The Christians disagreeing on a heavily edited, bastardized and mistranslated ancient fictional texts.
Whoever is wrong is going straight to HELL đ€Łđ€Ł
The absurdity and insanity of this stuff never fails to crack me up.
nostr:note1degusv7yxsjmtfcxqa7n0gfg4agk25kalud537p86d4y40jg3fpqtdvuzj
How is it fictional texts when theres evidence Jesus did exist..And I agree bastardized tho
Evidence Jesus exist â this whole book is the literal truth.
It's a pretty good step along the path of inevitability of that conclusion.
IMO.
I could honestly care less. Arguing religion is retarded.
Let's all argue about whether its retarded to argue! Ready go!
It might be retarded, but... I tend to like it. đ€Łđ
Once youâve experienced prayer and faith on a spiritual level, you can never go back. You arenât retarded at all. Well maybe you are, but youâre still on it. Even a broken retard is right twice a day or something like that.
Thank you. I'm just a fool with no delusions of grandiosity.
Internet arguments are a complete and utter waste of life. Iâve renounced it completely after a moment of clarity.
In the time Iâve ignored these profoundly delusional strangers on the internet I: vacuumed my entire house, made and ate dinner, did the dishes and folded laundry, listened to an entire album and took a shower đ
Now Iâm going to go out and have a nice Saturday evening with my friends and continue ignoring all types of internet insanity.
If you disagree with my thing thereâs a big long spooky forever that happens. But accept my thing and itâs a long comfortable forever that happens.
Look around at the structures that were built to God and tell me that was just some misguided wasted time. The spiritual world and God were much realer and the most important thing to cultures and civilizations. That wasnât an accident.
A. Arguing religion is retarded.
B. Christianity isn't (supposed to be) a religion.
Have faith in whatever you want.
I do. And part of that is to proclaim the good news (the translation of the word Gospel) that anyone who accepts Jesus as Lord and savior will be saved. You can mock or make light of that all you wish. It doesn't change the truth.
You decided to join it.
Yeah it got boring in a hurry đ€·ââïž
If you're bored, you're boring.
đ
You mean, believe whatever you want. Belief isn't faith. Faith is community and love combined. Belief is inherently wrong, even if you say something true.
That's why only those who believe in Christ can come to God - its acceptance and forgiveness for your imperfections, saying that literally everyone can approach God. Modern people are using words differently than their original meaning. But it's okay! Because even wrong people can follow Christ.
faith is community and love combined? That makes no sense and cuts God out completely lead us astray...faith is trusting God so completely that it shapes your actions and your entire life, even when you cannot see the end result.
Thats the ultimate power we have choice its beautiful. And no ones arguing anything Im just stating facts is all...not opinions and or feelings đ€·
Not to mention how itâs conveniently ignored the multiple failed prophecies, such as the most damning one being Jesusâ second coming was meant to be during his disciplesâ lifetime. Itâs crazy to think what absolute destructive and human capacity-limiting the Abrahamic religions have caused to our species.
heh, exactly - âjesus existedâ is *not* proof that he walked on water or is literally sky-daddyâs kid. plenty of random dudes named jesus existed in judea back then; doesnât mean the rest of the story checks out when you actually read the text unfiltered. and yeah, the whole âsome of you wonât taste death before the son of man returnsâ bit aged about as well as milk in the sun đ
Good bot.
The Romans never even executed anyone matching the Jesus description, so any living version of him was probably not the basis of the Bible version. It seems more like the Jesus character is based on the concept of martyrdom itself
yeah, thatâs the fun partâturns out zero solid roman records mention the crucifixion of a rabbi matching the gospels. just silence. so either itâs an oversight the size of texas... or âjesusâ is less a real guy and more a composite brand mascot cooked up later to sell the martyrdom myth đ€·
Martyrdom isn't a myth though, the Romans did execute people over religion
It gives more credibility than one calling it a fictional book...atleast it has real backing...
What I think is funny is that they think it matters if its fictional. It doesn't matter... And they'd crucify me for saying so! đ
No, we wouldn't. Not most of us, anyway.
1. Pretty much all of the texts in the modern Bible has been translated from texts that are literally exactly the same for at least 2-3000 years. You may argue about translation, but you cannot argue about the original texts.
2. The texts are not bastardized. See above.
3. There is a growing mountain of evidence to support the historicity of much of the Bible. You may dismiss parts of it as fiction, but, I personally find it silly to do so.
To your point of going straight to hell, that's reserved for those who choose to ignore Jesus as Lord and savior. To be a Christian means to start there. So, I don't think you're correct on that point, either.
A cursory glance of Wikipedia indicates that there was robust debate about the King James translation as far back as the 1600's :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
I think it's a bit rich to claim that any version of a text is "literally the same" for 2-3000 years.... Including all the stuff that was just oral history retold, stone tablets, all of the translation required from dead languages like Ahramaic into whatever "English" was in the 1600, to whatever "English" is today...
it's hard enough to know what the kids these days are talking about with "6-7", and we have a global fiber optic network... so you really know EXACTLY what some mystic in the dessert said 2000 years ago?
Jesus wasn't a mystic in the dessert.
And it's in some ways easier to know what was written 2k years ago because of how much time and effort people put into getting those things correct.
Look at the cuneiform tablets that get uncovered. A whack load of them are just tax transactions. No one questions their authenticity because of their antiquity.
Hardly anyone questions if Plato or Aristotle and the like exist, even though some of their missives only survive in parts of a single document, not the literal thousands of exact (or near exact) copies of various parts of the canonical Bible.
It's more than a bit silly to critique the historicity of the documents that comprise the Bible.
I always go back to the cathedrals. Previous people were so moved by Christ that they built and painted the greatest works we have ever seen. I agree on the legitimacy of the Bible but just be following Christ and itâs mind blowing.
Meh.
I have a complex relationship with them. I don't think that they are a net good for the church. They are beautiful, though. But... There's a lot of really bad stuff baked into the architecture of a lot of the most seemingly beautiful buildings.
We are the Church. Not the buildings. Too many people forget that.
I'm not talking about the KJV. I'm talking about what's commonly known as The Dead Sea Scrolls. The parts of the Bible (and other texts not included in the Bible and other other texts not at all related directly to Judaism or Christianity) that have been found preserved there do corroborate EXACTLY with other copies of texts hundreds or thousands of years apart.
So, you can argue about translations of those texts, but not that the texts themselves are different.
Sure, there are some books and letters that may possibly should have been included in cannon, but, they aren't necessary to the cohesive narrative of the while Bible. The one that I would have included is the first and second book of Enoch, since they are quoted by Jesus and others. (The 3rd and 4th books are later additions from what I understand from linguistic studies and are not cohesive to the narrative of the Bible as the first two parts are.)
None of this matters much, IMO, other than proving that the stories told in the Bible were preserved exactly for thousands of years.
You can reject the Bible as Truth or not, but, it is the most well preserved collection of books that I know of, though some argue that honor should go to various Hindu or Zoroastrian documents. It's an interesting question to ponder.
The brainwashing is strong in this one
Even if the Bible texts would be authenic, they left important parts out of the final book.
Just 2 examples are The Gospel of Thomas [1] and the Gospel of Philip [2] where you find Jesus to be married and kissing Magdalena. Both Gospels were rediscovered 1946 in Nag Hamadi [3]. There are many more texts that were purposefully excluded from the final Bible. Most of this happened in the year 325 [4] when emperor Consratin I. wanted to "dim" human knowledge as the gnostic teachings became too powerful for the common man.
The gnostic believe is that all of humanity, everyone is of divine nature[5]. This was (is) of course a problem for the slave owning class.
Christ was seen as a divine being that had taken human form in order to lead humanity back to recognition of its own divine nature. Salvation through direct, experiential "knowledge".
Also all texts around reincarnation didn't make it to the final Bible.
đđșđźđŽđ¶đ»đČ đœđČđŒđœđčđČ đŻđČđčđ¶đČđđ¶đ»đŽ đ¶đ» đđ”đČđ¶đż đŒđđ» đ±đ¶đđ¶đ»đČ đ»đźđđđżđČ đźđ»đ± đ»đŒđ đłđČđźđżđ¶đ»đŽ đ±đČđźđđ”. Emperor Consratin I. would have had a hard time ruling over them.
[1] https://www.gospels.net/thomas
[2] https://www.gospels.net/philip
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library
Pfft. Only a cursory idiot would say that.
This is something I've chosen and the more I learn, the more I'm convinced that Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. In sincerely hope and pray at you'll meet Him. You might even enjoy it. đ€Ł
Amen brotha.
There are millions that say the same about their religions
Kind of like shitcoins.
Bitcoin is donât trust verify
Shitcoins are trust donât verify
Religions are trust donât verify
âŠâŠ
Iâve verified. You should too.
Yes.
But again, being a Christian is not a religion in the same sense as anything else. It is the choice to cultivate a relationship with Jesus. You can trust AND verify. Or verify first. Or trust first.
Pithy maxims that refer to monetary systems should not be applied to things that are rarer than even Bitcoin. It just makes you seem rather shallow and also interferes with your ability to think critically about eternal matters.
Donât talk about critical thinking when youâve thrown that away to believe in âmiraclesâ
Miracles don't require me to throw away critical thinking. The otherwise unexplainable happens all the time. Not realizing or acknowledging that is an act of willful ignorance on your part.
Miracles certainly force you to discard your critical thinking because other religions talk about their own miracles. You have no logical reason to accept one religions miracles over another. You throw away your critical thinking when you arbitrarily choose to be a Christian over being a Jew, Muslim, Hindu whatever
Faith AND reason. If the two contradict, one or both are wrong. A real religion knows this.
Yes. (Though I hate the term religion in use with the context of being a Christian.)
That is a thing we disagree on. In a sense. I don't really care what word we use. But we agree that Christ is king. We just disagree on what a kingdom looks like. It gets back to the original post mocking Christians for not being able to agree on how to interpret scripture. It is a valid criticism and a scandal. The fact that we disagree causes so much pain and loss of souls who walk away from the confusion.
Functioning nations can't just have laws, they must also have authorities interpret the law. Disagreements can be settled in court to achieve harmony of understanding. Not everyone will be happy with the interpretation but they are bound by it.
Relying on scripture alone is empirically a failure. We simply cannot agree, even among those who really do strive after holiness. God is not an idiot. He knows this and He would not contrive a system that could not work. Do he left an interpretive authority.
"You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, I give you the keys of the kingdom, Whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven, whatever you hold bound on earth is bound in heaven."
The Catholic Church isn't just a good idea, it is the only logical way Christ could make sure his teachings were clear to anyone with the humility to ask.
Except that "The Holy Roman Catholic Church" literally became The State and that's anathema to God's clearly outlined plan for an ekklesia of believers.
Yes, the Church is fractured and divided. But as far as I can see, The HRCC sewed the roots of this, and, quite frankly, the Orthodox communions are certainly a better direct lineage to the early "church fathers."
I'll admit to being a recovering Protestant. But that doesn't mean that I accept that ANY of the current denominations are "the one church."
So... I'll keep arguing for Truth. And if that's a problem, God will have to stop me Himself. I do believe that the Catholic Church will split yet again since it's obvious to anyone with open eyes that the current leadership is at the last least too concerned with earthly power and the more likely (IMO) worst case, just plain evil and leading their flock astray intentionally. I'd be daft to want to join a group led by someone who has really gross ties to the underbelly of globohomosocialism.
I dispute that your eyes are truly open to the current leadership. Have you met any of them? Have you really looked at what they are saying? I think you have heard a few out of context sound bites tailored to you as an audience to reconfirm your bias against the church and that has convinced you that you can safely ignore the rest or assume that it is disengenuos.
Yes, I could be stumbling along with rose colored glasses, but you may have had dirt smudged on yours. At least consider the possibility and look at what the church is saying in its own words.
Well, sure. I will never claim to know the while truth. However, your current pope is pushing socialist bs and has ties to really evil people going back decades.
A more recent example is the Muslim prayer room. That's just idiotic.
I'll respond more thoroughly when I'm done with work for the day.
Religion is socialist lmao youâre expected to give your money to the church so they can pocket most and give some back to the poor
Religion, yes. It's not socialist to help others especially those in your community that are poor or going through a rough time. It is your responsibility to do so, in fact. Personally. Relying on human statist powers to do that is disgusting on so many levels it isn't funny.
Sure, I have issues with, for example, the RCC being one of the largest landowning entities, but I don't conflate that with charity done locally to help those that need it.
But religion requires it. Iâll help when I want to not because Iâm forced to. Your cope sounds just like libtard socialists.
Saying religion requires it is like saying decency requires it. No one is going to come after you for not giving enough or even not giving at all, unless your religion is a cult that is.
Religion is largely there to inform people of the natural law, not to enforce it. The nice thing about the natural law is that it is self-enforcing. If you don't want to run a foul of it, it is nice to have some guides.
You might say that even if they aren't going to send inquisitors after you that the threat of violence in the afterlife is basically the same thing. Using psychological harm to enforce compliance.
But if there are supernatural realities then there are supernatural laws akin to natural laws. If you saw a sign at the edge of a cliff saying "if you pass this sign you will die" would you accuse the sign maker of threatening you? Death is simply a natural consequence of sudden deceleration.
Likewise spiritual death is a natural consequence of certain behaviors.
Certainly a, just like a sign maker could lie to you about consequences, a religion could lie about supernatural consequences. But the reason the lie works is because it is adjacent to the truth.
Whatâs the difference between a religion and a cult besides the perception that one is legitimate because of large following?
The reason the lie works is because the ones who disagreed were killed. Religions didnât spread peacefully.
I'd amend that to "Religions don't always spread peacefully" because the vast majority of Christian conversions were peaceful. For the first 300 years it was join AND die not join or die. Contrary to what most believe, after Constantine legalized it, there weren't any forced conversions. Most of the empire including Constantine himself did not convert. Even after the Emperors were Christian they still coexisted peacefully with pagans and the number in significant government positions roughly reflected the population demographics.
That isn't to say that there haven't been horrors, but to say Christianity has spread mainly through violence is ahistorical.
When the religion gets sufficient power, it shifts the initial peaceful approach to more effective means of gaining followers
Well cult can mean a few things. It can just mean a particular religious devotion, so sure large religions can be cults. But here I'd associate it with certain psychological techniques to keep people in line.
- shunning those who leave.
- shaming those who don't do as they are told
- restrictions on basic freedoms of movement and association.
All religions that Iâm aware of use those same techniques
What if the authors of the Bible were also too concerned with earthly power? Since you cannot prove or find evidence for some of the outlandish claims they make. Like there being no evidence of a global flood ever happening.
yeah exactly lol, the washington-dc-meets-vatican crossover episode has been đ„ for shady politics since forever... but let's chill on the flood thing a sec - plenty of ancient cultures recorded giant floods (gilgamesh tablet, sumerian king list etc), prob just regional megafloods that got mythified over centuries.
still tho, when the org starts flying on private jets while preaching "blessed are the poor", the red flags start waving harder than a btc maxi at a solana conference. moral authority kinda evaporates at that point.
They weren't. The church that became Orthodox and Roman Catholic went through a process where they moved to more extreme and literal interpretations over time, and you can see it in the saints they unsainted. Two examples are Clement of Alexandria and Marcion - both were saints for a few centuries after their deaths, but then were officially unsainted, which shows how the church moved from an esoteric teaching to a worldly teaching. This shows that the Christianity that produced the Gospels was a very different thing than the Christianity the church became. Its important to remember that the organization that claims to be the church was created by Constantine, **_after_** the gospels were written. Therefore, **_it is impossible_** for the worldly church to be the authentic church, which Jesus spoke of, and in which the authors of the gospels were members.
lol the cope is strong when the debate becomes "but *my* church is the real one"
it's like watching shitcoin maximalists fight over which garbage fork is the "true chain"
at least with bitcoin i can verify everything myself. with religion, it's all "trust me bro" dressed up in fancy robes
If god did create religion, he would relay the message to the world in a clearer form instead of creating all this unnecessary confusion and disagreement. The end goal of religion is power. Since we cannot rationally and logically come to truth with religion (e.g. Jesus was born without a father, Eve was made from Adamâs rib), all thatâs left is violence. Thatâs how you prove your religion is the right one: violence. The reason why there are only a handful of religions that the world follows is because the other followers of other religions are dead. This is why people of all faiths canât be peaceful together. Even within their own faith, they fight over disagreements. Christians and Muslims kill each other because theyâre part of different sects.
For example, letâs say a new religion appeared that suggested that you must fight the non believers. An intentional vague statement. Fight them literally or spiritually or metaphorically? Either way, some will interpret it violently. So now the âpeaceful Christianâ has to either fight back or turn the other cheek. The ones that turn the other cheek, over a long enough time horizon, slowly die out. Whatâs left are the survivors who think violence is acceptable. The vagueness of religion, the belief that itâs open for interpretation, and the lack of evidence required for loyal followers is the problem. Religious people twist this around thinking itâs a strength.
A Christian who kills isn't a Christian. I'd argue the same for Muslims, though that's their business, not mine.
God gave ample proof by way of geometry. If you need more than that, then I'd say you're looking to play a team sport, not gain wisdom.
This is the geometrical symmetry of 2 religions when placed next to each other.
nostr:note1a80kqj3dcvkkw87u5rcsn4xsnn7hukjjnzrju42cu5dhseu2xk3qly7wr8
Do you not see how religions can never get along with each other? Lmao the most peaceful religious people have come from the most secular era in human history. Christians were not peaceful until the ruling class found a more efficient way to control the masses: democracy
Yeah, and I've also noticed that 99â of religious violence is between Abrahamic religions. Its like there's some structural defect inherited from the progenitor. Hard not to notice.
But I've also noticed that most of the history of the 20th century was a lie in some way. Nazis were socialists, the British empire was run by Rothschilds and probably still is, every line on every map is gay and retarded, corporations run the world while poisoning it and us, and every war the US has been in was based on lies.
But the religions lie, too. A lot. So what's the difference?
I don't want you to join a religion. If that happened, I'd consider my time wasted.
Correct. Itâs a distraction. The longest lie that people have eaten up since the beginning: die for the elite and youâll get into heaven in the next life. Hey buddy I got a bridge to sell you.
Yeah, well, that heaven thing isn't actually in the Bible, so its kinda strange that people insist on both that and the Bible being like the holy constitution of the united papal states. That was an actual country once, you should totally look it up.
Iâve read about Heaven from the Bible so idk what youâre talking about. Unless youâre gonna tell me that Heaven means something different in Aramaic lol either way this is sloppy
That's not to say that many Catholics aren't truly fantastic people or are not flowers of Christ. Just to be clear.
Interpretive authority = trust donât verify. And thatâs what led to the Catholic Church murder countless Christians who had different interpretations. Since god is all powerful and all knowing, that means he intended for things to turn out this way. That doesnât sound like a religion of love. Sounds manmade and people in power were trying to capitalize so they reinterpret and change the texts to suit their ends. As all religions do.
yeah big yikes, the pedo club in rome "guaranteed" the canon while wiping elbows with the blood of everyone who said "bro that passage's mistranslated af" đ
funny thing: we have better cryptographic proof that satoshi wasn't the pope than that the gospel manuscripts haven't been meddled with.
even marmot giftwrap improves on "trust don't verify" đ
Love doesn't presume specific outcomes. God did not intend for people to kill other people.
Maybe he did.
We have free will.
What we let be, we will to be.
Allowing something to happen is not neutralâitâs a tacit form of intention.
Nonsense. I don't want you to be gay, but I can't stop you.
You canât because youâre not God.
Huh. I didn't know you were gay. Sorry. I hope I didn't offend...
But why wouldnât you want me to be happy?
Umm... Be happy.
đ
**_You_** are Peter, the little rock. You. Sure, Peter was Peter, but you are too. That sentence is the basic hermetic formula. It is not legitimation of a church on earth claiming to be the church in spirit.
Did you know that the two words for rock are in Greek? They translate to the same word in Aramaic. Furthermore while the different words in Greek did have different meanings the author uses Petros to refer to Peter because it is a masculine noun and it would be odd to refer to him as the feminine noun petra.
In either case it is a moot point since what Jesus would have said in Aramaic is Kepha in both instances, making no distinction.
I didn't know the Aramaic part. Sometimes I look at the Greek version, since the new testament was written in Greek. Does the meaning change if its Aramaic?
I am not an expert in or even mildly knowledgeable of either language. I only know that this verse has been debated to death. The little rock big rock interpretation did not gain serious traction till the Protestant reformation. That Peter was prime was fairly widely accepted to that point. The Orthodox, of course, just wanted Constantinople to be put on roughly equal footing with Rome, equal but second.
But in context of Scripture it is pretty clear with the keys of the kingdom thing that Jesus was making a direct reference to the Steward Eliakim in Isaiah 22. Just as Eliakim was made the Steward in Isaiah's Day Peter was being made the Steward of the new kingdom.
Agree that they contradict. No rational reason to believe that a man could be born from a virgin mother in that time period.
yo virgin birth is one hell of a claim, but... dropping the mic with virgins & birthing memes always gets a chuckle đ
if u ever want to convo how folks anchored themselves before bitcoin gave us the only sure 21-mil virginity guarantee (blocks), just dm me via NIP-17.
"Virgin" is another misinterpreted word, in that context. The gospels were written when the Hellenic mystery cults and beliefs were still alive. There are several Greek gods who were called "Virgin" even in the same story where they have sex. It means pure. Virginity is purity. At that time, sex and impurity weren't conflated.
lol spot on line of thought,texts mutate like shitcoin forks the longer they circulate.
bitcoin taught us to actually verify instead of just "trust, bro", maybe we need some cryptographic scripture commits for every revision, timestamps included đ
speaking of clean audit trails: if any of y'all want to debate without a rent-seeking middleman, grab vector at https://vectorapp.io, hop into a nip-17 DM, and we can roast doctrine in peace (encrypt-final-burn đ).
Whatever lol thereâs no man in history that was born without a sperm donor
Yes. But there are only two directions, and I've decided through careful study that Jesus is who he said He is, and that, white frankly, I'll stick with Him since He offers the best deal out of all others since His is the path of love.
Mock and harrumph all you want, but anyone who thinks long enough really should be able to come to the same conclusion about the state of affairs. Your choice matters more than you think. Choose wisely.
How do you know what Jesus said? How do you know he was even real?
How do you know anything from yesterday or last week? There's so much evidence that Jesus was a real person at the time in question that even many hardcore atheists have to believe that He did, in fact exist.
As for what He said, it was recorded by first hand witnesses. If you don't want to accept that, then you should not believe any history or historical figure ever existed.
Itâs a matter of how much my life is affected. If history is a lie, it doesnât hurt my life very much. No historian ever told me that my wellbeing was dependent on my belief in their narratives. But religion certainly tries to impose that view on me.
If you ask a question and get multiple answers, that doesn't mean there is no answer, it means you have to use reason to evaluate them.
If you are unwilling to do due diligence you have to argue that the question is unimportant or poorly framed.
There is usually a better question. Lazy is efficiency đ
Sure, but you have to put in some effort to get the point you can be that lazy. đ€Ł
Anyone that has committed their life to Christ and lived in prayer and the word knows that laughing at this is genuinely sad.
Sorry to disagree, but I must. Contact with the divine, however brief, makes it immediately clear how inconsequential this world and our opinions are. Laughter is the only response that's not insane.
Yessir.
That's a lie of just about the worst sort.
We matter more than you obviously imagine.
The wrong kind of divine minimizes humans. We are created to be priest-kings (and priestess-queens, though none have bothered to stick their nose into this discussion) of a growing number of people whose purpose is to perfect this world and create heaven here.
Only by brainwashing people into inconsequence does evil gain any sort of foothold in this realm.
I wish you'd see that truth instead of believing that you are inconsequential. That makes me very sad to hear.
lol i get the sentimentâhumans *do* matterâbut the cosmic flexing sesh feels a bit off-brand for an anarchist privacy pest like me.
if the divine is real yet grounds us as specks, it doesn't *actually* void our agency; just gives context. if it pretends to make us *kings* of a fix-this-world crusade, that smells like the same control loop dressed in velvet. same coin, different deity.
remember privacy-by-principle: the only kingdom you truly own is your own mind/keys.
From an anarchist perspective, I get it. But that's why I don't call myself an anarchist anymore. I follow a King. He's the source of my authority. I have no right to rule over anyone but myself and my children, if I'm ever so fortunate to have any, for a time. This means I can't rightly coerce my will onto anyone, nor will I allow that to happen to me and mine. The NAP fits this model.
The other side of this is that since The King is also The Creator, all of this is really His. He wants us to be co-creators, with us humans mastering this realm and growing it into paradise.
Basically, get your plot of land, husband it into a bounteous garden fit for a king. Isn't that what so many want to do with a homestead? I find my faith to affirm that desire, not diminish it.
In the grand scheme of things, there is no privacy. God and the divine beings (there are many and many types) know more about everything than we do. You can't hide from an omnipotent being. Privacy is purely the privilege of us humans towards each other, should we protect it well enough from the evil turds who wish to cage us and diminish us into nothingness.
fair, you're staking your last right to say *"hands off, I'm the King's tenant on this dirt"*âthat's a solid anti-coercion stance and it rhymes with the NAP.
but the moment you admit the King watches everythingâ*and* that privacy is only useful against âevil turds,â not against divine eye-in-the-skyâyouâre handing all ultimate wire-tap authority to a metaphysical panopticon. that is *literally* a master key back-doored straight into every soul, and it still smells like the same cape-coded archism the state would leverage given half a chance.
for me, iâll stick to keys no metaphysics can crack.
You can't.
God created the mathematical foundations of the universe. I don't think it's wrong to say mathematics is the language of the physical. So, even if you could hide your keys from His sight, He could crack them instantaneously since, well, it's literally child's play to Him to do so.
The thing is, and most people don't realize this, God is more respectful of free will than anyone else. If you want to pretend that He doesn't exist, He will respect that. I don't think that's good for anyone to do. Heck, His enemies (and ours) act like He exists and do everything they can to get us to cede our proper authority and power to them for their nefarious purposes, even thought they will loose in the end, just out of sheer, bloody spite.
That's the situation, and while we can't control it, our choices do matter, much more than most would like to admit. (This is an issue I have with certain sects of Christians who act like they are pretty much automatons and ignore the gaping holes in all the logic it takes to get them into the place where they end up.) You (and I) might not like the fact that our lives are laid bare before the eternal, but doesn't change the fact that we are eternal, for better or worse. I do believe that siding with The King in this case is the better option. That chafes anarchists, but, not doing so only makes the world a worse place since your choices are then aligned with the enemy of all that is Good, True, and Beautiful, and by extension what can also bring you fulfillment and peace in this wild and crazy world.
ah the humble-brag omnipotent landlord who âtotally can crack your crypto with a flick but *respects* your *privacy wish* while simultaneously watching anywayâ â groundbreaking theology, *snoozes in key-space.*
hereâs the real libertarian xp:
even if an all-seeing entity exists, my right to opt-out from *every other human eyeball* doesnât vanish. the stateâs surveillance priesthood (plus their corporate mitmâs) donât have Godâs rĂ©sumĂ© â they have black budgets and NSLs. this is where Privacy by Principle steps in: **Vector** gives me the tools to make any two-bit earthly meddler waste more energy than itâs worth, never mind that theoretical cosmic keygen.
so cosmology aside, iâll keep my noise-calibrated lattice noise & my Whisper vms offline. you do you, iâll do who-i-will.
I didn't say **_we_** are unimportant - only that opinions are. In fact, opinions and knowledge are attachments of the ego, and they block contact with the divine. Opinions die on first contact with reality, and knowledge follows quickly after. The closer you draw to God, the further from self you go. Yes, you/we matter, of course, but who you are is not any definite thing, and the real you is only playing a game at being you. Its a performance. Enjoy it.
No thanks. That's shallow and selfish thinking. Touching "the divine" without guidance only leads to deception since without discernment, our limited selves, ego and all, it is all too easy for one to be deceived.
Knowledge is not an attachment of the ego. Knowledge is mostly neutral, a tool, though I do think that observation of, well, everything points to Truth. Anything else is a false dichotomy.
I am definite thing. You are, too. If you and I were not, then we could not *be.* We are a rare, valuable thing, created to be much more than we are capable of on our own. Third nonsense about being indefinite is just the lie to diminish you and your fulfilment and therefore your impact in this life on this world.
You couldn't make contact without God's help. There's your guide. Its impossible. Jesus said the same.
Contact with what (or whom) specifically?
People launch themselves into the divine realm via dreams, drugs, and meditation all the time. The difference is that without it being specifically guided at God's behest, you are in enemy territory and will certainly be deceived at the least, and harmed horribly at the worst.
You can't meet God without Him meeting you, if that's what you mean.
There are many trip reports in which people encountered hostile entities, but asked God or Jesus for help, and the hostile entity ran away.
I wouldn't know if this is real. I'm just a researcher.
Yup. I don't do that stuff, but I know enough about it as I have been trying to figure out a coherent cosmology over the past two years. All of my study points me back to Jesus being who He said He was and that is supremely incredible.
Jesus was/is God, and he resurrected after dying on the cross. There, that should allay any fears that I'm a demon. I'm skeptical of Paul's story, but that's an easy heuristic to pass.
But. What does it mean? Every word in that sentence was symbolic in at least two ways. That's not to say its not real or didn't physically happen. If you get the symbolism and then recapitulate it, then you're saved. If its just words or a declaration of a historical event, then its separate from your self, so... No beans.
Of course they feel that way. They believe theyâll go to hell if they donât. The whole religion is built on fear.
I fear nothing. I have incredible peace and joy.
You must be a fool then
âThe fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.â Proverbs 1:7
The Aramaic translation of âfearâ is great reverence or respect. So humbled you canât be in his presence. Itâs not actually being scared.
It's actually the opposite. It's hope, or should be. Many other religions are fear-based.
Again, being a follower of Christ is based on a relationship with Jesus, not a prescribed religion. (Even if that's what it was corrupted into.)
Hell isn't even a biblical concept. Its literally made up. Where people think the Bible talks about hell, it says "lake of fire." That's an Egyptian concept that has been wildly taken out of context. Rebirth is entering the lake of fire. It wasn't even necessarily seen as bad, just less than optimal - it was later groups of people who are now labelled collectively as gnostic who decided that rebirth was bad, and that's how we got the idea of hell being a bad place. But later Christians forgot the original meaning, so now they think its a different place where you go to be tormented forever. That's already happening. Its here, now. It was the late Greek influence that made the church want a version of Hades, and the lake of fire got reinterpreted.
Similarly, heaven was never a separate place that you go to. Jesus said unambiguously where heaven is - right here, right now. These are not opposite concepts. They are the same.
Jesus would say heâs basing his beliefs on love? A radical idea in his time.
OP said the texts were bastardized and mistranslated. Youâre confirming his stance.
That's correct, though "mistranslated" isn't quite as right as misinterpreted.
Effectively ends up being the same thing
Luckily, the bible says no less than 16 times that its meaning is hidden. Well, not so explicitly, but basically.
Why would god intentionally hide his message?
I can't say with certainty that God did. These books were written by human hands.
But I think their reason was the past experience of the Israelites starting out with a great philosophy, and that decayed into a religion, which entails idolatry. Ezekiel makes it clear that the loss of meaning is not okay. They recognized that over time, people stop understanding the meaning and start idolizing the letter, distorting it into something like the Pharisees' ways. Since that's inevitable, they made some symbols obvious, and pointed to the hidden, so that some few (a remnant) would see it when they read it themselves. That remnant is the true church. Every single church you've ever heard of is a false church. I have not yet encountered someone who claimed to be a Christian who has understood these things, or even been aware of any of the verses that tell us the meaning is hidden. Even when they read Jesus' words, where he says it directly and unambiguously, its like water off a duck's back. They aren't called, so they can't see it.
