Are you a follower of jesus christ?
- Thread starter RedDick
- Start date
Here's the link--I guess you missed it above:
http://www.dtl.org/ethics/article/homosexuals.htm
The author is a gay christian who has a website (q.v.).
Zeolla didn't make anything up in his article like your MCC pastor buddy did with 'pais = male lover, therefore centurion is gay'.
Are these the sites ( in Slurper_la's post) that you identify as antichrist?
http://www.alternet.org/belief/5-reasons-suspect-jesus-never-existed
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvocates/2015/11/03/jesus-never-existed/
http://www.solarmythology.com/appendixd.htm
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_27.htm
Do you mean that the online articles (and possibly the sites themselves) are
a.) the work of the antichrist, or
b.) the work of the followers of the antichrist, or
c.) because they present opinions about jesus other than your beliefs, they are 'anti-christian', a term you shorten to 'antichrist' ?
If none of these three suggested inferences on my part is correct, would you specify exactly what you do mean?
They are anti (negative) with regard to Christ in some way. Most, if not all of the articles, have a primary objective of attacking some aspect of Christ person, work, or existence.
As a group the different websites listed have a primary purpose of gathering and promoting an anti Christ view. Eventually these sites and other efforts like them help compose part of the atheistic disciplinary view.
All of this goes back to supporting an understanding that atheist have developed a well-defined discipline of knowledge (see post 148), which includes a set of values that are subscribed to by most who share that view.
One aspect of the atheistic discipline is that it imposes a “gravity of thought” on its subscribers. This is demonstrated in the nature of the sites Slurper_la posted and in the shear fact that Slurper_la chose to post from only one (anti Christ) perspective. His uniform choice of sites represent an opinion, not inquiry or knowledge (tacit or implicit).
I am not saying that the pro Christ disciplines of knowledge do not impose the same kind of gravity. But the question as originated here had to do with the existence of shared atheistic values, worldviews, and how these have (or have not) spurred the development of organizations intended to improve the human condition.
It is my observation that the collective elements of the atheistic discipline of knowledge have not lead to a set of positive aspirations for humankind. In contrast, their efforts combine to promote self-validation through a very pejorative worldview.
Based on this observation, participants in this discipline internalize the need for self-validation and have and will continue to fail to develop any collective philanthropic or humanitarian organizations.
Re number one: How extensive is the field of your observation? Where did you look? how many places did you look? Enumerate the collective elements of the atheistic 'discipline of knowledge'--you should share these to corroborate your observation and offer it for serious consideration.
Re number two:
You should really specify exactly what this 'very pejorative world view' is, and that there is consensus among a majority of people who don't believe in god (atheists).
Re number three--three points:
1.) Are you implying that the internalization of the need for self-validation is bad or wrong, or not demonstrably equal to some other you don't name but think is better? Please be more specific and explain.
2.) Why should individuals who don't believe in god develop collective philanthropic or humanitarian organizations, especially if they might belong to other organizations that do so?
3.) 'have and will continue to fail'. I think you mean that people who internalize self-validation have failed (demonstrably???) to develop 'collectives' and definitely will not do so... What you are saying is that you have already decided upon a 'failure', which is prejudging and therefore simple prejudice.
Well personally I think the bible was written and put together by people...with an agenda. It really has no connection to or anything to do with God. I can't believe people believe this is God's word. Who is the God that supposedly wrote this stuff? I think all religions are cults. Christianity is a cult of Jesus.
It never ceases to amaze me what people are willing to believe. Whether it be a super human that can rise from the dead, being filled with alien spirits called thetans or the logic in making a bright orange cheeto the most powerful person on the planet.
If I were to follow any spiritual belief system, it would certainly be one of the older ones, not a relative newcomer like Christianity that cribbed most of its core doctrine and holidays from other religions.
At their heart, most major religions, Christianity included, preach love and kindness, doing unto others, and generally not being a dick. These are all tenets that I think any rationale, feeling being can get behind.
Other than that, I cannot find any compelling reason to follow any religion, or spiritual belief system. As they exist today, almost all are used to control the masses through fear, and Christianity, as it was your question, might be the most guilty of that, at least in Western society. Whether a person named Jesus ever existed, other than in the history/fantasy/poorly-copied-through-the-ages tome called "The" Bible, I do not know. But I have a feeling that if so, he was likely exploited by the Catholic church, the progenitor of Christian belief, for its own nefarious purposes, as have been many since.
I am tired of having my life impacted, in a country founded on the tenet of separation of church and state, by a religion that, largely, wants to rid the world of me and my ilk for simply loving who I love. And all the while its ministers, in all their pomp and piety, pledge to know better about the inner workings of this world than the hoi polloi, yet ruin the lives of young children, drive its own followers to their deaths for imagined "sinfulness," (recovering Baptists are a thing, and some of them don't make it) and cause women to seek back-alley abortions; the same ministers who eagerly send young men to their deaths in war, turn a blind eye to the starvation of the babies they want to force into the world, and who drain the pocketbooks of their elderly faithful. For what, an invisible sky friend for whom there is not one shred of concrete, logical evidence of existence? A concept made so inscrutable (holy trinity) that he can be used for any purpose - an all-loving father one minute, and a vengeful judge the next?
In short, no. I think I'll look for friends on this plane of existence while I'm here. I will admit that blind belief in a superhuman entity who is described at best as something of a bi-polar parent seems to be comforting to some, especially if they indeed had bipolar parents. But I cannot suspend my disbelief long enough to derive any benefit from that belief.
At their heart, most major religions, Christianity included, preach love and kindness, doing unto others, and generally not being a dick. These are all tenets that I think any rationale, feeling being can get behind.
Other than that, I cannot find any compelling reason to follow any religion, or spiritual belief system. As they exist today, almost all are used to control the masses through fear, and Christianity, as it was your question, might be the most guilty of that, at least in Western society. Whether a person named Jesus ever existed, other than in the history/fantasy/poorly-copied-through-the-ages tome called "The" Bible, I do not know. But I have a feeling that if so, he was likely exploited by the Catholic church, the progenitor of Christian belief, for its own nefarious purposes, as have been many since.
I am tired of having my life impacted, in a country founded on the tenet of separation of church and state, by a religion that, largely, wants to rid the world of me and my ilk for simply loving who I love. And all the while its ministers, in all their pomp and piety, pledge to know better about the inner workings of this world than the hoi polloi, yet ruin the lives of young children, drive its own followers to their deaths for imagined "sinfulness," (recovering Baptists are a thing, and some of them don't make it) and cause women to seek back-alley abortions; the same ministers who eagerly send young men to their deaths in war, turn a blind eye to the starvation of the babies they want to force into the world, and who drain the pocketbooks of their elderly faithful. For what, an invisible sky friend for whom there is not one shred of concrete, logical evidence of existence? A concept made so inscrutable (holy trinity) that he can be used for any purpose - an all-loving father one minute, and a vengeful judge the next?
In short, no. I think I'll look for friends on this plane of existence while I'm here. I will admit that blind belief in a superhuman entity who is described at best as something of a bi-polar parent seems to be comforting to some, especially if they indeed had bipolar parents. But I cannot suspend my disbelief long enough to derive any benefit from that belief.
boyaaronnyc
Legendary Member
I’m an ex-Christian. I was devout in high school. Went to church all the time. Prayer meetings, youth retreats, the whole 9 yards.
But it just doesn’t make sense to me anymore. And as time goes on I become more and more convinced that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth.
There is no archaeological evidence that he ever existed. You would think that someone doing the miraculous things he supposedly did that are described in the gospel would have made other people notice as well, but not one mention of Jesus occurs in a non-Christian source until decades after he was supposedly on earth.
Another problem is that there was no such city as Nazareth at the time that Jesus was supposed to be living there. Oh, there was a settlement there. But it wasn’t called Nazareth, and it was not a city. Certainly not a big enough place to have its own synagogue, as is described in the Gospels. It appears that the later Gospel writers confused a similar word meaning “branch” that Mark used to describe Jesus with a reference to a city. I’d have to look it up but off the top of my head I think it is Nazrine. Jesus the Nazrine. Meaning perhaps Jesus who is creating a new branch of Judaism. But the later gospel writers misunderstood and made it Jesus of Nazareth. The problem is that the city of Nazareth does not appear on any early maps of the area dating from the time. In fact, it doesn’t start appearing on Maps until well into the second century.
There’s more, a lot more. But that’s a start. The long and short of it is, I’m pretty convinced that Jesus is just a myth. And was never a real person.
But it just doesn’t make sense to me anymore. And as time goes on I become more and more convinced that there never was a Jesus of Nazareth.
There is no archaeological evidence that he ever existed. You would think that someone doing the miraculous things he supposedly did that are described in the gospel would have made other people notice as well, but not one mention of Jesus occurs in a non-Christian source until decades after he was supposedly on earth.
Another problem is that there was no such city as Nazareth at the time that Jesus was supposed to be living there. Oh, there was a settlement there. But it wasn’t called Nazareth, and it was not a city. Certainly not a big enough place to have its own synagogue, as is described in the Gospels. It appears that the later Gospel writers confused a similar word meaning “branch” that Mark used to describe Jesus with a reference to a city. I’d have to look it up but off the top of my head I think it is Nazrine. Jesus the Nazrine. Meaning perhaps Jesus who is creating a new branch of Judaism. But the later gospel writers misunderstood and made it Jesus of Nazareth. The problem is that the city of Nazareth does not appear on any early maps of the area dating from the time. In fact, it doesn’t start appearing on Maps until well into the second century.
There’s more, a lot more. But that’s a start. The long and short of it is, I’m pretty convinced that Jesus is just a myth. And was never a real person.
Absolutely not, and to be honest gay Christians are something of a rarity where I grew up. I remember having the religion rammed down my throat from various organisations, the boring sermons, the ridiculous yet concurrently dull and twisted mythology, but it never took a hold on me. Combining that with the whole dark history of the religion, the sex abuse scandals of the Catholic church, the power of bat shit born again evangelicals electing Bush, seeing missionaries in developing countries coming in with a neo-colonial contempt for ancient traditions and a desire to export unpleasant culture wars, plus religious extremism across several religions. I'd already come to the conclusion that I didn't want anything to do with Christianity (or any of the other abrahamic religions for that matter) before I accepted myself as gay. Once I did, seeing people following bronze age myths encouraging persecution of us for who we are and who we love, sickened me even further. I'm more mellow about the topic than I used to be, but I hold no love for that religion.
Frankly, atheism is a true blessing for gay people.
Frankly, atheism is a true blessing for gay people.
I attend Catholic Mass, but I wouldnt say Im Christian. I like how i feel inside the Cathedral.
Similar threads
