What religion would best represent Earth?

Being a Unitarian. Believing in a higher being is not a necessary component.

As you said, Christianity represents 33% of the religious people of Earth. I would say it is more like 25%

The other 75% is not one religion. There is Hindu and Muslim/Islam and Buddhism. And there are many many many minor religions too.

There really is no one religion that would best represent the Earth as the religion of most of the people of Earth.

And yet by the end of the movie, Jodie was leaning towards belief in God

From what I have been able to observe in my 65 years of life, all human actions can be boiled down to two motives, fear and love. a simple example would be this scenario. You and your family, living in a remote rural location, are sitting down to supper. A stranger knocks on the door:

The “fear” reaction would be to grab the firearms, keep the door locked, and ask “who is it, and what do you want?” The assumption would be that the person knocking wants something that you have and will take it with or without your permission.

The “love” reaction would be to answer the door, invite the stranger in, offer to share supper, and see that the stranger’s needs are met.

I would hope that it would be a philosophy of love rather than fear that we would want to represent us on a “first contact” mission.

No she wasn’t leaning toward belief in God, @Dan_Lyons. She was just backed into a corner, speechless, because she was the only person on earth who experienced it and she couldn’t prove it. However, you may have forgotten that there was one piece of empiric evidence that upheld her story of being gone for 18 hours rather than less than one second.

Good answer @Yetanotheruser! Care to have lunch with us? We do have to frisk you at the door, though.

@GloPro Being an agnostic, I agree with you.

How about Objectivism/Randianism? It can finance fanciful experiments, and the deity is an invisible hand.

@Yetanotheruser I like your example However, I noticed one quirk. Either choice results in me not eating all the chocolate cake on my table. ;-)
Maybe the safest move is to treat them like we do the folks who leave their religious litter in our front door handles – ignore the door bell and use the paper for heat in our wood burning stoves.

Actually I think real ‘contact’ would force Earth to solve a lot of its problems.
If anyone is looking for an volunteer, sign me up!.

Orthodox Environmentalism!

Can we consider stupid to be a religion?

If so, @cheebdragon, I should stop telling people I’m not religious.

As a whole, looking at the activity on earth, all the oppression, war, murder and ignorance, there are only two candidates:
have a guess

There is still plenty of love, innovation and humility here on the planet. It’s not all death and destruction. I don’t think we need any religion to “represent” us.

Greed

Considering all the fighting over religion, we should pick Ares, the Greek God of War.

Imagine…

King Kentucky McTaco Sonic Bell

Global warming

I think if we are prompted to choose a representative religion by “Earth” it will be a tough choice, as @Dan_Lyons said. In the film, Jodie Foster was being browbeaten by American politicians… I’m sure they were aiming at having a representative of some Christian religion, regardless of the way they phrased their arguments about “humanity”. They would have been as unsatisfied by the choice of a Muslim or Hindu representative as they were by the choice of an atheist.

@cheebdragon is that Orthodox Stupidity, Reform Stupidity, Progressive Stupidity or Southern Evangelical Stupidity?

The Newly Reformed Church Of The Metaphysical Clitoris

about time somebody reformed that

The Church of Labia Day Saints…hymen to that brothers & sisters.

The…crucifixion was originally invented as an ironic punishment for fisherman who bragged too much about the size of their catch…believers.

Anarchism.

^All of that stuff is illogical.

As I already posted on another question but here it is again to read that Jesus is the master logician

Maybe some people don’t think too much about being logical, I think about it all the time. :/

The next thing is the fact that we all have a choice.

So whatever this idea is that sounds so good to have a religion representing earth and getting the entire rest of the population to agree on it without brainwashing them seems pretty dark and dismal….or does it?

Church of Starry Wisdom.

No religion. Religion is the bane of our existence. Why would we share that with an intelligent extra terrestrial species? We would look primitive, I’m sure.

Represent Humans? Christianity circa 16th Century, because even if we believe in the same god, we still have this nasty habit of killing each other

@KaY_Jelly
Jesus cursed a fig tree because it did not bear any fruit.
It was not in season. #masterlogician

I think it would be a very bad idea to choose a religion to represent Earth. Firstly, there is no religion that everyone identifies with. Secondly aliens would probably find the idea of religion incomprehensible. Thirdly aliens will take offence at a species that puts itself first and forgets the other life forms on our planet.

@flutherother I don’t know that they’d find in incomprehensible. If they’ve gotten to the point of time travel, it’s logical to assume that they came through millions of years of evolution and centuries of asking“Why are we here,” and making the same attempts as we did to answer the question with only their brains and imaginations. They may find it backward and primitive, but not incomprehensible.

Just curious too, where did “forgetting the other life forms on our planet” come in?

The Church of God the Utterly Indifferent.

@ragingloli
#youwerethere?
Sounds like you take the word of the bible more sacred and to the heart than any logically thinking person I know today.

Raggy?????????????? Did you direct that comment to @ragingloli??????????????

@Dutchess_III No other life form on our planet has a religion or is interested in religion and we can’t assume aliens would be any different.

@KaY_Jelly ”#youwerethere?”

Haha – seriously? Not story in the bible would stand up to that question. At some point, you just have to accept that humans have learned a thing or two about the world from experiment and indirect observation.

@KaY_Jelly
Yes, I was. #mynameisJudasIscariot

Yes @Dutchess_III I directed that comment to @ragingloli, I’m not stupid this isn’t my first rodeo o.k.

@dappled_leaves that’s pretty much my point.

I find it ironic though that atheists and unbelievers like to use scriptures and stories from the book like it actually happened.

Who here has proof?
Please give it to me!

I was there too.
I see your hashtag and raise you up
#mynameisjesus

#takingthelordsnameinvainenjoyyourstayinhellblasphemer

@KaY_Jelly o_O

@ragingloli
Not taking the Lord’s name in vein.
If you know the story, like it seems you claim, then you have read the part that says we are all made in His image.

Don’t hate just because I came up with it first. ♡♡

Ephesians 2:10
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

#thatsmeinthecorner #icantbelieveitsnotbuddha

@KaY_Jelly

If the stories and scriptures in the Bible did not actually happen then what reason is there to hold the Bible in any higher esteem than any other work of fiction?

@Darth_Algar
I did not actually say it did not happen.

We have a choice.

If I go by the bible even in the time of Jesus people did not believe in him then and thought he was a fraud and it is even why he was sacrificed on the cross.

Proof does not always make people believers.

Even logic does not make people believe.

If you want an answer the bible IMHO is the most logical, that’s just my personal choice…first you have to figure out which religion is for you, we all need something to believe in, if you want to be the most illogical IMHO then we can continue teaching in schools about evolution, obliterating Christianity, giving our children not the freedom of choice and ironically we continue to be hypocrites and shout that we want equality but essentially we are doing what the question has stated, it is a world turned from Christianity, and being built on sin.

And even if God did not exist we would find in the bible if we all lived more like him we would be more peaceful.

And so yes us ‘intelligent’ humans have lowered ourselves to that of a less intelligent species than ourselves, the bonobo..because we do not want to believe that we came from something as great as a God.
So logical.

From the wolves out pops the more evolved super dog. Yep it makes sense to me.

Getting everyone to agree on one ‘religion,’ is not so far fetched that’s if you want my honest and serious answer.

Jesus was the prince of peace, IMO we could probably all learn something from him.

@KaY_Jelly

Dogs are not super evolved wolves. They are simply a differently evolved species.
Humans are not evolved Bonobos. They are differently evolved primates.
Teaching evolution does not obliterate Christianity and choosing one does not negate the other.
You cannot equate evolution and Christianity; it is like equating algebra with English. Two totally different subject.

IMHO

@rojo Right, except that dogs did in fact evolve from wolves. This does not in any way require tha wolves have to disappear. That’s not how it works. Nor is there any “popping.”

@rojo
I was being sarcastic when I said dogs were super evolved wolves. I know they are not.

In fact they are a species that comes from the grey wolf but imo more dependant than a grey wolf therefore making them less ‘evolved.’

I still personally do not think we are from primates and this is what I was taught in school.
It does kind of suck that I was not told heres some different scenarios of what could be, now you choose, no we were just taught about evolution.

As I said IMHO if the idea is correct as with the grey wolf and dogs then us humans should innately be less evolved than the bonobo, why aren’t bonobos so evolved now, dogs will not make great hunters, leaving a canine without human companionship it becomes feral and not really anything like a wolf.

The next thing is dogs and wolves can mate, bonobos and humans cannot.

More proof, for me, that we are not ‘evolved’ from them.

@KaY_Jelly “It does kind of suck that I was not told heres some different scenarios of what could be, now you choose, no we were just taught about evolution.”

This happened because you were taught about evolution in a science class. We do not get to choose what science finds to be true. In a philosophy or religion class, you may be given different options to believe. This is not the same thing.

“As I said IMHO if the idea is correct as with the grey wolf and dogs then us humans should innately be less evolved than the bonobo, why aren’t bonobos so evolved now, dogs will not make great hunters, leaving a canine without human companionship it becomes feral and not really anything like a wolf.”

You are misusing the word “evolved” here. Evolution is not about making a species “better” in any way. Evolution is only the process by which one population of a species, usually because they become geographically separated from others of their own species, change over generations such that eventually they cannot interbreed with individuals from the original population. The new species is different, not better. The phrases “more evolved than” or “less evolved than” are things you would never hear a biologist say. All species have evolved. They are not moving toward some ideal version of themselves.

“The next thing is dogs and wolves can mate, bonobos and humans cannot.”

You are absolutely right about this, and it is one reason that many do not consider wolves and dogs to be entirely separate species.

@KaY_Jelly Dogs are neither more or less evolved than wolves. Both evolved from a common ancestor but they took different lines of evolution. Same with Bonobos and humans. We have a common ancestor. That we cannot breed with them is a result of the split being further in the past than that of the wolf/dog. We have evolved further apart because we have been at it for a longer length of time. There is a greater difference between the the genetic material of humans and Bonobo than there is between the wolf and dog. Given time, dogs and wolves will reach the same point as donkeys and horses who can produce viable offspring sometimes but are much more frequently sterile. And eventually, they will reach a point where the genetic material is so different that they will no longer produce viable offspring. Just for the sake of argument, have you any scientific data that proves that the offspring of Bonobo and human are not viable? Perhaps one species just has higher standards than dogs and wolves.

I do not understand your lesser vs more evolved example. Bonobo’s fulfill a specific niche in the ecological chain, as do dogs, wolves and humans. There is not a more or less percentage.

I think the problem comes from your mistaken belief that Humans evolved from Bonobos and dogs evolved from wolves. This is incorrect. Humans and Bonobo evolved from a common ancestor somewhere in the past. We both have traits common to that ancestor but one did not “come” from the other. Same with dogs and wolves. One did not come from the other. Both came from a common ancestor and evolved to fit a particular niche in the circle of life.

I’ve never seen anyone, not one single person, dispute evolution who actually understood it.

@dappled_leaves
“We do not get to choose what science finds to be true. In a philosophy or religion class, you may be given different options to believe. This is not the same thing.”

Then I should of had that choice or no choice at all as a small child.

“The new species is different, not better.”

This I guess I somewhat agree. I wasn’t saying they are better at all. In fact, I think that is the idea I am protesting too the idea that we came from the bonobos, and that we somehow got better from there. To me it is extremely humiliating for our species that we have in fact devalued ourselves into a bonobos.

I am suggesting that it is an unpopular idea to believe that we could of come from something as great and powerful as a God, even though the dictionary meaning tells us that evolution means to be better not different and so possibly I am trying to say that who’s to say we aren’t already trying to get one religion that represents earth.

Maybe ‘evolution’ is the wrong word for you, but I do not think it is.

This is the definition:

ev·o·lu·tionˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/noun1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

”“more evolved than” or “less evolved than” are things you would never hear a biologist say.”

I’m not a biologist. So I guess I can freely make the mistake.

@rojo
“Just for the sake of argument, have you any scientific data that proves that the offspring of Bonobo and human are not viable?”

Personally? Of course not. But I fail to see planet of the apes taking over so I think we are clear in that area.

You can look up humanzee.

“Both came from a common ancestor and evolved to fit a particular niche in the circle of life.”

I have to say that when I look at the evidence with my own eyes the only ‘circle of life’ I have seen is on Disney’s The Lion King. o_O

@dappled_leaves “Right, except that dogs did in fact evolve from wolves.”

Some studies are beginning to question this assumption. Here is an article that is informative and can recommend other lines of research if you are so inclined.

A quote from the above article:

“There does exist some amount of genetic overlap between some modern dogs and wolves. But this is thought to be the result of interbreeding after dogs were domesticated, not a direct line of descent from one group of wolves, according to the press release.

“If you don’t explicitly consider such exchanges, these admixture events get confounded with shared ancestry,” he said. Admixtures are hybrids produced due to interbreeding between two different population groups. “Dog domestication is more complex than we originally thought,” said Dr.Novembre.”

Interesting stuff!

@KaY_Jelly

Maybe I am just being a little dense this morning but I don’t follow your line of thought about ”...humans should innately be less evolved than the bonobo, why aren’t bonobos so evolved now, dogs will not make great hunters,... ”. Why would you think that humans should be less evolved than the bonobo? Is it because you consider dogs less evolved than wolves? And, if so, why do you consider a dog to be less evolved than a wolf? Dogs are very successful at what they do, as are wolves. But, dogs are not as successful trying to be wolves and wolves are not very good at being dogs. Same with humans, bonobos, chimps, gorillas and orangs.

I think, perhaps, that my confusion with your statement comes about from a different understanding of the definition of evolution. Let me give you the definition that I am familiar with and see if we can agree on what it is saying.

To me evolution is the process by which the genetic structure of populations changes over time; that is the changes in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Is this something you can agree with or how would you modify it if not?

Notice that it does not address the concepts of better/worse or more/less; it simply says changes. Some of these genetic changes will have positive results, some negative and some neutral. In order for a particular trait to be passed on, it has to either give an advantage to or at a minimum be neutral to the behavior or physical characteristics of the creature. One that is detrimental will make it more difficult for an animal to breed successfully and therefore pass on the negative trait on to offspring.

@KaY_Jelly Not only did we evolve from primates, we ARE primates. We are primates.

When you said, Sounds like you take the word of the bible more sacred and to the heart than any logically thinking person I know today. to Raggie, I take it you were being sarcastic? You can’t have been serious. He’s an atheist, thorough and through.

N(N-denominational or unitarian. A lot of people are more interested in that than a pre-packaged religion.

@rojo
My opinion is just that, my opinion.

“Is it because you consider dogs less evolved than wolves?”

I guess you can say yes that is it, but for me it’s not just about the canine that is the only example I chose to bring up at this particular time, I am less interested in delving into an entire list of species over the earth, just based solely on my personal opinion, I am not interested in rewriting Darwin’s law.

“And, if so, why do you consider a dog to be less evolved than a wolf?”

I have already said my reason for that. When I said “dogs will not make great hunters” I apologize I think fast and skip things, maybe that’s why things do not make sense sometimes :/, anyway I know dogs can be taught how to hunt, but that is not what I was talking about, a wolf is born with all of the instincts many that we have to teach our canine companions, we have essentially made the dog more dependant on us and they will not survive without us and if they do go without us the average lifespan of a feral dog is only 1–2 years, well below the 8–12+ that we give them. A grey wolf can live in the wild for 13 years their average life span is 5–6 depending on injuries from fighting, if they are kept in captivity they can live up to 15 years. But a wolf does not need human interaction.
I don’t want to make it seem like I am just talking about the domestication part of it because we know that single species from the wild born into our habitats can be tamed and raised carefully by humans, but that is just an aquired trait that animal has and it doesnt mean the entire species is suddenly domesticated, and then trying to return it to the wild can prove being difficult and only shows that particular animal is a feral species and no longer a wild one, much like releasing a household dog into the streets and letting it fend for itself…nothing like the wolf.

Dogs are domesticated so are we domesticated chimps?

That’s the part that baffles me, that’s why I ponder that we have lowered ourselves to the level of chimp, we are intelligent beings, and we are saying that we ‘evolved’ from not something intelligent, for goodness sakes no, but something less intelligent.

And I guess that is what I am also saying throughout evolution I do not see that other species get more intelligent from their first counterpart. Whales are amazing and extremely intelligent, do we actually think we as humans are this special? Of course we do.

The entire idea is illogical to me. I need to see it happen. I need to see a race of humanzees before I decide that O.K yes it is true.

@whoever I must say my goodbyes. I won’t be back, I am closing my account for personal reasons I won’t mention here. Thanks for the talks.

Good grief. As I said before – I’ve never seen anyone dispute evolution that actually understood it.

Darwin didn’t write any “laws”. Just theories. Just sayin’.

Yes, now that I think about it, we could be considered domesticated chimps.

@Dutchess_III There is really no difference between a theory and a law.

We can’t be considered domesticated chimps because we are not descended from chimps. We share a common ancestor with chimps.

@rojo Thanks for the link on the canid study. It’s recent enough that I hadn’t heard a thing about it. Weird source to link from, though!

OK, we could be considered domesticated primates!

@Dutchess_III Who domesticated us?

Ourselves.

So… why call us domesticated?

Why not? We used to be wild, wild, back in our ancestry. Probably still would be if not for the social boundaries we began putting on ourselves. When we started making rules, that’s when we started becoming “domesticated.”

It was just kind of an idle thought, really.

Mkay. Have fun with that.

@everyone disputing evolution: Why do you people always feel the need to be better than every other species? How DARE anyone say that you may have evolved from a ”lesser” species. Why the superiority complex?

I find it incredibly amazing simply being alive with the ability to contemplate my own existence. Evolution makes sense. Evolution amazes me. It has been proven over, and over and over and over again to be a process of life. To deny it is like denying oxygen or gravity.

Creationism and anything written in the bible however; never been proven. Never will be.

^^^ GA!

Apparently I still have fluther on my phone, I guess I never logged out, so I will be here until it logs off.

@flip86
The idea that you are ok with creationism being “proven” really speaks to the way of how illogical your thinking is.

”... in science there is no ‘knowledge’, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by ‘proof’ an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory.”
~Sir Karl Popper,
The Problem of Induction,
1953

“If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part.”
~Richard Feynman (1918–1988).

@KaY_Jelly . . . One could say the same thing about faith.

@Blondesjon

They can! And they do!
I believe if you do not fully understand or havent completley studied religions or any belief system, than most people make a choice based on popularity and base their ideals on what is almost like a competition (that’s the only way I can compare it), we see it advertised, we learn, we accept and we believe that’s what is correct or acceptable, if you were to bring up evolution in Turkey the majority of that population would disagree with you and the evolution idea would be the in the minority!

Scriptures prophesize that there are ‘ungodly men’ who creep in turning the grace of God and denying the lord the saviour Jesus Christ.

Well I believe Darwin is one of them.

Jude1:1–6
1Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
2 Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5 I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

If we look back into the Christian faith, through the old testament and new testament, look into the dead sea scrolls, look into actual real historical figures and archeological sites, we find the bible coincides, putting aside the untestable elements such as curing sickness, magic, etc. the rest makes complete and logical sense, above I even posted how Jesus Christ even at that time was the master logician.

To me it makes complete logical sense.

Unlike say Buddhism which the end result is to remove all desires, but yet you’d have to have the desire first to do so, which is illogical.

Also, Catholicism’s false worship!

I could go on why other belief systems are illogical for me,

I’ve done extensive research.

I was once an atheist, and before that I practiced witchcraft, I believe they are also both illogical!

@KaY_Jelly

Have you completely studied all religions?

So, @KaY_Jelly what religion would best represent earth? I am guessing not Catholicism or Buddhism or, probably Jainism

@Darth_Algar
I can’t say that I have studied ‘all’ religions, I am still researching as we speak, it is an ongoing process, but up until this point I have researched, studied and involved myself with many different religions if not involved I have spoken with and interviewed many people of different religions for their first hand accounts of that religion.
Religion seems to have become my lifes work, unknowingly.

I have even been told out here by so called Christians that maybe I shouldn’t talk about the faith out here.

It’s true being a faithful person is not always what is the most liked idea, I’ve noticed out here especially my idea is very unpopular.

And that is why it is difficult for me to say @rojo my answer, because I believe there will be some inconsiderate replies to my opinion which I have been dealing with all along, I’m not pointing fingers.

Regardless, my honest answer is Christianity. If we all followed Jesus Christ’s advice we would be more at peace and more peaceful…they didn’t call him the prince of peace for nothing.

Jesus never cast a stone, yet we do it all the time, in fact Jesus taught us not to cast stones upon each other because we are all sinners, (so logical!), yet we have even started to sacrifice his creatures (which he never wanted which is shown IMHO in scriptures mark 11:15–16) and yet it is done all the time by claiming that they are ‘humanely’ killed, we do sacrifices all the time but it isnt even to wash away our sins, which has been done, it is to commit sin.

There is no such thing as humane killing.

Killing is killing, it is not humane, it is murder and an illogical argument people use to make others feel better.

Sacrificial offers in the time of the bible were given to God as forgiveness of sin.

This ended once Jesus was born because Jesus Christ was sacrificed for our sins and considered the perfect sacrifice.

John the Baptist recognized this when he saw Jesus coming to be baptized.

John1:29
29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

We all need something to believe in, I just happen to believe in something which is different than most people out here and I believe it can all be logically explained unlike anything else.

@KaY_Jelly

So then you’re making a choice based on popularity.

Also you clearly haven’t studied all that well if you think the goal of Buddhism is to remove all desires.

Also you’ll find that a lot of religions coincide with certain historical places, figures, etc. For example we have the palace of King Minos in Crete, therefore following your reasoning the myth of the Minotaur makes complete logical sense.

Oh, Jesus did cast a few proverbial stones.
He did it with the money lenders in the temple when he cast them out.
He did it with the fig tree when he cursed it.
He did it with Satan when he rejected him in the desert.

Also:

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.”

And it is not just that you have to love your family less than Jesus, you have to hate them, as he clarifies here:
“If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

@ragingloli
Cherry picking I see.
I am going to choose to explain one verse to you because in all honesty I really can’t waste my morning giving bible lessons. I apologize.

This is how I learned about Luke14:26.

Jesus relates a metaphor about a man who builds a house without counting the cost and finds that he cannot follow through with what he set out to do.

He leaves the house unfinished because he cannot pay what is required.

He also references about going into battle with less followers than who you choose to go into battle with and instead of battle opting for peace.

Which also directs me to answer @Darth_Algar that being in Canada my view is the minority, there is a difference between being spiritual and religious

At this point I have not found a church that I religiously visit, many are Baptist in my area or Catholic, it has been difficult for me to find the right religious community, plus I am moving out of town again, once I am settled I plan on commiting myself once again to church services.

Back to what I was talking about…

Jesus is showing us the explanation to His difficult statement, that we must understand and know the cost of discipleship.

This is the point of the passage.
In order to be a disciple, we must be willing to give up everything for Jesus.

Therefore, if our parents will not follow Jesus, or even if they disown us for being Christians, we must still choose Him over them.

I guess Jesus chose to make it clear by using a harsh word such as hate.

And so cherry picking is OK if possibly your personal ‘religion’ is recruitment style but let’s not forget the rest of this script:

27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.
28 For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it?
29 Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
30 Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.
31 Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that cometh against him with twenty thousand?
32 Or else, while the other is yet a great way off, he sendeth an ambassage, and desireth conditions of peace.
33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

And let’s not forget the very fact that Jesus himself did all those very things and he did carry the cross and ultimatley died for our sins.

If you understand the bible it does not mean to ‘hate’.

In fact Jesus did not hate Mary, but he served God and that was his number 1 priority, I suppose you could say.

When you pluck verses out without knowing there true meaning then, sure one can see how easy it is to decipher that God wants us to hate our family, but know the rest of book before you pass judgment.

1John4:7–8

7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

@Darth_Algar
To the core, the belief in a deity(s) is similar, the logical parts are not.

There are many men who sought to be God and even many made up God’s, but only one man who sought to be God so he could save us.

Also, Buddhism.

….Wait…are you saying you choose a religion based on how popular it happens to be with other humans at the time?

@Dutchess_III
No that’s not what I’m saying at all.

@KaY_Jelly

I’ve been a Buddhist for the better part of a decade. I’ll wager I have somewhat deeper understanding of Buddhism than you do. But if a single webpage represents the whole of a religious system to you then I give you Christianity.

@KaY_Jelly It’s funny that you use Popper to try and argue your case. His statements about falsifiability alone discredit creationism without even digging deeper into the bible.

@Darth_Algar
First of all if you are Buddhist then that’s good for you I’m happy for you that you are on your own personal path. :)

I had no clue which is why I gave proof, it doesn’t mean I take that as proof but what else would you like me to do in this situation?

I have already stated that
“I have researched, studied and involved myself with many different religions if not involved I have spoken with and interviewed many people of different religions for their first hand accounts of that religion”.

Buddhism is among one of those, I’d love to pass along all of my research papers but not going to happen anytime soon.

So why don’t you then tell us all about the four noble truths?
And what is number 4 again?

That’s right! Following the noble eight path can eliminate desire.

Other than the fact that I personally believe that Buddhism is illogical that doesn’t mean I think that the choice you have made in your own personal life is wrong for you, I hold no authority here, there is no need to be offended.

I really do not want to end my stay here this way, I apologize if you feel attacked by me or my words based on my opinion about religions being illogical and I unfortunatley decided to use yours as one of the examples but I did not know that you are a Buddhist.

Otoh, I clicked on the link you provided and was sent to this page..

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i

I’m not sure if you are aware of this or not but first of all, I am not Catholic at all, in fact it was one of the links I provided above saying “Catholicism’s false worship!”

Although Catholicism is a branch of Christianity it is not a branch that I identify with.

Buddhism is “illogical.” Funny!

@KaY_Jelly

Whatever makes you think that I am offended? Do not presume that you could ever say anything that would offend me.

Buddhism seems “illogical” to you, but you utterly fail to understand it:

The First Noble Truth is that suffering exists.
The Second is that the cause of suffering is the attachment.
The Third is that suffering ceases when attachment ceases.
The Fourth Noble Truth is that freedom from suffering is possible (via putting the Noble Eightfold Path into practice).

The Noble Eightfold Path is:
1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration

Nowhere is desire listed. The goal isn’t the elimination of desire, but rather the elimination of attachment to your desires. You are going to have desires. That’s part of being alive. However the tendency is to become attached to ones desire. Thus ones desires enslave oneself, and in turn causes one to suffer for it. Cessation of suffering, not cessation of desire, is the goal of Buddhist practice. Buddhism emphasizes the “Middle Way” for a reason.

And it’s amazing that you missed my point with that link even with me spelling the point out right before the link.

Sounds perfectly reasonable and logical to me @Darth_Algar!

@Darth_Algar
It doesn’t matter how you put it!

It’s not logical to me.

I learned differently than what you are saying, so I guess you must hold the authority here, but I hope you do know or will take into account that there are many different schools of Buddhism, more than there are sects of Christianity.

This is my POV from what I have learned.

I am not in any way saying that following the rules you do is not good for your own personal well being.

It really doesn’t matter to me if you guys see it or not, I’m not here to change anyone’s view.

As soon as my phone is shut down I will be gone from here for good, I have been here for a long time but it really is interfering with my life.

I’m on a certain path and unfortunately it is difficult to stay out here and continue to devote my time to this when I need to devote my time elsewhere.

I have enjoyed my time here I just do not have the time anymore to devote freely to the demands such as here in this question with every answer I give.

My main interests are Christian apology and philosophy of religion which usually creates question upon question for my answers.

So since there is a discrepancy on the first part of my argument, in the ‘desire’ area and we cannot come to an agreement, maybe something to do with schools of thought, I will attack the Buddha argument from a different angle.

First of all for anyone interested and does not know it, here is some info on the beginnings of Buddhism.

On with it then, reasons why I think Christianity is the more logical choice.

Buddhism is manmade and man is not the creator, so far we know this to be fact.

As there is no evidence which supports this.

Otoh, in Christianity man is not the creator.

Christianity does have historical evidence to back up the scriptures and first hand eyewitness accounts that date after the death and resurrection of Christ.

The documents that exist for Buddhism exist are dated after Buddha died.

Buddha claims the world is an illusion.

There is no scientific basis for this law.

Buddha is mutable.  
God is immutable.

Hebrews 7:24
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.

Christianity has proven for me to be the most logical choice.

so much irony, all lost on you

My head hurts from reading that. And I didn’t even have to bang it on the desk.

^ Sure. Great answers though guys.

Still I don’t see you debating me on the logical parts of any of my arguments, I could of went further even lol.

@ragingloli back at ya! Your statement is coming from you who is the most irrational person I know out here, going by the name that begins with ‘raging’ which you live up to, a raging person almost never thinks about being logical…nuff said.

Pfftt.

@KaY_Jelly No parts of your arguments are logical. You don’t appear to understand the meaning of the word logical (hint: it doesn’t mean “something I like”). Please don’t go further.

@dappled_leaves That’s a priori
for you!

You obviously can’t identify the fallacies in my arguments, which I did not provide.

@KaY_Jelly

No one is debating you on the “logical” parts of your argument because there are no logical parts to your argument.

Also, if this site is interfering with your life so much then why do you have to wait until your phone is shut down to leave this site? Talk about illogical.

@Darth_Algar

Again if you guys do not want to pick out the fallacies then that’s fine.

They are right there plain to see.

Here ye, here ye! Let it be known that Buddha holds the authority and the age old question has been answered, according to the great people of fluther we needn’t look any further, don’t get off your couch,don’t get out of bed, everything you knew about science is wrong, the Buddha holds the answers, and man is the creator!

Anyway, I have only committed my quality time to this question..aren’t you guys so lucky!

Not that you guys would agree on quality of it.

But again no arguments against anything I’ve said, just replies littered with personal opinions.

You guys don’t like me, because of my opinions that’s fine, I have struggled out here for years because my opinions are not the ‘norm’, this is supposed to be a community which I heard was accepting but all I feel is disunity.

As it has come to be shown in this thread here, the community doesn’t get along with me, I accept that, and all of this comment is opinion. There are no facts or historical evidence to back up anything I’ve said in this comment.

And there are no facts or historical evidence to back up anything you’ve said.

I never actually said ‘I have to wait until my phone shuts down.’

I said “as soon as my phone is shut down I will be gone from here for good”.

I can stop answering questions whenever I choose, I’m not a slave to the phone company, now that’s logical.

That actually doesn’t give any indication of my intention towards answering this question.

Your irrationality has gotten the better of you again I see.

Say, my phone shuts down some time in the middle of the week something happens today
making it impossible for me to be able to answer any more questions here.

Or let’s just say I decide I don’t want to anymore because it’s no longer fun.

I guess if I wanted a debate I should of visited the ‘pro’.

Have a lot of irrational ‘fun’ w/out me! :-D

You want something that contradicts what you wrote above?
Then you shall have it.
There is evidence that directly contradicts the claims of christianity about history and the universe:
Humans were not created ex nihilo, they evolved from a common ancestor with extant apes.
Not 6000 years ago, but millions of years ago. The same with all other life on earth. They were not poofed into existance via incantation, they evolved over hundreds of millions of years.
Earth is not the centre of the solar system, nor the universe.
Earth is not flat.
The sky is not a solid dome, and the stars are not windows to the “waters above”.
There is no evidence for a global flood.
There is no evidence for the exodus.
There is no evidence for the existence of jesus.
The “gospels” were written, at the earliest, 70 years after jesus’s alleged existence and death. None of the writers of the gospels were eye-witnesses to jesus’ alleged existence and activity, and as such there are no eyewitness accounts about the life and death of jesus. Only stories about alleged eyewitnesses written decades after his supposed death.

@ragingloli Oh boy.  I wanted you to refute my argument.  OK If this is what you’ve got, I’ll go with it.

I won’t be writing you a 20 page essay, it could turn into that with everything you handed me here.

http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-ex-nihilo/

Neither Christianity or the bible says anything that I know of about earth being the “center of the universe” or the “solar system”, that the “earth is flat” or that the “sky is a dome” or that the “stars are windows to the waters above”..I don’t know where you got your info but if other people believe this too it’s no wonder many believe Christianity is a fairytale. o_O

This is what my bible says..

Genesis 1:14–18

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

Psalm 104:5

5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Job 26:7

7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Isaiah 40:22

22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in”

There is, imo, evidence of a worldwide flood, you just refute that too I guess. site is great :)

Here’s an actual quote from that site to think about:

“What if the miracle of *Metamorphosis* was programmed into the DNA of each male and female Moth and Butterfly   of every species from the beginning of Creation?”

“Wouldn’t this mean that the hokie-pokie, man-made story of ‘slow change’ over “millions of years” is nothing more than an attempt to murder the Creator and eliminate Him from His own Creation?”

One thing you may be correct on finally! There is no archeological evidence for exodus.

But it’s absolutely silly (and illogical lol) to discount it.

And yes afaik Archeologists aren’t looking but they are constantly digging and searching and it doesn’t mean they won’t stumble upon it, and someone may for that matter, in fact, maybe my daughter will discover it, she is going to university for archeology and may go to Africa for hands on experience.

No evidence of Jesus?

Sounds like someone needs to start reading The Annals, By Tacitus.

Imo, there is sufficient evidence in there, have fun with that!

I’ve read them already.

But you aren’t really interested anyway are you?

Imo, you are more interested in recruiting than actually searching for the truth.

The gospels.  Sigh.

You want it, you got it.

This is why some of you don’t deal with my answers well because it’s information over load and as someone mentioned they get headaches from this, I’m sure I’m wasting my time, I do not think you guys want to learn, this seems like it is more about something else, no one yet has said anything about what I have said that is correct, and I have said correct things especially about Buddhism but who cares it’s pick on Christians, it always ends up this way.

Burden of Proof

The burden of proof yes sure it lies on me but we know I can’t definitely prove for you, if that’s what you want, that He exists, I have faith, you do not, so basically the burden of proof sums up almost everything you are asking, here it is in place for the idea of the gospels.

Skeptics almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent…

William Lane Craig has 5 five reasons why he thinks we ought to assume that the gospels are reliable until proven wrong:

1. _There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts._The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

2. _The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary “urban legends.“_Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the “vanishing hitchhiker” rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

3. _The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable._ In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

4. _There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision._ Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.

5. _The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability._

Were they there, @KaY_Jelly?

?

I will address the first part of your post when I get back from work.
As for the WLC drivel, those 5 “arguments” are nothing but baseless supposition.
Not worth even addressing.

@ragingloli I’m not worried about the 5 arguments.

It’s the fact that I have proven that my argument is logical.
Unlike you.

All you have done is, as you have said, write stuff that “contradicts” what I’m saying.

You aren’t really proving that there is any logic in any of your arguments and you are failing to prove that Christianity is indeed the most illogical option.

Honestly, instead of abandoning the idea of William’s you should at least go back to the first part because it’s the basis for my entire argument.

Most skeptics do it all the time, I’ve actually pointed it out quite a few times for you that it’s not uncommon to abandon logic, like I mentioned about not being a slave to the phone company, that if I want to log off any time before my phone is shut down then I will and that’s my choice or something else could happen to change what should of been, it doesnt mean its set in stone.
I will be logging out after this
Anyway that’s the point which I thought you should of considered.

It’s about assuming something is reliable until proven wrong.

Why go into things assuming it’s wrong? We do not even treat modern day criminals this way.

And I believe Jesus is innocent until proven guilty.

And just one more thing, if my idea wasn’t worth proving then archeologists would just abandon all talk of Christ.

This was just found..

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6386/20140505/early-image-of-jesus-christ-possibly-found-in-egyptian-tomb-dig.htm

@KaY_Jelly

Is that link suppose to prove something?

@Darth_Algar I think it’s supposed to prove that if someone draws a picture of Jesus, he must have been divine.

@dappled_leaves

The best part is that it’s not even necessarily a picture of Jesus but rather could possibly be a picture of Jesus, maybe (because Semitic looking men were, no doubt, a rarity in Egypt).

@Darth_Algar And that it was apparently made in the 6th century.

Looked like an alien to me.