Jesus Christ, whatever next!

[steve25805 126,023]

Jesus!

Christian or non-Christian we have all heard of this dude. 

But who or what do members think he was? Son of god? figment of the imagination? Faith healer? Guru?

Did he exist for real or not?

Here is my take.

I believe some guy called Jesus existed, but he was just a guy and not devine. Though an exceptionally gifted guy spiritually, in tune with the gods, and something of a faith healer. Also some kind of ancient version of a peace loving hippy dude. And a rebel against the established order, with almost proto-socialist leanings.

I think many of the tales about him have been exaggerated but perhaps at least some with a kernel of truth. But his essential message was quickly perverted and distorted by an increasingly power hungry church. Jesus would never have condoned the burning of witches or heretics. 

But what do others think?

[glad1 2,832]

In my book, there's at least a kernel of truth. Whoever this guy was, he was incredibly good.

As for the burning of witches and such, if you ever listened to his words, you know he never condoned such stuff.

Edited February 12, 2019 by glad1

[spywareonya 37,961]

12 hours ago, steve25805 said:

I believe some guy called Jesus existed, but he was just a guy and not devine. Though an exceptionally gifted guy spiritually, in tune with the gods, and something of a faith healer. Also some kind of ancient version of a peace loving hippy dude. And a rebel against the established order, with almost proto-socialist leanings.

I think many of the tales about him have been exaggerated but perhaps at least some with a kernel of truth. But his essential message was quickly perverted and distorted by an increasingly power hungry church. Jesus would never have condoned the burning of witches or heretics. 

 

More or less ALL you wrote is true. Let's see what I can add.. 

Edited February 12, 2019 by spywareonya

[spywareonya 37,961]

Secret Knowldge of Witches about Jesus cannot be divulged, as in our view, He had been one of the greatest occult pratictioner of all History. Apocryphal Gospels tell marvels of his psychic powers...

What we can say about him, is that his attitude toward peace was more complicated than people think.

 

"...let it be known that I came not to bring peace, but a sword, for these are the Days of Wrath, when those who killed by sword, by sword must be killed. So those who got a sword, let them get it, and those who don't own one, let them sell their cape in order to buy one"

 

Jesus hated, like Witchcraft teach, all that kind of violence that comes from anxiety, misunderstandings, and personal negativity expressed unto Others. Psyhcology calls it "Alexithymia", it's greek and it means more or less "Fuck off, can't find better words". It's the sensation of aggressiveness we feel toward something that we feel it threatens us somehow. Nature gave us this gift, but also told us to explore IF that fucking threat is really a threat or it ONLY SEEMED to be. When we feel overwhelmed, unable to understand, or drowned into previous behavioural guidelines that prevent us from exploring Beyond our tenets, we end up feeling cornered, and we get angry.

 

This is 99% of the violence of the world. People simply "take their stress out onto others", by sport, politic, street violence, verbal abuse, racism, all religious hatred against "different people", and so on. It's ALL Alexithymia.

 

Witchcraft adverse all of this. And since we know that teaching people about the correct side of violence (understanding of the Primordial) could result in morons misunderstanding our words, we usually keep our stuff about violence to ourselves. Sometimes stuff leaks, and this way the world became aware of the fact that Witches adore violence (like they adore every human expression) and even practice the killing of criminals (often enlisting as soldiers or cops) and even practice human sacrifices when stumbling upon really EVIL people. Pratictioners of South America often sacrifice gang leaders if they come across the chance to kidnap them without killing them first.

 

BUT if you meet a Witch, and ask her what she thinks of violence, she will know it's not smart to talk of this, maybe setting fire to some repressed violence in the person standing before her. So she will tell you NOT about violence in itself, but about what violence is in the human world: an act of hatred, or of fear, or of awful conquest. Alex, for example, is trained in guerrilla tactics, bomb crafting and various killing techniques, poisons, weapons, bare handed, and so on. He was an angry boy looking for a war, so he gave his trust to the wrong persons. Now, he UNDERSTANDS violence, but he FIRMLY believe in the absolute WRONGNESS of the root of 99% of the violence we see in the world.

 

Jesus, being an Initiated into these mysteries, "simply" stated these truths. He KNEW violence sucked, and strongly vouched AGAINST IT.

 

BUT some stories about him say that his original departure from his homeland (guess why after his childhood, he disappear from the Bible until adult age?!)was because he got involved in the protests of Jewish patriots, the Sicarii, and he took part in the murder of three wealthy Romans, guilty of cruel and violence oppression toward the poors...

As a Witch, I can sincerely believe this. I mean, 99% of violence is stupid, wrong, misdirected, and evil… but this also mean that 1% of violence is correct… and in those times, violence was the only way against tyrants...

Edited February 12, 2019 by spywareonya

[WantonLee 861]

I have no idea if Jesus existed, or not. Or - if he existed - we know anything about him. Anything that is true, I mean.

He could have existed, or be just a fabrication. Most likely he existed, but what we know about him is mostly either lies, or fabrication. Plus a lot of things that do not fit the official doctrine have been omitted.

Hmm,.. I remember one particual incident when I attended confirmation classes (I am officially a christian, but only on paper). I remember the pastor telling us a story about Jesus, and then afterwards asking a rather interesting question.

The story was - in short - that young Jesus was playing on the roof of a house with another child, which fell from the roof and died. Jesus was accused of having pushed the other child of the roof. He then revied the child so it could tell the truth - namely that it was an accident and that Jesus was innocent.

I remember that the Pastor then told us that this story is not officially written in the bible, and asked us,why this might be the case.

I can't remember if other kids tried to give an answer - I am under the impression that no one did. No one but me... after thinking intensly about it. My answer was: Jesus revived the kid only for his own benefit (because he was accused of murder).

I don't know anymore what the pastor said to this. If it was the correct answer or not. I only remember that I felt pretty smart. Wether this feeling of me was justified or not, I leave you to judge.

Anyway, if that story our pastor told us is true, it's very interesting that he DID tell it. And it showed me that Jesus was not this one-dimensional character the church turned him into - namely the personification of good and selflessneess.

That is, if he at all exited. 😉

 

Btw, Nancy, I do not agree that criminals should be killed. Neither by official executioners, nor by wannabe-executioners (which I consider witches that became soldiers or cops to be).

I say this without knowing enough about the criminal(s) in question, nor about how the respective witches came to the conclusion said criminal should die - because you do not provide enough information for me to form a picture of the whole situation.

Furthermore, what does "sacrificing" mean? For me, sacrificing something means giving something (away), that I would rather like to keep. Something that has value to me. Somehow, sacrificing a criminal seems not to be compatible with this... .

I also have a problem with the term "criminal": this can mean anything and nothing, based on who makes the law's and what that person or group thinks should be rules to be followed. Not long ago, in many countries in Europe, homosexuality was a crime and was punished with imprissionment. In a number of countries this still is true. And a lot of people still think it should be punished, even in countries that don't have this law anymore.

So without knowing what kind of criminal we are talking about, any further discussion about wheter they should be killed or not... is not only useless, but also dangerous.

 

But let's take an example - a rapists, that kills his victims after raping them.

Should this person be killed or not, and if he should be killed, how?

From a neutral point of view, I would say this person needs to be 1. neutralized (so he can not do any more harm), and 2. needs to be punished (to make him understand it was wrong what he did).

Neutralizing can mean anything, from simply killing that person to locking him up for as long as he pose a threat. If killing is the only option, then I think it should be done as quickly as possible, causing as little  suffering as possible.

Punishment is a different thing. Of cause, killing can be seen as a form of punishment, but I don't: if you are dead, you are simply gone. So the only way to punish a person can be done while the person is still alive and aware of what is done to him. Many people might suggest torture as a kind of punishment (especially in this case of a rapist and murderer), but I consider it to be revenge. And revenge is not a good basis for any kind of legal system.

Don't get me wrong: if such a rapist would have raped and killed my partner, and I would find him in the act... it might be that the next thing that would happen would be a fight, in which one of us would die. And it would probably not be a quick death, if I would be the one that brought it. But this would be done in rage, not as a professional executioner. And I don't know if this would actually happen. I've never been in even a remotely similar situation, and have no idea how I would actually react. I would prefer to never know.

Anyway, what kind of punishment would I find to be ideal? Something that we will probably never have. IO have to digress a bit to get to the point. You know what happens to person who accidentally kill someone? People that have empathy? Altough it being an accident, those people tend to be unhappy for the rest of their life. Feelings of guilt, self-reproaches... the whole story. for many of those people it is as if their life has ended, and they merely.. exist anymore. But not live.

If we could awaken such feelings in, for instance, murders or rapist...I think this ~could~ be the most ideal form of both punishing them, as well as neutralizing them. If we only knew how to do it... .

Well, one can dream... .

I have no idea if Jesus existed, or not. Or - if he existed - we know anything about him. Anything that is true, I mean.

He could have existed, or be just a fabrication. Most likely he existed, but what we know about him is mostly either lies, or fabrication. Plus a lot of things that do not fit the official doctrine have been omitted.

Hmm,.. I remember one particual incident when I attended confirmation classes (I am officially a christian, but only on paper). I remember the pastor telling us a story about Jesus, and then afterwards asking a rather interesting question.

The story was - in short - that young Jesus was playing on the roof of a house with another child, which fell from the roof and died. Jesus was accused of having pushed the other child of the roof. He then revied the child so it could tell the truth - namely that it was an accident and that Jesus was innocent.

I remember that the Pastor then told us that this story is not officially written in the bible, and asked us,why this might be the case.

I can't remember if other kids tried to give an answer - I am under the impression that no one did. No one but me... after thinking intensly about it. My answer was: Jesus revived the kid only for his own benefit (because he was accused of murder).

I don't know anymore what the pastor said to this. If it was the correct answer or not. I only remember that I felt pretty smart. Wether this feeling of me was justified or not, I leave you to judge.

Anyway, if that story our pastor told us is true, it's very interesting that he DID tell it. And it showed me that Jesus was not this one-dimensional character the church turned him into - namely the personification of good and selflessneess.

That is, if he at all exited. 😉

 

Btw, Nancy, I do not agree that criminals should be killed. Neither by official executioners, nor by wannabe-executioners (which I consider witches that became soldiers or cops to be).

I say this without knowing enough about the criminal(s) in question, nor about how the respective witches came to the conclusion said criminal should die - because you do not provide enough information for me to form a picture of the whole situation.

Furthermore, what does "sacrificing" mean? For me, sacrificing something means giving something (away), that I would rather like to keep. Something that has value to me. Somehow, sacrificing a criminal seems not to be compatible with this... .

I also have a problem with the term "criminal": this can mean anything and nothing, based on who makes the law's and what that person or group thinks should be rules to be followed. Not long ago, in many countries in Europe, homosexuality was a crime and was punished with imprissionment. In a number of countries this still is true. And a lot of people still think it should be punished, even in countries that don't have this law anymore.

So without knowing what kind of criminal we are talking about, any further discussion about wheter they should be killed or not... is not only useless, but also dangerous.

 

But let's take an example - a rapists, that kills his victims after raping them.

Should this person be killed or not, and if he should be killed, how?

From a neutral point of view, I would say this person needs to be 1. neutralized (so he can not do any more harm), and 2. needs to be punished (to make him understand it was wrong what he did).

Neutralizing can mean anything, from simply killing that person to locking him up for as long as he pose a threat. If killing is the only option, then I think it should be done as quickly as possible, causing as little  suffering as possible.

Punishment is a different thing. Of cause, killing can be seen as a form of punishment, but I don't: if you are dead, you are simply gone. So the only way to punish a person can be done while the person is still alive and aware of what is done to him. Many people might suggest torture as a kind of punishment (especially in this case of a rapist and murderer), but I consider it to be revenge. And revenge is not a good basis for any kind of legal system.

Don't get me wrong: if such a rapist would have raped and killed my partner, and I would find him in the act... it might be that the next thing that would happen would be a fight, in which one of us would die. And it would probably not be a quick death, if I would be the one that brought it. But this would be done in rage, not as a professional executioner. And I don't know if this would actually happen. I've never been in even a remotely similar situation, and have no idea how I would actually react. I would prefer to never know.

Anyway, what kind of punishment would I find to be ideal? Something that we will probably never have. IO have to digress a bit to get to the point. You know what happens to person who accidentally kill someone? People that have empathy? Altough it being an accident, those people tend to be unhappy for the rest of their life. Feelings of guilt, self-reproaches... the whole story. for many of those people it is as if their life has ended, and they merely.. exist anymore. But not live.

If we could awaken such feelings in, for instance, murders or rapist...I think this ~could~ be the most ideal form of both punishing them, as well as neutralizing them. If we only knew how to do it... .

Well, one can dream... .

[spywareonya 37,961]

@WantonLee

 

When I hinted about sacrifice, I was too avaricious of details.

 

To us, evildoers are people who fail to realize that violence is rarely fitting, and use it in a brutish and evil way.

Yet, to us, nobody "deserves" punishment. Punishment is inherently useless. An evil man could be forced to witness his crimes and, exactly as you said, facing rehab, modify ons'e standard and realize we have been bad persons, is worst than any torture. Becoming good, for a former bad man, is both salvation and punishment, as it both purifies you, and also open your eyes about how bad have you been.

No, we don't punish, that is not our attitude. We rehab. There are countless ways to do that to convicted criminals. You have been too pessimistic in believing it's impossible to make those feelings surface in a bad man. Nowadays, almost all of them undertake psychological therapy while behind bars, to become better persons. Sometimes, even simply the passing of time forces a brute to reflect his own past. We never condemn on a moral standard. Unless that person is Beyond salvation, in that case, to us, is not even a human being anymore, just an enemy of the human race, and enemies are to be rooted out. But also in this case, jail is more than enough.

 

But sometimes, some people, in some situations of the world, simply cannot be jailed. There are places, in the world, where wars are going on, and jails are controlled by those very gangs that should be trapped inside so to avoid disturb people again.

In these cases, death becomes not "fitting", as I said in the beginning we don't believe in punishment at all, it becomes necessary. And here Witchcraft adds its own to this absolutely "non-occult" truth (for "truth" here I mean that some criminals simply won't surrender)

 

The Gods feed on life-force, and usually extract it from evil spirits without bothering humans, no matter how evil: but in the rare case a human is so bad that he would never ever repent of his actions, to the point that putting him under arrest would mean nothing and fail to prevent him from being back to a life of crimes (like some terrifying mob leaders in South America, that killed and tortured thousands of persons), in that precise case that man must die, and since he will die, why failing to realize that his life-force can be offered to the Gods through a ritualistic execution? Not as a punishment. That man simply "had to" die, then why don't give all his electromagnetic energy to entities that will use it to shape the Collective Unconscious toward a better future?

 

I know that for centuries the Church had been scarying people about the fact that only evil spirits accept blood sacrifices, but this simply isn't true. I have known the forces of evil and believe me, they are unmistakable. Gods are different. They just understand that violence is a universal law, and teach us how to avoid the violence we all know, that of hatred and intolerance. As I wrote in the previous post, that is the evil violence we all condemn. 

In a world without evil doers, offerings to the Gods will be done by animals only (Always in order to be cooked and eaten, and as painless as possible, never as animal cruelty), and by human sexuality. They don't ask for human sacrifices: They are just wise enough to understand that some humans have to be killed, and thus just accept their lifeforce as a gift.

I have wrote an extensive post before this one, don't be scared into focusing only on the portion that troubled you 😘 We even lie about all of this, talking only about peace, not as hypocrisy, but because we believe in peace so much, than when we feel the one in front of us could misunderstand and misuse our philosophy, we prevent him from feeling somehow authorized to thrive in his own aggressiveness, and thus we speak of peace only. We are not bloodthirsty. We just want to know how violence works, and when it's fitting to use it.

A kiss

Edited February 14, 2019 by spywareonya

[2prnot2p 1,066]

Good topic, Steve.  But, I do hope no one is offended by it.  That's always possible when it comes to religion.  At any rate, this is a topic I studied quite extensively.  Without going into detail to the point of boring everyone, I'll paste in two main points below that express what I believe.  They explain it much better than I ever could.

Mithra has the  following in common with the Jesus character:
   * Mithra was born on December 25th of the virgin Anahita.
   *The babe was wrapped in swaddling clothes, placed in a manger and attended by shepherds.
   * He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
   *He had 12 companions or "disciples."
   * He performed miracles.
   *As the "great bull of the Sun," Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
   * Mithra ascending to heaven in his solar cart, with sun symbol. He ascended to heaven.
   *Mithra was viewed as the Good Shepherd, the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.
   * Mithra is omniscient, as he "hears all, sees all, knows all: none can deceive him."
   *He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
   *His sacred day was Sunday, "the Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
   *His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper."
   *Mithra "sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers."
   *Mithraism emphasized baptism.
____________________________________________________________________

Look at the amazing similarities between Jesus and Hercules:

Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. The mortal and virgin Alcmene, the mother of Hercules, gave birth to him from a union with God (Zeus). Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Similar to Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.

Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules in their writings. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depicts the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Josephus in his Antiquities, Josephus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Due to the information above and many other findings, I concluded many years ago that Jesus is a fictitious character, a myth.  That's my honest opinion.  The last main point I can make is that there is no record of him anywhere except in the bible.  There were many historians back when he was said to have lived, but not one of them mentions him in a first hand account.  The Josephus reference was added much later.  Even religious scholars admit this. 

Lastly, don't you find it a bit odd that there is not one single likeness of Jesus dating from the time when he was supposed to have lived?  No painting, drawing, sculpture...nothing.  They also don't know where he was born, when he was born, or where he was killed.  Wouldn't someone have recorded these locations?  It all points to it being a myth. 

(NOTE: Both the Mithra and Hercules stories predate the Jesus story by many years.)

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by 2prnot2p

[steve25805 126,023]

@2prnot2p, it has always seemed likely to me that all the Jesus tales have been grotesquely exaggerated in the telling, but that such a character under such a name did exist.

But I have never been certain, and all you have written is very much food for thought. It makes me question his existence anew.

On the other hand, @spywareonya, who is someone I accord vast amounts of hidden knowledge, accepts the reality of his insistence but not the biblical descriptions of him. I find it hard to believe that she can be totally wrong about that.

So I just don't know and am open to persuasion.

It would be fascinating to hear @spywareonya's reply to that particular post where you set out all the reasons for doubts so coherently and logically. You make a convincing case.

Interestingly, I have read in a history magazine before about a historical Roman reference to Pontius Pilate, who does appear to have been a genuine historical figure. A Jehovah's Witness I knew at the time was extremely excited by this news, as if it vindicated everything he believed in. But of course, we all know that modern historical novels often incorporate real historical figures into what is otherwise fictional stories with fictional characters. For example, it might be a book about some fictional Roman centurian following the real historical character of Julius Caesar. So the historical reality of Pontius Pilate does not prove that Jesus existed, even though this character was central to the supposed crucifixion of Jesus. A work of fiction might simply have included this real character to lend credence to it.

[Scot_Lover 1,876]

I don't know if it was a myth or not, but basically, i was taught everything I know based on the King James Bible. This was commissioned in 1535, based on the original Greek and Hebrew texts, 1500 years after he reportedly died. I can't find any reference to the original texts, not sure of the historical significance of them after the Bible was published in 1611. 

Why the gap of 1500 years? Was there any mention of Jesus in history prior to the Bible? I've read a few historical novels, and I know that they are novels, but there is little reference made to the Church prior to this time period. After the bible came into widespread circulation (this took a long time, believe me) the general population accepted and attended the churches that sprouted up everywhere.

I bought an old Bible, it was from a decommissioned church (the poor old priest died in the thing, wasn't discovered until 4 or 5 days later, so sad). This book was a monster, full of paintings, and it must have weighed 20kg, written in Latin. It cost me $300 I kept it for a while, and I later sold it for $800, I couldn't get anything useful from it.

[Guest UnabashedUser]

God is love

Love is blind

Stevie Wonder is blind

THEREFORE

God is Stevie Wonder

[2prnot2p 1,066]

I failed to state that the Mithra and Hercules stories date to a much earlier time than the Jesus story.  I edited my post to reflect this.

[spywareonya 37,961]

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2019 at 8:44 AM, steve25805 said:

@2prnot2p, it has always seemed likely to me that all the Jesus tales have been grotesquely exaggerated in the telling, but that such a character under such a name did exist.

But I have never been certain, and all you have written is very much food for thought. It makes me question his existence anew.

On the other hand, @spywareonya, who is someone I accord vast amounts of hidden knowledge, accepts the reality of his insistence but not the biblical descriptions of him. I find it hard to believe that she can be totally wrong about that.

So I just don't know and am open to persuasion.

It would be fascinating to hear @spywareonya's reply to that particular post where you set out all the reasons for doubts so coherently and logically. You make a convincing case.

Interestingly, I have read in a history magazine before about a historical Roman reference to Pontius Pilate, who does appear to have been a genuine historical figure. A Jehovah's Witness I knew at the time was extremely excited by this news, as if it vindicated everything he believed in. But of course, we all know that modern historical novels often incorporate real historical figures into what is otherwise fictional stories with fictional characters. For example, it might be a book about some fictional Roman centurian following the real historical character of Julius Caesar. So the historical reality of Pontius Pilate does not prove that Jesus existed, even though this character was central to the supposed crucifixion of Jesus. A work of fiction might simply have included this real character to lend credence to it.

Jesus, historically, existed. Those who are involved in the occult like I am had access to materials which are kept away from people. I can bet my pussy, he was real. BUT many feature added to him are symbolical, borrowed from other traditions. The Jesus presented to us from the Bible is nothing like the original one, a MAN with his own ideas that made mistakes and tried to become better, and wasn't all knowing or constantly so sure of himself.

But Jesus was indeed in initiated of mysteries much darker than those commonly deployed by Conspiracy guys like Dan Brown, and he was an incredible person for sure. We Witches consider the soul embodied in the man known as Jesus to be among the highest ranking souls of all humanity, and we accept him as an Ascended Master. We just usually do NOT use those terms because they are commonly used by New Age guys, which we consider dangerously unbalanced and NOT commune with. 

[2prnot2p 1,066]

 

[2prnot2p 1,066]

This thread is about whether Jesus was a real person or not, right?  That only relates to Christianity.  The bigger question is this...is there a god?

I would say no.  A local radio talk show host here in Detroit said something a few years ago that summed it up quite well for me.

He said, "Go take a 3 hour tour of Children's Hospital in Detroit and then come back and explain your God to me!"

 

[2prnot2p 1,066]

On 2/27/2019 at 12:21 PM, spywareonya said:

Jesus, historically, existed.

No, he didn't.  Your opinion is based on what?  Have you not read the whole thread?  It's got myth written all over it.

[spywareonya 37,961]

2 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

No, he didn't.  Your opinion is based on what?  Have you not read the whole thread?  It's got myth written all over it.

Oh, I read it boy, but the world is so much wider than what you seem to understand! Explore & be happy!

Or, theorically, I should say explore&be terrified...

[Adyguy6970 877]

As a reasonably devout churchman I happen to believe that Jesus was, and is, the only begotten Son of God.  Although I fail miserably, I do try to make an effort to follow His teachings as revealed in the gospels.   

[steve25805 126,023]

1 hour ago, Adyguy6970 said:

As a reasonably devout churchman I happen to believe that Jesus was, and is, the only begotten Son of God.  Although I fail miserably, I do try to make an effort to follow His teachings as revealed in the gospels.   

Frankly, I just don't buy the notion that any supreme universal being would have a son, which is such a human thing. Especially one in human form.

[Adyguy6970 877]

2 hours ago, steve25805 said:

Frankly, I just don't buy the notion that any supreme universal being would have a son, which is such a human thing. Especially one in human form.

That's a view to which you are entitled but it's one with which I must necessarily disagree.  

[2prnot2p 1,066]

Christianity aside, let's consider if god exists.   To me, no one says it better than the late George Carlin.  He was a genius and this is a great clip!

 

[spywareonya 37,961]

23 hours ago, Adyguy6970 said:

As a reasonably devout churchman I happen to believe that Jesus was, and is, the only begotten Son of God.  Although I fail miserably, I do try to make an effort to follow His teachings as revealed in the gospels.   

I have Always appreciated your posts and if you try to remember we had some cute exchanges in the past. But now I have to ask: how can you follow a religion that warped His teachings to the point that in their opinion you are going straight to hell for being on this forum?

Wake up boy! There IS a God that loves us, but religion is not His Word… it's His greatest problem!

Allow me to ask you this: it is said that The Enemy Always wanted to be worshipped in God's place: behold what religions did in the last 3 millennia and ask this yourself. What if he… succeeded…?!

[2prnot2p 1,066]

21 hours ago, Adyguy6970 said:

That's a view to which you are entitled but it's one with which I must necessarily disagree.  

I'm an atheist, but I would defend anyone's right to believe as they wish.  I believe is all freedoms, including religious freedom.  🙂

[2prnot2p 1,066]

One thing that bothers me is when people think that you need god/religion to be moral or ethical.  This is not true.  I believe that Sweden is 89% atheistic, yet they have very low crime.  Hmm...

[spywareonya 37,961]

3 hours ago, 2prnot2p said:

One thing that bothers me is when people think that you need god/religion to be moral or ethical.  This is not true.  I believe that Sweden is 89% atheistic, yet they have very low crime.  Hmm...

Strongly agree with that.

 

Now, just for laughs, I'll add one consideration about SOME believers who are a bit smarter than the standard moron.

What I think those people fear, is that once you abandon all moralistic hypocrisies, you remain with nothing holding you in check, then you need a higher reason beside self-control to keep you at bay

Indeed, those who suppress their predatorial instincts, do such because they think it would be better for them (violence is 99% of times pointless and useless) and for society, but… how can they be sure, I mean on a scientific base, that existence isn't built to be violent "and then let's see who stands last"?

All choices are preferences, the only reason people are "moral" is because they empathize with other's fear of damage or Death… but what if you meet somebody who doesn't share those fears? Somebody who, for some reasons, isn't attracted by violence yet he's not grossed out by it either, and accepts to suffer it because he thinks life is a ride and not a carefully pondered plan, and doesn't hold grudge against those who damage him, he just retaliate but like it was a game, thus has no moral accusation about receiving it, and no moral panic about inflicting it? Would he be… mad? Upon which bases?

 

What these "smarter" believers want to say, is just that human daily organization and human desire for a tranquil world isn't enough to be sure violence is wrong. They think you need intel from somebody who got the time to get to know ALL about everything and thus is able to give you clues (they think this way about EVERYTHING)

I am amused by this since in some kind of twisted way, I endorse these mind-crushing games about doubting of everything and see how and why we are constantly so sure of a lot of things which are not, in the end, SO obvious

 

BUT I completely understood what you meant: they think humans are bad unless they follow a God that preaches elsewhere. And yes, you're right, this is ridiculous!!!

[2prnot2p 1,066]

There's a theory in Evolutionary Biology/Behavioral Genetics/Sociobiology that puts forth the premise that there is no such thing as true altruism.  That is, every so-called act of doing for another at your own expense actually is motivated by selfishness.  Of course, it's an unconscious thing.  I found it very interesting in college, but not sure if I can totally subscribe to it.

In a nutshell, if you look deeply at all altruistic acts, the giver benefits too.  And it is that benefit that motivates the act of generosity, kindness, sacrifice and so on.  Richard Dawkins may have been the one who came up with this theory.  I cannot say for certain, but I seem to recall that it was him.  My college days were so long ago.  LOL!

We learned of many examples in lower animals as well as in humans. 

Edited March 7, 2019 by 2prnot2p