appeared to accept this...

If AS and other people with faith-based religious beliefs didn't believe that they were factual, they wouldn't have those beliefs in the first place.

...but then you started on the Russel's Teapot thing...

...and I've yet to receive a straight answer from anyone.

and now you are saying that people should wake up and smell the cognitive dissonance. That seems like an attack. As does the sentence "Faith is delusional". Don't get me wrong, it doesn't bother me. But you seem to be pushing your point harder than someone who is just "interested". Seems more like you want to undermine those who do have faith, to ridicule them.

My intention isn't to ridicule anyone. I'm trying to understand why some people have faith and why they're so selective in what they choose to place their faith in. Why believe one unsubstantiated claim and not another?

 

[Kalam]

May I be one of many to ask you why you feel so driven to denigrate the beliefs of others?

My statement that "faith is delusional" was based on my understanding of each word's meaning.

Faith - Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.

Delusion - A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.

faith - Wiktionary
delusion - Wiktionary

My only intention was to express my opinion. If you feel as if your beliefs have been denigrated, I guess I'm sorry, but that isn't why I'm posting here. The only person whose beliefs I've tried to ridicule in this thread is terral.

What's it to you if they're "delusional" or not? What pathological need does this fulfill in you, because it's a sure bet that's the only thing your posts COULD be accomplishing.

Look, I've expressed an opinion ("faith is delusional") and asked a question. If you want to address the points I've made in my posts, I'd be happy to have a discussion with you, but I'm not interested in responding to personal attacks.

They sure as hell aren't achieving the result of convincing people to change their minds OR the result of making them like or respect you.

To be honest, that isn't a major concern of mine. I'm here to discuss and debate.

 

[Kalam]

You remind me of those people who say, "No offense, but . . ." right before they say something so heinously offensive and rude that they deserve to have their faces slapped, and then stand there with a faux-bewildered look, going, "What? Why are you so upset? I SAID I wasn't trying to offend you!"

If the opinions I've expressed in my posts piss you off so much, why don't you challenge them rather than making remarks about my character?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm saying that if God exists, he either doesn't care about the suffering of his children at the hands of his other children, his 'plan' includes needless suffering of his children at the hands of his other children or he is too weak to stop it.

Or perhaps His plan and intentions simply supercede your childishly simple viewpoint on the universe. Hell, the parenting skills of the average person on the street gives the lie to this nonsense, let alone the plans of God Almighty.

My kids suffer at the hands of other people sometimes. Sometimes they deserve it, and sometimes it's completely pointless. And often, I could prevent it and choose not to. Why? Well, it's not because I don't care or don't love them, nor is it because I'm too weak to stop it.

Why don't you think about it and see if you can come up with the answer?



Well, I'm sure that God will immediately sit down and rethink His ultimate plans for humanity based upon the fact that they don't come up to your personal standards.

The only other option is acknowledging that giving The Great Commission to the antecedents of Western Civilization was a huge mistake on Gods part.

-Joe

That's the only other option if one starts from the flawed premise that you are the Oracle of All Possible Wisdom, handing down the Ultimate Truth of how the universe really works.

Otherwise, there's the third option that you just don't know what you're talking about.

O.k. Cecilie, you tell me... Western 'Civilization' is, if not the most brutal organization in the history of humanity, certainly the greediest.

Well, at least you pay lip service to the fact that we are CERTAINLY not the most brutal, or even close. I sincerely doubt you actually BELIEVE this, but I'm grateful that you're willing to pretend.

Greediest? Really? Based on what? The fact that we're the only civilization where people want power, material comforts and luxuries . . . no, wait, THAT can't be it, since those very traits are the reason most brutal regimes ARE brutal. The fact that we spend more time, money, and effort on helping less fortunate nations and societies than any other . . . Well, THAT certainly can't be it. So I have to assume your classification of Western Civ as the "greediest" is based simply on the fact that we've been more successful in acquiring wealth and luxury than anyone else. To which I say, so what? We're supposed to apologize for success?

Why would a God who supposedly loves all humans 'like children, created in his own image' give The Great Commission to spread His love to the world to the antecedents of Western Civilization and allow it and the religious practices that sprang from Judaism and Jesus be used by it to subjugate by horrendous violence the more "primitive" peoples of the world?

Wow, this is just chockful of bullshit, puerile assumptions. I don't even know for sure where to start.

Are you suggesting that ONLY Western Civ, given that same knowledge, would have subsequently developed the way it did? That somehow, people in the West are essentially different in human nature from all other humans, and therefore, other people would have remained poor and downtrodden under the same circumstances, which you seem to somehow feel is morally superior to prosperity? Are you suggesting that all other people on Earth are inherently peaceful and altruistic, and that only Western Civ contains evil people who will turn anything to their own selfish ends? If so, on what do you base that assumption?

If, on the other hand, you know something about human nature and realize that the results stem more from human nature and the effect that the receipt of this knowledge and purpose had upon it, the question then becomes, why SHOULDN'T God have given His Commission to Western Civilization? Unless you can prove that some entire culture out there is made up of inherently morally superior people, it doesn't matter.

Maybe the problem here isn't that God made a grievous error in choosing the people of Western Civ. Maybe the problem here is YOU assuming that God sees Western Civ through YOUR spoiled, myopic viewpoint.

I am asking here with complete sincerity... I love the concept of Jesus; God Himself donning the flesh of man and walking in our moccasins for a lifetime... if someone can explain the planetary suffering and greed of the last 2,000 years at the hands of Western Civilization - the one group of people who should have known better, I will rescind and apologize for what I've written in this thread.

Yes, I'm quite sure that you're very sincere in your childish hatred and excoriation of Western Civilization as the source of all evil since its inception. "Planetary suffering at our hands"? Instead of coming in here and chastizing God via the message board for not appreciating the wisdom of your viewpoint, perhaps you should examine your viewpoint and then chastize whoever taught you this highly expurgated and childish rendition of history.

Unfortunately, there are only three rational reasons I can think of why God would allow such disgraceful behavior by his 'children', much of the worst of it coming in His name or the name of his church:

His 'plan' is more important than His children and he doesn't care about them.​

He is indifferent to the suffering of His children.​

He is impotent and too weak to stop it.​

Those three are all I can think of as reasons why our planet can have both God and our history... I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the smartest guy on the board, but damned if I can justify it. Can you?

You just did: You aren't the smartest guy on the board. "I can only think of three reasons why the world doesn't agree with my incredible knowledge of how it should be: God is less moral than I am, God is less nice than I am, or God is weak and dumber than I am". Or maybe the reason is just that you're trying to impose your hopelessly shortsighted and Earthbound human perceptions - further flawed by an embarrassingly bad education in history - onto a universe and a God more vast than you could even begin to comprehend.

My only conclusion, for myself and no one else, is that we, as a species, are on our own and equally responsible for our history and our future as well as our present in the flesh.

Well, you're getting closer. We ARE responsible for ourselves and what happens. Anything else would make us nothing more than puppets on a stage, and what would be the point of that? Doesn't mean there's no God. Just means that if He wants us to be anything more than mindless toys, He has to allow us free will to work out our own lives, individually and collectively.

Spiritually, we can only speculate in the privacy of our own minds, sharing ideas and hoping that our neighbors will give us the same respect that we give them. Are we, as a species, ready for that kind of freedom?

-Joe

I love how you babble a bunch of nonsense for your whole post about how you don't understand why God doesn't treat us like a little girl playing with Barbie dolls, and then pop out with the concept of free will at the end like it's some profound new revelaton you, personally, have just brought to the world. This has only been standard Christian teaching for centuries. Why the hell didn't you just study up and spare us all the maundering?

 

[Cecilie1200]

May I be one of many to ask you why you feel so driven to denigrate the beliefs of others?

My statement that "faith is delusional" was based on my understanding of each word's meaning.

Faith - Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.

Delusion - A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.

faith - Wiktionary
delusion - Wiktionary

My only intention was to express my opinion. If you feel as if your beliefs have been denigrated, I guess I'm sorry, but that isn't why I'm posting here. The only person whose beliefs I've tried to ridicule in this thread is terral.

What's it to you if they're "delusional" or not? What pathological need does this fulfill in you, because it's a sure bet that's the only thing your posts COULD be accomplishing.

Look, I've expressed an opinion ("faith is delusional") and asked a question. If you want to address the points I've made in my posts, I'd be happy to have a discussion with you, but I'm not interested in responding to personal attacks.

They sure as hell aren't achieving the result of convincing people to change their minds OR the result of making them like or respect you.

To be honest, that isn't a major concern of mine. I'm here to discuss and debate.

No, you're here to attack and insult, and then pretend that you're just being logical and curious, and can't understand WHY people are taking offense at your calculated offensiveness. And "I'm just trying to express my opinion" in no way mitigates your intentional, deliberate rudeness. You're presumably an adult, and know perfectly well that "You look like an ugly fat cow in that dress" is "just expressing your opinion", and also nasty and offensive and going to get you a bed in the doghouse if you say it to your wife or girlfriend, so you keep your freaking opinion to yourself. So don't get all wide-eyed and disingenuous with me about how "expressing your opinion" makes your posts any more debate and any less gratuitous attacking.

I should know. I'm infamous for giving people the rough, nasty side of my tongue and opinions. But at least I'm brave enough to be honest about what I'm doing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You remind me of those people who say, "No offense, but . . ." right before they say something so heinously offensive and rude that they deserve to have their faces slapped, and then stand there with a faux-bewildered look, going, "What? Why are you so upset? I SAID I wasn't trying to offend you!"

If the opinions I've expressed in my posts piss you off so much, why don't you challenge them rather than making remarks about my character?

Since they are opinions, they reflect your character or lack thereof. Thus, to point out what they reveal about said lack of character IS to challenge them. There is no point by point refutation of "You're delusional", except to say, "And you're an ill-mannered, hate-filled boor masquerading as a nice guy just trying to debate". If you want a dispassionate, logical debate, then you're going to have to present facts, not your bigoted opinions. If you want to come in here and sneer at everyone who holds beliefs that you don't agree with as "delusional, illogical, and nonsensical", then don't bitch at me if you receive EXACTLY the lack of respect due to someone so crass and bilious.

 

[Kalam]

It amuses me how some people on message boards seem to think that they're able to read minds. If my intention was to ridicule you and your beliefs, you'd know, because I'd call you an idiot and your beliefs ridiculous. However, I don't understand enough about your beliefs to make any judgments like that, so I'm trying to find out more about what you all believe and why you believe what you do. If you want to insult me, go ahead. If you want to have an actual discussion, I'll respond.

 

[Avatar4321]

If the opinions I've expressed in my posts piss you off so much, why don't you challenge them rather than making remarks about my character?

I hate to interject in the middle of a conversation but this has made me curious.

Why do you have opinions on beliefs and faiths you say you don't understand or know enough about?

I don't know much about Hinduism, so I find it difficult to have an opinion on the matter.

I guess I am finding it difficult to get where you are coming from where you provide opinions while claiming to try to learn more. Seems to be if you were trying to learn more youd be asking questions, listening to answers, and then form opinions when the questioning was complete.

It just doesnt make sense to me otherwise.

 

[Eightball]

The important element that distinguishes Christianity from the other mentioned belief systems by the OP, is in the area of one's relationship with God.

Relationship: All of the above mentioned religions, promote or teach doctrinally that a relationship with God involves man obedience or works of "goodness/sacrifice" in some measure in order to make God pleased with us.

With Christianity, man's responsibility is to accept his sinful state of being before a Holy, and Righteous Creator, and with contrite, and repentant heart, believe by and act of his free human will that God is who He is, namely Lord of all. With that repentant or willful desire to turn away from sin, is the willful, not deceptive, but willful, and truthful appropriation/aggreement with God, that Jesus is the sacrificial lamb of God, who is the only human being, worthy to stand in our 'stead', and be the one and only 'worthy' sacrifice for mankind's rebellion/sin/rejection of God.

Just as the Jews started the Passover just before leaving Egypt on their 40 year Exodus to Canaan(Promised Land), the Passover Lamb was a foretaste of the true and ultimate sin bearer and Priest that would have to make but one sacrifice, and then all was finished.

For year upon year, the Levitical priesthood made a sacrifice for the collective sins of Israel, picking an two goats. One was sacriiced and it's blood sprinkled on the Holy of Holies, and the other Lamb the high priest layed hands on and ceremonially laid the sins of all of Israel upon it. That unsacrificed lamb was led outside the camp and sent into the wilderness, representing the sins of the people being far away, and never to return, ever. The sacrificed goats blood, was sprinkled on the Holy of Holies, or the Mercy Seat of the Ark and when God looked down upon the Mercy seat He saw the blood, and was satisfied.

This was all a foreshadow of the ultimate sacrifice in Christ the God-Man, who would be sacrificed outside the city of Jerusalem with the outcasts, yet His blood sufficed permanently for all of mankinds sins.

Now, when one becomes a Christian, here is the distinction. God does the changing or the converting, not man. Man's part is to trully believe. God's part is to make this human being a new creature,creation, in the soul. This happens as a result of the Holy Spirit coming to indwell the new believer. The Holy Spirit enters the soul of converted man and enables and counsels Christian from within. This is why new Christians often will be so surprised how the bible seems to become a new and alive book to them. Many even refer to reading the bible like eating a most wonderful morsel of food. Only the scripture or God's inspired Word feeds the inner man, not the stomach. Jesus even said, can man live on bread alone? Jesus even referred to God's scripture as "Manna".

But scripture is just a bunch of Gobbledy gook to the unconverted. It is a book of do's and don'ts, and unrealistic expectations.

Why? Without the enduement of the Holy Spirit withing the living human soul, there is no hunger or connection with God's mind, or will.

Jesus said to his disciples that upon His ascension, He would send the Counselor(masculine tense, and person-tense...not an "it"), and He/Holy Spirit would guide and encourage and His sheep's(believers) lives.

If man could earn or somehow effectuate his salvation, then the bain of pride would be the natural part of a converted Christian's life. He the Christian could brag that he did this and that, and God was pleased and God saved/converted him. God knows us very well, and His salvation came by "grace" or unmerited favor; meaning that we didn't earn our salvation one iota. We in fact had to prostrate ourselves before God, and claim or grab onto the only advocate possible; namely Jesus Christ, the Intercessor between us and God the Father.

Islam teaches a doctrine that projects a God who is never fully satisfied, with man. Man must continue over and over to prove to God that he/man is obedient. The multi prayer times to Mecca cannot be missed, nor many other "have too's".

Some belief systems make praying very easy. You simply spin a prayer wheel or scroll, and those prayers are sent to God via some means.

In Christianity, prayer is relational conversation between God and man effected by a true relationship, that Jesus Christ effected in our place on the cross.

Christianity can be bogged down with non-biblical traditions, and rituals, and that is very unfortunate. Christianity, is the only faith that boast a most loving, and close relationship, yet a reverence, awe, and gratitude from the believer/follower.

 

[Kalam]

I hate to interject in the middle of a conversation but this has made me curious.

Why do you have opinions on beliefs and faiths you say you don't understand or know enough about?

I don't know much about Hinduism, so I find it difficult to have an opinion on the matter.

I guess I am finding it difficult to get where you are coming from where you provide opinions while claiming to try to learn more. Seems to be if you were trying to learn more youd be asking questions, listening to answers, and then form opinions when the questioning was complete.

It just doesnt make sense to me otherwise.

It isn't the specific religious doctrines that I'm trying to learn more about. I know enough about Christianity, the religion in which most of the believers in this thread profess faith. What I don't understand is the reasoning behind faith in certain parts of Christian doctrine as opposed to faith in something else unprovable, like the teapot I keep referencing (I'm sure that's getting annoying by now - sorry.) I understand why some people may choose to follow the philosophy of passiveness and peacefulness preached by Paul, Jesus عليه السلام, and other New Testament figures. What I don't understand is why many people have faith in things like Christ's miracles and the trinity while rejecting equally plausible things like the Greek pantheon or Russell's teapot. What makes the former examples more true or real than the latter examples?

 

[Avatar4321]

It isn't the specific religious doctrines that I'm trying to learn more about. I know enough about Christianity, the religion in which most of the believers in this thread profess faith. What I don't understand is the reasoning behind faith in certain parts of Christian doctrine as opposed to faith in something else unprovable, like the teapot I keep referencing (I'm sure that's getting annoying by now - sorry.) I understand why some people may choose to follow the philosophy of passiveness and peacefulness preached by Paul, Jesus عليه السلام, and other New Testament figures. What I don't understand is why many people have faith in things like Christ's miracles and the trinity while rejecting equally plausible things like the Greek pantheon or Russell's teapot. What makes the former examples more true or real than the latter examples?

Cant answer for others. But I believe in miracles because I've seen them myself. I believe the Bible because God revealed to me that it was correct. If He hadn't, I don't know where Id be or what Id believe.

The only God who has revealed Himself to me is God the Father, whose Son, Jesus Christ, suffered and atoned for the sins of the world.

If any Greek god ever reveals themselves to me, Ill be more than happy to entertain them.

But then Ive always been the opinion that the Greek gods all came from a corruption of the truth. Wouldnt surprise me to learn that the legend of Zeus developed because of a corruption of faith in the Father. Nor would it surprise me if the rest of the Pantheon was developed because of stories of those who serve the Father.

You can find wisdom by studying all things. It can also build faith in the Father.