Why Human CREATED Religions?
-
Originally posted by Beloved_Son:
I'm no idea why humans created religions. But God created the world. And God so loved the world He gave His beloved son to die on the cross for all our sins.
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Romans 5:19
Because of Adam all were made sinners. Because of Jesus's obedience, all were made righteous.
Now God don't see your sins because you are His child. He sees you the same way as Jesus is.
Christianity is not a religion, a way of life, etc. It's about having a relationship with our Heavenly Father. God is love. Because of His perfect love for you, you will not sin. I won't say that we humans are perfect and holy. The only perfect one is Jesus.
Dear brethrens, there is no point in fighting against non-believers. The fight is not ours but the Lords. He will fight our battles. All we got to do is seek Him and He'll do the rest.
Ignore the devil. The more we focus on them we will be devil conscious instead of God conscious. Set our focus right. Focus on Jesus and Daddy God.
Let others say what they want, "The Lord will cause your enemies who rise against you to be defeated before your face; they shall come out against you one way and flee before you seven ways. (Deuteronomy 28:7)
Shalom! <3
I have no idea if god created the world, cos I have not seen it. but god was invented by man is irrefutable truth. why I say this? cos its man who preached and propagated it, not god right? man wrote bible or god wrote one, surely not god right? so isnt this proof that man created god concept already?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
No I dont believe earth is 6000 years old....I am telling despondent that I USED to believe earth is 6000 years old.
USED TO. When i was still achristian.
if he believe earth was 6000 years, then he also believed that earth was created in 6 days
so naive and simple minded
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
if he believe earth was 6000 years, then he also believed that earth was created in 6 days
so naive and simple minded
Yea its impossible that the earth was created in 6 days.
I have met many christians who also believe the earth is 4.5-6 billion years old. Despondent and BIC are the minority christians in the whole of christianity.
-
Originally posted by despondent:
oh..i believe in tat also...but i am juz curious which denomination he is from...
despondent,
For your information, the age of the earth is determined by radiometric dating. It is a process that is very strict and accurate.
Radiometric dating uses "decay chain" to determine age of rocks and any items, including the Dead sea scrolls.
The final decay product in all matter, lead-208 can no longer radioactive decay.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Try to click on the link and learn more? Radiometric dating is used to date christian relics, churches, dead sea scrolls and ancient christian scriptures and also most imptantly, the age of the earth
It is tested and proven, which means it is also use to test the age of modern products.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Can I ask you one simple question?
How old is the jewish religion (Torah, OT)? How many years ago was the Jewish God YHWH first mentioned?
How old is the christian religion? How many years ago was Jesus first mentioned?
What is the rough age of the human civilisation?
Well actually a few questions
Tcmc,
I thought the answers to the first few questions you should know? You "studied" the Bible "objectively", didn't you? Why don't you tell me what you know and I confirm it?
Concerning age of human civilisation. Recorded human history dates back to about 5000 years, a dating that I believe sits very comfortably with Biblical chronology. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_history
-
Originally posted by despondent:
oh..i believe in tat also...but i am juz curious which denomination he is from...
despondent,
if you accept the date of dead sea scrolls using radiometric dating, then you must also accept the age of the earth using the same method. Which means, you are most likely wrong about the age of the earth.
Yes the age of the earth doesnt affect your beliefs in jesus, but you need to admit that you were wrong about the age of the earth.
If you still insist that radiometric dating isnt accurate to date the age of the earth, then you cannot quote the age of the deadsea scrolls too because they were dated using radiometric dating too
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Why do you always quote christian websites to confirm your christian beliefs? You commit the error of confirmation bias . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Instead, quote from BOTH christian AND non-christian websites if you must, or wbesites that are more neutral
Tcmc,
It is only logical that Christian beliefs are confirmed by the Bible and other Christian websites! Why would non-Christian websites want to confirm any Christian beliefs? While non-Christian websites or books may inadvertently confirm certain Christian beliefs I think as a whole that's not their intention. There is no confirmation bias at all. Rather, I think if you are taking issue with Christian websites you may well be committing the genetic fallacy. In any case, I do quote from secular sources and non-Christian writers as well. You need to keep your eyes open for them.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
It is only logical that Christian beliefs are confirmed by the Bible and other Christian websites! Why would non-Christian websites want to confirm any Christian beliefs? While non-Christian websites or books may inadvertently confirm certain Christian beliefs I think as a whole that's not their intention. There is no confirmation bias at all. Rather, I think if you are taking issue with Christian websites you may well be committing the genetic fallacy. In any case, I do quote from secular sources and non-Christian writers as well. You need to keep your eyes open for them.
It's natural but it's definitely not logical or sound. Of course it's perfectly "fine" to pick christian-only sources but it's not the best method of research and not the most objective.
Have you ever studied in a poly or uni or done a research paper? Just curious. Do you only choose from one source?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
It's natural but it's definitely not logical or sound. Of course it's perfectly "fine" to pick christian-only sources but it's not the best method of research and not the most objective.
Have you ever studied in a poly or uni or done a research paper? Just curious. Do you only choose from one source?
Tcmc,
It is one thing to quote from the works of just ONE person. It is quite another to quote from ONE source that contains the views of MANY people working in that company.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Yea its impossible that the earth was created in 6 days.
I have met many christians who also believe the earth is 4.5-6 billion years old. Despondent and BIC are the minority christians in the whole of christianity.
you go tell a child that earth was created in 6 days, the child will laugh at your claim, never mind adults right
the person who wrote the bible, obviously didnt know what is a planet and universes. obviously these terms are not yet invented in that era cos science was very basic then. he must have thought the earth was square then. the knowledge we have now, we all know the stories and fables in most religions are hearsay, made up and not conform to reality.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
It is one thing to quote from the works of just ONE person. It is quite another to quote from ONE source that contains the views of MANY people working in that company.
Oh ok.
Then in a uni or school , do you just quote from one single book, which contains many views of many people?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Oh ok.
Then in a uni or school , do you just quote from one single book, which contains many views of many people?
Tcmc, The correct analogy would be for me to quote "The university of so and so said this" and you quibble over why I only quote this university. -
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
you go tell a child that earth was created in 6 days, the child will laugh at your claim, never mind adults right
the person who wrote the bible, obviously didnt know what is a planet and universes. obviously these terms are not yet invented in that era cos science was very basic then. he must have thought the earth was square then. the knowledge we have now, we all know the stories and fables in most religions are hearsay, made up and not conform to reality.
So what if a child laughs at my view? Many things we now hold true were once scoffed at when first put forth. Yes, many people in the past did not know of what we now know. But that does not mean you should fall into chronological snobbery. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc, The correct analogy would be for me to quote "The university of so and so said this" and you quibble over why I only quote this university.BIC,
You love to twist your arguments.
You said "It is quite another to quote from ONE source that contains the views of MANY people working in that company."
So I asked "do you just quote from one single book, which contains many views of many people?", as a parellel analogy.
You havent answered me.
-
Originally posted by Rooney_07:
you go tell a child that earth was created in 6 days, the child will laugh at your claim, never mind adults right
the person who wrote the bible, obviously didnt know what is a planet and universes. obviously these terms are not yet invented in that era cos science was very basic then. he must have thought the earth was square then. the knowledge we have now, we all know the stories and fables in most religions are hearsay, made up and not conform to reality.
Actually the genesis story might not be literal. Six days might not be six days you see. But i dont know why BIC and despondent take it literally to be six days.
Genesis could be a jewish fable to teach jewish children about God and stuff. But some people take it too literally and seriously.
You know its like our chinese fable that says that the Jade Emperor used clay to mould humans? Would you take that literally?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
You love to twist your arguments.
You said "It is quite another to quote from ONE source that contains the views of MANY people working in that company."
So I asked "do you just quote from one single book, which contains many views of many people?", as a parellel analogy.
You havent answered me.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
You love to twist your arguments.
You said "It is quite another to quote from ONE source that contains the views of MANY people working in that company."
So I asked "do you just quote from one single book, which contains many views of many people?", as a parellel analogy.
You havent answered me.
Who is the one twisting and contorting and trying to weasel out of things? Not me. Instead of refuting those two articles that addresses the charge of circular reasoning you start complaining that they are Christian sources. -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Actually the genesis story might not be literal. Six days might not be six days you see. But i dont know why BIC and despondent take it literally to be six days.
Genesis could be a jewish fable to teach jewish children about God and stuff. But some people take it too literally and seriously.
You know its like our chinese fable that says that the Jade Emperor used clay to mould humans? Would you take that literally?
Tell me then, when does a day means a day in the Bible? What are the textual indicators? -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC,
You love to twist your arguments.
You said "It is quite another to quote from ONE source that contains the views of MANY people working in that company."
So I asked "do you just quote from one single book, which contains many views of many people?", as a parellel analogy.
You havent answered me.
I find that he does twist his argument aroundBut i can tell u one thing
Dont know its pride or what, whole world can prove how wrong he is, but he will insist on using fallacious argument and conclude he is right
Its like 'playing piano to the cow'
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Who is the one twisting and contorting and trying to weasel out of things? Not me. Instead of refuting those two articles that addresses the charge of circular reasoning you start complaining that they are Christian sources.BIC
You dont read. One more time I realise you dont read but go on rambling about your points, I will stop discussing with you.
I dont have issues with christian sources. My issue with you is - YOU QUOTE FROM MOSTLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES, or your sources are OVERWHELMINGLY christian.
I would have issues with an atheist who quotes only from "atheist books" or a muslim quoting from mostly muslim sources too.
You got to stop twisting what others say. And seriously check yourself.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
I find that he does twist his argument aroundBut i can tell u one thing
Dont know its pride or what, whole world can prove how wrong he is, but he will insist on using fallacious argument and conclude he is right
Its like 'playing piano to the cow'
laurence
He commits
1. Confirmation bias - use too many christian sources ( I am ok with christian sources but he shouldnt be using MOSTLY christian sources)
2. Special pleading - He can use mostly christian sources but when asked if a muslim can do that, he says he will "evaluate" the sources. And he also have problems if an atheist quotes from DIFFERENT sources.
But he keeps saying I am the biased one when I take info from BOTH christian and nonchristian sources. For one, I agree the bible has remained unchanged and that jesus did exist as a preacher and I got this info from CHRISTIAN and nonchristian sources.
But he only quotes from religious sources....and then shoots me down for being "too objective". He also says its ok to be biased.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
laurence
He commits
1. Confirmation bias - use too many christian sources ( I am ok with christian sources but he shouldnt be using MOSTLY christian sources)
2. Special pleading - He can use mostly christian sources but when asked if a muslim can do that, he says he will "evaluate" the sources. And he also have problems if an atheist quotes from DIFFERENT sources.
But he keeps saying I am the biased one when I take info from BOTH christian and nonchristian sources. For one, I agree the bible has remained unchanged and that jesus did exist as a preacher and I got this info from CHRISTIAN and nonchristian sources.
But he only quotes from religious sources....and then shoots me down for being "too objective". He also says its ok to be biased.
Let me add one
He uses Oxford English Dictionary instead of law books/cases to discuss constitutional issues
Talk about bizarre...
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
You dont read. One more time I realise you dont read but go on rambling about your points, I will stop discussing with you.
I dont have issues with christian sources. My issue with you is - YOU QUOTE FROM MOSTLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES, or your sources are OVERWHELMINGLY christian.
I would have issues with an atheist who quotes only from "atheist books" or a muslim quoting from mostly muslim sources too.
You got to stop twisting what others say. And seriously check yourself.
as usual lar. people just ignore what they dun want to read and reply to you what they want to talk about. this is call selective reading and replying.
-
Originally posted by laurence82:
I find that he does twist his argument aroundBut i can tell u one thing
Dont know its pride or what, whole world can prove how wrong he is, but he will insist on using fallacious argument and conclude he is right
Its like 'playing piano to the cow'
laurence,
I proved that you were wrong concering the freedom to propagate religion and what happened? You start going ad hominem on me. Is that your pride or what?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
You dont read. One more time I realise you dont read but go on rambling about your points, I will stop discussing with you.
I dont have issues with christian sources. My issue with you is - YOU QUOTE FROM MOSTLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES, or your sources are OVERWHELMINGLY christian.
I would have issues with an atheist who quotes only from "atheist books" or a muslim quoting from mostly muslim sources too.
You got to stop twisting what others say. And seriously check yourself.
Tcmc,
You are ridiculous. You have NO issue with Christian sources but you take issue with me quoting from Christian sources?
I do check myself on what I say. Question is, do you?