Page 3 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,659

14 Sep 2014, 3:46 pm

simon_says wrote:
Judaism is a pretty good deal. If you were basing the choice on risk assessment you are better off going with it over Islam or Christianity. The reason being the lack of eternal punishment. A brief purgatory period is the general view whereas the general view in Christianity and Islam is the pit or lake of fire for an eternity or at least a very long period. You need to have a very high opinion of yourself, or be delusional about your virtuous nature or capacity for faith, to take on the risk of eternal punishment for finite sins that you may not anticipate committing.

Of course if you were rational, well... never mind.


wait? how's judaism a good deal in this scenario? If you're a christian, and judaism would have been the correct answer, there's no eternal punishment.
if you're a jew, and christianity would have been the right answer, you'll burn in hell.
it's always advisable to choose the religion with the most horrible possible afterlife for non-believers, that way, you're definitely choosing either the best or at least the second-to-worst possible outcome, but never the number one worst outcome.

so to answer the original question: you shouldn't!
you should, however, among the religions mentioned above, also consider Mayan Mythology. Xibalba sounds like a bad place.


actually, come to think of it: you should create your own religion and imagine the most horrible hell ever imagined (good luck with that)- just to make sure your risk assessment strategy is definitely betting on the right horse, or at the least, only the second-to worst.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


YourMum
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 150

14 Sep 2014, 6:05 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
That would make it a "quadrinity". That alone is rather 'glaring'.

Can't four entities in a "trinity" now can we?


I hope that you've already realised this, but to suggest that X is a part of a three-part entity implies that there are three parts to said entity, and X is one of them.



YourMum
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 150

14 Sep 2014, 6:11 pm

0_equals_true wrote:
It not only doesn't show any great knowledge of the Christianity, it shows complete ignorance of the Levant in the 1st century.


The Levant along with the rest of the Middle East was a place of great diversity during composition of the Qur'an, so it's perfectly plausible to suggest that such beliefs were held.



Statto
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2014
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 68
Location: UK

15 Sep 2014, 5:41 am

Mukherjee80 wrote:

One ironic thing... ...Palestinian Arabs are probably genetically closer to the Israelites of the Old Testament than are many of the people who today call themselves "Jews".


Quite. There are definite common genetic roots between Jews, Arabs, Hebrews, Mandaeans, Syriacs-Arameans, Samaritans and Assyrians. Obviously these links have diverged over time. There are also clear common roots culturally also and in reality Semites are more than just the Jewish people although more modern conventions means it is now considered differently by most. Semitic is actually a term that groups people whose native tongue is from that language family.

It's such a shame that we, and I mean man in general, always focus on our differences when we always have so much more in common.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,097
Location: temperate zone

15 Sep 2014, 7:49 am

YourMum wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
That would make it a "quadrinity". That alone is rather 'glaring'.

Can't four entities in a "trinity" now can we?


I hope that you've already realised this, but to suggest that X is a part of a three-part entity implies that there are three parts to said entity, and X is one of them.


Thats what I said. They fired, or forgot, some one third of the actual Trinity in order to put a wrong entity into it. Thats a rather glaring error. Like saying that the Marx Brothers were "Harpo, Chico, and Karl"!



YourMum
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 150

16 Sep 2014, 12:41 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
They fired, or forgot, some one third of the actual Trinity in order to put a wrong entity into it.


There is no one 'Christianity', and in different sects occur different views on the Trinity. One part of the three being female, for example, is one of those views.