"Christianity is not a Religion; it's a Philosophy"

[kseeker]

with all due respect, I have given my views. I do not want to delve deeper into this subject. Please PM me if you think I should certainly reply.

Thats alright buddy, no worries

 

[hello_10]

A religion means for Single God/Lord, who is always correct, with a sense of Blindness

the same is just opposite about either Christianity, Islam or even Buddhist

and the above philosophy is 'fully' defined on Hinduism, as accepted by Indian High Court also while discussing Ayodhya issue, when they accepted that "asking vote for Hinduism is not religious issue as Hinduism is not a religion, but its about the culture/life-style of the people based on this certain region, regardless any religion.....

and the concept here is, "a religion means for Blindness while following a single person, whether its Mr J.Christ, or Mr Pro Muhammad, or even Mr Gautam Buddha. whatever they said, its 100% truth for their followers of the concerned religion." for example, if you are a Christian then you first accept that Mr Jesus directly came from sky, no father, and then as a son of God he is obviously right with anything he said :ranger:. similarly, Mr Pro Muhammad is always right as he used to listen what God said to him from sky. similarly Gautam Buddha was always correct for his followers.......

"A religion means for Single God/Lord, who is always correct, with a sense of Blindness"

while Hindus have many millions Gods and Goddesses who have been making advises opposite to many others too. as a Hindu, you may have fast on any day related to your favorite god/goddesses, and rest of the days you may eat anything, ignoring the related gods/lords. its just a culture/ lifestyle, and whom you believe in, leaving criticism too for different Gods in Hinduism. for example, the man who wrote the holy book of Hindus, Gita, had more than one wife/women. most popular Lord Ram kicked his wife when common public made noise which was always criticized. the 3rd most popular God Shankar is always drunk and was a favorite God for mainly those who always offended, like Rawan etc.....

"Hinduism always fulfill the criterion of being a cuture-lifestyle, not a religion, by keeping space of criticizing its Lords/ gods/ goddesses. with having many lords who have been advising opposite to each others."

and in reality, whoever impressed the Hindu society, they accepted him/her as Lords. we have temples of even film stars also. similar things might have happened in past too, but then too many imaginary stories for the concerned person to hypothise it, i guess :ranger:

 

[Rage]

Every religion has it's own philosophy and Christianity is no exception.

The basic concept of this philosophy is either believe in Jesus, it is holy and go to heaven or go to hell and burn for ever as not believing Jesus is sin. And it will happen in Day of Final Judgement in Jesus's 2nd coming who is 1900 years late. This stupid theory claims Earth is flat, and universe is World centric, and when Scientists proved that wrong they were tortured.

Patently false. Jesus himself categorically stated it was far more likely for a pagan to enter "the kingdom of God" than for hypocrite rabbis who practiced everything but what they preached.

the "flat world" hypothesis is a product of the illiteracy and insouciance of the Dark Ages and has nothing to do with Christian theology, philosophy, doctrine or whatever.

It is full with hypocrisy. They say God sacrificed his son to erase people's sin, if so then why we are told that if we commit sin we will go hell or we will punished in Final Judgement? Is not our sin already washed by Jesus many years ago??

Logically? Jesus' death was meant to give mankind a 'new start' in its relationship with God: a 'new covenant' (pact) as it were, as with the covenant with the Jewish people. It was not meant to "wipe out' sins forever ever after.

Final thing, I cant understand no offence, Christian God is not married then how Jesus can be his son? If any one clears this, I will appreciate that.

the "Son" part is figurative. In ancient aramaic, in which the Bible was written, son was meant to denote a part of you. the reference "son" is used to indicate what Christians believe is the identity between God in spirit and God in man.

I am not intended to offensive, I have respect to Jesus for his kindness and honesty but not for Christians.

We Hindus dont worship idols, it is act of symbolism. Christians say God's power is beyond we can imagine, so idol worship is false, if God has really such power than how ordinary people will imagine God tp worship if it is beyond our ability to imagine him? So we need idols.

Christians respect Crucifix, we respect idols, it is act of symbolism. In which logic Christians dont worship Crucifix but they see Jesus in it same way we see our God in idols.

I respect your views and sentiments and am personally not religious, but I felt the urge to correct your misconceptions.

 

[Eesh]

Every religion has it's own philosophy and Christianity is no exception.

If that be so then Bible should be a philosophical document. It is not.

Christianity is based on:

1. God exists.
2. God created the world out of nothing ie creatio ex nihilo, about 6,000 years ago.
3. Creation was in six days and seventh God rested.
4. Jesus was born of a virgin.
5. You either believe or go to hell for eternal burning.

1. If you see Upanishads, you will find all thoughts well argued. But Bible starts abruptly: In the beginning... No background, no philosophical preparation, nothing. Just like that.

For last 2,000 years Christians have been trying to prove the existence of God and failing. Centuries before Jesus, Nyaya had advanced nine proofs for existence of Brahma. They are the superset of all the }proofs" of Christian "philosophers". They were pounced upon by all the other Hindu schools of philosophy and shredded to pieces, and were discarded. All Hindu philosophers are agreed that such proofs cannot exist.

2. Ex creatio, in all fairness, was considered in Chhandogya, but rejected summarily.

Aruni replied to his guru "My dear how can anything come out of nothing?". Matter was not pursued further.

Christian philosophers have tried to prove it can happen. Augustine depended on Plato and his IDEAS. If something can be thought of it exists. Ergo, creatio ex nihilo can be thought and hence did happen. QED. But my dear, you can think of a barren woman's son too. No doubt Augustine's philosophy failed spectacularly in every sphere, be it creation, free will, hell fires or whatever.

Later Aquinas tried Aristotelian logic. And we know how deficient it is compared to Nayaya, Buddhist and Navya Nyaya logic. Latest is Kalam argument, a few centuries old. That is even a more spectacular damp squib.

3. Creation was in six days? Really? And God was tired by Sunday ans slept!! Really? An omniopotent God gets tired?

It is known that world is much older. Latest estimates show it to be 13.8 billion yrs old. BUT, even there there are problems. Some quasars are found to at least 30-40 billion years old!!

4. Jesus born of virgin. Such thoughts are much older in western civilizations, though such a phenomenon cannot happen, else it would have repeated by modern science.

5. Believe or go to hell. In fact NT goes further than that. If you have heard of Jesus, even accidentally, and fail to believe then hell is for you.

What about newly born babies who die? They too should go to hell. No doubt Christian hell must be full of babies too. What is this philosophy? Augustine did invent a concept of Limbo for such babies. Call it the fate of Trishanku, neither here nor there.

In fact Christianity is not at all based on any philosophy. Rather an attempt has been made to push philosophy under it.

 

[Eesh]

All these hard core hindutvas that are on dfi, what would they do if hinduism is pointed out for all its bluffing and shortcomings.

I guess the moment such a thread is started it would be closed or deleted, but all other religions can be bashed.

You guys dont want discussion about any religion in detail, why the hypocrisy ??? Why having a religious section at all ???

You bash all non-hindus as SICKULAR and say that you are the only truly secular people but your own secularity is openly evident in the very fact that you allow threads that give an opportunity to bash other religions and promptly close all other discussions which might threaten your twisted and stale logics.

Stick to the topic if you can.

You take pride in your faith, so do I take in mine. As for hypocrisy, you can set a debate the respective philosophy and I accept the challenge. But for record, in history, christians have always declined such a challenge from Hindu philosophers. And you are not even a student of philosophy.

 

[Waffen SS]

If that be so then Bible should be a philosophical document. It is not.

Christianity is based on:

4. Jesus was born of a virgin.

Is it possible to give birth without losing virginity?
@Rage sir I have few questions

Patently false. Jesus himself categorically stated it was far more likely for a pagan to enter "the kingdom of God" than for hypocrite rabbis who practiced everything but what they preached.

But Bible prohibits to do idol worship, it is clearly written that idol worship is sin, then how can a Pagan can go to heaven? More ever sir if Jesus's main aim was to expel Hypocrite Rabbis then is it not clear that hence Rabbis were priest of Judaism, so Jesus was actually a social reformer of contemporary Jewish society? So he did not start any new religion?

the "Son" part is figurative. In ancient aramaic, in which the Bible was written, son was meant to denote a part of you. the reference "son" is used to indicate what Christians believe is the identity between God in spirit and God in man.

Can you explain it a bit? If it is meant here that when God is in man then he is "son" and and when "God" is in spirit then he is god, if so then since Jesus and Christian God were there simultaneously so does not it mean Christians also have multiple Gods?

How ever what amazes me most that there is no reference of Jesus in contemporary writings, it came only after almost 100 years later's writing.

I personally believe Jesus was a kind hearted, honest man social reformer and stood up against superstition and hypocrisy and simplified process of worshipping God, just like Hindu Religion's Ramkrishna Dev or Dayananda Saraswati. And all of Jesus performing miracles were added later by mystique poets from Rome, Greece. I may be wrong.

 

[Eesh]

@Waffen_ss #26

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen 19:24). 10:14-15

Good old kind heartedness is evident.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Looks like O'Reilly might have picked up talking points from our resident followers of a certain "way of life"

Man, if anything, it is the other way around. There are many "Christian" universities in the western hemisphere which teach all kinds of BS courses at the Bachelors, Master's and even PhD level combining theology and philosophy and making more and more sophisticated sounding arguments about the importance of having a belief system.

There is *some* basis to the argument advanced by O'Reilly. However, that guy is an intellectual cockroach who probably cannot even spell "philosophy".

But going into the merits of the argument, all belief systems have a philosophy at their core, whether it be Buddhism, Hinduism or the Abrahamic religions, or whether it is atheism or communism for that matter. On the one hand, religious philosophies advance selective morality, which for a primitive society can be a means to maintain order and minimize conflict. On the other, non-religious philosophies de-emphasize morality and instead advance "ethics" as a substitute, which does not always overlap with morality. For example, a philosophy based entirely on atheism, rationalism and Darwinian beliefs may give rise to something like Nazism (Hitler was influenced by Nietzsche and Schopenhauer). Of course, it goes without saying that many hundreds of millions, if not billions of people have also been killed throughout the ages in the name of religious morality.

 

[happy]

Stick to the topic if you can.

You take pride in your faith, so do I take in mine. As for hypocrisy, you can set a debate the respective philosophy and I accept the challenge. But for record, in history, christians have always declined such a challenge from Hindu philosophers. And you are not even a student of philosophy.

Enough of this BS. I do not need to reply to your twisted statements.

You guys who go to great lengths to denounce christianity are really terrified of what affect it is going to have on your own faith.

If you have the guts, acknowledge my statement as true and come out with a relevant response or else in plain english "shut up".

PS: I am not accusing all hindus or muslims or any other faith.

 

[Eesh]

Enough of this BS. I do not need to reply to your twisted statements.

You guys who go to great lengths to denounce christianity are really terrified of what affect it is going to have on your own faith.

If you have the guts, acknowledge my statement as true and come out with a relevant response or else in plain english "shut up".

PS: I am not accusing all hindus or muslims or any other faith.

A very, very typical response from an ignorant Christian.

@Known_Unknown
As also course in Demonology and Exorcism.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

jesus, budha, etc were not gods but great thinkers, philosophers..I think people of those times or later generations alleged them as gods and started worshipping them..

 

[Rage]

Is it possible to give birth without losing virginity?
@Rage sir I have few questions

First , please don't call me "sir". I haven't received my Knighthood, yet.

But Bible prohibits to do idol worship, it is clearly written that idol worship is sin, then how can a Pagan can go to heaven? More ever sir if Jesus's main aim was to expel Hypocrite Rabbis then is it not clear that hence Rabbis were priest of Judaism, so Jesus was actually a social reformer of contemporary Jewish society? So he did not start any new religion?

The Bible, consisting of "Old testament" and "New testament" says a lot of different [and apparently contrasing] things. Christians are firm in that their focus lies squarely on the New testament, that the Old testament (containing books of the Jewish Torah) serves almost exclusively to give context to the New and that Jesus specifically " came to give new meaning" to the Old testament.

In other words, Christian doctrine and theology hold that Jesus's [radical, at the time] views were meant to change the literalist interpretations of the Old testament that pervaded Jewish rabbinism and that, in their view, had led to a hypocritical society that focused on outward manifestations of faith without changing the character, or the "soul", within. Such iudica in the "New testament" form the pivot of the Christian departure from Jewish tradition in practice, belief and tradition, such as in the injunction of "ritual purification" before entering the beth or synagogue that was made elaborate and convoluted b a process of corporeal washing in Jewish Rabbinism, whereas Jesus' stated such an injunction was intended to convey a "washing of the soul" rather than a washing of the limbs; or in the example mentioned below our post b @Eesh where that rather dire Old testament warning is intended to convey a juxtaposed image of a vengeful God [one that 'wipes out the earth'] with a merciful one [one that "sent his son to redeem it": the one that the Christians believe in]. Christian focus and belief has primarily been of a New testament God, one that is merciful and forgiving, which is why "sinners"- of which Christians consider themselves a part- can also go to "heaven" [contingent upon acknowledgement and reform] in Christian diuum.

Can you explain it a bit? If it is meant here that when God is in man then he is "son" and and when "God" is in spirit then he is god, if so then since Jesus and Christian God were there simultaneously so does not it mean Christians also have multiple Gods?

The idea is that God manifested himself in man, his greatest creation, so that he could save man from its collective sins by figuratively taking the sins of the world and bearing them on the cross. that is the 'ontological' idea. For future generations, that purposive act was to serve to make mankind the actions that led to such an act, to repent for them and to reform them. this is encapsulated in the phrase b one of the disciples of Jesus, John: "So loved the world, that God sent his only Son...."

How ever what amazes me most that there is no reference of Jesus in contemporary writings, it came only after almost 100 years later's writing.

there are apparently references to a Roman political prisoner named Jesus [Yeshua] in Roman Judea that bears resemblance to the Jesus of latter times.

I personally believe Jesus was a kind hearted, honest man social reformer and stood up against superstition and hypocrisy and simplified process of worshipping God, just like Hindu Religion's Ramkrishna Dev or Dayananda Saraswati. And all of Jesus performing miracles were added later by mystique poets from Rome, Greece. I may be wrong.

I may be wrong, but some of his "miracles" were captured in writing by some of his four apostles, as they say, a few years after his death.

 

[happy]

First , please don't call me "sir". I haven't received my Knighthood, yet.



The Bible, consisting of "Old testament" and "New testament" says a lot of different [and apparently contrasing] things. Christians are firm in that their focus lies squarely on the New testament, that the Old testament (containing books of the Jewish Torah) serves almost exclusively to give context to the New and that Jesus specifically " came to give new meaning" to the Old testament.

In other words, Christian doctrine and theology hold that Jesus's [radical, at the time] views were meant to change the literalist interpretations of the Old testament that pervaded Jewish rabbinism and that, in their view, had led to a hypocritical society that focused on outward manifestations of faith without changing the character, or the "soul", within. Such iudica in the "New testament" form the pivot of the Christian departure from Jewish tradition in practice, belief and tradition, such as in the injunction of "ritual purification" before entering the beth or synagogue that was made elaborate and convoluted b a process of corporeal washing in Jewish Rabbinism, whereas Jesus' stated such an injunction was intended to convey a "washing of the soul" rather than a washing of the limbs; or in the example mentioned below our post b @Eesh where that rather dire Old testament warning is intended to convey a juxtaposed image of a vengeful God [one that 'wipes out the earth'] with a merciful one [one that "sent his son to redeem it": the one that the Christians believe in]. Christian focus and belief has primarily been of a New testament God, one that is merciful and forgiving, which is why "sinners"- of which Christians consider themselves a part- can also go to "heaven" [contingent upon acknowledgement and reform] in Christian diuum.



The idea is that God manifested himself in man, his greatest creation, so that he could save man from its collective sins by figuratively taking the sins of the world and bearing them on the cross. that is the 'ontological' idea. For future generations, that purposive act was to serve to make mankind the actions that led to such an act, to repent for them and to reform them. this is encapsulated in the phrase b one of the disciples of Jesus, John: "So loved the world, that God sent his only Son...."



there are apparently references to a Roman political prisoner named Jesus [Yeshua] in Roman Judea that bears resemblance to the Jesus of latter times.



I may be wrong, but some of his "miracles" were captured in writing by some of his four apostles, as they say, a few years after his death.

Very good. I would like to add that the word "Christian" means "Followers of Christ" and it has come into being only after Jesus Christ. Before Christ, there were only Jews and Gentiles which is a general term to describe non-Jews.

 

[Known_Unknown]

Here's an excerpt from a Christian website about the meaning of being Christian:

If we accept Jesus as Savior, can we then sin all we want? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

"To receive Jesus in our hearts means we have first acknowledged that we are sinners and that we are incapable of saving ourselves or of appeasing God in any way. We acknowledge before God that we are helpless and worthy of damnation. But with this, we also acknowledge that Jesus is the one who paid the penalty for our sins. We realize that there is no possible way that we can make things right with God by our own works. When we accept Jesus as our Savior we are accepting the call to repentance from sin. God then calls us His children: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name," (John 1:12)."

IMO this is the one of the stupidest, most idiotic and confused major philosophical belief system that has ever existed. You first have to acknowledge that you are a "sinner", even though you might have never hurt a fly in your whole life. And this extends even to babies in the womb-they too are sinners!! Why? Because apparently their hypothetical ancestor who lived thousands of years ago ate an apple that he wasn't supposed to. In the interim, some dude who called himself the "son" of God, came to earth and died for our sins, but despite his horrific tortured end, we still continue to be born in sin. Some Christians think that since Jesus died for our sins, now we have the license to commit as much sin as we want, because we're all already saved....but others disagree. On the other hand even the most righteous non-Christian is still condemned to hell even though he may never have even heard of Jesus or Christianity his whole life. Just imagine how many millions of people around the world and throughout the ages, from Confucius to Buddha to the Mayans and Aboriginals-all are being roasted eternally in hell because they never came in contact with Christianity. :shocked:

TBH, every religion peddles such nonsense, and Christianity is no different. It is just a bit more successful if we go by numbers alone. In my own view, humans and all other life forms are nothing but biological automatons or as someone else elegantly puts it, "meat computers".

Column: Why you don't really have free will – USATODAY.com

Many scientists and philosophers now accept that our actions and thoughts are indeed determined by physical laws, and in that sense we don't really choose freely, but philosophers have concocted ingenious rationalizations for why we nevertheless have free will of a sort. It's all based on redefining "free will" to mean something else. Some philosophers claim that if we can change our actions in response to reason, then we've shown free will. But of course the words and deeds of other people are simply environmental influences that can affect our brain molecules. That's how love begins.

Other philosophers argue that while we may not be able to choose our actions, we can choose to veto our actions — in other words, we don't have free will but do have "free won't." But from the standpoint of physics, instigating an action is no different from vetoing one, and in fact involves the same regions of the brain.

Finally, some argue that we have free will if our actions are consistent with our personalities and past behaviors. But that says nothing about whether we "choose' our actions; only that our genetic and environmental makeup affects our actions in a consistent way. As Sam Harris noted in his book Free Will, all the attempts to harmonize the determinism of physics with a freedom of choice down to the claim that "a puppet is free so long as he loves his strings."

 

[Bodhi]

All the "good" things of Christianity that distinguish if from the brute barbarism of the Old Testament was stolen from Buddhism...and that is NEVER acknowledged by 99.9% of Christians. I invite all Christians who disagree with me to debate me on this. Lets settle this once and for all.

 

[Armand2REP]

Every religion has it's own philosophy and Christianity is no exception.

The basic concept of this philosophy is either believe in Jesus, it is holy and go to heaven or go to hell and burn for ever as not believing Jesus is sin. And it will happen in Day of Final Judgement in Jesus's 2nd coming who is 1900 years late. This stupid theory claims Earth is flat, and universe is World centric, and when Scientists proved that wrong they were tortured.

The belief in the salvation of Jesus is not a philosophy, that is religion. Living by his teaching is philosophy. Nowhere in the Bible does it the claim the Earth is flat and the universe revolves around the world.

It is full with hypocrisy. They say God sacrificed his son to erase people's sin, if so then why we are told that if we commit sin we will go hell or we will punished in Final Judgement? Is not our sin already washed by Jesus many years ago??

When you accept Christ, all your previous sin is washed away but you are still responsible for when you sin again. This requires repentance.

Final thing, I cant understand no offence, Christian God is not married then how Jesus can be his son? If any one clears this, I will appreciate that.

It is called immaculate conception. There is no sex so he doesn't have to be married, just as artificial insemination is not a sin.

I am not intended to offensive, I have respect to Jesus for his kindness and honesty but not for Christians.

You should have respect for everyone until an individual does something to lose theirs.

We Hindus dont worship idols, it is act of symbolism. Christians say God's power is beyond we can imagine, so idol worship is false, if God has really such power than how ordinary people will imagine God tp worship if it is beyond our ability to imagine him? So we need idols.

You don't have to see God to worship him, he is a part of all of us.

Christians respect Crucifix, we respect idols, it is act of symbolism. In which logic Christians dont worship Crucifix but they see Jesus in it same way we see our God in idols.

There is a difference between symbolism and idolatry. When you start believing the object is a conduit to God, then you have a problem.

 

[kseeker]

The belief in the salvation of Jesus is not a philosophy, that is religion. Living by his teaching is philosophy.

You should have respect for everyone until an individual does something to lose theirs.

You don't have to see God to worship him, he is a part of all of us.

:thumb:

When you accept Christ, all your previous sin is washed away but you are still responsible for when you sin again. This requires repentance.

Is it written in Bible or believers says so ?

Final thing, I cant understand no offence, Christian God is not married then how Jesus can be his son? If any one clears this, I will appreciate that.

It is called immaculate conception.

We see that in Hinduism as well.

E.g

Krishna descended directly into the womb of his mother, Devaki.

Avatars of the god, living in the Human realm descend into human women's wombs, i.e., without intercourse.

Karna: Was the result of Queen Kunti asking the god Surya for a child, without taking Kunti's virginity, just before she married King Pandu.

The Pandavas: Brahmin laid a curse upon King Pandu, telling him not to touch either of his two wives sexually or he'd die. Queen Kunti, ever resourceful, simply asked the other gods to give her and her co-wife children. The gods gave them the Pandavas.

Ref: Virgin birth - RationalWiki

There is a difference between symbolism and idolatry. When you start believing the object is a conduit to God, then you have a problem.

I beg to differ on this, My argument is very simple.

When one uses a crucifix as a physical representation/symbol of faith, that person is practicing idolatry by using an small idol (crucifix).

When a Christian holds his/her crucifix fixed in necklace to comfort himself/herself during the time of repentance, thanks giving or praying etc.., he or she is in fact worshiping the crucifix i.e. a small form an idol, thus practicing idolatry.

 

[kseeker]

You don't have to see God to worship him, he is a part of all of us.

This is a question to all !

Why GOD is referred always (correct me if I am incorrect) as " Male " in Abrahamic religions ? Why not Female ?

Except microorganisms and some insects etc..., to give a birth, Female is required !

Also, female cannot alone give birth without Male participation in the due course !

Well, it's a Chicken-egg scenario but still....

 

[Waffen SS]

Nowhere in the Bible does it the claim the Earth is flat and the universe revolves around the world.

Then why in Medieval age scientists were persecuted? Why Galileo was tortured? Christian Church supported Geocentric theory. Not to mention Earth is 6000 years old and it was created by God.

It is called immaculate conception. There is no sex so he doesn't have to be married, just as artificial insemination is not a sin.

May be, but no where Bible says God can be of both genders, God is simply called Father, not Mother why? I agree ancient Aramaic and Arabic "he" was used, dont know much about it, but today we can certainly call God Mother, no we dont why? And now here Bible says God can be both called he and she.

You don't have to see God to worship him, he is a part of all of us.

He/she is not among us. We know God is very powerful so if God was within us, then no one could kill each other as killing each other means killing God. Further if we all have Gods among us, then from our brutal fighting among us, it appears we all have different Gods within us as 1) if we have same God then he/she would not allow their different organs to fighting among them as same God is among us, so which God is among us is certainly different. We all know man cant kill God, but God can kill. If we all have Gods within us, then we are all God, and hence we kill each other so God kills each other and such God is not peace loving for sure.

There is a difference between symbolism and idolatry. When you start believing the object is a conduit to God, then you have a problem.

I dont see difference. If God's ours beyond of ability to imagine, then we must accept some thing as symbol of God, in addition adding idols make worshipping place beautiful. Idolatry this word came from worshipping in front of idol which others thought we are worshipping idols actually. Infact idol was created to reflect God through symbol to common public. Much like Crucifix. You respect Crucifix, we respect idols, but we dont worship nor respect them. They are symbol of God.

I am sure God does not exist, and many logics to prove it. But nevertheless believing in God decrease your headache as well as gives mental peace. And also believing in God keeps a fear alive that if we do sin(generally all sins are bad works) then God will punish us in after life. So we should not commit sin. Then we can go to Heaven. This Hell and Heaven concept helps to keep society clean.

Hindu religion's scholar Ramkrishna Dev once said "Once upon a time, 2 persons were walking among them 1 was expert in education while another 1 was common people, it was hot summer, they both were very much tired, exhausted. Suddenly they saw 1 Mango tree's garden, they went to there, the common person began to eat Mangoes in shadow of trees and felt comfortable while the expert 1 began to research meaning which type Mango they are, what is nature of soil etc, after this, the common person gained full energy after rest and eating mango while educated 1 was completely tired".

So he advises instead of counting trees, mangos we should eat mango, similarly whether God exists or not, this discussion will give you vast knowledge but not peace. So whether God exists or not, it is wiser to believe in God. Cause peace can give us satisfection, knowledge cant give us satisfection.

Btw I wanted to send you PM, you dont allow, can enable it now? :why:

Well I am giving my message to you, Save France From Immigrants, political correctness and Homosexuality, expel all immigrants, no muticuturlism in Europe.

 

[happy]

Then why in Medieval age scientists were persecuted? Why Galileo was tortured? Christian Church supported Geocentric theory. Not to mention Earth is 6000 years old and it was created by God.



May be, but no where Bible says God can be of both genders, God is simply called Father, not Mother why? I agree ancient Aramaic and Arabic "he" was used, dont know much about it, but today we can certainly call God Mother, no we dont why? And now here Bible says God can be both called he and she.

It is very difficult to gauge the mindset of the medieval age. Perhaps that is why it is called "Medieval"

Christian Church was more barbaric during that period. The basic reason why people chose to embrace protestants.

But the basic fact about Christianity i.e., following Christ, is and always will remain in how we interpret or choose to interpret the Bible.

Some may even say that there were even more books to the Bible and they were deleted or not included in later revisions, I agree but I do not wish to debate about it for the simple reason that we do not need to know more and more as long as we know that the current version of different books of the Bible are authentic and has not been tampered with.

As far as the Father figure of God is concerned, it is my understanding that the writers of different books took God to be a Father Figure because of their understanding of the social and cultural prevalences of that time period. Even in present day society, Fathers are treated as authoritative and their word prevails over and above everyone else, but of course society is changing now.

As we believe God is Omnipotent, similarly we believe God is not bound by genders since it was HE himself who created mankind in genders.
@kseeker, I hope your question was answered.