if u r happy that they killed osama u r not a real christian bro

People don't kill each other because of religion.

They kill each other because they feel some type of injustice has taken place and they therefore have the moral high ground. They then use their religion to confirm this.

Religion isn't about some mystical magical rules brought down from the sky. It's about a code of values, ethics, philosophies, and standards to govern society.

Every tenet in religion has some practical, logical purpose for being a rule. But there is a mask of mysticism incorporated for people who don't understand the wisdom, but need to be encouraged to comply anyway.

It's like Santa Clause. When you're a kid you believe and celebrate the holiday based on this belief. When you get older you stop believing in Santa Clause but you keep celebrating the holiday anyway. You appreciate the meaning behind Christmas as a joyful occasion where we share with one another and how this celebration has an important role in keep society together.

Nah, this is a gross oversimplification and a dangerous one at that.

We know people will kill for ideals and we know religion (in the sense of organized human activity) is a powerful mover of ideals. To think that religion (again in the sense of human activity) can't be the source of harmful ideals is naive. Perhaps some use religion (willfully or ignorantly) as an excuse, but I have no problem wagering that most who commit atrocities in the name of religion believe their claims.

That's wishful thinking but basically not true. Reform Jews agree with you. But those religious people who are in the category of thinking that the supernatural is an essential part, even if the ethics is admirable, is like 90%. And that usually includes their specific precise details of the supernatural.

The whole purpose of religion is to move ideals, that's my point. But what you are missing is that ideals transcend religion. Ideals exist outside of religion. And often, people pervert their religious texts to justify their ideals.

That doesn't mean all ideas are optimal. But they are created by old (seemingly) wise men, to teach future generations what to do to survive. Secular philosophers do similar.

If you look at any tenet of a given religion, there is a purpose behind it. Whether you agree with the purpose or not doesn't mean it isn't viable (albeit suboptimal) strategy to increase survival of the followers.

Most who commit atrocities believe their claims, religious or not. The nazis weren't really motivated by religion, they were motivated by their hatred of the jews because they felt they were responsible for their depression.

If you look at any major atrocity that ever occurred you will find some reason or justification that transcends religion.

I'm not sure if you're numbers are accurate, I'd say its closer to 80% if not even a little south of it. While the point might be true that the overwhelming majority of religious people believe in the supernatural, that doesn't mean the people who invented the religion (or govern it) didn't/don't do so for practical purposes. I mean the rules came from somewhere. And unless you believe God really "spoke" to people, you have to rationalize that it was men who created them, and there has to be some logical reason for it.

While the overwhelming majority of people may only comply because they believe in the supernatural, it doesn't mean they choose to hurt people because God says so, or that they wouldn't live a relatively moral life without the belief.

The reason was to avoid the problem of the Prisoner's Dilemma. God's punishment forces you to cooperate. Moses got that. As did Jesus. Doubt that non Jews did though.

Religion is a code of values, ethics, philosophies, and standards to govern society believed to be brought down from the sky. This last part is the only real possible distinction between a religion and a political ideology.

As opposed to a political philosophy? I'm sure you'd agree that no government isn't an option.

I personally prefer the idea that God made the rules instead of committees.

Truth isn't relative or subjective; it is absolute. Christianity cannot be true at same time Buddhism is true. There is only one true religion. Every other religion is false by definition.

The only reason you hold this opinion is because you believe religion is by default devoid of God and by extension you believe all religion to be false. By that standard, 2+2=4 transcends religion much less ideals/morality. But what if a religion is true and is there is a God. Then ideals are not transcended by religion, but instead a result of God/religion.


And if I believe just that, then the reason a religion is created is because it is true.

They can all be true... For the most part.

Buddhism actually describes how Christianity works. And they match up remarkably well! Buddhism came from the Hindus, and Christianity came from the Jews, so the only big one left is the Muslims but that seems to follow the same fundamentals too.

The way I see it, the different religions hit different target audiences, but they all tell the same tale. The key to understanding them is Buddhism. The Buddhists certainly arn't mindlessly following rules, each of them is actively attempting to understand all existence by developing their concentration skills! Most of the old texts are directed at monks, while Christianity is mostly directed at what the Buddha referred to as laymen, everyone but the monks.

I used to think like most of you guys, and so I would definitely advise you to look into Buddhist logic

Buddhist logic is self-defeating. Christianity ipso facto denies truth to any other religion. Unless a religion specifically believes in 1 God, made of 3 persons and that the second person of the 3 became human, was born of a virgin, died for the sins of the world, rose again, and ascended into heaven Christianity would consider said religion false. If a religion does believe those things, Christianity would consider said religion to be Christian.

Christianity is believing that Jesus is the Son of God and that His death on the cross paid the just punishment for your sin, just as was prophesied to happen in the Old Testament. It is also the belief in His resurrection and welcoming the indwelling of the Holy Spirit so that you no longer desire to sin, and so that you can be born again and be saved. How does this have anything to do with Buddhism, if you don't mind me asking?

Plenty of Christians reject the trinity, it even arose as a schism within mainstream Christianity. The same goes for the divinity of Jesus.

Even this way of thinking about Christianity, that it is set in stone, is not really part of original Christian thinking.

I'm assuming you have to rely on extra-biblical sources to come to these conclusions?

I agree there are all kinds of schisms from mainstream Christianity. I also agree that Christianity has developed over the centuries since the time of Christ. None of this denies my greater point: specific Christian denominations deny Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and even other denominations within Christianity (wherever you like to place the boundaries of what is and isn't Christianity).

If Buddhism believes all religions are true, it is self defeating, because my religion believes all other religions to be false (or at least contain some falsehood; IE other Christian denomination).

Why does that even matter?

The first council of Nicaea, its topics and the schisms it resolved is generally not considered very controversial history in Christian theology.

I'll preface my response by saying that I'm a Bible believing Christian. With that said I don't think it's possible to make those claims and defend them without using extra-biblical material. I think the Bible is very clear on what is true and what should be believed. I think the Pauline Epistles support a faith that can be understood entirely within a biblical context. I think that the Bible can and should be seen as the literal word of God and that the Bible as a whole supports that view. I don't know if I could defend these beliefs on this forum as I'm not a great apologist by any means but I don't think they're illogical beliefs to have when reading the Bible.

Could you elaborate?

Even if the Bible is true, that doesn't mean it holds all truth. Other claims can be supported by extra-biblical sources. All Tame was claiming is that some early "Christians" denied Christ's divinity or saw it as inferior to God the Father's divinity. These controversies are evident by the Ecumenical councils that dealt with them, Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc..

Well there is a lot more to it than that lol. I think their principle teaching is that God loves you and that you should love everyone...

- The son of god could mean all sorts. I think they say he's called this because he was the reincarnated Adam.
- I'm pretty sure the bible didn't say that he died for our sins? I think this is quite a modern take on it.
- And the muslims even believe in his eventual resurrection. If you follow Buddhist/Hindu logic regarding rebirth this seems possible.

Buddha didn't claim to be a God so it's not self defeating. If that's what you mean? He was just a man who said he cracked everything, which he then taught. If you learn his lessons you realise how most of the bible can make sense. Not all of it tho. Lol that virgin birth sounds like something some sex crazed roman made up. Remember, the Romans killed Jesus and then they wrote the bible! There will be a lot of nonsense in there I'm sure. By using Buddha's logic you can start to understand which parts of the bible are more plausible than others.

I'm kind of perplexed how you could write the things you're writing, but...

1. The Gospels along with other books in the New Testament are very clear about Jesus being God's son.

2. The Bible clearly says that Jesus died for our sins. In fact, it may be fair to say that was the entire reason He came to earth. Being God's Son and God himself he is the only being that could pay an infinite cost, through living a sinless life and sacrificing it, that all our sins be covered. God loves us so much that he gives us a way to be saved even though we have all utterly failed. This was an expectation present in the biblical and Jewish books of prophecy, which Jesus fulfilled, so no, this is definitely not a modern take on it.

I don't think any of the books in the Bible were written by "the Romans" who killed Jesus.

That quote you put in didn't say he died for our sins. That quote matched Buddhist logic. If you have another do put it up. I just read that somewhere.

The 'son of God' clearly was not created in the usual way babies are made. I think it's pretty clear that this wasn't meant to be a 'son' in the usual sense.

The bible was composed by the Romans wasn't it? Europeans. If that is true, the story of Jesus' sentencing was blatantly altered... "It wasn't the Romans fault Jesus died, we just arrested sentenced tortured and killed him. It was the bloody muslims fault!"

great conversation, I'll come back later and post some more (don't have enough time right now)

In the meanwhile, I'd suggest everyone to check out Pr. Peterson (Pr. of psychology of the University of Toronto, for those who don't know him already) take on religion and religious belief.

Question: "What does it mean that Jesus died for our sins?"

I've always said faith is the conviction one has in that which he wishes to be true.