this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2024
238 points (82.7% liked)
Showerthoughts
29773 readers
765 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
People universally agree that Jesus Himself is a great dude - despite (because!) He told the over-religious Karens to fuck off, and just plainly do such things as take care of widows & orphans. So wherever you may end up, maybe start with that and see where it takes you?
Using the term “universally agree,” on the fast and loose I see.
Obviously... sort of. Fascists hate him for bucking authority, neoliberals too bc how dare He prioritize anything at all over profit - like why take care of the poor when you can (literally) fuck them over, even use them as slaves?
Though I would think the word that they would take issue with would be the "great" part rather than the "universally agree" - they can all see who He is, bc His actions made that plain leaving no room for doubt (like He could be a loon but... whatever the reasoning, at least He lived authentically according to whatever principles He expoused) - they just don't agree that those properties are themselves what they want to see put into the world.
There’s no evidence that Jesus ever existed at all; so for a lot of people, they’re indifferent.
First sentence in wiki: Jesus
Obviously you know better that there is no evidence, which I find amusing, given that you could not be further from reality.
article whether Jesus actually existed as a person
Seems like people downvoting me also do not like that fact that the person existed.
Notice how it says people agree but doesn't say there is any evidence.
The best we have is letters from a whole generation after his death, and it's only people saying "these guys say there was a dude a while back" , second hand comments, no living first hand account.
Not really even "letters". But literally 2 accounts. One we're attributing doesn't even mention the correct name at the time. Jesus was often referenced as Yoshua at the time... So why the fuck did the account call him James? And the second account doesn't mention a name at all.
Edit: I need to clarify something since my phrasing is self-defeating (on purpose)... "often referenced as Yoshua at the time" as believed by biblical scholars who are almost universally religious. But the point remains. If the information we have now doesn't line up with what the accounts state (or the bible)... then how much of this shit is just made up bullshit?
And the 2 accounts are Tacitus (116 AD)
and Josephus Flavius (95 AD)
And by the way... Josephus' account is under heavy scrutiny and is general considered unreliable at best... and downright forgery at worst. The wiki articles linked are a good read and well sourced.
A really damning case in my opinion is:
So other early authors that were Christian referenced Josephus works, but ignore the one that actually mentions Jesus directly? That seems odd no? Almost like the work was fabricated AFTER 324AD.
Scholars agree on stuff there is no evidence for...? What? Did you even read the article?
That's literally what first-hand evidence is: an account from someone who met someone irl - e.g. John, Peter, Luke, Mark, etc.
Also in that historical context, the fact that there are letters at all is somewhat astounding, if Jesus were just some rando. At the very least they seemed to think that He was important.
The letters were not written until later though - b/c why would they be, if you had John + Peter + Luke + Mark all in one room, why would they be writing texts / emails / chats at one another? They still wrote it within their lifetime though, so "a whole generation after his death" is disingenuous - time passed, but those people who met Jesus were still alive, and wrote the letters, thus making them first-hand recordings of fact.
Not that I'm advocating that you become a Christian over all of this, just wanting to get that part of the story straight:-).
None of those are first hand. The gospels were written by other people more than a generation (60 years) after, not by people who were alive in that period of 30 years.
The gospels were dictated to someone who physically wrote the words down...
Oh wait, no I see the problem. Yeah at some point early scholars did get the timeline wrong and thought that the gospels were written 60 rather than 30 years after the death of Jesus. But there are TONS of holes in that theory - e.g. why not mention that the Jewish Temple had been torn down, which is like the largest event for them for thousands of years? I thought that this has been more or less universally debunked, but I could not swear to that especially for it to have permeated throughout the entire world.
Wikipedia both backs me up on that one point:
While in the very next sentence also debunking my claim that they are first-hand accounts:
So if we use that article as a surrogate for "world-wide consensus", then it sounds like we both need to read up on our knowledge of this theology:-D. I for one am fascinated - does this mean that those "first-hand accounts" were merely written in the style of a first-hand account, but also including someone in the community who really was there (they would have been about 60 years old at that point?) - at which point, what is the difference, really? - or... maybe the people were older & feeble (in their 70s?), so merely the result of prior conversations with them over the course of a few years?
The "gospels were dictated by first hand witness" idea is a massive problem because that's not first hand account at all, that's actually someone claiming that someone else told him "dude I swear I saw it happen in front of me as clear as I see you" (or worse, the guy who wrote it claims that he found this text written by someone else 50 years ago) and we somehow chose to believe both the guy who wrote it and the supposed guy who told him that. Having something dictated is second hand account, not first hand, because that's just changing the pronoun of the person speaking. And there were extensive analysis of the text itself to try to figure out what kind of person would have phrased this or that in certain ways, whether it says "I saw that myself" or "my uncle who works at Nintendo told me he saw it himself", and that analysis, done for the entirety of the Bible, has gone pretty far, including the gospels. As far as I know about it, the biggest point about that analysis is which gospel was written first and which ones copied from which ones or added their own thing, rahter than 4 different people recounting their memories of the same events.
I don't know about the timeline of the temple; I've heard it brought up before, but I haven't heard that it was considered conclusive evidence for dating the text, so I don't know more than that and how it holds to the text analysis.
Oh it's way worse than 50 years. One of the "direct" claims of writing was Josephus. With the text written 65 years after Jesus would have lived... and the next reference to text of [Josephus' writing on] Jesus being from 350AD... ~250 years later. With the actual direct references showing up 100 years later. So somehow we have a supposed account... That writer writing about it 250 years later write about... Just for what was mentioned to change 100 years after that. We literally have a documented accounting of the evolution of the text over time which couldn't happen if the original source was maintained.
Edit: omitted words I meant to type... In brackets above.
Wiki Jesus, nice!
https://theobjectivestandard.com/2021/04/creating-christ-how-roman-emperors-invented-christianity-by-james-valliant-and-warren-fahy/
Wikipedia is a much better source then this Ayn Rand simp site.
That’s a new creative way to “tell me you didn’t read the link; without telling me you didn’t read the link.”
EDIT: Check the sources on these wikipedia articles... Every citation is from an author that has already made up their mind, and is writing for a similar audience. There's an obvious pro-religion bias within every citation.
Of course, because a prophet named Jesus may have existed. Jesus was a popular name and being a "prophet" was a popular career at that time. There were probably thousands of them running around.
Now the biblical Jesus? No, there is absolutely zero evidence he existed.
That is literally what the article is about and you still try to twist things to make sure this one specific person never existed. But why?
People agreed with this so much that at the time, they murdered him for it.
"People" didn't disagree with him; the Roman governor did. And it wasn't even a matter of disagreeing with Jesus's message; Pilate just saw him as a troublemaker.
No, Pilate literally washed his hands of the matter and was only talked into it by the crowd. He said he could find no wrongdoing and only ordered the crucifixion to be done with the matter.
Meh, for them it was a Tuesday - it's just how authoritarians are - and rightly so even, if you believe that way (it is internally consistent I'm saying). Overzealous mods banning people and murder are differences in degree, not of kind.
But, if you believe the lore, Jesus being "God" meant that He actually had the upper hand and while he could have stopped it, chose not to, instead allowing them their freedoms even at that cost and significance, to both Himself personally and others in the community and even around the world. It's a fascinating tale! One that I believe but regardless even, there's depth there.
Or you could go the other route and presume that Jesus was not any kind of "god"... in which case he lacked the upper hand - or did he? He could have altered his behavior to fit in with the authorities of his day, but chose not to. Like Robin Hood, he dared to defy those conventions that he considered wrong, and died as a result, knowing that would happen.
So either way, he was genuine. How could you look at the likes of Mr. Rogers or Jesus and think "he's a bad dude"? Except ofc if you want to keep people in slavery and ignorance, i.e. the religious leaders. Jesus was a revolutionary, a bad dude as far as they were concerned, but a good one for anyone who enjoys the idea of someone being authentically whoever they want/need to be, or for an authoritian who believes in God, there's really a quite narrow range in-between occupied afaict solely by piss-baby fascists who believe neither, and in my comment I was not caring about those who preach intolerance.:-P But obviously you are right, they do exist.
Whatever someone's "religion", I say:
Pretty sure the story isn't that he let them kill him just to respect their freedom and significance...
Of course not. The point would be to offer people the choice - the consequences of any action are never up to us, only the decisions.
You argued both sides of "jesus is god" and came to the same conclusion. You realize that's an argument against God, right? If the story works without him being "divine", there's no reason to assume he was.
Also, like I mentioned in the other comment, Pontius Pilate washed his hands of the situation and only ordered the crucifixion because the crowd demanded it. You can question "how could they think that", and argue that it's "really quite a narrow range of people", but the story is still that there were enough of them to demand the crucifixion of Jesus, and succeeded soo... What's your argument here?
I think you are presuming the consequent here. It may help to strip the story of all emotional connotations and just treat it as a logical game - hard to do tbf but it would help. So like, if you start with a story where it is a given that a real God exists, then a lot of freaky stuff can happen downstream from that... bc the Truth is just stranger than fiction, I mean regardless of this stuff even it just is.
e.g. in The Matrix movie, you can go your whole entire lifetime and never once see The Architect, nor anyone you've ever met or even heard of either... and yet he exists all the same. Saying like "well then why have *I* never seen him" represents an assumption that may not be valid - in that case, that you would or even could ever do so (by what, walking to work, eating noodles, drinking at a pub, reading a book, intoning a chant in an old language?).
Anyway I cannot prove the existence of God so I'm not even trying to do that here, just to show you a peek into the idea that presuming that He does not exist in the first place relies on some heavy assumptions, that cannot be proven. Or maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill here, and misunderstanding you, especially if English isn't your first language. But those are some thoughts that I can offer to help get you started on your pathway to better understanding it from the outside, just in case they may help.
Oh no, I believe in a deity, I just believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving being that created the universe. Have you heard the goodness of his noodliness? Forever and ever, r-amen.
Because if you can see how ridiculous that argument is, you can see how ridiculous I think yours is too. English is my first language and I grew up in the church. That's why I don't care about your 'arguments'. I've heard them before. I've used them before. Then I grew up and learned better.
You're correct that you cannot prove a negative, which is why the burden of proof is on someone making a claim. You claim there is a god, but cannot prove the existence of him, so I have no burden to believe you just like you have no burden to believe me when I claim there's an all-powerful coalescent ball of spaghetti that controls the universe. "Just assume it's true and then marvel at how cool and strange things would be" isn't actually a persuasive argument.
Jesus was a cool guy, but lots of people are killed for standing up for what they believe in. We don't make religions out of them, though.--
And nowadays, over-religious Karens (and political despots and greedy evangelicals) use Jesus to oppress and exploit others. If this Jesus had the power the fables claim, he would put an end to all of that shit, stat. Looks around and gestures
First part:
Second part:
But I am not prepared to take the latter on faith alone - b/c free will is a bitch. Allowing a Lord of the Flies type of situation means... well... this.
Do you ever wonder how life must have been in The Matrix? Like, I've heard that the Bay of Pigs scenario brought us within like a hairsbreadth of WWIII, and it was only narrowly averted by what amounts to a probabilistic confluence of factors, but if you modeled it multiple times you could end up with VERY different outcomes - like after the fighting settled USA on top, or Russia on top, but the vastly most likely ofc would be nobody on top but everyone (1st-world participants anyway) obliterated, etc. So would The Architect there allow those permutations, or did he guide them towards a desired end? And if so, why bother, if he got what he wanted regardless? Or perhaps he didn't really care one way or the other, so long as sufficient people were alive to steal their energy from, but b/c of the latter he would work to prevent such a worst-case (to the machines' purposes) outcome. But if the Russians were capable of threading that needle, and taking over the USA without obliterating too many human lives, then was there an incarnation of The Matrix where Neo (or you know, The One by whatever name) was born to a Russian province, a conquered USA? Fun thoughts...
But anyway, regardless of all the religiosity add-ons (people that try to use Him for their own selfish agendas), Jesus was just a most excellent dude!
As for whether He is (a) "God" or not, people ofc disagree. I think yes, but I also join with others of many faiths who regardless or even outright because of their religion - including atheism - try to be the change that we want to see in the world, without getting hung up on our philosophical differences. Ironically the main camp in opposition to that are fascists, which at this point heavily features evangelical so-called "Christians" in the USA (who are also so-called "Patriots", so-called Pro-"Life", so-called "defenders" rather than destroyers of democracy - they really aren't big on telling the Truth, even/especially to themselves!).
This is the part where shit gets tough, b/c words no longer have meaning, if we (the tolerant) allow (tolerate) people (esp. the intolerant) to call themselves whatever they wish. Ofc nobody for one second would confuse Trump himself as an authentic "Christian" - they just use him for their own ends - but what then is a "Christian"? Is it someone who, like Jesus, is most excellent to one another by showing LOVE (kindness, patience, gentleness, compassion, etc.), or is it rather someone who Karens people, literally killing them... or worse (diddling kids, slavery, wage theft that is... is that even any different?!?)
Ironically, Jesus is only ever recorded to HATE one group of people: the intolerant religious butthurt crowd who say one thing, do the precise opposite, but expect you to go along b/c if you don't they will literally, flat-out, straight-up kill you. As they did Him.
So yeah, I would hope that even atheists could join in on hating the "Christian"/"Patriot"/Pro-"Life" crowd, as Jesus Himself demonstrated that He did. To them I would say the message: don't let the fascists confuse you with "words" - just b/c they call themselves something doesn't make it true. What then is a "Christian"? Who da fuq even cares at this point, it may be a lost cause, but The (OG) Dude I thought was pretty cool:-), again imho.
I wish all (or even most) Christians were like you. We’d all get along better in the world. I can’t reconcile the state of the world with an all-powerful deity, but we are each free to see the world as we choose.
And I wish most non-Christians were more like you. Regardless of our "beliefs", there is work to be done, to make life better for people - not "kill them all and let God sort them out later", but right here, right now. I have found it exceedingly easy to get along with most people irl - it's called "not being a dick".
Tbf, "religion" itself is an extremely debilitating mental illness (inducing cognitive dissonance) when wielded by authoritarians for ulterior motives, obviously including diddling kids but even more so (at a higher scale I mean), allowing those in power to parasitize off of the backs of those who actually work in society. Ironically that can be cured by reading more of (rather than less) the texts lifted up as "holy scripture"... which is why access to that is curated and heavily obscured as people rush forward to tell you "what it really means is..." (e.g. give me money, and more importantly OBEY).
In short, greedy people have made society the way that it is now, for their own purposes, and therefore there is heavy resistance to trying to do things any other way - people are literally killed who try to buck the system (e.g. Jesus to name just one:-D). Also, religious authoritarianism is only one (particularly effective) way to implement that greed, but it is not the only way e.g. dictatorships.
As far as an all-powerful diety, I have no problem envisioning that (once you get past the fact that most religous "authorities" lie - for their own agenda - e.g. is God "good" like Santa Claus, peeping on little children to make sure they eat their veggies and get in all of their nappies; or is He rather good like Azathoth/Cthulhu, in allowing us to do our own thing even if that literally ends our planet and all life on it, whoopsie daisy!:-P), but ofc it makes just as much sense to envision the opposite too:-). We don't need to be dicks about whether chocolate or vanilla is better - so long as we agree that murder is bad etc.
"Even" atheists? Especially atheists. As an atheist, I disagree with all Christians, but the only ones I hate are the ones who've discarded Jesus's teachings. I respect real Christians.
Some atheists seem to not want to full-on "hate" fascism, I guess thinking it demeans them or some such. As such their more neutral stance makes them "collaborators" (or worse), whether they realize that or not. And thereby allows such to spread, by virtue of not being opposed hard enough.
Evil needs to be fought against - and I'm not talking some alien lifeform with red skin, a forked tail, and carrying a pitchfork, but inside of our very selves.
But I guess I didn't express my last point very well:-D.