• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How do I know which religion is right for me?

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
Maybe none???? Why don't you read up on the scientific understanding of the world as it is known to be? If none of the religions square with what we know to be true, then reject them in favor of reality.

The scientific understanding says that 1) humans don't know what time and space are conceptually. 2) our reality is just a 3D ball with a time axis. The calculations of quantum physics however go beyond the 10th and more spatial dimensions. The string theory is an attempt to calculate how gravity penetrate beyond our this reality. There are also hypothesis of multiverse. Science itself will not deny the possibility of a spiritual world, only close minded people do.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
And we need salvation from/why..?

Yes, under the assumption that after life exists, then a suffering is thus possible. You don't need to look into that possibility if you have absolute faith that either afterlife can't exist nor no suffering can exist in an after life. That however remains your own faith (and quite baseless).
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
None of that made any sense in regards to the question that I asked.

Then your question makes no sense to everyone. Leave it there for others to have a read, if you do think that it makes no sense you.

Moreover, your this post is rather an assertion with empty argument.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
The question makes plenty of sense. You stated that "it all boils down" to how well salvation is provided. Salvation from what? Why do we need salvation?
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
The question makes plenty of sense. You stated that "it all boils down" to how well salvation is provided. Salvation from what? Why do we need salvation?

I already answer your question very well. Why don't you just read back my post?

Salvation from a bad suffering of an assumed after life, by God.

The above is a clean answer. What's your problem?
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
So basically what you're saying is that Christianity offers the best salvation for people who believe in it, and that salvation is a reward for believing in Christianity and not getting horribly punished in the afterlife?
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
So basically what you're saying is that Christianity offers the best salvation for people who believe in it, and that salvation is a reward for believing in Christianity and not getting horribly punished in the afterlife?

Yes and no. We believe that no one can refute that possibility. On the other hand, we have witnesses brought a salvation message seriously, by martyring themselves. And third, there's not a more valid way for such a message to convey in the case that it is a truth. We also have a whole theology for us to reason why it is so.

What makes you think that what we are conveying cannot be true?

It is as valid as the claim of a terrorist bomb, by someone who sacrificed his own life in order to bring the message out. The difference between the analogy and salvation is that the bomb can still be evidenced before it blasts, while afterlife leaves one with no choice but to believe or not.
 
Last edited:

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Yes and no. We believe that no one can refute that possibility.
Well, I think it's a pretty [REDACTED] possibility. "Believe in our god so that he can save you from what he's going to do to you if you don't believe in him!" It's fear tactics, nothing more.

There are far better theologies out there than that.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
Well, I think it's a pretty [REDACTED] possibility. "Believe in our god so that he can save you from what he's going to do to you if you don't believe in him!" It's fear tactics, nothing more.

There are far better theologies out there than that.

My question for on the other hand is, for the sake of argument that it is a truth, how can you distinguish?

You can be as stupid as choosing to disbelieve a bomb claim, others will choose to run from that area, under the circumstance that those who made such a claim are willing to sacrifice their own lives for the message to flow around.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
How can [one] distinguish... what? That your religion is a truth?

If a person sacrificed himself to claim that 'there's a bomb there', how can you distinguish it from a hoax for you to justify that you don't need to run away?

That's my question made simple for you.

Christianity is all about a claim analogue to this situation. That's my point.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
Usually the bomb is pretty evident. And if they sacrificed themselves... Well, there's usually an explosion.

Jesus - if he existed - was a radical preacher who was convicted of religious crimes, arrested, and summarily executed. Probably to quell inciting the locals against Roman rule. The only thing that we've got to say that it was a sacrifice for some noble cause is the fluff-literature of his fan club.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
Usually the bomb is pretty evident. And if they sacrificed themselves... Well, there's usually an explosion.

Jesus - if he existed - was a radical preacher who was convicted of religious crimes, arrested, and summarily executed. Probably to quell inciting the locals against Roman rule. The only thing that we've got to say that it was a sacrifice for some noble cause is the fluff-literature of his fan club.

No, if bomb is evident all the times, then no one gets killed as broadcast in daily news. Preaching the gospel means to spread the message analogue to "there's a bomb". How well a preacher does has nothing to do the how true the message is. You are presenting a fallacies argument.

By my speculation basically you are pointless. All you can do is to 1) pretend not understand as a dumb does, 2) present a fallacies argument, 3) twist words to suit your need. That's how boring to discuss to atheists who can only be logical up to point when they sense that the argument is not on their side.:D
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
No, if bomb is evident. Then no one gets killed as broadcast in daily news.
And the bomb is still clearly evident, as it was disarmed. You know what happens if someone claims they saved you from a bomb and there was no bomb? It's decried as a hoax and they're possibly charged with inciting a panic.

Preaching the gospel means to spread the message analogue to "there's a bomb".
Show us the bomb, then.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
And the bomb is still clearly evident, as it was disarmed.

I think I already said, not all bombs can be evident at the point before it blasts. This only shows how sneaky you are in side tracking the point.

Or do you means to say that all bombs are evident, such that people still get bombed?

By my speculation basically you are pointless. All you can do is to 1) pretend not understand as a dumb does, 2) present a fallacies argument, 3) twist words to suit your need. That's how boring to discuss to atheists who can only be logical up to point when they sense that the argument is no longer on their side.:D
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
I'm not "side tracking the point", Hawkins. Neither am I an atheist, so you can do away with that assumption.

To continue your analogy (and I must ask, is English not your first language?) you're claiming there's a bomb. More accurately, you're claiming that there was a bomb, but that Jesus saved us from it. But only if we believe in Jesus, otherwise there's still a bomb. Yes?

Show us the bomb.
 

Hawkins

Well-Known Member
I'm not "side tracking the point", Hawkins. Neither am I an atheist, so you can do away with that assumption.

To continue your analogy (and I must ask, is English not your first language?) you're claiming there's a bomb. More accurately, you're claiming that there was a bomb, but that Jesus saved us from it. But only if we believe in Jesus, otherwise there's still a bomb. Yes?

Show us the bomb.
4) start to attack language

By my speculation basically you are pointless. All you can do is to 1) pretend not understand as a dumb does, 2) present a fallacies argument, 3) twist words to suit your need. That's how boring to discuss to atheists who can only be logical up to point when they sense that the argument is not on their side.:D

You are arguing against the obvious. And you question the irrelevant part of an analogy instead of discussing the meaningful part of an analogy. That's all you can do! An analogue is to illustrate a point, instead of building an extract situation. Yet you try to play the trick to question why it isn't an exact of the situation to be illustrated.
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
start to attack language
I'm asking because your sentence structure is very difficult to understand. It is not an "attack" on your language.

By my speculation basically you are pointless.
By my investigation, your claim is a non-concern. There is no bomb, your message is a fear-based hoax, and there are a dozen other religions that offer more at the cost of less. Also, yet again:

That's how boring to discuss to atheists
Not an atheist.

If anything, the argument is not on your side here, so you're resorting to dismissing my questions as atheistic, or fallacious, or twisting, or whatever else you feel you need to do in order to maintain a semblance of purity in your beliefs.

You are arguing against the obvious.
If it was so obvious, Hawkins, then where's the bomb? That is the relevant part of the analogy; the threat of the bomb, and why we must believe your god that it's there.
 
Top