Who does not believe in freedom of choice in religion?

[Aupmanyav]

The reason for it is that they cannot experience the fulfilment of the promises.
They do disrespect him, by refusing to believe in him.
I don't like the stuff by the poets though: gods and goddesses etc. Just fairly tales.
I wasn't meaning that all were converted. I just meant that the gospel was preached to eastern China and beyond, way back. Even some of the mongol generals or at least their wives were Christians.
Jesus was resurrected as a fact, which makes everything he said true.
Christianity is not a matter of luck. God has appointed every tiny thing that happens. Your idea of God is far too small. God knows every little thing. Every action will be brought into the light. Learn from Christ: a guru much superior to any other.

- How can anyone, including you? Because all of them will come after death. They are promises for people who have been made to believe that there is a God doing various weird things. No proof has ever been provided and they are not worth the paper they are written on.
- Why would the Sikhs or Hindus disrespect Jesus in face of Christians? That is not civil. However, we know that his exclusive religion is not truth. Sikhism is far ahead of it.
-If you understand that the story of Jesus is a fairy tale why do you cling to it?
- How does some minor thing (that the wife of a Mongol general was a Christian) that happened in history is relevant today and to the topic in hand?
- That is what your books mention. Our books mention ten times more magical things, like how Bhagiratha by bringing river Ganges from the heaven resurrected 60,000 sons of King Sagar. We do not take it as fact. Only ignorant people do that.- To know something you have to have senses and a brain. God has none of it. It is a creature of imagination. Therefore, whatever Jesus said about this imaginary God is false.

 

[eik]

- How can anyone, including you? Because all of them will come after death. They are promises for people who have been made to believe that there is a God doing various weird things. No proof has ever been provided and they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Answered prayer, fulfilled promises, little and big coincidences in one's favour. The life of Christ is to be lived in this world. The promise of the Holy Spirit. It's quite wrong to say that Christianity is only for the afterlife. The afterlife is dependent on and an extension of this life. Christianity is a religion of victory over self and others.

- Why would the Sikhs or Hindus disrespect Jesus in face of Christians? That is not civil. However, we know that his exclusive religion is not truth. Sikhism is far ahead of it.

See the criticism of Ernest Trumpp of sikhism.

Trumpp, after eight years of study and research of the Sikh scriptures, described them as "incoherent and shallow in the extreme, and couched at the same time in dark and perplexing language, in order to cover these defects. It is for us Occidentals a most painful and almost stupefying task, to read only a single Rag".[1] Trumpp criticized Adi Granth to be lacking systematic unity, according to Arvind Pal Singh Mandair – a Sikhism scholar.[12]

Trumpp said that Sikhism was "a reform movement in spirit", but "completely failed to achieve anything of real religious significance".[1] He concluded that the most Sikhs do not understand what their scripture's verses mean and any metaphysical speculations therein. The Sikh intelligensia he met during his years of study, stated Trumpp, only had a "partial understanding" of their own scripture. Most Sikhs neither observe the rahit-nama – the Sikh code of conduct, nor were the popular notions of the Sikhs guided by the teachings in the Adi Granth.[1] It was more of a military brotherhood with a martial spirit, inspired by a "deep fanatical hatred" for the Muslims given the Sikh sense of their history and identity.[1]​

-If you understand that the story of Jesus is a fairy tale why do you cling to it?

Because it's not a fairy tale. Not even the unbelieving Jews construe Jesus as other than a historic person.

- How does some minor thing (that the wife of a Mongol general was a Christian) that happened in history is relevant today and to the topic in hand?

I was showing you the extent to which Christian theology and values had permeated the world, long before Sikhism.

- That is what your books mention. Our books mention ten times more magical things, like how Bhagiratha by bringing river Ganges from the heaven resurrected 60,000 sons of King Sagar. We do not take it as fact. Only ignorant people do that.- To know something you have to have senses and a brain. God has none of it. It is a creature of imagination. Therefore, whatever Jesus said about this imaginary God is false.

You judge Jesus by the fallibility of your own scriptures!

1 Peter 1:16

"For we did not follow cleverly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17For He received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to Him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”…​

 

[Aupmanyav]

Christianity is a religion of victory over self and others.

See the criticism of Ernest Trumpp of sikhism.

Because it's not a fairy tale. Not even the unbelieving Jews construe Jesus as other than a historic person.
You judge Jesus by the fallibility of your own scriptures!

I was showing you the extent to which Christian theology and values had permeated the world, long before Sikhism.

One does not need instructions from God to live a civil life. That is taught to us by our parents and society. Victory over Self and others? What do you mean there?

Ernest Trumpp - Wikipedia: Thereafter, he was sought and sent to and the Punjab region (British India) to study and translate the Sikh scriptures by Christian missionaries aiming to understand Sikhs and thereby aid their conversion.
This is enough to show what this person was sent for. In which religion, all intricacies are understood by the laity? Which is the religion where its adherents do not transgress their instructions of their scriptures? What rot are you talking about?

What of that? Now Sikhism is permeating in Christian countries. Judaism and Christianity were influenced by one of the oldest monotheistic religion, Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was an off-shoot of the Old Vedic religion. Judaism and Christianity are not the oldest religions of the world.

What makes Jesus' story other than a fairy tale? No event of Jesus' life has any historical proof. What proof can you give of immaculate conception, what proof can you give of Jesus' resurrection, what proof can you give me of his walking on water or feeding the 5000, what proof can you give me of Jesus curing blindness or leprosy or his raising Lazarus from the dead?
Paul was not an witness. No court will accept his testimony.

"In Judaism, Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential and, consequently, the most damaging of all false prophets." Judaism's view of Jesus - Wikipedia

 

[eik]

One does not need instructions from God to live a civil life. That is taught to us by our parents and society. Victory over Self and others? What do you mean there?

I mean the concept of sin, which is personal to everyone, and entirely different from one's "civic" duty:

I John 1:[8] If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.​

Ernest Trumpp - Wikipedia: Thereafter, he was sought and sent to and the Punjab region (British India) to study and translate the Sikh scriptures by Christian missionaries aiming to understand Sikhs and thereby aid their conversion.
This is enough to show what this person was sent for. In which religion, all intricacies are understood by the laity? Which is the religion where its adherents do not transgress their instructions of their scriptures? What rot are you talking about?

Well, as far as Christianity is concerned, the call is to repent of sins on a continual basis. I don't think you'll find many true Christians who are not trying to repent of sins, or if they are not, they are hypocrites. Christianity doesn't tolerate hypocrites. Intolerance is inbuilt into the religion, perhaps in a way that it isn't in Skihism.

What of that? Now Sikhism is permeating in Christian countries. Judaism and Christianity were influenced by one of the oldest monotheistic religion, Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was an off-shoot of the Old Vedic religion. Judaism and Christianity are not the oldest religions of the world.

Pretty sure that Judaism was an extension of Abrahimic faith religion, but with a divine law attached by Moses circa 1500BC.

What makes Jesus' story other than a fairy tale? No event of Jesus' life has any historical proof. What proof can you give of immaculate conception,

Immaculate conception: not necessary to believe. It is not New Testament doctrine.

what proof can you give of Jesus' resurrection, what proof can you give me of his walking on water or feeding the 5000, what proof can you give me of Jesus curing blindness or leprosy or his raising Lazarus from the dead?

Eye witness accounts, and because Christianity is a truth religion. It values truth above all else.

Paul was not an witness. No court will accept his testimony.

Agreed, but he knew those who were.

"In Judaism, Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential and, consequently, the most damaging of all false prophets." Judaism's view of Jesus - Wikipedia

True. It would have to propose that view, because along with the Pharisees in Jesus' day. only by publicly casting Jesus as being of the devil could any effective resistance be made to his teaching. But his good works testified that he came from God. He condemned his detractors as guilty of the unforgiveable sin.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I mean the concept of sin, which is personal to everyone, ..
Well, as far as Christianity is concerned, the call is to repent of sins on a continual basis.
Christianity doesn't tolerate hypocrites.
Intolerance is inbuilt into the religion, perhaps in a way that it isn't in Sikhism.
Pretty sure that Judaism was an extension of Abrahamic faith religion, but with a divine law attached by Moses circa 1500BC.
Immaculate conception: not necessary to believe. It is not New Testament doctrine.
.. because Christianity is a truth religion. It values truth above all else.
True. It would have to propose that view, because along with the Pharisees in Jesus' day. only by publicly casting Jesus as being of the devil could any effective resistance be made to his teaching. But his good works testified that he came from God. He condemned his detractors as guilty of the unforgiveable sin.

- I know, Christians are born in sin.
- Yeah, those who sin continually, will have to repent continually.
- If Christians will not tolerate sin, half its priests would have to leave Christianity.
- Again, I know intolerance is in-built Christianity against all those who do not accept Jesus.
- Yeah, Sikhism has no intolerance. It will only pray to God to give wisdom to the evil persons.
- I do not know how divine was Moses' law, but it was not his. It was plagiarized from earlier laws like those of Hammurabi.
- Good to hear that. That means Christians were fooling people all this time. That is not very nice. Good to know that you do not consider Jesus to be the son of God. And he was not the son of Joseph.
- A religion of truth which can offer no evidence for anything it proposes.
- I know all Abrahamic religions fight among each other and with all others, it is a common trait. Though they claim the same God / Allah. Not different in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, LDS, Bahai or Ahmadiyyas.

 

[eik]

- I know, Christians are born in sin.
- Yeah, those who sin continually, will have to repent continually.
- If Christians will not tolerate sin, half its priests would have to leave Christianity.

It's true that many priests are not genuine believers. Yet I think you're probably referring to Statist versions of Christianity. State churches are notorious. There are many independent denominations where Christianity is far more genuine.

- Again, I know intolerance is in-built Christianity against all those who do not accept Jesus.
- Yeah, Sikhism has no intolerance. It will only pray to God to give wisdom to the evil persons.
- I do not know how divine was Moses' law, but it was not his. It was plagiarized from earlier laws like those of Hammurabi.

Many of Hammurabi’s laws favor the free and wealthy. The laws of Hammurabi are based on pagan temple religion. So I can't agree the law of Moses was just plagiarized from the laws of Hammurabi, although Moses, being a member of the ruling caste from Egypt, would have known a lot about Egyptian law.

- Good to hear that. That means Christians were fooling people all this time. That is not very nice. Good to know that you do not consider Jesus to be the son of God. And he was not the son of Joseph.

Eh? The immaculate conception is a doctrine about Mary's state of sinlessness or freedom from "original sin" (another curious Catholic doctrine at odds with the bible): nothing to do with Christ.

- A religion of truth which can offer no evidence for anything it proposes.

A 6000 year old history isn't bad. BTW, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have been located on the shores of the dead sea. So don't tell me that it is not based in history. There is huge amounts of archaeological evidence supporting the OT.

- I know all Abrahamic religions fight among each other and with all others, it is a common trait. Though they claim the same God / Allah. Not different in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, LDS, Bahai or Ahmadiyyas.

Christianity is the only Abrahamic religion as it is the only religion of the faith of Abraham. All the rest are immersed in legalism, or else do not really impose any obligations.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's true that many priests are not genuine believers. Yet I think you're probably referring to Statist versions of Christianity. State churches are notorious. There are many independent denominations where Christianity is far more genuine.


Many of Hammurabi’s laws favor the free and wealthy. The laws of Hammurabi are based on pagan temple religion. So I can't agree the law of Moses was just plagiarized from the laws of Hammurabi, although Moses, being a member of the ruling caste from Egypt, would have known a lot about Egyptian law.


Eh? The immaculate conception is a doctrine about Mary's state of sinlessness or freedom from "original sin" (another curious Catholic doctrine at odds with the bible): nothing to do with Christ.


A 6000 year old history isn't bad. BTW, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have been located on the shores of the dead sea. So don't tell me that it is not based in history. There is huge amounts of archaeological evidence supporting the OT.


Christianity is the only Abrahamic religion as it is the only religion of the faith of Abraham. All the rest are immersed in legalism, or else do not really impose any obligations.

You quote the wrong person.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Many of Hammurabi’s laws favor the free and wealthy.
Eh? The immaculate conception is a doctrine about Mary's state of sinlessness or freedom from "original sin" (another curious Catholic doctrine at odds with the bible): nothing to do with Christ.
A 6000 year old history isn't bad. BTW, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah have been located on the shores of the dead sea. So don't tell me that it is not based in history. There is huge amounts of archaeological evidence supporting the OT.
Christianity is the only Abrahamic religion as it is the only religion of the faith of Abraham. All the rest are immersed in legalism, or else do not really impose any obligations.

- Even Christian God favored the wealthy. He said 'do not covet what belongs to others' or that keeping a slave is OK. Which Christian follows Jesus who said the rich will not go to heaven.
- Very good that you do not believe in the clap-trap of Mary giving a virgin birth or Jesus being the son of God.
- The sites of Sodom and Gomorrah are not known (Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia). The archaeologists have various views about it. Many cities were burnt by their enemies in history and many were destroyed in volcanic eruptions (Santorini, Vesuvius, etc.). Some events do linger in folk history and enter the religious books suitably modified and exaggerated.
- That is what you believe, others believe differently. Some believe all this to be totally false and opportunistic.

 

[eik]

- Even Christian God favored the wealthy. He said 'do not covet what belongs to others' or that keeping a slave is OK.

I wouldn't agree that that is "favouring the wealthy." It is favouring peace and social order. If God had licensed communism, as per the Islamic conception that the wealth of the nations deserves to be transferred to muslims, so that they can share in it, then he would have licensed a perpetual state of war, and great repression of the poor to stop them rebelling, which is pretty much the Islamic political creed.

As God later said in the words of Christ, "To whom much is given, much will be required (Luke 12:48)." i.e. he expects great generosity from the wealthy.

There were commands on Israelite landowners to let the poor keep some of the harvest for free Lev 23:22 "When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap all the way to the edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and the foreign resident. I am the LORD your God.’”

In Deuteronomy 24:17, 18, God said, “You shall not pervert justice due the stranger or the fatherless, nor take a widow's garment as a pledge. ..."

Then there were Jubilee years where the enslaved or bond servants were set free, and debts were absolved so that they did not become perpetual.

Don't think that Hammurabi had any of this.

Which Christian follows Jesus who said the rich will not go to heaven.

He did not say the rich will not go to heaven. He just said it is very difficult. Thus many of todays benevolent institutions were founded by wealthy people giving away much to charity.

- Very good that you do not believe in the clap-trap of Mary giving a virgin birth or Jesus being the son of God.

No, virgin birth does not infer immaculate conception. Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church only. It was not even adopted as RC dogma until Pope Pius IX promulgated Ineffabilis Deus in 1854.

- The sites of Sodom and Gomorrah are not known (Sodom and Gomorrah - Wikipedia). The archaeologists have various views about it. Many cities were burnt by their enemies in history and many were destroyed in volcanic eruptions (Santorini, Vesuvius, etc.). Some events do linger in folk history and enter the religious books suitably modified and exaggerated.

Check out
Sodom & Gomorrah

Also check out Tall el-Hammam
and
Is The Biblical Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah Based On A Real-Life Impact Event?

I concede that the investigations are still at an early stage, but plenty to investigate in the area of the dead sea.

- That is what you believe, others believe differently. Some believe all this to be totally false and opportunistic.

If you want to live your life in ignorance of the history of the world, then that's your choice.

 

[night912]

Check out
Sodom & Gomorrah

Also check out Tall el-Hammam
and
Is The Biblical Destruction Of Sodom And Gomorrah Based On A Real-Life Impact Event?

I concede that the investigations are still at an early stage, but plenty to investigate in the area of the dead sea.

Sorry, but finding ancient ruins does not make it Sodom and Gomorrah. And finding limestone and brimstone at ancient ruin sites is not uncommon and definitely not evidence the two cities being destroyed by fire and brimstone. It's dishonest to say that it is proof of that incident, especially since limestone is a common building material for that era. And finding brimstone, a common item used in during that era for fire, on the ground then claim that it's proof of the incident, is what one considers as being a poor research and investigation as well as just plain dishonesty.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. then he would have licensed a perpetual state of war, and great repression of the poor to stop them rebelling, ..
I concede that the investigations are still at an early stage, ..

If you want to live your life in ignorance of the history of the world, then that's your choice.

That is what the Christians have done through out the 2000 years. Wars and exploitation of the poor around the world and they are still doing that.

Ignorance is believing in something for which no proof is presented. You yourself say that existence or location of Sodom or Gomorrah has not been proved, but you still want others to believe that.

There is no greater ignorance than Abrahamic religions. There is no proof of God, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, deliverance or any divine mission of any prophet/ son/ messenger/ manifestation/ mahdi. And you say that it is truth!

 

[night912]

Don't think that Hammurabi had any of this.

Correct. Their debt slaves are actually freed in their 4th year as a slave, whereas the bible is 6-7 years.

Hammurabi Code
117. If any one fail to meet a claim for debt, and sell himself, his wife, his son, and daughter for money or give them away to forced labor: they shall work for three years in the house of the man who bought them, or the proprietor, and in the fourth year they shall be set free.

BTW,
Your law regarding slaves, just refers to the slaves that were Jews, not slaves that were bought from foreign countries. But even if they are Jews, they can become permanent slaves if they choose to. Why would they want to? Well, during their enslavement, if their master give them a wife to marry, the wife and children remain slaves of the master. So, in order for him to be with his family, he must become a permanent slave to his master. It's made official once they accept and got their ear pierce.

 

[eik]

Sorry, but finding ancient ruins does not make it Sodom and Gomorrah.

Any other names you'd care to give the ruins? The Jewish historian Josephus identifies the Dead Sea in geographic proximity to the ancient biblical city of Sodom

And finding limestone and brimstone at ancient ruin sites is not uncommon

I would say it is pretty uncommon.

and definitely not evidence the two cities being destroyed by fire and brimstone.

What looks like walls are made of ash, caused by burning limestone.

It's dishonest to say that it is proof of that incident, especially since limestone is a common building material for that era. And finding brimstone, a common item used in during that era for fire, on the ground then claim that it's proof of the incident, is what one considers as being a poor research and investigation as well as just plain dishonesty.

Nothing dishonest about it. You're not proved anything to be dishonest.

 

[eik]

That is what the Christians have done through out the 2000 years. Wars and exploitation of the poor around the world and they are still doing that.

A generalized and vague critique impossible to substantiate. Oft times Christianity is surplanted by Deism in the wagers of war (i.e. the politicians). You'd first have to prove that the starters of wars were politicians who were Christians.

There is no greater ignorance than Abrahamic religions. There is no proof of God, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, deliverance or any divine mission of any prophet/ son/ messenger/ manifestation/ mahdi. And you say that it is truth!

Nothing can be proved to those who refuse to believe. It's a form of divine judgement on those who disparage spirituality. You'be done nothing but disparage Christianity and the Old Testament since the beginning, despite making it clear you know very little of it.

 

[eik]

Correct. Their debt slaves are actually freed in their 4th year as a slave, whereas the bible is 6-7 years.

No the biblical code is every seventh year. So across the 7 year time period the average would be 3.5 years, but in fact the majority of debts, or servitudes, would actually occur towards the latter end of the seven years. So again the Israelite system was fairer.

Also consider: the Deuteronomic Code states that "when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your wine press’"(Deuteronomy 15).

BTW,
Your law regarding slaves, just refers to the slaves that were Jews, not slaves that were bought from foreign countries. But even if they are Jews, they can become permanent slaves if they choose to. Why would they want to? Well, during their enslavement, if their master give them a wife to marry, the wife and children remain slaves of the master. So, in order for him to be with his family, he must become a permanent slave to his master. It's made official once they accept and got their ear pierce.

What you call "enslavement" would be better rendered "employment."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nothing can be proved to those who refuse to believe.

Yeah, for believers no proof is needed. Asking for proof is blasphemy. 'Don't believe the word of God (or Allah).
What should come first, proof or belief?

 

[eik]

Yeah, for believers no proof is needed. Asking for proof is blasphemy. 'Don't believe the word of God (or Allah).
What should come first, proof or belief?

Asking for proof is definitely not blasphemy. Proof is a constant theme in the bible. Blasphemy is when proof stares you in the face, like it did those who witnessed the miracles of Christ, only for them to allege that the miracles were done by the power of Satan (Mark 3:28–29, Matthew 12:31–32, and Luke 12:10).

 

[Milton Platt]

On the contrary, the constitution only forbids the establishment of a religion under secular law. But there is nothing to stop secular law itself being enacted along Christian lines, and that is what you will find on a historical basis in respect of many criminal laws. Much criminal law of today originated in Christian society, although since modified by non Christian liberals. Yet if muslims were in future to become a predominant majority, you would find that secular law begins to take on an appearance of Sharia law. In effect all law is constituted according to the religion of its legislators and supreme court judges.

Which is something to always guard against

 

[eik]

Which is something to always guard against

??? May be you need to seriously think about the origination of law. Law always comes from one's religion, widely defined. A person's religion is known by their law. Law doesn't emerge from a vacuum, but from principles, which will be based on atheism or belief in some philosophy, or from some spiritual belief. You sit there sneering at religion, but laws based on religious belief have led to just and open societies; and laws based on atheist principles have led to grossly unjust societies.

 

[Milton Platt]

??? May be you need to seriously think about the origination of law. Law always comes from one's religion, widely defined. A person's religion is known by their law. Law doesn't emerge from a vacuum, but from principles, which will be based on atheism or belief in some philosophy, or from some spiritual belief. You sit there sneering at religion, but laws based on religious belief have led to just and open societies; and laws based on atheist principles have led to grossly unjust societies.

Law may be influenced by religion. It does not literally come from religion.