The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return(ericneyman.wordpress.com)
ericneyman.wordpress.com
The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return
https://ericneyman.wordpress.com/2025/03/24/will-jesus-christ-return-in-an-election-year/
642 comments
This is a reminder of how prediction markets don't always accurately estimate probability of events happening.
The most interesting part of the article IMO was the fact that the 3% probability is artificially high because there is no one willing to take the otherside of the bet, because betting "No" requires you to give your money to the prediction market for 6+ months, and if you're only getting a 1% return if you win the bet, you'll make more money if you put the cash in a high yield savings account.
Seems like prediction/betting markets only really work well when there is a reasonable chance of either outcome occurring, and is less accurate the more obvious one outcome is compared to another?
The most interesting part of the article IMO was the fact that the 3% probability is artificially high because there is no one willing to take the otherside of the bet, because betting "No" requires you to give your money to the prediction market for 6+ months, and if you're only getting a 1% return if you win the bet, you'll make more money if you put the cash in a high yield savings account.
Seems like prediction/betting markets only really work well when there is a reasonable chance of either outcome occurring, and is less accurate the more obvious one outcome is compared to another?
> This is a reminder of how prediction markets don't always accurately estimate probability of events happening.
I'm well aware that people believe that these markets are accurate estimators of probability of events, but I've (as a life long gambler) always viewed it as a measure of people's confidence in an event happening at a particular probability. People are wrong/delusional at scale all the time (think of the mandela effect), it can be the case that large groups of them converge on the right outcome via market forces, but it kind of makes the big assumption every participant is in good faith, rational, and informed.
I'm well aware that people believe that these markets are accurate estimators of probability of events, but I've (as a life long gambler) always viewed it as a measure of people's confidence in an event happening at a particular probability. People are wrong/delusional at scale all the time (think of the mandela effect), it can be the case that large groups of them converge on the right outcome via market forces, but it kind of makes the big assumption every participant is in good faith, rational, and informed.
I came here to say this, but you explained it better than I could have. At 3% odds, it's not worth it to participate in this market because a money market fund gives a better return, even if you believe the odds of this happening are 0 (and they're never 0, there was a first coming of Jesus after all, you don't have to believe in the supernatural to see how it could happen.)
It’s possible I’m being a jerk, but actually maybe betting services could do a social good: allowing people who believe things despite all reason to incur some small cost to themselves and hopefully course-correct?
We can even both-sides this; Hillary fans and people who believe Jesus will come back soon are usually on opposing sides, right?
We can even both-sides this; Hillary fans and people who believe Jesus will come back soon are usually on opposing sides, right?
Prediction markets were initially proposed to provide a social good, the idea being that the ratio of the current price of a share in a prediction market to the value of that share if the market resolves to "yes" is how likely the market thinks the market is to resolve "yes" as a probability. The social good is that you could use this to predict the future.
The people who were “Yes” hillary stans were very much not hillary fans. very much the opposite. much of it seemed fueled by far right wing conspiracy theories
Sounds similar in theme with what happened to Hertz. I think at some point it was bankrupt but speculation still had the share price way above what it was worth (nothing).
The original shares ended up being worth $8. There might have been a point during the bankruptcy were they were worth nothing (due to changing used car values) but in the end they were worth something.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/12/hertz-investors-snag-8-a-share...
https://nypost.com/2021/05/12/hertz-investors-snag-8-a-share...
Yea but that's the thing, if a company is bankrupt, shouldn't it be 0? Like rationally? In that sense, it feels thematically similar as people were trying to outsmart each other with trickery.
Rationally, I agree. But IRL it's surprisingly hard to measure the value of a company - both the assets and the value of continuing operations - even without considering they are in constant flux, even if there's no trickery.
there's a really interesting book called "When Prophecy Fails" that documents a doomesday cult. the cult had predicted a huge flood sometime in the 1950s and some sociologists infiltrated the group posing as believers to document their psychological response to the calamity not occuring
one of the core theses of the book is that adherents to a prophecy paradoxically believe in it much more strongly AFTER it's been disproven
one of the core theses of the book is that adherents to a prophecy paradoxically believe in it much more strongly AFTER it's been disproven
This is exactly what the article is arguing people are doing when betting on the Jesus thing:
> [Time Value of Money] The Yes people are betting that, later this year, their counterparties (the No betters) will want cash (to bet on other markets), and so will sell out of their No positions at a higher price.
...
> Has this galaxy-brained trade ever gone well? Yes! In late October of last year — a week before the election — Kamala Harris was trading around 0.3% in safe red states like Kentucky, while Donald Trump was trading around 0.3% in safe blue states like Massachusetts. On election day, these prices skyrocketed to about 1.5%, because “No” bettors desperately needed cash to place other bets on the election. Traders who bought “Yes” for 0.3% in late October and sold at 1.5% on election day made a 5x profit!
> [Time Value of Money] The Yes people are betting that, later this year, their counterparties (the No betters) will want cash (to bet on other markets), and so will sell out of their No positions at a higher price.
...
> Has this galaxy-brained trade ever gone well? Yes! In late October of last year — a week before the election — Kamala Harris was trading around 0.3% in safe red states like Kentucky, while Donald Trump was trading around 0.3% in safe blue states like Massachusetts. On election day, these prices skyrocketed to about 1.5%, because “No” bettors desperately needed cash to place other bets on the election. Traders who bought “Yes” for 0.3% in late October and sold at 1.5% on election day made a 5x profit!
No, not really. What I was doing was playing predictable spikes in volatility in the market over a long span - theoretically i could have done it forever had the market never closed. I also doubt the hillary market moved because of liquidation needs in other markets - it was driven almost entirely by conspiracy theory news. I followed it very closely, it was not this at all.
So, there are actual geopolitical ramifications of this metric.
A lot of US protestant theology is rooted in a concept called "dispensationalism" that was introduced in the mid 1800s. It's a heady concept to explain, but essentially it comes down to a few linked core concepts:
- The secret, sudden arrival of Jesus to "rapture" believers away
- The world is getting worse, not better. There is limited use in improving society.
- Strict literalist interpretation of all scripture (where convenient, obv)
- An individual's ability to discern scripture as well as the state of the world
- Obsession with Israel as a nation-state
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/dispe...
By tracking this number, you have a good proxy for the current fervor of a lot of intertwined political concepts in the US.
A lot of US protestant theology is rooted in a concept called "dispensationalism" that was introduced in the mid 1800s. It's a heady concept to explain, but essentially it comes down to a few linked core concepts:
- The secret, sudden arrival of Jesus to "rapture" believers away
- The world is getting worse, not better. There is limited use in improving society.
- Strict literalist interpretation of all scripture (where convenient, obv)
- An individual's ability to discern scripture as well as the state of the world
- Obsession with Israel as a nation-state
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/dispe...
By tracking this number, you have a good proxy for the current fervor of a lot of intertwined political concepts in the US.
- The world is getting worse, not better. There is limited use in improving society.
That sounds like 19th century fire and brimstone revivalism. Most Christians are not that nihilistic. The sects that survive and flourish tend to be those that don't impose a fatalistic view of the world.
That sounds like 19th century fire and brimstone revivalism. Most Christians are not that nihilistic. The sects that survive and flourish tend to be those that don't impose a fatalistic view of the world.
I agree with the sentiment, but in this specific case, the "nihilism" is more of a green card to do whatever to better your own life, as there is no point improving anyone else's, just focus on yourself and survive.
So here it could be seen as an excuse to not only exploit existing systems, but also to avoid attempts at fixing them.
So in a way, holders of such fatalistic believes are ironically flourishing
So here it could be seen as an excuse to not only exploit existing systems, but also to avoid attempts at fixing them.
So in a way, holders of such fatalistic believes are ironically flourishing
Is that religion or that just a popular social sentiment held by religious individuals and communities? I understand how it might be hard to tell the difference with heavily fractured Christian sects. Are pastors writing theological treatise on this, are they addressing it in sermons or is this just a shared attitude reinforced by other small town attitudes?
Very good question and I'm not sure, we should investigate it further
but what I'll push back a bit on is that not all fatalistic convictions result in the death or collapse of the sect holding them, and sometimes it could be the main driver of their success
but what I'll push back a bit on is that not all fatalistic convictions result in the death or collapse of the sect holding them, and sometimes it could be the main driver of their success
Interesting but US isn't the only country that does this. There's an entire religion that was imported out of virtue signaling politics that rose out of the economic comforts afforded by this "protestant theology" that defeated a major superpower.
Fast forward to today, that foreign religion has multiplied (largely due to religious customs) while the local population has dwindled and lost much of its power owing to a political ideology overriding theology.
I see this foreign religion not being compatible with the host country's religion or value system and that many are rallying behind a sort of pan-Western theology to counter the many social issues throughout.
Fast forward to today, that foreign religion has multiplied (largely due to religious customs) while the local population has dwindled and lost much of its power owing to a political ideology overriding theology.
I see this foreign religion not being compatible with the host country's religion or value system and that many are rallying behind a sort of pan-Western theology to counter the many social issues throughout.
The discussion in Polymarket revolves around the trustworthiness of the market creator and their resolution criteria. Any discussion here that doesn't consider those things is missing the forest for the trees. The market isn't really about Jesus. Jesus is just the engagement hook. It's the reason this post has 147+ comments on Hacker News and $500k+ in market transactions on Polymarket. There's very little stopping the market creator from citing a guineapig pet lovers blog as his source with a claim that Jesus has returned as an adorable little guy with too much rizz to be anything other than the second coming.
The article does mention those things. It doesn't consider them big factors. And "the market isn't really about Jesus" is the article's whole point!
Fair resolution is the single biggest issue with prediction markets. I don't see how a market resolution based on the occurrence of a supernatural event isn't a problem.
This is Polymarket, not Manifold. It's not "anyone can create a market and can resolve it however they want". Polymarket creates the markets and resolves them, so an unfair resolution could undercut their reputation and hurt their business. People know what "Jesus returning" means and if they interpret it some other way people won't just say "oh well I guess that was technically within the criteria".
Again, this is in the article! If you want to argue it's a problem, you should start by responding to what the article has to say on the subject, not just asserting it from scratch as if it isn't discussed!
Again, this is in the article! If you want to argue it's a problem, you should start by responding to what the article has to say on the subject, not just asserting it from scratch as if it isn't discussed!
> Polymarket creates the markets and resolves them
3rd party systems resolve them: https://legacy-docs.polymarket.com/polymarket-+-uma
3rd party systems resolve them: https://legacy-docs.polymarket.com/polymarket-+-uma
Especially good callout in the context of Jesus returning. It would look very different today, but there was one who was pretty damn close to pulling it off - would be curious when poly market calls the bet. Chatgpt summary -
* Sabbatai Zevi (17th century): One of the most famous false Jewish Messiahs. He gained a massive following across the Jewish world. However, when faced with the Ottoman Sultan's choice between conversion to Islam or death, he converted. This conversion was a devastating blow to his followers and essentially a public "recantation" of his messianic claim, though not necessarily an admission of it being a lie on his part as much as a desperate act to save his life. Many of his followers were deeply disillusioned, while others continued to believe in him even after his conversion, developing complex theological explanations for his actions.
* Sabbatai Zevi (17th century): One of the most famous false Jewish Messiahs. He gained a massive following across the Jewish world. However, when faced with the Ottoman Sultan's choice between conversion to Islam or death, he converted. This conversion was a devastating blow to his followers and essentially a public "recantation" of his messianic claim, though not necessarily an admission of it being a lie on his part as much as a desperate act to save his life. Many of his followers were deeply disillusioned, while others continued to believe in him even after his conversion, developing complex theological explanations for his actions.
A willingness to die for his claim would be a meaningful addition to the resolution criteria.
The settlement criteria for most of these is pretty strict and clearly laid out in the terms.
> The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources.
That is pretty sparse, but I suspect Polymarket has a vested interest in making sure this resolves appropriately (as noted in the article). I do like the use of the guineapig with rizz anyway.
> The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources.
That is pretty sparse, but I suspect Polymarket has a vested interest in making sure this resolves appropriately (as noted in the article). I do like the use of the guineapig with rizz anyway.
Great point. Never forget about counterparty risk!
[deleted]
If Jesus returned, people wouldn't believe it unanimously; it would be a scissor like everything else. (I don't even want to give examples.)
Conversely, if Jesus has not returned, some people can be convinced that he has.
Which brings me to the criteria. What are acceptable criteria? Maybe, "will a plurality of people believe that Jesus has returned in 2025?"
Eschatological cults routinely convince small numbers of followers that the end is coming. Hustlers do this all the time. I've been told personally, directly, that we know the date. It's coming. (The date in question came and went.)
Given the above, could 2025 be the year of Deep Fake Jesus?
Deep Fake Rapture?
Conversely, if Jesus has not returned, some people can be convinced that he has.
Which brings me to the criteria. What are acceptable criteria? Maybe, "will a plurality of people believe that Jesus has returned in 2025?"
Eschatological cults routinely convince small numbers of followers that the end is coming. Hustlers do this all the time. I've been told personally, directly, that we know the date. It's coming. (The date in question came and went.)
Given the above, could 2025 be the year of Deep Fake Jesus?
Deep Fake Rapture?
> Given the above, could 2025 be the year of Deep Fake Jesus?
It does make one think, at least.
"Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many."
It does make one think, at least.
"Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many."
Polymarket itself has a very strong incentive to offer interesting long odd bets, in the hopes that anyone bites.
They get the time value of your money.
And it makes the site more interesting. It's free PR.
It would be very surprising if they don't know this and are not taking advantage of the dynamic. It isn't even sketchy, nobody loses any value they didn't choose to lose.
They get the time value of your money.
And it makes the site more interesting. It's free PR.
It would be very surprising if they don't know this and are not taking advantage of the dynamic. It isn't even sketchy, nobody loses any value they didn't choose to lose.
The way they will arrive at the answer is very vague... "The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources."
I'd like to know the list of said sources and what consensus means (51%?). Presumably, this question can be asked and answered every minute? hour? so we could have up to the minute coverage of the second coming.
I'd like to know the list of said sources and what consensus means (51%?). Presumably, this question can be asked and answered every minute? hour? so we could have up to the minute coverage of the second coming.
It's worth nothing that it takes less money than you may expect to significantly shift a prediction market's trading price. This article, while its tone aged poorly with the relevant election results, covers the math behind this quite well.
https://quantian.substack.com/p/market-prices-are-not-probab...
https://quantian.substack.com/p/market-prices-are-not-probab...
> This article, while its tone aged poorly with the relevant election results,
While I get your point, it’s critical to recognise that betting 90% on a six being rolled doesn’t make you correct when a six is rolled. You can believe polymarket was truly mispriced even with this outcome
While I get your point, it’s critical to recognise that betting 90% on a six being rolled doesn’t make you correct when a six is rolled. You can believe polymarket was truly mispriced even with this outcome
The somewhat moribund Foresight Exchange which is a ~30 year old play money idea futures market has discussed this idea a lot over the years, even to the point of having a number of "True" claims of exactly the form described in the article, such as http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=T2015
The elephant in the room is who controls/decides on the outcome.
See https://decrypt.co/311634/polymarket-allegations-oracle-mani...
See https://decrypt.co/311634/polymarket-allegations-oracle-mani...
This is in no way unmentioned in the article! It doesn't consider this a big factor, but it absolutely mentions it.
Bump!
To summarize the article: buying the Yes side of this market is like shorting treasuries. It's not a bet that treasuries will default, but rather a macro bet about that demand for cash (i.e. interest rates) will increase.
Calling my bookie to run some numbers on Pascal's Wager...
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager)
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager)
This article fails to address that most true believers would not see any point to betting on the yes. If Christ returns this year, the world is done and there is no upside to having bet that he would. Temporal things (like prediction markets) will cease to be interesting when Christ returns. Given that, I highly doubt that the people betting yes actually believe that Christ will return this year.
Performing faith has significant social value. It's not that they expect they'll want the money after the bet pays off, it's that they want to show everyone else how sure they are that this is definitely going to happen because when they do a bunch of people they consider to be peers will shower them in praise and validation.
Hypothetically, its an expensive commitment that proves one's faith. Anyone can say jesus is coming, but less people are willing to put their money where their mouth is.
The upside isn't the important part - the downside is. It proves that you really believe what you say.
This happens all the time with countries when they are negotiating. E.g. Russia is pretty unimpressed when countries say they are going to give ukraine weapons unless there is a ceasefire. Its all cheap talk. If one of the countries bought the weapons first (that they otherwise would not of) and then threatens to give them to ukraine, its much more credible since they have sunk money into it.
Or you could look at the animal kingdom with energy expensive mating rituals. The point is to waste resources in order to prove your commitment.
Examples of this sort of thing show up all over the world.
The upside isn't the important part - the downside is. It proves that you really believe what you say.
This happens all the time with countries when they are negotiating. E.g. Russia is pretty unimpressed when countries say they are going to give ukraine weapons unless there is a ceasefire. Its all cheap talk. If one of the countries bought the weapons first (that they otherwise would not of) and then threatens to give them to ukraine, its much more credible since they have sunk money into it.
Or you could look at the animal kingdom with energy expensive mating rituals. The point is to waste resources in order to prove your commitment.
Examples of this sort of thing show up all over the world.
Is the purpose to collect money, or is it to proselytize? It may as well be a "Keep the name of Jesus and the thought of his return relevant"
Not true. The majority of people who actually believe Jesus will return are Muslims who believe he will oversee an earthly kingdom for 7 years. The world doesn't end with that event.
Not sure if you are making a nuanced claim about the proportions of self-identified adherents who actually subscribe to orthodoxies, but the population statistics generally cut against your claim.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/374704/share-of-global-p...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/374704/share-of-global-p...
If not "the majority", then a proportion conceivably large enough to affect the polymarket results.
Isn't that subset of the population also very likely to believe that gambling is haram?
Technically, prediction markets aren't gambling, they're soothsaying, which is a form of witchcraft punishable by death.
Don't you need to be using magic for it to be soothsaying?
Isn't the entire field of Islamic finance legal (moral?) loopholes that turn the haram into halal?
No.
Touche
More basic than that, I doubt he would take kindly to people placing bets on him.
I'll never skip an opportunity to point out that of all the evil he faced, only the financiers were actually able to drive Jesus to the point of violence.
> If Christ returns this year, the world is done
If you believe in the literal statement about only 144,000 people being saved and in a pre-tribulation rapture, then “the world is done” only applies to a trivially small number of people.
If you believe in the literal statement about only 144,000 people being saved and in a pre-tribulation rapture, then “the world is done” only applies to a trivially small number of people.
I'm not a theologian, but if this were to happen I don't suppose the unsaved would be able to peacefully play the prediction markets during the tribulation. It sounds bad.
The tribulation occurs 7 years after 144,000 of the most boring most devout people disappeared forever.
Are you sure you would even notice? Especially not for long.
Supernatural things won't start occurring again for 7 years, and in a fairly slow drip. Unexplained loud trumpets in the sky? Natural disasters that already occur?
This isn't an issue regarding the existence of money and markets. That still functions. Maybe even in more degenerate ways than before, which is super exciting!
Are you sure you would even notice? Especially not for long.
Supernatural things won't start occurring again for 7 years, and in a fairly slow drip. Unexplained loud trumpets in the sky? Natural disasters that already occur?
This isn't an issue regarding the existence of money and markets. That still functions. Maybe even in more degenerate ways than before, which is super exciting!
I was misled by the marketing. The tribulation seems to be less annoying than most of modern life.
Its really funny to think that some obscure ancient middle eastern sect or island nation will be the only ones to disappear in the rapture.
Its far more likely that everyone is practicing the wrong path to salvation. Given how much its been retconned just to be appealing and palatable as the religion grew, most differences between sects are arguments about the retcons, while ancestor versions of the religion are ignored and too unattractive to consider.
Its far more likely that everyone is practicing the wrong path to salvation. Given how much its been retconned just to be appealing and palatable as the religion grew, most differences between sects are arguments about the retcons, while ancestor versions of the religion are ignored and too unattractive to consider.
Jokes aside, it would be interesting to see if the people betting "yes" are also placing predictions on events after 2025 since truly believing in Christ's return that year should make many irrelevant.
This would be less revealing than you'd hope. If NASA did a press conference this afternoon telling you that there was an inbound planet-killer that would annihilate us in six weeks, you'd still brush your teeth tonight. It wouldn't be that you'd didn't believe them either, it's that your mind isn't rational in the way that we like to flatter ourselves. Your mind's this big burlap sack of agents, and they aren't in perfect sync. The one that tells you what will happen in 24 months isn't the same one that plans out your routines... the latter can still have you behaving in ways that make no sense considering the strongly-confident predictions of the former.
There is evidence of this everywhere, in nearly every person you meet. Including yourself. If even skeptical atheists act that way, why would the bible-thumpers be different? If they weren't different, how would that be an indictment of their belief?
There is evidence of this everywhere, in nearly every person you meet. Including yourself. If even skeptical atheists act that way, why would the bible-thumpers be different? If they weren't different, how would that be an indictment of their belief?
I would brush my teeth so my mouth tastes better in the morning
You'd still want to hedge.
Right? If you believe the odds of something are 51/49, you can say both 1) I believe the event is more likely than not, and 2) I absolutely will not bet the farm on the event.
I've tried to explain this to people before. Polymarket's contracts aren't purely poles for people's predictions, some people just want to be long volatility for any number of reasons.
The recent doge tax refund is a good example. If you want to be guaranteed payment you could bet on no even if you think it's a coinflip.
The recent doge tax refund is a good example. If you want to be guaranteed payment you could bet on no even if you think it's a coinflip.
>Polymarket's contracts aren't purely poles for people's predictions
Polymarket propositions purportedly powerless as pure poles for popular predictions?
Polymarket propositions purportedly powerless as pure poles for popular predictions?
That's an argument in support of the article's thesis, not against it. It doesn't make sense to say that the article doesn't "address" it. It's true that it doesn't mention it, but there's no sense in phrasing that like it's an argument against the article's point!
There is the potential for psychology, I think, where people who do not truly believe but that do want that religion (or something like it) to be true, and so perversely hope for "Christ's return" even if that means they will be damned. For them, they will have gotten to witness something non-boring, something truly important, even for the first time (and last) in their lives. I can't decide if this fits the definition of "believer" or not.
True, but most Christianity, esp in the USA is truly anti-Christ
Also, if Christ did return, the first thing he's doing is probably whipping traders. So watch out Polymarket users!
[flagged]
Even worse, they spend every cent on stupid prepper bullshit like freeze dried rations!
Rations will not help you or your family if civilization breaks down. Without a literal army, you are no more powerful than the ones who did nothing to prepare. All rations do is ensure that you starve to death a month later than expected.
Even better, those of you that collected guns and ammo as a hobby are about as prepared as the people who jokingly collect bottle caps in reference to Fallout. You have ensured you die first.
If you are not currently capable of planting, tending, and harvesting an entire acre of potatoes every year, you will not survive post civilization. If you do not have a stable of oxen and a simple machine shop to repair the old fashioned steel plow you own, you will not survive. If you do not already have fully formed pest control, without chemical inputs or external solutions, you will not survive.
It took humanity thousands of years to develop agriculture. Farming isn't a game. You will not pick it up after the end of civilization. You will not get it right on the first try. You will not reinvent it while hungry. Even if you get lucky and nothing goes wrong for a few growing seasons, you WILL have a failed crop eventually, and you will starve. Even successful farming is an eventual death sentence without civilization.
People who prep for "after the end" are not serious people. If you had a serious concern about the potential fall of civilization, you would not buy food and bullets, you would be throwing every resource you have at improving democratic representation and access, to prevent civilization from falling.
It might not be possible to restart if we kill it.
Prepping is like trying to develop a backup strategy after the datacenter has already burned down. Even if you are successful, have you really, honestly, considered what success looks like?
Rations will not help you or your family if civilization breaks down. Without a literal army, you are no more powerful than the ones who did nothing to prepare. All rations do is ensure that you starve to death a month later than expected.
Even better, those of you that collected guns and ammo as a hobby are about as prepared as the people who jokingly collect bottle caps in reference to Fallout. You have ensured you die first.
If you are not currently capable of planting, tending, and harvesting an entire acre of potatoes every year, you will not survive post civilization. If you do not have a stable of oxen and a simple machine shop to repair the old fashioned steel plow you own, you will not survive. If you do not already have fully formed pest control, without chemical inputs or external solutions, you will not survive.
It took humanity thousands of years to develop agriculture. Farming isn't a game. You will not pick it up after the end of civilization. You will not get it right on the first try. You will not reinvent it while hungry. Even if you get lucky and nothing goes wrong for a few growing seasons, you WILL have a failed crop eventually, and you will starve. Even successful farming is an eventual death sentence without civilization.
People who prep for "after the end" are not serious people. If you had a serious concern about the potential fall of civilization, you would not buy food and bullets, you would be throwing every resource you have at improving democratic representation and access, to prevent civilization from falling.
It might not be possible to restart if we kill it.
Prepping is like trying to develop a backup strategy after the datacenter has already burned down. Even if you are successful, have you really, honestly, considered what success looks like?
I'll throw in my $0.02 on this topic. I have a basement full of shelf stable foods, a reasonably large battery backup system plus some solar panels, and a couple of guns.
I don't see civilization collapsing overnight. I see it playing out as a series of scarce times that ebb and flow. I don't think the supermarket will go away, but I do think there will be times when it looks like those videos of Soviet groceries, where there's not much selection.
And I'm aware that natural disasters are increasing in frequency and cost/impact to a degree that the government won't or can't do anything about them. So I need to be able to weather the storms for a few months at a time.
As an aside, I also prepared by living in a neighborhood where people take care of each other and is close enough I can walk/bike to places.
Basically, I picture the USA collapse as turning the place into Puerto Rico, not Mad Max.
I don't see civilization collapsing overnight. I see it playing out as a series of scarce times that ebb and flow. I don't think the supermarket will go away, but I do think there will be times when it looks like those videos of Soviet groceries, where there's not much selection.
And I'm aware that natural disasters are increasing in frequency and cost/impact to a degree that the government won't or can't do anything about them. So I need to be able to weather the storms for a few months at a time.
As an aside, I also prepared by living in a neighborhood where people take care of each other and is close enough I can walk/bike to places.
Basically, I picture the USA collapse as turning the place into Puerto Rico, not Mad Max.
> I don't think the supermarket will go away, but I do think there will be times when it looks like those videos of Soviet groceries, where there's not much selection.
Seems to me we already saw that in 2020.
Seems to me we already saw that in 2020.
Yeah. My mindset is assume "2020" becomes a regular occurrence that gets progressively worse over time. And I'll mentally work through situations such as "2020 with an extended utilities outage", or "2020 but car travel is not possible", or "2020 plus pervasive violent hate crimes". Then we dry run for the weekend.
You learn a surprising amount in that first day. I.e., being stuck without power/internet/cell service/water, and realizing you can't watch DVDs on your laptop because they haven't come with disk drives for years. After the weekend, you end up with a list of issues to address, i.e., you buy a portable dvd drive and put together a Plex server with a bunch of locally-hosted media.
Honestly, I feel more capable and resilient than I ever have before. We had some tornadoes come through and we didn't even need to think about what to do, we went into our safe room which contains our go-bags, hiking food, critical docs, usb backups of key pass, battery backups and some ipads, and we chilled out watching a weather channel and listening to the emergency radio. Had a tornado hit our house, I'm confident we would have survived, been able to help the neighbors, and manage a few days until aid could come.
You learn a surprising amount in that first day. I.e., being stuck without power/internet/cell service/water, and realizing you can't watch DVDs on your laptop because they haven't come with disk drives for years. After the weekend, you end up with a list of issues to address, i.e., you buy a portable dvd drive and put together a Plex server with a bunch of locally-hosted media.
Honestly, I feel more capable and resilient than I ever have before. We had some tornadoes come through and we didn't even need to think about what to do, we went into our safe room which contains our go-bags, hiking food, critical docs, usb backups of key pass, battery backups and some ipads, and we chilled out watching a weather channel and listening to the emergency radio. Had a tornado hit our house, I'm confident we would have survived, been able to help the neighbors, and manage a few days until aid could come.
I think this is perhaps too negative. I'm not stocking up on rations or anything, but if you're out in the boonies and don't bring attention to yourself, what are the chances of post-civilization people coming across you? Having rations helps you survive until the rations run out, and having guns helps you negotiate with small groups.
Depending on where you are, food beyond the rations might be easy or hard. Where I live, we've got seasonal berries, and plenty of wildlife of various sizes. Potatoes grow easily, if you happen to have any to plant. Probably too many people around here to avoid detection though, but a couple hours drive in the right direction and you'd be in a better place for that. Plenty of fresh water if you know where to look; if the surface wells stop running, it'll simply come out of the ground most of the time.
If there's all of a sudden a lot less people, nature's abundance starts becoming more apparent. Indigenous peoples thrived in my area without modern technology. I'll have a damn hard time, but if I can find a peaceful community to join, we can probably make it work.
Depending on where you are, food beyond the rations might be easy or hard. Where I live, we've got seasonal berries, and plenty of wildlife of various sizes. Potatoes grow easily, if you happen to have any to plant. Probably too many people around here to avoid detection though, but a couple hours drive in the right direction and you'd be in a better place for that. Plenty of fresh water if you know where to look; if the surface wells stop running, it'll simply come out of the ground most of the time.
If there's all of a sudden a lot less people, nature's abundance starts becoming more apparent. Indigenous peoples thrived in my area without modern technology. I'll have a damn hard time, but if I can find a peaceful community to join, we can probably make it work.
Picking up on your acre of potatoes: no, you don't need oxen for this. In fact one reason for the importance of potatoes historically is that you can grow them on marginal land with only hand labour. There are various techniques such as the lazybeds used by displaced Highlanders in Scotland, but they don't need oxen. In fact oxen had their heyday before the iron ploughshare, as you needed a team to pull the older wooden plough, and the plough was used for planting grain. Of course these days it is also used for planting potatoes on rich land, but that's not essential.
And when there were no mass deaths they claimed it was because everyone got a fake shoot instead with water.
Which makes no sense at all. There is an evil conspiracy to kill everyone with a vaccine but then the conspiracists (guess doctors?) just give everyone a fake dose instead.
Which makes no sense at all. There is an evil conspiracy to kill everyone with a vaccine but then the conspiracists (guess doctors?) just give everyone a fake dose instead.
Hey now, that's not fair. They claimed the shot was fake so mass deaths weren't happening, and that the mass deaths happened but were covered up, and that the shot was engineered to delay the mass deaths in order to aid said coverup, and also several other things. It was the reality of the week club, whatever reality resonates with you, that's the actual truth and aren't you just the cleverest chap for picking up on it when all the "experts" and their "education" and "evidence" and "experience" all tried to cover up the real truth: You Were Right All Along.
They always said that it would be most visible 3-5 years after vaccination due to cumulative damage. I just did a quick search and am only finding numbers through 2023, the 2-year mark.
Other way around, the saline shots were supposedly given to important people so they could pretend to get the vaccination without having to actually do it.
Yea, that was the line at first. But when you asked them 1-2 years after the shots where all the dead vaccinated people are they often say it didnt happen because most didnt get the real vaccine (of course different anti-vaxxers are going to have different explantions. This is just some of them)
My experience was that they just disappeared; it became harder and harder to find anyone willing to propose any theory at all in that general ballpark.
[deleted]
In one prominent flavor of Christian lore, there would be 7 years where nothing happened except for the people that go missing during the rapture in an instant.
Wouldn't the inverse be true also? Why would non-believers bet yes? If they lose (which they see as the near certain case) they're out the money, if they win the money doesn't really offset eternal damnation. Seems like betting no is the only smart play regardless of personal beliefs.
Except for the actual logical reason presented in the post.
Markets will cease to be interesting?
I see you have not yet been blessed by the gospel of Supply-Side Jesus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-LJ_3VbUA
I see you have not yet been blessed by the gospel of Supply-Side Jesus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc-LJ_3VbUA
It could also be a way of showing just how much they believe - 'Jesus will return in X years and I'm willing to bet all I have on it!'
... and a lot of those folks don't think you should gamble! But really if it happened you wouldn't have any need for money, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sermon_on_the_Mount
God forbid you become rich at the last possible moment and then damn yourself for eternity in the process.
Doesn’t the Bible frown on gambling anyway?
Doesn’t the Bible frown on gambling anyway?
The primary reason to bet on something outlandish sounding is to take advantage of some inefficiency or other in the market.
[deleted]
I feel like it looks good on your rap sheet when you go before St. Peter. Maybe get a pardon of sorts?
It would be deeply un-American to believe in something that wouldn't make you rich.
Matthew 24:36: But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
Mark 13:32: But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
Mark 13:32: But of that day or hour, no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
The amounts involved are so small that I'm a little doubtful of this cashflow squeeze pattern actually working, but it doesn't have to work to drive markets.
Fun example is the old fax pump and dumps. You'd get some 'market prediction' fax for a penny stock that is very clearly just some pump and dump. No one buying thinks it's anything but a P&D. But they buy thinking other people will be tricked and that they'll get out before the suckers do... so sad for the P&D savvy buyers that they are, in fact, the suckers themselves. It was very important to the effectiveness of the scheme that the faxes be both obvious to be a P&D but also not so obvious that their targets couldn't imagine it fooling anyone.
The author though shouldn't underestimate people just spending their funds inefficiently. A lot of people are not really aware that they could just get a risk free return better than they'd get from this thing, and even when they are they've adopted a non-linear utility where they value some unlikely JesusMarket windfall as much more valuable than a (higher EV) bond return.
Humans seem to have a pretty predictable mishandling of extremely small probabilities. A lot of cons work by convincing the mark that there is a small (but real) odds of a windfall return.
This thing shows up in cryptocurrency markets all the time, you can have some token listed on an exchange with no information at all but some symbol/name and random people will plunk thousands of dollars on it.
To some extent there seems to be a kind of wealth brownian motion where your income is proportional to the number of pixels on the internet that, when clicked, cause funds to be transferred to you. Of course, having an actual REASON to pay you is even better, but it's not strictly necessary.
Fun example is the old fax pump and dumps. You'd get some 'market prediction' fax for a penny stock that is very clearly just some pump and dump. No one buying thinks it's anything but a P&D. But they buy thinking other people will be tricked and that they'll get out before the suckers do... so sad for the P&D savvy buyers that they are, in fact, the suckers themselves. It was very important to the effectiveness of the scheme that the faxes be both obvious to be a P&D but also not so obvious that their targets couldn't imagine it fooling anyone.
The author though shouldn't underestimate people just spending their funds inefficiently. A lot of people are not really aware that they could just get a risk free return better than they'd get from this thing, and even when they are they've adopted a non-linear utility where they value some unlikely JesusMarket windfall as much more valuable than a (higher EV) bond return.
Humans seem to have a pretty predictable mishandling of extremely small probabilities. A lot of cons work by convincing the mark that there is a small (but real) odds of a windfall return.
This thing shows up in cryptocurrency markets all the time, you can have some token listed on an exchange with no information at all but some symbol/name and random people will plunk thousands of dollars on it.
To some extent there seems to be a kind of wealth brownian motion where your income is proportional to the number of pixels on the internet that, when clicked, cause funds to be transferred to you. Of course, having an actual REASON to pay you is even better, but it's not strictly necessary.
I've been involved in prediction markets for a while, and this story highlights why I'm now more optimistic about using AI than crowdsourcing humans.
So much, possibly the vast majority, of intellectual energy that goes into prediction markets is not about forecasting. Like the example Eric gives of “This Market Will Resolve No At The End Of 2025”, it's about arbitrage, it's about edge cases, it's about interest rates, it's about resolution disputes, it's about sniping the dumb money faster than others.
Prediction markets are a brilliant way to incentivize accuracy and good research. But you don't see much of that on Polymarket.
So much, possibly the vast majority, of intellectual energy that goes into prediction markets is not about forecasting. Like the example Eric gives of “This Market Will Resolve No At The End Of 2025”, it's about arbitrage, it's about edge cases, it's about interest rates, it's about resolution disputes, it's about sniping the dumb money faster than others.
Prediction markets are a brilliant way to incentivize accuracy and good research. But you don't see much of that on Polymarket.
wow this is an absolutely fascinating angle, and one that is quite revelatory about markets in general: the price of an asset is affected by time value of money every bit as much about any other form of "value".
my intuition here would be that topics that are more "catnip"-y to "speculators" (which i'd lovingly more accurate call "degenerate gamblers") would be the one with the greatest "time value of money premium", such as it is... and also gets me wondering about how to model this topic preference because it seems like a very cool arbitrage opportunity...
my intuition here would be that topics that are more "catnip"-y to "speculators" (which i'd lovingly more accurate call "degenerate gamblers") would be the one with the greatest "time value of money premium", such as it is... and also gets me wondering about how to model this topic preference because it seems like a very cool arbitrage opportunity...
There's a related business for "After The Rapture Pet Care"
https://aftertherapturepetcare.com/
If anyone want to pay me in advance to take care of their cat after rapture, drop me a line!
https://aftertherapturepetcare.com/
If anyone want to pay me in advance to take care of their cat after rapture, drop me a line!
Newton spent the majority of his life trying to answer this question. It'd be more interesting if the question asked “Will Newton’s prediction that the Second Coming won’t happen before 2060 be correct?”, but that might be a bit too long for Polymarket.
I read many comments that essentially say, "Today's (how we practice) Christianity/churches are definitely not something he'd approve of when he returns".
I live in the largest Muslim country in the world, and I'd say the majority of people also think that the "commercialization" (for lack of a better term) of their religion is also "too much". It seems people do have a "conscience" (for lack of a better term). But why do we still see people selling God on TV (and it sells)?
It's like people complaining about their government, but they don't take action.
I live in the largest Muslim country in the world, and I'd say the majority of people also think that the "commercialization" (for lack of a better term) of their religion is also "too much". It seems people do have a "conscience" (for lack of a better term). But why do we still see people selling God on TV (and it sells)?
It's like people complaining about their government, but they don't take action.
It’s reasonable to not like something and realize you alone are powerless to change it. The actions necessary at this point require collective action. This is exceptionally hard when the public’s opinion is sliced and diced like a fat sow.
> I live in the largest Muslim country in the world
Are you a Muslim? I have a question for you... if I crawled onto your doorstep beaten and starving, would you invite me in and feed you? I am ignorant of Muslim teachings, and I don't know if this sort of things is covered...that's why I'm asking you.
I'm a Christian, and if you crawled onto MY doorstep, I would be ashamed with myself if I did not invite you in and care for you.
If your faith urges you to help the helpless, and my faith urges me to help the helpless... why do Muslims and Christians seem so opposed? If the news is to believe, we're like matter and anti-matter, we can't be friends, and at some point it always devolves to violence from one or both of the sides.
Are you a Muslim? I have a question for you... if I crawled onto your doorstep beaten and starving, would you invite me in and feed you? I am ignorant of Muslim teachings, and I don't know if this sort of things is covered...that's why I'm asking you.
I'm a Christian, and if you crawled onto MY doorstep, I would be ashamed with myself if I did not invite you in and care for you.
If your faith urges you to help the helpless, and my faith urges me to help the helpless... why do Muslims and Christians seem so opposed? If the news is to believe, we're like matter and anti-matter, we can't be friends, and at some point it always devolves to violence from one or both of the sides.
You should look up the free ebook by Bob Altemeyer called Authoritarians. It explains how religious organizations that highly value authority and discourage critical thinking get corrupted.
I'm not a Muslim, but I'm very sure it (and all religions, I suppose) has the same teachings.
In my opinion, they seem opposed because both religions claim to be the only source of truth and strongly try to spread that belief. It's like TAB vs SPACE, you can't have both in the same file, and ideally not in the same project.
In my opinion, they seem opposed because both religions claim to be the only source of truth and strongly try to spread that belief. It's like TAB vs SPACE, you can't have both in the same file, and ideally not in the same project.
Aren't the ones wagering yes basically acknowledging they've failed their religion? According to Christian scripture, they would have been raptured seven years prior to the return of Jesus.
Everyone just seems to assume that whether Jesus has returned will be obvious and easily verifiable. As if they could prove that Jesus isn't already here.
Matthew 24:4-31 describes -the exact- method of His return. The description is very much like an alien force deceleration within our solar system, and arriving en masse. It'll be noticeable worldwide. Read this and tell me if there's any ambiguity.
---
4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many people. 6 And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 And at that time many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will rise up and mislead many people. 12 And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will become cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place—let the reader understand— 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get things out of his house. 18 And whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those women who are pregnant, and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 Moreover, pray that when you flee, it will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘He is over here,’ do not believe him. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and will provide great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. 27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.
29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
---
Sun darkened. Heavens shaken. Loud trumpet sound. Host arriving. God didn't originate on Earth. Alien. Alien invasion. Re-invasion?
Neat huh? OH! Did you know the Bible also mentions a Dragon, called Leviathan. And zombies: "...they shall seek death and not find it. Death will flee from them..."
His story. Best story ever.
---
4 And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. 5 For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many people. 6 And you will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then they will hand you over to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name. 10 And at that time many will fall away, and they will betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will rise up and mislead many people. 12 And because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will become cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end is the one who will be saved. 14 This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place—let the reader understand— 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. 17 Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get things out of his house. 18 And whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. 19 But woe to those women who are pregnant, and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 Moreover, pray that when you flee, it will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will again. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. 23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘He is over here,’ do not believe him. 24 For false christs and false prophets will arise and will provide great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. 25 Behold, I have told you in advance. 26 So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. 27 For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes as far as the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. 28 Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.
29 “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
---
Sun darkened. Heavens shaken. Loud trumpet sound. Host arriving. God didn't originate on Earth. Alien. Alien invasion. Re-invasion?
Neat huh? OH! Did you know the Bible also mentions a Dragon, called Leviathan. And zombies: "...they shall seek death and not find it. Death will flee from them..."
His story. Best story ever.
the ambiguity is in the question on whether this should be taken literally.
also elsewhere it is stated that jesus will return like a thief in the night. so perhaps he was already here and most people haven't noticed.
also elsewhere it is stated that jesus will return like a thief in the night. so perhaps he was already here and most people haven't noticed.
I take a similar approach to investing on Masterworks (they sell shares of paintings). Most investors seem to buy the upfront offering, which is always $20/share, regardless of the painting. They don't seem to realize that MW holds onto the paintings for years, so it can be hard to cash out. Many will sell at a loss just to get their cash our before the painting is sold, so I can buy their shares very cheap.
High probability bets on polymarket usually pay worse than the prevailing interest rate, and on top of that you have to deal with counterparty risk.
This is mentioned in the link.
Are we sure this isn’t just that there is some set of bots that just vote contrarian opinions on polls that are nearly 100% in one direction just in hopes of gambling on the high return? It’s possible none of the bets on this topic are even aware how bizarre it is to vote yes.
Things are supposed to get real bad before it happens. World War 2 should have been it really, but I guess even that wasn’t bad enough. The gospel has also not been preached to every nation, so there are billions that are unaware of it (this is a prerequisite).
christianity has spread all over the world. it is being taught in every nation. all muslims know about jesus because mohammad too talks about him. buddhists and hindus have christian and muslim neighbors. so where are those unaware billions?
> But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
How much does this kind of Time Value of Money effect and other similar effects determine trading in the stock market? i.e. just trading based on predictions about what other traders will do rather than just beliefs about the value of the underlying assets?
The resolution source for this market will be a consensus of credible sources.
At the very least they should name the credible sources in advance, because the bet is on their credulity.
This is actually interesting. What would make you believe it? Is there any evidence at all?
I agree that almost anything I can think of would be more likely some kind of trick. Or in the most extreme examples I'd have to assume there's a good chance I was experiencing some kind of psychosis. So I'm not sure I could actually be convinced either. I suppose if I personally witnessed clearly impossible miracles being performed and multiple people I know and trust corroborated what I was seeing, that might do it.
I agree that almost anything I can think of would be more likely some kind of trick. Or in the most extreme examples I'd have to assume there's a good chance I was experiencing some kind of psychosis. So I'm not sure I could actually be convinced either. I suppose if I personally witnessed clearly impossible miracles being performed and multiple people I know and trust corroborated what I was seeing, that might do it.
It’s not a betting market though but a prediction market. There is no house and odds.
Talking about blind faith... people still bet on the Dallas Cowboys after all.
Well, but who would then buy the "yes" bet at an elevated price?
Right! The explanation in the article -- that "no" holders will need to sell to buy other things before the market resolves, pushing the price up -- doesn't make sense to me. Sure, maybe the price goes up shortly before the market closes, but that's a hell of a falling knife to try to catch.
subjective/intersubjective binary event market resolution is one of the most fascinating areas of crypto research
uma whales currently have a lot of influence on voting results, but I can't imagine that this won't be addressed at some point
https://rekt.news/hedging-bets
https://app.truemarkets.org/en
uma whales currently have a lot of influence on voting results, but I can't imagine that this won't be addressed at some point
https://rekt.news/hedging-bets
https://app.truemarkets.org/en
If you believe what the fans are saying then the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ is already happening, they just have a different name for it. They call it AI.
Good moment to reread the grand inquisitor to be prepared.
I think it's just interest rates.
I can easily get 3% per year investing in safe bonds, so I expect at least 3% to put money on any 100% safe bet.
I want to be paid for waiting X months
I can easily get 3% per year investing in safe bonds, so I expect at least 3% to put money on any 100% safe bet.
I want to be paid for waiting X months
That doesn't explain why there's a market for "Yes". For "No" to be worth 3% instead of 0%, there must be people who think "Yes" will in some way be worth 3% or more.
To be fair, if we're living in a simulation, Jesus does feel a bit like a Chekhov's gun.
The Good News is that He is en route; the other news is that His driver is named Godot.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fanfic/LeftBeyond I wrote a 500 page story about it, in which I tried to explain LLMs and model collapse, which wasn't bad for 2015.
Too bad the returns aren't high enough. 3% is lower than a savings account.
Lord almighty (lol) ... these folks are so ... I don't even know the word.
I have a different bet.
Let's suspend all advertising for Him, for two or three generations.
Will He revive?
Let's suspend all advertising for Him, for two or three generations.
Will He revive?
A relevant passage in the gospels is as follows [0]:
> Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
> “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Regardless of one's faith, from reading this text it is apparent that things would need to get substantially worse than they are today to warrant the return of Christ. In particular the part about being delivered up to tribulation--similar persecutions have happened in history but the scale necessary for such an event as described would be immense.
0: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024&ve...
> Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
> “Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.
Regardless of one's faith, from reading this text it is apparent that things would need to get substantially worse than they are today to warrant the return of Christ. In particular the part about being delivered up to tribulation--similar persecutions have happened in history but the scale necessary for such an event as described would be immense.
0: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024&ve...
There is a more detailed prophecy of these events:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masih_ad-Dajjal
"The Dajjal will imitate the miracles performed by Jesus, such as healing the sick and raising the dead, the latter done with the aid of demons. He will deceive many <...>"
As for the time of events, I find this the most compelling:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_age
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Year
Earth's polar axis slowly rotates, with a period of 26,000 years. This period is divided into 12 ages: the age of Aries, Pisces, Aquarius and so on. A lot of christian symbology revolves around sheep and fish. Symbolically speaking, 2000 years ago, Aries died to begin the age of Pisces. Similarly, in around 2150, Pisces will yield to Aquarius.
It's also interesting that the age of Aries is considered the last age of the 12, after which the next great cycle begins (see Pistis Sophia). Whether this has astronomical foundation is a question.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Masih_ad-Dajjal
"The Dajjal will imitate the miracles performed by Jesus, such as healing the sick and raising the dead, the latter done with the aid of demons. He will deceive many <...>"
As for the time of events, I find this the most compelling:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_age
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Year
Earth's polar axis slowly rotates, with a period of 26,000 years. This period is divided into 12 ages: the age of Aries, Pisces, Aquarius and so on. A lot of christian symbology revolves around sheep and fish. Symbolically speaking, 2000 years ago, Aries died to begin the age of Pisces. Similarly, in around 2150, Pisces will yield to Aquarius.
It's also interesting that the age of Aries is considered the last age of the 12, after which the next great cycle begins (see Pistis Sophia). Whether this has astronomical foundation is a question.
Is there such a thing as seeding a market to draw in gullible money?
> The True Believers hypothesis rings false because that would be a frankly ridiculous belief to hold. Sometimes people profess ridiculous things, but very few of them put their money where their mouth is on prediction markets.
It sounds like the author is saying the belief is ridiculous in general. However, if Jesus returns, then the believers would ascend to heaven. So, they would not be able to cash out.
What if polymarket put in the money to drive people to vote on the no side? It could be quite a marketing stunt.
It sounds like the author is saying the belief is ridiculous in general. However, if Jesus returns, then the believers would ascend to heaven. So, they would not be able to cash out.
What if polymarket put in the money to drive people to vote on the no side? It could be quite a marketing stunt.
So, how much do I make if I bet 30 pieces of silver on this?
Can I bet on never? Please God, let me bet on never
Fat chance based on the treatment he got last time.
After studying esoteric Christianity, here’s what I can work out rationally.
Jesus was understood as the incarnation of the logos (often translated as “word” but with a much deeper meeting). The logos was the emanation of the pure ineffable oneness — ie, logos is the “son” of god (the oneness). These ideas were worked out by the Jewish-platonic philosopher Philo of Alexandria (b. 50 BCE) and directly influenced early Christianity. The message of Jesus was that we are all part of the logos — and if we believe that, we have eternal life (since the logos is eternal).
Since the logos doesn’t die, it’s hard to say how it returns. But you know, I’m probably over thinking this prediction market
Jesus was understood as the incarnation of the logos (often translated as “word” but with a much deeper meeting). The logos was the emanation of the pure ineffable oneness — ie, logos is the “son” of god (the oneness). These ideas were worked out by the Jewish-platonic philosopher Philo of Alexandria (b. 50 BCE) and directly influenced early Christianity. The message of Jesus was that we are all part of the logos — and if we believe that, we have eternal life (since the logos is eternal).
Since the logos doesn’t die, it’s hard to say how it returns. But you know, I’m probably over thinking this prediction market
What’s the criteria to resolve the bet?
Is there some way to short sell this?
Anyone thinking there are no true believers betting on "Yes" should pay more attention to Modern American Protestantism.
if we're betting on fictional entities, let's do the easter bunny next.
Filed under: “NOT the Onion”
"This means that the Jesus Christ market is quite interesting!"
Well, you know, if Jesus were to materialize, I think he would probably confiscate all of the winnings, because:
>* “It is written,” he said to them, “’My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’”*
Matthew 21:13
Well, you know, if Jesus were to materialize, I think he would probably confiscate all of the winnings, because:
>* “It is written,” he said to them, “’My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers.’”*
Matthew 21:13
Jesus hated the money changers.
I'm not even religious and I know that he despised usury and gambling.
And here we are - people bet on his return.
I'm not even religious and I know that he despised usury and gambling.
And here we are - people bet on his return.
[edit] ...
Wrong thread, maybe for https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44141887
Hahaha, indeed. Thank you. :)
Honestly, its a pretty solid hedge if you believe in any version of the rapture.
If Jesus returned, he'd be arrested at the borders for being too woke and not white enough, then sent back to the middle east.
[flagged]
This comment and subthread have nothing to do with the central topic of the article. It's the epitome of a generic tangent, and has caused just the kind of hellish flamewar that we are most trying to avoid on Hacker News.
(It currently has 276 replies, and I don't think any of them are about Polymarket or prediction markets, which is what the article is about.)
Please read the guidelines, particularly these ones, and make an effort to observe them in future.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44126652 and marked it off topic.
(It currently has 276 replies, and I don't think any of them are about Polymarket or prediction markets, which is what the article is about.)
Please read the guidelines, particularly these ones, and make an effort to observe them in future.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44126652 and marked it off topic.
Come back and reign for a thousand years, but not touch private contact law and definitively let you keep and enjoy the fruits of the money you bet on him.
Yeah, I won't rule out that they exist, but I think there are far better ways of "betting on Jesus" according to most denominations. I think price fluctuations in a market like this is more down to people betting on a bigger fool coming along, or otherwise convinced themselves that they can make money off this without actually believing in the outcome.
Yeah, I won't rule out that they exist, but I think there are far better ways of "betting on Jesus" according to most denominations. I think price fluctuations in a market like this is more down to people betting on a bigger fool coming along, or otherwise convinced themselves that they can make money off this without actually believing in the outcome.
> Yeah, I won't rule out that they exist,
Word of Faith/Prosperity churches - God is a genie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
Word of Faith/Prosperity churches - God is a genie.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
Classically, the Devil follows the djinn trope. It’s weird that Jesus is slowly being cast into that same role.
Djinn trope? Point me at some relevant scholarship. I've always found the 1001 nights djinn interesting characters.
The notion of being careful what you wish for because you just might get it is embodied in djinn, genies, Pandora, and the devil.
You get what you asked for and not what you wanted.
You get what you asked for and not what you wanted.
If that's the trope, then Jesus embodies it too. Because that's very much the case in the "Verily, they have their reward" part. Wish for approval from men for your pious or charitable deeds, and approval from men is what you get - rather than approval from God/eternal life.
Another example of Jesus being very non-consequentialist: why you do a thing matters completely.
Another example of Jesus being very non-consequentialist: why you do a thing matters completely.
Sounds like programming :P
Only if you're good at it.
Even if you're bad at it, you still get what you asked for.
It just may be more distant from what you wanted the worse you are.
It just may be more distant from what you wanted the worse you are.
Yeah, that's one way of looking at it. The other is: the whole stack is full of bugs, ambiguities, UB, wrong docs, non-covered edge cases, etc.
John Goodman’s character in O Brother was a man who realized selling bibles was a lucrative business. He was a con man.
I think you’re on the right track. It’s not the betters but the bookie who you need to look askance at here.
I think you’re on the right track. It’s not the betters but the bookie who you need to look askance at here.
> John Goodman’s character in O Brother was a man who realized selling bibles was a lucrative business. He was a con man.
John Goodman also played the patriarch of a Megachurch family in the Righteous Gemstones. Maybe there's a pattern there? He did play a Senator in Alpha House too.
John Goodman also played the patriarch of a Megachurch family in the Righteous Gemstones. Maybe there's a pattern there? He did play a Senator in Alpha House too.
He looks like a “Good Old Boy”
> Come back and reign for a thousand years, but not touch private contact law and definitively let you keep and enjoy the fruits of the money you bet on him.
Modern Evangelical Christian movements have from the beginning incorporated (classically) liberal political theory, including economic theory, into their theology, not merely their ethics (as almost all faiths must do to some extent). But more recently there has been incorporation of more (classically) illiberal libertarian and conservative ideas in their theology. Someone else pointed out Prosperity Gospel, but the new hotness is the idea that charity and empathy is un-Christian. (Or to steel man it, the idea is that excessive charity and empathy is un-Christian, but that begs alot of questions and arguably invites more self-serving utilitarian line drawing--the movement presupposes that contemporary American political culture is too charitable and empathetic.)
Modern Evangelical Christian movements have from the beginning incorporated (classically) liberal political theory, including economic theory, into their theology, not merely their ethics (as almost all faiths must do to some extent). But more recently there has been incorporation of more (classically) illiberal libertarian and conservative ideas in their theology. Someone else pointed out Prosperity Gospel, but the new hotness is the idea that charity and empathy is un-Christian. (Or to steel man it, the idea is that excessive charity and empathy is un-Christian, but that begs alot of questions and arguably invites more self-serving utilitarian line drawing--the movement presupposes that contemporary American political culture is too charitable and empathetic.)
xeonmc(1)
I presume your experience is limited to the parochial world of American Evangelical Christianity, or perhaps anecdotal, informed by your experience with intellectually unsophisticated people. Dawkins and his ilk used to love to pick on these poor people, because it’s so easy, even for a philosophical and theological rube like Dawkins.
But you are certainly not describing the intellectual muscle and heft of the Catholic tradition. You don’t stand a chance.
Materialists, by contrast, either never realize the incoherence of their naive position, or double down, consigning themselves to ever greater absurdities (yes, I am looking at you, eliminativism).
But you are certainly not describing the intellectual muscle and heft of the Catholic tradition. You don’t stand a chance.
Materialists, by contrast, either never realize the incoherence of their naive position, or double down, consigning themselves to ever greater absurdities (yes, I am looking at you, eliminativism).
There is no dissonance in Catholic faith / philosophy? No hoop jumping to explain why Biblical claims don't match the lived experience of most people?
No.
Of course, the burden of proof is on the person claiming there is dissonance. He must a) define what he means by dissonance, and b) show that this tradition is characterized by it.
We didn't get that.
Instead, we got a downvote. So much more intellectual maturity and integrity.
We didn't get that.
Instead, we got a downvote. So much more intellectual maturity and integrity.
I'm genuinely curious. What would that be?
Judging by their creeds it's believing that Easter really happened, and that the highest being is a composition that must be explained in hard to understand greek ontological terms.
Judging by their creeds it's believing that Easter really happened, and that the highest being is a composition that must be explained in hard to understand greek ontological terms.
Honestly, it would be weird if a supream being DIDN'T have to be explained in difficult to understand, abstract terms. Heck, look at medicine, human's are explained using difficult to understand Greek terms.
That is true.
The point I wanted to make however was rather that ontology moved on. The creed stayed the same.
Medicine is still complex, but moved on a bit since the good old days of the four humors.
The point I wanted to make however was rather that ontology moved on. The creed stayed the same.
Medicine is still complex, but moved on a bit since the good old days of the four humors.
I think someone like Zizek could debate a Catholic.
Get off your high horse.
The muscle and heft of the Catholic tradition? LOL
[flagged]
I feel like some of the angels would probably be able to calculate very large primes easily. I’m not an angeloligist, but maybe the ones that are wheels all covered in eyes.
Feels like profiling to say someone with the name Metatron would be good at math.
If the CPU is the throne, the GPU is right next to the throne. </cryptic>
Angelic intellects exist in the aevum. They are incorporal. They have no need to engage in discursive reasoning like we do, no need to calculate.
That's the pre-Renaissance, theological idea of angels. I would presume the OP probably knows that given their esoteric reference to Ophanim (TIL! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophanim), but also understands that the vast majority of people, including Christians, have a metaphysical conception of angels primarily informed by comic books and films.
> conception of angels primarily informed by comic books and films.
Dogma was a great/funny film.
Looking at the Ophanim link and related pictures reminded me of Contact(1997), not great+boring imo, but your comment reminded me of the wheel thing in the movie, and now I wonder if it was something intended (being a heavenly chariot and all) I could have easily missed it — or if that is just a coincidence
Dogma was a great/funny film.
Looking at the Ophanim link and related pictures reminded me of Contact(1997), not great+boring imo, but your comment reminded me of the wheel thing in the movie, and now I wonder if it was something intended (being a heavenly chariot and all) I could have easily missed it — or if that is just a coincidence
Maybe kinda analogous to the difference between declarative and imperative languages. They (supposedly) don't do step-by-step reasoning to get at the truth, they just "see" it. Like the old story about Bhaskara's proof of the Pythagorean Theorem being, just, "Behold."
They might have no “need” to do so, but aren’t we aware of at least one of theses beasts that exists more or less only to fuck with people?
Only if you can also take the worldwide network and infrastructure that make it possible. Though a room full of human computers processing math out loud to send wealth around seems more associated with another part of the afterlife ;)
Is that how the rich men are squeezing into heaven these days?
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"
There's a theory that the eye of the needle was a narrow gate in Jerusalem's city wall that was notoriously hard for camels to squeeze through. But seems the hard evidence for that is limited.
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"
There's a theory that the eye of the needle was a narrow gate in Jerusalem's city wall that was notoriously hard for camels to squeeze through. But seems the hard evidence for that is limited.
That story is only tracked back to the 1400's, so not credible. The currently favoured theory is that this was a translation error. Apparently in Aramaic (the language of Judaea and Galilee), the word for "camel" is very close to the word for "rope". As with all parables (and this does qualify as a parable) it may be intended to reward some thought - e.g. the only way of getting a rope through the eye of needle is to strip away almost all of it, rather than being a flat negation.
Is your source on this that 90s era website I’ve seen passed around for 20 years? You truly think that thousands of theologians over hundreds of years never noticed this one simple coincidence?
Sorry, I don't know which web site you are referring to. However this is a primarily a matter of linguistics. Checking in to it, it wasn't Aramaic that was the issue, but Greek: κάμηλον (kamēlon, “camel”) versus κάμιλον (kamilon, “rope”).
If by theology, you mean the possible interpretation of "strip away almost everything", while it is debatable whether this particular parable actually means that, it is always accepted that a rich person can give up what they have. This is literally the words of Jesus (Mark 19:16-22), the context in which the parable is given.
Francis of Assisi is an example of one person who made this decision.
If by theology, you mean the possible interpretation of "strip away almost everything", while it is debatable whether this particular parable actually means that, it is always accepted that a rich person can give up what they have. This is literally the words of Jesus (Mark 19:16-22), the context in which the parable is given.
Francis of Assisi is an example of one person who made this decision.
Much nicer interpretation than the simple impossibility.
Plus takes into account that in text criticism the more difficult spelling is usually the more correct, then rendered into the more common through lapsus calami/scribe error.
Plus takes into account that in text criticism the more difficult spelling is usually the more correct, then rendered into the more common through lapsus calami/scribe error.
thousands of theologians over hundreds of years probably passed it around until the '90s, when a few learned HTML and put it online. I doubt the website's authors were the first.
stripping away the rope leaves a thread, and stripping away a man's riches leaves him poor. give it away, in other words.
Yes.
This meaning seems somewhat contrary to readings in the OT (Ecclesiastes 4:12), about how a person alone is defeated, but two can fight back-to-back, and how three are a braided cord. I think given how other verses speak about not serving God and Mammon (money), that the rich are asked to give their riches to follow Jesus is a direct appeal to that given rich man, so that he could braid his cord with theirs, and have the man and his money work toward spreading the Good News. These braiding metaphors are similar to comparisons of Gentiles being grafted as a new vine onto the covenant with Abraham.
The parable of the talents and the connection between investment skill and being blessed by the master show that being rich or good with money is considered a good thing that can be used poorly or toward evil, not simply evil in itself. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not that money is evil in and of itself. Money is simply a tool fit for a purpose, as Jesus shows with the miracle of the fish with a coin in its mouth which was used to pay their temple taxes, so that Jesus could keep the legalistic Pharisee and Sadducee busybodies off their backs for a little while longer.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Or something like that.
The parable of the talents and the connection between investment skill and being blessed by the master show that being rich or good with money is considered a good thing that can be used poorly or toward evil, not simply evil in itself. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not that money is evil in and of itself. Money is simply a tool fit for a purpose, as Jesus shows with the miracle of the fish with a coin in its mouth which was used to pay their temple taxes, so that Jesus could keep the legalistic Pharisee and Sadducee busybodies off their backs for a little while longer.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's." Or something like that.
Well, a rope is not braided!
I don't see this as an issue. There are only so many images to use in a subsistence agriculture society, hence sheep and grain coming up over and over. Sometimes similar images will be used to make different points.
If you want something genuinely difficult, have a look at the alternative explanation of the parable of the talents where the man who does not commit usury is the good guy. One of the gospels (Luke) has additional detail about the "nobleman" who goes off to which suggests this is Herod the Great, (bad guy - see Lk 19:27), so the original meaning is up for debate. Personally I believe that a large part of the point of parables was to spark debate, so we should not assume that the meanings are obvious.
I don't see this as an issue. There are only so many images to use in a subsistence agriculture society, hence sheep and grain coming up over and over. Sometimes similar images will be used to make different points.
If you want something genuinely difficult, have a look at the alternative explanation of the parable of the talents where the man who does not commit usury is the good guy. One of the gospels (Luke) has additional detail about the "nobleman" who goes off to which suggests this is Herod the Great, (bad guy - see Lk 19:27), so the original meaning is up for debate. Personally I believe that a large part of the point of parables was to spark debate, so we should not assume that the meanings are obvious.
I think there are consistent usages and expressions in the OT and NT that show how God understands money to be a tool to be used, and not and asset to be hoarded or an aspect of vice to be indulged in. It's a fine distinction, you could even say it's threading a needle.
So basically it says “you can’t take it with you, so do something good with it while you’re alive instead of hoarding it like you can take it with you.”
Up to a point, but there are other parables which make death explicit, e.g. the rich farmer who tore down his barns to build bigger ones, and was told he would die that night. This parable doesn't link this to having limited time, it's just about "sell everything, give to the poor" to be saved.
The key of the teaching comes after that metaphor, when the disciples ask how one can be saved and Jesus answers that “with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
These words eventually became the foundation of Christian charity in an Ancient world that until then despised and rejected the weak and infirm.
Many of our modern day institutions trace their origin to that Christian charity, to those few enigmatic words.
(Peter Brown's “Through the Eye of a Needle” is a great book to know more about this process.)
These words eventually became the foundation of Christian charity in an Ancient world that until then despised and rejected the weak and infirm.
Many of our modern day institutions trace their origin to that Christian charity, to those few enigmatic words.
(Peter Brown's “Through the Eye of a Needle” is a great book to know more about this process.)
> There's a theory that the eye of the needle was a narrow gate in Jerusalem's city wall
This is a very debunked myth, brought to you by people who are desperate to avoid Christianity's clear proscription on hoarding wealth.
This is a very debunked myth, brought to you by people who are desperate to avoid Christianity's clear proscription on hoarding wealth.
To be clear, it isn’t wealth per se that is taught is evil, but attachment to it and pining for it. The prosperity gospel demonstrates this perverse and unhealthy lust for riches.
Many don’t pay attention to the fuller context.
Experience confirms this. Look at the aspirations of the poor in our societies. They are often vulgar, base, and materialistic.
Many don’t pay attention to the fuller context.
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Experience confirms this. Look at the aspirations of the poor in our societies. They are often vulgar, base, and materialistic.
It's clear that that proper practice for a wealthy person would be to immediately jettison the wealth. Matt 19:21 NIV: "Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
So if you're wealthy and poor people exist, you're in a state of sin. Christianity is an apocalyptic religion, you're to assume the world could end tomorrow so your instructions aren't to simply not want the money, it's to get rid of it and donate it all to charity immediately.
So if you're wealthy and poor people exist, you're in a state of sin. Christianity is an apocalyptic religion, you're to assume the world could end tomorrow so your instructions aren't to simply not want the money, it's to get rid of it and donate it all to charity immediately.
The story in Matthew 19:21 has exactly the same point and precedes this very parable.
> But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. [Then follows the camel and the needle.]
The rich man fails the test because he is unable to give up his wealth; his heart is not in the right place. He loves the world and he loves his riches more than he loves God. It is entirely possible to have your heart in the right place and be rich, as demonstrated by several other examples.
Another example is in Acts, where Peter kills a man and his wife because they lie about how much money they're giving - they were perfectly free, and would have been saved, even had they withheld their money from the commons. Paul also says there are not many rich men that are Christians - but there are some.
The attitude that "ahah, you didn't give your money to the poor, so you're not a REAL Christian doing what you're supposed to do" is put into the mouth of a figure in the Bible. That figure is Judas.
> Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
> 4Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
> 5Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
Jesus, and the other apostles, are not saying that you can't be rich. They're saying you cannot love money more than God, and even trusting in money is ultimately a foolish endeavor because your life and prosperity are in God's hands.
If you are snidely arguing that people aren't Christians or following God simply because they haven't given all their money to the poor, you are falling into the same error as Judas, and the same general category of error as the Pharisees.
> But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. [Then follows the camel and the needle.]
The rich man fails the test because he is unable to give up his wealth; his heart is not in the right place. He loves the world and he loves his riches more than he loves God. It is entirely possible to have your heart in the right place and be rich, as demonstrated by several other examples.
Another example is in Acts, where Peter kills a man and his wife because they lie about how much money they're giving - they were perfectly free, and would have been saved, even had they withheld their money from the commons. Paul also says there are not many rich men that are Christians - but there are some.
The attitude that "ahah, you didn't give your money to the poor, so you're not a REAL Christian doing what you're supposed to do" is put into the mouth of a figure in the Bible. That figure is Judas.
> Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
> 4Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
> 5Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
Jesus, and the other apostles, are not saying that you can't be rich. They're saying you cannot love money more than God, and even trusting in money is ultimately a foolish endeavor because your life and prosperity are in God's hands.
If you are snidely arguing that people aren't Christians or following God simply because they haven't given all their money to the poor, you are falling into the same error as Judas, and the same general category of error as the Pharisees.
> Another example is in Acts
It's almost as if the Bible has different authors with different audiences and different aims in their writing, all of whom had no idea or plan for their writing to be codified into a single text by third parties who in turn had their own audience and goals.
It's almost as if the Bible has different authors with different audiences and different aims in their writing, all of whom had no idea or plan for their writing to be codified into a single text by third parties who in turn had their own audience and goals.
The rich man sorrowfully turning away from Jesus after he tells him that to be perfect, he should give up all his wealth, and then the story of the camel through the eye of the needle immediately following it as a reflection on the man's actions, is repeated almost word-for-word in Luke 18.
Luke and Acts internally claim to be written by the same author, and modern scholarship agrees they were written by the same author.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke%E2%80%93Acts
> The view that they were written by the same person is virtually unanimous among scholars.
So no, "well, it's because the Bible was written by different people" doesn't get you out of this one.
Luke and Acts internally claim to be written by the same author, and modern scholarship agrees they were written by the same author.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke%E2%80%93Acts
> The view that they were written by the same person is virtually unanimous among scholars.
So no, "well, it's because the Bible was written by different people" doesn't get you out of this one.
You left out Jesus' reply: "“Leave her alone, so that she may keep it for the day of my burial." She was using the expensive oil to honor him/God, not keeping it for personal use. So not really a rebuttal.
Well you are also commanded to pay your taxes (render undo Caesar what is Caesar's) and obey+respect authorities (slaves obey your masters). All part of being "in the world" but not "of the world". You could infer the NT is advising against being politically active in any form but I admit you don't have to read it that way.
It doesn't say pay your taxes as long as there is no waste. Or the government spends the money wisely. It just says pay.
Doesn't say obey kings/rulers/masters if they treat you well. Or you voted for them. Or you agree with their policies. It just says obey.
All of which is very much the opposite of Evangelical Christianity in the modern USA - much of it is completely corrupted by political power and wealth. It usually only makes people angry or dismissive when you point that out.
It doesn't say pay your taxes as long as there is no waste. Or the government spends the money wisely. It just says pay.
Doesn't say obey kings/rulers/masters if they treat you well. Or you voted for them. Or you agree with their policies. It just says obey.
All of which is very much the opposite of Evangelical Christianity in the modern USA - much of it is completely corrupted by political power and wealth. It usually only makes people angry or dismissive when you point that out.
I've already explained why this interpretation is wrong. Your interpretation is only "clear" if you ignore context and prooftext. The rich man's response to Jesus's challenge reveals his attachment to wealth, even as he stands before God Himself who has the rich man's best interest in mind. (Consider also John 12:1-50.)
The message is that spiritual goods are superior to material goods, and that the former should be prioritized over the latter, or that the latter ultimately exist in service of the former. The wealth of the rich man is not the source of his obstacle to spiritual good; it is his attachment to his wealth that stands in the way.
The message is that spiritual goods are superior to material goods, and that the former should be prioritized over the latter, or that the latter ultimately exist in service of the former. The wealth of the rich man is not the source of his obstacle to spiritual good; it is his attachment to his wealth that stands in the way.
And even fuller context: for the rich to enter is "hard" (with comparisons), but someone who is not like a child "shall not enter" (no exceptions).
(previous chapter in Matthew, earlier in the same chapter in Mark/Luke)
(previous chapter in Matthew, earlier in the same chapter in Mark/Luke)
Gambling is pining for wealth.
Gambling is humanity's way of enacting a tax on hope.
Usually that’s, “a tax on people bad at math.”
If I put an effort into not being cynical, I would say public funds spent on R&D are the more accurate tax on hope. We are collecting money for Progress and Progress will save us from today’s inescapable facts. We hope it will not replace them with something worse.
If I put an effort into not being cynical, I would say public funds spent on R&D are the more accurate tax on hope. We are collecting money for Progress and Progress will save us from today’s inescapable facts. We hope it will not replace them with something worse.
I disagree, the vast majority of people I've known who gamble understand perfectly well that the odds are against them, they're not choosing to do it because they wrongly believe the EV to be positive.
In some cases it's because the enjoyment they get is worth losing money (and/or they wrongly believe it will be), in some cases it's because even though buying weekly lottery tickets is extremely unlikely to be worth it, the tiny possibility of winning big on it is the only way they could possibly become a millionaire and they want to fantasise that it might still happen.
And the ones who are gambling in the belief that the odds are in their favour, it's not because of their maths, it's because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that their knowledge / opinions on a particular sport are good enough to beat the bookies.
Sure there are also people who think things like "my roulette strategy is bound to work", but it's a tiny proportion.
In some cases it's because the enjoyment they get is worth losing money (and/or they wrongly believe it will be), in some cases it's because even though buying weekly lottery tickets is extremely unlikely to be worth it, the tiny possibility of winning big on it is the only way they could possibly become a millionaire and they want to fantasise that it might still happen.
And the ones who are gambling in the belief that the odds are in their favour, it's not because of their maths, it's because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that their knowledge / opinions on a particular sport are good enough to beat the bookies.
Sure there are also people who think things like "my roulette strategy is bound to work", but it's a tiny proportion.
> Sure there are also people who think things like "my roulette strategy is bound to work", but it's a tiny proportion.
Depends on which activities you gamble on, I suppose.
There's an old quote: “When as a young and unknown man I started to be successful I was referred to as a gambler. My operations increased in scope. Then I was a speculator. The sphere of my activities continued to expand and presently I was known as a banker. Actually I had been doing the same thing all the time.”
Depends on which activities you gamble on, I suppose.
There's an old quote: “When as a young and unknown man I started to be successful I was referred to as a gambler. My operations increased in scope. Then I was a speculator. The sphere of my activities continued to expand and presently I was known as a banker. Actually I had been doing the same thing all the time.”
I mean, if the stance is "Progress is bad, actually," then yes obviously government funding of basic research is really bad. If your stance is "ROI is bad, too" then absolutely, government funding of research is boneheaded.
I feel like they accept crypto in Hell only.
Of course they would have money in heaven. Some people are in a little bit more of a paradise than others I guess...
Keep in mind true believers often learn to live with a massive cognitive dissonance
This is quite true. Taking away just the moral teachings is not true belief. Revelations is serious business stuff, the apostles watched Christ ascend from Mount Olive, it’s extremely trippy things. True believers are literally believing in wild shit. In fact, if you are true believer, you almost need to keep it hidden because it’s going to come off as mentally ill.
With that said, I somehow can’t seem to deny it anymore because reality is just not explainable. Reality is the most ridiculous explanation for why the Big Bang happened and we’re all just here in a perfect little globe. This “real” explanation is so batshit that the supernatural explanation is more sound - at least to me.
The closest science has gotten was to actually corroborate that, yes, this was all not infinite and had a starting point (big bang), literally corroborated let there be light. The quantum stuff just gets even more supernatural. Maybe I’m going mentally ill, but I tend to take the supernatural stuff quite seriously now.
This is quite true. Taking away just the moral teachings is not true belief. Revelations is serious business stuff, the apostles watched Christ ascend from Mount Olive, it’s extremely trippy things. True believers are literally believing in wild shit. In fact, if you are true believer, you almost need to keep it hidden because it’s going to come off as mentally ill.
With that said, I somehow can’t seem to deny it anymore because reality is just not explainable. Reality is the most ridiculous explanation for why the Big Bang happened and we’re all just here in a perfect little globe. This “real” explanation is so batshit that the supernatural explanation is more sound - at least to me.
The closest science has gotten was to actually corroborate that, yes, this was all not infinite and had a starting point (big bang), literally corroborated let there be light. The quantum stuff just gets even more supernatural. Maybe I’m going mentally ill, but I tend to take the supernatural stuff quite seriously now.
Do you think it's weird that ethnic groups separated by thousands of years of evolution came up with completely different gods and forms of worship? If there was an omniscient being don't you think it would make itself known in a little more universal fashion? And isn't it strange that the institutions built around our current iteration of God are soft power structures that wield huge amounts of influence both financially and politically?
On the other hand, aren’t most creation myths actually strikingly similar in terms of overall themes? That doesn’t mean they are right, but I imagine there is an underlying proto religion shared by most if not all ancient faiths.
> aren’t most creation myths actually strikingly similar in terms of overall themes
Like any other product, someone invented it first, and others followed/copied. Over thousands of years, religions evolved separately, but you can still find traces of a shared origin running through them all.
Like any other product, someone invented it first, and others followed/copied. Over thousands of years, religions evolved separately, but you can still find traces of a shared origin running through them all.
Have you ever played telephone? Messages get distorted in a couple minutes. Thousands of years is plenty of time to be easily believe that people would deviate on various gods.
A god should be supernaturally good at telephone, right? Otherwise it brings would open up some pretty uncomfortable questions for folks who follow the teachings of modern translations of their books.
This strikes me as a pretty powerful argument against trusting the Bible (and other scripture older than a few hundred years), especially since we have a ton of evidence that distortion is exactly what happened. Even just reconciling the four gospels requires some pretty serious "interpretation."
I don’t think anything is weird anymore. The ultimate reality of free will is that you will always have the option to do right and wrong. If you don’t have faith, this privilege will be difficult. The human left to their own devices will always have a shifting sense of morality (turning a ship by 1 degree at a time).
Faith was a gift to help.
In terms of Christ, let me put it this way. Imagine your high school, and one day the President of the US visits. You may not directly see him, but the whole school would know about it, even if he was just there for 5 minutes. It’s a matter of faith, and it’s the little bit you need to help with the gift of free will.
The very first story (well second story) in the main monotheistic books was the Eden Story. That story is all about how vulnerable we are with the choice of free will. Empirically, we have seen the failure of it over and over throughout human history (systemically you can easily see it). So, yes, I fully believe in the fallen nature of man, not because we are evil, but because what a gift and responsibility free will actually is.
Faith was a gift to help.
In terms of Christ, let me put it this way. Imagine your high school, and one day the President of the US visits. You may not directly see him, but the whole school would know about it, even if he was just there for 5 minutes. It’s a matter of faith, and it’s the little bit you need to help with the gift of free will.
The very first story (well second story) in the main monotheistic books was the Eden Story. That story is all about how vulnerable we are with the choice of free will. Empirically, we have seen the failure of it over and over throughout human history (systemically you can easily see it). So, yes, I fully believe in the fallen nature of man, not because we are evil, but because what a gift and responsibility free will actually is.
> I don’t think anything is weird anymore. The ultimate reality of free will is that you will always have the option to do right and wrong. If you don’t have faith, this privilege will be difficult. The human left to their own devices will always have a shifting sense of morality (turning a ship by 1 degree at a time).
I think this hypothesis is flawed.
I think most people in society strive to do right, and therefore most of us are able to live in relative peace and with relative trust in our fellow members of society.
There are some people who do wrong, but we’ve set up our society to strive to detect this and punish those (albeit using imperfect systems and knowledge, leading to false positives and negatives).
Therefore, I think religions are an encoding of human morality, not the other way around.
I think this hypothesis is flawed.
I think most people in society strive to do right, and therefore most of us are able to live in relative peace and with relative trust in our fellow members of society.
There are some people who do wrong, but we’ve set up our society to strive to detect this and punish those (albeit using imperfect systems and knowledge, leading to false positives and negatives).
Therefore, I think religions are an encoding of human morality, not the other way around.
I'd challenge your position with a simple thought experiment. You're given a device with a button. When you push that button a random person you don't know will be killed. In exchange you'll receive $1 million in completely clean money, and nobody will ever know you pushed the button or how many times you pushed it.
So how many times would you push it? Such is our character that asking how many times you'd push it is far more interesting than asking if you'd push it. And asking how many times you'd push it also gets rid of the marginal utility argument, and just to the dirty self centered core of humanity.
People without any static set of values will trend towards doing whatever they want and then justifying it afterwards. There will undoubtedly be a guy who pushes it thousands of times, and then donates a fraction of it to charity, convincing himself that he's actually saved lives on net. That is humanity in a nutshell.
So how many times would you push it? Such is our character that asking how many times you'd push it is far more interesting than asking if you'd push it. And asking how many times you'd push it also gets rid of the marginal utility argument, and just to the dirty self centered core of humanity.
People without any static set of values will trend towards doing whatever they want and then justifying it afterwards. There will undoubtedly be a guy who pushes it thousands of times, and then donates a fraction of it to charity, convincing himself that he's actually saved lives on net. That is humanity in a nutshell.
Personally, I would take a strictly utilitarian approach. If I thought I could save >1 life for $1 million, I would press the button. The number of presses would depend solely on the number of lives I think I (or a humanitarian organization) could save with the money.
I think that most people with a moral compass would either take this approach, or would not press the button at all.
I think your second paragraph is misguided and reveals an overly pessimistic view of the nature of humanity. (Such is the nature of cynics: they always think everyone else is just as cynical as they are.)
> People without any static set of values will trend towards doing whatever they want and then justifying it afterwards.
Religious people aren’t immune from that, and conversely, it’s not necessary to be religious to have moral values.
edit: I thought about this some more. I think that the button problem is equivalent to the trolley problem (provided you can save >1 life with $1 million, as above).
I think that most people with a moral compass would either take this approach, or would not press the button at all.
I think your second paragraph is misguided and reveals an overly pessimistic view of the nature of humanity. (Such is the nature of cynics: they always think everyone else is just as cynical as they are.)
> People without any static set of values will trend towards doing whatever they want and then justifying it afterwards.
Religious people aren’t immune from that, and conversely, it’s not necessary to be religious to have moral values.
edit: I thought about this some more. I think that the button problem is equivalent to the trolley problem (provided you can save >1 life with $1 million, as above).
No, it's the perfect example because we can't help but rationalize a way to justify pushing it. If you now gave every single person that button, humanity would be extinct within minutes - many of them rationalizing that they're saving humanity.
This is the heart of where the saying that power corrupts comes from. It's not that power corrupts but that these sort of decisions are ones that will never be available to anybody without power. Yet for those with power it's not that far away from many practical scenarios. In other words, we start corrupt, but our impotence mitigates the relevance of that. Power just reveals our character.
And no, religious people are obviously not immune from this, but with a fixed set of values rationalization becomes far more farcical than without. The Bible's position on homicide, let alone for personal gain, is unambiguous. A person without any set of fixed values, by contrast, will have no problem justifying and rationalizing even the most egregious acts, so long as the reward is seen as desirable enough.
---
To respond to your edit, consider that you're basically doing a version of the trolley problem where you have the choice to redirect the track from killing one person, to killing two, but you get a million bucks for doing so. And you're now arguing that this is the utilitarian choice. It's plainly a false rationalization, but we can so easily convince ourselves that it's reasonable. Our extreme strength at rationalization is humanity's biggest moral and ethical failing. [1]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h242eDB84zY
This is the heart of where the saying that power corrupts comes from. It's not that power corrupts but that these sort of decisions are ones that will never be available to anybody without power. Yet for those with power it's not that far away from many practical scenarios. In other words, we start corrupt, but our impotence mitigates the relevance of that. Power just reveals our character.
And no, religious people are obviously not immune from this, but with a fixed set of values rationalization becomes far more farcical than without. The Bible's position on homicide, let alone for personal gain, is unambiguous. A person without any set of fixed values, by contrast, will have no problem justifying and rationalizing even the most egregious acts, so long as the reward is seen as desirable enough.
---
To respond to your edit, consider that you're basically doing a version of the trolley problem where you have the choice to redirect the track from killing one person, to killing two, but you get a million bucks for doing so. And you're now arguing that this is the utilitarian choice. It's plainly a false rationalization, but we can so easily convince ourselves that it's reasonable. Our extreme strength at rationalization is humanity's biggest moral and ethical failing. [1]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h242eDB84zY
> To respond to your edit, consider that you're basically doing a version of the trolley problem where you have the choice to redirect the track from killing one person, to killing two, but you get a million bucks for doing so.
No, this is definitely not right.
Consider first the non-repeated case. There are two possibilities:
1. You do not press the button. Nothing changes about the world.
2. You press the button and donate $1 million to a humanitarian organization. A random person dies, but the humanitarian organization uses the money to save an average of 5 others.
Option 1 is like not pulling the lever, thereby letting the trolley run over 5 people. Option 2 is like pulling the lever, thereby saving 5 people, but letting the trolley run over another.
(From this, the repeated case trivially follows.)
However, as you allude to, the button problem has a third option: press the button and keep the $1 million. This is so cartoonishly diabolical that only a sociopath would do it. If this was how most people acted, nobody would ever help anybody else, we would all be looking for opportunities to stab each other in the back, and we would most likely not even have developed such a nebulous concept as ‘morality’.
This is what I alluded to with my remark about cynics: the cynic is negative, and therefore, thinks that everyone else is negative too. However, this reveals more about the cynic than it does about humanity (at least, I hope so; I am an optimist who likes to have faith in humanity).
> And no, religious people are obviously not immune from this, but with a fixed set of values rationalization becomes far more farcical than without. The Bible's position on homicide, let alone for personal gain, is unambiguous. A person without any set of fixed values, by contrast, will have no problem justifying and rationalizing even the most egregious acts, so long as the reward is seen as desirable enough.
Many, many wars were and are fought for religious reasons. The Christian Church itself has famously fought multiple religious wars (IIUC, so has the Islamic prophet). Considering this, I really don’t think religion gets to take the high ground when it comes to ‘having fixed values’.
No, this is definitely not right.
Consider first the non-repeated case. There are two possibilities:
1. You do not press the button. Nothing changes about the world.
2. You press the button and donate $1 million to a humanitarian organization. A random person dies, but the humanitarian organization uses the money to save an average of 5 others.
Option 1 is like not pulling the lever, thereby letting the trolley run over 5 people. Option 2 is like pulling the lever, thereby saving 5 people, but letting the trolley run over another.
(From this, the repeated case trivially follows.)
However, as you allude to, the button problem has a third option: press the button and keep the $1 million. This is so cartoonishly diabolical that only a sociopath would do it. If this was how most people acted, nobody would ever help anybody else, we would all be looking for opportunities to stab each other in the back, and we would most likely not even have developed such a nebulous concept as ‘morality’.
This is what I alluded to with my remark about cynics: the cynic is negative, and therefore, thinks that everyone else is negative too. However, this reveals more about the cynic than it does about humanity (at least, I hope so; I am an optimist who likes to have faith in humanity).
> And no, religious people are obviously not immune from this, but with a fixed set of values rationalization becomes far more farcical than without. The Bible's position on homicide, let alone for personal gain, is unambiguous. A person without any set of fixed values, by contrast, will have no problem justifying and rationalizing even the most egregious acts, so long as the reward is seen as desirable enough.
Many, many wars were and are fought for religious reasons. The Christian Church itself has famously fought multiple religious wars (IIUC, so has the Islamic prophet). Considering this, I really don’t think religion gets to take the high ground when it comes to ‘having fixed values’.
But can't you see what you're doing? You're simply rationalizing everything, repeatedly, until you find a reason to press the button. To the point that you're convincing yourself that in the scenario where you're literally killing people for money, that you're actually saving people.
And what you're doing is what humanity naturally does. The people we view as awful in history certainly acknowledged they're doing some awful things in the present, but rationalized it by imagining the utopia that it will bring in. In their minds not only were they behaving ethically, but they were practically a martyr fit for Sainthood, as they are taking the burden, the stain, of such actions upon themselves, only to help an unimaginable number of people in the future. Really it was just charity at unimaginable cost to themselves.
Of course that utopia of the future never comes to pass, but the horrible things they do in the present always do. Such is the nature of humanity that we'll always find a reason to press the button. It's not about 'good' or 'evil' or anything of the sort. Rationalization enables a good person to do the most evil of things, and feel fine about it.
I think the only way to combat this issue is with static values. That can take many forms ranging from religion to a distinct and well defined personal philosophy. But I think anybody lacking such a structured system (from whatever source) will always succumb to rationalization.
And what you're doing is what humanity naturally does. The people we view as awful in history certainly acknowledged they're doing some awful things in the present, but rationalized it by imagining the utopia that it will bring in. In their minds not only were they behaving ethically, but they were practically a martyr fit for Sainthood, as they are taking the burden, the stain, of such actions upon themselves, only to help an unimaginable number of people in the future. Really it was just charity at unimaginable cost to themselves.
Of course that utopia of the future never comes to pass, but the horrible things they do in the present always do. Such is the nature of humanity that we'll always find a reason to press the button. It's not about 'good' or 'evil' or anything of the sort. Rationalization enables a good person to do the most evil of things, and feel fine about it.
I think the only way to combat this issue is with static values. That can take many forms ranging from religion to a distinct and well defined personal philosophy. But I think anybody lacking such a structured system (from whatever source) will always succumb to rationalization.
I’m simply saying that the problem is almost exactly equivalent to the trolley problem.
Would you steer the trolley to the track with one man on it? If yes, and you believe you could save more than one person with $1 million, then you would also press the button!
> And what you're doing is neither novel nor surprising. This is the exact rationalization most of every person we now view in history as awful also used. They acknowledge they're doing some awful things in the present, but rationalize it by imagining the utopia that it will bring in.
This is also true for the trolley problem! He who pulls the lever does an awful thing (kills one man) in the pursuit of some benefit to society (saving five others).
(The ethics of the trolley problem itself have been discussed at length, so I don’t think we need to repeat those arguments here.)
And again, many religious wars have been and are fought! Religious leaders haven’t theoretically killed people in the pursuit of utopia, they have literally, actually done that!
After all: that’s the subject of our discussion: not whether people are moral, but whether religious people are more moral than the baseline.
Would you steer the trolley to the track with one man on it? If yes, and you believe you could save more than one person with $1 million, then you would also press the button!
> And what you're doing is neither novel nor surprising. This is the exact rationalization most of every person we now view in history as awful also used. They acknowledge they're doing some awful things in the present, but rationalize it by imagining the utopia that it will bring in.
This is also true for the trolley problem! He who pulls the lever does an awful thing (kills one man) in the pursuit of some benefit to society (saving five others).
(The ethics of the trolley problem itself have been discussed at length, so I don’t think we need to repeat those arguments here.)
And again, many religious wars have been and are fought! Religious leaders haven’t theoretically killed people in the pursuit of utopia, they have literally, actually done that!
After all: that’s the subject of our discussion: not whether people are moral, but whether religious people are more moral than the baseline.
I'm not saying you don't believe what you're saying. On the contrary that is again probably the worst part of rationalization. We genuinely believe what we convince ourselves of, while imagining ourselves to be objectively and plainly correct. As for morality and religion, it's well accepted (at least academically) that there is a significant correlation between religiosity and reduced asocial behavior at the individual level. This [1] study is a meta-study of some 109 other studies and offers a broad overview.
Keep in mind that the obvious exceptions like South America = high religiosity + high criminality or Scandiland = low religiosity + low criminality, are group/macro level issues and not individual. Very small numbers of highly sociopathic individuals or groups can have an extreme effect on overall stats. For example the homicide rate for St. Louis is higher than for any country in the world, yet obviously the percent of people of homicidal tendency in St. Louis is negligible. Macro level stats and individual level tendencies are very different things.
[1] - https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/41333/chapter/3523552...
Keep in mind that the obvious exceptions like South America = high religiosity + high criminality or Scandiland = low religiosity + low criminality, are group/macro level issues and not individual. Very small numbers of highly sociopathic individuals or groups can have an extreme effect on overall stats. For example the homicide rate for St. Louis is higher than for any country in the world, yet obviously the percent of people of homicidal tendency in St. Louis is negligible. Macro level stats and individual level tendencies are very different things.
[1] - https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/41333/chapter/3523552...
What if you were a Christian, and you knew that the random person being killed was a rock solid Christian who would die painlessly and without even knowing it, and would go immediately into the bosom of Christ?
In that scenario pushing the button seems like the right thing to do. If you don't, that person might lose their faith later and end up in hell, and it would be your fault. What is the worth of a soul? My understanding is it's infinite. If not infinite, certainly it must be worth more than a measly cool million.
In that scenario pushing the button seems like the right thing to do. If you don't, that person might lose their faith later and end up in hell, and it would be your fault. What is the worth of a soul? My understanding is it's infinite. If not infinite, certainly it must be worth more than a measly cool million.
> If you don't, that person might lose their faith later and end up in hell, and it would be your fault
Have you read the Bible? Jesus would disagree with this take very hard. Or do you have any support for this moral argument from any of the apostles?
Have you read the Bible? Jesus would disagree with this take very hard. Or do you have any support for this moral argument from any of the apostles?
Yes I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times (although admittedly on the second and third time through I did skim a bit of the last 1/3 of the OT rather than reading it for diligent comprehension), and have taken a number of different courses on it. I've read the New Testament at least a dozen times through, plus many years of Sunday School looking at different books/passages.
> Jesus would disagree with this take very hard.
Citation needed for that. This is something hotly debated among all sorts of Christians so I don't claim to have a solid answer, but perseonally I think the Bible is repeatedly pretty clear that you can lose it[1].
I used to be a strong believer, but no longer am. Out of curiosity, do you think I'm going to Hell or am I still all set for (eternal) life because of my past faith?
[1]: https://www.biblestudyguide.org/articles/salvation/salvation...
> Jesus would disagree with this take very hard.
Citation needed for that. This is something hotly debated among all sorts of Christians so I don't claim to have a solid answer, but perseonally I think the Bible is repeatedly pretty clear that you can lose it[1].
I used to be a strong believer, but no longer am. Out of curiosity, do you think I'm going to Hell or am I still all set for (eternal) life because of my past faith?
[1]: https://www.biblestudyguide.org/articles/salvation/salvation...
> Such is our character that asking how many times you'd push it is far more interesting than asking if you'd push it.
Is that a royal "Our"? I don't think you are speaking for anyone but yourself. People like Trump, MSB and Netanyahu aren't normal. They tend to abuse religion as a justification for their actions rather than spititual inspiration.
Is that a royal "Our"? I don't think you are speaking for anyone but yourself. People like Trump, MSB and Netanyahu aren't normal. They tend to abuse religion as a justification for their actions rather than spititual inspiration.
> You may not directly see him, but the whole school would know about it, even if he was just there for 5 minutes.
My question would be: If the Bible was written by an omniscient and all-powerful God, then why does it have so many inaccuracies in it? Easy ones include a global flood that killed every animal on Earth. (Except for the two of each animal on Noah's ark, which would have overheated with so many animals in it, if it hadn't collapsed under its own weight first.)
But there are also internal contradictions between the four gospels of the New Testament. Why would God make his own books inaccurate? To me, that indicates they are not the product of divine inspiration but the written accounts of oral histories.
Your response may be that God introduced these errors into his holy books to test our faith. But at that point, isn't the answer to every contradiction and inaccuracy just, "To test our faith"? Is there literally anything that would change your mind, or is your faith just being tested even harder?
My question would be: If the Bible was written by an omniscient and all-powerful God, then why does it have so many inaccuracies in it? Easy ones include a global flood that killed every animal on Earth. (Except for the two of each animal on Noah's ark, which would have overheated with so many animals in it, if it hadn't collapsed under its own weight first.)
But there are also internal contradictions between the four gospels of the New Testament. Why would God make his own books inaccurate? To me, that indicates they are not the product of divine inspiration but the written accounts of oral histories.
Your response may be that God introduced these errors into his holy books to test our faith. But at that point, isn't the answer to every contradiction and inaccuracy just, "To test our faith"? Is there literally anything that would change your mind, or is your faith just being tested even harder?
> If the Bible was written by an omniscient and all-powerful God, then why does it have so many inaccuracies in it?
This would be a very good gotcha for a religion that believed the Bible was written by God (or at least dictated verbatim) and that it was intended to be a purely literal factual account, neither of which are majority positions within Christian theology (Fundamentalism, in which close approximations of both are important defining beliefs, being a relatively new movement within Protestantism and not the mainstream of Christianity.)
This would be a very good gotcha for a religion that believed the Bible was written by God (or at least dictated verbatim) and that it was intended to be a purely literal factual account, neither of which are majority positions within Christian theology (Fundamentalism, in which close approximations of both are important defining beliefs, being a relatively new movement within Protestantism and not the mainstream of Christianity.)
> This would be a very good gotcha for a religion that believed the Bible was written by God
Fair enough! But if God is all powerful and all knowing, he decided to make the bible incorrect. Why would he do that?
Fair enough! But if God is all powerful and all knowing, he decided to make the bible incorrect. Why would he do that?
Christians don't belive the Bible was written by God they belive it's the word of God. the inconsistencies and contradictions are because its been written by many people over hundreds of years.
They don't even believe it's the word of God, strictly -- Jesus is the Word of God, the Bible merely contains (in parts) the word of God as reported by men. This is a key distinction between Christian and Islamic theology.
I've heard it described as "Jesus is the Word of God, the Bible is words about God", but there is definitely diversity of belief within Christianity about that; there are certainly groups that have views of the Bible that other Christians view as near-idolatrous.
free will is one big reason why god would not reveal himself in a universal fashion. free will includes the freedom to reject god. if god were to reveal himself openly then the freedom to reject him would not exist. we would not have a choice but to believe.
This contradicts the most common view of Christians throughout history, especially since the simplest reading of Romans 1 expresses exactly the opposite view: "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
i am not representing a christian viewpoint. but i also do not see the contradiction. the claim that they are without an excuse to reject god does not negate the fact that they have the freedom to reject him. if we didn't have that freedom we could not even have this argument because we would all unquestionably believe in the existence of god.
>free will is one big reason why god would not reveal himself in a universal fashion.
Much like how religion posits a soul, you are positing free will despise observing that rocks always fall in accordance with the laws of physics and we have yet to determine any normal way of altering the course of chemistry one jot or tiddle(in fact we build our edifices on these observations, so confident are we). You yourself suggest that the input of "revealed God" removes human free will to disbelieve. In other words, God can't(or didn't for whatever reason) create a human that can experience God without disbelief. Anyway long and short of it, just because you believe in free will doesn't mean it exists, either in your belief structure or in actuality, and Calvinists reject your hypothesis outright.
Much like how religion posits a soul, you are positing free will despise observing that rocks always fall in accordance with the laws of physics and we have yet to determine any normal way of altering the course of chemistry one jot or tiddle(in fact we build our edifices on these observations, so confident are we). You yourself suggest that the input of "revealed God" removes human free will to disbelieve. In other words, God can't(or didn't for whatever reason) create a human that can experience God without disbelief. Anyway long and short of it, just because you believe in free will doesn't mean it exists, either in your belief structure or in actuality, and Calvinists reject your hypothesis outright.
i don't know how free will is supposed to affect the laws of physics or chemistry. free will is about the choices we can make. that doesn't imply there are no limits to our capacity. nor does having a choice to believe in god or not imply that humans can't experience god without disbelief. on the contrary. that's the whole point. i can believe that the universe is created by god, and that everything i experience is in some way experiencing god, just as i can believe that god doesn't exist, and then, if god does exist, i would experience god without believing that my experience is caused by god. experiencing something doesn't require that i recognize the cause of the experience.
as for calvinism, how is that relevant? the existence if some faction believing something that contradicts the belief of others has no bearing on that belief other than that it may raise some questions that are worth investigating. my brief look at that leads me to the conclusion that their view of free will makes no sense to me.
as for calvinism, how is that relevant? the existence if some faction believing something that contradicts the belief of others has no bearing on that belief other than that it may raise some questions that are worth investigating. my brief look at that leads me to the conclusion that their view of free will makes no sense to me.
Specifically, free will can't affect chemistry or physics, because what, to you, is free will, to me, is chemical reactions that lead to your body making movements. Since no known process is capable of altering these reactions, ergo you have no free will(defined as the ability to make choices outside of external interference, whatever that even means). Calvinism is relevant because they purport to believe in the same God you do, yet have wildly different and incompatible theories of mind that make no sense to you. As an outside observer all I can say is that either you or they are wrong, and it's likely you both are.
Agreed, and to expand slightly, we do know that our brains are constructed on top of neurons, and neurons are way too big to be affected by quantum-level events. There's countless literature describing people who have had accidents or illnesses that damage parts of their brain and change personalities (typically without the patient being aware of any change and in most cases being in adamant denial about it), and we can now pinpoint quite precisely what many parts of the brain do. We even have AI that can now "read minds" to an extent based on measuring neural activity. The idea of "free will" is highly suspect given the deterministic nature of our brains. There are still some God of the Gaps arguments that try to save free will, but IMHO you have to really want to save it in order to accept many of those arguments. It's deeply uncomfortable to consider, but our brains are deterministic.
This is not my field at all so don't take my word for any of it, but I highly recommend people interested in this read or watch Robert Sapolsky's work. His books "Behave" and "Determined" are utterly fascinating and get very, very deep into this in a way that is challenging but understandable for a non-Neurologist.
This is not my field at all so don't take my word for any of it, but I highly recommend people interested in this read or watch Robert Sapolsky's work. His books "Behave" and "Determined" are utterly fascinating and get very, very deep into this in a way that is challenging but understandable for a non-Neurologist.
This is a bit of a bizarre argument.
> you are positing free will despise observing that rocks always fall in accordance with the laws of physics and we have yet to determine any normal way of altering the course of chemistry one jot or tiddle(in fact we build our edifices on these observations, so confident are we)
Physics (quantum physics specificly) posits a non-deterministic universe.
However even with a deterministic universe, i don't see how it neccesatates removing free will. Perhaps you (your soul or whatever) can choose whatever you want to, you just always have to make the same choice given the same input. Maybe you dont literally have free will in what you immediately do, but you have free will in defining what type of person you are, which informs what you will do in response to some input.
[Im an atheist if that matters]
> you are positing free will despise observing that rocks always fall in accordance with the laws of physics and we have yet to determine any normal way of altering the course of chemistry one jot or tiddle(in fact we build our edifices on these observations, so confident are we)
Physics (quantum physics specificly) posits a non-deterministic universe.
However even with a deterministic universe, i don't see how it neccesatates removing free will. Perhaps you (your soul or whatever) can choose whatever you want to, you just always have to make the same choice given the same input. Maybe you dont literally have free will in what you immediately do, but you have free will in defining what type of person you are, which informs what you will do in response to some input.
[Im an atheist if that matters]
What about Moses? Or Paul? Or the twelve apostles? Or all the Pharisees who witnessed miracles from Jesus himself?
moses is a prophet or messenger of god just like jesus or mohammad. they are not subject to the same tests. some claim they aren't even human. according to my understanding paul also has been directly chosen by god for a specific mission. i haven't looked at the miracles jesus performed because, since them happening can't be verified and i can't witness them myself they are quite irrelevant for me. i also didn't get the impression that everyone witnessing a miracle was automatically convinced.
also the existence of exceptions doesn't negate that the rest of us have that choice.
also the existence of exceptions doesn't negate that the rest of us have that choice.
That's not a reason. That's an excuse for why the vigorous handwaving of the religious is insufficient. We have people who are catching measles because they don't believe in measles vaccines, like right freaking now even though we know that the vaccines are safe, effective, and work. Every dimwit who is against their children getting those vaccines was once a child whose parents were intelligent enough to get the vaccinations for them.
So no, try again, because that argument is silly.
So no, try again, because that argument is silly.
i don't understand how the freedom to believe or reject god has anything to do with vaccines. what are you trying to say here?
Whether or not something exists has zero to do with whether someone accepts that it does. Your free will argument makes absolutely no sense to anyone who actually thinks it through.
Whether or not something exists has zero to do with whether someone accepts that it does
i didn't make such a claim. the existence of god has nothing to do with free will. he either exists, or he doesn't. your or my belief in the existence of god however is governed by the freedom to either believe or reject his existence. if god exists then rejecting him does not make him go away, nor does believing in god make him appear if there is no god.
my argument was that free will is the reason why god did not reveal himself in a way that everyone would immediately recognize him without a doubt. it was not an argument about his existence.
i didn't make such a claim. the existence of god has nothing to do with free will. he either exists, or he doesn't. your or my belief in the existence of god however is governed by the freedom to either believe or reject his existence. if god exists then rejecting him does not make him go away, nor does believing in god make him appear if there is no god.
my argument was that free will is the reason why god did not reveal himself in a way that everyone would immediately recognize him without a doubt. it was not an argument about his existence.
My freedom to believe or reject the existence of god has nothing to do with revelation. People deny what they plainly see and what can be proven to them all the time. You are making an argument that does not exist in any scripture, and is frankly an apologist's argument regarding the failure of Christendom to reach its prophesized conclusion.
> People deny what they plainly see and what can be proven to them all the time
well of course, the bible acknowledges that too:
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 ESV
that's the point of freedom. if we didn't have the freedom to deny god then we would all be devout believers.
> the failure of Christendom to reach its prophesized conclusion
which conclusion is that? maybe that prophecy has not yet come to pass?
> You are making an argument that does not exist in any scripture
the bible is full of quotes of god or jesus calling the people to believe while leaving them the choice not to: i did not study the bible, so this is just the result of an online search, and the quotes are without context:
And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 ESV
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed Romans 13:2 ESV
The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. Revelation 22:17 ESV
“Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Isaiah 55:6-7 ESV
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, John 1:12 ESV
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. Hebrews 11:6 ESV
“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after other gods that you have not known. Deuteronomy 11:26-28 ESV
the quran is more clear, but again, just a search for quotes without context:
“the Truth [has come] from your Sustainer: let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it.”[Sura Al-Kehf, verse 29.]; [This is] the truth from your Lord: let anyone who wishes believe it, and let anyone who wishes disbelieve it. Whoever please, i.e. with his free will, believe and whoever please disbelieve (18:29)
“Verily, We have shown him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will)”[Sura Al-Mursalat, verse 3]. Indeed We have guided him to the way, be he grateful or ungrateful. (76:3)
“Allah does not change the condition of a people until they bring about a change in their inner-selves (anfus: psyche)”[Sura Ar-Rad, verse 11]. Indeed Allah does not change a people's lot, unless they change what is in their souls. (13:11)
“Allah would never change the blessings with which He has graced a people unless they change their inner-selves”[Sura Al-Anfal, verse 53]
from bahai faith, there are a few people talking about free will, but these are the only direct quotes i found:
There is, unfortunately, no way that one can force his own good upon a man. The element of free will is there, and all we believers -- and even the Manifestation of God Himself -- can do is to offer the truth to mankind. If the people of the world persist, as they seem to be doing, in their blind materialism, they must bear the consequences in a prolongation of their present condition, and even a worsening of it. Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 113
Thus doth the Nightingale utter His call unto you from this prison. He hath but to deliver this clear message. Whosoever desireth, let him turn aside from this counsel and whosoever desireth let him choose the path to his Lord. Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Ahmad
O SON OF MAN! If thou lovest Me, turn away from thyself; and if thou seekest My pleasure, regard not thine own; that thou mayest die in Me and I may eternally live in thee. Baha'u'llah, Hidden Words, Arabic #7
well of course, the bible acknowledges that too:
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 ESV
that's the point of freedom. if we didn't have the freedom to deny god then we would all be devout believers.
> the failure of Christendom to reach its prophesized conclusion
which conclusion is that? maybe that prophecy has not yet come to pass?
> You are making an argument that does not exist in any scripture
the bible is full of quotes of god or jesus calling the people to believe while leaving them the choice not to: i did not study the bible, so this is just the result of an online search, and the quotes are without context:
And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:15 ESV
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 ESV
Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed Romans 13:2 ESV
The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come.” And let the one who hears say, “Come.” And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price. Revelation 22:17 ESV
“Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Isaiah 55:6-7 ESV
But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, John 1:12 ESV
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. Hebrews 11:6 ESV
“See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today, and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after other gods that you have not known. Deuteronomy 11:26-28 ESV
the quran is more clear, but again, just a search for quotes without context:
“the Truth [has come] from your Sustainer: let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it.”[Sura Al-Kehf, verse 29.]; [This is] the truth from your Lord: let anyone who wishes believe it, and let anyone who wishes disbelieve it. Whoever please, i.e. with his free will, believe and whoever please disbelieve (18:29)
“Verily, We have shown him the Way: whether he be grateful or ungrateful (rests on his will)”[Sura Al-Mursalat, verse 3]. Indeed We have guided him to the way, be he grateful or ungrateful. (76:3)
“Allah does not change the condition of a people until they bring about a change in their inner-selves (anfus: psyche)”[Sura Ar-Rad, verse 11]. Indeed Allah does not change a people's lot, unless they change what is in their souls. (13:11)
“Allah would never change the blessings with which He has graced a people unless they change their inner-selves”[Sura Al-Anfal, verse 53]
from bahai faith, there are a few people talking about free will, but these are the only direct quotes i found:
There is, unfortunately, no way that one can force his own good upon a man. The element of free will is there, and all we believers -- and even the Manifestation of God Himself -- can do is to offer the truth to mankind. If the people of the world persist, as they seem to be doing, in their blind materialism, they must bear the consequences in a prolongation of their present condition, and even a worsening of it. Shoghi Effendi, Lights of Guidance, p. 113
Thus doth the Nightingale utter His call unto you from this prison. He hath but to deliver this clear message. Whosoever desireth, let him turn aside from this counsel and whosoever desireth let him choose the path to his Lord. Baha'u'llah, Tablet of Ahmad
O SON OF MAN! If thou lovest Me, turn away from thyself; and if thou seekest My pleasure, regard not thine own; that thou mayest die in Me and I may eternally live in thee. Baha'u'llah, Hidden Words, Arabic #7
So assumimg we have
1. Physical reality (e.g. how many years has earth existed)
2. Metaphysical reality (is there a creator? If so is your "soul" or life in any way relevant to them?)
3. Moral reality (Is killing other humans in cold blood justified by scripture? Are there such a thing as "Good" and "Evil"?)
4. Cultural reality (What do the people who raised you and otherwise influence you believe, local traditions and stories, scripture)
5. What feels intuitive for an individual to realize ("As above, so below", the unit of self, comparing Christ with POTUS, "the fall of man")
Assuming your local space-time intepretation gets it all right (and everyone with different understanding got and gets it wrong) and that all of these by necessity align is some next-level hubris...
1. Physical reality (e.g. how many years has earth existed)
2. Metaphysical reality (is there a creator? If so is your "soul" or life in any way relevant to them?)
3. Moral reality (Is killing other humans in cold blood justified by scripture? Are there such a thing as "Good" and "Evil"?)
4. Cultural reality (What do the people who raised you and otherwise influence you believe, local traditions and stories, scripture)
5. What feels intuitive for an individual to realize ("As above, so below", the unit of self, comparing Christ with POTUS, "the fall of man")
Assuming your local space-time intepretation gets it all right (and everyone with different understanding got and gets it wrong) and that all of these by necessity align is some next-level hubris...
1) We can start with the fact that Historians believe Christ existed.
2) I can grant you he might have just been a harmless mentally ill person.
3) You must now grant me that we crucified someone for that.
4) The above is evil. There is your proof. If you need more, you can check out Nazism.
5) This mentally ill person was pretty adamant about the nature of sin.
6) At the very least , it’s worth considering if he might have been right about a few things.
7) At the very least, one should be slightly freaked out that he actually existed and most likely died due the very reasons he suggested - that something is utterly wrong with humans.
8) I’d let the whole true date of physical reality go. We literally reinvented time after he died. I won’t hold the Old Testament to the test of carbon dating, and reconsider that those books told us all the nature of how things began (from a big explosion).
9) And then we find the miraculous Dead Sea Scrolls proving that those books were not altered through the course of time.
10) The books say your soul is quite important. Christ was also one of the first to suggest your morality is from within (the thing atheist often suggest).
11) I’d finally suggest the following about science:
Imagine I take a shit in a toilet. Imagine you are a brilliant scientist that sits around and figures out every measurement of how the shit moves around the toilet, down to the physics, down to the chemical composition of the shit. You would have figured out the physics of the universe of your toilet, but you will never ever know that I took the shit because I ate a lot of Taco Bell.
12) Hubris would be thinking our constant measuring (science) proves anything about our purpose.
13) Given the above hypothetical, it would be humble to accept the fear of god scripture puts into us, since we would have never even come close to figuring out our purpose via science (finding the true nature of God’s Taco Bell order) without these goofy books.
14) Last but not least:
If the Big Bang was the moment of creation, you can believe one of two things:
A) Something caused it
B) Space was a vacuum and something came from nothing.
If you believe A (You believe in God), our very existence is contingent on the sequence, A lead to B, then to C, and so on, so the entire chain of us talking here was deliberate (plus or minus all the free will decisions of humans, mostly a rounding error in the grand scheme).
15) And my personal favorite, everyone one of our births was a miracle given how sexual reproduction works (we all beat a million other possibilities). Faith is not hard when you truly see just how insane the odds are for so many things. Therefore, I’m quite open to the ridiculousness of the Galileans story. Another way to put it is, I am in awe of God.
2) I can grant you he might have just been a harmless mentally ill person.
3) You must now grant me that we crucified someone for that.
4) The above is evil. There is your proof. If you need more, you can check out Nazism.
5) This mentally ill person was pretty adamant about the nature of sin.
6) At the very least , it’s worth considering if he might have been right about a few things.
7) At the very least, one should be slightly freaked out that he actually existed and most likely died due the very reasons he suggested - that something is utterly wrong with humans.
8) I’d let the whole true date of physical reality go. We literally reinvented time after he died. I won’t hold the Old Testament to the test of carbon dating, and reconsider that those books told us all the nature of how things began (from a big explosion).
9) And then we find the miraculous Dead Sea Scrolls proving that those books were not altered through the course of time.
10) The books say your soul is quite important. Christ was also one of the first to suggest your morality is from within (the thing atheist often suggest).
11) I’d finally suggest the following about science:
Imagine I take a shit in a toilet. Imagine you are a brilliant scientist that sits around and figures out every measurement of how the shit moves around the toilet, down to the physics, down to the chemical composition of the shit. You would have figured out the physics of the universe of your toilet, but you will never ever know that I took the shit because I ate a lot of Taco Bell.
12) Hubris would be thinking our constant measuring (science) proves anything about our purpose.
13) Given the above hypothetical, it would be humble to accept the fear of god scripture puts into us, since we would have never even come close to figuring out our purpose via science (finding the true nature of God’s Taco Bell order) without these goofy books.
14) Last but not least:
If the Big Bang was the moment of creation, you can believe one of two things:
A) Something caused it
B) Space was a vacuum and something came from nothing.
If you believe A (You believe in God), our very existence is contingent on the sequence, A lead to B, then to C, and so on, so the entire chain of us talking here was deliberate (plus or minus all the free will decisions of humans, mostly a rounding error in the grand scheme).
15) And my personal favorite, everyone one of our births was a miracle given how sexual reproduction works (we all beat a million other possibilities). Faith is not hard when you truly see just how insane the odds are for so many things. Therefore, I’m quite open to the ridiculousness of the Galileans story. Another way to put it is, I am in awe of God.
>2) I can grant you he might have just been a harmless mentally ill person.
The same could be said for the "prophets" of any major religion. Muhammadﷻ (SWT) arguably went into a state of psychosis after the premature deaths of both of his sons. Joseph Smith, a local drunk in a small western NY town, said a magical rock in a hat that only he could see told him the garden of Eden was in St. Louis and that the native Americans weren't native Americans, but rather, the real original Israelites.
3) You must now grant me that we crucified someone for that.
Sure.
4) The above is evil. There is your proof. If you need more, you can check out Nazism.
Sure. However, some pretty fucked up stuff has been done in the names of God, Jesus, Allah, Muhammadﷻ (SWT), Israel, Buddha, and so on. Doesn't justify anything.
5) This mentally ill person was pretty adamant about the nature of sin.
So was MLK Jr. He got shot.
6) At the very least , it’s worth considering if he might have been right about a few things.
Sure. Which is why his message is also a cornerstone of Islam.
7) At the very least, one should be slightly freaked out that he actually existed and most likely died due the very reasons he suggested - that something is utterly wrong with humans.
It actually gives me reason to reject religion as a whole. If God made man in his own image, and man treats his fellow man with disdain, hatred, violence, etc, what does that say about God? If God was so perfect, why would he create beings that have free will to destroy the life of another? Paradoxical at best, a fallacy at worst.
The same could be said for the "prophets" of any major religion. Muhammadﷻ (SWT) arguably went into a state of psychosis after the premature deaths of both of his sons. Joseph Smith, a local drunk in a small western NY town, said a magical rock in a hat that only he could see told him the garden of Eden was in St. Louis and that the native Americans weren't native Americans, but rather, the real original Israelites.
3) You must now grant me that we crucified someone for that.
Sure.
4) The above is evil. There is your proof. If you need more, you can check out Nazism.
Sure. However, some pretty fucked up stuff has been done in the names of God, Jesus, Allah, Muhammadﷻ (SWT), Israel, Buddha, and so on. Doesn't justify anything.
5) This mentally ill person was pretty adamant about the nature of sin.
So was MLK Jr. He got shot.
6) At the very least , it’s worth considering if he might have been right about a few things.
Sure. Which is why his message is also a cornerstone of Islam.
7) At the very least, one should be slightly freaked out that he actually existed and most likely died due the very reasons he suggested - that something is utterly wrong with humans.
It actually gives me reason to reject religion as a whole. If God made man in his own image, and man treats his fellow man with disdain, hatred, violence, etc, what does that say about God? If God was so perfect, why would he create beings that have free will to destroy the life of another? Paradoxical at best, a fallacy at worst.
If God was so perfect, why would he create beings that have free will to destroy the life of another?
That is the ultimate intellectual question. But pay attention to the key word, intellectual. You cannot get spiritual answers from an intellectual question. That's what makes faith rather hard at times and often requires meditation.
It actually gives me reason to reject religion as a whole.
Christ, allegedly, died due to the pride of religion. He was very much on a mission to call out the pride, power and arrogance of organized religion. Again, the answers are simply not available in the intellectual domain and must be sought in the spiritual domain.
I'm not even a member of a Church as I mostly do my reading on my own and do my own reflection. I think one of the main things God tries to hammer home is that we are to all have an eternal life in the after-life (which is mercy, because he could just erase us). If eternity is what is at stake, it is probably in our interest to cleanse our soul of whatever makes us shitty humans, lest we enter eternity tainted and unreformed, for a soul like that will be shitty for all eternity.
That is the ultimate intellectual question. But pay attention to the key word, intellectual. You cannot get spiritual answers from an intellectual question. That's what makes faith rather hard at times and often requires meditation.
It actually gives me reason to reject religion as a whole.
Christ, allegedly, died due to the pride of religion. He was very much on a mission to call out the pride, power and arrogance of organized religion. Again, the answers are simply not available in the intellectual domain and must be sought in the spiritual domain.
I'm not even a member of a Church as I mostly do my reading on my own and do my own reflection. I think one of the main things God tries to hammer home is that we are to all have an eternal life in the after-life (which is mercy, because he could just erase us). If eternity is what is at stake, it is probably in our interest to cleanse our soul of whatever makes us shitty humans, lest we enter eternity tainted and unreformed, for a soul like that will be shitty for all eternity.
>That's what makes faith rather hard at times and often requires meditation.
Faith. Key word, faith. There is no reason for faith, because you're placing faith and (fleeting) hope that some dude in a desert a few thousand years ago found the ultimate way to interact with (his understanding of) humanity's creator, if we even have one. What makes you so 1000000% sure that this guy's understanding of the supernatural is correct? You're assuming that there actually is some omnipresent being that manifested existence, and that same being actually divinely created humanity on purpose, and not only that, gave humanity free will, and not only that, also simultaneously loves and hates you, and will condemn you to eternal hellfire if you don't worship him enough. Oh yeah, according to some, he's got a son too, born of humanity but with magical powers.
Faith. Come on.
Faith. Key word, faith. There is no reason for faith, because you're placing faith and (fleeting) hope that some dude in a desert a few thousand years ago found the ultimate way to interact with (his understanding of) humanity's creator, if we even have one. What makes you so 1000000% sure that this guy's understanding of the supernatural is correct? You're assuming that there actually is some omnipresent being that manifested existence, and that same being actually divinely created humanity on purpose, and not only that, gave humanity free will, and not only that, also simultaneously loves and hates you, and will condemn you to eternal hellfire if you don't worship him enough. Oh yeah, according to some, he's got a son too, born of humanity but with magical powers.
Faith. Come on.
> In fact, if you are true believer, you almost need to keep it hidden because it’s going to come off as mentally ill.
Even agreeing on what a "True Believer" is would be impossible but, from what I have read of the bible and know from 18+ years in the church I agree. As I child I got in trouble a few times for suggesting we take the concepts in the bible to their logical end. Things like:
- If we really believe all these people will burn in hell then why aren't we all becoming missionaries?
Then when I learned about "age of accountability" [0] I had 2 questions:
- If there is no age set on the age of accountability (to account for people living in remote areas who never heard the word of god) then isn't being a missionary and going to those places damning some percentage of them to hell if they don't accept jesus as their lord and savior? Aren't you making it worse? Even if you are able to "save" 60% you've damned the other 40% when before you visiting 100% would never have met the "age of accountability" due to never hearing about jesus?
and the much more horrifying question (note: I was 6 or 7 at the time)
- If the the age of accountability is real, and if our time on earth is truly inconsequential compared to eternity in heaven then (AGAIN: I was a child, I want just following logical chains), isn't the best option to kill everyone before that age so they will live for eternity in heaven?
Needless to say none of these questions were appreciated and all of them resulted in anger from the adults I mentioned it to. It taught me from a very young age how to lie or obscure what I thought/believed since voicing it or even asking innocent questions got me in trouble for reasons I could not understand. Perhaps there are logical flaws in my questions that a biblical scholar could point out but all I got was the fury of people too invested in a myth to question it.
[0] Concept that if you are younger than it and you die without being "saved" then you will still go to heaven because, essentially, you didn't know any better. There is no age defined since people reach that state at different ages and, IIRC, it even accounts for people who never hear the word of god and thus don't have an opportunity to be saved.
Even agreeing on what a "True Believer" is would be impossible but, from what I have read of the bible and know from 18+ years in the church I agree. As I child I got in trouble a few times for suggesting we take the concepts in the bible to their logical end. Things like:
- If we really believe all these people will burn in hell then why aren't we all becoming missionaries?
Then when I learned about "age of accountability" [0] I had 2 questions:
- If there is no age set on the age of accountability (to account for people living in remote areas who never heard the word of god) then isn't being a missionary and going to those places damning some percentage of them to hell if they don't accept jesus as their lord and savior? Aren't you making it worse? Even if you are able to "save" 60% you've damned the other 40% when before you visiting 100% would never have met the "age of accountability" due to never hearing about jesus?
and the much more horrifying question (note: I was 6 or 7 at the time)
- If the the age of accountability is real, and if our time on earth is truly inconsequential compared to eternity in heaven then (AGAIN: I was a child, I want just following logical chains), isn't the best option to kill everyone before that age so they will live for eternity in heaven?
Needless to say none of these questions were appreciated and all of them resulted in anger from the adults I mentioned it to. It taught me from a very young age how to lie or obscure what I thought/believed since voicing it or even asking innocent questions got me in trouble for reasons I could not understand. Perhaps there are logical flaws in my questions that a biblical scholar could point out but all I got was the fury of people too invested in a myth to question it.
[0] Concept that if you are younger than it and you die without being "saved" then you will still go to heaven because, essentially, you didn't know any better. There is no age defined since people reach that state at different ages and, IIRC, it even accounts for people who never hear the word of god and thus don't have an opportunity to be saved.
A good faith attempt to provide insight into good faith questions you shouldn't have been punished for asking:
"If we really believe all these people will burn in hell then why aren't we all becoming missionaries?"
Every Christian should seek to "become a missionary" in the sense that they should be a positive example and "practice what they preach" while being ready to share honestly about the Christian faith if appropriate/if asked. This is a standard we should hold ourselves to with the help of God.
Early Christians did employ this level of urgency for evangelization, and (according to tradition) the original 12 themselves went as far as Spain and India (without the aid of modern transportation methods, of course). Christian churches spread as far as China, but later suffered persecution and much of the rest of the known world had to wait until the colonial era before Christian missionaries arrived in significant numbers again. Outside of specific uncontacted tribes (and I think a guy just got killed trying to evangelize one of them), I do not know if there are currently populations to which the gospel has not been preached. Translation of Christian writing and good works are the correct method of evangelization at this point, and this work should be supported materially and with prayer.
As for the question of "the fate of the unlearned", there have been a variety of answers (or, more accurately, methods of approaching this question) which have included "they're screwed", "God judges them according to their heart", "God sends them the gospel via miraculous means", "Those who live according to the Logos are Christians but not aware of it", to the more modern "they may receive salvation through Christ through their faith in God as they know him" (other religions). It is important to note that from the perspective of Christian cosmology, (falling in Eden), God would be wholly justified in smiting us down into hell, and has no obligation to have done any of the things he has for us.
"Then when I learned about "age of accountability" [0] I had 2 questions"
You were right to consider the difficulties with this position as it (as expressed in your footnote) is not a historic Christian belief, but a retroactive justification for groups who deny infant baptism.
If we adjust the question to "why don't we kill all infants after they're baptized if they will just go to heaven", the answer is because it is expressly forbidden by God in his prohibition on murder. On a similar note, suicide is expressly forbidden because it is a rejection of the role on earth you have been called to play, whereas giving up your life for the sake of another, or for the sake of the Gospel, is an ideal because it is in the service of others, which is the fundamental role Christians are ordered to fill.
I hope this helps. May God bless you and reveal his truth in your life.
"If we really believe all these people will burn in hell then why aren't we all becoming missionaries?"
Every Christian should seek to "become a missionary" in the sense that they should be a positive example and "practice what they preach" while being ready to share honestly about the Christian faith if appropriate/if asked. This is a standard we should hold ourselves to with the help of God.
Early Christians did employ this level of urgency for evangelization, and (according to tradition) the original 12 themselves went as far as Spain and India (without the aid of modern transportation methods, of course). Christian churches spread as far as China, but later suffered persecution and much of the rest of the known world had to wait until the colonial era before Christian missionaries arrived in significant numbers again. Outside of specific uncontacted tribes (and I think a guy just got killed trying to evangelize one of them), I do not know if there are currently populations to which the gospel has not been preached. Translation of Christian writing and good works are the correct method of evangelization at this point, and this work should be supported materially and with prayer.
As for the question of "the fate of the unlearned", there have been a variety of answers (or, more accurately, methods of approaching this question) which have included "they're screwed", "God judges them according to their heart", "God sends them the gospel via miraculous means", "Those who live according to the Logos are Christians but not aware of it", to the more modern "they may receive salvation through Christ through their faith in God as they know him" (other religions). It is important to note that from the perspective of Christian cosmology, (falling in Eden), God would be wholly justified in smiting us down into hell, and has no obligation to have done any of the things he has for us.
"Then when I learned about "age of accountability" [0] I had 2 questions"
You were right to consider the difficulties with this position as it (as expressed in your footnote) is not a historic Christian belief, but a retroactive justification for groups who deny infant baptism.
If we adjust the question to "why don't we kill all infants after they're baptized if they will just go to heaven", the answer is because it is expressly forbidden by God in his prohibition on murder. On a similar note, suicide is expressly forbidden because it is a rejection of the role on earth you have been called to play, whereas giving up your life for the sake of another, or for the sake of the Gospel, is an ideal because it is in the service of others, which is the fundamental role Christians are ordered to fill.
I hope this helps. May God bless you and reveal his truth in your life.
> If we adjust the question to "why don't we kill all infants after they're baptized if they will just go to heaven", the answer is because it is expressly forbidden by God in his prohibition on murder. On a similar note, suicide is expressly forbidden because it is a rejection of the role on earth you have been called to play, whereas giving up your life for the sake of another, or for the sake of the Gospel, is an ideal because it is in the service of others, which is the fundamental role Christians are ordered to fill.
I have the same question/concern as GP (and have never seen another express that, so that's cool!) and have never gotten a great answer. I (truly) appreciate you engaging on this. It's very difficult because most people get so highly offended at the premise that they aren't able to address it (and I don't blame them as it is quite a horrifying thing to think about, even just as a thought experiment).
Yes I agree that murder is wrong, but wouldn't it be an incredibly selfless act to sacrifice your own salvation so that countless others could be saved? I.e. if I had two kids (or 10 kids, or whatever), I can only go to hell once but I could "guarantee" salvation for all of them if I'm just willing to kill them. Wouldn't the best gift I could give them be eternal life with Christ?
Going even further, Jesus (by most accounts) allowed himself to be killed when he easily had the power to stop it, which seems to me to be only a stone's throw away from suicide. He did it to save all of us from our sins. Isn't that basically the same thing?
I have the same question/concern as GP (and have never seen another express that, so that's cool!) and have never gotten a great answer. I (truly) appreciate you engaging on this. It's very difficult because most people get so highly offended at the premise that they aren't able to address it (and I don't blame them as it is quite a horrifying thing to think about, even just as a thought experiment).
Yes I agree that murder is wrong, but wouldn't it be an incredibly selfless act to sacrifice your own salvation so that countless others could be saved? I.e. if I had two kids (or 10 kids, or whatever), I can only go to hell once but I could "guarantee" salvation for all of them if I'm just willing to kill them. Wouldn't the best gift I could give them be eternal life with Christ?
Going even further, Jesus (by most accounts) allowed himself to be killed when he easily had the power to stop it, which seems to me to be only a stone's throw away from suicide. He did it to save all of us from our sins. Isn't that basically the same thing?
Hey man, I appreciate the question and wanted to let the thread fall off before answering, because I'm just a layman and don't want to get too unorthodox theologically or be prideful because I know there are other eyes on the conversation.
A fundamental tenant of Christianity is that it is not permissible to take an "intrinsically evil" action even if it is for a good or selfless purpose. Another is that every attempt to "game the system" (for lack of a better term) is also sinful. If our ultimate goal was to "maximize entrance of other souls to heaven" and we considered ourselves to be equal in ability to God, this might be an avenue of investigation, but if our goal is to "submit to Christ our Lord" it is the slaughter of innocents resulting from our attempt to play God.
We understand religious truth as God has revealed it to us, but because of the disparity in knowledge between humanity and an all knowing being, I have the feeling (but no proof) that we'd not be able to "pull of a heist" like this. I don't know if or by what mechanism God might choose to subvert the attempt. I'm thankful that you're speaking purely hypothetically. It is my estimation that if you have faith you would not do it because it is impermissible and evil, and if you do not have faith you would not do it because you wouldn't believe it to be effective.
I also question if a person legitimately believing they would be endlessly tormented beyond anything they can conceptualize could truly chose this. Even if they could, I would imagine they'd rescind after a second of hell (not that they'd have the option). It's nice to say (as the other response did) that we'd suffer anything for our children, but if I strip away my pride and look at myself in the mirror and am honest with myself and consider the reality of what eternity means, I don't think I could do it, even though I do truly believe I'd give up my life to save their's. It's possible that I'm a coward, or it's possible that I'm able to be more honest with myself about the question. I entrust their eternal well-being to God's mercy (as I understand them to already be a Christian through Baptism) without damning myself.
It's a somewhat similar issue of authority when it comes to the crucifixion. God, being all knowing and having all authority, is able to undertake such a mission. We are able to take similar actions (jumping on a grenade to save our friends, for example), but they are temporal actions with largely temporal results. To attempt to enter the "spiritual realm" and generate "spiritual results" other than in ways which have been provided to us by God, are in obedience to him, and are facilitated (not the best word but I can't find a better one) by the Holy Spirit (also God ofc) functionally amounts to, well, "witchcraft".
A fundamental tenant of Christianity is that it is not permissible to take an "intrinsically evil" action even if it is for a good or selfless purpose. Another is that every attempt to "game the system" (for lack of a better term) is also sinful. If our ultimate goal was to "maximize entrance of other souls to heaven" and we considered ourselves to be equal in ability to God, this might be an avenue of investigation, but if our goal is to "submit to Christ our Lord" it is the slaughter of innocents resulting from our attempt to play God.
We understand religious truth as God has revealed it to us, but because of the disparity in knowledge between humanity and an all knowing being, I have the feeling (but no proof) that we'd not be able to "pull of a heist" like this. I don't know if or by what mechanism God might choose to subvert the attempt. I'm thankful that you're speaking purely hypothetically. It is my estimation that if you have faith you would not do it because it is impermissible and evil, and if you do not have faith you would not do it because you wouldn't believe it to be effective.
I also question if a person legitimately believing they would be endlessly tormented beyond anything they can conceptualize could truly chose this. Even if they could, I would imagine they'd rescind after a second of hell (not that they'd have the option). It's nice to say (as the other response did) that we'd suffer anything for our children, but if I strip away my pride and look at myself in the mirror and am honest with myself and consider the reality of what eternity means, I don't think I could do it, even though I do truly believe I'd give up my life to save their's. It's possible that I'm a coward, or it's possible that I'm able to be more honest with myself about the question. I entrust their eternal well-being to God's mercy (as I understand them to already be a Christian through Baptism) without damning myself.
It's a somewhat similar issue of authority when it comes to the crucifixion. God, being all knowing and having all authority, is able to undertake such a mission. We are able to take similar actions (jumping on a grenade to save our friends, for example), but they are temporal actions with largely temporal results. To attempt to enter the "spiritual realm" and generate "spiritual results" other than in ways which have been provided to us by God, are in obedience to him, and are facilitated (not the best word but I can't find a better one) by the Holy Spirit (also God ofc) functionally amounts to, well, "witchcraft".
> If we adjust the question to "why don't we kill all infants after they're baptized if they will just go to heaven", the answer is because it is expressly forbidden by God in his prohibition on murder.
As a parent, I would go to hell to keep my children out of it. Therefore the logical thing to do would be to kill my children and ensure their salvation. While I burn in eternal torment, I can hold onto the slight bit of comfort that I will never see my children burning next to me.
As a parent, I would go to hell to keep my children out of it. Therefore the logical thing to do would be to kill my children and ensure their salvation. While I burn in eternal torment, I can hold onto the slight bit of comfort that I will never see my children burning next to me.
> The closest science has gotten was to actually corroborate that, yes, this was all not infinite and had a starting point (big bang), literally corroborated let there be light.
Georges Lemaître, one of the original articulators of the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. He did not appreciate Pope Pius XII characterizing his research as confirming "let there be light." There are many references to criticism he received for publishing a theory that meshed well with "let there be light," however I am not able to find any primary sources for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre#Views_on...
Georges Lemaître, one of the original articulators of the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. He did not appreciate Pope Pius XII characterizing his research as confirming "let there be light." There are many references to criticism he received for publishing a theory that meshed well with "let there be light," however I am not able to find any primary sources for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre#Views_on...
It is, however, pretty wonderful for the Big-Bang-is-creation view that light comes into existence on the first day, and God doesn't get around to making the sun until day four.
You are conflating a localized source of photonic emission with light.
Light is an electromagnetic field that permeates everything in and through. Without the field first there are no photons, there is no physics, no gravity.
God claimed to be this force. In all. Through all. Nothing could exist without it.
How would a primitive people know this, understand this? They could not. We certainly can.
Light is an electromagnetic field that permeates everything in and through. Without the field first there are no photons, there is no physics, no gravity.
God claimed to be this force. In all. Through all. Nothing could exist without it.
How would a primitive people know this, understand this? They could not. We certainly can.
There’s “science doesn’t adequately explain the origins of the universe,” and then there’s “this particular middle eastern tribe had the right answers thousands of years ago.” I can see the former but the latter makes no sense.
Unless God actually exists and revealed himself to them. Obviously, you are free to not believe that, but believing that goes along with believing what you are dismissing.
He revealed himself to them and only them, ignoring the rest of humanity all over the globe. In all the universe he chose just earth for his people, and over all of earth, he just chose a tiny section to reveal himself to. Omniscient and omnipotent but a very human scale for his messaging.
Who said he ignored the rest of humanity? That's not what the record shows. Most people know about God. Who said that in all the universe he chose just earth?
You're assuming too much about the motivations. I do not see what the issue is with a "very human scale" for messaging. That's...how you communicate with humans.
You're assuming too much about the motivations. I do not see what the issue is with a "very human scale" for messaging. That's...how you communicate with humans.
“ That's...how you communicate with humans.”
Right. Why would the omnipotent creator of the universe communicate the same way I do?
Right. Why would the omnipotent creator of the universe communicate the same way I do?
So that...you can comprehend the communication? Are you going to forget how to write or speak with your mouth when there is telepathy available and the next thing? Does Telnet still work?
The topic here is scale. I only talk to a small group of people because they’re the only ones I can reach. If Donald Trump can reach a billion people, why couldn’t God? The technology didn’t exist but that’s not supposed to be a limit for this particular entity.
Why do we sometimes bend down to look at a dog or child? To look them in the eye, at their level.
We aren't all powerful. We can't reach into their brain or ear to communicate. Supposedly God is all powerful. And doesn't speak directly to everyone, just certain ones.
Not everyone cares or listens. But the original point of the question you were responding to was that it seems strange that God would communicate with people in an intelligible or familiar or baser way. So being all powerful is irrelevant, because if we do it then why couldn't or wouldn't God do it? There's nothing wrong with communicating in the way that the targets in question will comprehend. That's the point of communication.
[deleted]
> Who said he ignored the rest of humanity?
People now know about god, but they wouldn't have 3,000 years ago. And it's only one particular culture that was being communicated with, or did the Chinese and Native Americans just ignore him when tried to message them?
> I do not see what the issue is with a "very human scale" for messaging. That's...how you communicate with humans.
It's because its messaging seems to have originated from a very small and region specific group of people, instead of, you know, being communicated across the world.
People now know about god, but they wouldn't have 3,000 years ago. And it's only one particular culture that was being communicated with, or did the Chinese and Native Americans just ignore him when tried to message them?
> I do not see what the issue is with a "very human scale" for messaging. That's...how you communicate with humans.
It's because its messaging seems to have originated from a very small and region specific group of people, instead of, you know, being communicated across the world.
They would've known about God 3,000 years ago. No, Chinese and Native Americans and etc did not ignore him. Abraham was of a pagan land when he first encountered God.
In any case, it was definitely communicated across the world. If you're picking a specific point in time when first contact was established according to a specific tradition, that might raise a question of why first contract there and in that way. But we in 2025 have the hindsight of seeing what happened globally after that and spread it did.
I don't think it is a coincidence that specific groups of people received revelation the way they did, when considering things like the quality of their oral and scribed history. Would you pick a region of people who don't know how to write and barely know how to talk, or a region of people who are highly skilled in both?
In any case, it was definitely communicated across the world. If you're picking a specific point in time when first contact was established according to a specific tradition, that might raise a question of why first contract there and in that way. But we in 2025 have the hindsight of seeing what happened globally after that and spread it did.
I don't think it is a coincidence that specific groups of people received revelation the way they did, when considering things like the quality of their oral and scribed history. Would you pick a region of people who don't know how to write and barely know how to talk, or a region of people who are highly skilled in both?
> They would've known about God 3,000 years ago. No, Chinese and Native Americans and etc did not ignore him. Abraham was of a pagan land when he first encountered God.
What do you mean? Did the non-Judeo-Christian faiths know about him or not? What was their relationship to it?
> But we in 2025 have the hindsight of seeing what happened globally after that and spread it did.
Sure, it only took thousands of years and a co-opting of the original message by an apocalyptic Galilean preacher changing the message and constant re-envisioning through history. And if the end game is half people in the world still not believing (if we generously assume that both Christianity and Islam are equal and valid in the eyes of the Hewbrew god), I guess mission accomplished.
> I don't think it is a coincidence that specific groups of people received revelation the way they did, when considering things like the quality of their oral and written history. Would you pick a region of people who don't know how to write and barely know how to talk, or a region of people who are highly skilled in both?
But in the case of a place like China, writing was definitely in the cards. Ancient Babylon had writing long before that as well, so that's not a good reason.
What do you mean? Did the non-Judeo-Christian faiths know about him or not? What was their relationship to it?
> But we in 2025 have the hindsight of seeing what happened globally after that and spread it did.
Sure, it only took thousands of years and a co-opting of the original message by an apocalyptic Galilean preacher changing the message and constant re-envisioning through history. And if the end game is half people in the world still not believing (if we generously assume that both Christianity and Islam are equal and valid in the eyes of the Hewbrew god), I guess mission accomplished.
> I don't think it is a coincidence that specific groups of people received revelation the way they did, when considering things like the quality of their oral and written history. Would you pick a region of people who don't know how to write and barely know how to talk, or a region of people who are highly skilled in both?
But in the case of a place like China, writing was definitely in the cards. Ancient Babylon had writing long before that as well, so that's not a good reason.
I wouldn’t pick a region at all, I’d do all of them.
> He revealed himself to them and only them, ignoring the rest of humanity all over the globe
That's absolutely not true. First of all, there was an enormous crowd of people: 600,000 families--millions of people--who received the revelation on Mt. Sinai. And secondly, G-d offered the Torah to all the peoples of the world. (https://www.sefaria.org/Sifrei_Devarim.343.2?lang=bi)
It's a fundamental principle of Judaism that all righteous people will be in the world to come, unlike Christianity.
All that being said, I will not be wagering that "Jesus" will come again.
That's absolutely not true. First of all, there was an enormous crowd of people: 600,000 families--millions of people--who received the revelation on Mt. Sinai. And secondly, G-d offered the Torah to all the peoples of the world. (https://www.sefaria.org/Sifrei_Devarim.343.2?lang=bi)
It's a fundamental principle of Judaism that all righteous people will be in the world to come, unlike Christianity.
All that being said, I will not be wagering that "Jesus" will come again.
> That's absolutely not true. First of all, there was an enormous crowd of people: 600,000 families--millions of people--who received the revelation on Mt. Sinai.
It's true that it was very regional, within the reach of a group of people's ability to communicate.
> And secondly, G-d offered the Torah to all the peoples of the world.
Did he? Did all the other cultures of the world about that time simply not answer the door?
It's true that it was very regional, within the reach of a group of people's ability to communicate.
> And secondly, G-d offered the Torah to all the peoples of the world.
Did he? Did all the other cultures of the world about that time simply not answer the door?
And how do we know that millions of people received this revelation? We only “know” this if we take this particular tribe’s myths to be fact.
You are reading too hard into the specifics. The general themes are remarkably conserved across faiths. Even between monotheistic and polytheistic faiths, we see what is a pantheon of gods in the latter become just different forms of the monotheistic god in the former. The same myths when they are distilled. Zeus is Yahweh is Ahura Mazda is Indra is Thor is Itzamna is Baiame, fundamentally all the creator sky god. Of course the most ardent supporters of each faith might be blind to this parallelism, but it is obvious from an outsiders perspective.
Sure, if you squint enough everything looks the same, but then you can't see. For instance, in your example Thor is not a creator sky god, and he's limited. He's not even the leader of his pantheon. Zeus, another famous sky god, is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. Yahweh, especially the later Christian incarnation of him, is pretty unique if you compare him to polytheistic religions.
The lack of originality is proof that God exists. First time I've heard that tbh.
I've heard it many times, but it also assumes that there aren't other ways to explain similarities, such as cultural cross-exchange of ideas (which happens prolifically even in the Bible, hence why Israel is supposed to avoid inter-marriage and the like), and the fact that most myths begin to explain observed phenomena, which itself tends to be very similar and repetitive. I personally think this is an extremely weak argument that is only compelling if you have already presupposed that God revealed himself and his revelations were bastardized by civilizations around the world. It's classic Confirmation Bias.
When Michael Jackson does a concert, it’s really only in a few locations. It’s up to the world to spread it. As others have mentioned, he could show up in the sky like Mufasa, but he could also just brain wash you in an instant and fix all of it.
Faith is a concept, like so many other concepts. It is a unique creation that has properties, one of them is that it’s not meant to be provable that easily.
Faith is a concept, like so many other concepts. It is a unique creation that has properties, one of them is that it’s not meant to be provable that easily.
Yeah, I don't really buy that. God revealed himself directly to Moses and Moses was still able to ignore him or go against his wishes and still had to come to faith on his own terms. Both faith and free will are a great bottomless pits to throw any philosophical or logical incongruities into.
> When Michael Jackson does a concert, it’s really only in a few locations. It’s up to the world to spread it.
In this example, what is up to the world to spread for Michael Jackson? Is god a singular entity with a specific location? I'm sure Michael would have happily shown up in every place on earth if he could have sold tickets.
> When Michael Jackson does a concert, it’s really only in a few locations. It’s up to the world to spread it.
In this example, what is up to the world to spread for Michael Jackson? Is god a singular entity with a specific location? I'm sure Michael would have happily shown up in every place on earth if he could have sold tickets.
"...it’s not meant to be provable that easily."
If ever there were a post-hoc rationalization, this is it.
It's funny how the faithful are generally happy to use any evidence that they think supports the faith, but once it gets too difficult then suddenly it's not supposed to have too much evidence for it.
If ever there were a post-hoc rationalization, this is it.
It's funny how the faithful are generally happy to use any evidence that they think supports the faith, but once it gets too difficult then suddenly it's not supposed to have too much evidence for it.
When constructing a house of cards, it's important to not make it look too easy.
Also at a time those humans also believed the Earth was flat.
Sure, but in that case the supposed fact that God revealed himself to this particular tribe is the key thing supporting the belief, not "reality is unexplainable, it must be something else."
How did Israel get the order of operations correct, without science, if no one told them this story?
Israel’s creation story gets every step in the right order.
How?
Israel’s creation story gets every step in the right order.
How?
You mean the story where God created the earth covered with water, then created light, then created sky to separate the water underneath the sky from the water above the sky (???), then land, then seed-bearing plants on land, then created the sun and the moon and the stars, then created animals? That's... not the right order at all.
Revelations is problematic if you attempt to take it literally rather than understanding that it makes heavy use of symbolism and other literary devices. That literalism is largely specific to American society - and I don't just mean American Christians here. It's not particularly easy to understand the way that ancient literature works, but even if you don't want to put in the time, it's important to understand that the writers were often quite sophisticated, and worked in different ways from what you are used to.
I like Feynman's take that "I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1RqTP5Unr4
The true believers in Christianity have to know, their world view is hinged on knowing that there is a god, that the world was created in 7 days, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, among many other questionable religious beliefs. They're wrong about all of it (IMHO as someone who grew up Catholic), but at least in their own minds, they know. And that's good enough for them, they don't have to ask any more questions because a book written by kings told them so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1RqTP5Unr4
The true believers in Christianity have to know, their world view is hinged on knowing that there is a god, that the world was created in 7 days, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, among many other questionable religious beliefs. They're wrong about all of it (IMHO as someone who grew up Catholic), but at least in their own minds, they know. And that's good enough for them, they don't have to ask any more questions because a book written by kings told them so.
If you think quantum = supernatural you just didn't understand the topic.
It ought to be telling that all the woo woo comes from people who don't know anything.
It ought to be telling that all the woo woo comes from people who don't know anything.
depends how you define a true believer. i am not christian, but i would claim that the people you describe aren't true believers because they haven't really understood the bible.
"they haven't really understood the bible."
Pretty much every religious person believes that THEIR understanding is the correct one. You cant objectively say that "this is the correct understanding" from a religous perspective (you can however do it from a for example a historical or textual analysis perspective).
You cant objectively prove that only mormons or bapists have "understood" the bible correct and everyone else are false believers.
Pretty much every religious person believes that THEIR understanding is the correct one. You cant objectively say that "this is the correct understanding" from a religous perspective (you can however do it from a for example a historical or textual analysis perspective).
You cant objectively prove that only mormons or bapists have "understood" the bible correct and everyone else are false believers.
that's my point. everyone has a different idea/interpretation, and thus there is no objective definition of a true believer. GP says that true believers come off as insane. that doesn't sound like a sensible definition for a true believer. iaw. whatever a true believer is, i don't think it's that.
what if jesus already returned? then the true believers would only be those that have recognized his return. there are people who did make that claim. that's who i would investigate.
what if jesus already returned? then the true believers would only be those that have recognized his return. there are people who did make that claim. that's who i would investigate.
Aha. Sorry missunderstood you. I thought you argued they are not true believers. I see what you mean now.
What is so special about reality?
Whenever people say things like this "the universe is too weird not to have been created", I always ask "Weird compared to what? To other realities you have witnessed?"
The safest assumption to make, if you absolutely have to make an assumption at all, is that this reality is pretty average. With no knowledge whatsoever, it's certainly safer than betting it is somehow exotic.
The safest assumption to make, if you absolutely have to make an assumption at all, is that this reality is pretty average. With no knowledge whatsoever, it's certainly safer than betting it is somehow exotic.
Indeed, this is a variation on the "Watchmaker Analogy." It presupposes that there isn't an alternative explanation to design that can describe how things could be so intricate and complex (Darwinian Evolution provides that alternative explanation). I highly recommend Richard Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker" for anyone wishing to dive deeper on the subject.
Purpose. That there was a purpose for all of this. If we believe there was no purpose for all of this, then what a hopeless thing. I just look at the erasure of Gaza and have become more and more religious, because my god what a hopeless end if this all isn’t saved at the very end. I feel that way about many of today’s ills.
Purpose and hope, even if the answer is utterly magical.
Purpose and hope, even if the answer is utterly magical.
I can very much relate to this, but I do think it's worth pointing out that this is not at all an argument for the existence of God, merely a motivation for wanting there to be a God.
I actually find a lot of comfort in the Mark Twain quote after he was asked by a reporter whether he fears death given his lack of belief in God:
> “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” --Mark Twain
I actually find a lot of comfort in the Mark Twain quote after he was asked by a reporter whether he fears death given his lack of belief in God:
> “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” --Mark Twain
Opposite to my view. If there's no pre-ordained purpose, we're free to invent our own. I find that very freeing and hopeful. And a lifetime project.
This is my take. The universe itself only cares that energy is as evenly distributed as possible. We are just a temporary ripple in that slide down entropy.
There is no objective morality, because morality is a human invention. It's important for that exact reason that we make it very good then.
Love strangers. Eradicate poverty. Encourage personal growth. Build society up. Reduce suffering. Stop bullies. Understand.
There is no objective morality, because morality is a human invention. It's important for that exact reason that we make it very good then.
Love strangers. Eradicate poverty. Encourage personal growth. Build society up. Reduce suffering. Stop bullies. Understand.
> If we believe there was no purpose for all of this, then what a hopeless thing.
That's a huge leap that speaks to your own perspective. It's not some sort of objective fact. That there is no purpose and we are still here is in fact quite beautiful and amazing.
That's a huge leap that speaks to your own perspective. It's not some sort of objective fact. That there is no purpose and we are still here is in fact quite beautiful and amazing.
Oh, I know it doesn't prove anything. It is a veritable leap of faith. No one said faith was easy.
You're missing the point. Your conjecture is false. Sure, you never said it proved anything. But that's a different point.
Your entire premise is just completely made up.
You're not even expressing a leap of faith. It's a leap of cynicism that speaks to your world view, not your faith. Faith is not predicated upon a belief that there is no purpose to which otherwise faith supplies. You're just basically playing word salad at this point. And I don't mean that to suggest religious beliefs or faith is word salad. Just what you have offered here in this brief conversation.
Your entire premise is just completely made up.
You're not even expressing a leap of faith. It's a leap of cynicism that speaks to your world view, not your faith. Faith is not predicated upon a belief that there is no purpose to which otherwise faith supplies. You're just basically playing word salad at this point. And I don't mean that to suggest religious beliefs or faith is word salad. Just what you have offered here in this brief conversation.
If you're interested in some of the classic intellectual / philosophical arguments for faith (albeit from a Christian perspective) you should check out "Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig.
I'm a non-believer, but I do think that is one of the best apologetic books that are out there. It's a bit of a tome and does get a bit slow at points, but I appreciate his attempt at depth and breadth and one can't do that without writing a pretty damn big book. I think everyone should read it (along with books from the other side as well, especially Richard Dawkins (for biology and some philosophy), Bart Ehrman (for Biblical scholarship and some philosophy), Robert Sapolsky (for Neurology/Neuroscience), Lawrence Krauss (Physics), and Robert Wright).
I do wish Craig had reframed from the personal shots he takes at various atheist/agnostic writers (which clearly cross into ad hominem at many points) but he is by far the most interesting defender of faith out there (IMHO). In his defense I think he was playing along with the at times very incendiary approach taken by Dawkin's and many other "new atheists" so it's not like he started the brawl :-). I think he's way too confident in Anselm's Ontological argument, but he has clearly studied it a whole lot more than me so I don't hold a strong conviction there.
I do wish Craig had reframed from the personal shots he takes at various atheist/agnostic writers (which clearly cross into ad hominem at many points) but he is by far the most interesting defender of faith out there (IMHO). In his defense I think he was playing along with the at times very incendiary approach taken by Dawkin's and many other "new atheists" so it's not like he started the brawl :-). I think he's way too confident in Anselm's Ontological argument, but he has clearly studied it a whole lot more than me so I don't hold a strong conviction there.
Why should there be a purpose?
It’s certainly possible that there is a purpose, but I think it’s more likely that we simply happened to evolve the way we did.
In a vacuum, wars are meaningless. It’s simply humans fighting other humans (and the ones on the front lines might not even want to be there).
It’s certainly possible that there is a purpose, but I think it’s more likely that we simply happened to evolve the way we did.
In a vacuum, wars are meaningless. It’s simply humans fighting other humans (and the ones on the front lines might not even want to be there).
lipbetfox(1)
The popular stories/proverbs aren't too unbelievable, but Ezekiel 10 discusses the four wheels besides the cherubim. These wheels are celestial beings that see all. Diablo (the video game) draws from this. This is not a comment on your mental status, but that some of the stuff in the Christian Bible are further out there than magic tricks by Jesus that Penn and Teller could replicate.
It shouldn't be Jesus but rather an intermediary that reigns for 1000 years, but during that time people shouldn't die and generally things should be pretty good for everyone.
[deleted]
The large majority of Christians do not believe in any sort of 'Rapture'.
Well of course - those heretics were descended from those excommunicated in the 1500s.
Most Protestants don't believe in the Rapture either. It's a doctrine some American theologians created in the 19th century and which hasn't gained much support elsewhere.
What is the cognitive dissonance true believers learn to live with?
Just my opinion, I think at least a portion of them have to learn to live with "faith" being the answer to some hard questions. You also don't have to look hard for doctrines that are contradictory. For example: was Jesus human or God? (and keep in mind that God is traditinally viewed as tri-omni, meaning omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent)
Many times I've asked that I'm told "he was 100% human and also 100% God." I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question (it answers a question about how Jesus and God the Father can both be God yet still be "monotheistic"). When pushed it has always come down to "some things have to be accepted on faith." That is obviously enough for plenty of people, but I personally find it insufficient. Back when I was a believer I had cognitive dissonance over that question that I somewhat learned to live with (obviously not entirely as I am no longer a believer, but it wasn't that question that led me to ultimately lose my faith).
Many times I've asked that I'm told "he was 100% human and also 100% God." I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question (it answers a question about how Jesus and God the Father can both be God yet still be "monotheistic"). When pushed it has always come down to "some things have to be accepted on faith." That is obviously enough for plenty of people, but I personally find it insufficient. Back when I was a believer I had cognitive dissonance over that question that I somewhat learned to live with (obviously not entirely as I am no longer a believer, but it wasn't that question that led me to ultimately lose my faith).
> Many times I've asked that I'm told "he was 100% human and also 100% God."
Does this surprise you? The council of Nicea where this was defined as the orthodox claim happened in A.D. 325.
> I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different for
The _vast majority_ hold that, because the vast majority affirm Nicea. The only major denominations not holding to the orthodoxy here are (in descending order of size) Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and Christadelphians. They represent approximately 1.6-2.4% of the Christian population.
> you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question
The real (orthodox) answer depends on a metaphysics of substance that most Christians, even those who hold the orthodox view, are ill-prepared to elaborate on.
Does this surprise you? The council of Nicea where this was defined as the orthodox claim happened in A.D. 325.
> I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different for
The _vast majority_ hold that, because the vast majority affirm Nicea. The only major denominations not holding to the orthodoxy here are (in descending order of size) Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and Christadelphians. They represent approximately 1.6-2.4% of the Christian population.
> you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question
The real (orthodox) answer depends on a metaphysics of substance that most Christians, even those who hold the orthodox view, are ill-prepared to elaborate on.
My experience in Australia and India is that increasingly commonly people, especially but not exclusively laity, don't really believe the Nicene Trinity, but more ignore the Father and make Jesus God. That’s a particularly common view among Hindus, too (I remember a school textbook saying the Christian god was named Jesus), which is almost weird given that their notion of “avatars” isn’t too bad a fit for the trinity.
There are just as many problems or difficulties with viewing Jesus as the only god as with the trinity, but comparatively few professing Christians are all that critical about it.
(For my part, I’m Christadelphian.)
There are just as many problems or difficulties with viewing Jesus as the only god as with the trinity, but comparatively few professing Christians are all that critical about it.
(For my part, I’m Christadelphian.)
this is the first time I've heard of Christadelphianism. I looked it up, expecting it to have cult-like beliefs, but it really seems pretty unobjectionable to me. I would feel more at ease around you and your Brethren than with Presbyterians, since while you don't subscribe to universal salvation, nor do you seem to believe in Predestination or a Hell of eternal torment.
If you happen to be interested in more details or discussion, email me.
Traditionally the explanation involves distinguishing between nature ("what") and person ("who"), which is the basis of the term "hypostatic union". There is one Person (which the gospel of st John refers to as "the Word"), which is of divine nature, i.e., is God; this Person assumed also a human nature, on the incarnation; and that is Jesus. This is what is meant by Jesus being truly God and truly Man: the one Person had united in himself both natures, the divine and the human.
I agree it's unfortunate that these kinds of questions sometimes get answered by inadequate metaphors or simply by dismissals. The whole joy of theology, while still requiring faith, is trying to answer these questions rationally.
I agree it's unfortunate that these kinds of questions sometimes get answered by inadequate metaphors or simply by dismissals. The whole joy of theology, while still requiring faith, is trying to answer these questions rationally.
Asking logical critical questions will not get you far with any hardcore believer, at least I havent met any, ever.
What you will get plenty of depends on personality - outright attack, run away in some form, or usual blanket statements with 0 actual meaning like "its faith", "you have to believe".
As if anything else mattered but a clean moral behavior. Made up rituals very specific to given sect, on different dates, some ignored, some have other meanings. You shouldn't take it all literally, but they often take it literally to absurd levels.
Yeah, I cant give much respect to believers or faith which cant handle a minute or two of critical thinking, and deeply ignore its own past and rather harsh moral failures. Mistakes not acknowledged and acted upon are mistakes waiting to happen again.
What you will get plenty of depends on personality - outright attack, run away in some form, or usual blanket statements with 0 actual meaning like "its faith", "you have to believe".
As if anything else mattered but a clean moral behavior. Made up rituals very specific to given sect, on different dates, some ignored, some have other meanings. You shouldn't take it all literally, but they often take it literally to absurd levels.
Yeah, I cant give much respect to believers or faith which cant handle a minute or two of critical thinking, and deeply ignore its own past and rather harsh moral failures. Mistakes not acknowledged and acted upon are mistakes waiting to happen again.
;) i love critical questions
> As if anything else mattered but a clean moral behavior
this is actually a strongly non-Christian view point: 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' i.e. no morals are clean enough unless it's 100% of God (why should he accept less?). yes, our harsh moral failures, or even successes could never be enough
hence 100% humanity and divinity of Christ -- he alone provides a 100% perfect bridge, paying 100% the cost for us, one that was infinitely beyond our ability to pay
this is 100% grace, joy, freedom and surety. thanks be to him
> As if anything else mattered but a clean moral behavior
this is actually a strongly non-Christian view point: 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' i.e. no morals are clean enough unless it's 100% of God (why should he accept less?). yes, our harsh moral failures, or even successes could never be enough
hence 100% humanity and divinity of Christ -- he alone provides a 100% perfect bridge, paying 100% the cost for us, one that was infinitely beyond our ability to pay
this is 100% grace, joy, freedom and surety. thanks be to him
There are plenty of denominations- Catholics foremost among them- who agree that good morals and works are not contributing to your redemption, but a natural consequence of having genuinely accepted Christ.
To "believe" without good morals or works entirely is to put on a false face, essentially. Therefore, some manner of effort is expected of believers. It's a bit of circular reasoning, but not much.
To "believe" without good morals or works entirely is to put on a false face, essentially. Therefore, some manner of effort is expected of believers. It's a bit of circular reasoning, but not much.
"Faith without works is dead," right?
[deleted]
One data point: I took the first few chapters of Genesis literally until age 27. I also went through college as a physics major. I’m sure I embarrassed myself in debates with my atheist lab partner.
I loved science from when I was really young, read every book in my school library’s J523/Astronomy section, including Cosmos in 3rd grade. But I also went to church every week with my family, read through the entire Bible in middle school, and believed that my faith would crumble and I’d go to hell if I ever gave up the belief that the Bible was 100% true and literal.
I also chose to keep emotional distance from non-Christian friends. They might lead me astray.
I remember an exchange with my mom (who was a teacher, mostly at Lutheran schools) during a car ride when I was maybe 6 or 7. I was excitedly talking about the big bang or something, and she said “yes, but we know from the Bible that the earth is 6,000 years old, right?” “Yes,” I answered, and in that moment I believed it. I didn’t feel conflicted: the Bible must be true, so someday I’d figure out in what sense the science was true too.
As I got older, I sustained this by basically hand-waving away the less intuitive explanations for an old earth. There are plenty of books out there for helping people do just that. Maybe the speed of life was different in the past. What can we really say with certainty about evolution? That kind of thing.
The beginning of the end was the day I learned about dendrochronology: tree rings. They’re too simple to hand-wave away. Soon after, I lost my faith.
Another huge area of cognitive dissonance: we prayed all the time, we talked about “miracles”, but I never heard any really credible evidence for one. It took some serious introspection, while still a Christian, to discern whether I actually believed in them or not.
I loved science from when I was really young, read every book in my school library’s J523/Astronomy section, including Cosmos in 3rd grade. But I also went to church every week with my family, read through the entire Bible in middle school, and believed that my faith would crumble and I’d go to hell if I ever gave up the belief that the Bible was 100% true and literal.
I also chose to keep emotional distance from non-Christian friends. They might lead me astray.
I remember an exchange with my mom (who was a teacher, mostly at Lutheran schools) during a car ride when I was maybe 6 or 7. I was excitedly talking about the big bang or something, and she said “yes, but we know from the Bible that the earth is 6,000 years old, right?” “Yes,” I answered, and in that moment I believed it. I didn’t feel conflicted: the Bible must be true, so someday I’d figure out in what sense the science was true too.
As I got older, I sustained this by basically hand-waving away the less intuitive explanations for an old earth. There are plenty of books out there for helping people do just that. Maybe the speed of life was different in the past. What can we really say with certainty about evolution? That kind of thing.
The beginning of the end was the day I learned about dendrochronology: tree rings. They’re too simple to hand-wave away. Soon after, I lost my faith.
Another huge area of cognitive dissonance: we prayed all the time, we talked about “miracles”, but I never heard any really credible evidence for one. It took some serious introspection, while still a Christian, to discern whether I actually believed in them or not.
Presumably the conflict between an ostensibly scientific, materialist, atheistic reality of modernity and the non-empirical, spiritual, theistic reality of their faith. Though I think it's implicit in the criticism of religious believers that they resolve the dissonance by, e.g., rejecting scientific truths. And arguably the other side does the same, by rejecting the metaphysical; compare atheism to agnosticism, where the former rejects what the latter says it cannot logically do as core religious beliefs tend not to be falsifiable. Personally, I like F. Scott Fitzgerald's perspective--"the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." Dissonance is everywhere, including in the modern so-called evidence-based world, often inescapable, and perhaps even fundamental to the human experience.
That prayer works.
(Many) true believers believe that prayer has the power to heal people. So if you pray for someone with cancer, and they get better, then it shows the power of prayer.
If you pray for someone with cancer, and they don't get better, then it was all part of God's plan.
This may not strictly meet the definition of cognitive dissonance, but it is close enough for me.
(Many) true believers believe that prayer has the power to heal people. So if you pray for someone with cancer, and they get better, then it shows the power of prayer.
If you pray for someone with cancer, and they don't get better, then it was all part of God's plan.
This may not strictly meet the definition of cognitive dissonance, but it is close enough for me.
You should read the book of the same name by Eric Hoffer.
It is an incredible book and a crime it is not a standard text in education.
It is an incredible book and a crime it is not a standard text in education.
Getting downvoted for asking a question lol.
Religion is ignorance of reality. I choose reality and reject ignorance.
Not to be that guy, but I always wondered how "reign a 1000 years" square with the Jesus as he was in fact depicted in the bible. Didn't exactly strike me as the guy who would be interested in reigning, more like a guy who the people who acrually like to reign would get rid off because he's an uppity socialist that gives common folks ideas that make them demand more of their lives.
It’s most easily shown in a couple of Paul’s letters and in Hebrews, but I think you might prefer what the gospels record Jesus saying; so I’ll suggest Matthew 25, especially towards the end, and some chunks in Luke 12 too, probably centring around verse 49. His first and second comings have quite different missions. You can also see the progression even in his lifetime in how he tried to help and teach the leaders at the start, but by the end he practically eviscerated the Pharisees for their unrepentant hypocrisy (Matthew 23).
There’s also the temptations of Jesus: skipping the pain and taking over (to fix things, as he will eventually) was a temptation to him. He had the power, he had to decide not to use it on himself. Consider also Gethsemane.
There’s also the temptations of Jesus: skipping the pain and taking over (to fix things, as he will eventually) was a temptation to him. He had the power, he had to decide not to use it on himself. Consider also Gethsemane.
Jesus is like any other "mythological" figure[0] in that the narratives presented about him reflect the specific cultural and political biases of the authors, and serve to frame their particular agenda. It doesn't surprise me at all that the motif of "Jesus as conquering king" would make it into a Biblical canon commissioned by a king in part to solidify their claim of authority through divine right, while others might fall by the wayside and be declared heresies.
[0] not in the sense of being purely fictional - it's likely there was an actual "Jesus," supernatural claims aside - but in the sense of being mythologized and having stories written about oneself which may or may not be true but tend to form some cultural canon.
[0] not in the sense of being purely fictional - it's likely there was an actual "Jesus," supernatural claims aside - but in the sense of being mythologized and having stories written about oneself which may or may not be true but tend to form some cultural canon.
moralestapia(1)
There is a conspiracy theory going around that Trump is an Anti-Christ.
People do kind of worship at Trump's feet. The actual anti-christ is going to have a high priest that performs miracles in his presence. Like magic tricks but more real. The anti-christ is also going to receive a mortal head wound and resurrect 3 days later.
::shrug:: it's all laid out in the Bible. Jesus wasn't ambiguous about anything about Himself, or His opponent.
::shrug:: it's all laid out in the Bible. Jesus wasn't ambiguous about anything about Himself, or His opponent.
To be fair, everything about the Antichrist comes from John of Patmos and the Book of Revelations, not Jesus, and was probably about Nero Caesar[0].
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/14nnbwt/w...
[0] https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/14nnbwt/w...
[flagged]
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44126690 and marked it off topic.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Jesus was a socialist? Was that before or after he used supernatural powers to increase the quantity of food instantly? Easy to be a "socialist" in such cases, but let's not pretend that there's any serious economic theorizing being done when people say this about Jesus. It's usually just a convenience for people looking to grift or instigate. lmao.
If everyone gave away their money and followed him it would be a suicide cult. Even in a world where there’s a guy who can conjure food and heal the sick how long before the whole world fell apart? Shit needs to get done constantly for the world to support this many humans.
I mean, this is a little disingenuous. If you posit that there exists a supernatural mechanism for providing food and health, why would you admit that it exists for a small subset of the population, but not a larger (or whole) population?
People call Jesus a socialist because of the numerous times he commanded people to distribute their wealth to the poor and needy, help the sick, forgive debts and treat immigrants with respect and dignity.
No one is literally claiming that Jesus was espousing some kind of proto-Marxist economic theory so much as pointing out that in the context of modern (specifically American) political discourse, Jesus would be considered a socialist.
Then again, so would Ronald Reagan and Adam Smith. At this point the Overton window of what constitutes "socialism" has drifted so far that anyone to the left of Ayn Rand might as well be a tankie.
No one is literally claiming that Jesus was espousing some kind of proto-Marxist economic theory so much as pointing out that in the context of modern (specifically American) political discourse, Jesus would be considered a socialist.
Then again, so would Ronald Reagan and Adam Smith. At this point the Overton window of what constitutes "socialism" has drifted so far that anyone to the left of Ayn Rand might as well be a tankie.
As a side note, tankie doesn't mean socialist, tankie is a slur against authoritarians that was invented by socialists to call people out for abandoning socialist principles in favor of authoritarian control.
Yeah, I think people outside of the socialist sphere whose understanding of ideology is limited to a one-dimensional spectrum see it as a slur by moderate socialists against more extreme socialists but that's not how it is seen by those using it.
I liken the concept of tankie to that of jumping the shark by Fonzie on Happy Days. I wonder if there's some kind of portmanteau going on there in the etmology? Maybe a (now-discontinued SAT test style) analogy will help show how I think this might have occurred, or a least provide a potentially helpful backronymic mnemonic device? I think I have made my relations clear conceptually, and I think the analogy works and the wordplay seems like it could be intentional, but I can't say what was going through the mind of whoever first used the word tankie to refer to socialists who essentially backslide into fascism after some kind of failed revolution, if I understand the proper usage as understood by modern leftists correctly.
Tankie (authoritarianism with little red flags (after precipitating incident)) is to Tank Man (precipitating incident) in relation to China (socialist status quo (before precipitating incident)), is as Fonzie is to jumping the shark in relation to Happy Days.
Tankie (authoritarianism with little red flags (after precipitating incident)) is to Tank Man (precipitating incident) in relation to China (socialist status quo (before precipitating incident)), is as Fonzie is to jumping the shark in relation to Happy Days.
The precipitating incident for "tankie" isn't "Tank Man" (or even the Tiananmen Square incident in China in 1989 more generally), but the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 by the invasion by the USSR the same year.
That is helpful context, much appreciated!
Do you know when tankie was first used in this authoritarian socialist sense, or is that what you're saying?
Do you know when tankie was first used in this authoritarian socialist sense, or is that what you're saying?
> Do you know when tankie was first used in this authoritarian socialist sense, or is that what you're saying?
My understanding is that it was first used in the immediate aftermath of 1956 in internal criticism within the British Communist Party, and gained wider international currency after the Prague Sprint in 1968.
My understanding is that it was first used in the immediate aftermath of 1956 in internal criticism within the British Communist Party, and gained wider international currency after the Prague Sprint in 1968.
Do you have a source? I don't doubt you, I just am looking for good slang sources since I lost my last good one. That is, I used to have a slang dictionary, but I gave it as a gift to someone as a child and have regretted it ever since, as the recipient doesn't seem to have it anymore, and I haven't ever been able to find a decent one before or since, though I haven't really looked very hard. My old one had a lot of old slang common among WWII and other military members and veterans that I've never seen before, for instance.
In history, America has been one of the most generous nations, if not the most generous, as far as charitable contributions go. I think people say "Jesus was a socialist" because they consider it an easy way to win more points in a debate or to ask for more social benefit spending. You can be a capitalist and still distribute wealth to the poor and needy, help the sick, forgive debts, be nice to immigrants, etc. There are entire products that are built to facilitate those things and enterprising individuals are able to donate from their surplus for those things too.
None of those things have anything to do with who owns the means of production or taking things from people who produced them, though. Jesus advocated for voluntary selflessness, not charity by compulsion. And certainly he didn't advocate for there to be a hall monitor on someone's personal life and income in order for that hall monitor to be the arbiter of whether or not it's all according to Jesus' "socialist" tendencies.
In modern American political discourse, if Jesus showed up he'd be expected to do miraculous things like multiplying resources. So...I don't see how meaningful it is for someone to say Jesus would be a socialist as if it is any kind of informed or useful commentary on the state of American discourse.
None of those things have anything to do with who owns the means of production or taking things from people who produced them, though. Jesus advocated for voluntary selflessness, not charity by compulsion. And certainly he didn't advocate for there to be a hall monitor on someone's personal life and income in order for that hall monitor to be the arbiter of whether or not it's all according to Jesus' "socialist" tendencies.
In modern American political discourse, if Jesus showed up he'd be expected to do miraculous things like multiplying resources. So...I don't see how meaningful it is for someone to say Jesus would be a socialist as if it is any kind of informed or useful commentary on the state of American discourse.
> At this point the Overton window of what constitutes "socialism" has drifted so far that anyone to the left of Ayn Rand might as well be a tankie.
This. Thank you.
This. Thank you.
Marx was perhaps so influential because he riffed on ideas from the Bible and dressed them up as intellectual.
To add, not just Jesus, but the entire Bible.
The Year of Jubilee alone, from the Pentateuch, basically eliminates capitalism as we know it (if enacted at a full societal scale.)
The Year of Jubilee alone, from the Pentateuch, basically eliminates capitalism as we know it (if enacted at a full societal scale.)
I don't think the Year of Jubilee would eliminate capitalism. It just adds a reset into the assumptions so that nobody is ever screwed. Instead, there's a reset available for people every so often. I also think the Bible says a lot about wisdom and how to earn a profit, not just in financial terms but in time management too. Proverbs has many examples.
So I would say that on the Bible, we'd still have free markets but with more guard rails so that nobody falls through the cracks if they're at least trying.
I do think we should bring back the Year of Jubilee though. Ironically, 2025 is a Year of Jubilee. I'm a big fan and I'm sure there are viable modern interpretations for it.
So I would say that on the Bible, we'd still have free markets but with more guard rails so that nobody falls through the cracks if they're at least trying.
I do think we should bring back the Year of Jubilee though. Ironically, 2025 is a Year of Jubilee. I'm a big fan and I'm sure there are viable modern interpretations for it.
Capitalism isn't really just about free markets, though. Lots of economic systems have markets.
Capitalism is more about ownership of the means of production and the relationship of labor to capital.
Capitalism is more about ownership of the means of production and the relationship of labor to capital.
I mean, he did actually die on a cross and fast in the wilderness. Don't think the "multiplying food" thing was a huge escape hatch in the bible.
Because that is part of what he came to do at that time. He intentionally chose to die on a cross and fast in the wilderness. If he wanted an escape hatch from that fate, he would've not come or he would've summoned a bunch of angels to defend him.
Never heard about Jesus pleading for 'seizing means of production'. I heard it was more like 'Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s'.
> Never heard about Jesus pleading for 'seizing means of production'.
This is something he has in common with many of the people that modern dominant (in the US, at least) political groups condemn for "socialism".
This is something he has in common with many of the people that modern dominant (in the US, at least) political groups condemn for "socialism".
Then they should choose not to identify with a word that is defined by "social ownership of the means of production," [0] whose main proponent advocates that there is "only one way, [...] and that way is revolutionary terror." [1]
You can't equivocate terms like this, identifying with the more extreme definition but walking it back when pressed. This is active distortion and manipulation of language, and this is far from the only instance of such in society.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
[1] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm
You can't equivocate terms like this, identifying with the more extreme definition but walking it back when pressed. This is active distortion and manipulation of language, and this is far from the only instance of such in society.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
[1] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm
There's a history of a more complex definition of socalism than just sticking with the stuff written 150 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way
> Then they should choose not to identify with a word that is defined by "social ownership of the means of production,"
The people that are condemned by others for "socialism" very often do not identify with socialism in any respect.
The people that are condemned by others for "socialism" very often do not identify with socialism in any respect.
They can't choose it, they didn't (necessarily) identify as it in the first place.
> the people that modern dominant (in the US, at least) political groups condemn for "socialism"
They weren't talking about actual socialists, they're talking about the right's propensity to call anyone else a leftist. For example, if you ask my dad if Biden was a socialist, he'd tell you yes, and then if you asked how, he would list many things that have nothing to do with economic policy.
> the people that modern dominant (in the US, at least) political groups condemn for "socialism"
They weren't talking about actual socialists, they're talking about the right's propensity to call anyone else a leftist. For example, if you ask my dad if Biden was a socialist, he'd tell you yes, and then if you asked how, he would list many things that have nothing to do with economic policy.
> They can't choose it, they didn't (necessarily) identify as it in the first place.
On a postmodern basis: if enough people believe in that narrative, it becomes reified as the truth, which is socially constructed. Therefore if the dominant belief is that they are socialist, then it is so.
On a postmodern basis: if enough people believe in that narrative, it becomes reified as the truth, which is socially constructed. Therefore if the dominant belief is that they are socialist, then it is so.
Yes you, presumably someone who is not a christian and has never read the bible, know better than billions of christians and the millions of people who've actually read the bible.
I'm not religious, but this is a bad take.
I'm not religious, but this is a bad take.
I don’t know about you, but I got kicked out of church (well, asked to leave and not come back) after I read the Bible and started to, uh, ask questions. And compare what the pastor was saying vs ‘the word of god’.
I personally am 100% sure Jesus would be dead pretty quick if he came back - a lot faster than before, and I doubt it would take 30 pieces of silver either!
I personally am 100% sure Jesus would be dead pretty quick if he came back - a lot faster than before, and I doubt it would take 30 pieces of silver either!
I read their comment as more of a critique on the actions of the "true" believers, not a critique of anything Jesus would do
If you ever do get around to reading the new testament, you'll find that Jesus is obviously more of a collectivist than a capitalist. Jesus "radicalized" me. You can try and delay this realization by arguing over the minutiae of what exactly socialism is and if Jesus would agree with Marx on every little thing, but that, and also failing to practice what he preached doesn't change Jesus' obvious message that hoarding wealth, consolidating power, othering people, etc., is not a path to heaven.
Throwing down moneylenders tables in the temple is pretty unambiguous. How many times did Jesus show violence or aggression? That’s the only one I can think of really.
Though he did throw out some wicked burns a time or two.
Though he did throw out some wicked burns a time or two.
> How many times did Jesus show violence or aggression? That’s the only one I can think of really.
I think you might be forgetting about the bulk of the Old Testament
I think you might be forgetting about the bulk of the Old Testament
Holy continuity problem, Batman! That character only shows up in the sequel.
> > How many times did Jesus show violence or aggression? That’s the only one I can think of really.
> I think you might be forgetting about the bulk of the Old Testament
I'm pretty certain Jesus Christ does not show violence or aggression in the OT even as much as the one time being described as him showing violence or aggression in the NT.
I mean, I think that's a necessary consequence of a pretty fundamental element of the OT vs. NT distinction.
> I think you might be forgetting about the bulk of the Old Testament
I'm pretty certain Jesus Christ does not show violence or aggression in the OT even as much as the one time being described as him showing violence or aggression in the NT.
I mean, I think that's a necessary consequence of a pretty fundamental element of the OT vs. NT distinction.
The pre Jesus books?
Are you suggesting Jesus wasn't the God of the Old Testament? If so that's a fair defense, but it's also not Christian...
Pre-JC...
> 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was in the beginning with God. 3. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. (John 1:1-3)
> I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8).
> And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment” (Revelation 21:6).
> “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13).
> I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty” (Revelation 1:8).
> And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment” (Revelation 21:6).
> “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13).
Jesus is a New Testament figure and very explicitly broke with the past in key ways. This is why his followers are not required to keep kosher, commit genocide, or abstain from having tattoos or mixed fiber clothing.
No, they're not required to keep kosher, commit genocide, or abstain from having tattoos or mixed fiber clothing because he fulfilled the law, not because he replaced it[1].
Furthermore Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, at least if you accept the New Testament as scripture[2].
[1]: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." --Matthew 5:17
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130537
Furthermore Jesus was the God of the Old Testament, at least if you accept the New Testament as scripture[2].
[1]: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." --Matthew 5:17
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130537
Your first paragraph is repeating my point: Christians are not bound by the same rules as the Jews in the Old Testament.
As for the second, you’re leaving out the last couple of millennia of Christians debating the exact nature of God and fissuring into different groups over the details. Most variants recognize some difference between the OT and NT gods, however, because you have to explain the difference in their actions and instructions.
As for the second, you’re leaving out the last couple of millennia of Christians debating the exact nature of God and fissuring into different groups over the details. Most variants recognize some difference between the OT and NT gods, however, because you have to explain the difference in their actions and instructions.
guywithahat(1)
>Yes you, presumably someone who is not a christian and has never read the bible...
> I'm not religious, but this is a bad take.
???
> I'm not religious, but this is a bad take.
???
"I didn't vote for..." "I'm apolitical..."
Say neither of us are French, have never been to Paris, and have never studied it. Everyone in France says one thing about the city Paris, but you say the opposite. I don't need to be an expert on France and Paris to say that the millions of people living there probably know better than you.
In the same vein, claiming you know more about a religion than the millions/billions of people who follow it is a low-IQ take, especially if the person making the claim knows nothing about the religion.
In the same vein, claiming you know more about a religion than the millions/billions of people who follow it is a low-IQ take, especially if the person making the claim knows nothing about the religion.
The person you are responding to is making a point that many Christians have made in the past and present. Hell, the entire story of Jesus in the Bible is one of conflict with existing religious and government institutions and authorities, culminating in his death at the hands of those same characters.
You know Christianity was built in a time of broad scale illiteracy don’t you? The reason sermons and the Bible are so at odds with each other is that for the most part only the priesthood had read the damned thing.
Even today most Christians haven’t read the whole thing. I’m not Christian in large part because I did. And it’s almost all batshit.
Even today most Christians haven’t read the whole thing. I’m not Christian in large part because I did. And it’s almost all batshit.
> I’m not Christian in large part because I did. And it’s almost all batshit.
Haha, same. I was forced to go to church and Sunday school as a kid, which I hated. But since I was there, I read large parts of the bible. This led me to asking a lot of questions, some of which caused me to be remove from Sunday school a few times. Eventually I was old enough to explain why I was an atheist and never went back.
Haha, same. I was forced to go to church and Sunday school as a kid, which I hated. But since I was there, I read large parts of the bible. This led me to asking a lot of questions, some of which caused me to be remove from Sunday school a few times. Eventually I was old enough to explain why I was an atheist and never went back.
I don’t talk about this often but I took seminary classes. Where they tried to explain away the incongruities. It mostly stuck until it didn’t and then the whole mess of it tore itself apart with tremendous violence. If I hadn’t had a friend who was into social justice at the time to hold onto like flotsam after a ship sinks I don’t know if I would be here today.
It is amazing how rapidly the whole thing shimmies apart once the first domino starts to fall. For me it was Theodicy, and the backbending required to explain whose "free will" is to blame for hurricanes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters that kill hordes of innocent people (including children) every year.
It gets worse. Spend any time reading about psychology and it becomes obvious that the OT god ticks all the boxes for grandiose narcissistic personality disorder.
The OT god is an abuser who demands unconditional and unquestioning love and admiration and threatens disobedience with eternal torture. It's textbook.
The NT is more complex, but huge swathes of Christianity are still hypnotised by the OT. They like the idea of Jesus as an authority, but not so much the reality of the teachings.
The OT god is an abuser who demands unconditional and unquestioning love and admiration and threatens disobedience with eternal torture. It's textbook.
The NT is more complex, but huge swathes of Christianity are still hypnotised by the OT. They like the idea of Jesus as an authority, but not so much the reality of the teachings.
Maybe a grandiose narcissistic personality is what makes people do things?
Where is the problem with that?
"Church is the worst book club ever. We've been talking about the same book for 2,000 years and most of us still haven't even read it. — @POOPSCRUFFIN4U"
“Socialist Jesus” is kind of a meme (or, maybe a blowback meme on Capitalist Jesus). But, he was apparently pretty into taking care of the poor, right?
Selling all you own and giving the money to the poor, even.
One thing Jesus was definitely not, was an optimizing utilitarian. He repeats in a dozen different ways in the Sermon on the Mount that people should do what is right, right now, and not worry about what's going to happen (worry about tomorrow, worry about what they will eat, what they will wear etc.)
One thing Jesus was definitely not, was an optimizing utilitarian. He repeats in a dozen different ways in the Sermon on the Mount that people should do what is right, right now, and not worry about what's going to happen (worry about tomorrow, worry about what they will eat, what they will wear etc.)
The meme relies on assuming Socialism==being a good person.
This is obviously not the case, as any economic structure is more complex than just being a chill dude, and the bible has a more complex view of morality than just "being nice to thy neighbor".
This is obviously not the case, as any economic structure is more complex than just being a chill dude, and the bible has a more complex view of morality than just "being nice to thy neighbor".
> The meme relies on assuming Socialism==being a good person.
No, it doesn't.
It relies on understanding what views today have been described by their opponents as "socialist", and what views Jesus espouses in the Scripture. It does not require:
(1) thinking Jesus is good, or
(2) thinking socialism is good, or
(3) knowing or applying any actual definition of socialism (since it only involves the term "socialism" being used as a hostile epithet, not any concept of whether or not something actually is socialism.)
No, it doesn't.
It relies on understanding what views today have been described by their opponents as "socialist", and what views Jesus espouses in the Scripture. It does not require:
(1) thinking Jesus is good, or
(2) thinking socialism is good, or
(3) knowing or applying any actual definition of socialism (since it only involves the term "socialism" being used as a hostile epithet, not any concept of whether or not something actually is socialism.)
No? The meme relies on Jesus having lived and spoken in a way that a large group claiming to be his followers today would deride as "Socialism", whether or not it resembles your own, Karl Marx's, or Maduro's "Socialism", and in fact regardless of whether the meme-sayer thinks Socialism by some definition is good. It's a statement about how the loudest followers of Jesus or Christianity preach and act at odds with the meme-er's understanding of the gospel (specifically the 4 books of the Bible that tell the story of Jesus), and for it to work you don't even have to assume that Jesus was good.
It also relies on modern understandings of the words “socialist” and “capitalist,” which, as far as I know, hadn’t been invented yet when the Bible was written. Memes are silly, that’s the point.
[flagged]
[deleted]
[flagged]
It is important to contextualize this statement. It appears in three gospels, but in each it is in response to a rich man asking what he must do to inherit eternal life. Each instance of the story is told with slightly different emphasis (or they could be similar stories - i.e. this was his standard "line" for rich people), but Luke's account includes 18:27 He replied, "What is impossible for mere humans is possible for God" NET
This does not mean it's okay to hoard wealth at the expense of others, of course.
I think that Saint Basil the Great's sermon to the rich[1] is instructive for a historical and reasonable Christian instruction on the rich.
Let me add an excerpt I really appreciate: But how do you make use of money? By dressing in expensive clothing? Won’t two yards of tunic suffice you, and the covering of one coat satisfy all your need of clothes? But is it for food’s sake that you have such a demand for wealth? One bread-loaf is enough to fill a belly. Why are you sad, then? What have you been deprived of? The status that comes from wealth? But if you would stop seeking earthly status, you should then find the true, resplendent kind that would conduct you into the kingdom of heaven.
And one more because I can't help myself: Since, then, the wealth still overflows, it gets buried underground, stashed away in secret places.... A strange madness, that, when gold lies hidden with other metals, one ransacks the earth; but after it has seen the light of day, it disappears again beneath the ground.
(The whole thing is worth a read, Basil just went hard non stop)
1. https://stjohngoc.org/st-basil-the-greats-sermon-to-the-rich...
This does not mean it's okay to hoard wealth at the expense of others, of course.
I think that Saint Basil the Great's sermon to the rich[1] is instructive for a historical and reasonable Christian instruction on the rich.
Let me add an excerpt I really appreciate: But how do you make use of money? By dressing in expensive clothing? Won’t two yards of tunic suffice you, and the covering of one coat satisfy all your need of clothes? But is it for food’s sake that you have such a demand for wealth? One bread-loaf is enough to fill a belly. Why are you sad, then? What have you been deprived of? The status that comes from wealth? But if you would stop seeking earthly status, you should then find the true, resplendent kind that would conduct you into the kingdom of heaven.
And one more because I can't help myself: Since, then, the wealth still overflows, it gets buried underground, stashed away in secret places.... A strange madness, that, when gold lies hidden with other metals, one ransacks the earth; but after it has seen the light of day, it disappears again beneath the ground.
(The whole thing is worth a read, Basil just went hard non stop)
1. https://stjohngoc.org/st-basil-the-greats-sermon-to-the-rich...
The message IS clear...but I don't see the same message as you. Solomon was /beyond/ rich. So was David. So were countless people that are destined for heaven(as in, Jesus describes them being in heaven in the new testament).
Those people all did some things we can see and talk about - and possibly many things we did not see, do not know, and can not talk about. At the very least, those people we know are in/destined for heaven: followed God, feared God, obeyed God.
I don't believe their being or not being rich is part of the calculus for "getting into heaven" as you said. Being rich may make you less likely to do those 3 things though, in which case you would correlate richness with not getting into heaven.
Those people all did some things we can see and talk about - and possibly many things we did not see, do not know, and can not talk about. At the very least, those people we know are in/destined for heaven: followed God, feared God, obeyed God.
I don't believe their being or not being rich is part of the calculus for "getting into heaven" as you said. Being rich may make you less likely to do those 3 things though, in which case you would correlate richness with not getting into heaven.
'I don't believe their being or not being rich is part of the calculus for "getting into heaven" as you said' -> I think viewing that some rich people go to heaven as Jesus not explicitly condemning rich people (which he clearly does multiple times) and not him showing the unlimited power of God's grace is a misreading of the text.
The subsequent verses are much less quoted but very explicit about this: And looking at them, Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
This is supported by other text where Jesus says explicitly what people should do with money:
Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"
So anyway it's very clear that using money selfishly (which is what many Christians do) is clearly not what God wants from us, it's just that God can love us for our imperfections and sin, which in my view is sorta the main idea behind the New Testament. God wants us to love each other like he loves us, and he would certainly give up his money for us since he even gave up his own son, but accepts that we will be more selfish than that.
The subsequent verses are much less quoted but very explicit about this: And looking at them, Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
This is supported by other text where Jesus says explicitly what people should do with money:
Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"
So anyway it's very clear that using money selfishly (which is what many Christians do) is clearly not what God wants from us, it's just that God can love us for our imperfections and sin, which in my view is sorta the main idea behind the New Testament. God wants us to love each other like he loves us, and he would certainly give up his money for us since he even gave up his own son, but accepts that we will be more selfish than that.
> God wants us to love each other like he loves us, and he would certainly give up his money for us since he even gave up his own son, but accepts that we will be more selfish than that.
I love how you put that, and wholeheartedly agree.
I love how you put that, and wholeheartedly agree.
It continuously blows my mind how few people on the internet understand the distinction between the Old and New Testaments.
It is not that easy. If we look at historical context we can see that for example in judaism they have this midrash:
"The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and camels."
Sounds familiar? The meaning of that saying in jewish context is that we cant really understand Gods abilities.
Could the christian saying mean something else? Sure. We dont even know if jesus even said that exact phrase.
My point is more that there are often more than one interpretation of vague sayings from 2000 years that been through an oral tradition, translations and copying.
"The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and camels."
Sounds familiar? The meaning of that saying in jewish context is that we cant really understand Gods abilities.
Could the christian saying mean something else? Sure. We dont even know if jesus even said that exact phrase.
My point is more that there are often more than one interpretation of vague sayings from 2000 years that been through an oral tradition, translations and copying.
In your example the saying suggests that a Camel going through the eye of a needle is an extraordinary event like a rich person going to heaven in the traditional Christian saying.
It is incredibly clear and without nuance nor is there a reason to suppose it's an issue with translation. Its also consistent philosophically nor is it the sort of thing that the powerful would want inserted when they compiled works.
If you disregard it then it makes more sense to disregard the entire bible.
It is incredibly clear and without nuance nor is there a reason to suppose it's an issue with translation. Its also consistent philosophically nor is it the sort of thing that the powerful would want inserted when they compiled works.
If you disregard it then it makes more sense to disregard the entire bible.
I find it interesting that they attack the camel and needle analogy when the previous line is: "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." That is a pretty definitive statement and makes it clear that the camel and needle line is metaphor for the difficulty.
> In your example the saying suggests that a Camel going through the eye of a needle is an extraordinary event
So is the Son of God descending to earth and being nailed to a cross for the sins of man.
So is the Son of God descending to earth and being nailed to a cross for the sins of man.
No, it is not "incredible" clear what ancient jews meant by that saying. Hence the wildly different interpretations. Are you really saying that it is incredible clear that the jewish understanding of the jewish saying is wrong and only your christian understanding is correct?
Half the planet either explicitly or implicitly believes in the just world hypothesis and America especially valorizes, empathize s with, and seeks to emulate the rich even when they do nothing to earn their wealth and on average do enormous harm.
It is therefore hardly shocking that some fail to see the plain meaning of the language and their confusion needn't imply actual credible controversy.
It is pretty clear that the saying you provided and the Christian saying are different sayings with different meanings that share the metaphor about a Camel going through the eye of a needle.
The surrounding context is Jesus telling a rich person to give his material wealth away because it is barrier to salvation. It is clear that focus on the temporal comforts privided by wealth stunts ones need for spirituality. The man cannot give up his attachment to wealth and gives up on salvation in the Christian sense.
It is hard for me to get from this that the rich are especially virtuos and therefore the only lesson was intended to be taught is that not even the rich can be saved without god.
It seems very clear that wealth was a direct impediment to salvation.
It is therefore hardly shocking that some fail to see the plain meaning of the language and their confusion needn't imply actual credible controversy.
It is pretty clear that the saying you provided and the Christian saying are different sayings with different meanings that share the metaphor about a Camel going through the eye of a needle.
The surrounding context is Jesus telling a rich person to give his material wealth away because it is barrier to salvation. It is clear that focus on the temporal comforts privided by wealth stunts ones need for spirituality. The man cannot give up his attachment to wealth and gives up on salvation in the Christian sense.
It is hard for me to get from this that the rich are especially virtuos and therefore the only lesson was intended to be taught is that not even the rich can be saved without god.
It seems very clear that wealth was a direct impediment to salvation.
You have not provided any evidence for your claim that there is no connection between the "christian" saying and the prexisting jewish saying. The schoolars disagree with you that there exists only one single historical intepretation of the saying. You are just reading in what you personally want the text to read. Just like all fundamentalists.
You don't need to prove a negative. For any trillion combination of sayings which share 4 or more words in common no evidence exists for the connection of one to the other. The words are manifestly different save for using the same idiom about a camel through the eye of a needle.
They are again different in meaning with one being that attachment wealth is a barrier to being saved and the other being through god all things are possible. If you believe a plain interpretation of the text is in accurate the onus is on you to prove why and you haven't.
They are again different in meaning with one being that attachment wealth is a barrier to being saved and the other being through god all things are possible. If you believe a plain interpretation of the text is in accurate the onus is on you to prove why and you haven't.
Wealth is not universally maligned in the Biblical tradition. Job is afforded material rewards in this world after his tribulation.
Prosperity gospel is plainly contradicted by the Bible (see again: The Book of Job), but so is the Redditor Christianity you are espousing.
Prosperity gospel is plainly contradicted by the Bible (see again: The Book of Job), but so is the Redditor Christianity you are espousing.
There’s a whole sect who believes the opposite- that you are more spiritual and blessed by God the wealthier you are. Somehow being material wealthy is now a signal of your spirituality. :shrug:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
This is the outcome when pearls are cast before swine.
You just need to employ the right strategy to deal with it. Possible options include:
1. Claim that "camel" or "needle" are a mistranslation or symbolic.
2. Separate financial life from your spiritual beliefs to avoid inner conflict.
3. View wealth as a sign of God’s blessing or something used to do good, making it feel morally acceptable.
4. Emphasize other passages that support generosity or success.
5. Interpret that the passage, especially in the context of the subsequent verses, is about the need for God to get into heaven. That is; it's claiming that wealth cannot empower people to find their own route in, absent spirituality.
In the flavor of religion in which I grew up, it's easier to just quickly pray for forgiveness than to bother justifying anything. The most vile genocidal maniac could pray for thirty seconds right before death and get into heaven. Why bother following rules when someone already served the punishment?
With modern technology you can probably liquefy a camel sufficiently that you force it through the needle. Jesus ain't said nothing 'bout no hydrochloric acid and pneumatic presses.
Probably easier to just make a really big needle
Yes, but that would be less entertaining :-)
It's not about the money but the ego.
The two are very difficult to separate though, I've met very few who could handle a lot of money without becoming corrupted.
The two are very difficult to separate though, I've met very few who could handle a lot of money without becoming corrupted.
This. There are a lot of biblical teaching about money and how to handle it, and to multiply it. Unfortunately people tend to make that an end unto itself and that was never the point.
Hence the Gospel of Supply Side Jesus, remade in the image of America.
https://imgur.com/gallery/gospel-of-supply-side-jesus-bCqRp
https://imgur.com/gallery/gospel-of-supply-side-jesus-bCqRp
Brilliant!!
Have you ever even read the passage?
> 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
> 26 And they were greatly astonished, saying among themselves, “Who then can be saved?”
> 27 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
> 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
> 26 And they were greatly astonished, saying among themselves, “Who then can be saved?”
> 27 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men it is impossible, but not with God; for with God all things are possible.”
This sure doesn't look like ancient Hebrew to me.
Well yeah, the gospels were written in Koine Greek
That is not true: with God all things are possible.
Could God make a man so rich that even he wouldn't let him into heaven?
No. Similarly, God cannot make a married bachelor, because this is nonsensical. The conversation then turns to questions about how we define God’s omnipotence: Doesn’t the existence of any sort of limitation placed upon God imply he is bound by higher principles and thus not omnipotent?
Possibly; but this may just be a lack of imagination on our part. For example, can God abanlqhgfznsjks? Probably not, because that particular string was just a random assortment of keys that I pressed; it conveys nothing meaningful, so to ask if God could abanlqhgfznsjks might not really be asking anything at all.
Possibly; but this may just be a lack of imagination on our part. For example, can God abanlqhgfznsjks? Probably not, because that particular string was just a random assortment of keys that I pressed; it conveys nothing meaningful, so to ask if God could abanlqhgfznsjks might not really be asking anything at all.
The bible portrays God as explicitly being able to do nonsensical things, like creating a burning bush that is somehow not consumed. That it was on fire, but also not on fire, at the same time, was proof of a miracle.
And more generally, that's just the nature of the supernatural in any religion. If what was going on was entirely logical, it wouldn't be a miracle.
And more generally, that's just the nature of the supernatural in any religion. If what was going on was entirely logical, it wouldn't be a miracle.
some people freak out about the idea of a burning bush talking at people
i freak out about what the bush said: I AM THAT I AM
the first recorded instance of recursion, spoken in a language famous for its lack of abstraction, to an uneducated goat herder, communicating an idea that even the greeks struggled with thousands of years later in a much more sophisticated and leisured culture
i freak out about what the bush said: I AM THAT I AM
the first recorded instance of recursion, spoken in a language famous for its lack of abstraction, to an uneducated goat herder, communicating an idea that even the greeks struggled with thousands of years later in a much more sophisticated and leisured culture
I believe God can abanlqhgfznsjks. If a lot of bottoms can, than surely God can too.
the human mind fails at infinities
i don't know why we find this so obvious when discussing math and yet so difficult when discussing God
i don't know why we find this so obvious when discussing math and yet so difficult when discussing God
"I don’t know. When my bird was looking at my computer monitor I thought, ‘That bird has no idea what he’s looking at.’ And yet what does the bird do? Does he panic? No, he can’t really panic, he just does the best he can. Is he able to live in a world where he’s so ignorant? Well, he doesn’t really have a choice. The bird is okay even though he doesn’t understand the world. You’re that bird looking at the monitor, and you’re thinking to yourself, ‘I can figure this out.’ Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do.”
Wouldnt or couldnt?
That’s not what that means at all, your inserting modern values into the parable. In the culture of that time, the rich were viewed with high regard. The understanding was that if you were rich, then clearly you were in a favorable relationship to God because he was blessing you with wealth. With that understanding, the sentence that directly follows the parable makes a lot more sense: “When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, ‘Who then can be saved?’” A modern telling of the parable would replace the rich man with a monk who’s taken a vow of poverty to run an orphanage in a God-forsaken third world country. The parable was intended to portray an absurdly impossible standard to entry; the whole point being that human merit, status, or morality, regardless of however the cultural context may define that, does not afford one any distinctive advantage before God.
The rich is firmly attached to wordly things, they would rather sink with their gold than let it go. The monk that you've described is attached to his self by training it with sophisticated hardships. He hoards inner peace just like the rich hoards gold. Both are practicing the culture of personality. They need to leave that baggage behind, their self-centered life and their polished personas, and reorient their life around helping others. Once they do this, an enormous internal conflict will emerge - the struggle between their selfish and selfless sides, and at the end of this path they'll enter the kingdom of God.
Those who want to climb to the mountain top need to leave everything behind. The higher they climb, the longer will be the fall if they look back for a moment and slip on this narrow path, longing for what they left behind.
Those who want to climb to the mountain top need to leave everything behind. The higher they climb, the longer will be the fall if they look back for a moment and slip on this narrow path, longing for what they left behind.
Got some links to support this interpretation?
You are just wrong. The Bible never says that rich people aren't getting into heaven. Only that it will be difficult.
The whole invention of the “Eye of the Needle” gate fiction is an attempt to rewrite a Gospel statement by Jesus that it is difficult-to-the-point-of-impossibility into one that it is merely difficult-in-the-sense-of-mild-inconvenience.
What's missed is that the camel/needle thing is a joke.
The "eye of the needle" was a (very small) gate into Jerusalem.
To get a camel through that gate, it has to lower its head and crawl on its knees.
So Jesus was calling rich people camels; camels can be very arrogant beasts so it fits.
The "eye of the needle" was a (very small) gate into Jerusalem.
To get a camel through that gate, it has to lower its head and crawl on its knees.
So Jesus was calling rich people camels; camels can be very arrogant beasts so it fits.
This is an incredibly common and frustrating bit of bad theology. There's no textual or archeological basis for it, and the really interesting mystery is where exactly this myth even came from.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studie...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studie...
I, too, used to be a “preachermon”. I never found evidence that this argument was anything but apocryphal.
It would make a better argument to find a text describing how Jesus referred to a rich person (real or parable) and said, “this rich person gets it, be like him”. Direct, and without the mental backflips.
It would make a better argument to find a text describing how Jesus referred to a rich person (real or parable) and said, “this rich person gets it, be like him”. Direct, and without the mental backflips.
it is, however, very easy to find other ways jesus has phrased the idea "the rich don't get into heaven". In matthew he says the last shall be first and the first shall be last, in acts he has his disciples sell all of their stuff and pool the money, and in several other places he tells the faithful to give all of their stuff away.
There are no primary sources for this
Dan McClellan, a biblical scholar (a practising Mormon, but not an apologist) discusses that here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlzR39RVQKs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlzR39RVQKs
none of this is at all true, none of it is supported by the historical record, none of it is supported by the rest of jesus's teachings (which explicitly and repeatedly state that the rich are not welcome in heaven), there never was an "eye of the needle" gate, no one even posited the existence of such a gate until the 9th century CE and the other gospels use different phrasing of "a camel passing through the eye of a needle" that indicate that "the eye of a needle" isn't a proper noun referring to a singular entity with a commonly-known name.
This is literally not true by scripture; Abraham was very rich, and is considered righteous because of his faith. He did not withhold even his own son from God. Money did not own Abraham's faith.
Job refused to curse or condemn God even when he lost most of his family and all of his holdings - his friends tried to tell him that because he lost his riches, he had obviously sinned, but he refused this. He gained back the things he lost, because of his faith in God.
Job 1:20-22
20 Then Job stood up, tore his robe, shaved his head, fell to the ground, bowed very low, 21 and exclaimed:
“I left my mother’s womb naked, and I will return to God naked. The Lord has given, and the Lord has taken. May the name of the Lord be blessed.”
22 Job neither sinned nor charged God with wrongdoing in all of this.
In those times, rich people were considered blessed by God, poor people or those afflicted with disease were considered cursed by God. People afflicted from birth were said to have been "born in sin" due to the sins of their parents.
The Pharisees and Sadducees were wealthly, influential people who preached exactly this. The Sadducees in particular didn't believe in an afterlife, and so were focused on only the "here and now" and material things of this world. Jesus specifically called them out to let them know their wealth wouldn't get them into heaven, and their success was not a sign of righteousness.
Jesus distinctly preached that money could not buy salvation, and that those whose focus was on money could not focus on God, and would therefore be condemned. He explicitly called out Zaccheus, a tax collector, when Zaccheus promised to repay any money he'd taken in bad faith four times over and to give away half of what he owned to the poor:
Luke 19:9-10: 9 Jesus said to him,"Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."
Zaccheus probably had a lot of money left even when he was done, but the point is that money was no longer the priority in his life.
God may choose to bless people with prosperity, but your wallet doesn't make you righteous. It doesn't make you unrighteous either - your actions and your faith, or lack thereof condemn you. The whole of the Law is:
Matthew 22:34-40
34 When the Pharisees learned that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and, to test him, one of them, a lawyer, asked this question, 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 Everything in the Law and the Prophets depends on these two commandments.”
Job refused to curse or condemn God even when he lost most of his family and all of his holdings - his friends tried to tell him that because he lost his riches, he had obviously sinned, but he refused this. He gained back the things he lost, because of his faith in God.
Job 1:20-22
20 Then Job stood up, tore his robe, shaved his head, fell to the ground, bowed very low, 21 and exclaimed:
“I left my mother’s womb naked, and I will return to God naked. The Lord has given, and the Lord has taken. May the name of the Lord be blessed.”
22 Job neither sinned nor charged God with wrongdoing in all of this.
In those times, rich people were considered blessed by God, poor people or those afflicted with disease were considered cursed by God. People afflicted from birth were said to have been "born in sin" due to the sins of their parents.
The Pharisees and Sadducees were wealthly, influential people who preached exactly this. The Sadducees in particular didn't believe in an afterlife, and so were focused on only the "here and now" and material things of this world. Jesus specifically called them out to let them know their wealth wouldn't get them into heaven, and their success was not a sign of righteousness.
Jesus distinctly preached that money could not buy salvation, and that those whose focus was on money could not focus on God, and would therefore be condemned. He explicitly called out Zaccheus, a tax collector, when Zaccheus promised to repay any money he'd taken in bad faith four times over and to give away half of what he owned to the poor:
Luke 19:9-10: 9 Jesus said to him,"Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."
Zaccheus probably had a lot of money left even when he was done, but the point is that money was no longer the priority in his life.
God may choose to bless people with prosperity, but your wallet doesn't make you righteous. It doesn't make you unrighteous either - your actions and your faith, or lack thereof condemn you. The whole of the Law is:
Matthew 22:34-40
34 When the Pharisees learned that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and, to test him, one of them, a lawyer, asked this question, 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and the first commandment. 39 The second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 Everything in the Law and the Prophets depends on these two commandments.”
> Statistics and wagering aside, IMO, he'd fair poorly (like the previous visit).
If I remember correctly...his first visit was prophesied to end exactly as it did. His next visit is prophesied to be a little different - to paraphrase...he is coming with an army to make war on the beast and all [humans] who follow him. Instead of a spotless robe like earlier depictions - this robe is drenched in blood, and he has a sword coming out of his mouth. Here's the passage immediately following description of this second coming(Revelations 19).
“Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
I don't think this visit is supposed to be like the previous one. I strongly encourage you all read this book(the bible) and take it to heart. You aren't my friend, or someone that I know - but it would give me no pleasure at all to know you were spending eternity in hell. We don't get down seeing people suffer, or "you'll all be sorry when you see I'm right!!!" style feelings. If those true believers seem like a bunch of elitist jerks who are always putting you down instead of helping you up, those are /NOT/ true believers. Those are true assholes.
If I remember correctly...his first visit was prophesied to end exactly as it did. His next visit is prophesied to be a little different - to paraphrase...he is coming with an army to make war on the beast and all [humans] who follow him. Instead of a spotless robe like earlier depictions - this robe is drenched in blood, and he has a sword coming out of his mouth. Here's the passage immediately following description of this second coming(Revelations 19).
“Come, gather together for the great supper of God, 18so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
I don't think this visit is supposed to be like the previous one. I strongly encourage you all read this book(the bible) and take it to heart. You aren't my friend, or someone that I know - but it would give me no pleasure at all to know you were spending eternity in hell. We don't get down seeing people suffer, or "you'll all be sorry when you see I'm right!!!" style feelings. If those true believers seem like a bunch of elitist jerks who are always putting you down instead of helping you up, those are /NOT/ true believers. Those are true assholes.
I propose a corollary to Godwin's Law whereby as any internet discussion of religion progresses, the chances of a Christian trying to proselytize approaches 1. Call it God-Botherers Law.
> I strongly encourage you all read this book(the bible) and take it to heart. You aren't my friend, or someone that I know - but it would give me no pleasure at all to know you were spending eternity in hell.
IMO, you are also an elitist jerk by telling non-believers that they will be going to hell for not believing your religion, a religion which 69% of the entire world does not believe.
What kind of god creates beings only to punish the majority of them with hellfire? Why would god allow alternative religions to be created just to "trick" his creations into believing the wrong thing? And why would I want to worship that god if that's all true?
IMO, you are also an elitist jerk by telling non-believers that they will be going to hell for not believing your religion, a religion which 69% of the entire world does not believe.
What kind of god creates beings only to punish the majority of them with hellfire? Why would god allow alternative religions to be created just to "trick" his creations into believing the wrong thing? And why would I want to worship that god if that's all true?
Hey I don't know what works for everyone, but I know what works for me. I'm encouraging you to let it work for you, but that's a personal choice and I wouldn't force it on anyone.
I don't think God wants to "trick" anyone. I also don't believe there is any hard set of "rules" he applies to 100% of humanity without exception. Take little children for instance...tragedies happen every day, and they are too young to know what those rules are, or have a chance to follow them. Those children aren't destined for eternal torture - that would be cruel and heartless - and I don't believe God is cruel or heartless.
I apologize for coming off as an elitist jerk. I didn't realize it would be read that way, and it was not my intent at all. I'm not better than you, I don't /think/ I'm better than you, and I'm too inexperienced/ignorant/prideful to even be able to know what "better" is, much less which one of us it would apply to.
All my comments, posts, and intentions are that 1 person is positively influenced by them. Maybe they go on to influence someone else, and it spreads throughout people - I have no idea what will happen that is influenced by things like my post. However, I don't think my post is going to hurt anyone - my hope is that it will help someone. Think of it like throwing seeds(in the parable!)... some of them, maybe just /one/ of them, will fall in fertile ground - and lead that person(s) to the same peace with God that I feel.
I don't think God wants to "trick" anyone. I also don't believe there is any hard set of "rules" he applies to 100% of humanity without exception. Take little children for instance...tragedies happen every day, and they are too young to know what those rules are, or have a chance to follow them. Those children aren't destined for eternal torture - that would be cruel and heartless - and I don't believe God is cruel or heartless.
I apologize for coming off as an elitist jerk. I didn't realize it would be read that way, and it was not my intent at all. I'm not better than you, I don't /think/ I'm better than you, and I'm too inexperienced/ignorant/prideful to even be able to know what "better" is, much less which one of us it would apply to.
All my comments, posts, and intentions are that 1 person is positively influenced by them. Maybe they go on to influence someone else, and it spreads throughout people - I have no idea what will happen that is influenced by things like my post. However, I don't think my post is going to hurt anyone - my hope is that it will help someone. Think of it like throwing seeds(in the parable!)... some of them, maybe just /one/ of them, will fall in fertile ground - and lead that person(s) to the same peace with God that I feel.
FWIW I don't think you were being elitist at all. In fact I think you've come off as very humble and full of genuine care and interest for your fellow humans. Our world could use a whole lot more of that from believer and non-believer alike.
I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times though, and nothing makes me believe the Bible less than actually reading and studying the Bible. The book of Job alone was pretty hard to reconcile, but even just harmonizing the four gospels on the important details of Jesus life and crucifixion is very, very difficult (or even impossible depending on who you talk to). I won't even get into Song of Solomon :-D
Honestly if you want people to find faith, I wouldn't recommend reading the Bible. I would recommend a mix of the New Testament (minus the Book of Revelation) plus Church attendance.
I've read the Bible cover to cover multiple times though, and nothing makes me believe the Bible less than actually reading and studying the Bible. The book of Job alone was pretty hard to reconcile, but even just harmonizing the four gospels on the important details of Jesus life and crucifixion is very, very difficult (or even impossible depending on who you talk to). I won't even get into Song of Solomon :-D
Honestly if you want people to find faith, I wouldn't recommend reading the Bible. I would recommend a mix of the New Testament (minus the Book of Revelation) plus Church attendance.
[deleted]
> IMO, you are also an elitist jerk by telling non-believers that they will be going to hell for not believing your religion, a religion which 69% of the entire world does not believe.
Catholics don't believe that you have to be Catholic to go to heaven. In fact, believing that you do is explicitly condemned as a heresy (Feeneyism).
Catholics don't believe that you have to be Catholic to go to heaven. In fact, believing that you do is explicitly condemned as a heresy (Feeneyism).
That is the same with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We do not believe church membership is required to receive the glories of heaven; we do not even believe that church membership is a guarantee to get there.
As for "going to hell": we believe that everyone goes there after death, as a temporary state. It's akin to the Catholic concept of purgatory, before the resurrection, final judgment, and placement in either outer darkness or the kingdoms of heaven. Thankfully, most people that have ever lived on earth are destined for the latter, not the former.
As for "going to hell": we believe that everyone goes there after death, as a temporary state. It's akin to the Catholic concept of purgatory, before the resurrection, final judgment, and placement in either outer darkness or the kingdoms of heaven. Thankfully, most people that have ever lived on earth are destined for the latter, not the former.
Interesting! So in Catholicism, what are the belief requirements? Would that mean that some Protestants could go to heaven even if they've never had (Catholic) communion? (Genuine question)
This lengthy text is somewhat impenetrable (at least to a non-Christian).
That’s just one denomination. Others believe the opposite. See the problem?
> IMO, you are also an elitist jerk by telling non-believers that they will be going to hell for not believing your religion, a religion which 69% of the entire world does not believe.
Dude, that's pretty harsh and I would say quite unfair given what they've said. If he/she/they/whatever believes that we are going to Hell, wouldn't the right thing to do be to tell us and try to save us?
I do think that plenty of people saying similar things can be elitist and requires a certain level of hubris/arrogance, but I don't think that's always the case, and GP definitely didn't strike me as one of those assholes.
> What kind of god creates beings only to punish the majority of them with hellfire? Why would god allow alternative religions to be created just to "trick" his creations into believing the wrong thing?
These are excellent questions/arguments and are on my top five list of "reasons I am not a Christian," and I'd love to hear an explanation from any believers if they'd like to tackle them.
Dude, that's pretty harsh and I would say quite unfair given what they've said. If he/she/they/whatever believes that we are going to Hell, wouldn't the right thing to do be to tell us and try to save us?
I do think that plenty of people saying similar things can be elitist and requires a certain level of hubris/arrogance, but I don't think that's always the case, and GP definitely didn't strike me as one of those assholes.
> What kind of god creates beings only to punish the majority of them with hellfire? Why would god allow alternative religions to be created just to "trick" his creations into believing the wrong thing?
These are excellent questions/arguments and are on my top five list of "reasons I am not a Christian," and I'd love to hear an explanation from any believers if they'd like to tackle them.
But what evidence supports the theory of heaven and hell?
I mean, according to the Hindus and Buddhists, we’ll be reincarnated rather than going to heaven/hell.
We could read the Bible, or the Qur’ān, or the Vēdas, or the Buddhist scriptures, or any other religious text… but how would we know whether any of them holds truth?
I mean, according to the Hindus and Buddhists, we’ll be reincarnated rather than going to heaven/hell.
We could read the Bible, or the Qur’ān, or the Vēdas, or the Buddhist scriptures, or any other religious text… but how would we know whether any of them holds truth?
That's the whole point of faith. You're supposed to believe despite evidence.
Why should you believe despite evidence?
Because if you don't, you'll face social ostracism, physical censure, and a promise of deferred spiritual punishment.
When those pressures or promises of rewards aren't present, people rarely stumble into any particular religion.
When those pressures or promises of rewards aren't present, people rarely stumble into any particular religion.
(Which is why, of faith, hope, and charity, only charity will remain with us in heaven / in the beatific vision)
You have faith that your choice is the right one!
There are approximately 10,000 religions in the world. What brain damage do I have to receive in order to believe that I have any realistic statistical chance of picking the right one?
you don't pick one at random. you pick one that makes sense. what makes sense for example is the positive impact a religion has on the world. which religion is doing the most good? that alone will narrow down the selection to a few dozen if that many. besides the good it does, another question could be: what makes sense to you? which religion has the better answers to explain the world in which we live in today? take the issues and questions that matter to you, and then look at the answers and see if they are satisfactory. keep searching until you find the answers you seek.
This is the "by their fruits you shall know them" argument (which I think is among the stronger arguments for the record), but I've personally used this to try and find a "correct" religion and what I discovered (personally of course) is that there is good and bad in essentially every religion. Using this as a standard is basically impossible.
But if you took it at a high macro level and did narrow down to a few dozen, those are still terrible odds. If I have a 1 in 36 chance of picking the wrong religion and being damned, I think we need a better standard of evidence to narrow this field a bit. Unless of course you believe that a loving (some would say omni-benevolent) God would think it's reasonable to torture 97% of his children who are actively searching him out, just because they picked the wrong church. (that's not even considering all the others of course).
But if you took it at a high macro level and did narrow down to a few dozen, those are still terrible odds. If I have a 1 in 36 chance of picking the wrong religion and being damned, I think we need a better standard of evidence to narrow this field a bit. Unless of course you believe that a loving (some would say omni-benevolent) God would think it's reasonable to torture 97% of his children who are actively searching him out, just because they picked the wrong church. (that's not even considering all the others of course).
once you have narrowed it down, it is reasonably realistic to deeply investigate the remaining ones.
there is good and bad in essentially every religion
have you looked all the major ones listed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
for me the standard of evidence is the search for the truth. that means, keep searching until i am satisfied. it could take a lifetime, and maybe that's the point. don't just make a choice and then blindly accept everything from then on.
there is good and bad in essentially every religion
have you looked all the major ones listed here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
for me the standard of evidence is the search for the truth. that means, keep searching until i am satisfied. it could take a lifetime, and maybe that's the point. don't just make a choice and then blindly accept everything from then on.
Your comment is a manifestation of this weird double standard that gets applied to atheists/agnostics where they’re supposed to be burdened to “find answers” and it’s a problem that they don’t have that religious burden.
It also manifests in this sort of insulted vibe that religious people get when their faith is questioned.
Basically, it’s socially not okay to question the faith of someone in a particular religion because it’s their culture, it’s their belief system, but the atheist/agnostic “belief” system isn’t respected in the same way. The person who has not found any evidence of god as described in various religions is told to seek enlightenment as if they are the ones who are incomplete.
People who use the scientific method don’t “pick at random” when there is no available answer. They test for answers and wait until they observe the answers and have the ability to reproduce those observations.
In short, the religious expect the non-religious to be afraid of dying and to be looking for a solution, when it’s completely valid and logical to have determined that there is no solution and therefore it is not worth spending time dwelling upon.
It also manifests in this sort of insulted vibe that religious people get when their faith is questioned.
Basically, it’s socially not okay to question the faith of someone in a particular religion because it’s their culture, it’s their belief system, but the atheist/agnostic “belief” system isn’t respected in the same way. The person who has not found any evidence of god as described in various religions is told to seek enlightenment as if they are the ones who are incomplete.
People who use the scientific method don’t “pick at random” when there is no available answer. They test for answers and wait until they observe the answers and have the ability to reproduce those observations.
In short, the religious expect the non-religious to be afraid of dying and to be looking for a solution, when it’s completely valid and logical to have determined that there is no solution and therefore it is not worth spending time dwelling upon.
i expects everyone who questions any religion to do that search. whether they believe in god or not. if you question something, then it is on you to go find answers. even if you found your belief system that works for you. maybe especially if you found one you should always keep your eyes open and investigate your own beliefs, and not just blindly accept it.
This is still kind of backwards. The person who doesn’t accept something blindly has no obligation to question anything. There is no obligation to obtain a belief system. Someone who is agnostic is not blindly accepting anything.
The person who doesn’t accept something blindly has no obligation to question anything
not accepting something blindly IS the same as questioning something. or reverse, if you do not question your beliefs then you are accepting them blindly.
There is no obligation to obtain a belief system
i didn't say there is, except maybe that rejecting all belief systems is also a kind of belief.
Someone who is agnostic is not blindly accepting anything.
again, i didn't intend to make that claim. if anything that was more targeted at those who do follow a particular religion and stopped asking questions.
not accepting something blindly IS the same as questioning something. or reverse, if you do not question your beliefs then you are accepting them blindly.
There is no obligation to obtain a belief system
i didn't say there is, except maybe that rejecting all belief systems is also a kind of belief.
Someone who is agnostic is not blindly accepting anything.
again, i didn't intend to make that claim. if anything that was more targeted at those who do follow a particular religion and stopped asking questions.
Your arguments are a bit unsatisfying to me, though.
> what makes sense for example is the positive impact a religion has on the world. which religion is doing the most good?
I try to have a positive impact on the world by being vegan and donating to (secular) humanitarian organizations. I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this (although I’m open to a good rebuttal!).
> which religion has the better answers to explain the world in which we live in today?
I think that the secular scientific tradition does better here than religion (even if it isn’t perfect, of course).
> take the issues and questions that matter to you, and then look at the answers and see if they are satisfactory. keep searching until you find the answers you seek.
I did that, and it doesn’t look good for religion, as explained above. And yet, here we are with one of the parent commenters telling us that we should believe in the Bible, lest we burn in hell.
Hence my comment above: what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it (or any other religious scripture) over my current ideals?
> what makes sense for example is the positive impact a religion has on the world. which religion is doing the most good?
I try to have a positive impact on the world by being vegan and donating to (secular) humanitarian organizations. I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this (although I’m open to a good rebuttal!).
> which religion has the better answers to explain the world in which we live in today?
I think that the secular scientific tradition does better here than religion (even if it isn’t perfect, of course).
> take the issues and questions that matter to you, and then look at the answers and see if they are satisfactory. keep searching until you find the answers you seek.
I did that, and it doesn’t look good for religion, as explained above. And yet, here we are with one of the parent commenters telling us that we should believe in the Bible, lest we burn in hell.
Hence my comment above: what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it (or any other religious scripture) over my current ideals?
I struggle to see how believing in a religion would improve on this
that's not what i am asking. if you believe that religions are "wrong", then it's on you to verify that.
what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it
i can't tell you that. you need to look at each religion yourself and decide.
as i asked in another comment, have you looked at all the major religions (as listed on eg wikipedia), and can you say with confidence that none of them do better than secular scientific tradition?
that's not what i am asking. if you believe that religions are "wrong", then it's on you to verify that.
what evidence shows this, and if there is no evidence, why should I believe it
i can't tell you that. you need to look at each religion yourself and decide.
as i asked in another comment, have you looked at all the major religions (as listed on eg wikipedia), and can you say with confidence that none of them do better than secular scientific tradition?
The burden of proof is on the claimant. If you want to convince me to change my beliefs, you should provide a compelling argument.
If you believe that religions are ‘right’ and/or have better answers than the scientific tradition, it should be trivial to defend your claims.
(Your other comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130369] is more agreeable.)
If you believe that religions are ‘right’ and/or have better answers than the scientific tradition, it should be trivial to defend your claims.
(Your other comment [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44130369] is more agreeable.)
first of all, i am not making the claim that religions are ‘right’ and/or have better answers. i am making the argument that if you want to find out if they are giving better answers or any answers for that matter, then you need to research them.
i can tell you what i believe but i am not here to represent any particular religion, and i can't speak for all the religions. you will get better results and answers if you look at each religion yourself, and come to your own conclusion.
i can tell you what i believe but i am not here to represent any particular religion, and i can't speak for all the religions. you will get better results and answers if you look at each religion yourself, and come to your own conclusion.
Ah, but the original claim (not by you) that I replied to and that spawned this subthread was:
> I strongly encourage you all read this book(the bible) and take it to heart.
This seems to be somewhat different from what you’re arguing now, though.
For what it’s worth, I shared my beliefs (veganism, humanitarianism, and the scientific method), and I still think that if you believe that your beliefs (religious or not) hold more truth and/or usefulness than mine, you should be able to (at the very least) provide some pointers to relevant literature.
> I strongly encourage you all read this book(the bible) and take it to heart.
This seems to be somewhat different from what you’re arguing now, though.
For what it’s worth, I shared my beliefs (veganism, humanitarianism, and the scientific method), and I still think that if you believe that your beliefs (religious or not) hold more truth and/or usefulness than mine, you should be able to (at the very least) provide some pointers to relevant literature.
again, i don't want to make the claim that my beliefs are in some way better. that would be hubris, and that's a big reason why i want you to do your own research.
but here are a few points that relate to the current discussion:
science and religion must be in harmony. that is, they should not contradict each other. if there is a contradiction (in any specific point) then one of them is probably wrong. to resolve that difference science needs to do more research and religion needs to get a better understanding of the claim. perhaps there is an interpretation that can explain the discrepancy.
religion must be the cause of unity, harmony and agreement. if it is the cause of discord and hostility, if it leads to separation and creates conflict, the absence of religion would be preferable.
there will be a time when humanity will learn to live without meat. but today is not the time yet. that doesn't mean i'd believe that being a vegan today would be wrong, but rather that not everyone lives in a position where they can afford to give up meat because they have nothing to replace it with.
most religions are ill-equipped to deal with the problems we are facing today. religions need to adapt and renew themselves to be able to address the questions we are having today. the return of jesus plays a critical role here.
independent investigation of the truth. everyone should do their own research and study of religion. we can't leave that to priests or other studied leaders. those played a role in times when people where illiterate and depended on others to do the studying for them.
this is why i am hesitant to tell you what i believe, or what you should read, because in discussions like this it easily comes across as telling you what you should believe, as the example you are quoting shows. but that is precisely what i don't want to do, because that would be wrong. you need to find your own answers. that doesn't mean that i think reading the bible would be wrong. it's just not enough. you should also read about all the other religions, at least the major ones, if only to get a better understanding about the different beliefs that the people in this world today are holding. it is probably not necessary to read all the holy writings of each religion, at least not unless one of them piques your interest and you want to learn more.
but here are a few points that relate to the current discussion:
science and religion must be in harmony. that is, they should not contradict each other. if there is a contradiction (in any specific point) then one of them is probably wrong. to resolve that difference science needs to do more research and religion needs to get a better understanding of the claim. perhaps there is an interpretation that can explain the discrepancy.
religion must be the cause of unity, harmony and agreement. if it is the cause of discord and hostility, if it leads to separation and creates conflict, the absence of religion would be preferable.
there will be a time when humanity will learn to live without meat. but today is not the time yet. that doesn't mean i'd believe that being a vegan today would be wrong, but rather that not everyone lives in a position where they can afford to give up meat because they have nothing to replace it with.
most religions are ill-equipped to deal with the problems we are facing today. religions need to adapt and renew themselves to be able to address the questions we are having today. the return of jesus plays a critical role here.
independent investigation of the truth. everyone should do their own research and study of religion. we can't leave that to priests or other studied leaders. those played a role in times when people where illiterate and depended on others to do the studying for them.
this is why i am hesitant to tell you what i believe, or what you should read, because in discussions like this it easily comes across as telling you what you should believe, as the example you are quoting shows. but that is precisely what i don't want to do, because that would be wrong. you need to find your own answers. that doesn't mean that i think reading the bible would be wrong. it's just not enough. you should also read about all the other religions, at least the major ones, if only to get a better understanding about the different beliefs that the people in this world today are holding. it is probably not necessary to read all the holy writings of each religion, at least not unless one of them piques your interest and you want to learn more.
He's coming back as a lion though right? We seem primed for authoritarian Jesus (in America at least)
Yes exactly, first time he came as lamb, next time as a lion. It's going to be ugly, and people rejecting him isn't going to stop it.
Disclaimer: No longer a believer so take with a grain of salt
Disclaimer: No longer a believer so take with a grain of salt
And I seriously doubt he would approve of Christianity as practiced in general.
Well as practiced by supposed believers. He said there will be many to whom he’ll say “I never knew you”. And I expect they’ll be actually surprised, until they really compare their actions to what he taught.
non-believers always seem to be the expert in that sort of thing
Hypocrisy is always easier to see from the outside. That said I do think non-believers (such as myself) often have unreasonable and unrealistic "standards" for what they expect from a Christian.
That said many Christians I know are much harsher critics of other Christians who don't live their beliefs than most of the atheists I know, and IMHO that's how it should be.
That said many Christians I know are much harsher critics of other Christians who don't live their beliefs than most of the atheists I know, and IMHO that's how it should be.
Oh dear, who cares what anyone believes?
I can read, and I have read the whole thing, several times, I know what Jesus taught. And it's perfectly obvious that very few so called Christians even come close.
I can read, and I have read the whole thing, several times, I know what Jesus taught. And it's perfectly obvious that very few so called Christians even come close.
[deleted]
If he shows up like he does in Revelation it's going to be a bit more dramatic than the first time around.
> If he shows up like he does in Revelation it's going to be a bit more dramatic than the first time around.
Yeah, for sure. They'd best hope that he don't return anytime soon if the Christian bible's description of his return has any validity to it, because he's supposed to return with a flaming sword and a host of angels behind him, and he's likely to be raging pissed at the majority of (Christian) humanity for the way they've twisted his words and teachings.
Yeah, for sure. They'd best hope that he don't return anytime soon if the Christian bible's description of his return has any validity to it, because he's supposed to return with a flaming sword and a host of angels behind him, and he's likely to be raging pissed at the majority of (Christian) humanity for the way they've twisted his words and teachings.
Especially the 3rd, which isn't just about swearing.
As a non-believer I am worried what will he do to us.
This comment and subthread has nothing to do with the central topic of the article. It's the epitome of a generic tangent, and has caused just the kind of hellish flamewar that we are most trying to avoid on Hacker News.
Please read the guidelines, particularly these ones, and make an effort to observe them in future.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Please read the guidelines, particularly these ones, and make an effort to observe them in future.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
Please don't fulminate.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents. Omit internet tropes.
Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
paxys(1)
XorNot(3)
The title is kind of the opposite of clickbait — but the actual article is pretty neat. Reminds me of Matt Levine.
[deleted]
LightBug1(1)
speedylight(1)
It’s a rug pull
We dont know the day or hour. Yet, the end won't come until the Gospel has reached all nations. Likely, people groups.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-14.htm
https://joshuaproject.net/
Jesus also warns that His message, the Gospel (GetHisWord.com), will be universally hated across the world by those who dont believe. The Devil will inspire people to censor it to prevent both people's sins being forgiven and godliness in nations. This is happening.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...
https://www.persecution.com/
As for signs of the end, a number must happen. Many already happened or are happening. That should worry non-believers while friends of Christ are encouraged. I listed some here:
https://gethisword.com/signsofthetimes.html
A few more that may or may not be in the article.
God's Word predicts Jews wont worship in the temple despite taking their country back. They still can't today. Prophecy appears to say there will be a peace deal that lets them do that. Then, the situation will reverse.
Two prophets will be preaching and performing miracles before the whole world. YouTube and the Internet make that feasible.
The leaders will promote a new, world order. Important aspects will be a world government with one currency. Then, by a mark on the body or forehead, people will be allowed to buy or sell goods (or banned from participation). Our country's leaders, along with business leaders, keep pushing for the same thing in multinational organizations. We also have the tech to do it now.
So, there's a few, specific things to look for that will be easy to spot. Christians meanwhile resist attempts to create those things to give non-believers more time to hear the Gospel and repent. If they dont, Jesus says they go into a fiery furnace for the evils they did in their lifetime. Those receiving the mark... which they'll know requires rejecting Jesus as Lord... are tormented forever in the presence of the Lamb.
https://biblehub.com/matthew/24-14.htm
https://joshuaproject.net/
Jesus also warns that His message, the Gospel (GetHisWord.com), will be universally hated across the world by those who dont believe. The Devil will inspire people to censor it to prevent both people's sins being forgiven and godliness in nations. This is happening.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries...
https://www.persecution.com/
As for signs of the end, a number must happen. Many already happened or are happening. That should worry non-believers while friends of Christ are encouraged. I listed some here:
https://gethisword.com/signsofthetimes.html
A few more that may or may not be in the article.
God's Word predicts Jews wont worship in the temple despite taking their country back. They still can't today. Prophecy appears to say there will be a peace deal that lets them do that. Then, the situation will reverse.
Two prophets will be preaching and performing miracles before the whole world. YouTube and the Internet make that feasible.
The leaders will promote a new, world order. Important aspects will be a world government with one currency. Then, by a mark on the body or forehead, people will be allowed to buy or sell goods (or banned from participation). Our country's leaders, along with business leaders, keep pushing for the same thing in multinational organizations. We also have the tech to do it now.
So, there's a few, specific things to look for that will be easy to spot. Christians meanwhile resist attempts to create those things to give non-believers more time to hear the Gospel and repent. If they dont, Jesus says they go into a fiery furnace for the evils they did in their lifetime. Those receiving the mark... which they'll know requires rejecting Jesus as Lord... are tormented forever in the presence of the Lamb.
> As for signs of the end, a number must happen. Many already happened or are happening. That should worry non-believers while friends of Christ are encouraged.
I'm not sure why it should or would worry "non-believers" since by definition they don't believe, therefore ... what would they even have to worry about?
I'm not sure why it should or would worry "non-believers" since by definition they don't believe, therefore ... what would they even have to worry about?
They didnt believe before the signs. God offers the signs as a proof. Also, it should be telling that only one religion even has proof it's true. Then, dominant philosophies of the world continue to do what it predicts, fail like it predicts, and more prophecies get fulfilled.
At some point, they have no excuse but to believe what's proven good and true. Christ and His Word.
At some point, they have no excuse but to believe what's proven good and true. Christ and His Word.
> At some point, they have no excuse but to believe what's proven good and true. Christ and His Word.
Funny how the people who claim this sort of thing are often responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history. It's almost as if they don't actually believe (nor have even read) the words of Christ at all... :shrug:
Funny how the people who claim this sort of thing are often responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history. It's almost as if they don't actually believe (nor have even read) the words of Christ at all... :shrug:
God's Word said all have sinned, there is none that does good [apart from God], and even Christians are at war with their flesh (sinful nature). Then, Christ and the Apostles constantly call out sin in the church. They also say many identify as Christians but are wolves in sheep's clothing.
With all that, I dont know why any of you say things like that given the Bible clearly predicts it. If anything, the atrocities of false Christians and atheists confirms the Bible's assessement of humanity. Whereas, people actually obeying God and loving others dont commit atrocities because it violates His law.
However, atheism, evolutionism, feminism, CRT, capitalism... these all allow many forms of atrocious behavior by design. Atheism combined with Darwinism can justify any evil since there's (a) no objective morals and (b) nothing matters in the long run. Communists torturing Christians used to point that out, too.
With all that, I dont know why any of you say things like that given the Bible clearly predicts it. If anything, the atrocities of false Christians and atheists confirms the Bible's assessement of humanity. Whereas, people actually obeying God and loving others dont commit atrocities because it violates His law.
However, atheism, evolutionism, feminism, CRT, capitalism... these all allow many forms of atrocious behavior by design. Atheism combined with Darwinism can justify any evil since there's (a) no objective morals and (b) nothing matters in the long run. Communists torturing Christians used to point that out, too.
interesting. what's the source for there being a world government with one currency?
GotQuestions often has Biblical answers to common questions. It has supporting data for this one:
https://www.gotquestions.org/one-world-government.html
I'll also add that the Bible teaches that Satan puts thoughts in people's heads, including rulers and business elites, to cause them to pr p mote his goals. If true, we will repeatedly see the same ideas pop up that the Bible warns about pushed top-down in many cultures. We'll also see them do damage over time.
So, in Revelation, it's a push for world governemnt, a single currency, and ability of governments to dictate both commerce and religion (esp universalism). In Old Testament, the pagans push subjectivism (eg polytheism/atheism), sexual immorality (esp homosexuality), exploitation of the poor, arrogant attitudes, violence, and sacrificing infants for more sex or money.
If we see these trends, we're to oppose them because God promises to punish them in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Historical data confirms that most countries that did such things were destroyed in time. Often from the activities driven by their cultures. That's also why we not only share Christ and His Word but promote character education and righteous government.
(Note: Christians being mere humans beings redeemed from sin, but with a human nature, means they will often fall short of the above goals in politics and life in general. Sadly. Doesn't make it any less true, though.)
https://www.gotquestions.org/one-world-government.html
I'll also add that the Bible teaches that Satan puts thoughts in people's heads, including rulers and business elites, to cause them to pr p mote his goals. If true, we will repeatedly see the same ideas pop up that the Bible warns about pushed top-down in many cultures. We'll also see them do damage over time.
So, in Revelation, it's a push for world governemnt, a single currency, and ability of governments to dictate both commerce and religion (esp universalism). In Old Testament, the pagans push subjectivism (eg polytheism/atheism), sexual immorality (esp homosexuality), exploitation of the poor, arrogant attitudes, violence, and sacrificing infants for more sex or money.
If we see these trends, we're to oppose them because God promises to punish them in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Historical data confirms that most countries that did such things were destroyed in time. Often from the activities driven by their cultures. That's also why we not only share Christ and His Word but promote character education and righteous government.
(Note: Christians being mere humans beings redeemed from sin, but with a human nature, means they will often fall short of the above goals in politics and life in general. Sadly. Doesn't make it any less true, though.)
I would hate to see this conversation get off topic so... did you bet?
Re off topic
The topic was about gambling on the return of Christ. I shared Biblical prophecy about the end times, including pre-conditions for Christ's return. That should establish whether such a wager would be correct or incorrect. Also, Christ commanded us to always share His Gospel and point people to Him when He is the topic.
Re my wager
Christ warned to have nothing to do with people who were making claims about His return before the Second Coming. That they're liars and schemers. See below in v26-27:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%2024&vers...
So, no I didnt bet. I'll also have nothing to do with that. I also think the Bible leans against gambling. It also becomes a household-destroying addiction for many. So, no to other forms of gambling, too.
The topic was about gambling on the return of Christ. I shared Biblical prophecy about the end times, including pre-conditions for Christ's return. That should establish whether such a wager would be correct or incorrect. Also, Christ commanded us to always share His Gospel and point people to Him when He is the topic.
Re my wager
Christ warned to have nothing to do with people who were making claims about His return before the Second Coming. That they're liars and schemers. See below in v26-27:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%2024&vers...
So, no I didnt bet. I'll also have nothing to do with that. I also think the Bible leans against gambling. It also becomes a household-destroying addiction for many. So, no to other forms of gambling, too.
mrguyorama(1)
This is one of several reasons the prediction value of these markets is nil
In the year before the 2020 election, a market opened on predictit called "Will Hillary run for president? Yes/No"
First this was a reasonable market, but quickly it became obvious she wasn't running (because she repeatedly said she wasn't, there was no campaign created at all, absolutely zero indicators she was running because she wasn't). Predictit allowed a comment section where people worked themselves into a frenzy every time some hillary "news" dropped that somehow secretly indicated she was running a phantom campaign. She missed primary registration deadlines - that only made the "Yes" market move up. There were still people hammering Yes up until a few weeks before the actual election and they closed the market.
Anyway it was the same thing. Low % "Yes" and 95+% "No." However, I found an edge holding on to a "baseline" Yes I'd established (1-2%, I can't remember) and just sell the waves of "news" that would spike it to 5+%. Then buy again at the baseline. There were a lot of shenanigans in the comments and people attempting to move the market with various tactics - it was a wild ride and one of my favorite markets I'd ever studied/participated in.
There are probably some true believers in the "Yes" jesus purchasers here but I imagine a lot of what I'm describing here too.