Rotfl :-D im glad we can still laugh together jonsey
Why I truly come in!
by justmom 160 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
mrsjones5
Hey, it's not real if folks cant get pissed at each other and then laugh about it. Makeup sex is the bomb!
-
NewChapter
I disagree because those religions are all dead in comparison to their original glory.
But when they were alive and thriving, the same argument could have been made by them. You don't know what the future holds.
No other god has pervaded culture like Christ has.
This could have also been timing. The codex came out in this time period, so it was easy to carry writings (as opposed to scrolls, clay tablets, etc). They also had the vehicle of the Roman Empire---which linked large portions of the world and made transfer of information possible like never before. This was a very powerful empire, the world had never seen anything like it, and so when Chrisitanity took root there, it was spread in a way that would never have been possible in the past. BUT---it has some worthy competitors. It's not the only main game in town---so why does it not take hold equally in India as it does in America? It's something to think about. This message has been bolstered by circumstances, but also inhibited by circumstances. In that way, it has always been a victim of circumstance, and in that case, nothing overly special in the whole scheme of things.
There may have been some sort of secret education that was made available to him as the Son of God
When we get into the realm of secrecy, the issue is hard to push. There could have also been a secret group of men that created the Christ---you see what I mean. But again, I'm not saying he did not exist. I'm simply saying that these particular arguments don't support it. I am challenging you to set conclusions aside and investigate deeper. That means considering the arguments against the idea too.
The thing about Christ is we have so much data on people who would die for their ideas about him
Still not convincing. We all have some reason we would die. I would die for my child. Japanese men flew their planes into ships for their emporer. Many wars have been fought for king. The genuine belief of the believers, and their willingness to die for them, is not evidence for existence---nor is it evidence that there is anything supernatural about Jesus. I'm of the personal opinion that the Japanese emporer was not a god---but people sacrificed their lives for him anyway---because THEY believed. It does not, however, substantiate their claims.
But instead of spending time and resources to such ends most non believers turn to disprooving the idea that God exists.
We were discussing Jesus, not god. And I am spending time right now---I'm not asking you to believe as I do---I am questioning your statements. Challenging if you will. Please try to set aside your prejudices and assumptions about nonbelievers for the sake of the conversation. They only add distraction. I said please, so I shall now say Thank you, because I trust you'll think this is a good idea.
Also new technologies will arise that will allow us access to new information. If you give up now then when those times come you won't have the motivation to do the work to find out the truth.
This is not true of me. I am always open to new technologies and information, and I am content to wait for them. What I don't do is fill in the spaces with what might be discovered. I am comfortable with simply not knowing---and also with not knowing what I don't know. So if something new does come up, I absolutely WILL be motivated to look at it, because I base all of my view on evidence. It would be foolish of me to reject evidence because the evidence would change my world view. But it would also be foolish of me to make assumptions simply because what I think COULD be proven some day, even if I don't have evidence today.
-
elderelite
:-O Are you offering make up sex?????
-
mrsjones5
Ha! You wish. Keep yer knickers on!
-
elderelite
:-( ok...
*EE dejectedly puts his Thor underoos back on*
-
mrsjones5
LoL, I just spit out my coffee!
-
watersprout
*EE dejectedly puts his Thor underoos back on*
Mwahahahahahahahaha! Underoos!! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! I love it! That's my new favourite word! Underoos underoos underoos! *gasps for breath*
Peace
-
sabastious
This could have also been timing. The codex came out in this time period, so it was easy to carry writings (as opposed to scrolls, clay tablets, etc). They also had the vehicle of the Roman Empire---which linked large portions of the world and made transfer of information possible like never before. This was a very powerful empire, the world had never seen anything like it, and so when Chrisitanity took root there, it was spread in a way that would never have been possible in the past. BUT---it has some worthy competitors. It's not the only main game in town---so why does it not take hold equally in India as it does in America? It's something to think about. This message has been bolstered by circumstances, but also inhibited by circumstances. In that way, it has always been a victim of circumstance, and in that case, nothing overly special in the whole scheme of things.
I'm sure the Church did all that they could to permeate Indian society, but their culture was too strong. The last time I checked they were not very well off. America was founded by Christian deconverts and in comparison to India we are pretty good. It's all bad though, but in comparison places like England and America are better to be born into. It was more the British Empire that subdued India which created the emergence of Ghandi who repelled them. Ghandi was reported praising Christ while condemning Christians for obvious reasons. They had tried to conquer India with both military and religion. Ghandi recognized that Christ's message was not one of war which must have been most perplexing for him.
The power of organization has always been used to subdue the resilient with intent on enslavement and domination. Christ understood that pain and anguish in the name of truth was the only way out. His idea was simple and even though transported by an machine of evil it still sprinkled the future with seeds enough to start back up again. It's been an age old lie that an official organization was ever required. That was the first lie of the Church.
This could have also been timing. The codex came out in this time period, so it was easy to carry writings (as opposed to scrolls, clay tablets, etc). They also had the vehicle of the Roman Empire---which linked large portions of the world and made transfer of information possible like never before. This was a very powerful empire, the world had never seen anything like it, and so when Chrisitanity took root there, it was spread in a way that would never have been possible in the past. BUT---it has some worthy competitors. It's not the only main game in town---so why does it not take hold equally in India as it does in America? It's something to think about. This message has been bolstered by circumstances, but also inhibited by circumstances. In that way, it has always been a victim of circumstance, and in that case, nothing overly special in the whole scheme of things.
That's why I believe it's an imporant fact to point out that the Roman Church could have used any religion to corrupt and use to their means. They were going to warp the message anyway and they were primarily a military power. They saw a great demand for Christ and they were forced to not only supply the idea to their society, but to eventually make it their primary means of conquest.
When we get into the realm of secrecy, the issue is hard to push. There could have also been a secret group of men that created the Christ---you see what I mean. But again, I'm not saying he did not exist. I'm simply saying that these particular arguments don't support it. I am challenging you to set conclusions aside and investigate deeper. That means considering the arguments against the idea too.
It's not a stretch to say that he had some sort of multicultural education. Not everything that was written down about him was false and his general message can be deduced when comparing all the writings. If he was indeed called the Son of God from birth then there would be a lot of people interested in him. The fact that many hundreds of years later Ghandi says he likes the message is no coincidence. Christ was educated in many different religions. It's in the realm of theory more than the realm of secrecy.
Still not convincing. We all have some reason we would die. I would die for my child. Japanese men flew their planes into ships for their emporer. Many wars have been fought for king. The genuine belief of the believers, and their willingness to die for them, is not evidence for existence---nor is it evidence that there is anything supernatural about Jesus. I'm of the personal opinion that the Japanese emporer was not a god---but people sacrificed their lives for him anyway---because THEY believed. It does not, however, substantiate their claims.
It's not convincing until you look at and compare all the data. Which you have not, you just looked at a certain amount until you decided to stop the data stream. Now you spend your time on trying to convince others that the data you have is enough to convince them to stop their data search. You just have a very strict approach to data and those are your own restrictions. Scientists all throughout history have had to deal with this problem and the way they get around it is they ignore the nay sayers and continue on the path they know leads somewhere worth the time and effort.
We were discussing Jesus, not god. And I am spending time right now---I'm not asking you to believe as I do---I am questioning your statements. Challenging if you will. Please try to set aside your prejudices and assumptions about nonbelievers for the sake of the conversation. They only add distraction. I said please, so I shall now say Thank you, because I trust you'll think this is a good idea.
Christ was said to be the Messiah that the Jews were fortelling. That's why the Old Testament is attached to the New Testament. Because that's what the Roman Catholic Church and hence the Roman's said happened. This was because enough people believed in it that the Roman's assumed the idea like I said. But God is very much in any conversation about Christ. I don't have prejudice, I have strong disagreement don't confuse the two.
This is not true of me. I am always open to new technologies and information, and I am content to wait for them. What I don't do is fill in the spaces with what might be discovered. I am comfortable with simply not knowing---and also with not knowing what I don't know. So if something new does come up, I absolutely WILL be motivated to look at it, because I base all of my view on evidence. It would be foolish of me to reject evidence because the evidence would change my world view. But it would also be foolish of me to make assumptions simply because what I think COULD be proven some day, even if I don't have evidence today.
What "might be" and what "could be" are what theories are for. It sounds to me like you just don't believe we should spend the mental resources developing theory about God or Christ. Right now even with all the opposition to Christ there are still groups of people who are awaiting new technology with the approach of fitting in Christ. I am one of those people because I have faith that he was what was alleged by the Roman's. You will not be of those people which is not a problem. Your time and resources are not going into a void they are simply being directed to more immediate affairs. However the ones that want to vindicate the man that was Christ as divine are not some sort of fringe loonatics. They have a scent and are following a trail.
-Sab
-
elderelite
lol you all dont have underoos in the uk sprout? They were all the rage in the US when I was growing up... for your enjoyment: