122 replies to this topic

[nustadventist]

this is my first edition in the religion section.Anyway guys the question is does Christianity surpass other religions or not.
This is what I think.Christianity is a way of life because it is standard to all the world,whether american or zimbabwean or what you can still fit .Beside its one of those religion that has amanual to follow which is the Bible andthe bible presents a God of love which basically pulls its followers toward love and with love all wrongs are righted and all things are made possible so the world can be abetter place to live in.What do others hink??

[Tyssen]

nustadventist, on Mar 31 2006, 06:43 PM, said:

What do others hink??

I think you probably don't understand very much about other religions. And anyway, why the contest? Who cares if Christianity is superior? Do you need to feel superior over a certain group of people to give value to your life?

[ankitunlimited]

This is absurd, why are you discussing superiority, does christianity teach you to feel superior. All religions teach equality and brotherhood. Never ever say that one religion is superior.

[T100]

Of course it is not. Christianity stemmed from Judaism, plagiarized most of its concepts from its contemporaries, such as the Stoicists. It is as unscientific and mythical as any other religion around the world. Christians are probably the only people who believe that a “virgin” can give birth to a baby. They are often too busy with their afterlife that they don’t know how to live in this one. If there is anything superior about Christianity, it is only that it is the religion of the wealthier world, making it more appealing to the Third World.

[truefusion]

T100, on Mar 31 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

It is as unscientific and mythical as any other religion around the world. Christians are probably the only people who believe that a “virgin” can give birth to a baby.

Clearly, this is stated from ignorance. The Bible has been scientifically proven many times! And, so has the fact that animals can give birth as a virgin. Even in nature it happens! Only, that, besides humans, it happens to be always female. And, yes, it happens rarely.

Edited by truefusion, 04 April 2006 - 01:51 PM.

[wild20]

I am preparing to write an article on this guys. But I have already written one in the debates section about if the Bible is true or not. I think you will find it very interesting.

nustadventist:
Are you an Adventist? I am just looking at your username. I am a Seventh Day Adventist. So naturally I wonder if there was another on. Anyway, I think Christianity is a r3eal religion. There is none other like it. I can say that all the others are alike. They have multiple gods, and worship them in a way that Christianity does not.

As far as the Bible. People say it is actually a hoax written over time by copycatters. I beg to differ. Look at the genealogy of some of the books. Are people going to say that someone spent their whole life thinking up names top put in a book? No! The book is real, so are the people in it that were written, and therefore, the Bible is true. That is using the law of deduction I might add. If, then.

[Goosestaf]

Religion is peoples choices,
and that alone.

People should not care if people follow their religion, another or none at all.

Therefore which one is "superior" is irrelevant.

I'm not religious. . . .i'm an Atheist, Heretic, non-believer or what ever you want to brand me, BUT i'm HAPPY with my choices and see myself as a stronger person for not havign to believe in a higher power.
Science and Fate and MYSELF rule my life. I'm a good person. I don't need others telling me i'm not because i don't believe in THEIR god. . . . .

My opinion:

Religion should be a personal choice, and personal practice, it should not be forced on anyone, preached, or compared.
Comparring and QUESTIONING OTHER PEOPLES BELIEFS is just PATHETIC and PETTY.
Its like Children in a playground saying whos toys are better . . . . .

If you really find yourself questioning others beliefs . . . . then maybe you should have a long deep look into your life and its meaning/point . . . . . .

[Blacklaser]

Edit: I noticed Goosestaf's posted while I was writing my reply, I agree 100% with him.

In my opinion Christianity and the Bible can go right down the drain with all other religions. Faith is something personal and should not be forced onto other poeple, which is what religious poeple do, they don't get off the back of poeple who differ in opinion from so called "non-believers". O course this is a broad generalization and there are exceptions. But if one looks at the history and evolution of religion, it has done more bad than good to the world and it still is doing more bad than good. Faith is very personal and it should stay that way. Poeple who need to convince other poeple how right and better there believes are, belong right down the toilet with religion, because essentially that is what religion is: brainwashing of the masses.

Personally I don't need religion to tell me what is right and wrong, as free mind I can form my own opinions and decide to lead a "good" life without harming anybody around me. Religion, by dictating me my belives takes away that freedom.

Yes some poeple actually are inspired by what they read in the Bible or the Koran, or any other such book and some poeple actually make some good out of it, but most poeple don't and a lot of poeple (a whole lot more than those who do good) use the holy books to justify their acts of ignorance and intolerance. If you have faith in such and such God, fine, but keep it to yourself, respect my freedom of faith the same way I respect your freedom of faith. If your faith prevents you from doing such and such things, say an abortion, then don't do it but leave me alone, my faith is different and if I do it, as long as it doesn't affect you I have the right to follow my faith. Now poeple will say but I have the right of free speech and I can proclaim my opinion... yes, but this is not about the right to free speech, this is about respect and tolerance. Respect my faith as I respect yours. Religion, in most cases, takes away that respect for other poeple's faith.

Edited by Blacklaser, 31 March 2006 - 06:24 PM.

[truefusion]

Although, i agree with the statements that say, religion isnt something that should be considered better than other things. But, rather, taught in a way where the information is out there, and have people choose whether they want to accept such information. For those who think their religion is better, mind you, they're just playing the "religion game". I, for one, state facts that have been falsified (by science or whatnot), and try to eliminate ignorance, based on actual evidence. Again, it all depends on how well everyone else handles such information.

[Blacklaser]

I agree with truefusion, everybody should make up his own mind without beeing brainwashed into thinking only one religion is right.

[Goosestaf]

truefusion, on Mar 31 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

For those who think their religion is better, mind you, they're just playing the "religion game". I, for one, state facts that have been falsified (by science or whatnot), and try to eliminate ignorance, based on actual evidence. Again, it all depends on how well everyone else handles such information.

That is fair enough.
That is no more than defending ur beliefs.
But do it with out being provoked and its Preaching.

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and the right to defend them, just as i am doing so now.
but saying others are wrong for disagreeing is just moronic . . . . .

[Kioku]

truefusion, on Mar 31 2006, 12:36 PM, said:

Clearly, this is stated from ignorance. The Bible has been scientifically proven many times! And, so has the fact that animals can give birth as a virgin. Even in nature it happens! Only, that, besides humans, it happens to be always female. And, yes, it happens "once every blue moon".

Oye. One of these arguments. truefusion's right in one aspect, since it has been proven scientifically in many aspects although myself being a former athiest and now agnostic ( since nobody really knows what is or is not ), I have some doubts and skepticism about all religions in general. It might be a general bias, but whatever. Anyway, all in all, nobody knows what religion is right and what's wrong and calling any religion superior is arrogant and ignorant. An above post states that Christianity does not teach about superiority and that's correct, since if I recall correctly, it's stated that judging others is a bad thing.

[htdefiant]

Wow. I almost do not want to reply to this topic. Of course Christianity is not superior to any other religion. And where is the scientific proof that a virgin can give birth to someone?

[truefusion]

htdefiant, on Mar 31 2006, 06:18 PM, said:

And where is the scientific proof that a virgin can give birth to someone?

Mind you, just cause you've been taught that the only way to make a "baby" is by the sperm to be inserted into an egg, doesnt mean that's the ONLY way. But, rather than asking, go find the answer yourself. Here's something you might find interesting...

Edited by truefusion, 02 April 2006 - 02:44 PM.

[Tyssen]

'Reproduction' and 'birth' are not necessarily the same things. Sure there are other ways to reproduce, but when people refer to 'birth' they're talking about the sperm & egg method of procreation.

[WindAndWater]

The fact that no religion is innately supperior has already been covered. I'd like to add two things.
First, Christianity is not more inclusive than other religions. If anything, many of its sects are much more exclusive than liberal sects of other dominant religions (Judiasm and Islam).
Second, truefusion I have to state pretty strenuously that the article you linked to is so dubious as to not really merit any consideration. As far as I know, there has never been a case of a man (xy genes) not recognizing testosterone, or indeed a woman (xx) not recognizing testosterone. That's because both men and women need testosterone to develop -- it's an essential hormone. I think what the author meant to point out when they were talking about an androgenous person was someone with XXY chromosomes, who displays secondary female characteristics but is infertile. Even if we accept the scientifically implausable supposition that such an individual could be fertile, there is no research, anywhere (according to my knowledge) that shows that two gametes in the same individual could fuse to produce a viable zygote. That's because humans and our ancestors chose sexual reproduction for more genetic diversity over asexual reproduction.
Let me be specific that I'm not attacking or disputing your religious beliefs, but I do call in to question their scientific backing. If you would like to show me a credible study proving asexual reproduction in humans, with accessable test data, I might change my mind.

Edited by WindAndWater, 04 April 2006 - 04:55 AM.

[truefusion]

It is, indeed, a rare occurance. Like i've said, it also happens in nature. And it just so happens the births that happen in nature are all female. How would we know it happens in nature, if there were no findings? It just so happens, that we humans are different than all other animals. So, that should increase the possibility of a female, of our race, to be able to give birth to a male.

But tell me something, would you know if you had stuff of the opposite sex inside you, if it did not appear so on the outside?

Even science has taken the Bible into consideration for its studies. Since, it's been proven to be true many times. Assuredly, the teachings of the Bible is ahead of its time.

[htdefiant]

truefusion, on Apr 4 2006, 10:21 AM, said:

It is, indeed, a rare occurance. Like i've said, it also happens in nature. And it just so happens the births that happen in nature are all female. How would we know it happens in nature, if there were no findings? It just so happens, that we humans are different than all other animals. So, that should increase the possibility of a female, of our race, to be able to give birth to a male.

But tell me something, would you know if you had stuff of the opposite sex inside you, if it did not appear so on the outside?

Even science has taken the Bible into consideration for its studies. Since, it's been proven to be true many times. Assuredly, the teachings of the Bible is ahead of its time.

I understand what you are saying, but is there any scientific proof instead of you assuming there is? If so, can you please give me a credible source such as Wikipedia/Encyclopedia Brit. as opposed to something like the Christian Research Center which would be bias.

[truefusion]

htdefiant, on Apr 4 2006, 10:29 AM, said:

I understand what you are saying, but is there any scientific proof instead of you assuming there is? If so, can you please give me a credible source such as Wikipedia/Encyclopedia Brit. as opposed to something like the Christian Research Center which would be bias.

The link i provided in this topic is a Christian Research Center? Strange, it doesnt look like that to me... Or am i misunderstanding you?

But, why would you trust any other resources, if you dont trust the first one i put out? Because you want them? I'm not sure about Encyclopedia of Britian, but Wikipedia can be edited, no? But, why just the Encyclopedia of Britian? Why even any encyclopedia?

[PIPER-4-HIRE]

truefusion, on Apr 4 2006, 10:21 AM, said:

It is, indeed, a rare occurance. Like i've said, it also happens in nature. And it just so happens the births that happen in nature are all female. How would we know it happens in nature, if there were no findings? It just so happens, that we humans are different than all other animals. So, that should increase the possibility of a female, of our race, to be able to give birth to a male.

But tell me something, would you know if you had stuff of the opposite sex inside you, if it did not appear so on the outside?

Even science has taken the Bible into consideration for its studies. Since, it's been proven to be true many times. Assuredly, the teachings of the Bible is ahead of its time.

it's not as rare as you may think... it is vary possible to give birth without having sex...it's called Artificial Insemenation... it does not prove that the story of the virgin mary is true.

as for another way...Asexual reproduction is impossible in homosapiens and our relative's.

[htdefiant]

truefusion, on Apr 4 2006, 10:56 AM, said:

The link i provided in this topic is a Christian Research Center? Strange, it doesnt look like that to me... Or am i misunderstanding you?

But, why would you trust any other resources, if you dont trust the first one i put out? Because you want them? I'm not sure about Encyclopedia of Britian, but Wikipedia can be edited, no? But, why just the Encyclopedia of Britian? Why even any encyclopedia?

Wikipedia is as accurate as any other encyclopedia according to reports. I was asking for you to provide me with a credible source link. The link you gave was done of a direct study of Jesus. I am asking for a study that does not say "this proves the virgin birth", rather, it proves it could happen, with no religious affiliation

[truefusion]

PIPER-4-HIRE, on Apr 4 2006, 11:03 AM, said:

it's called Artificial Insemination...

Heh, of course this isnt rare, anymore. Maybe, back when it was just starting to become an alternative. Of course, it doesnt go as far back as the time of Mary's existence. But, now it's used quite a lot.

[hr=noshade]

Quote

Wikipedia is as accurate as any other encyclopedia according to reports. I was asking for you to provide me with a credible source link. The link you gave was done of a direct study of Jesus. I am asking for a study that does not say "this proves the virgin birth", rather, it proves it could happen, with no religious affiliation

It would be very hard to find proof that doesnt relate back to the Bible. Since, the only recorded event of such a thing happening comes from the Bible.

But, while i'm on my search for proof, mind if you search for proof that proves that such a thing isnt possible, while referencing back to these scientific journals/articles (without relating back to the Bible)?
[/hr]

Edited by truefusion, 04 April 2006 - 03:26 PM.

[htdefiant]

That's tough to find, but I'll try.

[semeticsister]

To say or even imply that Christianity is "superior" is completely big-headed and blasphemous, in any context. Just because a majority of people believe it, does not mean that it is necessarily the "right" religion. This just goes to show you that the majority is not always right. And you must understand that long ago, many people either had christianity forced upon them by a higher authority or converted so they could avoid persecution.

[htdefiant]

semeticsister, on Apr 4 2006, 06:20 PM, said:

To say or even imply that Christianity is "superior" is completely big-headed and blasphemous, in any context. Just because a majority of people believe it, does not mean that it is necessarily the "right" religion. This just goes to show you that the majority is not always right. And you must understand that long ago, many people either had christianity forced upon them by a higher authority or converted so they could avoid persecution.

Good points. Many people in the Roman Empire had the religion forced on them, so now the whole area of the former Roman Catholic empire is predominatly Christian.