Why is your religon true and not the religion of others?

I do in the appropriate forums in the appropriate threads, when we are discussing a particular subject.But this is the faith and belief section, and although it would be a bit off to start an expose of making a case why the christian God exists, I can stay in the more general and say that I believe that the collective body of evidence of the earth's past fits best the biblical account of origins, more then the current evolutionnary paradigm. I believe that a case can be made for the ressurection of Jesus begin a historical fact. And I believe that messianic prophecises have been fullfilled by Jesus coming, and that this is compelling evidence for the truth of christianity.The first point (creaion/evolution) I am much more knowledgeable then the other two 'lines of evidence' mentioned. I plan however to catch up on the second one, as I ordered the book ''the impossible faith'' by Holding, as well as planning to order ''Not the impossible faith'' by Richard Carrier (a refutation of the first book). Both are available online I think, but I like to have a real book in my hands. I will also read Holdings answers to Carrier's objections. (They seem to have a thing going on hehe). This is one area where I can say I have a blind faith, as I have never really studied on the subject more then here and there articles.But I can already spot a little Red Herring here: the past 2 millenia is irrelevant, since the texts we translate our Bibles with date from at most 100 years after the events. So the real question is how much of it could have been changed in that timespan, we being in 2010 makes no difference.

I don't know if this was voluntary, but that last phrase was some crudely bad logic. If they are false about the Quran, then they are false about the bible also ??? I distinguish it as you and I do with anything else. Each belief system makes claims, which can be either true or false. Through logic and when it is possible, you determine if it is one or the other.How did you distinguish that none of them is right ? (assuming you are not religious). With the answer of this question, now simply tell yourself that instead of doing:wrong-wrong-wrong-wrongI didwron-wrong-right-wrong.That right being christianity.

I was raised in a christian family. I was 14-15 when I decided to take a step back and figure out if any of this made any sense. You know, ''age of reason'' where you get off cruise control and actually take the steering wheel.I have an analytical mind and it all added up back then with the evidence, and it still all adds for now.But of course, your very question is totally irrelevant. How old were you when you believed that lions lived in africa ? Or how old were you when you believed that red-blue-yellow were the three primary colors ? Or belief that man walked on the moon ? Or that time is relative ?

well i kinda did not find evidence for any religion, so that made it wrong, wrong, wrong. though from what i know and if i had to chose a religion it would be Buddhism i can swallow almost anything they throw at me except wheel of life reincarnation thing even if it seems more plausible then a god watching over us.why Buddhism
1. reason: Buddha said do not believe me on my word only listen to me then decide. while most other religions do the opposite
2. the teachings are simple non interpitable and true (up to the wheel of life)
3. the whoole wheel of life explains why there is no rule book left behind you are ment to find out on your own and you have etearnity to do it
4. their morals make xian, and other religions morals look like they came from a sociopath

slevesquehow many if any religions did you compare christianity to when you where 14-15?

This is the appropriate thread for you to present what is evidence to you. Your whole reasoning in believing your religion is true and others are not is because of this "evidence". If you present no "evidence" than anything you say about your religion is worthless. Your argument has no value without the evidence, because this is what you claim is the reason why you believe your religion is true.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Yet the overwhelming majority of people in the world who are not "raised in a christian family" do not come to the same conclusion when they are 14 - 15, or later in life, do they? Really? Not if you analyse it.

Hi, Jar. Can you tell me a little more about this?Is this your way of saying that religion is really just a best guess at things that we can't actually understand?Or, are you saying that we don't get guidance from God, or that any guidance we do get is not particularly helpful for our understanding?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I'm not jar, but I'll input my 2 cents. I would say both. How can you honestly think that (insert your particular religion here) DOES get guidance from (insert your particular deity here), while ALL the others do not, even though they dedicate their lives just as you, as if they DO get their guidance from their deity of choice? If there really was some god who loved everyone and all that, don't you think he would send the same message to everyone? Or is he some kind of trickster and wants to test all of humanity for all time and leave it up to us to find "the right religion" and the right way to kiss his ass?

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Why would I expect ''the overwhelming majority of people in the world'' to have the same path I do ... ??Guess what, the overwhelming majority of people in the world also do not come to the same conclusion you do on this. What a surprise.The truth of the matter is, there is in the end only one right answer to this, and all the others are wrong. Just like a math problem, you can arrive at the correct answer through different paths though. And right now, I believe that christianity is the correct worldview. Try studying Mathematics and physics at University without an analytical mind, then come back to me If you have a point to make, do it. Because As of right now I am not moved by pseudo-logical rhetoric questions.If you want to say I was influenced-brainwashed by my parents, say it. Because I got a feeling this is what you are really implying.

But that not exactly true is it ? I'm pretty sure you do have evidence against christianity (claiming historical inaccuracies, biblical contradictions, etc.). Or else you must have a pretty lonely time here on EvC. Oh really ? There is no 'love your neighbor' in Budhism. I'm pretty sure a homeless is better our western world and it's christian heritage rather then in a Budhist country, where he will simply be told that he must endure the result of Bad Karma in past lives. It either values the life of an insect as highly as the life of a human, or the life of a human as lowly as the one of an insect. Either extremes make for a bad social morality.But this is off topic I guess.

I compared it with Catholic christianity, Islam and Budhism for the most part. Can't say any of this was in-depth, but sufficient I think for me to tentatively accept christianity over any of these at the time.

I'll be honest Theodoric, I don't care if my argument has no value to you without the evidence because guess what, it is not a freakin' argument. If I was trying to convince anyone of course I would expose evidence which I think supports what I think.Because the question is ''Why do you think your religion is true ?'' and not ''why is your religion true ?'', you fail to make the difference between the two and realize that because it is the former.Not only that, but I already mentioned the general lines of evidence why I think christianity is true, each of which can be discussed in a relevant thread. But in any case, I probably won't be discussing it with you because your approach to it is to win an argument and not discuss. (As is clearly evident in this present post of yours)

All religions, even the one I am a member of, are just human constructs. Even the Gods we worship are but human constructs. Just look at the two very different gods depicted in the first two books of the Bible. The older god found beginning in Genesis 2 is very human, has more power than a human and can do magic, but it is still hands on magic, making clay figures and animating them, calling down curses, ordering some form of soldier to stand guard. It is unsure, frightened, learning on the job by trial and error. Its concern is local and limited, creating a garden and finding something to take care of that garden, talking of gold and and river names and where they go. It is a god of a small world.But it is a very, very human and personal god, one that walks with its creation, talks with it, makes clothes for it.The much younger god found in Genesis 1 is quite different, overarching, separate, creating by an act of will alone, more aware of the universe but impersonal, not directly interacting with its creation.Religions are like maps. Some maps may reflect the actual territory more closely or accurately than others, may be more accurate in one area and less accurate in others, but they are still maps.The Map is not the Territory, the Treasure Chest is not the Treasure.As for the issue of guidance from GOD (as opposed to some God or god) I have found no way to actually tell if the guidance is really from GOD except to test the content of the message using reason, logic and reality. I understand that I can never be sure the guidance is really from GOD, even if I believe that is true.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Actually, on Christianity being true, they do. But that wasn't my point. You know as well as I do that people who are raised in Christian families are far more likely to be christians than those who aren't, and that the same applies with all other religions.This should strongly suggest to your analytical mind that childhood upbringing is the major factor in determining religious beliefs, not evidence. Indeed. Don't you agree?