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?
It is.
However, this board will inevitably be overrun with Christfags so expect hoop-jumping sophistry to justify the opposite.
>>15949
>people have different opinions
>therefore, your opinion is not allowed to be correct.
see how stupid this argument sounds?
>>15949
>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.
>>15949
I like learning about them all. If I were to say which I align with the most, I would say folk Christianity, Amida Buddhism, and Taoism.
It is,however top theologicians have deviced a flawless counter argument to any opposition, picture of overweight american teens using unfashionable hats.
>>15949
There are many religions but only one true Faith
http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/
http://jewsforjesus.org/
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,
satanism
Nobody else has had such influence in the world than Lord Jesus Christ
>>15949
>Is it not naive to believe that yours is the correct one?
Just because there are a lot of choices doesn't mean they are all wrong, or that not a single one is correct.
>>15949
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.
>>16144
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.
>>15949
>Being this much of a fedora shitposter
I'm an atheist and I hate people like you. You make the rest of us look like dicks
>>16073
It's not an argument, it's logic.
>>16242
b8
>>16073
Nice straw man.
>>15949
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.
Also, if we are going to have religion threads can they be about the history of the religions? And not which one is right.
>>16251
(not him)
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.
>>16292
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
>>16292
>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.
>>16292
> a subjective viewpoint of life.
Same goes for history&humanities.
>>16305
>can they be about the history of the religions
They should more be about that than about what this thread is.
>>16418
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.
>>15949
>Is it not naive to believe that yours is the correct one?
no
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.
>>16426
fucking please
>>16426
Lolwut: The Post
>>16342
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.
>>16223
God is not limited by the bounds of his own creation
Jesus as man is but Jesus is also the Logos as well as a man which accounts for his divinity.
>>16466
>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?
>>16223
>>16466
>God doesn't punish
depends on what religion you are talking about though.
It's all copy pasta.
>>16613
This violates the transitive property though.
>>15949
Almost all non Christian religions are the same glorification of Satan and his fallen angels, so it makes sense
>>16613
So... Jesus is God? Or well, makes up God? Didn't he pray for God to forgive the sinners... so he was talking to himself? I'm sort of a christfag but this really does confuse me
>>16833
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.
>>16079
You're using different words to describe the same meanings. That's a meaningless distinction you're trying to create.
>>16694
The brick is not the wall
The mortar is not the wall
The uh, man hours put into it, are not the wall.
You get the point.
>>16694
>http://www.lotsoftinyrobots.com/2012/08/transitive-property-of-trinity.html
lol what is Transitive relation
whenever A = B and B = C, then also A = C.
>>16613
This is clearly an attempt to fuse Roman/Greek polytheistic culture with Judaism. All that is missing is a horny swan.
>>17461
Can you back up those claims?
>>17483
>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?
>>17653
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.
>>18066
Protestants in Heretic tier of course
>>16694
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.
>>18297
>>15949
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"?
>>15949
>>18831
>I never understood why the Sun didn't last as a god or was even a popular god.
Because of geocentrism, maybe?
>>18696
Your example is basically saying Christianity is polythestic. Trinity is an anti-logic concept made to shoe-horn in Jesus's divinity.
>>19107
>polythestic
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.
>>16073
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.
>>16305
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.
>>16466
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.
>>16466
>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.
False. You're pulling that out of your ass.
>>15949
> Is ii not naive to believe because there are many theories there isn't a correct one or at least one closer to the truth
>>19567
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
