....the following faiths: Baha'i Faith, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism ?

Is it becuase you have carefully compared in detail all of these religions with the teachings of christianity and found all but christianity wanting? If not careful study and comparison, then what is your reason?


[This message has been edited by schizmann (edited 7/15/2008 7:48a).]

I have read a total of probably one book that summarized the above religions. I find all of them interesting in different ways, especially the Eastern focus on the inner life of the individual, vs the outer behavior of "members" in Western religions. I am a Christian because I grew up that way and, despite many doubts, still choose to follow that religion. But I believe people can find meaning and purpose outside of religion...but they might end up going to hell when they die (not much of a motivator for some of us). Of course, Christianity would not exist without Judism which is much cooler to me than much of evangelical Christianity.
What was the question???

I'd say that you could say with reasonable certainty that they are false without having to go into a in depth analysis of each of them.

This is true because if you have good reason to think that Christianity is true, then if it is true to such a degree that it excludes other religious claims, then by the law of contradiction the others must be false.

But all this depends on the premise of Christianity being true such that it excludes those other religions from being also true. From my studies I think I can claim the above, and for that belief to be justified and true. That rationality of belief is rooted from my historical studies, I don't think Christianity falls into any logical incoherence by way of the study of philosophy and theology, and my personal reason for myself is that it explains reality through my own experiences (this last part is subjective, it will not ever convince someone objectively, but it is sufficient to retain belief for myself).

quote:

---

Baha'i Faith, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism ?

---

All efforts of man to reach God.

quote:

---

Christianity

---

The effort of God to reach man.

Legit Homsar....

Homsar

quote:

---

All efforts of man to reach God.

---

Hinduism has God reaching down to man as well in the form of incarnations of Vishnu.

But what did the incarnations of Vishnu do to secure your eternal soul?

More importantly, where is the proof that Vishnu even existed?

The ignorance on this thread is awesome. How do you know you picked the "correct" religion when you haven't even studied the other major religions? Oh, that's right, you were brainwashed from an early age. Gotcha.

A person of any religion can claim they studied their particular religion and found it to be correct so they ruled out all others. Quite the logical fallacy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Baha'i Faith, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism ?

---

All efforts of man to reach God.

quote:

---

Christianity

---

The effort of God to reach man.

---

Drivel.

quote:

---

A person of any religion can claim they studied their particular religion and found it to be correct so they ruled out all others.

---

Not if they are truly objective, no

The majority of world religions can be disgarded simply on historical fallacy alone. Examples are Hinduism, Mormonism, Islam, etc.

All these religions have glaring historical falsehoods as part of their core doctrines. Obviously, if what the religion says happened can be historically disproven, it cannot be "correct".

Christianity, on the other hand, cannot be historicall disproven. In fact, there is fairly concrete historical evidence (outside of the bible) that Jesus existed and much of the accounts of biblical history can, in fact, be proven. Now obviously, people rising from the dead and parting seas has to be taken on faith, but it cannot be disproven.

The bible is the ONLY religious text ever accpted by the Smithsonian as a legitimate historical document.

quote:

---

The bible is the ONLY religious text ever accepted by the Smithsonian as a legitimate historical document.

---

Source?

I've noticed BMED claims a lot on this thread without actually backing anything up.

quote:

---

In fact, there is fairly concrete historical evidence (outside of the bible) that Jesus existed and much of the accounts of biblical history can, in fact, be proven.

---

But please, back this up.

Just wondering, does the fact that no geologist has ever found evidence of a global flood during human occupation dissuade you?

You could sort of argue the theory that earth was encased 100% by ice at one point, but that was well before humans inhabited the earth.

quote:

---

I've noticed BMED claims a lot on this thread without actually backing anything up.

---

He does this on almost every thread in which he contributes. He constantly throws out random "facts" and "statistics" rarely with any sort of backing.

http://www.dtl.org/cults/article/bible-bm.htm

quote:

---

The Smithsonian Institute acknowledges:
...the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, is as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical works can and are used in archeological works.

---

Only the Hebrew bible (the old testement) and the christian bible have ever been acknowledged as significant and realiable sources of ancient history with regards to religious texts.

Just for you, bobo:

http://www.sowhataboutjesus.com/existed.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

You can argue about his status as the son of God, but you cannot argue that he didnt exist.

As for extrabiblical evidence of the bible's histrical authencity

http://www.creatingfutures.net/evidence.html

http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-is-true-faq.htm

http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2007/07/12/more-proof-that-the-bible-is-true-historical-evidence-of-book-of-jeremiah-figure-nabusharrussu-ukin-found/

http://www.scarfire.com/cjournal/journals/historicalevidence.htm

I can get you many more if you'd like

No where does the source you provided claim that "the bible is the ONLY religious text ever accepted by the Smithsonian as a legitimate historical document." It just claims that the books of the Bible are as reliable as other ancient documents of the region and useful in archaeological work.

...the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, is as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity
*********************
The Smithsonian is referring only to the Hebrew text, nothing about the Greek text. So one point for the Jews.

Did you even read the link? It provides direct quotes from the smithsonian in which they state that the book of mormon is basically laughed at by historians.

This link tells of the historical flaws in Islam:

http://www.islam-watch.org/SyedKamranMirza/Quran-contradiction-flaws.htm

Hostile BMED's MO is random made-up facts posted as, well, fact. There truly is nothing of value in any of his responses, ever. You can save lots of time by just moving on to the next response on any thread he posts on.

That link says nothing about the Greek text. You can make fun of Mormons like the rest of us, but your link only references the Hebrew text. Maybe you should back up and say you are Jewish, if the Smithsonian is such a big deal to your credibility. You are one of the reasons Christians come off as idiots so often.

quote:

---

Did you even read the link? It provides direct quotes from the smithsonian in which they state that the book of mormon is basically laughed at by historians.

---

I scanned the link until I found the quotes about the Bible and the Smithsonian. Even if Smithsonian dismisses the BOM and Koran there are many other religious text you have yet to show that it has equally dismissed. The direct quote you provided (I'll ignore that it is a secondary source that provides no backing as legit) only states that the Bible is as reliable as other ancient text on the region and by no means says it is "the ONLY religious text ever accepted by the Smithsonian as a legitimate historical document."

[This message has been edited by jkag89 (edited 7/15/2008 12:13p).]

Is there any way you can link me proof in a scientific journal?

We're not still in high school are we?

Jesus accepted me. I did not accept him.

Wakebrad, tell me, what is the difference between brainwashing and discipleship?

quote:

---

All these religions have glaring historical falsehoods as part of their core doctrines.

---

Christianity does too. The age of the earth, the order of creation, the Flood, 1000 year old men, all can be disproven. The historical "falsehoods" you speak of in other religions are non-literal interpretations, just as your "falsehoods" are non-literal interpretations.

I believe because God found me. I did not find Him. I thought I knew Him, but didn't.

The bottom line, at least for me, is revelation.
I don't believe because of some form of intellectual comparison, but because He revealed Himself to me.

This may not be the answer you want, or the one that you predicted, but it is the only honest answer I can give you.

Is it irrational to believe something unless one first carefully studies all of the competing claims? For example, is one irrational in believing in global warming or the existence of the quark unless they first personally study and discard every contradictory claim?

If I have good reason to believe I was at home all day today, do I have to also have good reason to believe I wasn't at the beach or in the mall?







[This message has been edited by Whistling For Flies (edited 7/15/2008 1:05p).]

Wakebrad,

quote:

---

Drivel.

---

Explain.

quote:

---

Is it irrational to believe something unless one first carefully studies all of the competing claims? For example, is one irrational in believing in global warming or the existence of the quark unless they first personally study and discard every contradictory claim?

If I have good reason to believe I was at home all day today, do I have to also have good reason to believe I wasn't at the beach or in the mall?

---

Exactly. I doubt the original poster has studied every religion in the world, but still came to the conclusion that his atheist views are correct.

quote:

---

Exactly. I doubt the original poster has studied every religion in the world, but still came to the conclusion that his atheist views are correct.

---

But atheists are exempt from having to provide evidence for their belief in nothing, remember?

quote:

---

If I have good reason to believe I was at home all day today, do I have to also have good reason to believe I wasn't at the beach or in the mall?

---

or a more reasonable analogy would be saying: "My favorite flavor of ice cream is vanilla, though I've never tried any of the other 500 flavors."

That's just it, though. Atheists always think that being a christian automatically means we neve rquestion our beliefs, when in fact it is very rare that a christian DOESNT question their beliefs.

I wonder about it all the time. "How do I know my God is the one true God?" "How do I know that of all the religions in the world, mine is right?"

We often study other religions and pray for God's guidence. I can't tell you how many times I've asked God to help reveal the truth to me, and everytime the truth leads me back to christ's death as a sacrifice for my sins.

quote:

---

or a more reasonable analogy would be saying: "My favorite flavor of ice cream is vanilla, though I've never tried any of the other 500 flavors."

---

Actually, this isn't reasonable at all. If Christianity is true, it is true exclusive to all other religions. It's not relativistic, where it is true for some and not for others. All that you have to believe about Christianity is that it is true, and it reasons that the rest are false if they counter its claims.