The secret Christians aren’t sharing with you

[godincarnate.me]

Well, of course they’re not gonna speak the truth. They’ll look deranged.

Sure, because saying instead that they eat the body and drink the blood of a Jewish guy who died a couple of thousand years ago, who is his own father, was born of a virgin, and came back to life three days after his death, doesn't make them look deranged at all.

Yup, that’s pretty crazy too, but apparently it’s accepted for “unknown” reasons. Go figure.

 

[bilby]

I’m not here to change peoples minds. I’m here to tell people the truth.

Preaching contravenes the board's Terms of Use.

You might not be here to change people's minds, but here is here for that sole purpose, and you are not permitted to use it for your stated alternate purpose.

 

[bilby]

Well, of course they’re not gonna speak the truth. They’ll look deranged.

Sure, because saying instead that they eat the body and drink the blood of a Jewish guy who died a couple of thousand years ago, who is his own father, was born of a virgin, and came back to life three days after his death, doesn't make them look deranged at all.

Yup, that’s pretty crazy too, but apparently it’s accepted for “unknown” reasons. Go figure.

Not by me, it's not. If other people want to believe crazy nonsense, that's their problem.

 

[godincarnate.me]

Well, of course they’re not gonna speak the truth. They’ll look deranged.

Sure, because saying instead that they eat the body and drink the blood of a Jewish guy who died a couple of thousand years ago, who is his own father, was born of a virgin, and came back to life three days after his death, doesn't make them look deranged at all.

Yup, that’s pretty crazy too, but apparently it’s accepted for “unknown” reasons. Go figure.

Not by me, it's not. If other people want to believe crazy nonsense, that's their problem.

Oh yes, many people want to abolish religion from the world. The world would be 10 times worse.. ideologies would always remain and ignorance over long-term plans fuels war. There is no long term.

Most of the people that want to get rid of religion are the ones who support abortion, capital punishment and gay rights.. I guess we can’t all agree on everything and getting rid of the religion ain’t gonna change that.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Concerning Christ, I'm certain that many followers secretly believe that “Jesus” resides on Earth and that, upon His death, all existence will end and begin again with his "rebirth." Notice Jesus in quotes. The Christian conviction that He is alive in "heaven" now, poised to resurrect the dead and usher in a new Heaven and Earth speaks volumes, in my estimation. In the present day, a man exhibiting a messianic tendency is deemed mentally unsound; yet, for reasons "unknown," Christians do not apply this judgment to Jesus. I surmise that Christianity’s magnitude renders it impervious to scrutiny, and individuals shy away from the prospect of being perceived as irrational for asserting that “Jesus” walks the Earth. Thus, there lies a collective refuge in attributing such divinity to the figure described in the sacred text provided by God.

You’re making way too many claims you never actually back up.

Most Christians do not secretly believe “Jesus is currently living on Earth and when he dies everything ends.” That’s just not their doctrine. They believe he already died, rose, and is alive in heaven until the end of the age. If you’re going to critique Christianity, at least hit what they actually teach, not a fan-fic version of it.

The “reasons unknown” line is doing a lot of work too. We don’t treat a modern guy who says “I’m the messiah” the same as a figure embedded in a 2,000-year-old religious tradition with texts, liturgy, and a whole interpretive history around him. You can absolutely say that tradition is wrong or irrational but that’s not the same thing as pretending people are just scared to notice he’d be “mentally unsound” today.

And Christianity is not “impervious to scrutiny.” It’s been torn apart, defended, revised, and argued over by believers and nonbelievers alike for centuries. If anything, your paragraph shows how easy it is to avoid real scrutiny by psychologizing believers and attributing a “collective refuge” instead of engaging their actual claims.

NHC

When a child asks a parent, “What happens when you die?” the parent often responds that the deceased go to be with God. It’s a comforting answer, Yet, this unspoken knowledge sustains the Christian narrative. Cultural traditions like Christmas further reinforce this, weaving a story that’s easier to accept than to challenge. Every culture has its way of shielding children from such unsettling ideas, preserving faith through simplified tales of the afterlife.

Nothing in mainstream Christianity says, “There’s a man secretly living on Earth right now who is God incarnate, and when he dies reality will reset to 1980.” That’s your head canon, not their doctrine, not their creeds, not their sermons. You keep inventing a bizarre belief, then treating the lack of evidence for it as proof it’s “secret.”

Never said that’s what Christianity says. What I said was: “but what else could they say? That nothing happens, but there’s a man on Earth who is God incarnate, orchestrating existence, and upon his death, all reality will reset to 1980 with him reborn as a child?” So don’t put words in my mouth. Thanks.

Never said that’s what Christianity says. What I said was: “but what else could they say? That nothing happens, but there’s a man on Earth who is God incarnate, orchestrating existence, and upon his death, all reality will reset to 1980 with him reborn as a child?” So don’t put words in my mouth. Thanks.

Furthermore, I said that Christians secretly think that “Jesus” walks the Earth now and when he dies all existence ends and begins again. I never made any claims that they think it’s me and my 1980 story. Lmao.

You’re dodging, not clarifying.

You did introduce that 1980-reset scenario as the supposed “other thing” they’d have to say, and then talked about “unspoken knowledge” sustaining the narrative. That’s why I called it out. If you now agree Christians don’t actually believe that, great then it shouldn’t be anywhere near your explanation of what’s “really” going on in their heads.

And your core claim still has the same problem:

“Christians secretly think that ‘Jesus’ walks the Earth now and when he dies all existence ends and begins again.”

You’ve got no doctrine, no liturgy, no surveys, no lived practice just you saying “they secretly think this” and then laughing it off with “Lmao” when pressed. No one said you claimed they think you are that guy; we’re saying you’re projecting a weird hidden belief onto millions of people with zero evidence.

If you want to be taken seriously, you need something more than, “They all secretly believe X, and the fact they don’t say it out loud is proof I’m right.”

NHC

Like I said, it’s a secret because of people like you that don’t believe it. It’s all good. You don’t have to believe it.

People like you don’t believe it, that’s why it’s a secret” isn’t an argument, it’s a magic trick.

You’ve gone from making a claim about what millions of Christians really believe to basically saying, it’s true because you can’t prove it isn’t, and if you ask for evidence, that’s proof it’s hidden. That’s not insight, that’s a self-sealing story.

You’re free to hold that belief, but let’s be honest about what’s happening, you’ve left the territory of psychology or theology and moved into “I just know this about everyone, and any challenge is why you can’t see it.” At that point, there’s nothing to debate—you’ve made yourself unfalsifiable, not persuasive.

NHC

I’m not here to change peoples minds. I’m here to tell people the truth. You can do what you want with it.

If you’re not here to change minds, then you’re not showing truth, you’re just asserting it and walking away when asked to back it up. Anyone can say, “I know what millions of people secretly believe, it’s just the truth.” Flat-Earthers, cult leaders, conspiracy guys all talk like that.

You’re free to believe whatever story you like, but once you refuse evidence, argument, or any way your claim could be wrong, you’re not describing reality you’re just protecting a belief.

NHC

Well, it’s clear that you think that Christians actually believe a man rose from the grave 2000 years ago, is in heaven now at the right hand of God waiting to judge the world and bring forth a new heaven and a new earth.

Have a good day.

P.S. I’m not here to judge anybody. I’m here to live my life God gave me. Hahaha

No, what’s clear is that I can separate “this is what Christians say they believe” from “this is what I think is true.” You’re the one mixing those up.

I can describe Christian doctrine resurrection, heaven, judgment, new creation because that’s what they openly teach. That doesn’t mean I buy it. Same way I can tell you flat-Earthers think there’s a big ice wall and NASA is faking photos without believing a word of it. Reporting someone’s stated belief ≠ endorsing it.

Meanwhile, you still haven’t offered anything but “I just know” about your secret-Jesus theory. And the “I’m not here to judge anybody, I’m just living the life God gave me ” line rings pretty hollow after a thread of mocking what you claim Christians really believe. That’s not truth-telling, it’s just a smug exit line.

NHC

 

[bilby]

Well, of course they’re not gonna speak the truth. They’ll look deranged.

Sure, because saying instead that they eat the body and drink the blood of a Jewish guy who died a couple of thousand years ago, who is his own father, was born of a virgin, and came back to life three days after his death, doesn't make them look deranged at all.

Yup, that’s pretty crazy too, but apparently it’s accepted for “unknown” reasons. Go figure.

Not by me, it's not. If other people want to believe crazy nonsense, that's their problem.

Oh yes, many people want to abolish religion from the world.

Not sure how you got to there, from what came before; I suspect that this non-sequitur is something you wanted an excuse to say, and that you decided our conversation up to that point was close enough to be good enough.

Congratulations, I guess.

Though you don't seem to really need any excuse to preach your contradictory nonsense, so the desire for a set-up seems to just be a further contradiction.

Good luck with your mental health issues; I hope you get the professional help you clearly need.

 

[godincarnate.me]

Who would’ve thunk it. I got atheists defending Christians.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Who would’ve thunk it. I got atheists defending Christians.

Yeah, that line sounds cute, but it completely misses what’s happening.

I’m not “defending Christians,” I’m defending basic intellectual honesty. I don’t have to believe a word of Christian doctrine to insist that if you’re going to criticize it, you should at least describe it accurately instead of projecting a secret belief onto millions of people with zero evidence.

Example, I think flat-Earth is nonsense. But if I started saying, “Flat-Earthers secretly believe the Earth is a cube made of cheese that resets every Tuesday, they just won’t admit it,” you’d rightly call that garbage. Pushing a fantasy “secret belief” on them wouldn’t make me bold or insightful it would make me lazy and unserious.

Same thing here. I’m not on Team Christian. I’m on Team “Don’t Make Stuff Up and Call It Truth.”

NHC

 

[ideologyhunter]

Most of the people that want to get rid of religion are the ones who support abortion, capital punishment and gay rights..

So where is this demographic that is anti-religion but pro-aborsh, -executions, and -gay?
I googled it and all I found was the Caitlyn Jenner Alliance for Taoism, Abortifacients, and Lethal Injection.

 

[Jarhyn]

Most of the people that want to get rid of religion are the ones who support abortion, capital punishment and gay rights..

So where is this demographic that is anti-religion but pro-aborsh, -executions, and -gay?
I googled it and all I found was the Caitlyn Jenner Alliance for Taoism, Abortifacients, and Lethal Injection.

Not to mention that Jesus at least was pro-trans-rights (see also Matthew 19:12), and pro-family-planning.

Jesus was in fact the product of an original home that lacked two solid parents, if we are to believe as much of the story as is credulous.

In fact, when people come here claiming to be Jesus, usually that's the most obvious (and to be fair boring) test that they fail.

Jesus, if you read between the lines, went for some time to live in Rome, and learned a great many things about regional politics there.

Seriously read matthew 19:12 and the surrounding verses, because there is a subtext there, and a sidelong conversation through that whole verse about gender and sex and being gay, and the question posed Jesus was anything but direct.

The question posed to Jesus in the verse before was, itself, a veiled question about homosexuality; doubtless there was some argument of the time, some rhetorical lead moving to an argument against sex for pleasure, because eunuchs were big politics back in the days of Rome.

The response was brilliant, if often misinterpreted, because Jesus had not yet formed a church at that point, and none of the eunuchs he could possibly be talking about (as far as we know) were among his disciples and working explicitly with Jesus. Just whose kingdom of heaven, then, were they already living to work to build?

The answer comes in understanding that eunuchs of Rome often decided to become eunuchs by their own hands, so as to live as and like women and oftentimes these people held the philosophy of treating all the world as their family, which is essentially what Jesus preached.

This lends a specific light to the original statement, insofar as one might interpret the whole interaction around that verse as follows:

"What say you, Jesus, to the idea of people being married (because I want you to think of the children and link all sex to this)"

"I'll stop you right there. People should be married if they are having kids*, but there are all sorts of people who aren't going to have kids at all, and for all some people are born that way, ostensibly by the 'perfect' hand of God, it can't be wrong to use your 'bits' even when it won't make kids ever... And lots of wonderful people make themselves that way and are great people living for making the world great for everyone (and they still use their bits a whole lot). People should accept it and move on."

So ironically while I agree* with the guy that literally started a religion, here, that would mean I can't agree with the religious people who believe religion is right to disparage gay people or trans people or people who aren't having kids. It would also mean that someone who doesn't understand at least that much cannot possibly Jesus or anyone in his tradition.

If I read Jesus correctly on being Jesus, to be Jesus, you have to not just believe everything he said, but to have all the knowledge that will allow you to say it without belief, to say it for and from observations that led his mind not to belief but to accurate realizations.

*I more expect people to just have a plan in place to make sure kids get a good range of positive, present, and supportive grown-up role models in their lives, much more than marriage.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is not a faster way for someone to convince me that they do not understand the least of what Jesus preached in the Bible than to pretend Jesus was against family planning and gay people.

 

[steve_bank]

Sorry Jaryn.

The gospel Jesus reinforced Mosaic law, IOW Leviticus. Harsh punishment for gay sex. links I posted on another thread some ancient cultures prohibited gay sex, otters did not.

As to family planning that is a new concept. Up through the 19th century infant mortality rate was high. Big families were a matter of survival.


I have no issues with gays. But in context of ancient Jewish law and culture I do not see Jesus as accepting gays.

I read ancient Jews allowed abortion up to a certain time. Probably natural medicinals to induce labor.

The all incisive Christian god and Jesus is a modern invention.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sorry Jaryn.

The gospel Jesus reinforced Mosaic law, IOW Leviticus. Harsh punishment for gay sex. links I posted on another thread some ancient cultures prohibited gay sex, otters did not.

As to family planning that is a new concept. Up through the 19th century infant mortality rate was high. Big families were a matter of survival.


I have no issues with gays. But in context of ancient Jewish law and culture I do not see Jesus as accepting gays.

I read ancient Jews allowed abortion up to a certain time. Probably natural medicinals to induce labor.

The all incisive Christian god and Jesus is a modern invention.

Did he? Or are you not actually reading the part where he recognized contemporary self-made eunuchs and said to accept them?

Because if you know ANYTHING about trans people today, you know trans people fuck, a lot.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I haven't invested a lot of time in Matthew 19, but reading it just now, it seems like JC is highlighting how a life of sexual abstinence is a kind of grace. In any case, would a young wanna-be rabbi from first century Nazarene hill country have a granular understanding of gender fluidity?

 

[Jarhyn]

I haven't invested a lot of time in Matthew 19, but reading it just now, it seems like JC is highlighting how a life of sexual abstinence is a kind of grace. In any case, would a young wanna-be rabbi from first century Nazarene hill country have a granular understanding of gender fluidity?

He wouldn't need a granular understanding.

He would just need to know what anyone with an open mind moving through Rome would know, which is that there were eunuchs about, many decided to live as women, quite a few were fairly "freaky", and that they lived for the betterment of society.

It's not about sexual abstinence; rather, it's about having kids.

They were asking Jesus whether people had an obligation to have kids, which is evident by the context because the response was about people who both couldn't, decided not to, and were made to not have kids.

In the context of sex and sexuality, especially those born eunuchs, it says people have no obligation to get married if they aren't going to have kids, and the implications is that non-reproductive sex is a non-issue.

 

[ideologyhunter]

BTW, Jesus Goes to Rome is simply someone writing his own gospel. There's a village in Japan (Shingo) that bills itself as Christ's Hometown. It actually gets pilgrims, and there is tourism built into it. In Shingo they'll tell you that Jesus survived the cross, somehow moved to Japan, became a garlic farmer, and lived to age 106. There must be as many Jesuses as there are Barbies.

 

[Jarhyn]

BTW, Jesus Goes to Rome is simply someone writing his own gospel. There's a village in Japan (Shingo) that bills itself as Christ's Hometown. It actually gets pilgrims, and there is tourism built into it. In Shingo they'll tell you that Jesus survived the cross, somehow moved to Japan, became a garlic farmer, and lived to age 106. There must be as many Jesuses as there are Barbies.

Dude, we have a missing decade and signs of at least some classical understanding and wider cultural exposure to the larger issues in the Roman empire. It doesn't even have to actually BE "Rome", just somewhere where Roman culture is clearly evident.

The issue here is that that verse came from a very specific cultural context which people seem to want to ignore: eunuchs were not and have not been asexual in any part of the world that didn't enforce emaculation (penectomy) on eunuchs (so, anywhere outside of China).

YOU hear eunuchs and you think "people who don't have sex/are celibate"; someone from the day and age would hear "eunuchs" and instead think something akin to "trans people".

You can understand this cultural difference by looking to India, where their culture of eunuchs never actually ended, and you can see they're just 'trans people, but what happened before we knew about hormones'.

 

[steve_bank]

Sorry Jaryn.

The gospel Jesus reinforced Mosaic law, IOW Leviticus. Harsh punishment for gay sex. links I posted on another thread some ancient cultures prohibited gay sex, otters did not.

As to family planning that is a new concept. Up through the 19th century infant mortality rate was high. Big families were a matter of survival.


I have no issues with gays. But in context of ancient Jewish law and culture I do not see Jesus as accepting gays.

I read ancient Jews allowed abortion up to a certain time. Probably natural medicinals to induce labor.

The all incisive Christian god and Jesus is a modern invention.

Did he? Or are you not actually reading the part where he recognized contemporary self-made eunuchs and said to accept them?

Because if you know ANYTHING about trans people today, you know trans people fuck, a lot.

The eunuch quote goes to the bazaar twists in ancient Judaism. So, please Jesus and cut your balls off

And again god and Jesus are reflections of believer demographics.

Same as I said to Politesse, if you are gay and see a supporting Jesus, good for you.
don't see it in a rabbi of the day referencing prophets and reinforcement of Mosaic Law.

In one passage Jesus lumps fornication with murder and other offenses. The Jews were obsessed with ritual purity. Pagan sexual practices were considered to weaken the spirit.

That Jesus came to save the world not just a Jew preaching to Jews was an early Christian adaptation. Gentile Christians co opted the Jewish Jesus and Jewish scripture as their own. Antisemitism in Gentile Christianity began early.

In context of the times it would vhne been obvious Israel was facing destruction by Rome. They were under Roman military occupation. Sedition was in the air and militant Jewish rebels.

oo me the gospel Jesus is caling Jews back to traditional values, IOW get it together of face doom from Rome. The end of the world being the fall of Israel, which happened.

Look at Gaza and the West Bank today to get an idea.

 

[Jarhyn]

The eunuch quote goes to the bazaar twists in ancient Judaism. So, please Jesus and cut your balls off

I mean I would have ages ago if it were just that easy these days; but these days if you end up without balls without a doctor's note, things can get complicated in the mental health space, with psychiatric holds and actions over "self-harm".

The reality is that it costs thousands of dollars and a few years to get it done these days, and that's thousands of dollars I don't have in a medical environment where I can't even see a doctor to keep my prescriptions active to get through those years?

What the fuck am I supposed to do?

Eunuch troubles aside...

Personally, I take the same approaches with both Jesus and normal academic philosophy: I take it as a starting point of what people believe is right and I work from there, rejecting each contradictory or erroneous element, and seeing if I can work up from the premises that remain back to whatever conclusions.

Now I'm past Jesus and on to Aristotle.

Maybe in another decade or two I might end up writing a book or starting a cult or something?

Here's to hoping there are still humans kicking around the next time this all happens again.

 

[Politesse]

BTW, Jesus Goes to Rome is simply someone writing his own gospel. There's a village in Japan (Shingo) that bills itself as Christ's Hometown. It actually gets pilgrims, and there is tourism built into it. In Shingo they'll tell you that Jesus survived the cross, somehow moved to Japan, became a garlic farmer, and lived to age 106.

Thus exemplifying Shinto virtues of the good life. Not entirely dissimilar to the Muslim perspective on Isa and the cross. To be willing to submit to an unjust fate for the sake of faith is a sign of good character, but actually needing to do so should not be the fate of a true prophet.

There must be as many Jesuses as there are Barbies.

For much the same reason. Barbie is an enduring symbol of adult womanhood, but womanhood means something different to every generation.