Is Christianity the easiest religion?

[shunyadragon]

Two opposing views cannot both be true.

Considering the conflicting subjective religious beliefs by fallible humans based on ancient tribal writings without verifiable provenance opposing views can both be wrong.

I've taken a distinct position on what I believe to be absolute and veritable truth - I'm not sitting on the fence, or in a trepid manner refusing to make a decision.

Therefore, why am I accused of being divisive or inciting factions?

Extreme religious positions that assert that one believes 'to be absolute and verifiable truth' is indeed 'being divisive and inciting factions' Your position is indeed absolute and uncompromising and does not consider the facts of the limited fallibility of human natrue to determine absolutes. Your absolute position is most definitely not 'verifiable truth' and reflects an ancient tribal mythical view.of the history of our universe, the earth and humanity. It is well documented in history that these positions have resulted in violence and conflict between ancient tribal religions that make conflicting claims of absolute and verifiable truth.

Also, taking position in opposition to objective verifiable science and holding to ancient Biblical historical history of Genesis and Exodus is also divisive and inciting factions as well as encouraging an intentional ignorance of science and history

 

[shunyadragon]

Technically speaking, Christianity didn't exist during the life of Jesus, so no, no Jews were Christians during that time. Immediately following Jesus' death, it went through an early period where it was not yet a separate religion, but was a sect of Judaism -- the disciples continued being observant Jews while also believing that Jesus was the messiah. Paul basically undid that, bringing Christianity to non-Jews and forming gentile churches. For a while, the Nazarenes under James in Jerusalem competed with the Pauline churches. However, history is clear that the Pauline version triumphed, largely due to the Romans destroying the temple, and later sending the Jews into diaspora.

It is well documented that some Jews choose to follow Jesus during his life and up until today. The apostles of Jesus Christ were Jews and in the gospels and letters endorsed Christianity as a new religion. The teachings of Jesus were of course, unorthodox and he claimed to be the fulfillment of prophesy of being the Messiah and the King of the Jews, which resulted with him, being convicted of treason and crucified It is true that only a minority of Jews embraced the beliefs in Christianity in the early history and in recent conversions, but it is a fact that some Jews did an do endorse Christianity as a separate religion.

Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

it speaks of "Hellenists" and "Hebrews." The existence of these two distinct groups characterizes the earliest Christian community in Jerusalem. The Hebrews were Jewish Christians who spoke almost exclusively Aramaic, and the Hellenists were also Jewish Christians whose mother tongue was Greek. They were Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora, who returned to settle in Jerusalem. To identify them, Luke uses the term Hellenistai. When he had in mind Greeks, gentiles, non-Jews who spoke Greek and lived according to the Greek fashion, then he used the word Hellenes (Acts 21.28). As the very context of Acts 6 makes clear, the Hellenistai are not Hellenes.[18]

 

[DNB]

A balanced view is to simply look at both the similarities and differences between religions. I find both approaches to be valuable. I want to back you up on your point that sure religions contain truth statements that are mutually exclusive. As logic dictates, something cannot be both x and not x at the same time.

Yes, well said, and this is the decisive issue on the matter - chose one, and reject all others - God is not divided.
If one has an ambivalent view on certain religions, then they have to reconsider their understanding of the critical tenets of each system.

But, the more impressionable seem to consider this stance to be exclusive, judgmental and inciting dissention.
God's character and will is neither indecisive, confused, or indifferent - many of His precepts exacted capital punishment - He's not unclear nor unserious.

Thanks!

 

[DNB]

Considering the conflicting subjective religious beliefs by fallible humans based on ancient tribal writings without verifiable provenance opposing views can both be wrong.

Extreme religious positions that assert that one believes 'to be absolute and verifiable truth' is indeed 'being divisive and inciting factions' Your position is indeed absolute and uncompromising and does not consider the facts of the limited fallibility of human natrue to determine absolutes. Your absolute position is most definitely not 'verifiable truth' and reflects an ancient tribal mythical view.of the history of our universe, the earth and humanity. It is well documented in history that these positions have resulted in violence and conflict between ancient tribal religions that make conflicting claims of absolute and verifiable truth.

Also, taking position in opposition to objective verifiable science and holding to ancient Biblical historical history of Genesis and Exodus is also divisive and inciting factions as well as encouraging an intentional ignorance of science and history

I said 'veritable', not 'verifiable', ...even though the veracity of my convictions are verifiable and axiomatic, as far as I am concerned.
You keep making your appeal to ancient tribal mythology - why can't you just look around you at man and the universe, and then try and tell me that we came from stardust and protoplasm. - something did not come from nothing.

It is your rejection of the obvious that is causing the animosity and defiance in the world.

 

[shunyadragon]

I said 'veritable', not 'verifiable', ...even though the veracity of my convictions are verifiable and axiomatic, as far as I am concerned.

Sorry for the missed citation, but the problems of fallible humans making absolute subjective claims remains,

You keep making your appeal to ancient tribal mythology -

Yes, because this is a factual description of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and other ancient religions

why can't you just look around you at man and the universe, and then try and tell me that we came from stardust and protoplasm. - something did not come from nothing.

I do and spend my life studying religions and their impact on the world both good and bad.

Actually it is scientifically sound to conclude we came about naturally from star dust and protoplasm. but the question is whether all this was Created by God through Natural Laws and processes or just came about naturally according Natural Laws and processes, both are viable based on the evidence.

I believe in a Universal 'Source' some call God(s) that Created everything by God's Natural Laws and processes. This is logical and reasonable based on the objective evidence, but it remains the existence of God is subjective based on faith.

It is your rejection of the obvious that is causing the animosity and defiance in the world.

There is nothing obviously defiant nor violent in the questioning and rejection of ancient worldviews. The questioning of the ancient world views has never caused violent conflict, but at times in history they have been prosecuted and often executed for questioning ancient religions What is obvious is fallible humans asserting absolute claims concerning subjective belief without a logical basis in facts. It is a fact that religions and and their divisions making absolute claims have created extensive violence and conflict in the history of humanity.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, well said, and this is the decisive issue on the matter - chose one, and reject all others - God is not divided.

God of course is not divided, choosing one absolutely and rejecting others is an egocentric claim of absolutes that is irrational and confrontational to those who do not believe from the fallible human perspective. The claim that two opposing views cannot be right maybe true, but there is the option that both can be easily wrong.

If one has an ambivalent view on certain religions, then they have to reconsider their understanding of the critical tenets of each system.

But, the more impressionable seem to consider this stance to be exclusive, judgmental and inciting dissention.
God's character and will is neither indecisive, confused, or indifferent - many of His precepts exacted capital punishment - He's not unclear nor unserious.

Thanks!

 

[shunyadragon]

This is probably true. But Hinduism or Buddhism (as practiced these days) are probably even easier. Hinduism does not even require you to believe in any specific dogma leave alone practice anything difficult (like the Muslim month long fast).

In part I agree, just believing in whatever without asking serious questions and skepticism is easy. Difficult rituals like the fast practiced in different ways in the Abrahamic religion have never been a significant barrier as to which religion is easier. Blind following the prevalent cultural beliefs serves the desire for the sense of community and identity, which is difficult for most to seriously question/

The Hindu fable about the elephant held by chains when young can be held by a thread when an adult is appropriate in this context.

 

[shunyadragon]

paarsurrey said:
" Christian meant a disciple of Jesus "

And the source of one's argument of the above, please?


Acts 11:26 is not from Jesus/Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah, please, right?:

Holy Bible King James Version (Red Letter Edition)
The Roman Catholic Holy Bible with the words of Jesus in red.
World Messianic Bible
Right?

Regards

I believe yes, Christians are followers of the New Testament teachings of Jesus Christ whether you call him ;Yeshua,'' Joshua or Jesus Christ.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

"Christianity is easier to follow than Islam or Judaism"

To what extent is this true?

I mean the Jews have over 600 commandments and the Moslems have to ritually pray five times a day and fast during Ramadan

There are also no dietary rules and no need for men to be circumcised

I am not asking if it is easy:

I am asking if it is the easiest religion to follow, out of those with whom it is usually lumped together with

I'd be interested to hear from people who are knowledgeable about religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism - do you think Christianity is easier than those religions?

I would imagine it's the easiest since the goal is to say you're forgiven after sinning. Rinse and repeat as often as you like.

 

[Elihoenai]

I believe by experience that it is more tan a few hundred thousand, but nonetheless the lule warm pragmatic majority of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do still blindly follow their religion and raise their children to do so.

Following blindly is easier then facing the serious question of the reality of our existence. The desire of a sense of community and belonging of tribalism tule the world.

Matthew 7:13-14

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


When I stated Only a Few hundred/thousand Elect that means Only a Few hundred or Few thousand.

I see you are a member of the Baháʼí Faith. How by experience you know more than a Few hundred thousand Elect? Do you live in a Community with this number of Elect? I haven't even met one person in my entire life that is a member of the Elect.

I consider Queen Elizabeth II member of the Elect, although have never met the Queen:

The Christmas Broadcast, 1957

It is Ordained by Elohim/God that the Many Billions Enter into the Wide Gate of Destruction. Every person gets their Just Deserts From Elohim/God.

 

[DNB]

Sorry for the missed citation, but the problems of fallible humans making absolute subjective claims remains,


Yes, because this is a factual description of Judaism, Christianity and Islam and other ancient religions

I do and spend my life studying religions and their impact on the world both good and bad.

Actually it is scientifically sound to conclude we came about naturally from star dust and protoplasm. but the question is whether all this was Created by God through Natural Laws and processes or just came about naturally according Natural Laws and processes, both are viable based on the evidence.

I believe in a Universal 'Source' some call God(s) that Created everything by God's Natural Laws and processes. This is logical and reasonable based on the objective evidence, but it remains the existence of God is subjective based on faith.



There is nothing obviously defiant nor violent in the questioning and rejection of ancient worldviews. The questioning of the ancient world views has never caused violent conflict, but at times in history they have been prosecuted and often executed for questioning ancient religions What is obvious is fallible humans asserting absolute claims concerning subjective belief without a logical basis in facts. It is a fact that religions and and their divisions making absolute claims have created extensive violence and conflict in the history of humanity.

Jesus Christ, or I, as a Christian, cannot be held accountable for what certain proponents of Christianity do in the name of Jesus, or how they interpret his words and precepts.

 

[DNB]

God of course is not divided, choosing one absolutely and rejecting others is an egocentric claim of absolutes that is irrational and confrontational to those who do not believe from the fallible human perspective. The claim that two opposing views cannot be right maybe true, but there is the option that both can be easily wrong.

Yes, it is possible that all us theists are all wrong, or to some degree or another. But, at a minimum, the number of theistic religions around the world and throughout the centuries alone, should raise an eye brow as to whether or not God exists - man would not have such a spiritual inclination if his existence were not derived from a spiritual source.

And, if God does exist, then there is a high probability that many of men's laws pertaining to God are accurate and true, since he got the first part correct through the means that were available to him.

 

[shunyadragon]

Jesus Christ, or I, as a Christian, cannot be held accountable for what certain proponents of Christianity do in the name of Jesus, or how they interpret his words and precepts.

Did not address the substance of mu post.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, it is possible that all us theists are all wrong, or to some degree or another. But, at a minimum, the number of theistic religions around the world and throughout the centuries alone, should raise an eye brow as to whether or not God exists - man would not have such a spiritual inclination if his existence were not derived from a spiritual source.

Then of course, the tule of thumb that when there are two contradictory beliefs on must be true is false.

The problem remains the extreme many conflicting beliefs where ,most claim absolutely that they are right and the rest wrong remains problematic.

And, if God does exist, then there is a high probability that many of men's laws pertaining to God are accurate and true, since he got the first part correct through the means that were available to him.

Too many diverse conflicting claims that any one belief is accurate and true, because most claim they are the only 'accurate and true one.] The claim any one belief is accurate and true considering the fallibility of human nature is likely near zero.

The rejecting or conflicting with the more reliable science concerning that nature of our physical existence drops the probability further'

 

[shunyadragon]

Matthew 7:13-14

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.


When I stated Only a Few hundred/thousand Elect that means Only a Few hundred or Few thousand.

I see you are a member of the Baháʼí Faith. How by experience you know more than a Few hundred thousand Elect? Do you live in a Community with this number of Elect? I haven't even met one person in my entire life that is a member of the Elect.

I consider Queen Elizabeth II member of the Elect, although have never met the Queen:

The Christmas Broadcast, 1957

It is Ordained by Elohim/God that the Many Billions Enter into the Wide Gate of Destruction. Every person gets their Just Deserts From Elohim/God.

I believe there is no such thing as any sort of chosen elect. That is a foolish terribly egocentric claim.

I believe in a Universal compassionate and all-knowing God considering the diversity of human spiritual experience and claims of fallible humans. God would responsible for ALL of his Creation and ALL of his children throughout the hundreds of thousands of years of our history from when humans first became human.

 

[Elihoenai]

I believe there is no such thing as any sort of chosen elect. That is a foolish terribly egocentric claim.

Matthew 24:31

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Therefore your Reject the teachings of the Holy Scriptures/Bible about the Elect? Is that correct?

I believe in a Universal compassionate and all-knowing God considering the diversity of human spiritual experience and claims of fallible humans. God would responsible for ALL of his Creation and ALL of his children throughout the hundreds of thousands of years of our history from when humans first became human.

Isaiah 45:7

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.


For Elohim/God to be All-Knowing (Omni) do you understand that Elohim/God Must have an Evil Side? Elohim/God Creates All Things including Evil Things, otherwise it would Not Be All.

 

[shunyadragon]

Matthew 24:31

31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Therefore your Reject the teachings of the Holy Scriptures/Bible about the Elect? Is that correct?

The elect you describe above is vague, nonspecific and ancient scripture of an ancient culture concerning what could be described as the elect. Not remotely acceptable to universal standards today like the mythology of Genesis and Noah's flood.

The bottom line is the Bible is an edited, redacted ancient text without provenance of authorship like the scripture of ALL ancient religions, and only reflects the beliefs of one tribal culture out of many.

Isaiah 45:7

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.


For Elohim/God to be All-Knowing (Omni) do you understand that Elohim/God Must have an Evil Side? Elohim/God Creates All Things including Evil Things, otherwise it would Not Be All.

The citation above is OK for the belief in an Omnipotent All Powerful God, but has no relationship to the claim above. Yes. I believe in a God described above, but as described a Universal God for all the history of humanity, and not any one of the diverse and conflicting ancient religion and culture out of many in the history of humanity. God Created everything including what an ancient culture may call evil, but in reality today only reflects natural nature of our existence and humanity Created by God.

The actual objective facts of history and science are against your conflicting ancient view of God if God exists as your citation describes, What is good and evil is, of course, subjective to the ancient culture to what is the nature of our physical existence, which today we can understand nature and humanity in more objective terms.

 

[DNB]

Then of course, the tule of thumb that when there are two contradictory beliefs on must be true is false.

The problem remains the extreme many conflicting beliefs where ,most claim absolutely that they are right and the rest wrong remains problematic.



Too many diverse conflicting claims that any one belief is accurate and true, because most claim they are the only 'accurate and true one.] The claim any one belief is accurate and true considering the fallibility of human nature is likely near zero.

The rejecting or conflicting with the more reliable science concerning that nature of our physical existence drops the probability further'

Yes, I agree that no one religion or denomination has 100% accuracy on all their doctrines, precepts and liturgies. But, again, their is such a commonality between them all, that, first of all, God exists, and two, He is holy, righteous, all powerful, wise and benevolent.
And, therefore, being all those things, we can rely on all doctrines that correspond with God's nature, underscored by the fact that His benevolence and solicitude demands that He made Himself known on some level, to certain people, if not most .

 

[Elihoenai]

The elect you describe above is vague, nonspecific and ancient scripture of an ancient culture concerning what could be described as the elect. Not remotely acceptable to universal standards today like the mythology of Genesis and Noah's flood.

The bottom line is the Bible is an edited, redacted ancient text without provenance of authorship like the scripture of ALL ancient religions, and only reflects the beliefs of one tribal culture out of many.

Therefore, you Reject the teachings of the Holy Scriptures/Bible about the Elect. The Holy Scriptures/Bible is the Christian's Holy Book. Christians Believe and Follow the Teachings of their Holy Book/Bible, otherwise they would Not Be Christian. I Am Christian Gnostic.

The citation above is OK for the belief in an Omnipotent All Powerful God, but has no relationship to the claim above. Yes. I believe in a God described above, but as described a Universal God for all the history of humanity, and not any one of the diverse and conflicting ancient religion and culture out of many in the history of humanity. God Created everything including what an ancient culture may call evil, but in reality today only reflects natural nature of our existence and humanity Created by God.

Ephesians 4:6

6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.


I Am Asserting an Omnipotent All Powerful Elohim/God that is Unlimited. The True Elohim/God is Unlimited. It's the Same Universal Elohim/God Manifesting in Different Ways to Different People.

The actual objective facts of history and science are against your conflicting ancient view of God if God exists as your citation describes, What is good and evil is, of course, subjective to the ancient culture to what is the nature of our physical existence, which today we can understand nature and humanity in more objective terms.

True Religion is about Faith and has nothing to do with Facts and Science.

There are differing standards in Cultures about what it means to be Good or Evil.

People know what Pure/Real Evil is in any Culture throughout history. For example, do you agree that the Rape and Murder of a Child is Pure/Real Evil in any Culture throughout history?


THE PLEDGE - Trailer - HQ

 

[sayak83]

"Christianity is easier to follow than Islam or Judaism"

To what extent is this true?

I mean the Jews have over 600 commandments and the Moslems have to ritually pray five times a day and fast during Ramadan

There are also no dietary rules and no need for men to be circumcised

I am not asking if it is easy:

I am asking if it is the easiest religion to follow, out of those with whom it is usually lumped together with

I'd be interested to hear from people who are knowledgeable about religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism - do you think Christianity is easier than those religions?

I would say Hinduism is easier in actuality. However, Christianity seems easier because of the colonialism caused familiarity that most of the world has with the Western culture in which the religion evolved. For example the ease of availability of English, Spanish and Portuguese (the three most widespread languages in the world) translations of the OT and the NT contrast with the absence of the same for the Vedas, the Upanisads and the Gita in any of these languages.