Quote: (07-23-2010 10:30 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:
Quote: (07-23-2010 12:05 PM)Dash Global Wrote:
If you are truly saved than your actions will show it in some way or another.
So is it reasonable to assume that someone who is committing adultery despite calling themselves Christian and being in relationship with Jesus is NOT truly saved? Are pedophile Catholic priests saved? I do not doubt they have relationship with Jesus, but their actions do not support that.
Quote:Quote:
I disagree, the more followers at the very least gives a religion more credibility.
No, it does not. The religion is a classic hearsay - none of followers seen their god and cannot confirm its existence, motives or goals. All their religion experience is third-party, and they just repeat what someone else told them (either orally or in writing). But even if everyone repeats the same hearsay it does not get more credibility because of that. Some time ago everyone believed the Earth is flat, and despite that the Earth was not flat. Quite a lot of people in Africa still believes that you can cure AIDS if you rape a virgin (and it became a major problem there), but even if we all follow that, it will not change the fact AIDS cannot be cured this way. "One million lemmings must not be wrong" is as weak argument as personal testimonials.
Quote:Quote:
Try starting a religion and see how many people follow you.
This is actually very easy - it is just matter of resources. Just look on Saddleback Church. Spend a lot of money on advertising, bring a few politicians and Hollywood actors, and you're there. But try to remove the governmental support of religion (including tax exempt status of churches), and see how quickly the religion disappears - after two or three generations you'll likely see less than ten percent of population doing any religion.
Quote:Quote:
People look to make decisions on "majority/popularity" all the time. If i ask which is the best place to go and almost everyone tells me one place and 3 people tell me another place im going to choose the former.
You're mixing opinion versus facts. "Best place to go" is just an opinion, same as the best color or whether you should have a mustache. Facts are things like 2*2=4, and even if ten people tell you that 2*2=6 it still won't mean that 2*2=6.
Quote:Quote:
But here is the thing that people seem to not think about. In most religions there is no huge punishment / consequence for not believing in them. So lets take Budhism and Hinduism. If one is correct you will find out in the next reincarnated life and then you could start practicing it to reincarnate at a higher level or status the next go around / life. So you are not completely screwed if you didnt believe that religion in your first life.
You are talking about Hinduism (or Theravada Buddhism). AFAIK Mahayana Buddhism does not have concept of reincarnated life.
Also you chose the easy target. What about Islam? What about Judaism?
Quote:Quote:
You do that with Christianity and if it turns out to be right you are screwed FOREVER in the worst possible way imaginable.
You are saying it like Christianity is a single religion. This is not the case; for example Jehovah Witnesses are Christians but they believe that they are the only ones who gonna be saved. Catholics (Christians) generally do not believe Eastern Orthodox (also Christians) will be saved and vice versa. Sure, the basics look the same, but the difference is in details, and those details are important enough to determine one's salvation.
Quote:Quote:
Lets look at the third largest belief system Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist. If they are right than nothing happens when we die. We all share the same fate whether we believe there is no God or not. Religion is sorta like a poker game. Id place my bet with the lowest risk ( ie the consequences im forgoing with non belief is minimal ) / most credible religion. Life / Eternity is something i wouldnt want to risk.
What you're talking about is a well-common concept called Pascal's Wager. Scroll down to "Criticism" section and you will see common counter-arguments. Here is another layman counter-argument. If you are familiar with game theory and advanced math, I can try to find another good article, but from what I remember it was really master's level.
Quote:Quote:
That is clearly a wrong thought process on your part. Its just like a test. You dont leave an answer blank, you go ahead and make an educated guess.
Not really, because nobody requires you to answer the question (or even to pass the test). You decide to yourself that you want to pass it.
Quote:Quote:
So in reality your not better off by admitting no one as a true God , because you will have the same outcome regardless of if you didnt choose or chose the wrong God.
This has nothing to do with reality. This is based on assumption that the god treats those who praise no god the same way as those who praise the wrong (or competing) god. Which is unlikely to be the case.
We are not to judge ones salvation. That is between them and God. Yes it prob would be reasonable to assume they are not saved but then again they could easily be saved also. Each is a possible scenario. Only that person and God really knows.
That is simply your opinion on whether it gives credibility or not as it was my opinion that it does. Another way to examine religions is to check for discrepancies. Take Mormonism for example. They talk of huge cities in North America and there is no trace of them, no trace of Hebrew, no nothing to support their claim. John Smith claimed to be a prophet but had a false prophecy with by Bible terms shows him for a fraud. They claim to go off of the Bible yet their is major differences and problems that arise when you compare the two. When comparing religions you should use all resources and info to help make the best decision. There is no right way or set in stone practice for this. To each his own.
Hmm it is not easy to get get as many followers as im referring to. Im not talking about hundreds or thousands. To be a major religion you need millions of followers.
Judaism and Islam like Christianity have that eternal hell damnation punishment for non followers if my thinking is correct. What id advise here is to examine all three and put you money on the one with the least problems per say when put under a microscope.
Me and you have different definitions for Christians than. My definition of a Christian is one that follows the Bible's God/Jesus without using any other material. The only people that consider JW christians are JW's lol. If you look at these religions hard you will notice many have one thing in common. They claim to be Christians and follow / use stuff from the Bible, but to make them different they add to the Bible in forms of other scriptures / documents to support their "other" beliefs. You are referring to denominations, which I personally believe is a joke. I was raised in a Baptist Church but i dont claim to be Baptist.
Yes you are correct. People call this concept Pascals Wager. I havent heard any counter argument that makes this not feasible. My claim was facts that can not be changed. Fact - If atheist is right nothing happens to either Christian or atheist. Fact - if Christians are right the atheist is screwed. The way i see it is its a way to try and discredit the facts that make the atheists look incredibly dumb and irrational.
How do you know no one requires you to answer the test? (afterlife / religion choice) If the Christian God exists than yes you are required to "answer the questions" and if you dont you fail (hell) So that is your own opinion / guess whether or not you need to answer the question or pass the test. You are not in control if there is a higher being.
There is nothing to assume. God clearly states how he is gonna treat non believers. Once you have heard about God / Christianity you have a choice of whether or not to believe and follow or not to. Not to is gonna send you to hell. Bible clearly states this.