Christian "purpose" and "meaning" in life.

[Lemonvariable72]

Sometimes it helps to restate the opposing positions.

My side says that mankind has a propensity to make "WooWoo" gods with supernatural powers to comfort them in their vast ignorance. The Christian god was created from a combining of the ancient Jordanian and Israel gods about 2000 bc. and the jewish religion born of that was doing well until the roman occupations. Christianity sprouted from multiple dissent groups within the mid-east Jewry that demanded a Messiah to deliver them from the hands of the Romans. When the reality became evident that that wasn't going to happen, A writer named "Paul" created the whole "jesus was the son of god and his messiah-ship meant something new, that he didn't have to save us from the Romans, he had to save us from the Debbil, and a new burning hell." Sleekly plying men's fear of death, and finally convincing a roman emperor of the silly new religion, the word of jesus was spread at the tip of a spear and became a mishmash of the old roman pagan beliefs and the new jesus jewism. As new generations were raised in this religion, new writers constantly polished both the words and the hard sell.
And boom that is why you are a christian. No god involved except for the one that you imagine talking telepathically in "warm feeling" code during your prayers.

I presume your version tows the line that you were one day touched by guilt and prayed to jesus to save you and that he told you in a magical elf voice in your head that he loved you and that he is going to save you from himself and your deserved punishment of hell.


Am I way off??

First of all, your explanation of how Christianity came about is really silly and the Jews were expecting the messiah long before they were occupied by the Romans. Read the prophets. As far as how I became a christian - I was raised as a Catholic and so had plenty of guilt to deal with since I was a kid. I really wasn't a christian I just spent my time trying to follow all the rules and going to confession every so often to confess the times I broke them. I figured that when judgement came if my good stuff outweighed my bad stuff I would go to heaven. I did pretty well until I went overseas in the military and was away from the family and I became a drunken whore monger. I'd even wake up on Sunday mornings with a major hangover, with whatever woman I happened to sleep with that night, and hurried to the base chapel for mass. When I returned to the US I happened to get in with some friends who were Christians and they introduced me to the faith. It wasn't long after that I realized I wasn't going to get to heaven by my own means, so I put my faith in Christ to get me there. Since then I've been trying my best to follow what he taught, and over time, with the help of the Spirit it's getting better, but I wont't be perfect until I get to heaven.

Truth be told your explanation for how Christianity is even worse. At least brake mans explanation will account for why the Jews are still here and why there is no note of Jesus at all until Paul wrote his epistle to the thessolians around 50 ad. More over once you know the dates of the new testament literature you can actually watch the growth of the myth in the bible. For example the first gospel penned, mark has no ressurection scene in the earliest copies and the least miracles. Also in mark Jesus does not claim to be the son of god irrc, and instead the gospel focuses more on the moral teaching Jesus. The gospel of luke came next and that was the idea of the virgin birth came from as well as the ressurection. Then we have matthew shortly after taking the works of luke and mark and trying to fit it all with the old testament in order to make it appeal to the Jews. Lastly and at least 20 years later we have john which by Christian admission sits oddly next to the three synaptic gospels which portrays Jesus as a full on rock star . This is from established and respected bible scholarship too. So therefore brakeman's description is quite apt.

[Ksa]

Coming to my question, brother, are you circumcised?

That's a personal question. Why do you ask?

---

So you've never heard gods voice? God has never spoken to you at all, and you just trust the stories and the other people who do claim to have conversations with god to decide if you are "saved" or not?

He never spoke English words to me. Most of his communication has been through the scriptures.

Oh, your God (Jesus) that had no beginning and no end was circumcised when he was 8 days old. I was trying to determine if you follow your master Jesus or if you just play pretend. Also, do you have pork or alcohol?

[Lek]

Oh, your God (Jesus) that had no beginning and no end was circumcised when he was 8 days old. I was trying to determine if you follow your master Jesus or if you just play pretend. Also, do you have pork or alcohol?

I follow the teachings of Jesus. He was brought up as a Jew and was circumcised according to the Jewish law, but he never commanded that we be circumcised. In fact, the main reason that he was crucified was that he upset the Jewish establishment by teaching the people that they didn't have to follow the provisions of the old testament law. He broke the law at times such as healing on the Sabbath. I don't know if he ate pork, but he drank wine at the last supper, though there's no reports of him getting drunk at any time.

[Foxaèr]

Too many claims and no evidence makes Jesus fictional.

[Lek]

Truth be told your explanation for how Christianity is even worse. At least brake mans explanation will account for why the Jews are still here and why there is no note of Jesus at all until Paul wrote his epistle to the thessolians around 50 ad. More over once you know the dates of the new testament literature you can actually watch the growth of the myth in the bible. For example the first gospel penned, mark has no ressurection scene in the earliest copies and the least miracles. Also in mark Jesus does not claim to be the son of god irrc, and instead the gospel focuses more on the moral teaching Jesus. The gospel of luke came next and that was the idea of the virgin birth came from as well as the ressurection. Then we have matthew shortly after taking the works of luke and mark and trying to fit it all with the old testament in order to make it appeal to the Jews. Lastly and at least 20 years later we have john which by Christian admission sits oddly next to the three synaptic gospels which portrays Jesus as a full on rock star . This is from established and respected bible scholarship too. So therefore brakeman's description is quite apt.

You are right the gospels writers were writing to different audiences and were trying to portray the gospel in a way that would be attractive to their readers. Why does that mean that they changed or added anything to the true story? They called on different aspects of his ministry to make the points they were trying to make. It demonstrates more clearly that the gospels were not part of a conspiracy to promote a false doctrine. If you think brakeman's description is apt go ahead, but it's nothing but conjecture.

[Faith No More]

LOL...are you actually claiming that inconsistencies in the bible actually support its validity?

[Lek]

LOL...are you actually claiming that inconsistencies in the bible actually support its validity?

I'm not talking about inconsistencies. I'm talking about using different words to describe the same event or talking about different events or aspects to Jesus's ministry. When people are lying they get together and try to make sure that everyone says he same thing. If all the gospel writers wrote exactly the same, referring to exactly the same events, it would seem to be contrived.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

LOL...are you actually claiming that inconsistencies in the bible actually support its validity?

I'm not talking about inconsistencies. I'm talking about using different words to describe the same event or talking about different events or aspects to Jesus's ministry. When people are lying they get together and try to make sure that everyone says he same thing. If all the gospel writers wrote exactly the same, referring to exactly the same events, it would seem to be contrived.

LOL.

Talk about having your cake and eating it.

What about the opposing, and seemingly far more likely perspective, that whoever wrote the gospels couldn't get their story straight when inventing the content so guessed as best they could?

Contrary to what you replied to FNM, you are talking about inconsistencies. I suppose any contradictions in the gospels you just chalk up to 'using different language', right?

Pull the other one.

[Lemonvariable72]

Truth be told your explanation for how Christianity is even worse. At least brake mans explanation will account for why the Jews are still here and why there is no note of Jesus at all until Paul wrote his epistle to the thessolians around 50 ad. More over once you know the dates of the new testament literature you can actually watch the growth of the myth in the bible. For example the first gospel penned, mark has no ressurection scene in the earliest copies and the least miracles. Also in mark Jesus does not claim to be the son of god irrc, and instead the gospel focuses more on the moral teaching Jesus. The gospel of luke came next and that was the idea of the virgin birth came from as well as the ressurection. Then we have matthew shortly after taking the works of luke and mark and trying to fit it all with the old testament in order to make it appeal to the Jews. Lastly and at least 20 years later we have john which by Christian admission sits oddly next to the three synaptic gospels which portrays Jesus as a full on rock star . This is from established and respected bible scholarship too. So therefore brakeman's description is quite apt.

You are right the gospels writers were writing to different audiences and were trying to portray the gospel in a way that would be attractive to their readers. Why does that mean that they changed or added anything to the true story? They called on different aspects of his ministry to make the points they were trying to make. It demonstrates more clearly that the gospels were not part of a conspiracy to promote a false doctrine. If you think brakeman's description is apt go ahead, but it's nothing but conjecture.

Actually we know of a few things that were added later, for example the early copys of mark end with the cruxicifiction, no rising from the dead. That was added later. Also the story of let he who is with sin cast the stone is a another addition from much later. Many bible scholars also think the first copies of luke had no virgin birth scene.
If you want know more I'd recommend the video of a regular user here, deistpaladin. I'll even post the first video in the important playlist here

[Brakeman]

So you've never heard gods voice? God has never spoken to you at all, and you just trust the stories and the other people who do claim to have conversations with god to decide if you are "saved" or not?

He never spoke English words to me. Most of his communication has been through the scriptures.

So he's not a personal god at all to you, he doesn't have time to talk to you in your prayers? Isn't prayer supposed to be communication with god?
Do you otherwise have deep conversations with an unconnected phone? Doesn't it bother you that you never got confirmation that jesus has agreed that you are repentant enough to be worthy of his salvation?
Hell, when I get in a taxi, I won't close the door until I'm sure that the driver is in the front seat and verbally acknowledges me, yet you are so flippant with your eternal life or damnation that you don't even expect a confirmation that you and your priests or whatever have the story correct and have properly complied with the rules god sent unverifiable men thousands of years ago.

Faith does equal gullibility..