Christianity and its Validity

I'll address each of your questions in sequence to avoid confusion: First: "Why are there all different religions if all religions are the same." I personally see that they are all near-identical at their cores, and I've also observed that religions often step from the same roots. The seeing of the main deity, be they Ra, Jesus, etc. as the light of the world, the sun, the thing upon which all things are based. The original purpose of this was of course to be able to explain away the prosperity or decline of crops. Ancient life revolved around the sun, allowing it to control their days with a completeness that's quite beautiful in its simplicity. Then came the gods of the forces that scared people, of the unknown, of the dangerous: Hades, god of the underworld in Greek mythology; Zeus, all-powerful, but recognized in the majority of myths to have a fearsome temper (just as thunder and lightning do in daily life). Gods of the night, gods of sleep, gods of every simple, basic force in the lives of those who lived. The reasons religions appear differently throughout the centuries is because the deities and holy spirits change with the needs of the population. The most clear example of this is of course the Roman pantheon versus that of the Greeks. Developed in similar timelines, the gods were almost identical, with their small differences notably applicable to those between the two societies--Rome was more warlike, focusing on conquering and war, violence, while the Greek gods were more inclined to stay connected to arts. This shows clearly the linear progression from one religion into another. "...Cultures love to incorporate good stories in their own consciousness. Celestial rape, virgin births, important astrological dates, ultimate chieftains being born of low status (especially if it means proper posh folk come along and worship them)" these are bread and butter for all tribal cultures along with creation and disaster myths." [1] Secondly: "Different religions have different laws, so how can these be created for a moral code?" Let me refute this by simply providing a list of some of the common values and laws between the three most prevalent religions, as well as a more personal discussion of "why": Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. 1. Each of these religions is monotheistic, which has become much more dominant over religious studies in more recent years (the past 2500 years, perhaps). The reason is that, as government becomes less monarchical and more democratic (which, to save time, I'd like to say that yes, in times prior to 500 BCE things were less democratic in nature than they became shortly thereafter), the backup control that religion provides needed to morph into a more dictatorial system, for lack of a better word, with one omnipotent ruler to take the place where kings and emperors once stood. 2. Daily prayer and weekly worship are traditions of both religions, with this repetitive loyalty conditioning ensuring that religious purpose is in the forefront of all minds, with no time to ask questions. [2] All three religions believe in the "immaculate conception" of Jesus. Third: "God put in the urge to believe for his own purposes." If you cannot recognize these parallels because you are so blinded by religion, I'm not sure how to argue this. If your only argument goes along the lines of "Because god said so" then the debate will become circular in no time at all. Also, this sort of thinking goes against the values of your own religion. Am I incorrect in saying that God helps those who have found him and who accept him without question though faith does not provide all that they wish to have, but he does not aid those who reject his existence? Job, for example, was given no reason to believe in God, as everything he had was taken away, and God, with his rather twisted sense of humor, didn't help him, he was simply testing him. If God tests us all, then how might we know the difference between a test and the cold hard reality of suffering? Fourth: "What values can you see that disprove a god's existence?" I will actually allow you a point here--I see nothing that disproves it. I however, see nothing that proves it either. However, scientific proof of secular theories hold a much more promising future in my opinion. Sure, there's no proof that there isn't a Bigfoot, but honestly? There's more proof of bigfoot than there has ever been of god. This is what I mean by proof. Wind has an explanation, so comparing wind to god is honestly quite ridiculous. You feel the effects of wind, things happen that can be directly attributed to wind, without any alternate explanation with supporting evidence. Some people sense the effects of a god. I don't dispute that. But there is no proof there at all. Best of luck to you in the next round. [1] https://richarddawkins.net... [2] http://www.americancatholic.org...