Why did Jesus Leave?

[devolved]

And yet, even if they don't act on their beliefs, their words still do untold damage.

Words are actions. Most people on this planet have some racist beliefs, if not all. Racism isn't some monolithic ideology. It's framed via stereotypical ideas that can be very subtle and subconscious. I've caught myself thinking racist thoughts on various occasions. Again, a belief isn't something that's continually sits there in our mind that you have control over. If you think that, then you don't understand how our brains work.

Actually I don't think human beings are simple at all, and I never said they were.

You oversimplify a lot of concepts.

My belief in God is everything to me. It is very much something I keep in my conscious mind every day of my life.

It's highly unlikely. There isn't a single idea that we keep in our conscious mind the entire waking time. It would take enormous amount of training and discipline to accomplish that. Our conscious focus constantly shifts. Again, if you understood neourophysiology or psychology, you wouldn't be making oversimplified claims like these.

What are you getting at?

See the above. You don't seem to understand how our brain works when it comes to conscious vs subconscious experience.

And that's fine. If it doesn't matter to you, then it doesn't. That does not mean, however, that it doesn't or shouldn't matter to me and every other Christian.

I'm not really concerned with what should matter to every Christian. I'm merely seeing if you can answer a question in a rational manner, and you can't.

However, you have not presented me with evidence comparative to that which I find in the Holy Bible and my relationship with my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And, as my beliefs are a choice, I choose not to believe you.

Again, I can't provide you evidence for non-existing things. It's like saying "Can you provide me evidence that Unicorns don't exist". Well it doesn't quite work that way .

What evidence can you provide to me that Unicorns don't exist? After all there are movies and books, and myths about Unicorns that could pass for "historical narrative" by certain loose standards.

That's not how we reliably navigate reality, and I'm not really concerned as to what you believe... that's your business entirely. But the purpose of this forum is to explain why you believe it. You you can't explain why, what is irrelevant in this context.

Because, as I said, such "evidence", is not sufficiently backed up. (As my faith in God is) Therefore, I choose to reject your claim.

But it's the same type of evidence - a claim. People can write a book about it and tell stories about magical powers of Joy. They can even turn me into deity. How can you tell a difference when you merely correlate effects with a story?

 

[amariselle]

Excuse me? How have you been mocked?

Really? You don't know?

Oh well, this is me "running away" again.

Have a nice day Archaeopteryx.

 

[amariselle]

Words are actions. Most people on this planet have some racist beliefs, if not all. Racism isn't some monolithic ideology. It's framed via stereotypical ideas that can be very subtle and subconscious. I've caught myself thinking racist thoughts on various occasions. Again, a belief isn't something that's continually sits there in our mind that you have control over. If you think that, then you don't understand how our brains work.



You oversimplify a lot of concepts.



It's highly unlikely. There isn't a single idea that we keep in our conscious mind the entire waking time. It would take enormous amount of training and discipline to accomplish that. Our conscious focus constantly shifts. Again, if you understood neourophysiology or psychology, you wouldn't be making oversimplified claims like these.



See the above. You don't seem to understand how our brain works when it comes to conscious vs subconscious experience.



I'm not really concerned with what should matter to every Christian. I'm merely seeing if you can answer a question in a rational manner, and you can't.



Again, I can't provide you evidence for non-existing things. It's like saying "Can you provide me evidence that Unicorns don't exist". Well it doesn't quite work that way .

What evidence can you provide to me that Unicorns don't exist? After all there are movies and books, and myths about Unicorns that could pass for "historical narrative" by certain loose standards.

That's not how we reliably navigate reality, and I'm not really concerned as to what you believe... that's your business entirely. But the purpose of this forum is to explain why you believe it. You you can't explain why, what is irrelevant in this context.



But it's the same type of evidence - a claim. People can write a book about it and tell stories about magical powers of Joy. They can even turn me into deity. How can you tell a difference when you merely correlate effects with a story?

Hmmm, it seems I am an irrational person with no concept of reality or how the brain works. Fair enough then, there's nothing more to say.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Really? You don't know?

Yes. How has Deidre32 been mocked?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've reported you...you're in violation of the rules here, for the forum. You're not permitted to mock us, and that is most likely why you're here.

If you don't want to answer the questions I've put to you, then don't bother responding to them in the first place. But don't make baseless accusations about ulterior motives for being here. I've been here since July 2007, when I first joined as a Christian. Since becoming a nonbeliever, I've constantly had to fend off accusations that I am here only to mock and ridicule. My reason for posting here has not changed: I'm interested in conversations on religion, science, and society. As a humanist, these conversations interest me because I care about the kind of world we live in. I suspect the same is true for the majority of nonbelievers on CF. So please spare us your thoughts on our motives and, if you wish to engage in discussion, or "true dialogue" as you put it, actually address what we've written.

 

[Colter]

I think it's a valid question from a position of any given skeptic.

I really don't buy the oversimplified answers like "If he didn't leave then Holy Spirit wouldn't come", Or "He left because the mission to spread the Gospel had to be fulfilled", or to "Prepare a place", again neither make a lot of sense in a scope what Christianity is and what it expects.

The question is whether this world is better if Jesus is there for all to be able to experience apart from some "feeling" or a book narrative? It wouldn't make Christianity to be so doubtable. Every Thomas out there could visit a 2000 year old dude with holes in his hands and believe.

Why leave without a trace, and except leave the world with a story and a promise of hope.

It seems like a good excuse to mask the reason as to why Jesus is not here. "Well, he was here, but you've missed him by about 2000 years, BUT he's coming back soon... so just wait and read this book about him".

Perhaps there are other reasonable explanations, but what would these be? What do you think?

Because this evolutionary planet is not the home world of our creator Son. And when he returns it will just be for a visit.

The original gospel will eventually subdue the world and achieve its purpose.

 

[Deidre32]

If you don't want to answer the questions I've put to you, then don't bother responding to them in the first place. But don't make baseless accusations about ulterior motives for being here. I've been here since July 2007, when I first joined as a Christian. Since becoming a nonbeliever, I've constantly had to fend off accusations that I am here only to mock and ridicule. My reason for posting here has not changed: I'm interested in conversations on religion, science, and society. As a humanist, these conversations interest me because I care about the kind of world we live in. I suspect the same is true for the majority of nonbelievers on CF. So please spare us your thoughts on our motives and, if you wish to engage in discussion, or "true dialogue" as you put it, actually address what we've written.

I have addressed it...you are misrepresenting my posts to suit your own agenda. It's like me going to an atheist site ...baiting people. That is what you're doing. I'm not interested in being baited anymore by you. You ask questions, bait Christians...and then when they answer, you don't like the answer, and then go on about how the person hasn't answered. It's called baiting and that's all you're doing.

 

[devolved]

Hmmm, it seems I am an irrational person with no concept of reality or how the brain works. Fair enough then, there's nothing more to say.

Again, you run to oversimplification to summarize thoughts.

You are not who you think you are. A "person" isn't some monolithic entity. We are built and driven by trillions tiny mechanisms that drive our experience. To say that you are irrational about SOME THINGS isn't a comment on the totality of your being. I think we should put that aside.

When I say that you don't seem to understand how brain works, It seems like the above idea seems foreign to you because you seem to think that you can choose what you believe in and etc, all of which is demonstrably wrong.

When you make comments on our mental experience without seemingly understanding how brain works, you are likely to make false assumptions about beliefs and how we get to know things, and the difference between conceptual and actual reality.

Our brain at times can't tell a difference, and that would be true for my brain too.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have addressed it...you are misrepresenting my posts to suit your own agenda. It's like me going to an atheist site ...baiting people. That is what you're doing. I'm not interested in being baited anymore by you. You ask questions, bait Christians...and then when they answer, you don't like the answer, and then go on about how the person hasn't answered. It's called baiting and that's all you're doing.

For the sake of clarity, here is our exchange, in order:

You have your own code by which you live your life. Faith/spirituality is another code that others live their lives by. Neither is right or wrong, we are just different.

I know all the arguments, as I was an atheist at one time, too. I wasn't interested in getting people to change their minds, though. If spirituality and faith brings happiness and joy to people, you should live and let live.

I'm somewhat confused by what you're trying to say. Are you saying that it doesn't matter whether it is true ("neither is right or wrong"), so long as it makes you happy?

Faith isn’t about proving something right or wrong. I believe it’s right for me. And I can share my beliefs, but if you disbelieve, it doesn’t make you right and me wrong. It doesn’t make me right and you wrong. We just have different beliefs. I believe that if more people came to God, they’d live happier lives, but again, this is my belief. You can’t prove what I believe to be untrue, anymore that I can prove to you that it is true.

And so long as we are happy with our respective beliefs, it doesn't matter whether they're true? Is that what you're saying?

But I can explain to you why I don't believe it to be true.

I believe my beliefs to be true.

Obviously you do, but that doesn't remotely answer my question.

You seem to think that I should answer to you. lol If you don't believe in God, that's okay with me. It doesn't affect my beliefs.

Okay, but that still doesn't answer the question I put to you:

who decides if Christianity is true...you?

Not who, but what. What reasons do we have for believing it to be true? And were you saying that it doesn't matter whether it's true, so long as it makes you happy?

It is true, that is why it actually brings me joy. I explained to you earlier in the thread that I had an experience when I was an atheist, that led me to believe it was of the Holy Spirit. That was evidence to me. Does it bother you that others have faith in a deity, simply because you don't feel there is proof of one that is satisfying to you?

No, what bothers me (or is curious to me) is that, earlier, you appeared to be saying that it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, so long as it brings you happiness. For instance:

I never stated that one should believe things that aren't true. But, you are wanting faith to be proven by your standards, or by a method that you approve of, therefore you feel what I believe is 'wrong,' which is your right.

What do you wish to gain from this exchange?

You did say "neither is right or wrong." I'm curious about what you mean by that. You went on to say that, if it brings joy to people, "live and let live."

Only a clarification of what you mean, since it's not clear.

I see...I meant that you're not wrong to follow your idea that a god doesn't exist, if you're convinced of that, and I'm not wrong to follow Christianity if I'm convinced of it. It's not like proving or disproving if 2+2=4.

But if our positions are incompatible, then how can neither of us be wrong? I'm not sure that follows.

You know for sure that God doesn't exist? You just believe a god doesn't exist. I believe a god exists. But, neither of us can prove our positions through using an objective method, so...who is right? Who is wrong?

But I never claimed to "know for sure" that there is no God. More precisely, I don't believe there is one because the reasons given in support of that belief are not sufficient to justify its acceptance.

You are assuming that I have a burden of proof in this situation, but I'm not the one making a claim in need of support. You are. My only burden is to explain why I don't accept your claim as true. I don't accept it as true because it hasn't been adequately supported.

Your beliefs might not hurt anyone, but what about a Christians parent who forgoes medical treatment for their child's cancer and instead turns to faith healing? Or those in Congress zealously working to undermine LGBT rights, all in the name of their religious convictions? So why do we care? We care because we are humanists and because ideas matter.

But if "neither is right or wrong," as you said before, then on what grounds can you claim that the gods they follow are false?

How can you tell them that they are wrong if, as you said earlier, "neither is right or wrong." It simply does not follow.

Is Jesus not the same as the Yahweh of the Old Testament? Did the Yahweh of the Bible command his followers to slaughter men, women, and children? Did he drown people in an apocalyptic global flood? Did he harden Pharaoh's heart? Did he kill the first born of Egypt? Did he send bears to maul children for daring to make fun of his prophet?

With respect, Deirdre32, but this isn't a fair evaluation of the situation. devolved clearly stated that he could be wrong, implying that he was open to be convinced. Yet here you say that he has "made his mind up" about Christianity? He also clearly stated that he was interested in learning more. Yet here you imply that he has closed the door on such learning. So who isn't interested in "true dialogue"?

You are assuming I care what you think about my beliefs. I honestly don't. lol

Okay, but that doesn't remotely address my comments.

Okay.

So are you going to address them or not?

I've answered you, you don't ''like'' my responses. But, I've answered you. lol

Actually, you were being evasive, and you still are.

Please stop insulting me. I don't wish to speak with you anymore.

Insulting you? How have I insulted you?

Now, could you please point to where I have misrepresented your posts to suit an agenda?

 

[amariselle]

Again, you run to oversimplification to summarize thoughts.

You are not who you think you are. A "person" isn't some monolithic entity. We are built and driven by trillions tiny mechanisms that drive our experience. To say that you are irrational about SOME THINGS isn't a comment on the totality of your being. I think we should put that aside.

When I say that you don't seem to understand how brain works, It seems like the above idea seems foreign to you because you seem to think that you can choose what you believe in and etc, all of which is demonstrably wrong.

When you make comments on our mental experience without seemingly understanding how brain works, you are likely to make false assumptions about beliefs and how we get to know things, and the difference between conceptual and actual reality.

Our brain at times can't tell a difference, and that would be true for my brain too.

So how do you know for sure I didn't choose to believe in God?

 

[Deidre32]

Now, could you please point to where I have misrepresented your posts to suit an agenda?

You gave me questions, I answered them. You are stating that I haven't answered them. That's misrepresenting me, or flat out lying. lol I've been respectful of your time, either way, but you are disrespectful to me by telling me I'm not answering you. Others seem to have the same idea of your 'style'...so, with all respect, I'm not interested in exchanging anymore.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You gave me questions, I answered them. You are stating that I haven't answered them. That's misrepresenting me, or flat out lying. lol I've been respectful of your time, either way, but you are disrespectful to me by telling me I'm not answering you. Others seem to have the same idea of your 'style'...so, with all respect, I'm not interested in exchanging anymore.

If you think that I'm deliberately misrepresenting you, then point to the specific posts (above) that demonstrate this. Note that there are some posts that you haven't responded to (1, 2, 3), so I don't know if you can claim to have answered them.

 

[Deidre32]

If you think that I'm deliberately misrepresenting you, then point to the specific posts (above) that demonstrate this. Note that there are some posts that you haven't responded to (1, 2, 3).

In question one - you think that I would know the answer as to why random religious people make foolish choices that harm others? How can I know what motivates people to make choices that harm others? I suppose you can blame religion, but people sometimes make bad choices and use religion as their excuse.

 

[devolved]

So how do you know for sure I didn't choose to believe in God?

Nominal, as an agent, you did choose to believe, because that's not how we belief, and that's not what belief is. Again, you have a central misconception of what belief is, because you are detaching it from the physiological aspect of the brain.

Religious beliefs very seldom originate in non-religious environments. Thus, it's not something that people randomly read and then believe right there and then.

It's a progressive inflow of information that "rewires the brain" to function in a very specific manner, leveraging on pre-existing subconscious fears and desires.

That's why churches create isolated environments that are free of debates such as these, because if the environment would change and people began consistently evaluate and question the beliefs and presuppositions, then belief sysmply doesn't survive.

Beliefs are generally a mindset cultivated by one generation to other. Millenials, for example are much less religious. Not by choice, but because of the diminishing influence of religious education in this country.

Likewise, it should be pointed out that it's not a mere coincidence that you are a Christian in a country that followed Christian idealism, just like it's not surprising that a Muslim would be such in a predominantly Muslim country. It's merely a generational memetics in play. There's nothing mysterious about it.

Hence why you get the regional phenomenon of religion. Chinese predominantly believe one sets of religious concepts. Americans are predominantly Christian. Africans and Middle-Easterners are predominantly Muslims.

None of this seems to do with a personal choice, but with "brain training".

Skeptics like myself have a very different mindset than what you would, hence a religious beliefs doesn't come very easy. It's not something we can choose to do, neither can you choose to believe or "unbelieve" something. It takes certain amount of brain training to dismantle certain presuppositions, and that's essentially what a belief is.

 

[amariselle]

Nominal, as an agent, you did choose to believe, because that's not how we belief, and that's not what belief is. Again, you have a central misconception of what belief is, because you are detaching it from the physiological aspect of the brain.

Religious beliefs very seldom originate in non-religious environments. Thus, it's not something that people randomly read and then believe right there and then.

It's a progressive inflow of information that "rewires the brain" to function in a very specific manner, leveraging on pre-existing subconscious fears and desires.

That's why churches create isolated environments that are free of debates such as these, because if the environment would change and people began consistently evaluate and question the beliefs and presuppositions, then belief sysmply doesn't survive.

Beliefs are generally a mindset cultivated by one generation to other. Millenials, for example are much less religious. Not by choice, but because of the diminishing influence of religious education in this country.

Likewise, it should be pointed out that it's not a mere coincidence that you are a Christian in a country that followed Christian idealism, just like it's not surprising that a Muslim would be such in a predominantly Muslim country. It's merely a generational memetics in play. There's nothing mysterious about it.

Hence why you get the regional phenomenon of religion. Chinese predominantly believe one sets of religious concepts. Americans are predominantly Christian. Africans and Middle-Easterners are predominantly Muslims.

None of this seems to do with a personal choice, but with "brain training".

Skeptics like myself have a very different mindset than what you would, hence a religious beliefs doesn't come very easy. It's not something we can choose to do, neither can you choose to believe or "unbelieve" something. It takes certain amount of brain training to dismantle certain presuppositions, and that's essentially what a belief is.

In other words I have been "brainwashed" or indoctrinated." Who's "oversimplifying" now?

 

[devolved]

In question one - you think that I would know the answer as to why random religious people make foolish choices that harm others? How can I know what motivates people to make choices that harm others? I suppose you can blame religion, but people sometimes make bad choices and use religion as their excuse.

While it's true, isn't it a bit of a "no true scottsman" type of argument? The point of the fallacy is that we can define something and then keep moving goalposts to exclude the exceptions.

For example, no true scotsman would play golf. Or no true scotsman would curse. Or no true scotsman would do drugs. No true scotsman would do X. Eventually, we end up defining an ideal that doesn't seem to include the reality of what a scotsman is.

So, when I'm pointing out God's commands to kill pregnant women along with infants or children, or that it's ok to beat slaves half to death because they are property....

Your answer is that Jesus didn't say these things, but who did then? Is it made up version of God? You don't really have to answer, I'm just curious as to how you reconcile these concepts with your own belief.

 

[devolved]

In other words I have been "brainwashed" or indoctrinated." Who's "oversimplifying" now?

Sure, indoctrinated is probably more correct than brainwashed. Indoctrinated isn't that much different than "educated", largely because in certain stages of education, critical thinking elements are missing along with any validation as to why these things are true, etc. These are just taught provisionally.

Likewise, it's not an oversimplification. That's how we injest information, and either the education environment encourages debate in scope of alternative views, or it suppresses these and channels the information to a very narrow view of reality.

But, the point being - it's not something unique to religion. It's a part of the overarching cultural mindset that all of us depend on. Though culture and education our brains injest all types of beliefs, true and false.

That's why external evaluation is important, and it simply didn't exist in cultures until very recently because dissidents would be severely punished.

The reason why we've experienced scientific and technological boom is precisely because we are able to discuss these things freely, while in the past people were burned for suggesting something that we today accept as common and obvious knowledge.

 

[amariselle]

Sure, indoctrinated is probably more correct than brainwashed. Indoctrinated isn't that much different than "educated", largely because in certain stages of education, critical thinking elements are missing along with any validation as to why these things are true, etc. These are just taught provisionally.

But, the point being - it's not something unique to religion. It's a part of the overarching cultural mindset that all of us depend on. Though culture and education our brains injest all types of beliefs, true and false.

That's why external evaluation is important, and it simply didn't exist in cultures until very recently because dissidents would be severely punished.

The reason why we've experienced scientific and technological boom is precisely because we are able to discuss these things freely, while in the past people were burned for suggesting something that we today accept as common and obvious knowledge.

I don't think I need to remind you that I was not born into a culture that "severely punished" anyone who disagreed with cultural or societal views. As such, your belief that my Christian faith is somehow a result of my being "indoctrinated," is overly simplistic and leads to quite a few questions, such as:

Can someone truly be "indoctrinated" into the Christian faith when their family and friends are not all Christians, and when they have regular contact with people who don't agree with Christian beliefs?

Can someone truly be indoctrinated into a particular belief when they are regularly exposed to beliefs different from their own and allowed to explore those beliefs?

Can someone truly be indoctrinated into the Christian faith when their formal education was not in a Christian school, but in a secular one, where Christianity and God were never discussed and various conflicting views, such as Darwinian evolution were taught, rather than Biblical creation?

Can someone truly be indoctrinated into a particular belief when the majority of their formative years were spent in a secular environment, with only about two hours, one day a week spent among larger groups of people who share the same beliefs?

Can someone truly be indoctrinated into a particular belief when they are in fact encouraged and permitted to think critically and to consider everything for themselves?

Here is the basic definition of "Indoctrinate":

"to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs."

Now, please tell me how the above definition fits into the questions I asked regarding my particular situation.

Your assumption that I was somehow "indoctrinated" into the Christian faith does not hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Deidre32]

While it's true, isn't it a bit of a "no true scottsman" type of argument? The point of the fallacy is that we can define something and then keep moving goalposts to exclude the exceptions.

For example, no true scotsman would play golf. Or no true scotsman would curse. Or no true scotsman would do drugs. No true scotsman would do X. Eventually, we end up defining an ideal that doesn't seem to include the reality of what a scotsman is.

So, when I'm pointing out God's commands to kill pregnant women along with infants or children, or that it's ok to beat slaves half to death because they are property....

Your answer is that Jesus didn't say these things, but who did then? Is it made up version of God? You don't really have to answer, I'm just curious as to how you reconcile these concepts with your own belief.

My faith isn't the sum total of the Bible. My reason for returning to faith was due to an experience that I'd consider to be from the Holy Spirit. This happened when I was an atheist. I actually don't uphold the Bible as entirely literal, some of it is allegory. Fundamentalists often times, take the Bible literally. If I were deaf and blind, and unable to read or hear the Bible...would I not be able to understand God's love? Would I not feel His presence? My reason for returning to faith, honestly had nothing to do with the Bible. Now, when I read the Bible...I relate to certain areas of it, but not all of it, certainly. There's many areas I don't understand...and many I take as allegory. Not all Christians march to the same drum.

 

[devolved]

Now, please tell me how the above definition fits into the questions I asked regarding my particular situation.

Your assumption that I was somehow "indoctrinated" into the Christian faith does not hold up to scrutiny.

So, you believed everything that you do without someone making a Christian appeal to you? You just had a feeling one day and you said "Hey believe!"?

I doubt that. Genereally, there's a disclosure of certain information that anchors on to pre-existing familiarity and concepts.

For example, when I was on mission trips to former USSR, these people were the hardest to convert. We've had 0 rate of success at some points of our progress. There's a very good reason for it.

On the other hand, we didn't really have such hard time in South America.

Why do you think it is?

Would you be Christian today if you lived in a Muslim country? I highly doubt it. Would you be Christian today if you lived in post-Soviet Russia? Highly unlikely.

So, it seems to me that geography does come into play.