RE: My honest review of Christianity
October 18, 2014 at 2:25 pm
(This post was last modified: October 18, 2014 at 2:32 pm by Vivalarevolution.)
(October 18, 2014 at 1:47 pm)genkaus Wrote:(October 18, 2014 at 1:09 pm)Vivalarevolution Wrote: But to give a short and concise answer, it's not that I thought hinduism was wrong. It's that I found Christianity to be more true. (My opinion)
Do you use some rational metric to determine which idea is more true or is it simply based on a gut feeling? To put it another way - if I present you with ideologies regarding different forms of government, say monarchy, oligarchy, democracy etc., how would you determined which of them is more correct and do you use the same standards when deciding between religions?
(October 18, 2014 at 1:09 pm)Vivalarevolution Wrote: Again Genkaus, I never forced you to believe in anything. Hell I wasn't even talking with you.
You don't want to be god like- fine. When did I force you to do anything?
You will be proud to stand against god. I don't care.
My original answer was in context for orthodox Christians
That doesn't answer my question - even IF your beliefs were true, what reason would I have to live by them?
What reason you ask? No reason. Don't live by them. It's your life. We'll live by them because we know thats how god wants us to live
(October 18, 2014 at 2:24 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote:(October 18, 2014 at 2:13 pm)Vivalarevolution Wrote: I also don't think only religion and science are incompatible . I always believed in a god. I was intrigued by why the world came to be the way it was.Your deciding factor is which is MORE TRUE, right? how many facts did the bible get right compared to science?
1)At enough distance from the sun to be a good temperature,
2) full of molecules made up of exactly 2 oxygen and 1 hydrogen atom which housed the first organisms and continues to be a vital part of our lives,
3)a perfect composition of nitrogen, oxygen and CO2 to be breathable and sustaining of plant and animal ecosystems,
4) carbon forming in different structures to form different materials and also the human body.
These factors originally gave birth to life. The big bang theory needed to have a cause. The formation of life on earth ( and possibly other planets) seems too complex and magnificent to be an accident. I believe it took a mighty lot of planning
Also a puddle fits the hole perfectly right? so someone must have planned the puddle in advance, right?
For all your questions, did you ever bother to check for any alternative explanations or questions?
Like why there are billions of other planets in the universe which are also at a perfect distance from the sun?
Why is water molecules not at all uncommon in other planets?
Why didn't the earth start off with that breathable environment rather it got to this stage, capable of sustaining life, after a long period of climatic changes?
Why does the human body comprise of carbon, iron and other stuff found on this planet as well as nearby planets and space?
I said I believed life exists elsewhere. I wasn't saying anything about water not being on other planets or them being the perfect distance from the sun. DID I?
Also what's with the puddle analogy? Puddles form because there is a hole. The rest of the rainwater goes elsewhere. What's your point?


