|Why do we need religonPage 2 of 2 (1, 2)|
|1. 'Why' do we need religion? With the emphasis on "why", the question is presented as if to suggest the answer that we do not, to place the burden of persuasion on those who are induced to claim that we do, if they answer the question.|
2. Why 'do' we need religion? With the emphasis on "do", the question is presented to suggest the answer that we do, and that it is only a matter of explanation or clarification.
3. Why do 'we' need religion? With the emphasis on "we", the question is framed as an in-group v.s. out-group question, where we presume or assume an in-explicated "we" which includes the speaker / writer and the reader / listeners.
4. Why do we 'need' religion? With the emphasis on "need", the question is whether it is optional or necessary, with a the suggestion that optional is the answer, or that religion may be 'wanted' but not 'needed'.
5. Why do we need 'religion'? With the emphasis on "religion", the implication is that something else would do, like a particular philosophy or belief system, or possibly that some specific sense of "religion" is intended, like organized religion as opposed to private faith, or something that is incontestably a "religion" as opposed to something that is only arguably a religion (e.g. Buddhism).
Oh, and everything about Christianity cannot be false. If you accept a particular dichotomy of truth-values which says that statements are either "true" or "false", and some third truth-value is not possible, that is. Because Christian texts and doctrine contain all kinds of mutually contradictory statements, assertions, factual claims and value claims.
It cannot all be false any more than it cannot all be true. If you accept the dichotomy of truth-values which I am talking about. Different types of Christian belief systems say things that contradict one another, at a bare minimum.