Christianity

[henry quirk]

I asked and asked, over and over again

And I answered, over and over.

We don't agree.

'nuff said.

[henry quirk]

A requirement for what?

I don't know. You asked WHY does it insist on FAITH?. I don't think He does.

[Gary Childress]

A requirement for what?

I don't know. You asked WHY does it insist on FAITH?. I don't think He does.

I feel the need to chime in and say, I have no fucking clue if there is a God, and if there is a God, then I have no clue if God insists on faith or doesn't. The floor is yours, gentlemen. Proceed with your speculations.

[iambiguous]

The tenth video: https://youtu.be/k64YJYBUFLM?si=_rb4BBVMWcc3nXEw

Suffering and Evil: The Logical Problem

As I note from time to time, it's not the existence of the Christian God that most intrigues me. I was once a Christian myself and who really knows for certain if He either does or does not exist? No, instead, what always intrigued me more was how a God I was told was "loving, just and merciful" could be responsible for all of these utterly ghastly things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

The only explanation that ever really made sense to me was Harold Kushner's: a loving, just and merciful God created existence, Earth, human beings etc., and then found out he was not omnipotent.

The video begins...

"We are all aware of the suffering in the world, horrific suffering, unspeakable evil...how then can anyone believe in the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God? And if God does exist, why would anyone want to worship Him?"

Yep, that about sums it up for those like me.

Cue Epicurus...

"If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then He is not all-powerful. If He is able to prevent evil but not willing, then He is not good. But if He is both willing and able, how can evil exist? And if He is neither able or willing, why call Him God?

Cue logic:

"P1 It's logically impossible for God and suffering to both exist
P2 We know full well that suffering exists
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not"

Then [to me] this bizarre comparison...

"Are these two statement logically inconsistent...

1] An all-powerful, all-loving God exists
2] Suffering exists

No.

Here is an example of 2 logically inconsistent statements...

1] David is married
2[ David is a bachelor"

Look, if you are actually able to believe that this let's God off the hook for these things...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...what can I say. Whatever works?

Cue the "hidden assumptions" of the atheists

"If God is all-powerful, He can create ANY WORLD HE WANTS. If God is all-loving he PREFERS a world without suffering...Since suffering does exist, the atheist concludes, then God does not exist."

Now for the a God, the God rebuttal.

[Again, however, as with all of the other videos so far, it's not the Christian God Himself that is named. It's always just God this and God that.]

The narrator notes the atheists first assumption and suggests...

"...what if God wants a world where people have free will? It's logically impossible for God to force someone to freely choose to do good. Forcing free choices is like making a square circle."

Though, sure, in order to sustain your comforting and consoling belief in immortality and salvation, you accept this as perfectly logical.

On the other hand, how exactly does one reconcile an all-knowing God with men and women having free will?

Then [to me] this incredible conclusion...

"It's not that God lacks the power to perform the task [ridding the world of evil] it's that the task itself is just NONSENSE."

And, again, the focus here is on evil brought into existence by mere mortals. We are not to refer to the suffering brought about through natural disasters that grimly unfold as a result of how God created Earth itself as evil.

Next atheist assumption...

"Is it necessarily true that God would PREFER a world without suffering? How could we possibly know this?"

The narrator then suggests that God permits human suffering brought about by human beings themselves, as opposed to the suffering brought about by "acts of God", for the "greater good". And, of course, what can we possibly know about the "greater good" from the perspective of God.

Bingo: cue His mysterious ways.

Then back to us...philosophers.

"...even atheist philosophers have given up on the logical problem of evil"

Indeed, in a No God world, philosophers like me suggest that good and evil themselves are rooted historically and culturally in a "human all too human" existence that is essentially meaningless and purposeless. Though any number of secular philosophers here are convinced we need not go that far.

[iambiguous]

The eleventh video...

Suffering and Evil: The Probability Version: https://youtu.be/cxj8ag8Ntd4?si=c7iQYZyY__5EWUP8

This is the longest video. And it's part two. Thirteen minutes devoted to that which almost certainly pops into the head of those who suffer mightily: Why?

"I'm a Good Christian, Lord. I'm a practicing Christian. Why must I suffer like this?"

Or:

"I'm a Good Christian, Lord. I'm a practicing Christian. Why must my beautiful child suffer so terribly?"

This from the Christian Relief Fund website:

Every day 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. That’s three times the death toll of AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined!

Ten thousand sets of parents around the globe watching their children die in agony from starvation. Every single day. Or is that mitigated by the fact the most of them are in some Third World hellhole...and worship the wrong God?

Or, if not from starvation, one or another of these afflictions: https://www.unicef.org/health/childhood ... berculosis.

https://raisingchildren.net.au/babies/h ... -illnesses

The narrator begins...

"But wait, while it's logically possible that God and suffering both exist, it's far from likely. There's just so much pointless suffering, it seems improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting it."

This he calls, "the probability version" of suffering and evil.

He notes that some make the argument that, "suffering provides empirical evidence that God's existence is not impossible, just highly unlikely".

Is this a good argument?

No.

For three reasons:

"1. We're not in a position to say with any confidence that 'God probably lacks reason for allowing suffering in the world.'

Here [to me] he expresses just another rendition of "God works in mysterious ways":

To wit:

"The problem is we're limited in space and time and in intelligence and insight."

God, however, sees "every detail" of history...of reality itself. So, as mere mortals, we just have to figure that all of this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...is factored into His Divine Plan.

Thus...

"In order to achieve His purposes, God may have to allow a great deal of suffering along the way."

We see it as pointless, but we're not called "mere mortals" for nothing.

"2. "Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God's existence may well be probable"

Here -- starting at 1:45 -- you'll have to help me out. Something about probabilities and background information and weight and sumo wrestlers.

I think the point is this: that we might think what looks like a really fat man in the video could not be an athlete. But then we find out he's a sumo wrestler and the weight makes sense. The same thing with God? We don't have all the facts about him, so we don't really and truly understand Him?

So, if we talk about God in terms of probability, but do not possess all of the "background information" about Him, then, of course, if we only consider all of the suffering, it might seem improbable that He exists?

Then the narrator basically tells us that if we are willing to accept everything we've been told about God in the first ten videos, then we have all the background information we need to grasp this suffering.

"3] Christianity entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and suffering".

Here God is finally named. He the Christian God.

Then the 4 "Christian Doctrines""

"1] the chief purpose of life is not happiness"

God's role in our life, we are told, is not to give us a snug and comfortable existence. We're not His "pets". No, our purpose is to know God."

Got that? Okay, once that is understood, you become aware that, "suffering can bring about a deeper, more intimate knowledge of God, either on the part of the one who is suffering or those around him."

Suffering is actually a good thing because it brings you closer to God? So, take advantage of it?

Then this [to me] unbelievable assertion:

"...suffering is one way that God can draw people freely to Himself. In fact, countries that have endured the most hardships -- the worst natural disasters -- often show the highest growth rates for Christianity".

I'm sorry if I'm offending some Christians here, but how fucking hideous is that?!!

Then this quote from C. S. Lewis, not only explaining the pain but again practically reveling in it...

"God whispers to us in our pleasure, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse A DEAF WORLD."

So, anyone here not roused by the terrible pain and suffering that comes from these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...acts of God?

"2] Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose."

Thus the "depravities" that occur around the globe is something that the Christians expect. And if approximately 3,650,000 children have to starve to death each year, well, what do you expect given all of that depravity?

The adults do the depraved things so that justifies all the agonizing deaths of the truly innocent?

"3] God's purpose is not restricted to this life but spills over beyond the grave into eternal life"

So, those 36,500,000 children who have died in agony from starvation over the past decade are experiencing that now?

On the other hand...

"Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, underwent afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings imprisonments, hunger...yet he wrote, 'we do not lose heart, for this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we do not look to the things that are seen, but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.'"

So, let's pass this on to those 10,000 innocent children who will die in agony from starvation over the next 24 hours. Not to mention the pain and suffering of their loved ones.

Earthly pain is temporary. Our pain will give way to eternal salvation. In other words, after watching all 17 videos and grasping that beyond a leap of faith, the Christian God does in fact exist, your own pain will all be put into Divine perspective.

"4] The knowledge of God is an incomparable good."

So, however much excruciating pain and suffering you or someone you love experiences, you will know that "God is good to you".

Yes, if you can believe that, sure, more power to you. But most who do believe it also believe that, in the end, immortality and salvation await them.

Indeed, the narrator seems to recognize this himself...

"If [my emphasis] Christianity is true, it is not at all improbable that SUFFERING AND EVIL should exist."

Then this part:

"But even if the intellectual arguments fail, the emotional problem of suffering and evil remains very powerful."

In other words, you just feel the absence of God in your life.

Not to worry:

"You are not alone. God knows your name. He knows who you are and what you are going through. God promises to be with you through your suffering."

Then the part where Jesus Christ also suffered: "He was tortured and sentenced to death."

Okay, but He was God, wasn't He? No leap of faith for Him. It's not quite the same for us mere mortals.

And this is when I bring up these points...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of other Gods were/are championed. So why the Christian God?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God.

[iambiguous]

The twelfth video...

Who Did Jesus Think He Was?: https://youtu.be/sSQDov6NNp0?si=i-QKALLe2j5F95xT

Before getting to Jesus on Jesus, the video also addresses the part about how to understand Him.

In other words, the part where the dots are connected between the Son of God and God Himself. And, according to wiki, the majority of Christians also believe in the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost.

First, however, it's crucial to establish that Jesus Christ is the real deal.

The Jesus Christ, the historical figure! And it's crucial to establish that of course because if He was not around then, well, so much for the Second Coming? And for the Christian God existing at all?

There are those who say the evidence does exist...

https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/14946237 ... s-his-case
https://bigthink.com/thinking/was-jesus-real/
https://foundationworldview.com/blog/hi ... us-existed

...and those that say it doesn't...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... t-hold-up/
https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/1841 ... ical-jesus
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resou ... sus-exist/
https://www.salon.com/2014/09/01/5_reas ... r_existed/

The narrator notes that over the years, Jesus was described in many different ways, but...

...but, "WHO DID JESUS THINK HE WAS?"

Then he notes that, today, modern historians have "the tools" to come up with the information that allows us to grasp that.

So, where should those modern historians go first for the evidence?

Here:

"So, let's examine the New Testament not as inspired scripture, but as any ordinary collection of ancient documents."

So, back to "the Christian God exists because it says so in the Bible, and the Christian Bible is true because it's the word of the Christian God?"

So, anyway, when the modern historians -- using only the New Testament? -- investigate the historical Jesus, what do they find?

1] "First, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah."

Then stories and verses from the Bible discussing this. And, sure, of course, if you are a devout Christian -- a leap of faith? beyond any doubt? -- you will believe what the Bible tells you because around and around you and the Bible go.

The narrator tells us that, basically, from Jesus riding into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey to the last week of His life, "it's attested to in independent sources..."

What independent sources? The video merely shows two parchments on a wall. Look close and you'll see they are New Testament Bible verses Mark and John.

Then more and more Christian Bible stories.

Note to any historians and Bible scholars here:

You tell me if the stories the narrator notes here bring us to a definitive conclusion regarding Jesus the Messiah.

2] "Jesus also claimed to be the Son of God."

Then he adds, "in a unique sense".

Back to the Christian Bible: "The Parable of the Vineyard" is noted.

Let's just say that servants and then more servants and then a son are "beaten and/or killed" in it.

Then, again, using the Christian Bible, the narrator notes all of the things that Jesus Christ did think He was back then.

3] "Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man"

He preferred this designation most of all we are told. A true man of the people.

[but then back, historically, to all of those horrific "acts of God" above? Go back a couple of videos]

Then this assertion:

The fact that Jesus notes that He is the Son of Man over eighty times in the Bible.

The narrator: "this has convinced the vast majority of New Testament historians that Jesus did, in fact, think of Himself as the Son of Man."

None are named. Just a collage of portraits.

Note to Christians:

Please note some names. And what actual evidence do they propose that does not come from reading the New Testament itself. And are they in fact the vast majority of New Testament historians

From my own reading, the narrator seems to be saying that these historians came to that conclusion because they noted Jesus saying it in the New Testament. Unless I'm understanding the narrator incorrectly.

Jesus, we are then told, did not think of Himself as just a Son of Man, but as the Son of Man.

But then straight back to the Bible: Daniel 7:13-14.

Then [also straight from the Bible?], this:

"At Jesus' trial, the Jewish high priest accused Jesus. 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?'"

Jesus' answers left no room for doubt. "I Am."

So, does this "evidence" just come straight from the Bible? Or is there other substantial evidence that does not come from the Bible?

One conundrum is resolved:

"By applying all three of these titles to Himself, Jesus was claiming He was the very God his accusers worshipped."

Also...

"New Testament historians [the vast majority of them I assume] are agreed that the historical Jesus also claimed to have Divine power and the authority to perform miracles, cast out demons, revise all testament law and forgive sins."

Then this part, for IC:

"He even went so far as to claim that everyone's eternal destiny is determined solely by whether we believe in Him."

Of course, I'm running out of videos here. So far, none have provided me with any hard evidence that a God, the God exists, let alone that it is the Christian God.

Others, however, may have found enough substantive evidence to convince them. So, sure, pass it on to us.

Finally...

"So the questions Jesus asked His disciples, confronts each of us as well: who do you say that I am?"

Of course, that's when I suggest this: that who you think Jesus Christ is revolves around the life that you have lived, revolving existentially around your own personal experiences, relationships and access to particular information and knowledge.

After all, what of those who existed before Jesus Christ? Who or what determined if they were saved? And what about all those who have never heard of Him today? Or those indoctrinated to actually despise Christianity? And all those millions upon millions of children around the globe who have been indoctrinated by parents, family and community to worship another God. Or No God at all.

Something I once posted at ILP:

Imagine hypothetically three Christian missionaries set out to save the souls of three different native tribes. The first one is successful. The folks in the first tribe accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and are baptized into the faith. The second is not successful. The folks in the second tribe refuse to accept Christ as their personal savior and instead continue to embrace their own god[s]...their own religion. The third missionary is not even able to find the tribe he was sent out to save.

Now imagine one member of each tribe dying on the same day a week later. What will be the fate of their souls? Will the man from the first tribe ascend to Heaven having embraced the Christian faith? Will the man from the second tribe burn in Hell for having rejected the Christian faith? And what of the man from the third tribe---he will have died never having even been made aware of the Christian faith. Where does his soul end up?

Also, think about it...

The missionary at the second tribe made them all aware of Jesus Christ. But they rejected Him. So, are the missionaries themselves actually responsible for damning these native souls to Hell? After all, even accounting for God's mysterious ways, damning those who have never, ever even heard of Him?

[iambiguous]

The thirteenth video...

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part One: The Facts https://youtu.be/4qhQRMhUK1o?si=2EAj70emhJpz0ZbU

Again, now that the discussion revolves increasingly around Jesus Christ, doesn't it come back basically to those dueling New Testament scholars above? And, perhaps, the archeologists. After all, a new dig might provide brand new evidence...of something.

And, for me, the evidence would have to come from a source other than the New Testament itself.

The video begins by asserting three FACTS regarding the resurrection:

"Fact 1: The Discovery of Jesus' Empty Tomb
Fact 2: The Appearances of Jesus Alive after His Death
Fact 3: The Disciples' Belief that Jesus Rose from the Dead."

Okay, but what makes them facts? Is there an overwhelming consensus among historians regarding the actual evidence said to make them facts?

For example...

Fact 1: the empty tomb

The narrator tells us that there are 6 Independent Sources to confirm that it was empty.

How independent? In the background of the video, the sources are noted at 1:15.

They are six verses from The New Testament.

Then on and on the narrator goes and, as in the other videos, merely asserts particular things are as he says they are. Mostly by referencing, over and again, the New Testament itself.

Google it: is there evidence of Jesus rising from the dead?

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+ther ... s-wiz-serp

Then [all but inevitably] all of the many, many conflicting accounts.

Unless, of course, you click on the "sponsored" links.

Again, the narrator simply asserts that, "most scholars, by far, hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb."

So, for those here with a more sophisticated understanding of the historical Jesus -- or no Jesus -- by all means weigh in.

On the other hand, let's face it, if Jesus does come back and embodies the Second Coming there will be 666 zillion devices "out there" to record every single instant of it.

But back then...

"Every time I look at you I don't understand
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand
You'd have managed better if you'd had it planned
Why'd you choose such a backward time and such a strange land?
If you'd come today you would have reached a whole nation
Israel 4 B.C. had no mass communication"

But don't get him wrong.

Fact Two: The Appearances of Jesus Alive after His death

Straight to the Bible...

"In one of the earliest letters in the New Testament, Paul provides a list of witnesses to Jesus' resurrection appearance. He appeared to Peter then to the twelve, then He appeared to more than 500 Brothers. Then He appeared to James and to all of the Apostles."

Because it says so in the Bible? On the contrary, the narrator insists. Then he is back to noting that the vast majority pf historians and Biblical scholars all back up the stuff he just spoke about...the stuff from the Bible.

Fact 3: The Disciples Belief in the Resurrection

Here, again, the stories come directly from the New Testament. Or so it seems to me. And then the part that still boggles my mind:

1] Jesus was a Jew.
2] Jews don't believe in Jesus Christ
3] many Christians hate Jews
4] and we still haven't heard from Muhammad

"As Jews, they had no concept of a Messiah who would be executed by his enemies, much less come back to life. The only resurrection the Jews believed in was a universal event on Judgment Day after the end of the world, not an individual event within history."

Same God...but choose wisely?

As for "The Disciples Belief in the Resurrection", it seems that this is all it was...a belief. They never actually confirmed it?

The rest is just more of the same...quoting one or another favorable historian and then going back to the New Testament itself over and over and over again.

[iambiguous]

The fourteenth video...

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part Two: The Explanation: https://youtu.be/6SbJ4p6WiZE?si=xt5EMECK_7gKd5sx

First of all, the explanation given here is entirely predicated on one believing that all of the arguments made in part one above...and in all of the previous videos...reflect "the facts".

Instead, given my own personal reaction to the narrators' arguments thus far, they often flagrantly assume that the conclusions they have come to reflect the most rational assessment of a God, the God, the Christian God. Even though the assessments themselves are taken almost entirely from the Bible.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? Well, in the previous video, I responded to the narrator's own factual claims.

And now, in merely assuming that the previous videos did establish irrefutable accounts -- historical facts -- "proving" the Resurrection of Christ, we are to be given an "explanation" for it all.

Christian Explanations to counter "Naturalistic Explanations".

The "four most popular" being...

"1] The conspiracy theory...
The disciples faked the resurrection, stole Jesus' body from the tomb and then lied about seein Him alive".

The greatest hoax on Earth. But then back to this from part one above...

"As Jews, they had no concept of a Messiah who would be executed by his enemies, much less come back to life. The only resurrection the Jews believed in was a universal event on Judgment Day after the end of the world, not an individual event within history."

Again, the narrator notes that, "an honest reading of the New Testament makes it clear" that "the disciples were truly sincere".

What about honest readings from sources other than the Bible that confirm the Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection of Christ? Accounts in which there is substantial evidence that almost everyone agrees is conclusive. The sort of evidence that when shown to someone like me will cause me to be intrigued, to pull back, to want to know more.

2] "A second Naturalistic Explanation is 'the apparent death theory'".

Start at 2:09. Then explain it to me. Again, it's been many years since I last read the Bible. And I am by no means another Dan Brown or those obsessed with the time of Christ. Jesus Christ as just another historical figure...or much more?

I'll let the "experts" here -- pro and con -- go back and forth on the "apparent death theory".

Same with 3]... the"Displaced Body Theory" starting at 3:10.

It's not like they had the equivalent of CSI back then...an advanced forensic team. Again, is there a gap between the narrator's account of it and actual evidence gathered from reputable sources other than the New Testament?

What is the most powerful non-Biblical evidence that Jesus did in fact resurrect from the dead? Provide the links please.

Instead, here all we have are speculations by the narrator regarding what could or might have happened. Lots of that. But mostly [to me] just another rendition of "it says so in the Bible." And a return to speculations about how Christians and Jews simply understood certain things differently back then.

In part, the narrator comes off [to me] like those narrators from one of those prime-time soap operas...Peyton Place or Dallas.

What if this happened? Or what if that happened?

Finally, 4... "The Hallucination Theory".

Flat out, I have no idea whatsoever whether or not the disciples saw Jesus after he had resurrected from the dead. Perhaps they really were just all hallucinating it?

No YouTube. No Facebook. No Tik-Tok. No X. Not back then. So, what is the final and the irrefutable conclusion to be reached regarding the disciples...hallucinations or not?

Thus, the narrator ends with this...

"Another possibility are the explanations given by the original eyewitnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead."

And since what they witnessed totally corresponds to what the narrator claims the historical facts are? Well, that clinches it. It's all true. Choose Jesus Christ or burn in Hell.

The narrator...

"But is this explanation plausible? After all it requires a miracle, a supernatural act of God. Think about it. If it's even possible that God exists, then miracles are possible."

Think about this too...

You want to believe it's the Christian God that does in fact exist. You have to believe it. You have to believe it because No God means no objective morality, no immortality, no salvation. Iambiguous would be right...an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence in which moral and political values are rooted existentially in Benjamin Button. Mere subjective prejudices...!

[iambiguous]

The fifteenth video...

How Can Jesus Be the Only Way?: https://youtu.be/RRyq6RwzlEM?si=lPsa56bBnvCiEf26

First up, an historical fact?

"In AD 203, the Roman government arrested a 22-year-old woman, a Christian named Perpetua. The problem wasn't so much that she worshipped Jesus. Her crime was that she worshipped only Jesus. She refused to worship any other God/s. As a result, she was found guilty of treason and sentenced to death."

On the other hand, there have been, are now and probably always will be any number of such historical anecdotes within any number of religious denominations. One denomination's martyrs, another denomination's infidels.

Freedom fighters or terrorists? Then back to why one would embrace the Christian narrative/Scripture and not one of the others?

Narrator: "This dangerous idea that only Christ alone provides the way to God is called 'Christian particularism' and is as scandalous today as it was 2000 years ago."

Then all of the other denominations around the globe with their own scandalous particularism ingredients.

But by now -- the 15th of 17 videos -- victory has actually already been declared. The various narrators have unequivocally established that their own assessment of the universe and of a God, the God lead us all logically to conclude what the "vast majority" of Biblical Scholars have about Jesus Christ. He's the One. The Real Deal Neo. You can take Him all the way to the bank.

Others, however, argue for "religious pluralism". The view that "all of the world's religious are equally valid and that Christ is just one of many ways."

"All religions are basically teaching the same thing so they are all true."

Which of course is ridiculous. The narrator then notes just how conflicting religious beliefs can be. And about really important things. Buddhism for example is shown to embrace none of the main beliefs that Muslims adhere to.

Enter those other "religious pluralists" then who will say that "all the world's religions are equally false." They are just ever evolving historical and cultural expressions of humankind's search for some ultimate meaning.

Then the Christian epistemologists and logicians who wrote the scripts for the videos so far continue to merely assert that all of the previous conclusions propounded in this series are rock solid facts that the "vast majority" of Biblical Scholars agree with.

Next up: Cue the ubiquitous "my way or the highway" mentality common among those who believe that human morality -- philosophy itself -- is just another manifestation of human psychological defense mechanisms. And that seems rather obvious to some of us.

Finally, we are told, there is another pluralist argument that "religions are culturally relative. If you had been born in Pakistan, you'd be a Muslim. And if you were born in Ireland, you'd be Catholic."

Cue the "genetic fallacy" argument. Trying to invalidate a view by showing how a person came to hold the view.

Yeah, if you were born and raised in Pakistan, chances are you'd be a Muslim. In Ireland, probably a Catholic. And that has to be taken into account come Judgment Day, right? But how on Earth can the Christian God damn the souls of most in Pakistan who were never really able to think through something that he or she never would have thought to do so.

Then the part where the narrator notes points that I would note myself here...

"If the religious pluralists been born in Pakistan or Ireland, he'd likely have been a religious particularist, so his belief in religious pluralism is just the result of his being born in contemporary Western society, and therefore, is not objectively true."

Yep, that's my point alright. Our moral and political and spiritual values are derived existentially out in particular worlds understood in particular ways as historical and cultural and personal prejudices. That's precisely why it is so important to determine whether a God, the God does in fact exist. The stakes on both sides of the grave could not possibly be higher. So, if there are those Christians here who argue that there is substantive proof that God does in fact exist, and that beyond a "leap of faith" this can be grasped by watching these videos...?

[Harry Baird]

I want u to pay close attention to this ill mannered and psychologically unstable man posting obscenities in large red letters, Harry, becuz that's what Christianity does to u mate.

I think Atto's (idiosyncratic) religious beliefs are better described as borrowing from rather than qualifying as Christian(ity), so I don't think his behaviour can be taken as an example of what Christianity does to you. It's not my experience either that Christianity generally does that to people, but you and I might have interacted with different Christians in different parts of the world, so I get that your experience is different.

Atto's a nice enough chap when he's not drunk (and he apologises after drunken misbehaviour), and he and I have generally been on friendly terms, so I'll otherwise refrain from comment on his manners and psychological stability.

So, how to explain his red-letter post? I think part of it is that he wants to avoid off-topic matters and instead to discuss the topical person of Jesus, given that he has at other times in this thread prodded us to stay focussed. Those were much gentler prods though. There seems to be something about the topic of rights for non-human living beings that has caught his ire in particular. He bristles at it, finds it irritating, and lashes out in annoyance.

The situation, though, especially for farmed animals and even more especially for factory-farmed animals, is dire, so his irritated bristling and lashing out don't dissuade me from advocacy, but if there is a better way for me to advocate, then I'm open to suggestions (genuinely; feel free to share them either publicly or privately).

[Harry Baird]

Insanity is posting about ethics of eating animals in a thread called Christianity.

If you feel so strongly, then you can with my consent contact a moderator and ask them to split all of the relevant posts in this thread into their own thread. You can let the mod know that I'm willing to collate a list of posts to make it easier for them. My concern was mostly to avoid splitting an ongoing conversation across two separate threads. Moving all posts into a single, separate thread would allay that concern.

[Harry Baird]

I have the highest regard for vegans. I see vegans as about as close to virtue as a person can get in this world.

That sounds like a good incentive to become one.

Life ultimately feeds off of death as a necessary condition.

Often, but not entirely. Some counter-examples: plants feed (in part) on the sun's energy; bees feed on pollen; frugivores feed on fruit.

Sometimes, too, even when life feeds off of death, killing is not involved: the death had occurred for some other reason. Some examples: bacteria feeding on the corpse of a being which died of old age; vultures feeding on the corpse of that same being.

It may arguably come down to minimizing the number of living organisms we kill to sustain our own existences.

We (human beings) can get pretty close to mimicking frugivores, especially if we include foods that aren't typically counted as fruit simply because they're not sweet, or that aren't strictly fruit but are similar, such as nuts, beans, and legumes.

Admittedly, even so, we have to avoid most foods produced by modern agriculture to get close to zero killing given its use of pesticides. That's difficult at this point without growing our own food.

Vegans are virtuous among humans as a serial killer is virtuous compared to officials of the Bush Jr. administration that organized the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan that resulted in more deaths than any serial killer could possibly tally.

I haven't heard that analogy before...

However, with that said, I live with my mother. She's "old school", and grew up on a small family farm in the 1940s. I tried to be a pescatarian once upon a time (eating only fish for meat because I thought fish weren't as "sentient" or whatever as pigs and mammals that we eat) and I think it did more to alienate our relationship than anything else. It lasted for two years and all I heard were smart-ass comments and cracks at dinner time alluding to how weird I was being.

¯\_(*_*)_/¯

An idea:

Start cooking vegan-frugivore meals for you and your mother without telling her that that's what you're doing. You can find plant-based mock-meat products in the supermarket for extra camouflage. Make sure she tells you how good they taste, whether she does this voluntarily or at your solicitation. After a while, ask her whether she thinks the two of you could eat a vegan-frugivore diet together. When she tells you how awful she thinks that would be, tell her that she's already been eating that way for the past number of meals you've cooked for her. She'll find it very hard to mock you after that, and if she does, you have a great counter-response: "If it's such an awful diet, then why didn't you even notice that you were eating it?"

[Harry Baird]

It turns out that Cows get over it very quickly

This is a minimisation of their suffering, which makes it easier to justify using them. You complain about vegan "propaganda", but this is at least as propagandistic.

You don't anyway know the long-term suffering of a cow after being forcibly separated from her calf; all you know is that her overtly distressed behaviour in the intense period immediately after separation dissipates. Each cow has her own personality, and cows grieve differently. Some cows have been observed to grieve intensely for weeks. Given the initial intensity of their grieving, it is likely that even for most cows there is long-term suffering, albeit less intense.

In any case, aside from any emotional grief, separating cows and calves denies them the ongoing, long-term relationship that they otherwise would have had.

and often they are not separated until the calf is ready anyway.

The majority of the time, they are separated immediately. And "ready" really means "ready to be slaughtered (potentially after being fattened up) if male, or forced into the same life of suffering as their mothers if female", which is itself a cruel prospect.

Boo hoo.

Again, you minimise the suffering of others so as to justify using them.

You've obviously never worked with animals.

"Working with" implies collaboration amongst equals with a shared goal. What you're referring to is coercing others to do your bidding against their best interests using means up to and including physical violence. Again, you complain about vegan "propaganda", yet here you engage in your own (subtle) propaganda via euphemism.

So you should hold back on the childish emotive language, and vegan propaganda .

You should be less concerned about the way cruel and exploitative systems of entrenched power are called out, and more about the actual propaganda used to entrench those systems of power, which, insidiously, is as pervasive as the air we breath: how many of us have even questioned the three N's?

Where is the theft? Animals cannot have a concept of property.

By this logic, babies can't be raped because they don't have a concept of sexual assault. It's obviously fallacious.

Does a lion steal a calf?

Yes.

What about your pet cat, when it tears apart the small birds and mice it terrorises. When are you going to put a stop to all that?

We should be more concerned about the problems we cause and have the power to prevent than the ones that we don't. This is a red herring which distracts from that.

Cows cannot "chose" their lives.

Cows have preferences and - unless prevented - act on them, like any other living being.

There is every reason the think that humans cannot either.

I think that this is a foolish belief but I'm not interested in debating it in this exchange.

But they are born for the purpose which they serve.

Bringing a living being into existence doesn't give one the right to define that being's purpose, any more than one's parents have the right to define one's life purpose.

What I can tell you is that domesticated animals live healthier and safer lives than the wild ones.

Mostly, that's not true, and even where it is, they lose so much more than they gain. In a slightly different context earlier in this thread, I pointed out some of those losses. Here's a list inspired by that post, though not necessarily complete:

1. Many farmed animals are surgically mutilated without pain relief by various procedures, e.g., debeaking, disbudding (dehorning), and mulesing.
2. Many farmed animals have been bred in ways that make them unhealthy, such as the rapid growth rate of broiler chickens that results in skeletal issues such as broken bones, and the massively increased egg-laying rate of laying hens which depletes their bodies of calcium.
3. Farmed animals are (with rare exceptions) denied freedom of movement, sometimes cruelly so, sometimes to the point of torture, e.g., in battery cages and sow stalls.
4. Farmed animals are often otherwise kept in cruel conditions which cause them to suffer, such as the airways of battery hens being burnt by the ammonia of their built-up faeces below them from which they cannot escape.
5. Farmed animals are often denied access to natural sex, and instead are (forcibly) artificially inseminated in what amounts to sexual violation.
6. Farmed animals are killed a small fraction into their natural lifespan.

The last point in particular refutes your claim: farmed animals are not safe - and, with rare exceptions, cannot escape - from a very premature death. Their wild counterparts mostly avoid premature death: predators tend to pick off the very old and the very young, such that wild animals who survive early life are likely to live close to their natural lifespans.

But you would know that is you knew anything - but you don't. You don't know shit.

I must know something, because you started your response with: "Yes knew all that."

Which is a wonderful case in point.
Domesticated animals make great shit. It is the best and most natural form of fertiliser better than the crap that is used to grow the increasing demand for vegan based foods.

Even if true, that wouldn't justify keeping them captive and using them.

[Harry Baird]

We don't agree.

'nuff said.

No, enough takes emphasising that when you...

answered, over and over

...you didn't provided any reason why you disagree, only that you disagree, aside from your claim of "canned behaviour", the weakness and failure of which I pointed out in my last post to you (a point which you ignored).

Why do you think that non-human living beings are mindless automatons comparable to Roombas and incapable of suffering and joy? You haven't told us. You've only repetitively sloganeered "You're anthropomorphising", which in effect amounts to nothing more than "I disagree". We get it: you disagree, but given the compelling reasons to believe that non-human living beings have minds and are capable of suffering and joy, you need an even more compelling reason to disagree. You don't appear to have one. That's something for you to reflect on.

[Sculptor]

It turns out that Cows get over it very quickly

This is a minimisation of their suffering, which makes it easier to justify using them. You complain about vegan "propaganda", but this is at least as propagandistic.

You've never been on a dairy farm in your whole life.
You are talking Vegan propoganda.

Milk is the best superfood can you get, providing 100% of all the nutrition a body needs.

We have used this long before anyone planted a seed in the ground and invented property and war.