Misguided Belief

Originally posted by gtbiking4life
New member here.

For me at least, when I chose Christianity, more specifically, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I had a strong feeling in my heart I was making the right choice. It was also due to the many experiences I have had in my life. This was not a decision I made lightly. I gave my decision some thought and prayed about it. ...[text shortened]... back on the decision I made then and can say with confidence I have never regretted my decision.

Hi and welcome🙂

Could you briefly tell me why your denomination of christianity may be superior to others? thnx

Originally posted by josephw
....you do not know what my mindset is.

You make no attempt to disguise your mindset. That is why I am able to cross reference that with the minset of my devout Muslim acquaintances - some of whom, like you, believe they know the "truth" and also believe that "All other belief is a deception". And therefore I contend that, while factoring in geography, culture and happenstance, a neutral onlooker (like me) can quite safely presume that if you had been born here you almost certainly would have grown up to be a devout Muslim who feels every bit as energized and certain as you do now. My humble advice to you is that it's well worth remembering all this if and when you ever reflect upon your own certainties.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
I see the athiests and religious people bash it out here in this forum day and night, and its been going on forever in the world.

But, the religious people ask for it, because they put forward erroneous beliefs about god, and its no wonder they get flogged by the atheists.

But the fact is that a person is a spiritual being, eternal and without begin ...[text shortened]... lgious people, will continuingly be attacked by the atheists, because they are surely erroneous.

Thus sayeth the expert on all people of faith and possessor of all knowledge concerning what "religious people...put forward"...

Originally posted by gtbiking4life
New member here.

For me at least, when I chose Christianity, more specifically, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I had a strong feeling in my heart I was making the right choice. It was also due to the many experiences I have had in my life. This was not a decision I made lightly. I gave my decision some thought and prayed about it. ...[text shortened]... back on the decision I made then and can say with confidence I have never regretted my decision.

Wel;come to the bickering forum, gtb. When I was still a Methodist, I learned that they were very accepting of The Church of LDS. Then I got married and joined a Baptist church, which believe Mormons were a cult and definitively Non-Christian. Now in a Lutheran Church, I find that their doctrine may be a bit less strident than Baptists, but they do believe that the Jesus that the LDS worships is not the same as the One worshipped by the "mainstream" Protestant religions.

I'd like to point out that I don't hold to the Lutheran nor Baptist "by-laws" regarding LDS. The Mormons I've known seem to worship the same Christ that I do. We don't agree on all doctrine, but hey, I don't believe I've found a denomination yet that has a doctrine I concur with 100%. So, welcome to the fray, and enjoy the bloodletting.😉

Originally posted by FMF
If you had been born where I currently live you almost certainly would have been a devout Muslim now. It's well worth remembering that when you reflect upon your own certainties.

to FMF

Ditto !

vishva

Originally posted by twhitehead
I find that unlikely. I do not think anyone tries out religions to check for relevance. I think that people make whatever religion they have chosen, relevant or not by choice.
Also relevance tends to be used as justification after the fact.

Wrong. Those who are born in "christian" homes may go to church when they are younger, but if their religion has no relevance in their lives they will simply stop going even though they may refer to themselves as Catholic/Baptist etc, nor will they try to follow after Christ's example.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to FMF

Ditto !

vishva

Ditto what?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Let's say, the application of reason and logic in a rational manner.

Do tell. Please provide the synopsis of your application of reason and logic in a rational manner which refutes Christianity. This ought to be good.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Do tell. Please provide the synopsis of your application of reason and logic in a rational manner which refutes Christianity. This ought to be good.

At no point did I claim such a possibility. What evidence can you forward for the existence of god in any form, much less that the entirety of the bible accurately reflects real events and people.

Originally posted by whodey
Wrong. Those who are born in "christian" homes may go to church when they are younger, but if their religion has no relevance in their lives they will simply stop going even though they may refer to themselves as Catholic/Baptist etc, nor will they try to follow after Christ's example.

How do you explain the worldwide distribution of religions?

Are Anglos just spiritually smarter than everyone else such that they choose the "right" religion more often than everyone else?

If it's about choice, how come so many Christian parents strongly value providing a heavily Christian-influenced environment for their children?

Originally posted by whodey
Wrong. Those who are born in "christian" homes may go to church when they are younger, but if their religion has no relevance in their lives they will simply stop going even though they may refer to themselves as Catholic/Baptist etc, nor will they try to follow after Christ's example.

Yeah, what you said and also sometimes the children simply rebel. Especially if they feel the parents have held them back from discovering a bigger world.
Despite these two reasons, I would estimate the majority would follow their parents choices, but perhaps that dynamic is changing in the last 2 decades(?)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Hi and welcome🙂

Could you briefly tell me why your denomination of christianity may be superior to others? thnx

I don’t believe The LDS Church is a superior belief or superior religion. To me, that seems to indicate I would think I am better than others who hold different beliefs and that is not the case. I’m not superior to anyone else. I only just live my life the way I believe Jesus would have us live. There isn’t anything superior about that, in my opinion, anyway. It’s just a way of life.

Originally posted by gtbiking4life
I don’t believe The LDS Church is a superior belief or superior religion. To me, that seems to indicate I would think I am better than others who hold different beliefs and that is not the case. I’m not superior to anyone else. I only just live my life the way I believe Jesus would have us live. There isn’t anything superior about that, in my opinion, anyway. It’s just a way of life.

ok.
So do you think everyone should live the same according to Jesus' way or do you allow for different personalities,dispositions?

I just have this nagging feeling that christians all want to be the same, which we are clearly not. I'm not talking good and bad. More like 'outgoing' and reclusive, for example.
Do you worship Jesus? If so, how so?

re "dearth of evidence" -

that is really not so. This is just a popular belief that has moved from backroom gossip to mainstream idea.

Well, the nature of inquiry, generally, is to make some observations, postulate an idea or theorem and then initiate some proof. Then, once a theory is established, amend the theory according to the reception of new evidence/ variables.

Most of the argumentation as regards the existence of God tends to presume a desired result in either direction.

So, generally, I don't think that method of inquiry yields unbiased results.

When Einstein was developing his theories, he threw out all preconceptions, including the existence of any preconceived ideas...at all. So, in his mind, there was no physics, no science...no assertions and no denials, just an absolutely clean blank slate.

So, I think that is really necessary for an honest and comprehensive method of inquiry.

"The Tao of Physics" and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" are two books that compare the world views of quantum physics to mysticism. While seemingly quite odd, they are extremely interesting books. And it seems that there are some very interesting parallels.

For example, they found a "particle" that does not respond to causality...at least not as we understand it. It "just is" and "just does" and is not part of a chain of initiation and resultant effect.

Nikolai Tesla was a big fan of Swami Vivekananda, an Eastern mystic who came to the US around 1900.

Benjamin Franklin and Isaac Newton...two of the world's greatest geniuses, both believed in God. As did Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln - both minds of great power of intellect and deduction.

Today there are many professional scientists with Phd's who believe in God.

Then there is testimonial evidence. We have the testimony of billions of people over the course of thousands of years that God exists. When data exists in that kind of volume, it is no longer qualitative. It may not be definitive proof, but it is indeed some level of quantitative evidence. It is observed phenomena, by such a huge volume of observers, that it can not be immediately dismissed.

Then there are professional scientific studies on the power of prayer, on ESP and various kinds of supernatural phenomena.

And why have law enforcement agencies been using psychics for decades? and before that, kings using them since civilization began?

Hypnotism is a recognized scientifically provable tool. It comes from shamanism, not science.

So, to utterly and entirely dismiss the world of God and the supernatural, does not seem to fit into a professional methodology of inquiry.

Originally posted by r99pawn77
re "dearth of evidence" -

that is really not so. This is just a popular belief that has moved from backroom gossip to mainstream idea.

Well, the nature of inquiry, generally, is to make some observations, postulate an idea or theorem and then initiate some proof. Then, once a theory is established, amend the theory according to the reception of new ...[text shortened]... he supernatural, does not seem to fit into a professional methodology of inquiry.

An expansive and well-reasoned response.

"The Tao of Physics" and "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" are two books that compare the world views of quantum physics to mysticism. While seemingly quite odd, they are extremely interesting books. And it seems that there are some very interesting parallels.

For example, they found a "particle" that does not respond to causality...at least not as we understand it. It "just is" and "just does" and is not part of a chain of initiation and resultant effect.

Very interesting stuff I agree. Evidence for god though?

Nikolai Tesla was a big fan of Swami Vivekananda, an Eastern mystic who came to the US around 1900.

Benjamin Franklin and Isaac Newton...two of the world's greatest geniuses, both believed in God. As did Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln - both minds of great power of intellect and deduction.

Today there are many professional scientists with Phd's who believe in God.

Then there is testimonial evidence. We have the testimony of billions of people over the course of thousands of years that God exists. When data exists in that kind of volume, it is no longer qualitative. It may not be definitive proof, but it is indeed some level of quantitative evidence. It is observed phenomena, by such a huge volume of observers, that it can not be immediately dismissed.

Many people believe many things. Such beliefs do not constitute evidence.

Then there are professional scientific studies on the power of prayer, on ESP and various kinds of supernatural phenomena.

A vanishingly small proportion of which have produced some possibly significant results, but most of which show no evidence for supernatural phenomena.

And why have law enforcement agencies been using psychics for decades? and before that, kings using them since civilization began?

Because people will insist on believing in this stuff. And yes, there are a few cases (again, a very small proportion of cases) where some significant results have been produced, almost invariably attempts at duplication have failed.

Hypnotism is a recognized scientifically provable tool. It comes from shamanism, not science.

What has hypnotism got to do with it?

So, to utterly and entirely dismiss the world of God and the supernatural, does not seem to fit into a professional methodology of inquiry.

I'm not dismissing it. The OP seeks to understand how, since there is very, very little evidence to support any religion, people choose among the various different flavours of faith available to them.