Thoughts? From people with non-sheeple brains

[Artfuldodger]

I do. All the time. Been doing so for going on 50 years now. Ain't seen nuthin'. Ain't had nuthin' revealed. Maybe cuz' I wait with an open mind, and don't see what I'm aimin' to see (the very nature of the human mind to do, I believe). A truly open mind. Wanting an answer. Wanting an inspiration. Wanting some spirit to fill my heart and soul. And what do I get, after decades of hoping and praying?

Nothing...absolutely nothing.

Why? Gee...I wonder. Well, actually, I've stopped wondering. I think I know now.

Oh, and I have always known that I am not a sheep. Ain't never been one to mindlessly follow anyone right to the slaughterhouse.

eta: I mean absolutely no offense to you, Artfuldodger. You seem like a kind, considerate person. Just explaining my viewpoint on the Big Picture stuff.

No offense taken, I'm glad to see you are a free thinker as we should all be. You've got to walk that Lonesome Valley all by yourself. Good Luck on your quest for answers. Most sheeple go through life not seeking anything, just following others. Others of anys sorts could be wrong, including me.

 

[bullethead]

OK.. Big bang. Who dunnit? No matter where you turn,
in every religion, THERE IS A DEITY.

Not one of those deities in any of those religions can be singled out to exist let alone be responsible for the big bang.
Giving one the credit is just a default answer for not being able to say " I don't know".

 

[JB0704]

Logical would dictate that if you believe "these folks" could be telling to the truth, "those folks" could be telling the truth also.

Yes, except in the event the two claims are contradictory. Then you are left with one or the other, or neither.

The exact same evidence exists for all of them and you cant disprove the others.

Sort-of. For instance, with Jesus, you have multiple eye-witness testimony. There are other faiths which rely on a single source. What is common is the inability to prove one claim over the other and each rely on the word of others.

So I would say NONE of them have any logical value.
So I completely agree with -

I have always said, Christianity must be taken on faith. Anybody looking for proof is gonna be disappointed.

God, on the other hand, is not a faith based conclusion. Of all the religions and various concepts of God, most still agree on the premise that there is a God or a natural force behind things (which is the foundation of most religions).

 

[JB0704]

Not one of those deities.....

Black folks most likely picture Jesus as a black dude. White folks almost universally believe he is white. Reality is he was most likely neither. Do they believe in a different Jesus?

 

[StriperrHunterr]

I think this is the first buzz bait I've ever seen used on a trot line.

 

[bullethead]

Yes, except in the event the two claims are contradictory. Then you are left with one or the other, or neither.



Sort-of. For instance, with Jesus, you have multiple eye-witness testimony. There are other faiths which rely on a single source. What is common is the inability to prove one claim over the other and each rely on the word of others.




I have always said, Christianity must be taken on faith. Anybody looking for proof is gonna be disappointed.

God, on the other hand, is not a faith based conclusion. Of all the religions and various concepts of God, most still agree on the premise that there is a God or a natural force behind things (which is the foundation of most religions).

I think with Jesus we have claims of multiple eye-witness testimony. Authors who we do not know, who were not there, and were not witness to the event or testimony themselves have written stories about eye-witnesses. It is not unique and is as disregarded as the other eye-witness stories in other religions.

 

[bullethead]

Black folks most likely picture Jesus as a black dude. White folks almost universally believe he is white. Reality is he was most likely neither. Do they believe in a different Jesus?

Yes
No
Maybe
I don't know

But not sure what you are trying to prove with that.

I would say there is a great chance that each person has their own personal Jesus(insert Depeche Mode clip here) that differs from the next persons in order to suit the individuals needs. So yes....Jesus is different depending on who you ask.

 

[JB0704]

I think with Jesus we have claims of multiple eye-witness testimony. Authors who we do not know, who were not there, and were not witness to the event or testimony themselves have written stories about eye-witnesses. It is not unique and is as disregarded as the other eye-witness stories in other religions.

.....

What is common is the inability to prove one claim over the other and each rely on the word of others.

We are in agreement for the most part. I am pretty certain John is regarded as an eyewitness. I'm not a scholar, but, the gospels are generally recorded verbal history as well.....which is eye-witness testimony.

Whether anybody accepts it is a different matter.

 

[JB0704]

I would say there is a great chance that each person has their own personal Jesus(insert Depeche Mode clip here) that differs from the next persons in order to suit the individuals needs. So yes....Jesus is different depending on who you ask.

How many Jesus' were there?

 

[JB0704]

I think this is the first buzz bait I've ever seen used on a trot line.

It gives us something to do. It was the OP's 9th post.

There was also a new fella (hammer spank) jumping in here last week with some stuff, wish he'd come back.......thought he had potential

 

[bullethead]

How many Jesus' were there?

One according to the Bible.

What and who and how many forms he has taken and what people has added to him in the individual minds is anyone's guess.
The Quaran tells about a Jesus in ways that are not said in the Bible.
Is that the same Jesus? Is it accurate?

 

[bullethead]

.....



We are in agreement for the most part. I am pretty certain John is regarded as an eyewitness. I'm not a scholar, but, the gospels are generally recorded verbal history as well.....which is eye-witness testimony.

Whether anybody accepts it is a different matter.

Well that is true but also the problem. Being that it is not universally accepted and if a jury was made of worldwide religious believers I do not think a unanimous verdict will be had. In fact the majority will disagree that it is actual eye-witness testimony.

 

[bullethead]

I'll catch up later....

 

[StriperrHunterr]

There was the physical Jesus, and then there's the Jesus of the Bible. One is a fixed construct, the other seems to be whatever the faithful person needs him to be, not making light here, but kind of like Batman. A symbol to unite behind.

I always thought it was weird that portraits I've seen of Jesus always depicted him as a brown haired, but light skinned, blue-eyed guy. I don't think so for that region.

I imagine he looked kinda Middle-Eastern, if we're being realistic, but that image doesn't sell well around here.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

It gives us something to do. It was the OP's 9th post.

There was also a new fella (hammer spank) jumping in here last week with some stuff, wish he'd come back.......thought he had potential

I'll give him points for being bold, but he gets goose eggs for the rest of the post. It's like walking into a church, thumping the leader and the congregation in the chest demanding evidence, claiming, to be used for his own conversion, and then walking out again before anyone has a chance to respond.

It seems to me that all that was desired here was to thump people in the chest, challenge them in kind of a bully-ish fashion, and then walk away before they could challenge him back.

That's the way it looks so far, but I could be wrong.

 

[centerpin fan]

It gives us something to do. It was the OP's 9th post.

I thought his references to King James as "inbred or homosexual" and a "likely pedophile" were outstanding for a first-timer.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

I thought his references to King James as "inbred or homosexual" and a "likely pedophile" were outstanding for a first-timer.

If by outstanding you mean distilled vitriol, then I agree with you.

 

[WaltL1]

I'll give him points for being bold, but he gets goose eggs for the rest of the post. It's like walking into a church, thumping the leader and the congregation in the chest demanding evidence, claiming, to be used for his own conversion, and then walking out again before anyone has a chance to respond.
It seems to me that all that was desired here was to thump people in the chest, challenge them in kind of a bully-ish fashion, and then walk away before they could challenge him back.
That's the way it looks so far, but I could be wrong.

If that's all you got, that's all you can give.
For some, regurgitation of scripture is all they got. Ask them to stray from that and poof they are gone.
But as you said I/we could be wrong.
Its why I appreciate the believers/friends that normally participate here. They are capable of believing exactly the same but also apply their own thoughts on the subject.

 

[StriperrHunterr]

If that's all you got, that's all you can give.
For some, regurgitation of scripture is all they got. Ask them to stray from that and poof they are gone.
But as you said I/we could be wrong.
Its why I appreciate the believers/friends that normally participate here. They are capable of believing exactly the same but also apply their own thoughts on the subject.

My momma would say, "If that's all you got, keep yer trap shut."

 

[WaltL1]

My momma would say, "If that's all you got, keep yer trap shut."

Wise words. Not usually followed