Why Chrisianity

[Andreusz]

Let's begin by checking the facts of the OP.

Where do you base your information on when quoting that there are thousands and thousands of Gods?

Shintoism alone speaks of 8 million gods.

 

[Chaplain David]

Shintoism alone speaks of 8 million gods.

I hope you are having a fine morning in Christ. Actually I don't find that they have that many Gods from my research. When you have to do things to bring them to life every year you can't really consider them God's now can you?

Anyway, I'd like to see what the OP has to say about these thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of Gods and Religions. He's the one who wrote it.

 

[Stephen Kendall]

To Christians:
Why do you choose the christian God over the Thousands of thousands of Gods from thousands of religions all of whom say that they are the right religion?

I am believing that it isn't us who chose God, but that He chose us for some reason. Isn't he the one who is God and can chose? All we can do is believe what we see & know. Our faith is the substance of the touch of God. Love you son.

 

[Plush]

there was and is no way of offering proof that it's true. it's just one of those things I knew within me.

but religous callings/experiences or whatever, are not the only things humans experience, where they have knowledge that they know is true, without proof. for example, woman's intuition. that's been a phenomenon experienced by women, which they have no explanation why they would know.

somethings are just beyond the reach of science. it's just a matter of keeping an open mind.

But aren't many Christians in fact close-minded in the sense that they are taught that the scripture is infallible, and to reject anything that contradicts that?

There are many things that Science has yet to prove and may never prove or disprove(god) and you mention things like a woman's intuition and many other emotional traits which have yet to be determined. I simply fail to see how lack of an explanation from science is proof of a god.

 

[Plush]

I am believing that it isn't us who chose God, but that He chose us for some reason. Isn't he the one who is God and can chose? All we can do is believe what we see & know. Our faith is the substance of the touch of God. Love you son.

But what do you have to say to those who were born into other faiths such as Islam of Judaism. Is it simply bad luck and they shall suffer for it?

 

[Stephen Kendall]

But what do you have to say to those who were born into other faiths such as Islam of Judaism. Is it simply bad luck and they shall suffer for it?

I don't know the mind of God, but the heart of God is given to us by Jesus. It can not be as bad as, those who don't know God, believe it is. Jesus does know God. What is God doing and building? Why did his son give us this unusual task and place? The answers are to come, yet they may surprise all. When an artist grabs a brush and start to paint, you may not say much for a long time until he is through, then only saying, "Masterpiece!" A surgeon grabs a scalpel and start to slice, you may only cry to see blood everywhere imagining horrors, but in the end you praise him for saving your love one. The one who loves and preaches his love by his own blood, will not this Jesus return a wonderful masterpiece to save all? It is a possibility, but we see the brush stroke in the Bible and the bloody mess all around history and seemingly from the words of the Scriptures. What a mess, yet the very words of Jesus' teachings inspire many to believe in him and wait and trust and, yes, obey. I believe that the Father of Jesus Christ (and of us that follow him) will do much better than our masters of art or healing. My love to all. Have a great day.

 

[Suggestion Box]

why Christianity? because we alone give you snacks and coffee after the worship service.

sorry. carry on.

 

[[serious]]

To Christians:
Why do you choose the christian God over the Thousands of thousands of Gods from thousands of religions all of whom say that they are the right religion?

I see evidence of a higher power in my life and that higher power seems to not mind being treated as the christian understanding of deity. As such, it's accurate enough for my purposes. If I was convinced by reason or moral conviction to convert to another religion, I would do so.

 

[Dharma Wheel]

But there are differences between Christianity and most if not all other religions. Most specifically Christianity is the only major religion that claims to be grounded in a specific real event that happened to specific real person in a specific real place on a specific real day in real history witnessed by specific real people who were still around testifying about it when their stories were written down - i.e. the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

False. Buddhism, Jainism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrians the followers of Maher Baba amongst many others make the same claim. For instance we know that Maher Baba is real, he exists on film and photographs, and we know that Siddhārtha Gautama, whom Buddhists believe is the Enlightened One, existed because there is so much evidence of his existence. So the life of Gautama Buddha was a "a specific real event that happened to specific real person in a specific real place on a specific real day in real history witnessed by specific real people who were still around testifying about it when their stories were written down". Infact there is hardly any evidence outside of the Bible that Jesus Christ existed (I think he did, don't get me wrong) as the Josephus account is a forgery. This means that the other figures such as Buddha, Maher Baba, Bahá'u'lláh and even Zaraθuštra have more evidence to back up their existence than Jesus Christ.

So, no Christianity isn't the only faith built around a true person. The accounts in the Bible were also written down long after the birth of Jesus is meant to take place, hence the numerous historical errors such as:

1. It is said that Augustus decreed that a census of the entire Roman world should take place. This is unhistorical; there never was a census of the entire Roman world under Emperor Augustus.

2. It claims that Galilee was part of the province of Iudea. It wasn't.

3. It claims that Herod the Great was alive when Jesus was born. He wasn't.

4. All the Biblical accounts of the Birth of Jesus disagree with eachother on many details.

Et cetera.

YouTube - Errors in the New Testament: Pt1. The Census

YouTube - Errors in the New Testament: Pt.2 The Problem of Herod

YouTube - Errors in the New Testament: Pt.3 Which Gospel?


​

 

[Sybaris]

To Christians:
Why do you choose the christian God over the Thousands of thousands of Gods from thousands of religions all of whom say that they are the right religion?

As an X-Christian I hope I can answer.

Faith is largely determined by your environment. Most persons in the U.S. claim to follow Christianity. Christianity is embedded in our culture. There's Christian prayer before sporting events, TV is populated with Christian broadcasting on Sunday mornings, the President is sworn in on a Christian Bible, etc., etc.. The enculturation of Christianity begins very early and is very palatable to children with the celebration of Christmas and the receiving of gifts. At Easter there's the receiving of candy and the joy of an egg hunt.

It's not so much a choice over other religions or Gods, it's more like assimilation, like patriotism. It is unthinkable to betray your land of birth so too is it as difficult to renounce something that has been ingrained in your psyche from earliest childhood. Think of it this way, if a person was born and raised in Saudi Arabia what religion would they most likely follow?

When I was a Christian I gave answers similar to what you are reading in this thread but after much study realized that my answers were only valid within a certain radius.

 

[Ryft]

Why do you choose the Christian God over the thousands of thousands of gods from thousands of religions, all of whom say that they are the right religion?

Among other reasons, because the God of Christian theism is the only one that withstands the test of critical scrutiny.

1. I have personally studied a little over 25 world religions, and more than a few people have said to me, "I didn't even know there were that many." With a smile I have to agree, because some of those religions were pretty obscure indeed. So, can you please name these alleged "thousands of religions"? If not, then please name 50 for me, at the very least. It's a number far smaller than "thousands."

2. And then provide evidence of "all" 50 claiming they are "the right religion."

I think someone with affinity for reason and science can answer '1' and '2' with substantive evidence. A name like 'Defender of Reason' would encourage a person to think you have that kind of affinity, so I'm hoping substantive evidence is soon forthcoming.

Or alternatively . . .

Horrifically exaggerated assumptions might be rhetorically entertaining but they are intellectually bankrupt and anathema to critical thinking. (This is a stance I can defend rationally, if I should be required to.) So I would ask, "Can intelligent discourse be had with uneducated rhetoric?" Personally, I don't think so, which is why I like to work with actual numbers of actual religions and their actual tenets. I wonder what your question would look like if rephrased that way.

 

[Sybaris]

Among other reasons, because the God of Christian theism is the only one that withstands the test of critical scrutiny.

Yes, how many religions there are or whichever one(s) claim to be the right one is irrelevent. The gist of the question is why Christianity at all.

Can you give some examples of critical scrutiny the Christian God withstands?

 

[Ryft]

Can you give some examples of critical scrutiny the Christian God withstands?

Yes, provided that they don't become topics of discussions themselves here in this thread (hijacking).

There are certainly numerous examples—as there are many critical arguments—but I will only highlight three of what I think are prominent criticisms against the God of Christian theism.

(1) One of the most popular critical arguments, packaged in various ways, centers around a "problem of evil" theme; these are attempts to demonstrate a contradiction between specific attributes of God and the existence of evil or suffering in the world.

(2) There are variations of the "who created the Creator" theme; these are attempts to argue that the existence of God is an 'ad hoc' non-answer that punts the causal argument without answering it.

(3) There are the various "logical" arguments against the existence of God; these attempt to prove that God, as proposed by Christian theism, cannot exist because he exhibits self-contradicting attributes (e.g., transcendence vs. omnipresence).

 

[Foreshadow]

How can you disprove those arguments?

 

[Ryft]

How can you disprove those arguments?

By exposing their logical weakness or outright bankruptcy. Pick one and I shall show you (but do it by private message; don't hijack this thread).

 

[Foreshadow]

Why not? It is still on topic. My topic is about why people believe in Christianity and not all the others.. However by trying to disprove arguments that say that God is not real you are defending your religon, thus giving some insight into why you believe in God when you post rebuttal. So go head. I want to hear the agruments.

 

[ProScribe]

To Christians:
Why do you choose the christian God over the Thousands of thousands of Gods from thousands of religions all of whom say that they are the right religion?

The true Catholic Faith. ~ I'm not a polytheist.

 

[Ryft]

Why not? It is still on topic. My topic is about why people believe in Christianity and not all the others.. However by trying to disprove arguments that say that God is not real you are defending your religon, thus giving some insight into why you believe in God when you post rebuttal. So go head. I want to hear the agruments.

Well, it's your thread, so... okay.

Problem of Evil (or Suffering) arguments are crippled by logical fallacies; which specific fallacy is committed depends on which argument is being presented. For example, in my most recent debate with an atheist on this argument (call him Smith), he began by inquiring of me, "Surely you agree that there is gratuitous suffering in the world, that an all-powerful God could do something so that people don't suffer needlessly."

I had to stop him right there. First, the Problem of Suffering argument shoulders an enormous burden of proof that has to be met; asking me to agree from the outset that gratuitous or needless suffering exists commits the fallacy of Begging the Question, because the supposed existence of gratuitous or needless suffering lies at the heart of the argument—the very issue upon which it is hinged.

Unsure about how to prove the gratuity of suffering, Smith decided to approach it by way of an hypothetical scenario. So he called upon the example of rape: "Surely the woman being raped didn't ask for it, and certainly doesn't deserve it." Once again I had to note the logical fallacy being committed. Or one of two possible fallacies. On the one hand, he was possibly committing the fallacy of arguing from incredulity—i.e., "This suffering must be gratuitous because I cannot believe it isn't."

On the other hand, Smith was certainly committing the fallacy of Begging the Question again—i.e., "This is gratuitous suffering because it is gratuitous." How does that work? By the assertion that the rape victim did not deserve it. That assumes the truth of the very conclusion to be proved. I am not trying to suggest she did deserve it, by any means! It's just that I won't be bullied into a conclusion. Does there exist gratuitous suffering? That's the burden of proof shouldered by this argument, which must be met—because if gratuitous suffering doesn't exist then the argument is a dog with no bite.

A different atheist, Jones, tried arguing in a similar fashion: "Since suffering exists and there is no reason for it, that defeats the belief that an omnibenevolent God exists." Again, notice the question-begging fallacy being committed: "there is no reason for it" (suffering). He certainly did not prove that. It was something Jones assumed, and this commits the fallacy.

If you don't understand how it begs the question, let me elaborate for you. The God of Christian theism is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent; consequently, given those attributes together, there can be no such thing as gratuitous suffering. They are mutually exclusive. Gratuitous or needless suffering stands in a contradicting relationship to the God of Christian theism, whose attributes are omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence—in the same way that an 'immovable object' stands in contradiction to an 'irresistible force'. Either gratuitous suffering exists or God exists; it is logically impossible (by the very definition of the terms involved) for them to both exist. That's the sticking point, and the reason why assuming the existence gratuitous suffering commits the question-begging fallacy.

NOTE: God is (a) omnipotent or all-powerful, which means he is able to prevent suffering; (b) omniscient or all-knowing, which means suffering doesn't occur without his knowledge; and (c) omnibenevolent or all-good, which means he possesses no malevolence against which his benevolence might compete. Therefore, he is aware of human suffering and can stop it, but doesn't and for reasons that have nothing to do with malevolence. In other words, it is fallacious for an argument to assume he can't stop human suffering (contradicts omnipotence), or to assume he's unaware of human suffering (contradicts omniscience), or to assume that human suffering is pointless, gratuitous, purposeless, needless (contradicts omnibenevolence). Given these attributes of God, an argument has to prove one or more of these things, not assume them.

 

[Foreshadow]

You cant be omnipotent and ommniscient at the same that. Being omnipotent means you can change the past present andfuture at will and being all knowing means that you can see the past present and future at will. That you means that you can forsee that you will forsee that you will forsee that you are going to change the future or past or present. You cant be both.

 

[Ryft]

You cant be omnipotent and ommniscient at the same that. Being omnipotent means you can change the past present andfuture at will and being all knowing means that you can see the past present and future at will. That you means that you can forsee that you will forsee that you will forsee that you are going to change the future or past or present. You cant be both.

It seems you don't understand a very crucial element in your own argument—but you're in good company because a lot of people miss it when they raise this argument.

Specifically, this argument only works with regard to beings that are bounded by temporal and spatial limitations (space-time dimensions of this universe). Beings like you and me. We are constrained by spatio-temporal realities. We have a linear experience of time; the 'past' is distinct from the 'present', and both are distinct from the 'future'. And our spatial experience is similar; the fact that I am standing 'here' means that I'm not standing 'there'.

This is not the case for God. As the creator, he transcends (exists independent of) this universe with its temporal and spatial dimensions. He does not "see the past, present, and future at will" because such things don't exist to him; i.e., for God there is no such thing as a 'past' or 'future' to contemplate. With respect to his frame of reference, it is incoherent to talk of what he will do or has done, because God exists at every point of time and space simultaneously (omnipresent). For God, there is no such thing as changing what he "has done" or planning what he "will do" because, for God, there is only what he "is doing"; God does not "foresee," he only "sees" because everything is present to him in an eternal 'now'.

You could, of course, argue that God does experience things like 'past' and 'future' or that he didn't create the physical universe, but then you would no longer be talking about the God of Christian theism. Other gods might not withstand critical scrutiny. All I know is that the God of Christian theism does.