Let's say you cannot really prove the bible wrong (it does make sense to think this way). By the same token (the same reasons that you cannot prove the bible wrong), you also cannot prove the major text of any other religion wrong.

Now, when you cannot prove the Torah, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Da Zang Jing, Dao De Jing...etc wrong, along with the bible, and these texts say different things, what could help you determine if one is more right or better than another? If no religion is really better than another, then why do you choose the one you are in?

So many topics in this forum is Christians against Athiests, I just thought dicussions on comparative religions will diversify things a little.

1. faith is what makes the choice

2.how can you tell how a person feels about a religion? If a person feels strongly, there religion is the right one, then they will see others as being wrong. Truth lies within the eyes of the beholder. I also believe that now we have come past the year 2000 it is time for everyone to have an understanding of others. Religious wars are stupid, and most religions would teach that war is wrong, so why are there religious wars?

Faith is all that counts here. You cannot rationally compare the major religions and come up with any conclusion except Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are strikingly similar. Then faith kicks in........or lack thereof.

On that account, shall, say, a Christian, view an Islamic as "going to hell" or as "going to a different heaven"? Surely, albeit rather amusing, one cannot be in a bunch of hells and one heaven at the same time, so this is kind of interesting.

This is actually from a dicourse between a preacher and a student on a plaza at my university. The preacher professes strongly that anyone who is not a Christian is going to hell (well, in his view, a lot of the Christians at the university probably will go to hell, too), and that one student says, but according to my religion, because I've been faithful, I'm going to that heaven. How can I be in 2 places at once? Of course, this does not impress the preacher and he kept on ignoring things he can't answer.

Well, in any case. It is indeed a matter of faith. I suppose as soon as one is involved in a religion, one no longer is able to be completely objective. logical

Obviously the truth supercedes all interpretation thereof.

Originally posted by psamtik071
Obviously the truth supercedes all interpretation thereof.
psamtik071 makes a very good point here.

You do not seem to be looking for the truth though. Also, the books cannot all be right because they contradict eachother, but if you are looking for a choice which will make you feel secure rather than seeking the truth, then go with one of the religions where you get an afterlife in eternal bliss.

I am not looking for a religion. I am an agonostic.

ah, I misinterpreted your original statement then. Sorry for that, it was a little harsh.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro
This is actually from a dicourse between a preacher and a student on a plaza at my university. The preacher professes strongly that anyone who is not a Christian is going to hell (

Those preachers would come out every spring like clockwork and start calling all of the female students whores and sluts and telling everyone that they were going to hell. I always thought it was hilarious. One year the radical left student group on campus (the one that held protests about every other day) called the campus police and had him hauled off for spewing hatred. Other example of people that only want the first amendment to apply to them. Sorry - drifting off topic.

You do not seem to be looking for the truth though. Also, the books cannot all be right because they contradict eachother, but if you are looking for a choice which will make you feel secure rather than seeking the truth, then go with one of the religions where you get an afterlife in eternal bliss.

I see no contradiction in scripture; I only see it in interpretation. Just look at all the denominations that call themselves Christian and you'll see what I mean.

Obviously that "preacher" that Lionel is talking about does not even understand the religion he claims to represent. First of all, the body goes to the ground at death, not heaven or hell. The human essence, everything, is gone. That person is neither enjoying Paradise nor tortured in Hell. He is literally dead until the Second Coming, and that is yet to be proven.

This is common sense as recorded in the Bible (see Psalms and Job) and it does not take a doctorate in theology to figure that out, but it seems that the majority of the Christian sect doesn't even understand this simple truth...

I want to put this topic back to the top so people having dicussions on proving the bible right or wrong can post here as well.

Reiteration of my point: It doesn't really matter to me whether you try to prove the bible right or wrong, since I am an agnostic and you have your reasoning. I'd just like to point out that if you hold that the bible is correct to a very detailed level (still interpretation, not literally saying), then, by logic, if the text of another religion has a distinctly different idea on a certain subject, you are holding that 1. it is incorrect or 2. it is okay for two different ideas on the same object to be correct but you choose Christianity and the bible anyway.

In any case, this should help broaden the discussions on other topics that centers around whether Noah's Arc is feasible. You see, the problem is not whether it is feasible, or whether it was just an interpretation of sort, the problem is if Noah's Arc is the way to go, then whatever is on other religious texts that's distinctly different from the bible is not the way to go. So what makes you think the bible is more believable than for example what is recorded in a Buddhist text?

I personally think the answer is only faith. So when a Christian tries to prove the bible right or when an athiest tries to prove the bible "can't be right" using logic, it just seems very unconstructive to me. Feasibility is not a problem.

In answer to one of the original questions asked I believe a person tends to believe in the religion that is presented to him in his or her early environment by family or friends.
Later in life,when one becomes a self-thinker,questions arise.
The answers are often not there that satisfy.
I tend to be wary, of what I call, mans religion.
Mans religion has nothing to do with my belief or disbelief in a supreme being.
Often people need a crutch to help them thru the perils of life. If this is mans religion I say o.k. for them.
A person that stands up and bears responsibility for their own actions I commend.
The devil made me do it does not fly with me.
A full pardon of your transgresses against another does not fly with me.
Many Churches thrive off the showering of guilt for human feelings and actions. Guilt is a millstone around the neck.
Again I say be wary of the man that says send money to God and gives you his personal p.o.box number.