What would Jesus do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus did not come (1st time) to bring peace between people:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Matthew 10:34)

Until Jesus comes a 2nd time to destroy evil forever, there will be no peace, especially between those who keep the faith and commandments of Jesus Christ and those who deny that Jesus is the only way into heaven, per John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This excludes all other religions; hence, there will be no peace

I’m giving Jesus benefit of doubt as other people wrote bible and it doesn’t necessarily reflect Jesus’s philosophy, more so ideology of writers and editors.

This is mostly accurate. We know practically nothing about Jesus or anything he may have thought/taught. Everything we have now comes from someone else's perspective/viewpoint. Any claims about or from Jesus have no basis in evidence or fact.

+1

Historians routinely study ancient figures through sources written by others. For many ancient people, that’s all we have.

Most of what we know about Socrates comes from students such as Plato. Yet historians do not conclude that we know “practically nothing” about Socrates.

Even very skeptical historians who are atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians would typically agree that some claims about Jesus have historical evidence behind them. The claims that Jesus existed, Jesus was a preacher in 1st century Judea, Jesus had followers, and was crucified under Roman authority, are all supported by ancient sources that historians compare and analyze.

This isnt a statement about Jesus' historicity. Its a statement that we have zero reliable information that can be attributed about such a person.

We study information written by reliable sources. A student of Socrates is a direct, reliable source.

The Gospels are unreliable and provide zero attribution to source.

That leaves the epistles. Paul explicitly says that he did not talk to any witnesses and got all his information from revelation and scripture.

Thus, the prior statement stands as true - we have nothing that can be actually sourced to a Jesus.

I don’t know where you get your information from, but you are wrong.

Paul explicitly states that he met and spoke with eyewitnesses who intimately knew Jesus. While Paul argued that the theological core of his gospel came through direct revelation rather than human instruction, he openly details his personal meetings with Jesus’s original inner circle.

Peter (Cephas): Three years after his conversion, Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him for 15 days.

James: During the same 15 day trip, Paul writes that he met James, brother of Jesus.

Fourteen years later, Paul returned to Jerusalem and met Peter, James, and John. Those men were 3 pillars of the early church in Jerusalem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus did not come (1st time) to bring peace between people:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Matthew 10:34)

Until Jesus comes a 2nd time to destroy evil forever, there will be no peace, especially between those who keep the faith and commandments of Jesus Christ and those who deny that Jesus is the only way into heaven, per John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This excludes all other religions; hence, there will be no peace

I’m giving Jesus benefit of doubt as other people wrote bible and it doesn’t necessarily reflect Jesus’s philosophy, more so ideology of writers and editors.

This is mostly accurate. We know practically nothing about Jesus or anything he may have thought/taught. Everything we have now comes from someone else's perspective/viewpoint. Any claims about or from Jesus have no basis in evidence or fact.

+1

Historians routinely study ancient figures through sources written by others. For many ancient people, that’s all we have.

Most of what we know about Socrates comes from students such as Plato. Yet historians do not conclude that we know “practically nothing” about Socrates.

Even very skeptical historians who are atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians would typically agree that some claims about Jesus have historical evidence behind them. The claims that Jesus existed, Jesus was a preacher in 1st century Judea, Jesus had followers, and was crucified under Roman authority, are all supported by ancient sources that historians compare and analyze.

This isnt a statement about Jesus' historicity. Its a statement that we have zero reliable information that can be attributed about such a person.

We study information written by reliable sources. A student of Socrates is a direct, reliable source.

The Gospels are unreliable and provide zero attribution to source.

That leaves the epistles. Paul explicitly says that he did not talk to any witnesses and got all his information from revelation and scripture.

Thus, the prior statement stands as true - we have nothing that can be actually sourced to a Jesus.

Paul does not say he never spoke to witnesses. In his own letters, Paul says he met with Peter (Cephas), James, and later other leaders in Jerusalem. Whether one believes their claims is another matter, but it is not accurate to say Paul explicitly avoided witnesses or had no contact with them.

Paul’s information is a mixture of revelation and tradition. Paul certainly claims revelations. However, he also says he “received” traditions from others. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 he passes along a creed about Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection appearances, etc. Historians generally think Paul is transmitting an earlier tradition there, not inventing it himself.

The Gospels are anonymous, but anonymous ≠ worthless. Historians regularly use anonymous ancient sources. The real question is how close they are to the events, whether they contain earlier traditions, where they agree, where they disagree, and whether details can be independently corroborated.

“Zero reliable information” is stronger than the evidence allows. Even many skeptical scholars who reject miracles, divinity, and much of the Gospel narrative still conclude that some basic claims are historically probable:
-J.C. existed.
-J.C. was a Jewish preacher in Roman Judea.
-J.C. was associated with John the Baptist.
-J.C. was crucified under Pontius Pilate.


^^^^ conclusions are based on multiple sources (Paul, the Gospels, and some non-Christian references), not on certainty, but on what historians judge to be the best explanation of the surviving evidence.

Yes, Paul said he met with the leaders in Jerusalem. However, anything he may have learned from them is never attributed in anything he wrote. Every claim Paul makes is from his own revelation or from scripture. He also directly states that point on multiple occasions, even emphasizing that he was not influenced by anyone.

The Gospels are worthless from a historical perspective. They offer no sources or attribution. They are clear embellishments and outright fictions in places. Attempts to glean anything credible from them have not resulted in anything meaningful.

We are still left with nothing about Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus did not come (1st time) to bring peace between people:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Matthew 10:34)

Until Jesus comes a 2nd time to destroy evil forever, there will be no peace, especially between those who keep the faith and commandments of Jesus Christ and those who deny that Jesus is the only way into heaven, per John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This excludes all other religions; hence, there will be no peace

I’m giving Jesus benefit of doubt as other people wrote bible and it doesn’t necessarily reflect Jesus’s philosophy, more so ideology of writers and editors.

This is mostly accurate. We know practically nothing about Jesus or anything he may have thought/taught. Everything we have now comes from someone else's perspective/viewpoint. Any claims about or from Jesus have no basis in evidence or fact.

+1

Historians routinely study ancient figures through sources written by others. For many ancient people, that’s all we have.

Most of what we know about Socrates comes from students such as Plato. Yet historians do not conclude that we know “practically nothing” about Socrates.

Even very skeptical historians who are atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians would typically agree that some claims about Jesus have historical evidence behind them. The claims that Jesus existed, Jesus was a preacher in 1st century Judea, Jesus had followers, and was crucified under Roman authority, are all supported by ancient sources that historians compare and analyze.

This isnt a statement about Jesus' historicity. Its a statement that we have zero reliable information that can be attributed about such a person.

We study information written by reliable sources. A student of Socrates is a direct, reliable source.

The Gospels are unreliable and provide zero attribution to source.

That leaves the epistles. Paul explicitly says that he did not talk to any witnesses and got all his information from revelation and scripture.

Thus, the prior statement stands as true - we have nothing that can be actually sourced to a Jesus.

Paul does not say he never spoke to witnesses. In his own letters, Paul says he met with Peter (Cephas), James, and later other leaders in Jerusalem. Whether one believes their claims is another matter, but it is not accurate to say Paul explicitly avoided witnesses or had no contact with them.

Paul’s information is a mixture of revelation and tradition. Paul certainly claims revelations. However, he also says he “received” traditions from others. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 he passes along a creed about Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection appearances, etc. Historians generally think Paul is transmitting an earlier tradition there, not inventing it himself.

The Gospels are anonymous, but anonymous ≠ worthless. Historians regularly use anonymous ancient sources. The real question is how close they are to the events, whether they contain earlier traditions, where they agree, where they disagree, and whether details can be independently corroborated.

“Zero reliable information” is stronger than the evidence allows. Even many skeptical scholars who reject miracles, divinity, and much of the Gospel narrative still conclude that some basic claims are historically probable:
-J.C. existed.
-J.C. was a Jewish preacher in Roman Judea.
-J.C. was associated with John the Baptist.
-J.C. was crucified under Pontius Pilate.


^^^^ conclusions are based on multiple sources (Paul, the Gospels, and some non-Christian references), not on certainty, but on what historians judge to be the best explanation of the surviving evidence.

Yes, Paul said he met with the leaders in Jerusalem. However, anything he may have learned from them is never attributed in anything he wrote. Every claim Paul makes is from his own revelation or from scripture. He also directly states that point on multiple occasions, even emphasizing that he was not influenced by anyone.

The Gospels are worthless from a historical perspective. They offer no sources or attribution. They are clear embellishments and outright fictions in places. Attempts to glean anything credible from them have not resulted in anything meaningful.

We are still left with nothing about Jesus.

Paul said his authority comes from revelation, not from Jerusalem. Paul did not say that he learned absolutely nothing from people who knew Jesus.


Calling the Gospels “worthless” is not how historians evaluate ancient sources.

Sources can be anonymous, biased, theologically motivated, contain legendary material, and still preserve historical information.

For example, historians do not discard ancient biographies of Alexander the Great simply because they contain legends and were written long after his death. They analyze them critically.

Are you a scholar of antiquity? Where did you study? Have you written any peer reviewed papers you can refer us to so we can understand how you arrived at your conclusions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus did not come (1st time) to bring peace between people:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Matthew 10:34)

Until Jesus comes a 2nd time to destroy evil forever, there will be no peace, especially between those who keep the faith and commandments of Jesus Christ and those who deny that Jesus is the only way into heaven, per John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This excludes all other religions; hence, there will be no peace

I’m giving Jesus benefit of doubt as other people wrote bible and it doesn’t necessarily reflect Jesus’s philosophy, more so ideology of writers and editors.

This is mostly accurate. We know practically nothing about Jesus or anything he may have thought/taught. Everything we have now comes from someone else's perspective/viewpoint. Any claims about or from Jesus have no basis in evidence or fact.

+1

Historians routinely study ancient figures through sources written by others. For many ancient people, that’s all we have.

Most of what we know about Socrates comes from students such as Plato. Yet historians do not conclude that we know “practically nothing” about Socrates.

Even very skeptical historians who are atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians would typically agree that some claims about Jesus have historical evidence behind them. The claims that Jesus existed, Jesus was a preacher in 1st century Judea, Jesus had followers, and was crucified under Roman authority, are all supported by ancient sources that historians compare and analyze.

This isnt a statement about Jesus' historicity. Its a statement that we have zero reliable information that can be attributed about such a person.

We study information written by reliable sources. A student of Socrates is a direct, reliable source.

The Gospels are unreliable and provide zero attribution to source.

That leaves the epistles. Paul explicitly says that he did not talk to any witnesses and got all his information from revelation and scripture.

Thus, the prior statement stands as true - we have nothing that can be actually sourced to a Jesus.

Paul does not say he never spoke to witnesses. In his own letters, Paul says he met with Peter (Cephas), James, and later other leaders in Jerusalem. Whether one believes their claims is another matter, but it is not accurate to say Paul explicitly avoided witnesses or had no contact with them.

Paul’s information is a mixture of revelation and tradition. Paul certainly claims revelations. However, he also says he “received” traditions from others. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 he passes along a creed about Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection appearances, etc. Historians generally think Paul is transmitting an earlier tradition there, not inventing it himself.

The Gospels are anonymous, but anonymous ≠ worthless. Historians regularly use anonymous ancient sources. The real question is how close they are to the events, whether they contain earlier traditions, where they agree, where they disagree, and whether details can be independently corroborated.

“Zero reliable information” is stronger than the evidence allows. Even many skeptical scholars who reject miracles, divinity, and much of the Gospel narrative still conclude that some basic claims are historically probable:
-J.C. existed.
-J.C. was a Jewish preacher in Roman Judea.
-J.C. was associated with John the Baptist.
-J.C. was crucified under Pontius Pilate.


^^^^ conclusions are based on multiple sources (Paul, the Gospels, and some non-Christian references), not on certainty, but on what historians judge to be the best explanation of the surviving evidence.

Yes, Paul said he met with the leaders in Jerusalem. However, anything he may have learned from them is never attributed in anything he wrote. Every claim Paul makes is from his own revelation or from scripture. He also directly states that point on multiple occasions, even emphasizing that he was not influenced by anyone.

The Gospels are worthless from a historical perspective. They offer no sources or attribution. They are clear embellishments and outright fictions in places. Attempts to glean anything credible from them have not resulted in anything meaningful.

We are still left with nothing about Jesus.

“Every claim Paul makes is from his own revelation or from scripture.“ (your statement)

Not true whatsoever.


Paul refers to Jesus as being descended from David, having brothers, including James, being crucified, having disciples/apostles, having a final meal, and being buried.

^^^ none of those are deductions from scripture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus did not come (1st time) to bring peace between people:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Matthew 10:34)

Until Jesus comes a 2nd time to destroy evil forever, there will be no peace, especially between those who keep the faith and commandments of Jesus Christ and those who deny that Jesus is the only way into heaven, per John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

This excludes all other religions; hence, there will be no peace

I’m giving Jesus benefit of doubt as other people wrote bible and it doesn’t necessarily reflect Jesus’s philosophy, more so ideology of writers and editors.

This is mostly accurate. We know practically nothing about Jesus or anything he may have thought/taught. Everything we have now comes from someone else's perspective/viewpoint. Any claims about or from Jesus have no basis in evidence or fact.

+1

Historians routinely study ancient figures through sources written by others. For many ancient people, that’s all we have.

Most of what we know about Socrates comes from students such as Plato. Yet historians do not conclude that we know “practically nothing” about Socrates.

Even very skeptical historians who are atheists, agnostics, or non-Christians would typically agree that some claims about Jesus have historical evidence behind them. The claims that Jesus existed, Jesus was a preacher in 1st century Judea, Jesus had followers, and was crucified under Roman authority, are all supported by ancient sources that historians compare and analyze.

This isnt a statement about Jesus' historicity. Its a statement that we have zero reliable information that can be attributed about such a person.

We study information written by reliable sources. A student of Socrates is a direct, reliable source.

The Gospels are unreliable and provide zero attribution to source.

That leaves the epistles. Paul explicitly says that he did not talk to any witnesses and got all his information from revelation and scripture.

Thus, the prior statement stands as true - we have nothing that can be actually sourced to a Jesus.

Paul does not say he never spoke to witnesses. In his own letters, Paul says he met with Peter (Cephas), James, and later other leaders in Jerusalem. Whether one believes their claims is another matter, but it is not accurate to say Paul explicitly avoided witnesses or had no contact with them.

Paul’s information is a mixture of revelation and tradition. Paul certainly claims revelations. However, he also says he “received” traditions from others. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 he passes along a creed about Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection appearances, etc. Historians generally think Paul is transmitting an earlier tradition there, not inventing it himself.

The Gospels are anonymous, but anonymous ≠ worthless. Historians regularly use anonymous ancient sources. The real question is how close they are to the events, whether they contain earlier traditions, where they agree, where they disagree, and whether details can be independently corroborated.

“Zero reliable information” is stronger than the evidence allows. Even many skeptical scholars who reject miracles, divinity, and much of the Gospel narrative still conclude that some basic claims are historically probable:
-J.C. existed.
-J.C. was a Jewish preacher in Roman Judea.
-J.C. was associated with John the Baptist.
-J.C. was crucified under Pontius Pilate.


^^^^ conclusions are based on multiple sources (Paul, the Gospels, and some non-Christian references), not on certainty, but on what historians judge to be the best explanation of the surviving evidence.

Yes, Paul said he met with the leaders in Jerusalem. However, anything he may have learned from them is never attributed in anything he wrote. Every claim Paul makes is from his own revelation or from scripture. He also directly states that point on multiple occasions, even emphasizing that he was not influenced by anyone.

The Gospels are worthless from a historical perspective. They offer no sources or attribution. They are clear embellishments and outright fictions in places. Attempts to glean anything credible from them have not resulted in anything meaningful.

We are still left with nothing about Jesus.

“Every claim Paul makes is from his own revelation or from scripture.“ (your statement)

Not true whatsoever.


Paul refers to Jesus as being descended from David, having brothers, including James, being crucified, having disciples/apostles, having a final meal, and being buried.

^^^ none of those are deductions from scripture.

You should re-read the epistles. Paul provides no information directly about Jesus. He could have been talking about Jim-Bob and provided the same information. So what if he said he had brothers. Do any of those brothers act as sources that are referenced? Does he ever use a specific example of his life that would have furthered the argument Paul is trying to make?

There is no credible information about who Jesus was or was like.

[Anonymous]

Paul refers to Jesus as:

- a Jew descended from David
-born of a woman
-having brothers (including James)
-having disciples/apostles
-being crucified
- being buried
-being executed by earthly authorities
-having a final meal before his death

He also says he met people who personally knew Jesus, including James the Just and Cephas (Peter). That doesn’t give us a detailed biography, but it is more than a generic celestial figure with no earthly existence. Paul’s letters are occasional documents—he is writing to address disputes, not composing a biography.



Historians do agree on the following:

High confidence:

-Jesus existed.
-He was a Jewish preacher in Roman Judea.
-He was associated with John the Baptist.
-He attracted followers.
-He was crucified under Pontius Pilate.


Moderate confidence:

J.C. taught about the Kingdom of God.
-He used parables.
-He was regarded as a healer/exorcist by followers.
-He had disputes with some religious authorities.

Low confidence:

-J.C.’s exact wording of his statements
-theological claims about his divinity, resurrection, and miracles

Historians don’t say “we know nothing” about Jesus.

You do, and you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Organized religions make a mockery of humanity, our governments are dangerous and out of control"

Axel Rose - Garden of Eden

We all worship something. If it isn’t organized religion, then it is a bunch of small “gods” — career, achievement, money, sex, power, beauty, romance, approval, family, spouses. We are all living for something. And our “worship” of these gods comes with a set of rules, social expectations, and the like just as much as any organized religion.

Back when I was atheist, I worshipped work and career and the opposite sex, not always in that order. There were all kinds of ways to get ahead at work and I was great at playing the game. And the same goes for women too — trying to convince beautiful women to sleep with me was all its own “religion” full of rituals, ways I would behave, etc.

The difference is that none of the other gods even came close to fully satisfying me and they didn’t forgive me either when things went sideways as they inevitably did. Going into my 40s, I was wealthier than I ever imagined, already divorced, watching a second marriage go down the tubes, and very very very lost in life — though it all seemed great on the surface.

Believe me, I was the most unlikely convert to Christianity. I thought anyone talked about “born again” was a nut case.

But at age 42 I hit rock bottom. Then I realized that Jesus is all you need when Jesus is all that you got.

My life has changed a lot since then, in so many positive ways, but it’s not about a string of my own successes. I have realized that more than anything, Jesus keeps me collapsing under the weight of my own failures.

All glory be to Jesus Christ our Lord!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Organized religions make a mockery of humanity, our governments are dangerous and out of control"

Axel Rose - Garden of Eden

We all worship something. If it isn’t organized religion, then it is a bunch of small “gods” — career, achievement, money, sex, power, beauty, romance, approval, family, spouses. We are all living for something. And our “worship” of these gods comes with a set of rules, social expectations, and the like just as much as any organized religion.

Back when I was atheist, I worshipped work and career and the opposite sex, not always in that order. There were all kinds of ways to get ahead at work and I was great at playing the game. And the same goes for women too — trying to convince beautiful women to sleep with me was all its own “religion” full of rituals, ways I would behave, etc.

The difference is that none of the other gods even came close to fully satisfying me and they didn’t forgive me either when things went sideways as they inevitably did. Going into my 40s, I was wealthier than I ever imagined, already divorced, watching a second marriage go down the tubes, and very very very lost in life — though it all seemed great on the surface.

Believe me, I was the most unlikely convert to Christianity. I thought anyone talked about “born again” was a nut case.

But at age 42 I hit rock bottom. Then I realized that Jesus is all you need when Jesus is all that you got.

My life has changed a lot since then, in so many positive ways, but it’s not about a string of my own successes. I have realized that more than anything, Jesus keeps me collapsing under the weight of my own failures.

All glory be to Jesus Christ our Lord!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Organized religions make a mockery of humanity, our governments are dangerous and out of control"

Axel Rose - Garden of Eden

We all worship something. If it isn’t organized religion, then it is a bunch of small “gods” — career, achievement, money, sex, power, beauty, romance, approval, family, spouses. We are all living for something. And our “worship” of these gods comes with a set of rules, social expectations, and the like just as much as any organized religion.

Back when I was atheist, I worshipped work and career and the opposite sex, not always in that order. There were all kinds of ways to get ahead at work and I was great at playing the game. And the same goes for women too — trying to convince beautiful women to sleep with me was all its own “religion” full of rituals, ways I would behave, etc.

The difference is that none of the other gods even came close to fully satisfying me and they didn’t forgive me either when things went sideways as they inevitably did. Going into my 40s, I was wealthier than I ever imagined, already divorced, watching a second marriage go down the tubes, and very very very lost in life — though it all seemed great on the surface.

Believe me, I was the most unlikely convert to Christianity. I thought anyone talked about “born again” was a nut case.

But at age 42 I hit rock bottom. Then I realized that Jesus is all you need when Jesus is all that you got.

My life has changed a lot since then, in so many positive ways, but it’s not about a string of my own successes. I have realized that more than anything, Jesus keeps me collapsing under the weight of my own failures.

All glory be to Jesus Christ our Lord!

I've noticed that most "born again" people I've met were struggling to do the right thing without external guidance. This is one scenario where religion is helpful. It prevents those types of people from being a-holes (mostly) or committing crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Organized religions make a mockery of humanity, our governments are dangerous and out of control"

Axel Rose - Garden of Eden

We all worship something. If it isn’t organized religion, then it is a bunch of small “gods” — career, achievement, money, sex, power, beauty, romance, approval, family, spouses. We are all living for something. And our “worship” of these gods comes with a set of rules, social expectations, and the like just as much as any organized religion.

Back when I was atheist, I worshipped work and career and the opposite sex, not always in that order. There were all kinds of ways to get ahead at work and I was great at playing the game. And the same goes for women too — trying to convince beautiful women to sleep with me was all its own “religion” full of rituals, ways I would behave, etc.

The difference is that none of the other gods even came close to fully satisfying me and they didn’t forgive me either when things went sideways as they inevitably did. Going into my 40s, I was wealthier than I ever imagined, already divorced, watching a second marriage go down the tubes, and very very very lost in life — though it all seemed great on the surface.

Believe me, I was the most unlikely convert to Christianity. I thought anyone talked about “born again” was a nut case.

But at age 42 I hit rock bottom. Then I realized that Jesus is all you need when Jesus is all that you got.

My life has changed a lot since then, in so many positive ways, but it’s not about a string of my own successes. I have realized that more than anything, Jesus keeps me collapsing under the weight of my own failures.

All glory be to Jesus Christ our Lord!

I've noticed that most "born again" people I've met were struggling to do the right thing without external guidance. This is one scenario where religion is helpful. It prevents those types of people from being a-holes (mostly) or committing crimes.

What is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Organized religions make a mockery of humanity, our governments are dangerous and out of control"

Axel Rose - Garden of Eden

We all worship something. If it isn’t organized religion, then it is a bunch of small “gods” — career, achievement, money, sex, power, beauty, romance, approval, family, spouses. We are all living for something. And our “worship” of these gods comes with a set of rules, social expectations, and the like just as much as any organized religion.

Back when I was atheist, I worshipped work and career and the opposite sex, not always in that order. There were all kinds of ways to get ahead at work and I was great at playing the game. And the same goes for women too — trying to convince beautiful women to sleep with me was all its own “religion” full of rituals, ways I would behave, etc.

The difference is that none of the other gods even came close to fully satisfying me and they didn’t forgive me either when things went sideways as they inevitably did. Going into my 40s, I was wealthier than I ever imagined, already divorced, watching a second marriage go down the tubes, and very very very lost in life — though it all seemed great on the surface.

Believe me, I was the most unlikely convert to Christianity. I thought anyone talked about “born again” was a nut case.

But at age 42 I hit rock bottom. Then I realized that Jesus is all you need when Jesus is all that you got.

My life has changed a lot since then, in so many positive ways, but it’s not about a string of my own successes. I have realized that more than anything, Jesus keeps me collapsing under the weight of my own failures.

All glory be to Jesus Christ our Lord!

I've noticed that most "born again" people I've met were struggling to do the right thing without external guidance. This is one scenario where religion is helpful. It prevents those types of people from being a-holes (mostly) or committing crimes.

Gee a bit self-righteous, aren’t we?

The only people who are truly lost in the world are those who are too blind to see their own flaws and shortcomings.

To the person who wrote this — I guarantee if we interviewed every person you have encountered in life we would find the same stories that you’d encounter with anyone else — many tales of selfishness, ways that you hurt people, vices, bad habits and the like. Your comment itself shows a certain amount of arrogance and meanness — and that is just one sentence on an anonymous internet message board!

The mark of a true Christian is someone who is humble enough to admit that they are flawed.

When you do believe that in your heart, it allows you to become kinder, more accepting, more forgiving, and have more empathy for other people.

When people at work or in my family used to tick me off, I would get depressed, angry, even or all three.

Now, recognizing that we all fall short of the glory of God, and that I am purely a sinner saved by grace — it allows me to have an entirely different posture towards people who “wrong” me. I am not nearly as sensitive to these kinds of things and it flows off my back when it has happened. It has fundamentally changed my character. This has not gone unnoticed by people who know me.

To your snide comment about prisoners — through my church I have volunteered in our prison ministry program. It amazes me how much I learn from talking to prisoners. They are an inspiration to me and I am proud to call them my brothers and sisters in Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously it would be great to redo organized religions and political systems but which little things can we do on individual level to make ripple effect?

Resist the patriarchy at every turn. That’s what spoiled Jesus’s teachings in the first place.

AMEN

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What can we do to make humans see others as humans not as someone who has a different race, religion, culture or class? How can we spread kindness and stop hatred which seems to take over? What would Jesus do?

Love one another.
John 13:34

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Organized religions make a mockery of humanity, our governments are dangerous and out of control"

Axel Rose - Garden of Eden

We all worship something. If it isn’t organized religion, then it is a bunch of small “gods” — career, achievement, money, sex, power, beauty, romance, approval, family, spouses. We are all living for something. And our “worship” of these gods comes with a set of rules, social expectations, and the like just as much as any organized religion.

Back when I was atheist, I worshipped work and career and the opposite sex, not always in that order. There were all kinds of ways to get ahead at work and I was great at playing the game. And the same goes for women too — trying to convince beautiful women to sleep with me was all its own “religion” full of rituals, ways I would behave, etc.

The difference is that none of the other gods even came close to fully satisfying me and they didn’t forgive me either when things went sideways as they inevitably did. Going into my 40s, I was wealthier than I ever imagined, already divorced, watching a second marriage go down the tubes, and very very very lost in life — though it all seemed great on the surface.

Believe me, I was the most unlikely convert to Christianity. I thought anyone talked about “born again” was a nut case.

But at age 42 I hit rock bottom. Then I realized that Jesus is all you need when Jesus is all that you got.

My life has changed a lot since then, in so many positive ways, but it’s not about a string of my own successes. I have realized that more than anything, Jesus keeps me collapsing under the weight of my own failures.

All glory be to Jesus Christ our Lord!

I've noticed that most "born again" people I've met were struggling to do the right thing without external guidance. This is one scenario where religion is helpful. It prevents those types of people from being a-holes (mostly) or committing crimes.

Gee a bit self-righteous, aren’t we?

The only people who are truly lost in the world are those who are too blind to see their own flaws and shortcomings.

To the person who wrote this — I guarantee if we interviewed every person you have encountered in life we would find the same stories that you’d encounter with anyone else — many tales of selfishness, ways that you hurt people, vices, bad habits and the like. Your comment itself shows a certain amount of arrogance and meanness — and that is just one sentence on an anonymous internet message board!

The mark of a true Christian is someone who is humble enough to admit that they are flawed.

When you do believe that in your heart, it allows you to become kinder, more accepting, more forgiving, and have more empathy for other people.

When people at work or in my family used to tick me off, I would get depressed, angry, even or all three.

Now, recognizing that we all fall short of the glory of God, and that I am purely a sinner saved by grace — it allows me to have an entirely different posture towards people who “wrong” me. I am not nearly as sensitive to these kinds of things and it flows off my back when it has happened. It has fundamentally changed my character. This has not gone unnoticed by people who know me.

To your snide comment about prisoners — through my church I have volunteered in our prison ministry program. It amazes me how much I learn from talking to prisoners. They are an inspiration to me and I am proud to call them my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Great post.

Jesus Saves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Organized religions make a mockery of humanity, our governments are dangerous and out of control"

Axel Rose - Garden of Eden

We all worship something. If it isn’t organized religion, then it is a bunch of small “gods” — career, achievement, money, sex, power, beauty, romance, approval, family, spouses. We are all living for something. And our “worship” of these gods comes with a set of rules, social expectations, and the like just as much as any organized religion.

Back when I was atheist, I worshipped work and career and the opposite sex, not always in that order. There were all kinds of ways to get ahead at work and I was great at playing the game. And the same goes for women too — trying to convince beautiful women to sleep with me was all its own “religion” full of rituals, ways I would behave, etc.

The difference is that none of the other gods even came close to fully satisfying me and they didn’t forgive me either when things went sideways as they inevitably did. Going into my 40s, I was wealthier than I ever imagined, already divorced, watching a second marriage go down the tubes, and very very very lost in life — though it all seemed great on the surface.

Believe me, I was the most unlikely convert to Christianity. I thought anyone talked about “born again” was a nut case.

But at age 42 I hit rock bottom. Then I realized that Jesus is all you need when Jesus is all that you got.

My life has changed a lot since then, in so many positive ways, but it’s not about a string of my own successes. I have realized that more than anything, Jesus keeps me collapsing under the weight of my own failures.

All glory be to Jesus Christ our Lord!

I've noticed that most "born again" people I've met were struggling to do the right thing without external guidance. This is one scenario where religion is helpful. It prevents those types of people from being a-holes (mostly) or committing crimes.

Gee a bit self-righteous, aren’t we?

The only people who are truly lost in the world are those who are too blind to see their own flaws and shortcomings.

To the person who wrote this — I guarantee if we interviewed every person you have encountered in life we would find the same stories that you’d encounter with anyone else — many tales of selfishness, ways that you hurt people, vices, bad habits and the like. Your comment itself shows a certain amount of arrogance and meanness — and that is just one sentence on an anonymous internet message board!

The mark of a true Christian is someone who is humble enough to admit that they are flawed.

When you do believe that in your heart, it allows you to become kinder, more accepting, more forgiving, and have more empathy for other people.

When people at work or in my family used to tick me off, I would get depressed, angry, even or all three.

Now, recognizing that we all fall short of the glory of God, and that I am purely a sinner saved by grace — it allows me to have an entirely different posture towards people who “wrong” me. I am not nearly as sensitive to these kinds of things and it flows off my back when it has happened. It has fundamentally changed my character. This has not gone unnoticed by people who know me.

To your snide comment about prisoners — through my church I have volunteered in our prison ministry program. It amazes me how much I learn from talking to prisoners. They are an inspiration to me and I am proud to call them my brothers and sisters in Christ.

“To your snide comment about prisoners — through my church I have volunteered in our prison ministry program. It amazes me how much I learn from talking to prisoners. They are an inspiration to me and I am proud to call them my brothers and sisters in Christ.“

That’s so true friend.