138 replies to this topic

[and then]

Vatic, on 10 October 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Let's just face it. The name Jesus is a synonym for the challenge to face PERSONAL ISSUES... This is why eveyone who is upset at the name is really upset. They are afraid of what the name inplies and the ramifications behind that name, Fear is masked as anger. At the root of it is personal issues contrary to Jesus, and all the excuses people offer are just facades:

Facade: No proof he existed.
Facade: He must be something other than people think he is:
Facade: I was mentally ill and Jesus made it worse.
Facade: No science.
Facade: I'm not going to be controlled.
Facade: People have their minds made up.
Facade: I will not be imposed upon.
Facade: We should not claim Jesus as certain, but be open minded to everything else.

Behind all these facades for irritation, are masked personal issues and fear of the ramifications of Jesus concerning addressing those personal issues.

For me, this sums up the mindset perfectly.

[Arbitran]

Lion6969, on 14 October 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

how do you substantiate this claim, you have no proof for such claims. It's simply your opinion that they could not, it's not fact.

It is quite clear based on what can be read in history that ancient peoples, being more intrinsically superstitious in their cultural thought-patterns, mistook simple illusion and trickery for "magic" and "miracles" with a far greater frequency than is the norm now, in our science-based society. People going to a temple were baffled and astounded to hear a voice speaking from out of a statue of a god; a god was speaking to them! It was a miracle! It wasn't until much later, with the advent of scientific, rational thinking, that is was found through careful scrutiny of the statues that ingenious tubes through which priests could speak from a hidden room were inserted into the statues. Other such tricks, such as priests stealing food that was left as offerings to gods (proving that the gods ate the food; another miracle!), setting up elaborate mechanisms to make bloody tears run from the eyes of saint effigies, etc., are known throughout history. Or, on a more Jesus-related note, the purported resurrection of the dead, walking on water, and a number of other "miracles" have been performed by tricksters and illusionists throughout recorded time; in particular, I recall that witch-doctors in Africa and Polynesia have been documented to use rudimentary psychoactive drugs and tranquilizers to intoxicate and induce seemingly "paranormal" states in victims, including causing a man to appear dead, so that he could then revive him with an antidote to the anesthetic concoction he had craftily administered earlier. But I digress (I'm fascinated by these sorts of things)...

[Vatic]

Once again, those who are irritated by the name of Jesus have forgotten the topic. Why does Jesus bother you? So let's get back on the topic instead of expressing your frustrations in the tired cliche's that he didn't exist.

One thing people who are upset about religious organizations failings and abuses should realize, is that Jesus is transcending of those things for each individual who encounters Him. If you really took Jesus as a personal benefactor, your own teacehr, your own savior, then for you His value is personally profound and completely independant of the failings of any person or organization acting wrong or hypocritically in His name. For you as a person, the value of Jesus to you becomes unquestionable for you.

So the critic should realize that what is implied is nothing less than a personal relationship with Jesus, regardless of all external distractions.

I now have 34 years of living with Jesus from when i first met him in 1978. He is a teacher, a benefactor, and for me, quite a serious individual. I haven't depended on churches, individuals, rituals or doctrines. All I have depended on is MY relationship with Jesus and what He teaches me.

When I see a corrupt preacher get caught up in a scandal, do you think this represents any refelction on the Indevidual I know in Jesus? No. Jesus is real and that preacher was just a case of one more human being just acting like a sinner like so many do.

So I suggest that Jesus the person be set apart in your mind, from those acting wrongly or hypocritically in His name. It is only reasonable since Jesus always stood against such things in his earthly Ministry. He was quite hard on the religious leaders in his criticism of them. So give Jesus his own due merit.

[Arbitran]

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Once again, those who are irritated by the name of Jesus have forgotten the topic. Why does Jesus bother you? So let's get back on the topic instead of expressing your frustrations in the tired cliche's that he didn't exist.

• I happen to think that Jesus did exist.
  
• I am not irritated by the name of Jesus, unless it is being used in a disrespectful and/or proselytizing context; in other words, I'm perfectly fine with Jesus, I just get a bit uncomfortable when people try to shove him down my throat (the same goes for Mohammed, Yahweh, or any other religiously-charged character).

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

One thing people who are upset about religious organizations failings and abuses should realize, is that Jesus is transcending of those things for each individual who encounters Him.

Nobody has encountered Jesus for two-thousand years, not since he died; if indeed he lived at all, as is, again, far from clear.

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

If you really took Jesus as a personal benefactor, your own teacehr, your own savior, then for you His value is personally profound and completely independant of the failings of any person or organization acting wrong or hypocritically in His name. For you as a person, the value of Jesus to you becomes unquestionable for you.

• A benefactor is one who helps another; people who are dead, like Jesus, can't help anybody.
  
• A teacher is one who teaches another; people who are dead, like Jesus, can't teach anybody.
  
• A saviour is one who saves another; people who are dead, like Jesus, can't save anybody.
  
• (What would Jesus save anybody from, even if he magically had the power to aid us from beyond the grave?)

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

So the critic should realize that what is implied is nothing less than a personal relationship with Jesus, regardless of all external distractions.

Nobody has had a personal relationship with Jesus in two-thousand years; even then, very few people in the world would have shared personal relationships with him. This is momentarily forgetting that, again, it remains debatable whether he ever existed in the first place.

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

I now have 34 years of living with Jesus from when i first met him in 1978. He is a teacher, a benefactor, and for me, quite a serious individual. I haven't depended on churches, individuals, rituals or doctrines. All I have depended on is MY relationship with Jesus and what He teaches me.

Distressing. Taking advice from the deceased is not a good sign. Seeing or talking to the deceased isn't a good sign either. Both imply some serious underlying problem.

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

When I see a corrupt preacher get caught up in a scandal, do you think this represents any refelction on the Indevidual I know in Jesus? No. Jesus is real and that preacher was just a case of one more human being just acting like a sinner like so many do.

You have no proof that Jesus is real. I think he might have been real, two-thousand years ago; but again, that's unproven. His existence in the first place, let alone his alleged magical existence now, remains unsubstantiated.

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

So I suggest that Jesus the person be set apart in your mind, from those acting wrongly or hypocritically in His name. It is only reasonable since Jesus always stood against such things in his earthly Ministry. He was quite hard on the religious leaders in his criticism of them. So give Jesus his own due merit.

Why should I give Jesus his own merit? For what? For what reason? And why, given his existence, at any time, is questionable?

[Vatic]

There does seem to be a compulsion for people to argue that Jesus isn't real. What is causing people to put so much energy into such a reaction to Jesus? What is eating at them?

[Painnsufferin]

The only time I say it is to exclaim, "SWEET ZOMBIE JESUS!"

[Arbitran]

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

There does seem to be a compulsion for people to argue that Jesus isn't real. What is causing people to put so much energy into such a reaction to Jesus? What is eating at them?

You assume very quickly that I must be antagonistic towards Jesus in order to question his existence. I have simply noted that there is very little evidence that Jesus has ever actually been a real person. Now, the real question is: what's eating at you, that has prevented you from grasping that very banal fact?

[Jinxdom]

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

There does seem to be a compulsion for people to argue that Jesus isn't real. What is causing people to put so much energy into such a reaction to Jesus? What is eating at them?

Do you believe in Jesus and was Jesus real are trick questions first off.

They can mean a few things. The whole son of God thing... or the whole him just being alive... and a whole slew of other things. Those are not simply yes or no questions yet when asked you are only supposed to answer yes or no.

Do you believe in Jesus can mean...

Do you think that he existed as a person?  (I have no problem with this)
Do you think that he was the son of God?  (I have huge problems with this)
Do you believe in his teachings? (I also have huge problems with this)

Religion takes wordplay to a higher level and it pisses people off.

[Vatic]

I like Spirit Writer's topics since they are close to the issues of conversion to Jesus. I suppose that with time I have gradually lost some connection to the conversion issues since I have followed Jesus for so long.

Several want to take the topic in the direction of whether Jesus existed. For me this is not a question I have any issue with. I know. But for people who are not believers, the very existence of their desire to question Jesus existence, strikes me as motivated. They may say to themselves they simply are being rational and looking at facts (as they understand their personal fact set) and want to be grounded in what they consider as reality. But for me, what I am thinking is that they must have some underlying motivation that they are not admitting to themselves, and that motivation is a natural aversion to the issue of Jesus for them personally.  There is something they can't deal with about what Jesus the man stands for.

I have often debated he existence of Jesus and realize that I have a fact set that far exceeds the common awareness of the typical sleptics. So the debates tend to be a pattern of hearing the cliche's and then attempting to expand the awareness of the skeptic to include facts sets they aren't knowledgeable about. This typically leads to a push back and a purposeful attempt to limit the considerations to a smaller and more convenient fact set. In other words the debate become ingenuous on the skeptics part since anything that stretches their scope of considerations is simply ignored. The desire to make their point exceeeds their capacity to consider information they don't currently have or understand.

To me this is not intellectual integrity, but instead a manifestation of a desperate desire to maintain their illusions. They have a psychological NEED to protect their position regardless of any consideration to the contrary. If for a second, they might honestly conseder the possibility of the validity of Jesus, it would create for them a state of cognitive dissonance, and a virtual psychological crisis, to which they might respond in a veriety of ways. They may REGRESS to mantra like repitition of old cliche's, they may become fearfully angry, they may respond by trying to invalidate the new information, or at the very least mock it as if that makes it invalid in their minds. But I have seen them approach the brink of realization many times and fear. Thinking stops and a comedy of the irrational follows.

What I conclude is that if a person wants to debate the existence of Jesus, that they will never have real intellectual integrity in the matter until they first consider and deal with their psychological needs and those ramifications should they be persuaded concerning Jesus. Otherwise what we observe is a highly motivated need to dismiss Jesus in an intellectually dishonest manner that always ends the same way with the skeptic.

What we can say to the skeptic as a preface of such debates is the statement, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. What if I show you the reality of Jesus? What will you do then?"

Edited by Vatic, 14 October 2012 - 07:30 PM.

[Arbitran]

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

I like Spirit Writer's topics since they are close to the issues of conversion to Jesus. I suppose that with time I have gradually lost some connection to the conversion issues since I have followed Jesus for so long.

Several want to take the topic in the direction of whether Jesus existed. For me this is not a question I have any issue with. I know. But for people who are not believers, the very existence of their desire to question Jesus existence, strikes me as motivated.

Motivated, sure. By science and rational thought.

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

They may say to themselves they simply are being rational and looking at facts (as they understand their personal fact set) and want to be grounded in what they consider as reality. But for me, what I am thinking is that they must have some underlying motivation that they are not admitting to themselves, and that motivation is a natural aversion to the issue of Jesus for them personally.  There is something they can't deal with about what Jesus the man stands for.

Do I have to have some "problem" with leprechauns in order to recognize that there isn't any evidence for the existence of leprechauns? No, I have no "aversion" to Jesus; I can recognize however, without aversion, that such a man may have existed, or may not have.

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

I have often debated he existence of Jesus and realize that I have a fact set that far exceeds the common awareness of the typical sleptics.

Oh really? How wise and learned you are! And humble! Saying that you know so much more than anybody else...

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

So the debates tend to be a pattern of hearing the cliche's and then attempting to expand the awareness of the skeptic to include facts sets they aren't knowledgeable about. This typically leads to a push back and a purposeful attempt to limit the considerations to a smaller and more convenient fact set. In other words the debate become ingenuous on the skeptics part since anything that stretches their scope of considerations is simply ignored. The desire to make their point exceeeds their capacity to consider information they don't currently have or understand.

This "information" you're "expanding" into their heads... wouldn't happen to include magic, would it? In which case, it's clear to see why there would be opposition...

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

To me this is not intellectual integrity, but instead a manifestation of a desperate desire to maintain their illusions. They have a psychological NEED to protect their position regardless of any consideration to the contrary.

Considering that the majority of atheists you'll meet, particularly here, are former Christians, it is safe to say that they have considered the contrary with great scrutiny, which, incidentally, typically leads to their atheism; something which you don't appear to have tried.

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

If for a second, they might honestly conseder the possibility of the validity of Jesus, it would create for them a state of cognitive dissonance, and a virtual psychological crisis, to which they might respond in a veriety of ways. They may REGRESS to mantra like repitition of old cliche's, they may become fearfully angry, they may respond by trying to invalidate the new information, or at the very least mock it as if that makes it invalid in their minds. But I have seen them approach the brink of realization many times and fear. Thinking stops and a comedy of the irrational follows.

The only comedy of irrationality here is your performance; trying to act like you have even the slightest clue what goes through an atheist's head. You act like some high-and-mighty psychoanalyst, so intellectually superior to everyone. I mean, you self-proclaim yourself to be vastly more intelligent than the rest of us. And yet, your actual informational content and reasoning abilities are remarkably vacuous and sub-par.

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

What I conclude is that if a person wants to debate the existence of Jesus, that they will never have real intellectual integrity in the matter until they first consider and deal with their psychological needs and those ramifications should they be persuaded concerning Jesus. Otherwise what we observe is a highly motivated need to dismiss Jesus in an intellectually dishonest manner that always ends the same way with the skeptic.

What idiocy. Again, one needn't think of the "psychological ramifications" of questioning the existence of leprechauns, or Hercules. It is very simply questioning the existence of the person in question, on a basis of objective reality. Did Jesus exist? Maybe. I personally think he did. But it is equally notable that there is no contemporaneous documentary evidence of this; ergo, it is far from clear that he really did exist. Psychology needn't come into this at all; that you seem to think it must only betrays something about your cognitive processes that, ironically, could indicate some underlying psychological distress.

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

What we can say to the skeptic as a preface of such debates is the statement, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth. What if I show you the reality of Jesus? What will you do then?"

What an idiotic statement. Sure, if one were to show me the reality of Jesus, living, today, and that he possessed magical powers that could not be explained as illusion and/or trickery, then I would perhaps concede that such a being exists (though it would still be questionable, given the fact that magic would be very difficult to prove experimentally). However, again, all this would be monumentally difficult to demonstrate objectively; scientifically. You certainly couldn't prove that Jesus was/is (whatever) the son of a god, given such a claim is unfalsifiable. At any rate, if you could somehow demonstrate all this, objectively, and have it pass cleanly through peer-review, then sure, I would accept it, like any other thing that has been proven scientifically. Although, again, it is preposterously unlikely for this to happen... so I won't hold my breath. My bet? You're bluffing. And rather poorly. But then, you're just the smartest person in the world, aren't you?! You know the absolute truth! You're more informed and intelligent than any other person in the world! Do me a favour: if you think you can really talk to Jesus, ask him which is right, M Theory or E₈ Lie group unified theory; it's something that the alleged creator of the universe should know.

[Vatic]

Arbitran, this IS a topic about psychology: "Does the name Jesus make you mad?" I put forward my observations on that topic. Do you have any contribution in that respect? Why are you compelled to change the topic?

[Arbitran]

Vatic, on 14 October 2012 - 08:29 PM, said:

Arbitran, this IS a topic about psychology: "Does the name Jesus make you mad?" I put forward my observations on that topic. Do you have any contribution in that respect? Why are you compelled to change the topic?

If the name Jesus actually made people made it might be about psychology; since it is overwhelmingly clear that this in not the case however, psychology needn't be drawn into this. You put forward your "observations" as if they were fact; and that you flippantly declared yourself to be smarter than all of us only clarifies that. Yes, I have contributions towards the topic, and have already given them. My current contribution however is challenging your "contribution". Why are you compelled to avoid that?

[Vatic]

Arbitran, it is very common for followers of Jesus to encounter anger at the mention of Jesus Christ. Why would you say this isn't true? I pesonally have witnessed many angry responses to Jesus. For instance I was involved in Messianic Ministry, which is a ministry for Jewish believers in Jesus. In the course of things I have encounters with jewish individuals who did not believe in Jesus. A significant proportion of the responses would be anger. In fact, there were classes offered in the local Temple, Synagogue and Shule were the Jewish people were taught how to deal with Evengelism for Jesus. One of the primary tactics taught was to be intolerant and angry toward Evangelist and utterly discourage any further discourse. What is their problem?

In another setting, a lady I used to correspond with, would become angry and constantly label anyone who followed Jesus as a hypocrit. What was her problem?

I recently watched a video about a man who encountered Jesus. In the early 70s, the Jesus Freak movement was in full bloom, and he encountered a hippy girl who gave him a pamplet while he listened to the music the Christians were making in a park. Hedidn't say why he was angry, but instead simply wanted to make the point to the hippy girl that he was angry that she gave him a pamplet to read, and contemptuously throw it down on the ground for her to see how angry it made him. What was his problem?

These things are real observable issues. For you to suggest it is not happening, is reflective of a mindset trying to isolate itself from reality. Why is that?

Here is the video I mentioned. Why did he "hate Christians"? Why was he uncomfortable being "too close" to them? Why was he angry at the hippy girl for anding him a pamplet? You can find many videos of people encountering Jesus on You Tube by doing a search "Saw Jesus" in the search box.

Edited by Vatic, 14 October 2012 - 09:05 PM.

[darkmoonlady]

Jesus as a possible historical figure doesn't make me feel anything, if he existed his actions ended with his death, if he didn't he's a mythical figure which again doesn't influence me personally. His followers on the other hand I do feel a lot of feelings about. It ranges from some followers are wonderful people with whom I am friends or family to some of his followers are influencing legislation that affects myself as well as others negatively. Some of his followers are awful human beings who live lives speading hatred and intolerance. The other words on your list don't mean a whole lot to me because I am not a follower of Jesus, so for me it's like a foriegn language. Whether others believe in those words or not doesn't mean much to me because it's their faith they are practicing not mine.

[Arbitran]

[double post]

Edited by Arbitran, 14 October 2012 - 10:06 PM.