A Few Questions To Ask About God, I Mean, Ask Yourself First (20)

In the last article, I mentioned the issue of "Why should you believe in God?". I used a very simple calculation of interests, but in fact, I did not come up with this kind of argument. I know that the first person to say this was a man Russian economist, but there may be an earlier source. In short, the first time I came across this statement was from this economist. He used the method of calculating gains and losses to tell everyone that a life of believing in God is more economical. It's a decision that has advantages and no disadvantages, and conversely, if you don't believe it, then you're in a situation where there are only disadvantages and no advantages.

The reason why I haven't mentioned this argument is because in fact, this statement is very far from my belief path. Before, I was explaining my own state. Later, I found that there is something worth discussing about this statement. Proposed.

Regarding this point, in fact, when I published the last article, some netizens asked:

"Okay, it's cheaper to believe in God, but which one should you believe in? If there's another one, wouldn't it be a pagan on the spot?"

It's a good question, and it's an inevitable question. Following the logic, there will naturally be such doubts, and this is the reason why I have laid out so many articles before, because the basic answers have already been in my previous articles. The article is included, but I will do some sorting and extension here.

I mentioned a few key points in the previous article, which are derived from logical inferences. In fact, I have said it many times, but it is okay to review it again:

1. In this world, there is a creator or there is no creator, the answer is one of two, there is only one possibility.
2. You cannot prove that there is no creator in this world, and there is no logical possibility of success in inference.
3. You cannot prove the existence of a creator, but in terms of logical inference, the first cause is the only reasonable answer.
4. Whether the first cause has a personality (such as personality, or Godhead) is a question worth discussing.
5. The purpose of existence will be deducted from question 4 above. If existence has a purpose, then the first cause has a person.
6. As the source of forming the rules of the universe, the existence of the first cause can only be a logical necessity.

So far we have known that the Creator can only be one, and therefore monotheism is also a reasonable theological point of view.

Of course, you may say that in many religions or myths, there is indeed only one God of Creation (usually the etymology of the local language "Chaos"), but this God eventually became a god of abdication (Greek and Taoism are both, Even the so-called atheism of Buddhism is actually).

This kind of theology, which is actually formed by the political declination of later generations, can no longer reflect the original theological concept. It is only because the political factors are retained, but the rule maker should go beyond these rules (such as the God of the Lord of the Rings world). Luvita), the Supreme God is the only because of his absoluteness.

So the only logical concept of theology must be monotheism, which means why you exclude all religions other than monotheism.

The current monotheistic religions in the world, in terms of their appearance history, start with Judaism, followed by Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity, then Islam, and then after the Reformation, Protestantism (usually called Christianity) , of course, if you include various denominations, there are thousands of them, but that's basically it.

Of course there are some side branches, such as Mormonism, Egyptian sects... Various sects that are regarded as heretical, and there may be some emerging religions that are also monotheistic (let alone theological content).

But there is a blind spot that needs to be pointed out first. There are too many people who even know that God really exists, but they are still quite repulsive to join a certain religion, because they feel that these religions are not perfect or suitable for them.

This is no problem, it is a normal thought, but there is a key point that should be self-reflected first, that is, " Are you too proud ?"

If you correctly understand that there are indeed gods in this world, then you should understand that in the history of mankind, countless people have long recognized this matter as you do, and you are by no means a special case of an ancient genius .

So if you are humble enough, you should know that religion is actually the accumulated structure of all the knowledge of the existence of God in human history.

This is what I often say, "the universality of God's revelation", so these ancient religions (newer religions to be discussed) actually have a certain degree of "the hem of the Most High" (because the attributes of the Most High must be infinite, Even the "most correct" religion still only knows a little of the essence of God), but some are obviously deviated (such as becoming polytheism or atheism, which is a typical deviated state, your theology can no longer use logic Verified).

Of course, even if you have a wrong understanding of the Supreme Being, basically the point of “persuade people to be kind” has not changed. It’s a pity that because of theological deviations, even the view of persuading people to be kind will be deviated (for example, God can buy or use spells to "control").

Therefore, we can exclude certain religions that are too far away, and I would not say that these religions are false, because they do exist, but I would say that they are "deviant" and "wrong."

Unless you are confident that your perception of the Supreme Being is far more correct than these religions, it is wiser to find the best one from the existing religion, because you will need the help of the accumulated wisdom of history.

Therefore, most of those emerging religions have little credibility, even monotheism, because these religions cannot explain history (why did God not come forward to reveal human beings in the past until now), nor can they face science and philosophy (science). and philosophy as a derivative and fundamental instrumental discipline of theology, there is no reason to appear before theology).

Therefore, for the questions mentioned by the netizens above, I can help you to reduce the scale first, that is, the religions you can seek at present, only the three major monotheistic systems can be verified by basic logic, and all other religions can be excluded.

Then the remaining three monotheistic religions (Catholicism and Protestantism are considered the same, because the theological texts used are basically the same), which one is more correct?

Let's talk about this.