Religion without God

Then you agree that the temple wss enormous and contained a huge number of people under armed guard? But maintain that Jesus somehow drove them all out personally? Did he use his superpowers?

If I were an ancient person, and I saw Jesus raising the dead, healing the blind, exorcising demons into pigs, and walking on water, I'd be like "holy shit!!! A guy with actual superpowers!! That's totally going into my diary!!! And a clay pot!! I'm painting that on a pot!! A shitload of pots!! And a wall! I'm carving that shit on a wall!!! That's wall material!!! And right away!! I'm not gonna wait 50 years!!! Shit, lifespans are 35-40 I ain't got time to fuck around!!! And I'm gonna tell everyone so they can jot it into their diaries!!!".

I think that's a natural reaction.

Apparently, no one else had that reaction.

Weird that.....

Sound because they make logical sense or because they afford you confirmation bias?

Here's a novel idea. You quote the part of the post you like, edit out the rest and say in response "I agree/disagree". You've finally learned how to edit out of quotes the bits of posts you want to run away from, so your excuse is bullshit.

Once again lifespans were not just 35-40 years back then.

Furthermore:

1) Four people did write down what happened regarding Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
2) As everyone likes to point out not many people were literate back in that day. Meaning very few that could write and very few that could read what was written.
3) Lots of the followers of Jesus had a few problems at that time that included
a) being hunted down and killed by fellow Jews who were pissed at the idea of a savior who didn't include overthrowing the Roman Empire as one of his things to do and wanted everyone including the nonJews to be saved
b) being hunted down and killed by Romans whose automatic reaction was "New religion! Threat to Rome!"

False from the outset.

Because they make logical sense. For example about how if you were going to write a false account of Jesus's death and resurrection you would not have women be some of your witnesses.

Used to? I still consider him to be an autistic fuck.

Given that you supposedly grew up on a farm, this may be the stupidest thing you’ve ever written here.

And that’s saying a lot.

A whole coop-full, if you will.

Revelation.

Singular. No S, “teacher”.

Well, you have to interpret what you're reading, but some scripture is more clear-cut than others. "Thou shalt not murder" is pretty straightforward. And, presumably, there is a true meaning of a verse, even if it's maybe complicated.

Interpretation is always a thing we have to do. In science, in religion, in conversation, we interpret data. And in all three cases, sometimes we have to go back and change our minds about what it means.

The theme I keep coming back to is that of a believer being "born again" as a child (Jesus's words there) and having to mature in the faith. Paul tells off one church that was too big for its boots, saying he'd been feeding them on milk because they weren't yet ready for the harder teachings of faith.

As you mature in life, you have to get stronger and more capable of interpretation. Starting out, as a child, taking everything in the Bible as literally true and rigid (except the obvious stories) is fine. Just like you take "don't run out into the street" literally, at least if you're a good little boy But, as one progresses, one finds apparent inconsistencies (would the God I believe in really do this? Why?) or scholarly insights (Job was a rabbinical invention and never meant to be taken as true history) or edge cases (what if the ball goes across the street and there are no cars coming?) and one has to decide for oneself: what's going on here? Are things as I always understood them? Do I believe these experts, or those, or my own judgement? Should I take the obvious-to-me meaning? Or does context suggest something else? As Elwood says:

And that's scary, because look at what I bolded. If your judgment is warped -- by hatred, by ignorance, by self-interest -- you risk going astray and doing great harm as a result. It's also scary because religion is often a source of comfort, and this is basically forcing you to re-evaluate all your beliefs. That's a huge task, especially for people not used to self-examination, and there's no guarantee you'll come up with pleasant answers. So I think there's a very real disincentive to dig deep into the Bible for many believers.

So we come to matthunter's question:

I am not a trained theologian, but hopefully I haven't left too much of a mess for Elwood to clean up.

Jesus said that it is not what goes into the body, but what comes out of it, that defiles a person. Would you drink what comes out from a poisoned well? Then why would you expect actions coming out from poisoned beliefs and attitudes to turn out healthy?

What do you think the whole "being born again" thing is about? It's not just about regaining spiritual life, it's about starting over as a new person in this world too. New people have to learn things. Or did you become suddenly flawless when you were baptized?


On to later pages when I have time la . . . sweet mother of mercy this thing grew overnight

Daytons certainly getting his moneys worth in this thread.

The life span bit is a belter. I'de like to hear more about that

I really don't think you understand how logic actually works.
For one, you don't assume the conclusion, you go where logic takes you, even if it gives you an answer you don't like.
Lee Strobel assumes the conclusion constantly.

Mark's account just has them run away, and not tell anyone.
They're mute cowards.
What you'd expect of ancient misogynists.

Why are they there at all?
To annoint the body.
That wasn't men's work, so even Mark can't shove male characters in there.

The later gospel writers added detail to the story to back up their idea of Jesus rising in physical form, but they couldn't change Mark's ending, so they were stuck with those pesky women there.
Also, the later gospel writers weren't all Mesopotamian Jews, and didn't share those same prejudices.

There you go.

If necessary.

That's not an answer.

See, this is why I don't go to the trouble of gathering the evidence for you on the other issues, because when faced with it, you respond with flippant vacuous shit like this and run away rather than addressing anything.

I love how Dayton's reaction to logic and evidence is "thaaaat's duuuumb!!! ".
Cuz that's the button he always pushes.

"There's no such thing as magic".

"Thaaaat's duuuumb!!! ".

"There's no reason to hate people who don't harm you".

"Thaaaat's duuuumb!!! ".

"No, really, I can prove it, I've got charts and everything".

"Thaaaat's duuuumb!!! ".

Boy, it sure is fun arguing with someone like that.

Why do it then?
Archeologists in the "Idiocracy", times needs to know we weren't all like that.

like a slice of cake?

the bible never says "thou shalt not murder" it says "thou shalt not kill." Not to nitpick, but here we go with interpretation: thou shalt not murder means (to me) no premeditated stuff. No personal vendettas, no love triangle stuff, etc. Thou shalt not kill really puts me in a bind. What if I am paid to kill (that is my job for example being in the military) so I can't earn a living while keeping my tribe safe? It's complicated!

Ass cake?
Of the ass?

Of. The. Ass.

The Catholic Church prefers the interpretation "thou shalt not murder." This has given them leeway throughout history for what they call a "just war." It's okay by them if you kill if you're a LEO or in the military.

Or in a crusade against the infidel, or if you're Michael Corleone, or...

Not at all. You're an educated man. If I took a novel, cut out the table of contents, and obscured all of the page and chapter numbers, you would still be able to discern the individual parts of the book after having read it. That's basic English Composition at High School level.

You have two parts to help you establish context. Since I'm preaching through Jude, I'll use Jude as an example.

First part: Overall context

Question #1: Who was Jude?
Question #2: Why did Jude write this book?

Once you've determined that, you now have a basis for understanding the overarching context of the book.

Second part: Context of the individual thoughts.

Question 1: Is this sentence and sentence structure consistent with the parts that came immediately before it?
Question 2: Has the tone or writing style changed from the parts that came immediately before it?

After reading Jude and answering these basic starter questions, it's easy to see that Jude breaks down into four parts. The introduction (Jude 1-2), the alarm (Jude 3-4), the argument (Jude 5-16), and the admonition (Jude 17-25).

The Revelation. The, Photog.

That's actually exactly what it means. In fact, the NKJV, the NASB, and ESV (arguably the most literal English translations available to us today) all translate Exodus 20:13 to say, "You shall not murder." The word for "kill" or "murder"in Exodus 20:13 is the Hebrew word "ratsach" (רָצַח) that literally means "to be dashed into pieces" and it is used 47 times in the Old Testament. In all but one of those 47 times it's used to describe murder or, to steal modern legal terminology, manslaughter.

Yeah, but your people get it wrong more often than I do.

You know, your people.

Like Dayton.

It would seem to me looking at the Old Testament that "Thou shalt not kill" does indeed mean "Thou shalt not murder" because other parts of the Old Testament explicitly allows people to kill in self defense or for that matter in certain circumstances to avenge the death of a loved one.

Christians can always find a loophole.

This is one of my problems. There is little outside corroboration of any of the acts of jesus. Dude was going around performing miracles and then we hear about him in books many years later from people who really dont seem to be very accurate regarding what was going on where he was. One would think you would have some sort of homage or work done to honor the miracle worker. He supposedly cured blindness and disease. Why didn't those people follow him around and write or make things? Why isn't there a big cult around him? I know jesus was not for a lot of gifts and big showy things, but humans do that anyway. Even back then a guy running around performing miracles claiming he was the son of god should have made some impact on the roman empire that we could see now. It was not like the romans were not industrious and not able to make things. Instead we have to wait a half a century from his miraculous birth to hear the first words about him.

Isn't that just convenient. I am going to write about the son of god who did all these great things but oh you just missed him. I don't know where he is but he rose from the dead and no one has seen him since. He was the son of god offering up salvation and miracles, but I had better things to do like combing my yak. Look at my yak, it is totally pretty, and i could not do that if I was listening to the son of god spout the wisdom of the ages. However, he totally likes me and wants you to do everything I tell you and worship at my church. Come on, give me some money.

I did mean to get back to this when I was more serious

I get you have seen something convincing and you are even somewhat altruistic about it. But I come from a different point of view. If my view were to be fit into the christian dogma it would be more lucifarian. I see eating from the tree of knowledge as an inevitability and a blessing in and of itself and do not wish to return to bliss which I view as the state of ignorance. I know joy because i know pain due to the relativity of happiness and emotion. In that area it would have been the serpent which freed me from the ignorance of the garden and showed me what life is. Why would I want to follow back to that ignorance if I understand that pain is not the destruction of the soul, but rather part of it?

How can one truly appreciate bliss and the garden when they need to be ignorant of life and knowledge to achieve? The salvation you wander around talking about is nice, but when someone says no thanks to the offer you are really required not to think about why because why would be temptation of knowledge. Really, if I truly loved god I would want to be someone who tries to understand and empathize with him and not just some blissful idiot wandering around the garden. God can make that sort of thing, he does not need me to be it for him. So even in the case of temptation of the reality I will not ever be in that grace again, it does not eliminate a meaningful relationship with the universe for myself.

That is all said with the knowledge everyone follows a different path of desires and life and some people are meant for bliss and the garden and that path is theirs and good. Though some might find my path to be higher I only view it as different because everything has an existence that weaves into what we experience as a soul. The ant that people may see as insignificant has a meaning and existence. If someone asked me if ants had a soul and passed on I would say yes. They have an essence and a meaning that was part of the development of my spirit so even though their existence is not mine it is important. Maybe god's existence is no more important than ours, it just is that existence. Our values and judgments are unique to our perspective, and therefor each existence is divine in that it is divinely important to it's experience and self.

I stick with "thou shalt not kill" as the edict. As far as I'm concerned, when you step away from that, you're making it possible to just start slaughtering people as long as it's something God wants you to do. Granted, not everyone's just going to up and do that, but that is a big fucking loophole, because while killing is straightforward, murdering is a nice big asterisk.