Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is good to know what your god thinks, and why it does things. Other people tell us their opinion as if they know the mind of their god, but you obviously know what you are talking about.
Christ changed the entire world structure. No other human being had done that. Time itself was changed from BC to AD.
That was a monk, not Jesus. And while good for doing history, it was nothing compared to the Julian reforms. And I do not think Julius Caesar was a Christian.
That was a monk, not Jesus. And while good for doing history, it was nothing compared to the Julian reforms. And I do not think Julius Caesar was a Christian.
Also, BC/AD is (actually, was) a convention. It isn't the magic result of Jesus being born. And it has been supplanted by BCE/CE anyway, apparently by this poster's logic, as the magic result of the Enlightenment.
"Common Era" recognizes what these things actually, are: a calendar convention, and does so without assuming that the whole world is Christian when only (even by a loose cultural definition) about a third is. Since all of humanity needs to be at least marginally on the same page when discussion history and calendar appointments, we have all adopted a common calendar that just happens to have been invented by monks.
What would have been more impressive validation of the significance of Jesus' birth is if he had actually returned in glory in the lifetime of his original followers as promised, or failing that, if after an entire 2,000 years the vast majority of humanity was Christian -- and not just by cultural association or hegemony either, but by practice and actual belief -- and if there weren't all this fragmentation into countless competing denominations. After all, the original concept behind the return of Jesus as opposed to him setting up his kingdom while still alive was to give the world time to respond to the gospel so that as many as possible would be saved. The miscalculation (apart from the return never happening) was that the gospel was such a self-evidently correct and sensible idea that it would be warmly and rapidly and enthusiastically embraced by the whole world in no time. Maybe the indifference and hostility that actually happened should serve as a clue? IDK. Just a thought.
The OP suffers from big-time Christianphobia and angst. Most people on the planet will just accept that they don't like something. But here there is a foaming-at-the-mouth mission to bring others down along with him, as we see obsessively day-in day-out.
The OP should run for office, since resembling modern politicians on a path of slash and burn (no positivity, no unity, no productivity). Just an extreme, shrieking, one-sided grind-fest.
What in the heck does that mean? A statement followed by a question????
Phetaroi, if you prefer not to discuss it, just say so and I won't bother you. I mean you're evading the question like crazy. But I am really curious as all heck as to why you firmly believe no amount of evidence could prove Jesus wasn't real. That's like saying there's no amount of Hubble telescope pictures of the galaxies that could convince you there are galaxies in space.
What in the heck does that mean? A statement followed by a question????
Phetaroi, if you prefer not to discuss it, just say so and I won't bother you. I mean you're evading the question like crazy. But I am really curious as all heck as to why you firmly believe no amount of evidence could prove Jesus wasn't real. That's like saying there's no amount of Hubble telescope pictures of the galaxies that could convince you there are galaxies in space.
I will grant you that no one can read your threads without understanding that "real" to you in the context of "Jesus wasn't real" means he did not historically exist as a discrete person, that he is an entirely made-up character. Amirite?
This question doesn't particularly interest me as a debate point, though it's fun to explore nonetheless. I mostly sit that debate out because it's not a hill I care to die on. The main point is the gospels aren't describing actual history and also are not, as widely claimed, "eyewitness accounts" in any meaningful sense of those words. If the gospels are "based on a real person" or "based on a true story" in the hollywood sense it doesn't change anything about the fabulist and self-contradictory nature of the accounts and that they amount to fan fiction.
If you are looking for a de-conversion story, perhaps you will not find many.
Most people came to their decision as I did, that the trappings of religions are less and less a part of everyday life, and the main thing in life is to try to behave in a moral way so as to get along with others in this world. In my case, the religious coat that I had put on in childhood became less and less important, and at some point I was able to slip out of the coat and stand on my own two feet. This realization that I didn't know if anything else was out there, and I really didn't care, was a slow process and not a "Yes Lord!" type of conversion.
If you are looking for a de-conversion story, perhaps you will not find many.
Most people came to their decision as I did, that the trappings of religions are less and less a part of everyday life, and the main thing in life is to try to behave in a moral way so as to get along with others in this world. In my case, the religious coat that I had put on in childhood became less and less important, and at some point I was able to slip out of the coat and stand on my own two feet. This realization that I didn't know if anything else was out there, and I really didn't care, was a slow process and not a "Yes Lord!" type of conversion.
Yes it is often a slow-burn realization that this metaphorical "religious clothing" isn't useful or helpful to you or anyone else. I was simply unable to realize that until I started to look at the "clothing" objectively, and that didn't happen until certain stressful life experiences forced me to do so. As I always say, people don't change until the pain of changing is less than the pain of not changing.
What in the heck does that mean? A statement followed by a question????
Phetaroi, if you prefer not to discuss it, just say so and I won't bother you. I mean you're evading the question like crazy. But I am really curious as all heck as to why you firmly believe no amount of evidence could prove Jesus wasn't real. That's like saying there's no amount of Hubble telescope pictures of the galaxies that could convince you there are galaxies in space.
I'm not evading the question. I'm just not giving you the answers you want to hear.
That's interesting. I didn't pick up on that at all. He just sounds to me like someone interested in intellectual discourse as he seeks more answers. I don't see anything wrong about that.
LOL You're obviously new here, and oblivious to the numerous threads started and daily / monthly attacks and mud-throwing at Christianity. He hates Christianity, can't get past that, and has an agenda to make sure as many people know that every day. He's got the spotlight cranked up on him, his soapbox, and his little world. Do your research and get up to speed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
