Choice for Jesus not for thee

[Moonbeam]

Neither do you, but you are clearly sold on the fairy tale.

I don't think it is exactly fair for Ajay to say you don't want to know Him because it is not something you have a choice about feeling. All of your experiences point to the fact that the so called God of religion is a joke and, of course it is. There is almost nothing in our cultural exposure in the West to suggest that the actual phenomenon represented by a bearded man in the sky is the thingi that these ancient goat herders, as you may like to refer to them, was the actual source of their inspiration.

Modern science with the help of brain stimulation can produce a state where one feels an otherly presence and a state of certainty they are not alone. You may never have considered that real religion is a science that involves the perfection of life experience by means of techniques that alter the chemistry of the brain. Now, what are altered states of the mind from a Western scientific perspective can simply be dismissed as madness or self delusional tricks as the externally propounded verbal explanations of such states are only words that can never transfer from one person to another what the actual conscious experience is like.

So let us consider the fact that Ajay has experienced a conscious state that has transferred to him a certainty that we are not alone in the world, but loved by something we can experience but not feel.

You may not have experienced such a state. I would say you have buried all awareness that you once lived in such grace, but that does not mean that he has not experienced something he might call being reborn in Christ.

Personally, I would find it rather cruel to try to take that from him. You, however, might consider being open to some other path than a Abrahamic one to what some might call a deeper experience of life since having experienced such a sense of inner Presence may be quite different than regarding is as merely chemicals. Reports have come in that it can be life altering and end suffering. Magic, could it be real?

 

[Moonbeam]

Do we have any first hand accounts of the Jesus resurrection? [

It's easy not to be a Christian witnessed by many millions of failures. What's hard is being one.

 

[Ajay]

I don't doubt you weren't taught it, there's a reason church's don't teach that stuff, but it's right there in the bible for anyone to read. NT vs OT is irrelevant since you claim your god is perfect, all knowing, all powerful, and all loving.

That was a bit tongue in cheek. The church didn't teach these things during my formation because it was more important for me to understand Christ and the teachings of the Catholic church (and evaluate whether I was sincere in my desire). I don't usually discuss the OT with non-believers because I haven't studied the majority of it beyond such things as the prefigurement of Christ and the Psalms of David (having read it doesn't equal understanding) The NT is a different story for me. That said - I really don't have the inclination right now to expound on my beliefs any further. I spent 10 years studying what I know (and continue to) and there is no way to get a fraction of that out in a forum like this.

 

[Ajay]

Do we have any first hand accounts of the Jesus resurrection? The problem is we don't have any. Oh, we have stories. The 500. The women at the tomb. The disciples. But, those are just stories which are only found in the bible. We don't have any 3rd party sources outside the bible, and we don't have any first hand accounts. The Mormons OTOH have done a much moire convincing job about seeing the angle Moroni. There are a few first hand accounts, and they fully explain what they saw on that day. Its all in detail. The same can't be said for the resurrection.

Hmm, there was a trend in the second half of the twentieth century to turn to some 'novel' analysis of scripture, based more on story telling than actual documentation. Over the past 10-20 years, some less lazy theologians actually went through all of the documents we have from the 1st and 2nd centuries. The majority are fragments, but there gospel accounts preserved in their entirety. These scholars actual when through all of the documents and did a proper historical literary analysis along with charting the relationships of the apostles and the wide range of disciples that they have and that spread throughout the Mediterranean (in particular). The short story is this. Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew and is a first person witness of the life of Christ. The same is true for John. Marc was a disciple of Peter and is a second hand account, but taken from the witness of Peter. Luke was a disciple of Paul. Paul wasn't a first person witness of Christ, but knew the details of the life of Christ through the Apostles and other disciples who witness the life and ministry of Christ. About as good as it gets for a 2000 year old narrative from the fairly backwater province of Judah.

 

[JD50]

Hmm, there was a trend in the second half of the twentieth century to turn to some 'novel' analysis of scripture, based more on story telling than actual documentation. Over the past 10-20 years, some less lazy theologians actually went through all of the documents we have from the 1st and 2nd centuries. The majority are fragments, but there gospel accounts preserved in their entirety. These scholars actual when through all of the documents and did a proper historical literary analysis along with charting the relationships of the apostles and the wide range of disciples that they have and that spread throughout the Mediterranean (in particular). The short story is this. Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew and is a first person witness of the life of Christ. The same is true for John. Marc was a disciple of Peter and is a second hand account, but taken from the witness of Peter. Luke was a disciple of Paul. Paul wasn't a first person witness of Christ, but knew the details of the life of Christ through the Apostles and other disciples who witness the life and ministry of Christ. About as good as it gets for a 2000 year old narrative from the fairly backwater province of Judah.

The answer is no we do not have any first hand accounts of Jesus resurrecting, and if someone came to you today and said they just saw someone rise from the dead you'd think they're crazy. You also don't have any first hand accounts of a bunch of people rising from the dead and wandering the streets, a pretty remarkable event for... no one to write down. You'd almost think it's entirely made up.

It's literally the single most important event of your religion and it happened at a time where not a single person recorded it.

 

[Amused]

The answer is no we do not have any first hand accounts of Jesus resurrecting, and if someone came to you today and said they just saw someone rise from the dead you'd think they're crazy. You also don't have any first hand accounts of a bunch of people rising from the dead and wandering the streets, a pretty remarkable event for... no one to write down. You'd almost think it's entirely made up.

It's literally the single most important event of your religion and it happened at a time where not a single person recorded it.

The earliest writings mentioning Jesus occur no earlier than 70CE. More than a generation after his death. (Average life expectancy was 35)

There are zero contemporary mentions of a Jesus. None. And the earliest Roman and Jewish mentions are 93CE.

 

[JD50]

That was a bit tongue in cheek. The church didn't teach these things during my formation because it was more important for me to understand Christ and the teachings of the Catholic church (and evaluate whether I was sincere in my desire). I don't usually discuss the OT with non-believers because I haven't studied the majority of it beyond such things as the prefigurement of Christ and the Psalms of David (having read it doesn't equal understanding) The NT is a different story for me. That said - I really don't have the inclination right now to expound on my beliefs any further. I spent 10 years studying what I know (and continue to) and there is no way to get a fraction of that out in a forum like this.

That's how you get yourself caught up in a bubble. Think about it this way. Imagine you're talking to a MAGA who believes Trump won the election because there was massive voter fraud, when you ask them for evidence of this voter fraud they tell you that they only discuss it with other MAGAs who also believe there was massive voter fraud.

Anyways the Christian God is one of the easier to debunk because of the way you've defined him. NT vs. OT doesn't matter because you've already decided that he's perfect, all knowing, all powerful, all loving and unchanging. It doesn't take 10 years of study to spot the flaws in that. He made the world how it is knowing it would be this way, having the ability to make it different. You can call us "his children" if you want, but you wouldn't call me "all loving" if I gave one of my kids cancer and watched them suffer and die a horrible death.

 

[Amused]

Allow me to add this: Religion is a matter of faith. A true person of faith would admit there is no verifiable proof for their belief system and it is a matter of pure faith and leave it there.

Debating your faith with an attempted factual argument is a trap. It means you actually lack faith. The same for looking for factual evidence to support your faith.

 

[Captante]

The church didn't teach these things during my formation because it was more important for me to understand Christ and the teachings of the Catholic church

That isn't the only reason they didn't teach it.

It's called "lying by omission" and far as I'm concerned it's wrong.

Having said that, you and every other American are 100% entitled to your faith ... provided it doesn't hurt anyone else. (and therein lies the problem)

 

[Moonbeam]

Allow me to add this: Religion is a matter of faith. A true person of faith would admit there is no verifiable proof for their belief system and it is a matter of pure faith and leave it there.

Debating your faith with an attempted factual argument is a trap. It means you actually lack faith. The same for looking for factual evidence to support your faith.

Had you someone in mind for this. I am aware that while you asked be allowed to make this point, you actually did so before you got anybody’s permission. Perhaps you lacked the faith we would give it or accept it willingly. Know then you have my consent and my agreement. I am going to assume you proceeded as you did having faith that what you were going to say would be of value to others if they were to fairly consider it.

Mulla Nasrudin was thought to have a great secret. So the villagers came to him and asked that he come to the town square and inform them what it is.

So the Mulla came and asked, do any of you know what it is I am about to say. Everyone answered no. So the Mulla added, then I can’t waste my time talking to such ignorant people and he went home.

After a bit the cycle was repeated and the villagers answered yes, to which the Mulla answered then there is no need to tell you.

On the third round the answers was some of us do and some of us don’t, to which Nasrudin replied, let those who do tell those who don’t.

 

[Moonbeam]

That isn't the only reason they didn't teach it.

It's called "lying by omission" and far as I'm concerned it's wrong.

Having said that, you and every other American are 100% entitled to your faith ... provided it doesn't hurt anyone else. (and therein lies the problem)

So true. You are 100% sure you know when someone else’s faith is your problem.

 

[MtnMan]

So true. You are 100% sure you know when someone else’s faith is your problem.

Yes, asshole. When you use that faith to have any control of anyone, for any reason, then fuck you and your fucking deity with a roll of razor wire.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, asshole. When you use that faith to have any control of anyone, for any reason, then fuck you and your fucking deity with a roll of razor wire.

Yes 'asshole'. I completely agree. I, however, am not as confident as you are that I know who is being controlled and just how unwilling that control might be. You, for example, are under the control of your emotions and are filled with rage because somebody controlled you and are not lashing outt at anything that reminds you of what a gullible chump you were to have ever fallen for it. And now look at you. Out of the fire and into the frying pan. Naturally, of course, you are going to be upset you can't control me saying this but imagine your insults, the very things that controlled you will work on me. Just trying to help. The rest is up to you. Your fuck me is just you fucking you. No skin off my nose. I just happen to value you more than you do. I know all about rage, rage caused by the lack of self pity. The tears that you hide are heartbreaking. Try to let some love in.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Just thinking, so according to the thread title, Jesus is pro-choice?

No one said you invented it. Your morals approved and promoted it. It's literally in your bible. You're the one gloating about two thousand year old morals, not me.

Modern day Christians are STILL pushing all of that crap (excluding slavery... maybe) using your outdated morals.

Er, how many of them go "blacks were better off when they were slaves"? And lots of them are the ones pushing the for profit prison system which is effectively modern day Capitalism slavery.

You are the majority, you also have too much influence in politics, it's not mutually exclusive.

Your "moral goods that have stood for over two millennia" are awful. Slavery, subjugation of women, racism, LGTBQ discrimination, etc... Secular morals are far superior. I don't care what delusion some goat herder had 2000 years ago. If you want to believe that nonsense that's fine, but keep it to yourself, especially your "morals".

Actually that's why they had to come up with their book, even the goat herders saw through the sham that was their "morals" back then.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I can't believe you guys got duped into one of the old school religious nutters "Christians, especially adult white males, are the most persecuted people in all of human history, no one has suffered more!!!" arguments as well as trying to provide legit facts to them about their religion (because lawd knows they don't learn any by reading their book or going to church, or in schools).

 

[MtnMan]

I can't believe you guys got duped into one of the old school religious nutters "Christians, especially adult white males, are the most persecuted people in all of human history, no one has suffered more!!!" arguments as well as trying to provide legit facts to them about their religion (because lawd knows they don't learn any by reading their book or going to church, or in schools).

The same people that are watching what the Taliban is doing in Afghanistan by banning higher education, limiting where they can work, etc. while looking for the correct bible verse to do the same thing here.

 

[Moonbeam]

The same people that are watching what the Taliban is doing in Afghanistan by banning higher education, limiting where they can work, etc. while looking for the correct bible verse to do the same thing here.

We think the same. But in your case you attribute all that shit to the fact that it is done in the name of Christianity whereas I see it being done because so called Christians who claim to act as Christians are not Christians at all. Real Christians would never do such things. So you have made up your mind as to who is a Christian and so have I. I just happen to have the better view, in that the examples of Christian moral paragons from its inception are manifold. There are many who have understood the message to care for the weakest among us. In your understanding there would be none.