Discussion about religion bashing

[RedStarWarrior]

What's funny is that Islam is more tolerant of other religions than Christianity or Judaism as long as they have scriptures.

[Lady Vulpix]

I don't know about Christianity, or Islam for that matter, but how is Judaism intolerant of other religions?

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

They're killing palistinians.

[Blademaster]

^En masse.

[Lady Vulpix]

Inform yourselves first. Palestinians have been killing the Jewish for years, performing acts of terrorism and using their own people as shields. They indoctrinate their children to hate all Jewish and want to kill us all. The Israelis (not even all Jewish people) are fighting back and trying to avoid killing civilians, but the Palestinians make it hard, as they hide their bases under schools, hospitals and other sensitive areas. Israel has even allowed people from other countries to enter the Israeli territory to send food and medicine for the Palestinians (except that one ship which was full of weapons). I think most countries have done far worse. And the fight is only against Gaza, where the radical groups are. Not Cisjordania (or whatever the English spelling is), which is also a Palestinian settlement and Israel has never attacked them. Of course they've made mistakes, and of course there are some Jewish people who are filled with hate, but you can't generalize because of that.

And even if you disagree with their policies, your argument is against Israel, not the Jewish community.

[RedStarWarrior]

I don't know about Christianity, or Islam for that matter, but how is Judaism intolerant of other religions?

I didn't say that it was. I'm just speaking from what is actually in the scriptures.

[kazr]

Inform yourselves first. Palestinians have been killing the Jewish for years, performing acts of terrorism and using their own people as shields. They indoctrinate their children to hate all Jewish and want to kill us all. The Israelis (not even all Jewish people) are fighting back and trying to avoid killing civilians, but the Palestinians make it hard, as they hide their bases under schools, hospitals and other sensitive areas. Israel has even allowed people from other countries to enter the Israeli territory to send food and medicine for the Palestinians (except that one ship which was full of weapons). I think most countries have done far worse. And the fight is only against Gaza, where the radical groups are. Not Cisjordania (or whatever the English spelling is), which is also a Palestinian settlement and Israel has never attacked them. Of course they've made mistakes, and of course there are some Jewish people who are filled with hate, but you can't generalize because of that.

And even if you disagree with their policies, your argument is against Israel, not the Jewish community.

If people were given my home my ancestors have lived on for centuries and given all the best land, the governing body, and billions of dollars each year in aid I would be pretty furious too. When you're pushed into a corner with nothing left the only real option is violence. As seen by the operation in Gaza in 2008 Israel isn't concerned about civilian casualties.

Neither side is 'right', both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live a peaceful, happy life free from terror, and it's an incredibly messy situation but Israeli holds all the cards, they have all the power to really set the peace process in motion but literally nothing has progressed. At all. Israel is going to keep building settlements and annexing '"Palestinian land" and nobodies going to give a fuck. I hope a century from now we look back at the atrocities both sides have committed and shake our heads in disgust, but history is doomed to repeat itself because our pitiful lifespan isn't long enough to learn anything worthwhile as a collective.

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

Neither side is 'right', both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live a peaceful, happy life free from terror, and it's an incredibly messy situation but Israeli holds all the cards, they have all the power to really set the peace process in motion but literally nothing has progressed.

This.

[Lady Vulpix]

I agree that both sides deserve to live a peaceful, happy life free from terror. But from what I've heard, Israel has attempted peace talks and Gaza has not accepted anything but the destruction of the whole state of Israel and giving all of its territory to the Palestinians. That's not peace negotiation.

As for who the land belongs to, that's a tough issue, because Israel was there 2000 years earlier, then the Israelis left and then the Palestinians arrived, they settled there and built their lives and then the land was given back to the Jewish by the UN without their consent, so yes, both sides have reasons to claim the land (and I believe some of the UN members stirred up the conflict on purpose because it served their economical interests). I wish it could be shared peacefully, but, like you, I don't see that happening any time soon. Perhaps in a century or two. Who knows.

I didn't say that it was. I'm just speaking from what is actually in the scriptures.

Where in our scriptures does it say anything against people who profess other religions?

[Blademaster]

I dunno, but five minutes of Googling got me this.

Rosh Hashanah 17a. Christians (minnim) and others who reject the Talmud will go to hell and be punished there for all generations.

Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have no portion in the world to come.

Shabbath 116a. Jews must destroy the books of the Christians, i.e. the New Testament.

[Lady Vulpix]

I don't know who wrote that, Blade, but that's not a real Jewish scripture. Hell doesn't even exist in the Jewish religion.

I've never heard of those books before either, if they are books. Those quotes look forged to me.

Edit: now that I've had the time to think about it, I don't think the person who wrote those things knows much about the Jewish religion at all. The very orthodox men who dedicate their whole lives to religion spend hours discussing the Talmud and arguing about what parts of it they agree or disagree with. It's not something you have to accept as if it were God's word (we have the Torah for that, and even there there's room for many different interpretations). By the way, the Talmud says that wise is a person who learns from everyone, and that includes Christians and everyone else.

Also, Christianism did not exist when the Torah was written, and as a consequence nor did the New Testament. Also, reading books and analyzing them carefully is always encouraged.

An orthodox man I met in Jerusalem (who strictly follows all the 600+ precepts) said that every culture has its own virtues and blessings. He wouldn't have said that if the Torah said otherwise.

Besides, the religious people who sell bread, flour or other products containing yeast symbolically sell all their products to a non-Jewish person for Pesach and buy them back the next week, so people from other religions are necessary.

And finally, the names of those alleged books are ridiculous.

[Blademaster]

Whatever. I'm not a Jew, but let's not bullshit: Judaism is an age-old religion, so it's got just as much bullshit in it as Christianity and Islam.

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

Now that's what I like to hear, Blade.

[Lady Vulpix]

So it's bad because it's old? I fail to see the logic in Blade's argument, if there is any. Yes, there are some things I personally don't agree with nor follow, like the prohibition of touching a member of the other sex unless s/he's your spouse. But there's nothing against people who profess other religions.

Then again, I think we're going off-topic. Unless the topic is religion bashing in general and not just Koran burning. If anyone is interested in discussing Judaism, the Middle East conflicts, etc. we can make a separate topic for that purpose.

[Blademaster]

So it's bad because it's old? I fail to see the logic in Blade's argument, if there is any.

So you're saying EVERY SINGLE WORD of your beloved Talmud/Torah/whatever the book is is positive? There's not a SINGLE passage within it that is fucked up, preaches some idiotic extremism, orders the murder or mistreatment of certain people who aren't Jews, men, white-skinned, etc.?

Unless your response to this question is "No.," I'm going to start worrying.

[Lady Vulpix]

I'm not saying everything is strictly positive, but yes, I do say that the Torah doesn't promote idiotic extremism, nor order the murder or mistreatment of certain people who aren't Jews, men, white-skinned, etc.

[Telume]

Honestly, what good is religion aside from preventing people from going crazy? People need faith to live, let them believe what they want. It's that simple and, yes, they will have crazy views you don't agree with, unfortunately, it's human nature. We tend to, unfortunately, be a very violent creature. It's what we do to 'survive'.

[Lady Vulpix]

We do have some violent instincts. We have conciliatory and cooperative instincts too. If we're conscious enough, we can choose which ones to follow. If there is such a thing as human nature, then the ability to decide our own actions is also a part of it.

As for the benefits of religion, I believe they vary from one person to another. Everyone has reasons for what they believe in (some of those reasons are conscious, some others aren't). I don't think it matters much what anyone else's reasons are, as long as they don't try to force their views on other people, nor attack others for their beliefs.

[Asilynne]

We do have some violent instincts. We have conciliatory and cooperative instincts too. If we're conscious enough, we can choose which ones to follow. If there is such a thing as human nature, then the ability to decide our own actions is also a part of it.

As for the benefits of religion, I believe they vary from one person to another. Everyone has reasons for what they believe in (some of those reasons are conscious, some others aren't). I don't think it matters much what anyone else's reasons are, as long as they don't try to force their views on other people, nor attack others for their beliefs.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, couldnt have said it better myself.

[Bear]

Daoism for the win, y'all.

I don't think any religion can claim to be tolerant of other religions. It sounds nice to say, but it's hypocritical in execution. What religion doesn't profess itself to be the correct one? It wouldn't be a religion at all if it acknowledged other paths than its own.

So, in essence, no religion is tolerant of other religions. Some are more violent and aggressive than others, but they are all, by definition, intolerant.

[Blademaster]

Bear hit the nail on the head.

[Bear]

Bear hit the nail on the head.

[kurai]

Hello, friends.

When dealing with the world's major religions there is actually something of a divide in the external sensibility of religious acceptance depending on the cultural sphere that you are examining (that is, whether you are looking at the traditions of ethical monotheism or universalist eastern modes).

In the already established context (aside from the mention of daoism) the notion of religion is being defined through discursively christian means - religio being a latin word for piety incumbent on members of a given christian sect, through creedal allegiance and affirmation. Of course, examining the eastern traditions reveals situations in which this is either inappropriate or impossible (Shinto, for example). It is not the case that religion has to be exclusive within either a society or an individual! Characterizing this sort of divide as a lack of tolerance is sort of inaccurate, because the different religions cover entirely separate aspects of life.

As far as contrast between religions of the EM path exists, it is true that each believes their message to be the valid way (thus explaining their missionary objectives), but there are examples where the original doctrine, and intervening history doesn't really antagonize the other groups without a secondary, non-religious purpose in mind.

So, let's consider some history!

Examining Judaism, an obvious principle is one that assures all righteous people, regardless of ethnicity or religious identity, a place in God's kingdom (see Daniel 12:2). While this isn't an express outline for an afterlife, this sort of thinking is what allowed for smaller segments of jewish populations to exist within larger cultures that might otherwise be wary of them. Following from this, much of jewish law develops in order to retain the communal bond between this cultural group across geography and time while inside other cultures. Tolerance was basically a necessity for there to be a modern jewish people.

So in Judaism we come across a period of apocalyptic messianic sects - then Christianity. Roll out some Pauline doctrine from Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Well, that's pretty straightforward, but note that historically, christian dominated areas have allowed enclaves of people from other faiths without forced conversion provided that they did not threaten the status quo through political or other means. Of course, salvation from this principle is extended to people of all sorts (that is, no one is excluded), they just have to be willing to convert. Kinda tolerant as far as race/culture goes.

As far as Islam goes, it is slightly different from the above but at the same time a combination of both approaches. Consider Surah 2: "There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing." The submission to Allah required is just not possible to be forced. Historically, when the Umayyid empire spread through regional conquest, they did not eliminate the pre-existing elites and culture, but instead offered conversion incentives (tax exemption, primarily), and provided a secondary administration post in the region (obviously to ensure continued imperial dominance). In this scenario, jews and christians were explicitly outlined as dhimmi - allowed to practice their own religion despite sharia being in effect, with legal protection higher than non-monotheists. So, that's pretty tolerant.

But back to what I was originally saying! Unless you consider anything non-monotheistic to not be a religion, probably half of the world's population follows a religion that allows for simultaneous participation along other paths, where different religious groups have existed alongside one another for centuries with only minor incidents directly relating to doctrine. some kind of cultural centrism going on in here

As far as the value of religion goes, there are a bunch of different reasons to follow a given religion:
- maybe you strongly desire a philosophical interpretation for the ultimate questions of existence
- there is a strong community bond and support structure based on long lines of history and connections between families and friends (this might be kind of difficult to envision for the secular individual, but as an outside observer I personally think it is the most important part)
- culturally prevalent rituals and values allow for it to be the path of least resistance
- spiritually fulfilling mystic practices are always there

[Bear]

hello friends

when dealing with the world's major religions there is actually something of a divide in the external sensibility of religious acceptance depending on the cultural sphere that you are examining (that is, whether you are looking at the traditions of ethical monotheism or universalist eastern modes).

in the already established context (aside from the mention of daoism) the notion of religion is being defined through discursively christian means - religio being a latin word for piety incumbent on members of a given christian sect, through creedal allegiance and affirmation. of course, examining the eastern traditions reveals situations in which this is either inappropriate or impossible (shinto, for example). it is not the case that religion has to be exclusive within either a society or an individual! characterizing this sort of divide as a lack of tolerance is sort of inaccurate, because the different religions cover entirely separate aspects of life.

as far as contrast between religions of the EM path exists, it is true that each believes their message to be the valid way (thus explaining their missionary objectives), but there are examples where the original doctrine, and intervening history doesn't really antagonize the other groups without a secondary, non-religious purpose in mind.

so let's consider some history!

examining judaism, an obvious principle is one that assures all righteous people, regardless of ethnicity or religious identity, a place in God's kingdom (see daniel 12:2). while this isn't an express outline for an afterlife, this sort of thinking is what allowed for smaller segments of jewish populations to exist within larger cultures that might otherwise be wary of them. following from this, much of jewish law develops in order to retain the communal bond between this cultural group across geography and time -while inside other cultures-. tolerance was basically a necessity for there to be a modern jewish people.

so in judaism we come across a period of apocalyptic messianic sects. then christianity. roll out some pauline doctrine from galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." well. that's pretty straightforward, but note that historically, christian dominated areas have allowed enclaves of people from other faiths without forced conversion provided that they did not threaten the status quo through political or other means. of course, salvation from this principle is extended to people of all sorts (that is, no one is excluded), they just have to be willing to convert. kinda tolerant as far as race/culture goes.

as far as islam goes, it is slightly different from the above but at the same time a combination of both approaches. consider surah 2: "There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing." the submission to allah required is just not possible to be forced. historically, when the umayyid empire spread through regional conquest, they did not eliminate the pre-existing elites and culture, but instead offered conversion incentives (tax exemption primarily), and provided a secondary administration post in the region (obviously to ensure continued imperial dominance). in this scenario, jews and christians were explicitly outlined as dhimmi - allowed to practice their own religion despite sharia being in effect, with legal protection higher than non-monotheists. so that's pretty tolerant.

but back to what i was originally saying! unless you consider anything non-monotheistic to not be a religion, probably half of the world's population follows a religion that allows for simultaneous participation along other paths, where different religious groups have existed alongside one another for centuries with only minor incidents directly relating to doctrine. some kind of cultural centrism going on in here

as far as the value of religion goes, there are a bunch of different reasons to follow a given religion:
- maybe you strongly desire a philosophical interpretation for the ultimate questions of existence
- there is a strong community bond and support structure based on long lines of history and connections between families and friends (this might be kind of difficult to envision for the secular individual, but as an outside observer I personally think it is the most important part)
- culturally prevalent rituals and values allow for it to be the path of least resistance
- spiritually fulfilling mystic practices are always there

well cya

Well said, but I find one major flaw in your post:

You Don't Capitalize The First Letters Of Your Sentences!!!

DO IT!!!!

[Telume]

Well said, but I find one major flaw in your post:

You Don't Capitalize The First Letters Of Your Sentences!!!

DO IT!!!!

Forget Daoism, lets follow Bearism.

[Lady Vulpix]

Not all religions are missionary, you know. Not everyone has the need to attract others into their fold. And disagreement is not the same as intolerance. It's OK for people to have different beliefs and traditions. I don't think it's right to reject others just because they have different ideas of how the universe came to be, whether there is a God, many or none, whether a messiah has come/will come or not, etc.

[Blademaster]

Posting in agreement with Bear. Uncapitalized letters make my angry start flowing.

inb4alllowercasereply

[Link]

i think all religions are good, but then again, i'm Christian

[Telume]

i think all religions are good, but then again, i'm Christian

At least you're not Jehova's Witness, no matter what they will ALWAYS annoy me with their stupid knocking on doors and trying to talk about the "word of god"

and on that note:



(Spoiler:) HOLY SHIT I DON'T CARE IT'S 8:00 IN THE FUCKING MORNING ON A SUNDAY AND I WANT SOME FUCKING SLEEP! I WISH I HAD SOME HOUNDS LIKE MR. BURNS I COULD SIC ON YOU SO YOU WOULD THINK TWICE.



*ahem*

Yeah I needed to get that off my chest, I KNOW not all Jehova's Witnesses are bad (I know a couple that are actually good people and not fanatical about pushing their views on you) but DAMN.

[Shadow Wolf]

I KNOW not all Jehova's Witnesses are bad (I know a couple that are actually good people and not fanatical about pushing their views on you) but DAMN.

Well, it all depends on the person. I'm a Jehovah Witness's myself, but I have to admit that some people can be... how can I say it... a little hard to deal with.

You see, being of a certain religion does not automatically means that we are more reasonable than others. I might consider myself to be a little more flexible than others (BTW, if you have questions about us, let me know; I'll be glad to answer but of course, I'm not here to debate or to win religious topic but for reasoning and a nice conversations). As I heard in a movie: "Religion has flaws because men have flaws."

At least you're not Jehova's Witness, no matter what they will ALWAYS annoy me with their stupid knocking on doors and trying to talk about the "word of god"

I don't know whether to laugh because I imagine you feeling angry (I'm not being sarcastic though) and stuff or to feel bad about this. I'll make a single question, but of course, this question is not for raising angry comments or anything, just to think about it.

"If you've knew about a doctor who can cure death, and you're getting the treatment to be healed from death, wouldn't you try to tell others as soon as possible about this doctor?" Well, something like this is what we do (Apo. 21:1-4; Mat. 24:14)

About 8am... well, you can tell them to visit on another time to talk about it, since that is the time you use for sleeping. I'm pretty sure that they will understand that.

[Lady Vulpix]

That's complicated, Louis. If I had seen it happen, I probably would. But if I'd just heard the rumor I wouldn't say anything until I could see it for myself. There are too many people around saying that what they believe is right and what others believe is wrong. I don't see the point in that, and I wouldn't put up with someone who tells me I'll be going to hell or that my soul will die unless I convert to his/her religion. First of all, that makes no sense to me, and second, s/he has no proof to back up those words.

[Blademaster]

As I heard in a movie: "Religion has flaws because men have flaws."

What movie is this from? I need to know so I can throw it in preachy people's faces whenever they try their "God wrote the Bible." bullshit on me to win arguments.

[Heald]

What movie is this from? I need to know so I can throw it in preachy people's faces whenever they try their "God wrote the Bible." bullshit on me to win arguments.

As someone who has spent 2 years studying Theology, I am often incredibly bemused by people who claim religious scriptures such as the Bible are in no way tainted or tampered with by man, either through lack of recollection of events, misinterpretation, purposefully forging accounts for some other goal or otherwise misrepresenting how events occurred, even though much of the Bible remained largely uncodified through oral tradition and in differing forms for great lengths of time, sometimes not even written down until hundreds of years after the events described actually happened. To say that the original accounts were passed down through the years entirely unmolested, and that the original source is completely untainted in the first place, is simply baffling. Furthermore, there is no Canonical claim that the Bible was in anyway authored by God, and anyone who says otherwise you can safely call an ignorant twit. I hold little stock in the accuracy of the Bible but I probably know far more about it than 99% of Christians out there.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great book, but attempting to follow it literally, word-for-word, is silly, just like thinking books like Harry Potter or Twilight encourage children to practice the dark arts and sorcery is silly.

[Asilynne]

Heald is absolutely correct. Even if it had been said that God delegated a human to write His words into the Bible, time, translations, and the fact that humans are imperfect would inevitably have seeped imperfections into it and caused some passages to have been totally removed and some extra ones added that were not part of the original. As the Bible is translated into different languages some things may change as well, since translating involves a great deal of interpreting meanings of phrases and words.

The Bible we know today is a collection of ancient documents that may be incomplete themselves. Through time different groups of people removed or added books to the Bible, and since a lot of the originals no longer exist or were destroyed there is no way for us to know today the whole story. But the belief in a single higher power predates the christian Bible.

Yes, if you follow any holy script to the letter and completely literally you are making a mistake because time and people change everything. But being Christian, being Jewish, being Islamic, doesnt mean you are right or wrong. Thats the problem with organised religion, the idea that if you are right someone else has to be wrong, and to make those others agree with you no matter what.
These three when it comes down to the bare essence are largely the same despite the fact there are a few differences in the details. All three tell of a surpeme being, whether you name Him God or Allah, all three say we were all created by Him, and speak of a reward for living a good life. Aside from all the flawed fanatical interpretations, all speak of faith and love, and I believe that all three of these religions have the same God, they are just different interpretations of the same thing.
Its like with accents, British, American and Australian accents have the same roots, but with time and distance they changed and grew seperately into what they are today. This happens with cultures, families, colonies, and languages, so why should religions be any different?

[Lady Vulpix]

I agree, but the thing is, people don't usually tell you that you're going to Hell for having a different accent, while many do tell you that you'll be condemned for having a different religion. I don't know if that's written in any official scriptures or not, but I hear it a lot. Just like I also hear the fanatical atheistic speech about religion as a whole being retarded and all religious people being stupid and ignorant. I'm tired of fanatism in all its forms.

[Link]

I remember the religion topics from this site back then when BBP and hitmonlee were here. All I have to say is that I trust in Jesus and his resurrection, and people being against the claims of the bible have been around since the Biblical times, and also, there is nothing more logical to Christians than the fall of mankind, each starting with their own views hopefully, and working from there. The sad part is that atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens, and harris are correct; Religion can lead to some bad stuff if you let it get that way.

[classy_cat18]

As a Christian, I believe in God. As a rational college graduate, I oppose my church's view on fundamentalism, a.k.a. taking the Bible literally. As people have noted, humans wrote the Bible so they have changed or removed scriptures or entire books. Slaveowners used to twist the Bible's words to use against their slaves. I think I remember hearing somewhere that priests removed the Song of Solomon at one point, or kept people from reading it until they hit a certain age. Although I can see why from the content. *blushes*

Also, the version that most of the members read, the King James version, was written by someone that probably wasn't even Christian. Interpret that however you want.

Christians are taught to love everyone equally. But they're also taught that their religion is the only true one, so that tends to screw with their views and behavior. To be honest, the drive behind some hate crimes being religion scares me.

[MeLoVeGhOsTs]

Well I'm glad that you guys are critical, and try to see it both ways. I'd love more of those christians around.

Swap with some of the rednecks.

[Blademaster]

I'm tired of fanatism in all its forms.

I think you mean fanaticism.

[Shadow Wolf]

*Takes a deep breath and relaxes*

Gabi: I believe this is where faith comes in (Heb. 11:1). I've noticed that, even though I can provide a thousand verses of the Bible to prove my point, if someone doesn't believe in the Bible, I cannot force him/her to believe in it. If someone doesn't want to change its point of view, then we have to respect free will. I can show someone the nine resurrections that happened in the Bible and prove to you with the Bible that this is going to happen at a greater scale in the future (John 5:28,29; Apo. 21-1-4), but it's up to the person to believe that the Bible is inspired by God (2 Pet. 1:21). I feel the need and the responsibility to show you this, but I cannot force you to believe it. Apart from everything, God teaches us to love, and inside love lies respect. And well, the center of Christianity should be the "Word of God", AKA The Bible.

If we add the fact that many religions teach established principles (some of them established by man and not the Bible, but I won't speak about that, since it would be skating on thin ice) and make people believe them without questioning (if you question something, you commit a sin), well, people will present resistance when hearing points of view from other religions because they were trained to do so. We are not encouraged to look for the truth ourselves but to believe what "leaders" preach (BTW, ask yourself: How can a God of Love torment people eternally in a burning hell and take kids away from parents because he "needed" and angel in the heavens? That's cruel! (Job 34:10)).

If we believe all of this, then the correct choice would be to look for the truth ourselves and establish the common factor in the religions as the key to finding the truth (in this case, The Bible itself). But we have to be able to listen and be reasonable, because we won't get anywhere if we stick with what someone else told us because he or she has authority as a preacher.

Blade: I am not motivating you to pick up a fight with Christians OK (love and peace first ). I believe the movie is Angels and Demons, by Tom Hanks.

Heald: You know? I laughed when you talked about literal meanings of the Bible (oh wait, in the future a big seven-headed beast will rise and rule all the world.) I have to agree with you also in the translation of the Bible. We don't know who changed words, or if a translation is better than the other (I can believe that the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures is by far one of the most accurate ones and that all the Bibles deliver the same message, but again, that is what I believe.). We have to take the concept of faith again and believe that God will punish whoever translated the Bible to benefit his ideals and his religion (copyrights) (Apo. 22:18,19). But of course, Jehovah is Love too, so he understands that we are imperfect and we tend to make mistakes, even in Translations (James 3:2).

________

Anyway, there are a lot of religions (Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Jewish, Atheism, and many, many others), and "anyone who is serious about his religion should think that it is the right one. Otherwise, why would he or she be involved in it? Christians are admonished: "Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) A person should make sure that his beliefs can be supported by the Scriptures, for there is only one true faith. Ephesians 4:5 confirms this, mentioning "one Lord, one faith, one baptism." Jesus did not agree with the modern, relaxed view that there are many roads, many religions, all leading to salvation. Instead, he said: "Narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it." Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they have found it. Otherwise, they would look for another religion.—Matthew 7:14." (credits to Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society).