>>521587 every post here talks about the desert part, when the relevant one is the time humans have been around, apparently godless, for tens of thousands of years why reveal himself then? it wasnt when writing was invented, but later. it wasnt when radio and globalization were invented, but earlier. an arbitrary point in time with no purpose to it.
>hurr why reveal himself in 2016 >there are already billion muslims on the planet >and christianity has already been irrevocably divided for 1000 years >he'd just be locked up in a lunatic asylum >he'd just be one of those homeless guys with a sign that says "the end is nigh"
>>521611 >reveal yourself when writing is just invented to make use of this new way to spread the word Sensible. >reveal yourself during the height of Alexander's empire, to calm the war ravaged world and use the bridge between east and west to spread the word Sensible. >reveal yourself in bumfucknowhere in a rotting, dying empire, in a place and way that you will be branded criminal Not sensible.
>>521623 The exact same thing happened to Jesus, though. At least today he'd get many views on youtube and a petition.
Christ appearing when he did was a catalyst for Christianity to become the state religion of Rome, which has had a lasting impact. If he a long time earlier, there would have been no Roman Empire. If he appeared a long time later, there would have been no Roman Empire.
>>521655 What I mean by this is, there would have been no Roman Empire *anymore* to adopt Christianity. That is, the Roman Empire adoption Christianity was enormous. And if he appeared later, there would have been no Roman Empire to adopt Christianity, because the Empire would already have ended.
>>521660 >>521662 Okay, I see what you were trying to say there. However, I dont think that the Roman Empire existing was of that great importance. Other empires or alliances have covered a similar amount of people, and with time the means of spreading knowledge have only improved.
>>521667 He means if Jesus wasnt born during the Roman Empire, he would have been born after it, and thus it wouldnt exist for him to christianize it. As in, the empire would have ended before his appearance, and thus there would be no christian roman empire.
>>521686 You are asking for a major change 2000 years ago. The world would be different, and different empires would exist.
Regardless, Alexander's was mentioned, as it bridged east and west, and the timing would have been perfect, since everybody was tired of war and looked for new purpose. Stoics and Cynics were in favor too, and those influence Christian morality greatly. That was the perfect timing.
>>521709 It was placed in a much more important area for spreading christianity to as many people as possible.
>>521709 >>521711 It fell apart because there was nothing to keep it together. Christianity would have kept it together. It was a better time for it to burst into existence. The old religion defeated and conquered by the new one, powered by the morals of trendy greek philosophers, spreading along with the creations of new cities, promoting peace and cooperation to rebuilt the war torn country, a bridge between east and west.
>>521715 >Christianity would have kept it together. No it wouldn't. A religion doesn't instantly convert the entire population of a giant empire in the span of 5 years, it took over three centuries for Rome. Alexander's empire didn't even survive long enough for anyone to have even heard of Christianity before it was long gone.
It's a terrible idea, stop thinking you know better than God.
I feel like this is horribly off-topic. Its relation to history is tangenital at best. This is an argument about faith and spiritualism, which have little bearing on the actual history of Christianity.
But since we're already talking about it, I think the crux of the problem is that militant atheists don't really understand the nature of faith, which is why they're militant atheists. It's fucking faith. It's not based on proof. There are promises made, but they ultimately have no backbone to them. It's taken on trust, and intuition. Christians don't generally argue that Jesus was born because it was the best time and place to have him be born. The only why of it is that it was God's fucking will, and he decided it was the right time.
Christ. It's like apple fans demanding that oranges be judged by the principles of apples.
You'd be right if that was the case, but it's not. It was the best time and place for God and for us based on reasons he deemed, not ones that we might argue myriad reasons for. My point is that the specific point in time and place is moot, and it can be argued to death. We won't ever know, and there's little we can do but wonder on it. It's what happened.
As a person that has distanced himself from the Catholic Church, I have difficulty putting stock into the idea that Jesus was born among the Israelites because they were his chosen people, because I'm also a person of southeast Asian descent, which would put me outside that group. But the Church teaches that Jesus comes as redeemer to all peoples, not just the Israelites.
While that's all fine and dandy, I believe that ultimately if God decided it was the right time, it was the right time. It's so utterly simple. Obviously if he is God and he is perfectly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then he is infallible. In a historic sense, we have evidence that he hasn't failed in his mission of salvation; Christianity still exists.
tl;dr Jesus dying for us in Jerusalem two thousand years ago is not anymore ludicrous than him dying in China three thousand years ago, because we don't ultimately know God's plan. It's so fucking simple. If you can't wrap your head around it, it's because you don't understand faith or the nature of the Christian God and refuse to try. You don't even have to believe it. You can just take it as a hypothetical and leave it at that.
>>521472 Most people ITT are criticising the fact that Roman Empire was far from a desert, that even Judea wasn't really a desert and that Jews weren't really that illiterate. That's all true, but even bigger problem with his claim is, that he thinks that Christianity just appeared out of nowhere in first century bce/ce. God, YHWH was "present" since at least middle to late Bronze Age. Sure the timeline from creation to Moses is kind of muddled and you could only claim that it goes to maybe middle Bronze age, but so do other creation myths from other Middle East Civilisations of that time, like Enuma Eliš of Babylonians. And if you ask some Christians, like Quakers for example they'll tell you that God emanates in different forms, so every religion ever is just another facet of one true god.
>>521472 Don't really give a shit about the religious debate but >desert It (Judea) was located between arguably the two most important provinces in the Roman Empire (Syria and Egypt). It also benefited (from God's point of view) as the place where he had a group of fans already, so to speak. Lastly, Judea was far enough from Rome/Italia that separate religions would be tolerated, so it makes sense (if his goal was to send Jesus to a place where he could make an impact on the Roman Empire) that Jesus was born/sent there
>>521587 Probably because around 0AD was actually kind of a perfect time to expand a massive new belief system through a massive empire.
>No invading hordes to deal with >A common system of reading and writing in Greek to share ideas. >Greek is complex enough to share ideas of salvation and repentance >System of Roman law protecting Christian missionaries >Development of Mediterranean trade allowing for quicker spread of the word.
>>522066 Interestingly enough most of this demands were present at the height of the Bronze Age >No invading hordes to deal with Sea people would came way later >A common system of reading and writing Cuneiform, sure not as complex as Greek, but still. >System of Roman law Eh, yeah okay this one is not really that true, there was some religious tolerance going on in the Bronze Age, but that's pretty much it. >Development of Mediterranean trade Yup on par with the height of Roman Empire.
Maybe there's a reason that first organised religions started around the same time (well a bit earlier), and probably even monotheism. YHWH might have started as just one of the gods in Jewish pantheon, together with El or Elohim, and to an extent Baal, but El/Elohim and YHWH merged pretty fast into one god.
>>522066 >No invading hordes to deal with The romans were the invading hordes
>A common system of reading and writing in Greek to share ideas. Sorry, something about latin?
>Greek is complex enough to share ideas of salvation and repentance And previous languages weren't?
>System of Roman law protecting Christian missionaries That explains those roman candles
>Development of Mediterranean trade allowing for quicker spread of the word. I'll just duck out and tell the phoneticians, greeks, myceans and egpytians that Mediterranean trade didnt develop until 0BC
The correct statement that you could make is that if something had gone wrong for christianity we wouldn't be discussing it today, and as a result asserting that it was the "perfect time" is a selection bias.
Had the surviving religion been Manichaeism then we would be discussing why fate selected its particular starting point as a beneficial one rather than that thing of only historical note called christianity.
>>522102 Please refer to this: >>522078 The evolution of god is very interesting, and I recommend you to read History of God by Karen Armstrong.
Also Christianity won for two reasons, it was at the same time revolutionary, as in it went against hedonism that patricians of Roman Empire enjoyed in, and conservative, as many people within Rome, starting with Augustus wished for return to traditional values of family and temperance.
>>522116 My point isnt against christianity winning, my point is that to assert that somehow christianity is correct because it won is a selection bias.
But yes, the reasons surrounding the rise of christianity are certainly interesting. The primary events that I would ascribe to it are the taxation benefits under constantine (prior to the outright banning of non christians from most public offices) and the french defeat of the Umayyad Caliphate.
>>521711 >Alexander's empire fell apart instantly after his death It fell apart because he died early and had no time to set up a proper heir. God could've just blessed Alexander and kept him alive for a few more decades.
>>522134 I'd add Battle of Frigidus to the list. The last time when "paganism", well traditonal religion of Roman Empire tried to unite the empire and exile Christianity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Frigidus
The one that didn't even stop the warring in France, let alone everywhere else? Surely, the Byzantine victory in 657, you know, the one that committed about 5 times as many troops a Tours, was a more significant event. >>522151
>Implying that the various regionalist movements already existing at the time of his death wouldn't have broken Alexander's empire apart in revolt had he lived longer.
I mean, do you even into the conflict he had between the Macedonians and Greeks, let alone everyone else?
>>521639 No, it proves that your particular God is a shitty planner who let humanity suffer untold agony in life before eternal agony in death for 98,000 years, & that's a pretty shite thing to do.
Best case scenario for you God-botherers is that if you're correct, Papa Inviso is a royal dick. A deity could have chosen not to condemn to hell the entire species it created solely for its own overly grandiloquent ego edification for 100 millennia, instead revealing the truth to civilization once it reached radio tech level, ensuring the widespread distribution of its Word--IF it wanted to leave no questions to cause wars among believers, & IF it wanted to use the meat-sacks to distribute the message naturally, RATHER than just distributing it supernaturally & skipping all the interim internecine conflict.
It's kinda scary how people will defend their nonsense voodoo beliefs like this in the 21st century. I mean, it's fucking obvious that guys like L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith were crazy con-men, but somehow if you give their beliefs a few centuries to stew then they become "truth". I mean, FFS if anyone walks around spouting shit about hearing voices they'd be locked up. The supernatural has never once been proven to exist, ever.
I'd expect durkas and oogas to, but not rational 1st worlders
>>521503 just this. it's not about being Atheist or Believer. I think Hitchens is gross and historically and philosophically poor. I read some of his book.. he was a good journalist, all the study on Mother Teresa was good. But when he goes into philosophy he is vain and boring. He makes me want to go to church
note how i didn't say "the Christian God", or any specific man made religious interpretation. i'm talking about the creator of the universe, generically
>most retarded case why? it's perfectly reasonable. to start off by saying you will only consider the existence of a creator if you find observable, physical evidence within his creation of him, is the retarded position to take
just take more than 5 seconds to think about what you're demanding, and realise by definition, that won't be possible unless God chooses to reveal himself
again, the potter/clay pot is apt... it's just that you can't comprehend the idea that us humans, with our senses and thoughts and intelligence, are comparable to a clay pot when talking about the differences between the creation and the creator.. you want to be the highest level of knowledge and ability.. that anything could be of a higher level than us simply can't enter your consideration because of your human ego
>>525125 >>525108 He wasn't wrong. Are your little jesusfeels hurt because his solid moral logic has no real counter but the supernatural absolutist stance (a god did it, so it must be somehow morally correct)?
If you'd read some, you'd find he expressed his disapproval of the immorality of religions in a variety of ways.
>>526481 Projecting the whole "nu-UH! YOU don't understand!" is cute and all, especially given your insistent use of the poor argument from ignorance metaphor of pot and clay.
It still means your 1 of 8000 different deities could instantly end all religious violence with just s but of intervention, proving even by our lower standards (as you pointed out & agreed) that your deity is morally inferior to its creations, best-case scenario.
>>526481 "higher than us" So how often daily do you get Deepak Chopra emails? My voodoo crystal healing yoga essential oils life coach recommends taking in 15 minutes of shiatsu reiki massage while listening to Chopra books every day during my juice fast foot detox psychic chiropractor treatments to rid myself of chemikills, autism, & midichlorians. :^) Namaste!
>>528700 With this same logic, how can atheists say with such certainty that a God does not exist? Why would you call yourself an atheist or a Christian when the definitions of these terms imply that you believe one way or another? When both options have no basis or evidence to support them?
>>529104 Do you really think that situation is comparable to your beliefs concerning how existence came to be and whether or not the universe as we know it has a meaning? Why devote yourself to ideas of this magnitude based solely on probability when that concept itself meant nothing 'before' existence came to be?
>>529155 >Considering we're simply talking knowledge, it's perfectly apt. We're talking about how the universe as it is came to be, and you're using concepts and philosophies that only exist in this universe as it is now. >Just like Russell's teapot, answer the question. What question?
This isn't a very good argument against God at all.
The Truth doesn't adjust itself to your beliefs and feelings. If you are an atheist then okay, what you are saying could be an argument (selecting a religion based on how well it fits into your world view and ideals) otherwise it is absurd.
If God is a three headed poodle that sends people to hell for playing Commander Keen on Wednesday then no matter how much you whine about it or how much it doesn't fit with your world view: that doesn't change the truth.
Just because a child doesn't agree with detention doesn't mean the principle doesn't exists, not matter how much of a tantrum the child throws.
But, Hitchens only said stuff like this when addressing atheists anyway. He would never use this argument in an actual debate so good on him.
>>529090 >With this same logic, how can atheists say with such certainty that a God does not exist? This was your response to Russell's teapot. I gave you another example to ponder, one a little clearer.
>What question? How can you be sure I'm not fucking your mother while petting my pet dragon every time you're not looking?
>We're talking about how the universe as it is came to be, and you're using concepts and philosophies that only exist in this universe as it is now. Which is completely irrelevant before you explain how you judge truth claims.
But just by the way, my dragon also told me he made this universe just for me and that you lot ill be annihilated at death while I can get on to fucking people's mothers when they're not looking until the end of time.
>>529183 Oh, that blatant strawman argument wasn't rhetorical? I've already explained how the two situations can't be treated the same way, with the same logic and concepts concerning probability. >how you judge truth claims More like how the void judges 'truth claims' when there's no physical evidence to support them. With silent disapproval.
>>529216 >What physical evidence is there to support a god, exactly? None at all, which is the half of my point that you seemed to miss earlier. Have you been assuming that I'm Christian this entire time? Did you not read my original post in its entirety?
>>529228 If there's no evidence, there's no reason to believe in one, and atheism is the only rational position.
And just by the way, atheism doesn't imply knowledge. It is the null hypothesis and thus has to be proven false. Babies are literally atheists, go up to a baby and ask why it knows there's no god with such certainty.
>>529237 >atheism is the only rational position. The only rational position is no position, as I explained earlier. Probability and Occam's Razor in particular should not decide your beliefs, or lack of, concerning implications of this magnitude. It's stupid to argue for one side of this possibility with the kind of logic that might not even be applicable to some parallel universe. You're thinking too small, anon. Do you think mathematics as a whole is the same across all possible existences as well?
>>529291 >If there's no reason to believe a claim, it's irrational to do so. It's also irrational to argue against that claim when it concerns something unbound by the presumptions of probability and logic as we know it.
>>529387 Oh wow, you missed the point completely. The 'parallel universe' example was an attempt to make this easier for you to understand, since the void concept obviously wasn't working out for you. >You're hanging your argument on ifs, buts and maybes you have no way to substantiate. Says the anon that's basing his entire argument on the presumption that logic and probabilities as we know them are relevant outside/before the modern universe came to be. That's a great big 'if' with a side of 'maybe' if you ask me. >then comes out saying denying all sots of useless or delusional shit is irrational. You're still trying to expand my point to all arguments when I've made it perfectly clear that this only pertains to ideas with implications that outreach this existence.
>>529409 >You're still trying to expand my point to all arguments when I've made it perfectly clear that this only pertains to ideas with implications that outreach this existence. How could it possibly only pertain to ideas that 'outreach this existence'?
>The 'parallel universe' example was an attempt to make this easier for you to understand, since the void concept obviously wasn't working out for you. Your void babble was just about as irrelevant to the point as parallel universes. You're free to explain how it was at all relevant.
>Says the anon that's basing his entire argument on the presumption that logic and probabilities as we know them are relevant outside/before the modern universe came to be. That's a great big 'if' with a side of 'maybe' if you ask me. I already asked you to justify the claim that there is stuff we can't apply logic to. Or probability theory for that matter. Are you even remotely aware what these two concepts are?
I'm hardly assuming anything. I'm just not letting you get away with saying things you could not possibly substantiate if your life depended on it.
>>521472 Middle East religion of Jesus Christ was profitable point for an old civilization. The book for reading and standardization of language. Standards of marriage. Many religions are conflicting each with other, wasting time for culture affairs. Of course Christianity and many other religion are go out of date nowadays, alike ride on donkeys or a bow and an arrow or sleep at a ram fell.
>>531070 >Of course Christianity and many other religion are go out of date Wot? Europe is becoming muslim and Africa and China is becoming Christian. Abrahamic religions are going nowhere for a long time
Thread replies: 139 Thread images: 9
Thread DB ID: 386721
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.