Christianity

Phite

Well, who else but man would invent a being of love that also happens to fit the description of a souped-up version of the male ego.  It gets angry like us; it's into vengeance like us; and it even places blame for its own creations onto . . . its own creations, just like a lot of us.  Coincidence?  I don't think so.

It seems the prevailing argument for the existence of the god is: We don't know; therefore the god.  Not that there's anything wrong with that.  The trouble starts when people take it upon themselves to assign human traits and characteristics to the being.  

And there's the "I'd rather befriend my neighbor than kill him; therefore the god.

just_sayin

The OP lapeled the topic Christianity and is asking about evidence for God.  I'll briefly provide some evidence for both.  First Christianity.
There are at least 42 different sources that attest to Jesus' life within 100 years of his life.  To put this into perspective, the most popular person at the time of Jesus was Tiberius Caesar, in 150 years after his death there are 15 sources that mention him.  The sources that mention Jesus come from several eyewitnesses - Matthew, Peter, John, James, and probably Mark, enemies - both Jewish and Roman, and several others.  All suggest he was a real person.  Many of his enemies believed he performed miracles and many of his enemies acknowledge the crucifixion and the rumors of the resurrection.  It would be hard to find a serious historian who doubts that Jesus existed.  Even atheists acknowledge this.

I think there are several pieces of evidence which suggest that God is real:
1) The universe had a beginning.  This is no small problem for atheists because anything that begins to exist must have a cause for it.  There can be no material cause for the universe because before the universe there was no time or matter.  Science agrees with this.  The Borde-Guth-Vilenken Theorem showed that no universe, nor multiverse, that has on average been expanding, can be past eternal, but must have a singularity.  There are over 2 dozen different theories that postulate a natural explanation - however, none of them work, as evidenced by the critiques of astrophysicists themselves, and can generally be debunked in a few sentences, even if you aren't a rocket scientist.  Happy to discuss them with you if you want.

2) The fact there is something rather than nothing.  While we can theorize an infinity, none exist in nature.  the fact that there is something suggests a necessary being to explain the existence of anything.

3) The complexity of the universe.  Roger Penrose calculated the probability of just an inflation rate for the universe that would have created a sustained universe that either did not collapse immediately upon itself or where gravity was too low for atoms to form.  The odds are 10x10 to the 123rd power.  There are an estimated 10 to the 53rd particles, not atoms, but the smallest known things, in the universe.  So just the odds of this are incredible.  But there are dozens more examples related to the fundamental forces that show just how incredibly fined tuned they are.

4) The complexity of life.  Even the simplest single celled organisms DNA is so complex that one of the discoverers of DNA, Crick, suggested that it was impossible to have occurred naturally on earth, and suggested panspermia as an alternative. Most combinations of amino acids, the building blocks of life, are destructive and will make a strand unable to function.  Even the simplest 150 amino acid string is calculated to take more time to form by random chance, even if all necessary elements are present in pristine potion, than our planet has existed.  Biologists and chemists can't even provide explanations for how some of the simplest proteins could have been formed, let alone explain how RNA and DNA came to be.

5) Consciousness.  As Roger Penrose has pointed out, consciousness itself is not adequately explained by biology.  Our ability to recognize our own existence, process memories, make decisions, is beyond the understanding of these scientific fields.  An analogy would be a computer.  A computer can run its processes, based on if-then coding make decisions, but at no time is a computer self aware and able to violate its own programing.  

6) Morality.  If you believe that there is objective evil in the world - such as chopping off the heads of babies, then that is evidence of a moral lawgiver.  If objective good and objective evil exist they must come from an objective lawgiver.  These things can not come from nature because nature is just following natural processes, there is no moral concerns.  

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Christanity started so long ago it is difficult to say either way.

With all the hybridization and events being written down hundreds of years after the fact there is much obscurity. That being said there is a very expensive intentional spread of religion. Both through missionary work abroad and mass media at home. Televangelists and buying up radio stations and converting them to Christian radio.

Just_Sayin

You seem to just reiterate the same message increasing its familiarity but not making it any more true. Let the story unfold.

"In Sum

While we can confirm killings of innocent civilians in Kfar Aza and other parts of Israel at the hands of Hamas fighters, as of this writing we simply cannot confirm or deny that such deliberate beheadings occurred, given the IDF’s unwillingness to address our specific questions and the lack of substantiation from independent news organizations."

https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/10/12/40-israeli-babies-beheaded-by-hamas/

MayCaesar

History is the proof you are looking for. The concept of "god" does not seem to be an artificial creation of a power group aimed at controlling the population, but an early philosophical idea helping people with very limited knowledge about the world around them cope with the uncertainty. A monotheistic god is a convergence of polytheism as a consequence of acceptance of universalism, in this context meaning the idea that all laws of the Universe are a product of the same core phenomenon. So different gods were thought of as parts of something more fundamental, an "arch-god", or simply "god".

Religion was later weaponized by power groups, that figured out that attributions to "god's will" were an easy way to justify anything. Powerful religious institutions were created to facilitate that purpose - and, as with all such creations, the institutions eventually took over and became the rulers themselves. The medieval Catholic church is arguably the most powerful authoritarian organization ever to exist in human history: it controlled and toppled kings of hundreds of kingdoms, it organized endless crusades against the Moslem world, it suppressed any dissent - and it even can be seen as responsible for the most devastating pandemic in human history, the Black Plague.

It is hard for me to see how kings and nobles could possibly be beneficiaries of the status quo, given that the church routinely appropriated their property and privileges.

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

With all the hybridization and events being written down hundreds of years after the fact there is much obscurity. 

This is factually incorrect.  The earliest known reference to Jesus comes from 1 Corinthians 15:3:7 - it is the earliest Christian creed known, pre-dating the Bible to no more than 3[5 years after Jesus' resurrection.  See verse - bold parts are the creed:

1 Corinthians 15:1-8 —For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

This is the consensus of scholars.  Here are some of their statements:

• The Oxford Companion to the Bible: “The earliest record of these appearances is to be found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, a tradition that Paul ‘received’ after his apostolic call, certainly not later than his visit to Jerusalem in 35 CE, when he saw Cephas (Peter) and James (Gal. 1:18-19), who, like him, were recipients of appearances.” [Eds. Metzer & Coogan (Oxford, 1993), 647.]

• Gerd Lüdemann (Atheist NT professor at Göttingen): “…the elements in the tradition are to be dated to the first two years after the crucifixion of Jesus…not later than three years… the formation of the appearance traditions mentioned in I Cor.15.3-8 falls into the time between 30 and 33 CE.” [The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. by Bowden (Fortress, 1994), 171-72.]

• Robert Funk (Non-Christian scholar, founder of the Jesus Seminar): “…The conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead had already taken root by the time Paul was converted about 33 C.E. On the assumption that Jesus died about 30 C.E., the time for development was thus two or three years at most.” [Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, 466.]
• James Dunn (Professor at Durham): “Despite uncertainties about the extent of tradition which Paul received (126), there is no reason to doubt that this information was communicated to Paul as part of his introductory catechesis (16.3) (127). He would have needed to be informed of precedents in order to make sense of what had happened to him. When he says, ‘I handed on (paredoka) to you as of first importance (en protois) what I also received (parelabon)’ (15.3), he assuredly does not imply that the tradition became important to him only at some subsequent date. More likely he indicates the importance of the tradition to himself from the start; that was why he made sure to pass it on to the Corinthians when they first believed (15.1-2) (128). This tradition, we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus' death. [Jesus Remembered (Eerdmans, 2003) 854-55.]

• Michael Goulder (Atheist NT professor at Birmingham): “[It] goes back at least to what Paul was taught when he was converted, a couple of years after the crucifixion. [“The Baseless Fabric of a Vision,” in Gavin D’Costa, editor, Resurrection Reconsidered (Oneworld, 1996), 48.]

• A. J. M. Wedderburn (Non-Christian NT professor at Munich): “One is right to speak of ‘earliest times’ here, … most probably in the first half of the 30s.” [Beyond Resurrection (Hendrickson, 1999), 113-114.]

• N.T. Wright (NT scholar [Oxford, 5+ honorary Ph.ds]): “This is the kind of foundation-story with which a community is not at liberty to tamper. It was probably formulated within the first two or three years after Easter itself, since it was already in formulaic form when Paul ‘received’ it. (So Hays 1997, 255.)” [The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress, 2003), 319.]

If you need a list of early writings that mention Jesus and the year they are thought to have been written, let me know.  I'll provide you with a list.  Know that there are over 5000 manuscripts that have been preserved of the early Bible, some dating to within 20-50 years of writing of that book of the Bible.  For historians its a gold mine of early evidence which we do not have for any other historical figure of antiquity.  

Dreamer

Argument Topic: According to britannica the Bible was written in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD.

@just_sayin

"The books of the New Testament were written in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE."

https://www.britannica.com/question/When-was-the-Bible-written

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

@just_sayin

"The books of the New Testament were written in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE."

https://www.britannica.com/question/When-was-the-Bible-written

Yes they are all written in the first century.  Here are the approximate dates when each book was written

• James: AD 44-49
• Galatians: AD 49-50
• Mark: AD 50-60
• Matthew: AD 50-60
• 1 Thessalonians: AD 51
• 2 Thessalonians: AD 51-52
• 1 Corinthians: AD 55
• 2 Corinthians: AD 55-56
• Romans: AD 56
• Luke: AD 60-61
• Ephesians: AD 60-62
• Philippians: AD 60-62
• Philemon: AD 60-62
• Colossians: AD 60-62
• Acts: AD 62
• 1 Timothy: AD 62-64
• Titus: AD 62-64
• 1 Peter: AD 64-65
• 2 Timothy: AD 66-67
• 2 Peter: AD 67-68
• Hebrews: AD 67-69
• Jude: AD 68-70
• John: AD 80-90
• 1 John: AD 90-95
• 2 John: AD 90-95
• 3 John: AD 90-95
• Revelation: AD 94-96

Again, the creed Paul cites in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 predates the New Testament and can be traced to within 3-5 years of Jesus' resurrection.  The idea that hundreds of years past is inaccurate.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Well, the idea is still out there whether true or not. I think I read it in one of the new atheist books, but maybe not.

@just_sayin

They also may have been referring to the old testament. Where are you getting these exact numbers for each book?

Seems this is your source, not sure how credible the source is.

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2016/02/when-was-each-book-of-the-bible-written/

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

@just_sayin

They also may have been referring to the old testament. Where are you getting these exact numbers for each book?

Seems this is your source, not sure how credible the source is.

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2016/02/when-was-each-book-of-the-bible-written/

Scholars set date ranges.  Often it is based on historical evidence and clues in the text itself.  For example, the book of James is set at 44-49 because Josephus' History mentions James death and the leaders who were in charge at the time, making the dating easier to determine.  Paul's death occurred during a particular Caesar, and since Luke recorded his missionary journey's and the amount of time he spent in places, they can get a good estimate of what was written when.  Plus, major historical events like the Jewish Diaspora and destruction of the temple in AD 70, set major historical markers.  Some books show a knowledge of such an event, while other books discuss things which one can deduce happened before the event because of its omission in the text.  There are also linguistic elements in the books which help with this.  For example, James is written much more closely to Jewish literature types, indicating less of a Gentile, or Western influence.  A lot of study Bibles provide an introductory page for each book of the Bible which will address the date and historical events mentioned in the text.

Bible gateway is a very reliable site with many Bible translations readily available.  

maxx

Prehistoric religion - Wikipedia  @BojackHorseman

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;Bible gateway is a very reliable site with many Bible translations readily available.  

Well then okay. How reliable is the website in describing how old the universe and life on Earth are? And what does it say about that?

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;Bible gateway is a very reliable site with many Bible translations readily available.  

Well then okay. How reliable is the website in describing how old the universe and life on Earth are? And what does it say about that?

It doesn't say how hold the universe is.  Its a Bible translation site.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;It doesn't say how hold the universe is.  Its a Bible translation site.

Well I was just wondering how it translates 13.5 billion years thats all.

just_sayin

Even Jesus' enemies admit he lived and performed miracles.  They spoke of the early Christians belief in his resurrection and spoke of their devotion to him as if he were a god.  

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin


just_sayin,

AGAIN, your history of the alleged Jesus goes wanting! 

YOUR PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN IGNORANT QUOTE:  " It would be hard to find a serious historian who doubts that Jesus existed.  Even atheists acknowledge this."

Heads up pseudo-christian FOOL, the first historian outside if the primitive Bible that mentions the alleged Jesus was Josephus Flavius, 60 YEARS LATER AFTER HIS ASCENSION!  where this is an embarrassing situation for pseudo-christians like YOU!  Like I've said before, its like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon, and it never was mentioned in history until 60 years later!

What makes it more embarrassing for pseudo-christians is that the subsequent alleged historians after Josephus Flavius that mentions a "Jesus character" is even further years out from His his alleged earthly existence which is more embarrassing to say the least!

How can there be NO MENTION from historians relating to the only one God Jesus that created the universe, mankind, the animals, and all living things, and where Jesus as God restructured the void earth for His HEBREW Creation only,  whereas only 60 YEARS LATER TO START mentioning His alleged presence by Josephus Flavius?!  Laughable at best!

Just_sayin, how far do you want to dig your hole that you will find yourself in upon this Jesus topic?   Remember, the total MYTH of the Bible characters don't count for obvious reasons, get it?  Duh.

.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin


just_sayin,

YOUR ONCE AGAIN BIBLE QUOTE: "Even Jesus' enemies admit he lived and performed miracles.  They spoke of the early Christians belief in his resurrection and spoke of their devotion to him as if he were a god."

What the hell do you mean when you erroneously state "their devotion to him AS IF HE WERE GOD?!  

JESUS IS GOD YOU BIBLE FOOL as the following passages so state:

1. "Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," (Titus 2:13)

2. “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours.” (2 Peter 1:1)


When will you ever stop being so God Damned Bible in front of the membership, and you call yourself a Christian, NOT! LOL! 


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN BIBLE FOOL LIKE "JUST_SAYIN" THAT CAN OUTDO HIS BIBLE STUPIDITY, WILL BE ...?

.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Do you have a source for this Josephus Flavius, 60 YEARS LATER AFTER HIS ASCENSION!?

@21CenturyIconoclast

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

I couldn't find it in the wiki linked above.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;Even Jesus' enemies admit he lived and performed miracles. 

And did he perform his miracles on a known con woman. And was it reported on a scam website? Oh no wait a minute it was reported in a scam book. 

21CenturyIconoclast

Argument Topic: dreamer

@Dreamer

The link works for me, whereas, is it Jesus blocking your computer because he is pissed at you for what you are saying about him?  LOL!

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@just_sayin


just_sayin,

AGAIN, your history of the alleged Jesus goes wanting! 

YOUR PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN IGNORANT QUOTE:  " It would be hard to find a serious historian who doubts that Jesus existed.  Even atheists acknowledge this."

Heads up pseudo-christian FOOL, the first historian outside if the primitive Bible that mentions the alleged Jesus was Josephus Flavius, 60 YEARS LATER AFTER HIS ASCENSION!  where this is an embarrassing situation for pseudo-christians like YOU!  Like I've said before, its like Neil Armstrong landing on the moon, and it never was mentioned in history until 60 years later!

What makes it more embarrassing for pseudo-christians is that the subsequent alleged historians after Josephus Flavius that mentions a "Jesus character" is even further years out from His his alleged earthly existence which is more embarrassing to say the least!

How can there be NO MENTION from historians relating to the only one God Jesus that created the universe, mankind, the animals, and all living things, and where Jesus as God restructured the void earth for His HEBREW Creation only,  whereas only 60 YEARS LATER TO START mentioning His alleged presence by Josephus Flavius?!  Laughable at best!

Just_sayin, how far do you want to dig your hole that you will find yourself in upon this Jesus topic?   Remember, the total MYTH of the Bible characters don't count for obvious reasons, get it?  Duh.

.

There is a lot of historical evidence for Jesus - both by friends and foes alike.  There are at least 42 different sources for Jesus' life within the first 100 years of his resurrection.  The most well known person of Jesus day, Tiberius Caesar has only 14 sources that mention his existence within 150 years of his life.  It would be disingenuous to say the evidence is weak, especially when you accept much less evidence for other historical figures.  

Here are list of some non-Christian people who talk about Jesus:

Thallus (52AD)
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Phlegon (80-140AD)
Josephus (93AD)
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Suetonius (69-140AD)
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)

just_sayin

@21CenturyIconoclast

Just_sayin, how far do you want to dig your hole that you will find yourself in upon this Jesus topic?   Remember, the total MYTH of the Bible characters don't count for obvious reasons, get it?  Duh.

Myth?  Several people mentioned in the Bible are mentioned by extrabiblical sources - such as James, jesus' brother who is mentioned by Josephus.  Others include John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, They have even found the Apostle Philip's tomb, and Simon Peter's home in Capernaum.  In addition to this at least 23 New Testament political figures have been verified by extra-biblical sources.  About 40 people mentioned in the Old Testament have extra-biblical evidence for their existence.

Only someone who knows nothing about the Bible would say the people mentioned in it are 'myths'.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;Only someone who knows nothing about the Bible would say the people mentioned in it are 'myths'.

And by the same tocken I could more rightly say that people who know nothing about proven facts and evolution would say that its all myths. 

Dee

@just_sayin

Hey maybe you can post up your testimony from the talking doney in the bible....Balaam's journey is thwarted by God's angel who can be seen first only by Balaam's donkey. The donkey is given speech to awaken Balaam to the threat......
There's you thinking the only talking donkey you knew was your moon headed wife .......

just_sayin

Dee said:

@just_sayin

Hey maybe you can post up your testimony from the talking doney in the bible....Balaam's journey is thwarted by God's angel who can be seen first only by Balaam's donkey. The donkey is given speech to awaken Balaam to the threat......
There's you thinking the only talking donkey you knew was your moon headed wife .......

You are drawn to the talking jackass???!!!!  @Dee, you are tossing up slow pitches over the plate for me.  Balaam's donkey is believed to have talked in the same way that Satan spoke through the serpent and God spoke through the burning bush.  2 Peter 2:16 and the Old Testament passage suggest that the words are really those of the angel (the voice of a man).  Now if God is real, then it isn't too big of a thing for him to make a jackass talk (must resist making joke).  Yet, science itself suggests that a universe can not create itself out of nothing.  It seems to me you are really the one appealing to magic and you want a pass on the magic that you believe but have no proof of.  I openly admit that donkeys don't talk and could only do so by God's intervention.  But who intervenes to create a finely tuned universe out of nothing?  And tell me, just how much stuff can you fit in 0 space?

Dee

@just_sayin


u are drawn to the talking jackass???!!!!

Leave your wife out of this.


  @Dee, you are tossing up slow pitches over the plate for me.  Balaam's donkey is believed to have talked in the same way that Satan spoke through the serpent and God spoke through the burning bush.  2 Peter 2:16 and the Old Testament passage suggest that the words are really those of the angel (the voice of a man).  Now if God is real, then it isn't too big of a thing for him to make a jackass talk (must resist making joke).

Well he made you talk so there is that.

  Yet, science itself suggests that a universe can not create itself out of nothing

Does it indeed? You really ought to stop making things up. First you have to prove there was ever nothing then you have to show me your demonstrations of how you established something cannot come from it.........I'll wait.........

.  It seems to me you are really the one appealing to magic and you want a pass on the magic that you believe but have no proof of.

Well you're wrong again I've made no claims as my answer is I don't know , you claim you do and appeal to magic,  the burden of proof is still, on you cannot meet it.

You're not very good at this are you?


  I openly admit that donkeys don't talk and could only do so by God's intervention. 

Another claim you cannot prove.

 But who intervenes to create a finely tuned universe out of nothing?

You again are appealing to magic as you haven't a shred of evidence for your fantasies 

  And tell me, just how much stuff can you fit in 0 space?

When and how did you examine zero space?

just_sayin

@Dee

***Does it indeed? You really ought to stop making things up. First you have to prove there was ever nothing then you have to show me your demonstrations of how you established something cannot come from it.........I'll wait.........****

You don't have to wait long my friend.  On your calculator punch in the mass of all of space-time then divide it by 0.  You may have to do this a couple of times, but you will eventually get the amount of space-time that can fit in zero space.

For nothing not being able to create something, that's a logic exercise.  Since nothing has no properties, there are no properties with which nothing can create anything.  This is a thinking exercise, so you may want to sit down for this.  Ask yourself, what does nothing have that will allow it to make something?  Here is a list of all of nothing's properties to help you as you meditate on the question:

And that concludes the list of properties of nothing.

Well you're wrong again I've made no claims as my answer is I don't know 

Relax, no one is accusing you have having added an iota of substance to this discussion.  However logically, if you are not appealing to an intelligent source as the source of the universe, then the only source left for you is the universe itself.  Did the universe create itself?  

Dee

@just_sayin

ARGUMENT TOPIC : just sayin still running as he cannot meet his burden of proof 


You don't have to wait long my friend. On your calculator punch in the mass of all of space-time then divide it by 0. You may have to do this a couple of times, but you will eventually get the amount of space-time that can fit in zero space.

But you've yet again avoided answering what I actually asked ......First you have to prove there was ever nothing then you have to show me your demonstrations of how you established something cannot come from it.

For nothing not being able to create something, that's a logic exercise. Since nothing has no properties, there are no properties with which nothing can create anything.

No its more than a logic exercise i asked you ......First you have to prove there was ever nothing then you have to show me your demonstrations of how you established something cannot come from it.


 This is a thinking exercise, so you may want to sit down for this. Ask yourself, what does nothing have that will allow it to make something?

Still waiting here is what you're avoiding.......First you have to prove there was ever nothing then you have to show me your demonstrations of how you established something cannot come from it.


 Here is a list of all of nothing's properties to help you as you meditate on the question:



Here you go stop running.......,

First you have to prove there was ever nothing then you have to show me your demonstrations of how you established something cannot come from it.

And that concludes the list of properties of nothing.

First you have to prove there was ever nothing then you have to show me your demonstrations of how you established something cannot come from it.

Well you're wrong again I've made no claims as my answer is I don't know 

Relax, no one is accusing you have having added an iota of substance to this discussion

Well your iota of substance is that an unproven magical entity created all and yet is uncreated itself and you call that adding " substance " to the exchange....LOL

Here is what you're running from ......First you have to prove there was ever nothing then you have to show me your demonstrations of how you established something cannot come from it.
, 
However logically, if you are not appealing to an intelligent source as the source of the universe, then the only source left for you is the universe itself.  
. 

I've still made no claims  that's  all on you as in "Godidit" the excuse the ignorant and superstitious resort to  when they don't know something.


. Did the universe create itself?  

First you have to prove there was ever nothing then you have to show me your demonstrations of how you established something cannot come from it.


Burden of proof is still with you when are you going to stop running? 

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin


.
YOUR PERCEIVED NOTIONS OF OUTSIDE THE BIBLE INFERENCES: Myth?  Several people mentioned in the Bible are mentioned by extrabiblical sources - such as James, jesus' brother who is mentioned by Josephus.  Others include John the Baptist, Paul, Peter, They have even found the Apostle Philip's tomb, and Simon Peter's home in Capernaum.  In addition to this at least 23 New Testament political figures have been verified by extra-biblical sources.  About 40 people mentioned in the Old Testament have extra-biblical evidence for their existence.  Only someone who knows nothing about the Bible would say the people mentioned in it are 'myths"

Okay, so for your response above in not being "HEARSAY," cite your references to your whole quoted diatribe shown above!

BEGIN:

.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin


YOUR INEPT UNDERSTANDING OF THE THE TERM "HEARSAY!" "Here are list of some non-Christian people who talk about Jesus:"

Thallus (52AD)
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Phlegon (80-140AD)
Josephus (93AD)
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Suetonius (69-140AD)
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)

YES, look at the dates of their writings, where NONE of the names mentioned had eyewitness factual accounts of Jesus, but only relied upon what "others before them said about Jesus" where they too were NOT EYEWITNESSES!  Get it?

The whole faith upon the primitive Bronze and Iron Age religion of Christianity outside of the Bible is built upon HEARSAY! 2+2=4!  Therefore, barring the overall disgusting Bible and it's blatant contradictions, and where Jesus as God was a bloody and brutal serial killer, especially of innocent babies, the foundation of Christianity is built upon a house of cards!

NEXT?

GnosticChristian

BojackHorseman said:

Could anyone please tell me if there is any proof that proves god wasn’t created by people in high power such as kings or nobles in old times in order to easily control the masses. I’m asking a genuine question and mean no offense.

All the Gods are man made and were created by either the shaman or leader of whatever tribe they ruled.
Our animal Gods became female God that ruled us in relative peace for 20,000 years.
We then went to the male Gods of War, like Yahweh, and have been gifting ourselves with the last 5,000 years of war.
We need a new God, but it should be a Goddess. Right?

just_sayin

21CenturyIconoclast said:

@just_sayin


YOUR INEPT UNDERSTANDING OF THE THE TERM "HEARSAY!" "Here are list of some non-Christian people who talk about Jesus:"

Thallus (52AD)
Tacitus (56-120AD)
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Phlegon (80-140AD)
Josephus (93AD)
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Suetonius (69-140AD)
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)

YES, look at the dates of their writings, where NONE of the names mentioned had eyewitness factual accounts of Jesus, but only relied upon what "others before them said about Jesus" where they too were NOT EYEWITNESSES!  Get it?

The whole faith upon the primitive Bronze and Iron Age religion of Christianity outside of the Bible is built upon HEARSAY! 2+2=4!  Therefore, barring the overall disgusting Bible and it's blatant contradictions, and where Jesus as God was a bloody and brutal serial killer, especially of innocent babies, the foundation of Christianity is built upon a house of cards!

NEXT?

Let's address the false premises of your comment.  1) Unlike most famous people of antiquity, we have multiple accounts by eyewitnesses of Jesus' life and events - John, Matthew, Mark, Peter and James for starters.  Do you know how many histories we have from people who personally knew Alexander the Great?  There are no histories from his friends.  

A false premise of yours is that historians are only accurate if they wrote in the time that someone lived.  This qualifies as a lie of the year candidate on debateisland.  Most historians today write about people who lived before them and we do not assume that what they wrote is defacto inaccurate.  This is just special pleading on your part.  Several of Jesus' enemies were alive when he was alive, even if they wrote about him later.  Further, they would have had access to people who were alive when the events occurred.  We can not assume that because they wrote about him a few years after he lived that he did not exist.  

This past week there was news that a museum curator had declared one of the former Roman emperors a transgender person based on an adversarial historians account.  Most people dismissed the claim based on the hostility that the historian had toward the emperor.  Surely, what enemies write about someone can be skewed or inaccurate.  That being said, you can often find some nuggets of truth in what they say.  Here is a short list of things that Jesus' enemies said about him, that fit with what we see in the Bible:

1) That Jesus was a real person - no one in antiquity denied his existence
2) That he performed miracles 
3) That he was regarded as a wise philosopher by some
4) That he died by crucifixion by order of Pontius Pilate, during the reign of Tiberias Caesar
5) That at his crucifixion there was an unpredicted eclipse, and Phlegon mentions an earthquake
6) That Jesus traveled in Judea
7) That Jesus had a brother James who was martyred for his faith in Jesus
8) That Jesus had followers who suffered for their belief in him
9) Jewish leadership was responsible for his death
10) He was called Christ, or Messiah by his followers
11) His followers followed his teachings
12) Jesus had the ability to predict the future accurately
13) That Mary was his mother and claimed to be a virgin
14) That the man who was his father was a carpenter and was not his biological father
15) Jesus' disciples believed him resurrected and a god
16) He was buried in a tomb that was later found empty

To summarize, this is what Jesus' enemies said about him (From Cold Case Christianity):

Jesus was born and lived in Palestine. He was born, supposedly, to a virgin and had an earthly father who was a carpenter. He was a teacher who taught that through repentance and belief, all followers would become brothers and sisters. He led the Jews away from their beliefs. He was a wise man who claimed to be God and the Messiah. He had unusual magical powers and performed miraculous deeds. He healed the lame. He accurately predicted the future. He was persecuted by the Jews for what He said, betrayed by Judah Iskarioto. He was beaten with rods, forced to drink vinegar and wear a crown of thorns. He was crucified on the eve of the Passover and this crucifixion occurred under the direction of Pontius Pilate, during the time of Tiberius. On the day of His crucifixion, the sky grew dark and there was an earthquake. Afterward, He was buried in a tomb and the tomb was later found to be empty. He appeared to His disciples resurrected from the grave and showed them His wounds. These disciples then told others Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven. Jesus’ disciples and followers upheld a high moral code. One of them was named Matthai. The disciples were also persecuted for their faith but were martyred without changing their claims. They met regularly to worship Jesus, even after His death.

 
This is what Jesus' enemies said was true about him.  

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Fake Christians grifters, alt-right, and anti-Muslim hate as a distraction.

More and more I cannot tell the difference between Christianity and the alt-right. Are these people in Christian anymore or just alt-right fake Christians exploiting our over-respect for religion?

"Liberty Counsel is a legal organization advocating for anti-LGBT discrimination under the guise of religious liberty."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/liberty-counsel

As if the group wasn't evil enough and had to more evil.

"Liberty Counsel—an evangelical nonprofit legal foundation—has been offering pro bono representation for clients in pursuit of religious exemption."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-new-side-hustle-helping-anti-vaxxers-get-religious-exemptions

They have also got involved in lawsuits to help anti-vaxxers.

Let's not forgot shiny happy people and the Institute in Basic Life Principles. More and more are these grifters or actual Christians I cannot tell. Either way too many Christians have voted for the most unchristian man ever, the orange one. Politics have poisoned the evangelical church.

 I don't even know if Christianity is the problem anymore. So much has been gutted by the far right that there it has been reduced to a caricature. What happened to helping poor people?

So how do fake Christian grifters respond? Hate and disinformation. A good offense is the best defense type of strategy. This is why I don't worry too much about Muslims. Anti-Muslim hate is a distraction to divert attention away from the very real and dire problems of far right politics and Christianity. Get people hating the other.

This is why ever time I see an anti-Muslim hate post I am going to criticize the alt-right and Christianity.

just_sayin

Dreamer said:

More and more I cannot tell the difference between Christianity and the alt-right. Are these people in Christian anymore or just alt-right fake Christians exploiting our over-respect for religion?

"Liberty Counsel is a legal organization advocating for anti-LGBT discrimination under the guise of religious liberty."

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/liberty-counsel

As if the group wasn't evil enough and had to more evil.

"Liberty Counsel—an evangelical nonprofit legal foundation—has been offering pro bono representation for clients in pursuit of religious exemption."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-new-side-hustle-helping-anti-vaxxers-get-religious-exemptions

They have also got involved in lawsuits to help anti-vaxxers.

Let's not forgot shiny happy people and the Institute in Basic Life Principles. More and more are these grifters or actual Christians I cannot tell. Either way too many Christians have voted for the most unchristian man ever, the orange one. Politics have poisoned the evangelical church.

 I don't even know if Christianity is the problem anymore. So much has been gutted by the far right that there it has been reduced to a caricature. What happened to helping poor people?

So how do fake Christian grifters respond? Hate and disinformation. A good offense is the best defense type of strategy. This is why I don't worry too much about Muslims. Anti-Muslim hate is a distraction to divert attention away from the very real and dire problems of far right politics and Christianity. Get people hating the other.

This is why ever time I see an anti-Muslim hate post I am going to criticize the alt-right and Christianity.

I'm cringing as I read this.  I think you should uncouple your political views and views of Christianity.  While you may think all Christians are alt-right, there are many who share your political viewpoint.  Christianity encompasses many people from very different backgrounds.  Christianity is not right or wrong because someone who is a Christian votes the same way as you.  

Why is it wrong for a legal group to defend those who are seeking religious exemptions for COVID vaccines?  SCOTUS has supported the validity of religious exemptions.  Jehovah's witnesses have gotten exemptions for many decades for various issues.  I don't understand how a group engaging in legal activity is deemed immoral to you.  Can you explain why its immoral for a legal group to defend their clients interests with a religious exemption argument? 

Have politics poisoned the evangelical church, or isn't more likely that you have allowed politics to become your god?

21CenturyIconoclast

Argument Topic: just_sayin


just_sayin,

JUST SAYIN'S BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE:  "Christianity encompasses many people from very different backgrounds."

Biblically, the ONLY people that can be Christians are HEBREWS, period!  Do you want to call Jesus a when He said the following: "But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)"

Therefore, can you tell the membership in what sect of Judaism do you belong too? 

WAITING: 

.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;Christianity encompasses many people from very different backgrounds. 

Well your totally right there lol

But the thing is that the thing is that there is no such thing as a 100% Christian. In fact you could say that there isnt any more than 20 % of them who actually believe in God and go a long with all the crap that goes with it. But as a rule you will find that its the lefties who are ultra sensitive and week and impressional and fall for any thing who would gravitate to religion any way. Becase it is like a security blanket for them and they can still hold on to there dweeby fears and beliefs because the church harbors and promotes them.

Factfinder

21CenturyIconoclast said:

just_sayin,

JUST SAYIN'S BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE:  "Christianity encompasses many people from very different backgrounds."

Biblically, the ONLY people that can be Christians are HEBREWS, period!  Do you want to call Jesus a when He said the following: "But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)"

Therefore, can you tell the membership in what sect of Judaism do you belong too? 

WAITING: 

.

That verse doesn't say what you think it does. From Mathew 1-16 the author was pointing out prophesy being fulfilled in Jesus. He didn't understand it all though. Jesus was on his way to be rejected by the Jews as Isaiah and others prophesied. He was to be despised of his own. And of course that would prove to be a pivotal point in his ministry because after chapter 16 the religious authorities were gunning for him. So there's the context. Just a couple verses later in chapter 15 verse 28 Jesus would reward the woman from canon for her faith.  “Woman, you have much faith. You will have what you asked for.” Her daughter was healed at that very time"

Then towards the end of the next chapter, 16 verse 24 after the religious elite rejected him he would say: "If anyone wants to be My follower, he must forget about himself. He must take up his cross and follow Me"

And of course today christianity has a wide range of followers around the world from multiple backgrounds. 

21CenturyIconoclast

@Factfinder


.
Factfinder,

What part of the LITERAL WORDS in this Jesus as God inspired passage don't you understand?  JESUS SAID: “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)
With your inept response in your post above, then YOU are showing that the primitive Bible CONTRADICTS itself, congratulations!


Additional passages that the pseudo-christian has to be JEWS to be a follower of the serial killer Jesus the Christ as god:

1. "  Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.” (Exodus 19:5-6). ........ What people are the "treasured possession" of God, and what people are the words spoken to of Israel, THE HEBREWS ONLY!


2. “‘I know your tribulation and your poverty (but you are rich) and the slander of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan" (Revelation 2:9) ........It is more important to be truly a JEW, Get it?


3.  "So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day." (Matthew 29:15) ...... Only spread to who, THE JEWS!


4.   "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews." (John 4:22)......  Does is say salvation is from the Gentiles, or the Greeks, NO, only from the JEWS!

5.   "Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God." (Romans 3:1-2) ........... Only the JEWS were entrusted with the oracles of God!  UNDERSTOOD YET, HUH?

6.  "The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." (Acts 17:10-11) .............. Where did Paul go, into the JEWISH SYNAGOGUE!  Who were more mobile than others, THE JEWS ONLY! 

7.  "Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” (John 18:36). ..................  Who is the kingdom of God handed to ONLY, THE JEWS!

8.  "Because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus." (John 2:11)  ......... Who were believing in Jesus, THE JEWS ONLY!


9.  LAST BUT NOT LEAST, Jesus was KING OF THE JEWS ONLY!   "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews" (John 19:19) ........ Do you want to say otherwise? LOL!



AGAIN, at your embarrassing expense, Christianity is for JEWS ONLY, as is the OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT explicitly show, period!  If you want to show the membership with other passages that contradict the ones above, THEN THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF WITH LIES, because both CONTRADICTIONS cannot be true at the same time, understood?!  

.

Factfinder

@21CenturyIconoclast

Well thanks for calling me inept. I understood what you were saying. Your verse of choice doesn't support it despite my "ineptness" Sorry if the true context of your verse embarrassed you. LITRAL words: If anyone wants to be My follower, he must forget about himself. He must take up his cross and follow Me"  "anyone" see that?

21CenturyIconoclast

@Factfinder


HELLO?!!!!   What part of my 10 passages explicitly showing that you have to be a JEW ONLY to be a follower of Jesus the Christ as God in this link post: 
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/172349/#Comment_172349

Why do you want to continue to make yourself the Biblical FOOL in front of the membership with your one passage that CONTRADICTS my TEN PASSAGES to the contrary?

.

Factfinder

@21CenturyIconoclast ;If anyone wants to be My follower, he must forget about himself. He must take up his cross and follow Me

What does 'anyone' mean? What does Jesus mean there? Scholar want to be? What does he mean when he says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 “For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." 

Now, you want to claim contradictions, go ahead and I will agree. But when someone is so biblically illiterate that they pull scripture out of context to make a false point, well heck. You may as well argue for creationism, you'd have the same biblical understanding.

21CenturyIconoclast

@Factfinder


.
Pathfinder, that denies the TRUE WORDS of the Christian God named Jesus that you have to be a JEW to be a Christian,

Let me try and digress to a grade-school level to help you understand a very simple premise that the Bible states you have to be a JEW to be a Christian, okay?

CHRISTIAN DEFINITION:  
a : of or relating to Christianity, Christian scriptures

b: based on or conforming with Christianity, Christian ethics

c: of, relating to, or being a Christian, Christian responsibilities

d: professing Christianity
(Merrian-Webster Dictionary)


YOUR BIBLE QUOTE AGAIN: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life"

First thing, BIBLE FOOL, Jesus is NOT the son of God, but God Himself as the following passages so dictate, UNDERSTOOD?!

1.  "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness OF OUR GOD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST have received a faith as precious as ours.” (2 Peter 1:1)

2.  “For in him THE WHOLE FULLNESS OF DEITY dwells bodily,” (Colossians 2:9)
3.  "Waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory OF OUR GREAT GOD and Savior Jesus Christ," (Titus 2:13



Now, let me go real slow for you this time to help you understand in what a GREAT BIBLE FOOL you truly are!  

A.  First, who was KING OF THE JEWS as this Bible passage so states: "Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews" (John 19:19) Does this passage state that Jesus was king of the Gentiles, or Greeks, or the Romans? NO IT DOES NOT!!!  It specifically states that Jesus is KING OF THE JEWS ONLY where if you want to follow Jesus, you have to be A JEW!  DUH!

B.  When Jesus said the following; “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24) did Jesus mean that he was sent for the Gentiles, the Greeks, or the Romans?  NO HE DID NOT!  Jesus being the KING OF THE JEWS was only sent for the JEWS!  2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and you are a Atheist that is giving this faction a bad name by being so Bible inept!

YOU are silently discarding my link shown below where I have shown you TEN TIMES that you have to be a JEW to be a Christian, which is a follower of Jesus the Christ, GET IT?
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/172349/#Comment_172349 


NEXT ATHEIST BIBLE FOOL LIKE "PATHFINDER" THAT GIVES ATHEISM A BAD NAME FOR BEING SO BIBLE , WILL BE ...?

.

Factfinder

@21CenturyIconoclast

Haven't silently avoided anything. I openly reject your babbling false logic. Define the words I gave you scholar want to be. Since you take such liberties of redefining the intent and message of biblical authors. You can pretend what jesus is saying don't count all you want (well except when you think what he said supports your misrepresentation and idiotic conclusions based on circular reasoning) but saying 'he ain't god' and then saying 'this is what god said' exposes your underlined failure of biblical literacy. Jesus/god never authored anything. Why would anyone respond to line after line of the falsidical tripe you post? 

21CenturyIconoclast

@Factfinder

Your child-like game of semantics to the word "anyone" is embarrassing for you, but you do not have the sense to realize this FACTOID!  

The word "ANYONE" does not matter when I have conversely PROVED to your inept mind that you have to be a JEW to be a Christian in a perceived contradictory manner, whereas your feeble ONE VERSE does not stand up to my TEN VERSES proving that you have to JEW to follow Jesus! UNDERSTOOD?

Maybe you would be more comfortable in a "Children's Religion Forum" where their inept mindset is equal to yours, therefore, for your convenience here is one that you should visit to save any further embarrassment within this thread of yours: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/86093-childrens-church/


ANOTHER QUOTE OF YOURS: "Jesus/god never authored anything."

To the Christians that we are against, the Bible specifically says that Jesus as God inspired and wrote the entire bible, get it Bible fool?!  "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation, for the prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

How far do you want to go in being totally BIBLE in front of the membership? Huh?

NEXT BIBLE INEPT ATHEIST LIKE "FACTFINDER" THAT DENIES 10 BIBLE VERSES (TO HIS ONE CONTRADICTING VERSE) THAT SAY YOU HAVE TO BE A JEW TO BE A FOLLOWER OF JESUS, WILL BE ...?

.

Factfinder

@21CenturyIconoclast

Oh stop whining. It's not your failure. It's the public school system. Go ahead, put down mommy's laptop, go up the basement stairs and ask mommy what "anyone" means. Then you might want to mention to her how desperately you need remedial reading classes so you quit getting the authors messages wrong. 

You see? Your illiteracy causes you to make contrary, foolish arguments like: JESUS IS GOD YOU BIBLE FOOL and LITERAL WORDS.  But then have to pretend jesus didn't mean it when he says: If anyone wants to be My follower, he must forget about himself. He must take up his cross and follow Me. 

Contradicting your own assertion.   
 

GnosticChristian

"Could anyone please tell me if there is any proof that proves god wasn’t created by people in high power such as kings or nobles in old times in order to easily control the masses. I’m asking a genuine question and mean no offense.

There is a lot of proof that Jewry put man above God and not God above man.

Jews are not literalists to their written Torah and are led by their Oral Torah.

Key biblical words for this notion are Jesus asking, have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?
 
The wise will answer no: Right? 

MayCaesar

I love it when Christians cannot agree on what the right interpretation of the Biblical texts is and each believes that only they understand it correctly! It really shows everything you need to know about the extent to which people take their religion seriously: they just assume the most convenient interpretation of it and do not care what the book actually says.

Religions are good in this way. Same approach does not work in most other areas of human life. Try pulling out a stunt like this when working as an engineer: "This specification says X, but I know the truth: it really is Y". See how long you keep your job afterwards.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

Yeah. But my disagreement 21century is his method of using what the bible says literally when it's convenient for him, when it's not then he must abandon his literal argument. And that embarrassed him. 

Factfinder

GnosticChristian said:

"Could anyone please tell me if there is any proof that proves god wasn’t created by people in high power such as kings or nobles in old times in order to easily control the masses. I’m asking a genuine question and mean no offense.

There is a lot of proof that Jewry put man above God and not God above man.

Jews are not literalists to their written Torah and are led by their Oral Torah.

Key biblical words for this notion are Jesus asking, have ye forgotten that ye are Gods?
 
The wise will answer no: Right? 

Of course that's the wise answer. @GnosticChristian If there were 'proof' god wasn't man made god would be a field of scientific study and not an object of religious faith. 

That said atheists can still can look foolish when we assert our own assumptions as biblical truisms as a result of isolating verses out of text and assigning false conclusions based our own incomprehension. Like when @21CenturyIconoclast claims the bible literally says only jews can be christian  because jesus as god literally says so: I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 15:24)

But then 21Century has to abandon his own literal  interpretation  argument when confronted with the fact jesus also says: If anyone wants to be My follower, he must forget about himself. He must take up his cross and follow Me. (Matthew 16:24)

21century then must deny the reality that exists and we see today, Christianity encompasses people from all walks of life. He also has to pretend jesus didn't mean anyone in the literal since in order to defend his false assertion: Biblically, the ONLY people that can be Christians are HEBREWS, period!

I know at the end of the day what is interpreted from the bible has no impact on life but I still like to point out fallacies used by combative atheists with no biblical understanding. 

Factfinder

@21CenturyIconoclast

Let me help you out here with some advice. If you're going to make biblical assertions by applying your measures of understanding then, you must be ready to defend your assertions when even one verse (this case many but only one is needed) contradicts your whole theory. In other words you need to reconcile any all verses that contradict you, with the same measures used to make your initial claims. Otherwise you look quite the . You can't employ two separate trains of thought because it's convenient. The same reasoning must be applied if you're to have a chance. 'Jesus literally means it when he says this; but not when he says that, is a logical failure.'

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@MayCaesar

Yeah. But my disagreement 21century is his method of using what the bible says literally when it's convenient for him, when it's not then he must abandon his literal argument. And that embarrassed him. 

This is what I prefer about Eastern religions. In Abrahamic religions it is habitual for people to nitpick what verses of the Bible to take literally and which in a metaphoric way, so it ends up just an endless discussion with no progress. While in Buddhism, Hinduism or Shinto the approach is different: "The text says exactly what it says. But you will not fully appreciate the depth of it without experiencing it first hand. So go out there in the world, experiment, learn, verify!" Abrahamic religions encourage one to distance themselves from reality, while Eastern religions encourage embracing that reality.

Eastern religions are problematic in other ways, but, at least, one can follow them in a philosophical way without being called a heretic by other followers. No Buddhist monk in a monastery tells another monk, "You know nothing about Buddhism." They are all learning about it together, and not by meditating on ancient scriptures, but by meditating on their emotions and feelings.