Christians get mocked because...

[howard112211]

...even if one takes away all the "literalism" (such as thinking Adam and Eve actually existed), takes away all the strange rules of the Old Testament (like those against eating shellfish and being gay), sweeps all the bigotry that is in the Old Testament under the rug and simply focuses on Jesus Christ and his message of loving your enemy, the moment one claims that this is more than a practical philosophy and is actually inspired by a deity it becomes an outlandish claim.

There exist various degrees of "literalism", but believing that Jesus Christ was the son of god, sent to earth to die for our sins, or even to believe that he was a "prophet" carrying a message from god in some way IS a "literal" belief, and a pretty wild one at that, ranking right up there with the belief that one should not eat shellfish or be gay.

This has absolutely zero to do with whether his teachings are practical or not.

The ultimate question that matters is: Is the hypothesis that there was/is factually, not metaphorically, a supernatural or divine force behind the person "Jesus Christ" (exclusively behind him, not some vague "we are all divine" thing) true?

Answering this question with "yes" is a necessity, if one wants to have any meaningful definition of "Christianity" as a religion. And it is an outlandish claim, similar to the claim that Harry Potter is true.

Just because this outlandish claim has many followers and they can band together to collectively call out bigotry when they are mocked for it, it does not make this claim less outlandish.

[RandomThoughts]

1. You don't know stone craft.

If you know that sin, or distortions of a person are a spiritual thing. And those things can be healed or removed from a community, then it makes sense.

To remove those spirits they were put into a scape goat and chased out of town, or put into an animal that was killed.

With the spirit of God in Christ, who exist in all time at once, with his crucifixion then nobody needs to sacrifice if they have a spiritual thing to tough to heal or help, that they need to unload.

Or something like that.


Side note, the sacrificing of children was a tradition meant to break empathy and create much hardship and sadness, that got into many cultures as a terrible method of such a thing. Also Cain gave wheat and fruit, and Able gave an animal sacrifice, which served to remove his sin, and that was not explained why Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable.

:shrug: or something like that.


However, there are also spirits that want to pay there debts, or help people, although there are different views on how that works or if that is possible, from that they are usually seen around the poor, and those closer to the dead. How India had the untouchable class. Since they had spirits trying to help them, and the rich saw that help, and did not like it, so shunned that whole class trying to stop those spirits from helping them. Since helping them was balancing society a bit.

Or something like that.


Empathy, healing, helping people, and living craft of sharing love is much better in my view, and helps many people in many ways that might not even be seen by a person. In a way it is preventive medicine for the problems of breaking of empathy that can get people vulnerable to some things.



Side note, I have no idea if that is a doctrine in any churches, it is just the way I learned it, and it makes sense. Never heard any person ever say that before, but it makes sense with the dynamics that are observable.

Unloading is a tough way to phrase it, it is more like getting strength to help with things. But you can let someone else work on something if it is more then you can handle at some time, there is like a chain that goes up where you can send those that are free, or those that are to tough to get more help from someone stronger. And at the same time the chain moves love down to help you and anyone else in anything you are working on in life.


But I'll tell you this, I haven't figure out the beer and travel money thing yet. That really should have arrived by now.


There is alot more to it also, some people will think the things should tell them what to do, not the concept of a person being able to know what is a best thought or feeling. Then that is the coasters that and some spiritual thing drives them. So you do what you think is best, and break any delusions or attempts at fear or control. And the things become nice and loving, then they go away up the chain, but they come back at times in many different ways later.

This song explains it a bit better.

Bob Seger - Like A Rock
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xuz9_bob-seger-like-a-rock_music

[onager]

16. Bob Seger is a theologian now? Here, I just translated this...

...from the ancient Latin. Hope I didn't make any errors.

Believed to be part of the ancient saga of Gulielmus Jacobus:

Listen, children, to a story,
That was written long ago,
About a kingdom on a mountain
And the valley far below...

Sorry, the rest seems to have been burned by anti-Gulielmus Jacobus religious rioters. Probably that Hadesian Angelus bunch.

[RandomThoughts]

21. It explains it by showing others know the same things.

It is in many songs.

As far as 'One Tin Soldier' I understand.

You try to share something, and people try to burn you.

There is something that is in many stories, it is told as some effect on a person where many people see someone as something they are not.


It comes from an effect that happens often. A person tries to help someone, or a group, and they all attack him, becuase to help them, they have to think and feel on some things they would rather be willfully ignorant about.

However letting them be willfully ignorant allows them to continue doing what they know they should not. So at some point, if many are being hurt, or if I am due beer and travel money, then what is going on should be shown, so that things can be corrected.

If things were ok, or in a good system, it could be allowed, but when we are in worse then anarchy, things have to be shown until they get corrected.


Or blowing a dam, to stop a flood. Same metaphor. If they weren't hurting anyone, they could be that way, but when they use the stuff they believe to hurt many people, you have to say something.

And of coarse, I am due beer and travel money. And I am due that becuase I believe in better ideas of justice with compassion and stood for that, and they don't like that. So they try to isolate or smear.

So I figure showing them it is everywhere, shows them they can't stop better ideas. And then if they try to stop it, the corrections will occur. And they have to either try and stop it or correct things. So they still have a choice, and it corrects the issue of beer and travel money being due, while giving them a choice and the action being from how they choose to act.

And someone will send the beer and travel money that is due.

[RandomThoughts]

2. By definition.

You have to believe the supernatural exist, before you can believe that the supernatural, both good and bad works through people.

So if your argument is it is ridiculous by your belief that the spiritual does not exist.

You are doing what Cameron does when he argues you should believe becuase the bible says it.


You are using your belief to understand the argument you make.



You first would have to know the supernatural exist, before you could even begin to fathom the concept of the spirit of God with someone, as a man walking on earth, or the many other spiritual things that occur.

[Tunkamerica]

3. I would argue that I know the supernatural doesn't exist exactly as well

as the supernaturalist knows that it does... which is to say: not at all.

[RandomThoughts]

4. I understand that you can know that it does not exist.

But once you see it, then you have to be insane, or it has to exist.

And once you prove that it occurs across multiple people, then it has to exist.
and here is the thing, I can see the same concepts across many people that never discussed nor heard those concepts in any teachings.


It is like saying does air exist. How do you know? You feel it in the wind.


Breathe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCmsZUN4r_s



You have a different set of experiences.

[Tunkamerica]

5. fallacies abound

[RandomThoughts]

6. You didn't mention any falacies.

Ever wonder why, woe to those 'pregnant' near the time of the end?


If the concept of child, is like the freeing of something from oppression, then when you hit some hardship. Much better to have lots of help, if they choose to help, then be still working on child birth, or cleaning or helping something get free of oppression.

It fits that same concept.

It is good to have friends

Thunder Struck.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RukUetw0hAM

[cleanhippie]

9. Your entire post is a fallacy.

Its worthless nonsense.

[RandomThoughts]

18. Shrug.

Worthless based on what kind of evaluation of value.

I will think of it as free, not worthless.

[laconicsax]

19. Well, it was free as you didn't charge for it. n/t

[skepticscott]

7. The truth is that the entire concept

of the "supernatural" is a false one. I would argue that there is, in fact, no such thing as the supernatural, except in our imaginations. There are two, and only two, possibilities for existence: things can be conceptual or imaginary, existing only in our minds, or they can exist in the real, physical world. If such things as gods, angels, ghosts, or demons are anything but imaginary, then they must be considered as natural, existing in the natural world, amenable (at least in principle) to scientific inquiry, and subject to the same inviolable natural laws as all other things. Any appearance by such entities (assuming that they did, in fact, have a physical existence) of transcending these laws would be simply that-appearance. A ghost which passed through a solid wall or a god which could transform matter with the wave of a hand would not be exhibiting "super-natural" powers in violation of natural laws, but would rather be indicating to us that there are aspects of natural law which we simply have not yet discovered.

[humblebum]

8. I must say, you do "spin" with the best of them. nt

[skepticscott]

10. Says the king

of the insubstantial non-response. No facts, no arguments, just the same incoherent babble.

[humblebum]

11. My argument about you is that you are too predictable.

If you can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or touch it, then it can't exist, or probably can't, or any combination thereof. That's what it all boils down too.

[skepticscott]

14. Even if that had been my argument

your post would be still be the same predictable foolishness that we all expect from you. That wasn't my argument here, so your post is...gee...guess what?

And you've morphed from "If you can't see it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or touch it, then it doesn't exist" to "it can't exist, or probably can't" to "it can't exist, or probably can't, or any combination thereof". Where will you backpedal to next?

[humblebum]

15. Like I said your POV is simply too predictable. Only the words change, but

the orientation does not.

[RandomThoughts]

20. Your comment on the supernatural being a form of the natural we don't know yet.

Is an agreement with my statement that you have a different set of experiences.

Although it is syntax to say it is part of the natural, but just not learned yet.

You are including the supernatural into the natural as an unknown part of it. Some may know more about some things, and some other might know more about some other things.

I haven't figured out why the beer and travel money hasn't arrived, and some are really good at solving that issue. But I know some things that would be what most call the supernatural.

:shrug:

Different sets of experiences.

[humblebum]

22. Christians get mocked because...

that's what atheists do. And that is why atheist are so overwhelmingly popular.

[humblebum]

12. Let me guess. Because they're the primary target of radical atheists?

[rug]

13. Mocked by whom?

The passive voice is so vague.

Are you saying this is why you mock?

[dimbear]

17. Know the old saying "turnabout is fair play?"

Christians have been mocking other religions from the word go, that is to say starting about the year 100 CE. If they can give, they should take.

Fair's fair.

I realize that a lot of that early mocking was done in Latin and Greek. You may have to take the word of others that what I say is true. :)

Good text to start with: Adv. Haer.

[dmallind]

23. Well that and killing, torturing, stealing, etc. But yep they mock as well

Apparently to DU believers mocking online is the ultimate horror, far worse than losing one's job, electoral prospects, rights, social support and standing, reputation, even safety and life to the egregious majoritarianism that is American Christianity.

I ask any Xian complainer one simple question. Would you prefer to be in the position of atheists in US society? I'd trade in a heartbeat. Why wouldn't you if the mocking and "persecution" is so bad?