It seems nice but I haven't been able to figure out a way of psyopping myself into believing it's true.
Don't go for it. They have the Noah's Ark in their book. It's not serious.
>>18664079The incestuous subtext of the Virgin Mary - Jesus relationship has always made Christianity too creepy for me to appreciate personally
>>18664079Identify what are the blockers and how much they are worth to you. If you're blocked by materialism, you'll be happy to know that it's completely value-less and provides no additional benefit opposed to other paradigms. If it's the problem of evil, then the answer is likely emotional/traumatic, as ad-hominem as this response might sound. If it's just not believing in the historical account, there is no shortage of ways to approach that too.
>>18664090>incestuousShe conceives of the Holy Spirit, not of Jesus so there is no incest neither in theory nor in practice. The only way to get to this conclusion you'd have to think the Trinity is saying Jesus and Holy Spirit are one person, but it says specifically the opposite. Though naturally it's confusing to anyone trying to apply a divine mystery in daily matters.
>>18664092This does absolutely nothing to answer the question of how I can psyop myself into believing that it's true.
>>18664101You don't understand absolutely nothing about how evaluating barriers to a goal helps you achieve a goal?
>>18664103My barrier is that I don't think it's true. And I'm asking how do I change that, in fact that's the topic of this thread.
>>18664079Why do you have to believe in their myths? Just join a church, pretend to believe and reap the social benefits. That's the only reason why anyone would ever follow an organised religion.
>>18664104That you don't think it's true isn't a barrier, that is your starting position. Hopefully you're aware that considering something true or untrue is usually based on particular permises, considerations, paradigms and arguments. Those would be the barriers. There is no magic pill or spell to get you from disbelief to belief that I can give you over an image-board, you'll have to actually inspect the basis of your current beliefs and how they are incompatible with your future beliefs.
>>18664100If Jesus claims to be God (John 10:30) and God impregnated the Virgin Mary (Matthew 1:18) then the only way you can reconcile it wasn't incestuous is by claiming Jesus was lying about being God.
>>18664110That is not the only way, no. Trinity is the other way. Where God is three distinct persons.
>>18664108What is this autism lol. You got a katana too?I just don't think it's true, simple as. It seems made up.
>>18664114I didn't ask you to re-state the problem. I asked you to inspect where it stems from. If you're not willing to do that, that's all you had to say haha.
>>18664118I just told you, it seems made up. Are you trolling?
>>18664120>unbelievable>because unbelievableEnjoy the thread, Anon :) You'll be here for a while.
>>18664079It is true that white participation in modern, race blind christianity is suicidal. That doesn't mean authentic christianity is wrong though, the children of God will have salvation in Christ from the dark hell-spawned demons who seek their destruction.
>>18664122Come on bro, a guy walking on water? That's not exactly easy to believe is it. Or if it is, just try believing that I walked on the water in my bathtub just now ha.
>>18664112Who are all also each other, which doesn't negate the incest. The Trinity exists to obfuscate the incestuous connotations of Jesus's birth, sure, but it doesn't actually negate them.
>>18664079You must first debase yourself as a dog who is far inferior to the children of Israel. That way, you can get Christ to pay attention to you.Mark 7:26-2926 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.27 “First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”28 “Lord,” she replied, “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”29 Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”
>>18664079Look up BBC sissy hypno and buy a chastity cage.
>>18664138They are not each other. They are distinct.
>>18664079If you want to believe, then you should pray hard and earnestly, “Lord, I believe, help me with my unbelief!”, you should go to church and seek the guidance of the minister.
>>18664079Stick to hinduism, like your people
>>18664221So you're saying Jesus isn't God then
>I haven't been able to figure out a way of psyopping myself into believing it's trueRead the word of God.Carefully. With the aim of understanding what it says. Accept help from secondary sources on matters of language and historical background, but refuse to accept interpretations. Let the text control the interpretation. Probe for contradictions. Ask questions. Take it seriously. If you're going to believe it, then you're going to need it to support you and not give way under pressure. If it's true, then you have nothing to fear by digging.Read Mark, then Romans, then John, then Genesis and Exodus, then Galatians, then Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Seek the big picture, the main point, the message. This book is the word of this God. If you believe this God, there is nothing and nowhere you can go to substitute for this book as the medium of your faith in him.
>>18664425>Read Mark, then Romans, then John, then Genesis and Exodus, then Galatians, then Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.Not gonna work, I've already read the Bible from front to back. I just don't believe it, is all...
It's not up to you. You have to be born again, which is the work of the Holy Spirit. You can try to convince yourself through rationality, social conditioning, or gaslighting, but it's utterly useless. Those who can't truly believe haven't been born again. So the best thing you can do is.... absolutely nothing! Maybe it's not your time yet, or it's just not meant to be. Who knows
>>18664079>It seems nice but I haven't been able to figure out a way of psyopping myself into believing it's true.I honestly don't know what this means. Are you saying, like, "talking animals and the flood sound like they would be fun to believe in, how can I make myself believe in it"? Or is it more "I would like to go to church but I don't actually believe in what they are saying"? Because if it is the latter you can just go to church, they won't stop you or prevent you from sitting down at a pew. If it's the former try hitting yourself in the head a few times.
>>18664610I think God has left us alone, but shafts of light sometimes grace the corner of our rooms. Good luck looking for them, The answer you are seeking isn't in any advice made by anyone.
>>18664079Try to connect to the Holy Spirit. It's one of those things you just have to feel I guess. It's not a rational endeavor. Try to feel for a benevolent comforting presence in the back of your mind that connects you to all creation. Try to love it and accept its love in return.Try to rid yourself of societal chains that keep you ensnared. The Mark gospel gives some good advice. Caring about money and property just ties down your spirit. Besides reading the gospels with an open mind, reading the stoics like Epictetus might help as well. Fasting might help too to clear your mind. Try to research different religions and faiths too, in order to find the divine sparks that people were following in the past.
don't take genesis litterally (or even worse with a materialistic view) it's obvious that it isn't litterally when noe takes "every animal" it's a profound spiritual and theological truth. but not litteral , also time is relative so whenevr god created the earth for 7 days shouldn't be taken as 7 earthly days (earth didn't exist yet)
>>18664079Unironically? Be light skinned, white or northeast asian without dark hell-spawned demon contamination, and identify collectively with all those like yourself as the living body of the one true God, the Jesus Christ. Then do together in God's name whatever is necessary to ensure the eternal life of your people, including destruction of all who oppose God ruling the earth. That is Christianity as it was, should be, and will be again.
>>18664100yhwh impregnated mary to give birth to yhwh
>>18664425>Let the text control the interpretationcan you name a single 1 (one) old testament messianic prophecy that jesus fulfiled in its context? you wont be able to find 1.
>>18664125christianity was always race blind suicide.
>>18664092For me, no that anon, it's that I never understood what reason there was to believe it, let's say mostly from the historical standpoint. When I was a kid, I was like 8 or so, and I realized one day that I didn't understand why we (meaning me and my family and my church) could be confident that what we were reading actually happened. I never got past that. Literally just I read the Bible and I think "what makes this story more likely true rather than false?"
>>18664709>I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
>>18664079Say "I love subhuman dick" 5 times in the mirror
Mainstream Christianity is complete bullshit and has nothing to do with Jesus and the Bible. A few facts that converted me from atheism. (1) In the Bible, the hope is bodily resurrection at the end of time. There is no soul, no heaven, and no hell. These are not biblical but are Platonic. They were added later, probably to keep peasants in line. (2) Christianity does not demand that you believe every word of the Bible is literally true. It's not Islam. (3) Theism itself cannot withstand modern science. Panentheism is the only God that could feasibly exist. (4) Christianity is the only religion that is falsifiable. Either Jesus was resurrected or he wasn't and there is strong (but not conclusive) evidence that he was.
>>18665598>Either Jesus was resurrected or he wasn't and there is strong (but not conclusive) evidence that he was.Lol. Lmao.
>>18665603Not a real argument. There is lively debate among New Testament scholars about this. Atheist scholars have to take their opponent's position seriously because the evidence is difficult to explain away.
>>18665612>because the evidence is difficult to explain away.Such as?
>>18665613Too complex for a 4Chan thread. There are thousands of pages of work dedicated to this subject on both sides. I'll give you bullet points and you'll have to do the rest of the work yourself.> No one expected a crucified Messiah. There were other failed Messiahs but none claimed their leader was bodily resurrected. You don't sell your viewpoint in first century Judea by claiming your Messiah was crucified.> 1 Corinthians 15 is widely considered by historians to be within a few years of the crucifixion. Leaves little room for building of legend over time.> Bodily resurrection in the middle of history was not a recognized eschatology in first century Judaism. Jesus followers were not expecting him to be crucified, much less resurrected.> Multiple people claimed to have seen, spoken to, had dinner with the risen Jesus and were killed by the Romans for refusing to recant this belief.> Paul claims Jesus appeared in front if the crowd and essentially challenges the reader to go ask them as "many are still alive.> Hostile traditions acknowledged the tomb was empty. Early Christians claimed women were the first to see Jesus. If you were trying to sell your religion you would never claim women's testimony as authoritative.
>>18665625>No one expected a crucified Messiah. There were other failed Messiahs but none claimed their leader was bodily resurrected. You don't sell your viewpoint in first century Judea by claiming your Messiah was crucified.This is unrelated to if he resurrected but the Gospels go on to claim the Messiah being crucified was a prophecy. It wasn't, but that was what they claimed.>1 Corinthians 15All this tells us is the belief in some sort of resurrection was widespread enough for Paul to have heard of it. >Bodily resurrection in the middle of history was not a recognized eschatology in first century Judaism.Daniel 12 talks about it actually>Jesus followers were not expecting him to be crucified, much less resurrected.Again the Gospels go on to claim this was prophesied.>Multiple people claimed to have seen, spoken to, had dinner with the risen Jesus and were killed by the Romans for refusing to recant this belief.Such as?>Paul claims Jesus appeared in front if the crowd and essentially challenges the reader to go ask them as "many are still alive.He doesn't name any of them, their names are not recorded elsewhere, and none of them wrote anything down.>Hostile traditions acknowledged the tomb was empty.We don't even know that there was a tomb at all.>Early Christians claimed women were the first to see Jesus. If you were trying to sell your religion you would never claim women's testimony as authoritative.You would because the women being the first to see him is relevant to the story, they actually had a reason to be there, to anoint the body with spices. This was a woman's job and is explicitly mentioned in both Mark and Luke. The account doesn't claim the women's testimony alone is authoritative either, in fact in Mark and Luke the men initially don't even believe them and every Gospel except Matthew has men going to the tomb to confirm.
>>18665648You're missing the point. A lot of what you said is just that "well that's what people believed but that doesn't prove anything." Were you expecting me to give you a mathematical proof? This is history. All we have is testimony whether it's Jesus or Caesar. The point is that something unprecedented happened to produce a belief system that should not have spread as early and as rapidly as it did. That thesis is not contested by anyone in New Testament studies. What is contested is: what was the unprecedented thing that happened? A few specific things though: Daniel 12 is about general resurrection at the end of history. Not of one man in the middle of history. Jesus is claimed to have appeared bodily to Peter, James (skeptic), the twelve, a crowd of 500, and finally Paul (hostile). Some of your points are pretty good. Skepticism isn't an unwarranted place to land but even people like Ehrman give the pro resurrection side due respect because there is real historical plausibility behind it. I tend to agree with someone like Dale Allison who personally believes but retains that resurrection and skepticism are both plausible history.
>>18665727>Were you expecting me to give you a mathematical proof? This is history. All we have is testimony whether it's Jesus or Caesar.I was hoping for some evidence rather than claims and completely conjectural "well they never would have made THIS claim". On the subject of testimony, there is no contemporary testimony about Jesus, and broadly speaking I am not going to believe testimony about magic. There is testimony about Emperor Vespasian curing a blind man by spitting on him. I believe Vespasian was a real guy but I don't think he did that.>The point is that something unprecedented happened to produce a belief system that should not have spread as early and as rapidly as it did. I don't really know what any of these words mean in this context. What do you mean it "should not have spread as early and rapidly as it did"? Is there an expected speed of growth for religious movements? If you will accept Ehrman his estimate is around 10,000 in 100 CE, around 70 years after Jesus died. By contrast there were probably 10s of thousands of Muslims when Muhammad died in 632 and around 20-30,000 Mormans when Joseph Smith died in 1844, and obviously much more for both of them 70 years later. Should they have not grown as fast as they did without there being truth to their claims?>Not of one man in the middle of history. Again I'm not really sure what "middle of history" means. At the time they thought the world was ending imminently for one, it wasn't "the middle" for them, and Jesus wasn't even the first person in history to have been claimed to come back from the dead.>Jesus is claimed to have appeared bodily to Peter, James (skeptic), the twelve, a crowd of 500, and finally Paul (hostile)Jesus is not claimed to have appeared bodily before Paul, he had a vision of him. Paul doesn't actually distinguish between his witnessing of Jesus and any of the other people he mentions in 1 Corinthians 15, so he could have appeared as a vision to any or all of them.
>>18665598>In the Bible, the hope is bodily resurrection at the end of time. There is no soul, no heaven, and no hell. These are not biblical but are Platonic. They were added later, probably to keep peasants in line.Paul is a dualist who believes the flesh and blood body will not be resurrected, but in its place the disembodied soul will be given a body made of spirit, analogous to a change of clothes. Paul's dualism is apparent in several places, but perhaps most of all in 2 Corinthians 5:1-10. To me it's also apparent in 1 Corinthians 15, but some translations make it unclear by throwing the word "body" in all over the place where it isn't found in the Greek. Revelation has Paul's idea as well, in Revelation 6, where the souls of the martyrs in heaven are given "white robes." Though, in Revelation, unlike in Paul, the white robes are only a temporary concession to keep the souls comfortable, and an eventual material bodily resurrection is still maintained on top of it.
If you look at the gospel of Mark alone, it isn't so obvious that he's expecting an earthly afterlife. After all, he tells the rich man that he will have treasure in heaven, not on earth. And he says those who are resurrected will be like angels, who are spirits. Mark does have the empty tomb, which would seem to imply a flesh and blood resurrection. But, unlike the later gospels, the early manuscripts of Mark don't ever show the resurrected Jesus. And there are elements that make a symbolic interpretation possible, like the appearance at the tomb of the young man in the white robe, when the last mention of a young man is the one fleeing naked at Jesus' arrest leaving behind a linen cloth, the same word later used for Jesus' burial shroud.
>>18665625>Early Christians claimed women were the first to see Jesus.Not really. Paul says Peter was the first to see him.
>>18665598> In the Bible, the hope is bodily resurrection at the end of time. There is no soul, no heaven, and no hell. Not correct. The different gospel authors have different ideas about this. You described Mark and Matthew, who both talk about bodily resurrection and about BODIES being thrown on the burning garbage pit Gehenna, meaning a permanent death for the non-believers. In those sections Jesus is quoting Isaiah 66:24.Luke describes a Greek-ified version. After death your spirit/soul goes to "Hades" (he literally uses the word) where you wait for judgement day when the resurrections happen. There are better seats in Hades for the believers, while the non-believers have a rough time. This could be interpreted as a temporary hell, not an eternal one. In John the faithful are instantly immortal once they have accepted Jesus. When they die they get to wait in "God's house" until judgement day. This also implies some kind of disembodied immortal soul (or a resurrection in a new body at least). Everybody else gets bodily resurrected on judgement day. Those who fail the judgment get killed permanently. So also no hell in John.
>>18666220>You described Mark and Matthew, who both talk about bodily resurrection and about BODIES being thrown on the burning garbage pit GehennaTo further defend my (>>18665833) claim that Mark isn't so obviously a believer in a flesh and blood resurrection, I'd like to point out that, as with the empty tomb, Mark 9:42-50 can be easily given a Pauline symbolic interpretation. In this case, the interpretation is that the body that might be thrown into Gehenna is the church, and the hands and feet being cut off represent people who are bad moral influences being ostracized. The metaphor could be inspired by 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul compares the church to a body whose hands, feet, eyes, and so on are different people, as well as 1 Corinthians 5, where Paul recommends ostracizing anyone who claims to be Christian but is persistently sinful in certain ways because "a little yeast leavens all of the dough."I believe this interpretation is supported by how Mark begins the discussion about cutting off limbs by saying, "If any of you cause one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea." Here the causal relationship is between people influencing each other, not limbs.And one significant advantage of this interpretation is that it's concerned with a much more common situation than alien hand syndrome.
>>18665833>>18666305>he says those who are resurrected will be like angels, who are spiritsAngels do frequently appear in human shape in the old testament. Usually appearing similar to young average looking men, easily confused with mortal men.There is some debate that the "young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe" (Mark 16:5) in Jesus' tomb was supposed to be an angel as well, though it is not spelled out. Unlike the later gospels the Mark author liked to keep things ambiguous.Matthew of course straight up says it was an angel who dropped in like Superman from the sky, causing an earthquake in the process.There is a possible hint about this "body like an angel" in an earlier part of Mark (Mark 9:2-13) when Jesus goes up on a high mountain and converses with Elijah and Moses, who both also appear in human shape. During this conversation Jesus is briefly transformed and his clothes appear "intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them". This could be what is meant with the body like an angel.Alternatively it is also possible that Jesus simply meant that the resurrected people in God's Kingdom will have no sex/gender (just like an angel). Since that is the context in which it is said. Marriage being obsolete for the resurrected. He might have meant they will only be like angels in that regard.
>>18664079I tried really hard a long time ago, when I was dating a Christian girl. I read the Bible, went to church, prayed, and did all the things you’re supposed to do. Nothing. I never felt a damn thing, even though I genuinely wanted to and really tried.My conclusion is that unless you were raised with religion as a kid, it’s incredibly difficult to develop faith as an adult. I was raised completely apatheistic, pragmatic, practical, with no room or need for faith.And no, converting from one faith to another isn’t the same as going from apatheism to genuine belief. In some ways, I’d even say atheists are ironically closer to God than I am, because they’re constantly thinking about and trying to disprove his existence. At least God occupies their thoughts.I know myself well enough to realize that, unless I have one of those miraculous, instant conversion experiences, I’m probably never going to become religious.
>>18664079First, you have to understand what it means not to be a Christian. And yes, atheists are Christian.
>>18664079It is not possible, unless you're born with the inclination. Unless you're chosen by God for it, so to speak. Read Romans 9.
I did that once, it was great. lol
>>18664104>My barrier is that I don't think it's trueThen you can simply choose to believe otherwise.
>>18664122I read that entire interaction. Youre either arguing with a troll or a retard.
>>18666697Who isn't a Christian?
>>18667516Muslims.Learn this bucko, in this world there are only Christians and Muslims.
>>18665503she is ashamed of having a sun tan because it makes her look like a nigger
>>18664090Its an analogy for free will. It's saying that you dont need cause and effect to create. You are responsible for your actions, not some prior irst mover (God). The sexual act is an analogy for how we experience cause an effect, like a premise causes a conclusion, or a precious cause leads to a future effect. But mary is a virgin, and she is "assumed" up into heaven, and your sin is not the fault of God. Stop using previous causes as an excuse to choose shitty behaviors.
>>18667554*It's saying that you dont need cause and effect to create. You are responsible for your actions, not some prior first mover (God). The sexual act is an analogy for how we experience cause and effect, like how a premise causes a conclusion, or how a previous cause leads to a future effect.
