Thousands upon thousands of religions have existed throughout human history. Today, there are around 20 religions that are considered to be "major" religions. These religions are further divided in hundreds of subgroups.
Is it not naive to believe that yours is the correct one?
>Is it not naive to believe that yours is the correct one?
THE ESSENTIAL QUESTION IS RATHER: "IS IT NOT IGNORANT TO PRESUME THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A 'CORRECT RELIGION'?" THE ANSWER IS "YES".
RELIGIONS ARE NOT "CORRECT", OR "INCORRECT", BUT RATHER AUTHENTIC, OR FALSE.
There are many religions but only one true Faith
Hindus believe in Jesus
To Hindus, Jesus' proclamation "The Father and I are one" confirmed the Hindu idea that everyone, through rigorous spiritual practice, can realize his own universal "god-consciousness.
A number of recent books have proposed the idea that Buddha and Jesus are practically brothers. Close to the end of Living Buddha, Living Christ, Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh asserted, "When you are a truly happy Christian, you are also a Buddhist. And vice versa.
many Buddhist consider Jesus a type of buddha, a Samyaksambuddha
Muslims consider Jesus a prophet
There is even a religion that sprung up to oppose everything Christianity is,
Nobody else has had such influence in the world than Lord Jesus Christ
From reading around the one I like the most that people tend to think is a religion is Confucianism, and it is not really a religion at all.
Can you explain the trinity in a way that doesn't violate the transitive property? And don't make the transformation argument, since the different forms are said to exist at the same time.
My religion is the correct one because I believe it is.
That's literally what religion is: a subjective viewpoint of life. The reason so many different ones exist is because not everyone will situate themselves properly into other paradigms.
How is it logic to say that just because there are a large number of options means that all the options are invalid? That doesn't make any sense. You need more than that to say that all the opinions are invalid.
i'm more inclined to believe that that many religions exist because the people who created them or branched them off wanted power for themselves, or for other purposes such as that one king that wanted to divorce his wife
>That's literally what religion is: a subjective viewpoint of life.
I'm pretty sure that a religion is a belief that asserts a certain state of the world as being reality. You subjectively can choose to believe a religion, but by doing so, you internally believe that the beliefs of that religion are objectively valid (even if your non-coreligionists might not see the same way)
>The Muslim, Christian and Jewish gods are omnipotent by definition
>An omnipotent being can do anything
>Willing yourself out of nonexistence is something
>Something falls under the category of anything
>An omnipotent being can will itself out of nonexistence
>if any Abrahamic God does not exist, it can will itself into existence at any moment
And yet people still choose to be atheist.
That's just cognitive bias, which we're all prone to. You can override this and be more grounded in cold hard logic, though that takes time and the ability to separate your emotional investment from outward evidence.
>Is it not naive to believe that yours is the correct one?
I'm guessing your an atheist so I won;t expect you to really understand but think of faith like a motorway and your religion as your vehicle.
everyone wants to reach the end of the road but different people have different ideas of which sort of transport would be best, some naturally ay not be as efficient as others but all ultimately strive towards the same goal.
similarity God doesn't punish those who make honest mistakes and pick they wrong car simply because they were convinced it was the best one.
however the person who chooses his vehicle not out of conviction but convenience (this one is more comfortable, it smells nicer, its shinier) even though they are aware that it is ultimately not the best one are consciously at fault.
The word 'invalid' was never used or implied. This is where you are strawmanning the position.
The only implication OP made was that it is naive to believe your opinion is the correct one when there are so many alternatives.
>similarity God doesn't punish those who make honest mistakes and pick they wrong car simply because they were convinced it was the best one.
When did God explain his position on this to you?
its a metaphysical connection
Jesus on Earth as a man was entirely man, he couldn't just transform into God at a whim, though in his dual nature his spirit makes up the entirety of God whom is absolute and unknowable, beyond all comprehension.
the Father is who is prayed to when we pray to God, the Father is god but is not the entirety of god as God the absolute is so far divorces and beyond human understanding that prayer would serve no purpose.
>not realizing that a majority of Christian traditions are just adopted pagan ones
>not realizing saints replaced city-gods because people still needed to cling to the old ways
Did you really think a Roman emperor converting to Christianity by itself was going to convince Europe to abandon its heritage?
Christianity taking the social position of Roman faith doesn't equate to it adopting the theological traditions of it.
if anything Christianity represented a rejection of superstition and naive paranoia.
people seem to have this crazy idea that Rome was not only secular, but that Romans did not have faith.
No it doesn't. There are three Person's in the Trinity, but they each have the Nature of God.
In a mathematical example it is the same as me claiming that 2 and 3 are both integers, but yet are not equal to one another. Similarly, the Son and the Father are both God, but they are still separate entities.
I've been watching the sun go down everyday for about a week. I never understood why the Sun didn't last as a god or was even a popular god. The sun IS why everything is here. What better god could you have then one that gives you life and makes an appearance everyday like clockwork? OR do humans need "invisible" gods so they can fight each other over the "facts"?
No. That would imply there are seperate beings, with separate essences, wills, desires, goals, thoughts, and dominions. Athena and Ares held dominion over the aspects of War, yet conflict ensued between them. Among the Three persons of God there is no disagreement because they are the very same being. They hold one will , one essence.
You can theoretically be correct. However, the chances are, statistically, so close to zero that it's really foolish to assume your right. In any sense, you have no real evidence to demonstrate that your specific belief is correct.
As soon as someone tries to discuss the history of religion, believers of said religion will jump to defend. For instance, I suggested on another thread that nigh on all religions, including Abrahamic, were founded from heavy influence of psychedelics. I get backlash from Christians who insist that, no, their specific god is the absolute ultimate truth (though they have no objective evidence to support this claim) and that therefore I am wrong. So really, I can't try to discuss the history or religion, at least not as far as origins, which is the fun part.
Well, taking the most popular god, the Christian one, if you believe the Bible is the direct word of god, he does indeed specifically say that if you don't pick his brand of car, you will crash and burn and be punished for eternity.
This make no sense.
How many different scientific theories are out there are about the origins of the universe or multiverse?
Does anyone go chances are statistically they are all wrong?
No, proponents of the various theories have reasons to believe one theory is more credible than the other