Okay, so I'm a little bit behind in this discussion. I'll try catch-up.

First. @90, I will acknowledge I don't really know a lot about Buddhism, however, I'll try point out some of the things I think are wrong with it. When I went to a Buddhist monastery as part of a school excursion, the people who showed us around did several things (of which I'll give a couple of examples) which greatly decreased my opinion of Buddhism as a legitimate religion.
1. When asked questions, the majority of the time they did not answer the question, or beat around the bush and said other random stuff that did not actually answer the question. For example, one student asked "How do you know if you've reached Enlightenment?" The answer: "When you do something nice for someone, you get a happy feeling in you and it makes you want to keep doing those things for other people, even if you don't particularly like doing it." ???
2. For a very, very, facts, science-based person like me, Buddhism has nothing to offer in the way of evidence to support their claims. They say there are 4 levels (or something like it), they say this, they say that; but there is no evidence whatsoever (that I am aware of) to support any of their claims.
However, I would welcome someone to enlighten me (pun intended) on this subject.

very, very, facts, science-based person like me, Buddhism has nothing to offer in the way of evidence to support their claims

hmmm reacts only

Again, I don't claim I know a lot about Buddhism (the ladies that took us around the monastery taught us next to nothing), and frankly, I admit I'm not really equipped to argue about Buddhism, before (the comment to buffalo) was simply my opinion.

Now. @90, your second point about science and Christianity. I will get this out of me first; the Catholics screwed up big-time, around that time period. (I mean, selling tickets to heaven??? That's why Protestantism became a thing ;).
Right. Now I can properly address the question. The Galileo issue was stupid, I agree. The Catholics misinterpreted the Bible and made a mistake. But check out this sermon my pastor gave on Sunday that's actually really interesting on this topic. Mentions Galileo too, if I remember correctly. (and you may notice that some of the stuff I've been saying were inspired by this): https://vimeo.com/266028029
So, I accept Christians have made mistakes, are making mistakes, and will make mistakes. But if you think about it, everyone does. For example, the Nazis used the evolution-inspired principle of eugenics to justify the Holocaust.
And when I mentioned contradictions in Buddhism, I was meaning the contradictions within it's own theology (although, with no god it probably shouldn't be called theology), not so much contradictions between behaviour and theology, because there has been such contradictions, is, and always will be. Again, no-one's perfect.

are there any christian denominations that support or at least tolerate flat earth theory?

@ 90 Thessalos has answered your question re: disability reasonably well, but I will add my perspective (He is orthodox, I'm protestant. Different perspectives are helpful.)
According to Christianity, the reason for suffering in this world is humans. Adam and Eve, were given free will by God, for a reason best explained by this metaphor: You want something to love you, worship you. You could create a robot that will permanently do this, because it is programmed to do so. But it would mean a whole lot more if it was another person freely choosing to do so, would it not?
God gave people free will for the same reason. Unfortunately, Adam and Eve abused that free will and thus doomed humanity to suffering, disease and disability. So because they screwed up, everyone else's lives are screwed up, to varying levels.
But since God is merciful, kind and fair, he provided a way for us to be relieved of that suffering. However, we have the same choice as Adam and Eve: God, or ourselves. If we choose God, eternal relief from suffering in heaven. Choose ourselves, eternal suffering in hell.
Hope that answers that question.

About the dead baby, it is my personal opinion that babies/infants that have never been able to get the choice to follow God do go to heaven, but as Thess said, it doesn't say in the Bible, so we don't really know and will only find out when we get to heaven, I suppose. As to adults that have never been exposed to the Gospel, I think (again, my personal opinion) is that they will be judged on their actions according to their conscience. Everybody has an innate feeling of right or right, and (I think) the will be judged according to that. But no-one really knows, and it's not a cop-out to say that. It's just like atheists say "we don't actually know where the first cell came from", because they don't. It's not a cop-out. it's simply stating the truth.

And about your lose-lose situation thing:
Case 1. No, it is not desirable to kill babies, for the reason that we don't know whether they go to heaven or not. Also, God meant for everyone to have the choice to choose him, so killing them would (in my opinion) be a sin.
Case 2. Um, we're talking about babies in general last I checked... I don't know what all that stuff about "disadvantage" was about, because we were talking about babies in general. If you want to talk about a particular baby, then sure. But please, don't start talking about one particular one which is disadvantaged in some way you didn't define (or I didn't understand).

Buffalo, I'm not sure, but the Mormons are weird... maybe them? ;)

@Cata, give me an example of science not fitting with the Christian worldview, and I'll debate it, or admit that I'm not informed enough to debate it with you, or admit that it doesn't fit with the Christian worldview. Probably one of the first two. ;)

Actually, here's an article I just found regarding both the Galileo saga and flat earth. https://creation.com/the-flat-earth-myth-and-creationism
I haven't read the entire thing, but it seemed to give another perspective to the issue so I thought I'd put it here.

And @Wulfhere, I am not sufficiently versed in philosophy as to debate you on that (after all, I am only in high school), but don't you think that part of the point of God is that He is beyond the laws of physics, logic and philosophy? He fits within them, because He created them, but He is also beyond them and not defined by them, because He is a being beyond all else. If He fit the rules of being and non-being you mentioned before, don't you think that would take away the whole significance of God? He would just be a slightly greater power than ourselves, but wouldn't be anything special.
I guess what I'm saying is, you can't try to use these rules/laws to prove God doesn't exist/or is nothing better than ourselves, because if God did exist those laws would not apply to Him, otherwise he's not a god.

And Re: Jesus, if that's what you think, I highly recommend you read The Case for Christ. It doesn't prove anything, because in my opinion (and in true science) nothing can be proven; you can only give evidence for or against something, and if the evidence is strong enough then it is accepted as a fact until the evidence strongly suggests otherwise. However, this book gives a lot of strong evidence that Jesus was a miracle worker and even rose from the dead. Strong enough to convince an atheist who really, really didn't want it to be true.

Actually, if you read more about the Galileo thing, Even Wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone and would most likely be open to falsehoods of any kind, admits that it was not because the Catholics were scientifically backward; This was the reason:
"Galileo defended heliocentrism based on his astronomical observations of 1609 (Sidereus Nuncius 1610). In December 1613, the Grand Duchess Christina of Florence [not the Church] confronted one of Galileo's friends... with biblical objections to the motion of the earth... Prompted by this incident, Galileo wrote a letter to [his friend] in which he argued that heliocentrism was actually not contrary to biblical texts, and that the bible was an authority on faith and morals, not on science. This letter was not published, but circulated widely.

By 1615, Galileo's writings on heliocentrism had been submitted to the Roman Inquisition by Father Niccolo Lorini, who claimed that Galileo and his followers were attempting to reinterpret the Bible, which was seen as a violation of the Council of Trent and looked dangerously like Protestantism." You bet it did ;)
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Controversy_over_heliocentrism

[When I cut out some things (seen by ...), it was the things I considered unimportant, secondary details. If you want to see what you missed, check for yourself.

This is where I, after 2 hours of refuting, drop the mic. Until someone else says something.

Even Wikipedia, which can be edited by anyone and would most likely be open to falsehoods of any kind

Actually Wikipedia is far better than most online sources. You can discuss edits or dubious claims/sources, with anyone. It's easier to slip up when you're writing alone. Big articles like this one this applies to the most. They are the most watched, any errors will be noticed very fast. And it's not open for everyone to edit, at least the one you listed.

Past that, there are several other antivandalism/dubiousness measures. The articles that have generated the few vandalism events have all been small, little-visited pages.

I hate the "Wikipedia is DEVIL" case uninformed folk try to push sometimes.

@thelegend -

[1] "I will acknowledge I don't really know a lot about Buddhism" - you should not disparage something you dont know about in public. Your entire assessment is based on a visit to a monastery and you being unable to comprehend what they are saying.. make sure to be careful not to air uninformed opinions in the future.

[2] "Case 2: I don't know what all that stuff about "disadvantage" - the point is that the baby born to a mother who is likely to be killed is then disadvantaged compared with all other babies, because it has no chance to go to heaven in Case 2.. so there is blatant injustice..

[3] Take a moment to hear Bertrand Russell's thoughts on the subject: https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html . It is quite apparent that he is uninformed about other faiths, but it is equally apparent that he is well informed about Christianity.

90

Edited 4/28/2018 05:47:37

@90

Sorry... you are assuming that it is a God created system when it is created because of man's fall.

More in depth answer later discussing different points as well (because i dont want to make an uninformed argument)

Edited 4/28/2018 12:16:31

@Buffalo

Things like flat earth are not part of doctrine of Christianity as they are basically irrelevant in terms of theology. It is like saying, is there a political group that supports how a certain English word is spelt? No, because it is irrelevant in terms of politics. However, the individual politicians may have different views on how the word is spelt. In the same way, some misinformed people in Christianity may believe the Earth is flat, however, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with Christian doctirne

Good. I think i've decided on being a Flat-Earth Scientologist Catholic.

@thelegend, do you agree that Jesus also accept people who only believe what can be seen?

Thomas was a close friend and disciple of Jesus while he lived, but this practical man simply did not believe the other apostles when they said that Jesus was risen from the dead. Jesus appeared to him and showed him the wounds left by the nails and the spear. 'Now do you believe?' asked Jesus.

Thomas believed only afther he saw with his own eyes that Jesus was risen from the dead.

Jesus didn't seem to blame him for only believing what he saw with his own eyes. So following Jesus example, Christians should not blame people for not believing in a god that can't be seen, right? Maybe even going as far as saying that God just made some people unable to believe in things that can not be seen?

The verse you are quoting is

"John 20:28-30 King James Version (KJV)
28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:"

blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

In here it doesnt say "blessed are those who do not believe"

And no God didnt make some people unable to believe in Him

Edited 5/2/2018 00:10:04

"And no God didnt make some people unable to believe in Him " well, it sure seems that way to me. I tried very hard to believe in God, but I can't force myself into believing. I first was honest about not being able to believe and seeking help, later I tried by saying out loud that I believe and acted accordingly for years, but that also didn't help. Lastly I tried to talk it straight by thinking that Jesus also didn't seem to blame Thomas for not believing because he had not seen...