Jesus--The Joy (and Despair) of Man's Desiring

[Jagella]

Needless to say, the figure of Jesus in the gospel tale has been controversial since its inception. According to his story, he was a god sent from heaven who took on the form of a lowly Jewish peasant. Jesus gradually emerged from this humble social status performing magical acts to demonstrate that he was either divine or quasi-divine. He was on a mission from God to establish God's kingdom and save all those who repent and believe what he said. All others would suffer eternal torment in a lake of fire. Jesus then separated all of us into the "sheep" and the "goats," respectively. There is no middle ground. You are "with him or against him."

This bifurcation of humankind is with us to this day. Some of us embrace the basic teachings of the gospel hoping that a real Jesus can make our immortality real. All others may simply disregard the whole idea of Jesus' salvation, but many of us fight against the idea finding it to be horrible and repugnant. So it appears to me that if there is any truth behind the gospel tale, our joy or despair over the idea of a Jesus saving and condemning the world may blind us to that truth. If we dearly want Jesus to be real, then we will seek any evidence for him while disregarding any evidence against him. Others no doubt are biased in the opposite direction; if we find the gospel tale to be objectionable, then we are much more likely to believe he wasn't the Jesus of the gospels while rejecting any evidence for his "reality."

So yes, I think the figure of Jesus sways our conclusions about him. Although such bias may be an inevitable facet of the human psyche, I think it can be significantly overcome by simply recognizing that we have a bias toward or against the doctrines of Christianity. Once we see that bias for what it is, then we are free to proceed in setting it aside and open our minds to whatever truth there is about Jesus.

Can you set aside your own bias and free your minds to the truth about Jesus if there is any truth at all?

[Divine Insight]

Can you set aside your own bias and free your minds to the truth about Jesus if there is any truth at all?

To being with I can absolutely guarantee that I personally do not have any bias against Christianity. I realize that people who see my posts on this forum today may find that hard to believe. But I am now 68 years old. I wasn't always as confident about that fallacy of Christianity as I am today.

In fact, at one time I was an extreme apologist for Christianity. I made apology after apology in a desperate attempt to try to "save" this religion. At that time in my life my greatest antagonists were not atheists or even non-Christians, but rather my greatest antagonists where actually other Christians who demanded an extremely strict and unforgiving Jesus. A Jesus who supported many of the immoral principles of the Old Testament. After all Jesus is supposed to be the Son of the Old Testament God. That cannot be denied or tossed aside.

If we dearly want Jesus to be real, then we will seek any evidence for him while disregarding any evidence against him.

It goes far deeper than this. Even Christians themselves cannot agree on what Jesus is like. So they not only seek evidence for him, they seek evidence to support that Jesus is the "Jesus" that they prefer to believe in.

So even Christians are in a constant battle with each other trying to support the "Jesus" of their preference.

We create Jesus in our image. We decide what moral values we will support in Jesus' name. And which moral values we will attempt to renounce in Jesus' name.

Just as a quick aside to make this point. Read the content of the following quote box.

An Example not a quote:

Many Christians argue that Jesus brought forth a "New Covenant" making much of the Old Testament laws obsolete. So they refuse to embrace the idea that Jesus supported the obviously immoral directives that the God of the Old Testament had decreed. In this way they make every attempt to replace Yahweh with Jesus entirely.

However, other Christians argue that Jesus himself decreed that he had not come to change the laws and that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass. So these Christians use Jesus to support moral principles taught in the Old Testament as decreed by Yahweh.

So even within Christendom there is much disagreement over what Jesus even represents or stands for. So it's not just a question of whether or not Jesus existed as the "Son of God", but even if we embrace that idea we are still stuck with a huge divide concerning how much Jesus actually supported the directives and commandments of the original God.

Others no doubt are biased in the opposite direction; if we find the gospel tale to be objectionable, then we are much more likely to believe he wasn't the Jesus of the gospels while rejecting any evidence for his "reality."

Well, as I pointed out above, this can't just be reduced to the Gospels. Jesus was supposed to be the Son of Yahweh. So we can't just look at the New Testament alone. We need to look at the entire religious canon.

Also, this has nothing to do with the "reality" of some preacher named Jesus.

The question is whether or not this preacher was the Son of Yahweh. And that requires that we believe in Yahweh FIRST, not Jesus.

I have come to reject this religion mainly because Yahweh makes no sense. Not because of anything Jesus might have taught. Although I have to say that there are problems existing in that area too.

And like I say, this has absolutely nothing to do with being biased. I can guarantee this. I had bent over backwards to unbelievable extremes in an effort to try to justify this religion. I openly confess that doing so was never easy, and never even truly compelling to myself. I always knew that I was necessarily hiding or suppressing truths about the Bible in any effort to support it. And I confess that this bothered me. That really shouldn't be necessary.

One day I finally came to the realization that there really is no reason to continually defend this indefensible religion. After all, what was my motivation to do so? It dawned on me that my main reason wasn't because I personally needed to believe in this religion, but rather my motivation was actually coming from a subconscious guilt that had been brainwashed into my mind. In short, I was desperately trying to support this religion simply because the religion proclaims that to deny it is certain condemnation.

Once I realized that there truly is no decent rational or sane reason to continue to defend this indefensible religion I was finally able to let it go. And that was indeed a beautiful thing to be sure.

What a terrible religion it is. Seriously.

I mean think about it. Even at it's very best it has us branded as unworthy of God to the point where God had to have his only begotten Son brutally butchered on a pole to pay for our hatred of all that is good and our love of evil. And if we accept this crucifixion of God's Son on our behalf we can be allowed into a paradise that we don't even deserve.

What?

That's disgusting even if it was true!

This religion is the most depressing religion in the world, even if it's true.

All this religion says is that we aren't worthy of eternal life in paradise, but if we accept that God gave his only begotten Son to be brutally crucified on our behalf we will be allowed in anyway.

I think I would rather be cast into the lake of fire if this religion was true anyway.

Seriously. What a depressing religion overall if you really stop and think about it.

You might call that "bias". But for me it's a very well-thought-out conclusion that took me decades to finally realize.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

To being with I can absolutely guarantee that I personally do not have any bias against Christianity. I realize that people who see my posts on this forum today may find that hard to believe.

With all due respect, I do find it hard to believe that you have no bias against (or for) Christianity. It is rare for anybody who is familiar with Christianity to be disinterested and dispassionate about it.

I do admit that I have a bias against Christianity. It's a horrible, unjust, and frightening religion. It appalls and scares me. I often catch myself wanting to agree with Christianity's detractors. It's also common for me to find myself shoring up my defenses against Christianity's apologists. I tend to think of apologists as fools and deceivers before they even open their mouths. I think it's good that I see this bias of mine and make a conscious effort to overcome it. I ask myself if what skeptics are saying really seems factual and logical, and I ask if what apologists say has some truth to it. In so doing I hope I'm more likely to know the truth of the matter. What good will it do me to disregard any facts and believe falsehoods?

In fact, at one time I was an extreme apologist for Christianity. I made apology after apology in a desperate attempt to try to "save" this religion. At that time in my life my greatest antagonists were not atheists or even non-Christians, but rather my greatest antagonists where actually other Christians who demanded an extremely strict and unforgiving Jesus. A Jesus who supported many of the immoral principles of the Old Testament. After all Jesus is supposed to be the Son of the Old Testament God. That cannot be denied or tossed aside.

I had a very similar experience with Christianity. I think it's good that I initially had a very strong bias for Christian beliefs. That way I can see myself as overcoming that bias and thinking more objectively.

I have come to reject this religion mainly because Yahweh makes no sense.

I finally overcame my Christian bias when I realized that it makes no sense for a "perfect" being like Yahweh to have authored an imperfect book like the Bible. It's full of outlandish nonsense from beginning to end. Aside from some literary value, the Bible has little to offer us.

[Divine Insight]

With all due respect, I do find it hard to believe that you have no bias against (or for) Christianity. It is rare for anybody who is familiar with Christianity to be disinterested and dispassionate about it.

What you might believe is irrelevant.

I do admit that I have a bias against Christianity. It's a horrible, unjust, and frightening religion. It appalls and scares me. I often catch myself wanting to agree with Christianity's detractors.

To recognize that something is horrible, unjust, and frightening is hardly a "bias".

A bias would be to insist that these things are true about the religion when there isn't and evidence to back up that view. But clearly there is plenty of evidence to back up the view you have just expressed because many people also agree with this view.

So you can hardly call it "bias" to recognize TRUTH.

It's also common for me to find myself shoring up my defenses against Christianity's apologists. I tend to think of apologists as fools and deceivers before they even open their mouths. I think it's good that I see this bias of mine and make a conscious effort to overcome it. I ask myself if what skeptics are saying really seems factual and logical, and I ask if what apologists say has some truth to it. In so doing I hope I'm more likely to know the truth of the matter. What good will it do me to disregard any facts and believe falsehoods?

Other than your bias to think that apologists are fools and deceivers I agree with your point here. Distinguishing between fact and falsehoods should be your only goal. No need for any bias in that quest.

In fact, at one time I was an extreme apologist for Christianity. I made apology after apology in a desperate attempt to try to "save" this religion. At that time in my life my greatest antagonists were not atheists or even non-Christians, but rather my greatest antagonists where actually other Christians who demanded an extremely strict and unforgiving Jesus. A Jesus who supported many of the immoral principles of the Old Testament. After all Jesus is supposed to be the Son of the Old Testament God. That cannot be denied or tossed aside.

I had a very similar experience with Christianity. I think it's good that I initially had a very strong bias for Christian beliefs. That way I can see myself as overcoming that bias and thinking more objectively.

Yes, it's true that when I was a Christian apologist I most certainly was biased in favor of supporting and defending the religion rather than seeking truth. It wasn't until I started to realize the truth that I finally recognize that this religion cannot possibly be true. And that was not a conclusion that I came to because of bias. To the contrary, that was a conclusion that was forced upon me by the facts.

However, I think its fair to point out that after having realized the religion is necessarily false, it's hard for me to understand how I could have ever thought it was true. Obviously, the reason in my case is that I was born into the religion, raised through my entire childhood being taught that it was true, and so I tended to believe the adults. I now realized that those adults had no clue of what is true or isn't true. In fact, I actually obtained confessions from them later in life that they don't know and that they too only believe on faith because it's what they were taught to do.

Also doesn't faith = bias? If someone believes in something on faith, all that means is that they have chosen to be biased in favor of believing in something.

Therefore faith = bias.

I have come to reject this religion mainly because Yahweh makes no sense.

I finally overcame my Christian bias when I realized that it makes no sense for a "perfect" being like Yahweh to have authored an imperfect book like the Bible. It's full of outlandish nonsense from beginning to end. Aside from some literary value, the Bible has little to offer us.

See? That conclusion is not a biased conclusion. It a conclusion based on rational logical reasoning.

So would you say that your conclusion above is then "biased"?

I wouldn't.

And if your conclusion is not biased, then why should you think that other people's conclusions must be biased?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

What you might believe is irrelevant.

You are exhibiting bias right here. You reject my belief while holding on to your own belief as relevant. That's bias, my friend. Please don't see it as a put down on my part. I'm just trying to get you to see that we all have a bias, yourself included.

To recognize that something is horrible, unjust, and frightening is hardly a "bias".

I'm afraid it is a bias. I was expressing my preference away from Christianity because I find it to be "horrible." That's my opinion. Opinions are rooted in bias.

So you can hardly call it "bias" to recognize TRUTH.

Bias and truth are not mutually exclusive because bias can as easily direct you toward truth as direct you away from it.

Distinguishing between fact and falsehoods should be your only goal. No need for any bias in that quest.

I have a bias toward education. I like acquiring knowledge. My bias I hope is a big help in my finding "facts" if there are facts. In that respect my bias is a good tool to discovery.

And that was not a conclusion that I came to because of bias. To the contrary, that was a conclusion that was forced upon me by the facts.

I'd recommend against this kind of fundamentalist thinking. Fundamentalists are very sure they have the "facts" and cannot be persuaded otherwise regardless of the evidence. I think it's best to keep an open mind to any and all evidence--including evidence for Christianity. None of us are perfect, and therefore we can be wrong no matter how sure that we are right.

Also doesn't faith = bias? If someone believes in something on faith, all that means is that they have chosen to be biased in favor of believing in something.

Yes, I think faith is a kind of bias in that it may result from a preference to believe what one likes to believe. I think we all tend to be that way to some degree.

See? That conclusion is not a biased conclusion. It a conclusion based on rational logical reasoning.

Again, reason and bias are not mutually exclusive. My leaving the faith might be said to be my bias toward what I see as good logic.

So would you say that your conclusion above is then "biased"?

Yes, to some extent it was biased. I had a very emotional as well as logical experience when I left the faith. It's not impossible that if I had reacted differently to Christianity from an emotional standpoint, then I might still be a Christian! Ultimately I preferred to leave religion and try to base my thinking on what I hoped was good reason. I like reason. That's a bias as much as hating reason is a bias.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

What you might believe is irrelevant.

You are exhibiting bias right here. You reject my belief while holding on to your own belief as relevant. That's bias, my friend. Please don't see it as a put down on my part. I'm just trying to get you to see that we all have a bias, yourself included.

No, not at all. You had expressed an opinion on what you find "hard to believe".

What I stand by when it comes to Christianity is based on what logic mandates. So it's not just my opinion. And therefore we aren't talking about bias here.

To recognize that something is horrible, unjust, and frightening is hardly a "bias".

I'm afraid it is a bias. I was expressing my preference away from Christianity because I find it to be "horrible." That's my opinion. Opinions are rooted in bias.

No, Christianity is demonstrably "horrible" based on its own claims. Christianity claims that all humans are addicted to sin and unable to free themselves from this addiction. That is a horrible situation to be in.

It is further claimed that they will be condemned to death, or far worse. That's certainly a "horrible" situation to be in by anyone's standards.

And their only hope is for their Creator God to sacrifice his only begotten Son to a brutal crucifixion on their behalf in order to offer them undeserved amnesty. Surely that is also a horrible situation.

I can't imagine how anyone could argue that Christianity isn't a horrible situation. At the very best all they could do is argue that humans are the ones who are responsible for having gotten themselves into this horrible situation. But that doesn't help much as they would still need to concede that it's a horrible situation no matter what.

So you can hardly call it "bias" to recognize TRUTH.

Bias and truth are not mutually exclusive because bias can as easily direct you toward truth as direct you away from it.

It's irrelevant where bias might 'lead' you. All I said is that it can hardly be called 'bias' to recognize TRUTH.

Distinguishing between fact and falsehoods should be your only goal. No need for any bias in that quest.

I have a bias toward education. I like acquiring knowledge. My bias I hope is a big help in my finding "facts" if there are facts. In that respect my bias is a good tool to discovery.

I wouldn't call that bias. I would simply call that intelligence. After all, one of the main arguments humans give for being far superior to animals is because we are clearly far more intelligent than they are. Therefore humans SHOULD BE intelligent.

It's intelligent to seek "education" (which is the same as seeking TRUTH). However, you do need to be careful about acquiring "knowledge" because some teachers will tell you things that aren't true. Especially religious teachers. False knowledge is not worthy education. That's not leading you to truth.

And that was not a conclusion that I came to because of bias. To the contrary, that was a conclusion that was forced upon me by the facts.

I'd recommend against this kind of fundamentalist thinking. Fundamentalists are very sure they have the "facts" and cannot be persuaded otherwise regardless of the evidence. I think it's best to keep an open mind to any and all evidence--including evidence for Christianity. None of us are perfect, and therefore we can be wrong no matter how sure that we are right.

I couldn't be more open to any evidence that can support Christianity. I've been debating Christianity with theists for many decades and none of them have been able to produce any evidence for their claims of any supernatural or divine connection with this religion. To the contrary, their arguments fail miserably. They have absolutely zero evidence.

Yet, during that same period of time I have discovered overwhelming evidence for why this religion cannot possibly be true. Therefore there isn't even any room for bias on my behalf, unless I want to totally reject the facts.

Also doesn't faith = bias? If someone believes in something on faith, all that means is that they have chosen to be biased in favor of believing in something.

Yes, I think faith is a kind of bias in that it may result from a preference to believe what one likes to believe. I think we all tend to be that way to some degree.

I have no preference to believe in a purely materialistic world. I have no preference to even be an atheist. In fact, I would actually prefer for the world to turn out to be mystical and magical with some type of higher entity or entities in charge. Especially if they are righteous.

In fact, I feel quite confident that if there is a righteous entity behind reality then I'm in great shape.

The only way I could be in trouble is if the creator of this reality is itself demonic and untrustworthy.

So I have every reason (and 'bias') to WANT to believe in a righteous creator of reality.

So my preference would be for religion to be TRUE.

Of course, I must also confess that I would much rather something like Buddhism is true than Christianity. I see no point in pretending that I would want Christianity to be true anymore than I would want the Satan of Christianity to be our creator.

See? That conclusion is not a biased conclusion. It a conclusion based on rational logical reasoning.

Again, reason and bias are not mutually exclusive. My leaving the faith might be said to be my bias toward what I see as good logic.

It's not 'bias' to intellectually recognize that sound reasoning is more likely to be true than superstitious tales of angry invisible Gods written by a clearly unethical society who claimed that the creator of reality favored them.

I mean seriously. Let's recognize the difference between being 'biased' and simply being ignorant. It's not biased to go with sound verified information as opposed to buying into self-contradictory fables that can easily be shown to be necessarily false.

So would you say that your conclusion above is then "biased"?

Yes, to some extent it was biased. I had a very emotional as well as logical experience when I left the faith. It's not impossible that if I had reacted differently to Christianity from an emotional standpoint, then I might still be a Christian! Ultimately I preferred to leave religion and try to base my thinking on what I hoped was good reason. I like reason. That's a bias as much as hating reason is a bias.

Ok, but there may be more to this than you might at first realize.

To begin with let me ask you this:

When you left Christianity did you see this as meaning that there is no God then?

If so, then this could easily be the cause of your emotional reaction. Or at least part of that cause.

You see, when I came to the realization that Christianity was necessarily a false religion I didn't automatically conclude that this must then mean there is no God. After all, just because a religion is wrong doesn't mean that there can't be a God.

Think about:

The Christians don't believe in Allah. The God of Islam. Yet they still have no problem believing that Yahweh is God. The Christians also no doubt have rejected that Zeus was God. But again, this doesn't cause them to become atheists because they can simply turn to Christianity for their "God".

In fact, all religious people are atheists with respect to the Gods of the religions they don't believe in.

When I realized that Christianity was necessarily false, I didn't become an atheist. In fact, I continued to believe in a supernatural "God". I just realized that the Hebrews weren't describing the "Real God". In other words, the Abrahamic religions have it all wrong. But that doesn't mean there can't be a "God".

And notice that I keep putting "God" in quotation marks. This is because I'm not even sure if that's the right term to use. What I'm really talking about here is a possible essence to reality that simply transcends our physical temporary existence. We might actually be this thing we call "God".

In fact, after I realized that Christianity (and all the Abrahamic religions) were false I didn't give up on the possibility of a mystical essence to reality. So I looked around to see if there were any "better" religions. By "better", I simply mean more self-consistent. More believable. And sure if any of them could produce evidence that would even be better yet.

Well, what I found is that there are "better" religions. There are actually quite many of them. I often use Buddhism as an example, but even Buddhism has sects and versions that get a bit ridiculous. But in some versions Buddhism actually makes a lot of sense without any self-contradictions. This of course doesn't mean that it's true. Even Buddhism has no evidence for the mystical beliefs it proposes.

None the less, it shows that men can create a religion that at least doesn't contradict itself.

You might wonder then why I don't believe in Buddhism since I had already said that my "bias" is to WANT for a mystical magical essence of reality.

Well, the TRUTH is that I have since come to realize that I would rather know what's true. I don't know that Buddhism is true. And even though it doesn't contradict itself there are still many reasons to question this proposed paradigm of reality.

Keep in mind that Solipsism is not self-contradictory either, nor can it be shown to be false. Of course, it can't be shown to be true either. But I'm just pointing out that just because something can't be shown to be false doesn't automatically make it true.

So what do I do? I become an Agnostic.

This simply means that I do not have sufficient information to answer the question of the true nature of our reality. That's all it means. Period.

Is that 'bias'? No, it's just facing the TRUTH head on.

In fact, if any God actually exists and I wanted to be truthful to that God I would need to confess to the God itself that I have no reason to believe it exists. To make any other claim would be a lie.

And of course if it turns out to be the God described in the Bible, then once again, if I want to be TRUTHFUL to this God I would need to openly confess that as far as I can see based on what's in the Bible this God is neither intelligent, nor righteous.

The God himself would need to explain to me why I got that all wrong.

But for me to do anything less than this would be dishonest.

So, anything I post on these forums concerning the Biblical God I would definitely say to that God himself. Including that as far as I can see, based on what's in the Bible, it is impossible for this God to be intelligent, trustworthy, righteous and loving.

It would be up to him to demonstrate to me why I have so grossly misunderstood his book.

So there is no 'bias' on my part.

I'm simply following the evidence where it leads.

So the conclusions I am forced to come to are pushed onto me by the facts. They don't reflect my "beliefs". In fact, when it comes to the true nature of reality I have no "beliefs" at all. This is why I openly confess to being agnostic.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

To being with I can absolutely guarantee that I personally do not have any bias against Christianity. I realize that people who see my posts on this forum today may find that hard to believe.

With all due respect, I do find it hard to believe that you have no bias against (or for) Christianity. It is rare for anybody who is familiar with Christianity to be disinterested and dispassionate about it.

I do admit that I have a bias against Christianity. It's a horrible, unjust, and frightening religion. It appalls and scares me.

Bias flourishes in cases which we view as things to be 'for' or 'against.' Many people genuinely are disinterested in Christianity. Others are interested, but don't adopt such a simple binary approach.

Consider powerful countries as a comparison example; those who belong to a given country might have a bias towards them, and others who feel victimized or disillusioned by those countries might have a bias against them. But for most of the rest of the world, it's utterly pointless to imagine ourselves being 'for' or 'against' China or Britain or the United States. Even though each of these entities has killed more people in the past century than any religion, calling them horrible, apalling etc. is obviously pointless, little more than emotional self-gratification. They're not going anywhere not matter what we think. So the sensible question is simply how to work with those countries and how to encourage the people within them to work towards a hopefully better future; how to play towards strengths and shore up weaknesses. And that is an approach which encourages equal consideration of both those strengths and those weaknesses, rather than fixating solely on the negative.

To greater or lesser extents the same can be said of virtually any other country, and of economic and political systems too. For some people merely mentioning 'the left' or 'the right' seems to be like a red flag to a rabid bull; but the only likely result of such binary thinking and consequent knee-jerk hostility is to encourage reciprocal hostility in defence, which obviously becomes a vicious ellipsoid. But again, neither 'the right' nor 'the left' are ever going to disappear, so the sensible approach is to focus on the good at least as much as the perceived bad, looking for common ground and finding ways to work together.

I guess some folk do think that the non-existence of the USA is a feasible endgame, or the non-existence of different political ideas is a possible future, or that either the conversion of all infidels or the de-conversion of all faithful is bound to happen sometime

But I think that if and when we recognize that this is nothing more than wishful thinking at best - and a horrific dystopia whenever any efforts are actually made to realize those dreams - then we can move past the simplistic notion of a religion being something to be 'for' or 'against' and hence largely eliminate what bias is all about.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

What I stand by when it comes to Christianity is based on what logic mandates. So it's not just my opinion. And therefore we aren't talking about bias here.

Again, logic and bias are not mutually exclusive. People can and do make use of logic to discredit Christianity and to authenticate Christianity. The reason for this split between believers and unbelievers is bias on both sides. Some people find the idea of Christian salvation to be repugnant, and others love it. Your bias to a large extent will establish which side you choose. Once that choice is made, you can and probably will find reasons to hold that position.

No, Christianity is demonstrably "horrible" based on its own claims. Christianity claims that all humans are addicted to sin and unable to free themselves from this addiction. That is a horrible situation to be in.

With all due respect, you are not demonstrating that Christianity is horrible but are merely explaining why you find it to be horrible. No doubt some people might find the idea of sin to be attractive. This judgment is very subjective, and again, results form the inherent bias we all have.

I can't imagine how anyone could argue that Christianity isn't a horrible situation.

You don't need to imagine. People can and do argue that Christianity isn't horrible. We might disagree with them, but the fact remains that some people can can argue that Christianity is good. What would you call this attitude if not bias?

All I said is that it can hardly be called 'bias' to recognize TRUTH.

Yes, but what we believe to be true depends to a great degree on our biases. If you are a black supremacist, for example, then you're likely to predict that a black boxer will defeat his white opponent because you have a bias against white people.

I wouldn't call that bias. I would simply call that intelligence.

It's both bias and intelligence, in my opinion. Intelligence and bias are not mutually exclusive.

I have no preference to believe in a purely materialistic world. I have no preference to even be an atheist. In fact, I would actually prefer for the world to turn out to be mystical and magical with some type of higher entity or entities in charge. Especially if they are righteous.

In fact, I feel quite confident that if there is a righteous entity behind reality then I'm in great shape.

In that case you have overcome a bias for Christianity. It is possible to overcome a bias.

Again, I'd ask you to recognize a bias that's very obvious to me. Once you recognize it, then you are more likely to open your mind to what you see as "horrible."

[Divine Insight]

Again, logic and bias are not mutually exclusive. People can and do make use of logic to discredit Christianity and to authenticate Christianity.

This is false. There is no logic that can authenticate Christianity. The so-called "logic" that is used to support Christianity is always grossly flawed and can be demonstrated to be so.

No, Christianity is demonstrably "horrible" based on its own claims. Christianity claims that all humans are addicted to sin and unable to free themselves from this addiction. That is a horrible situation to be in.

With all due respect, you are not demonstrating that Christianity is horrible but are merely explaining why you find it to be horrible. No doubt some people might find the idea of sin to be attractive. This judgment is very subjective, and again, results form the inherent bias we all have.

And this is one of those grossly flawed arguments. If a person finds sin to be attractive then they would be in disagreement with the God of Christianity anyway. Therefore the only people who can make this argument would be people who take the position of the Christian Satan.

I can't imagine how anyone could argue that Christianity isn't a horrible situation.

You don't need to imagine. People can and do argue that Christianity isn't horrible. We might disagree with them, but the fact remains that some people can can argue that Christianity is good. What would you call this attitude if not bias?

It's based on extremely poor logic. The people who make this argument have accepted absurd premises without seriously thinking them through.

After all, if a person is addicted to sin and finds it "Good" that God will save them from this addition has failed to recognize that this God has placed them in this predicament in the first place. So they aren't thinking things through clearly if they see that as a "Good" situation to be in.

All I said is that it can hardly be called 'bias' to recognize TRUTH.

Yes, but what we believe to be true depends to a great degree on our biases. If you are a black supremacist, for example, then you're likely to predict that a black boxer will defeat his white opponent because you have a bias against white people.

And when you are wrong do you then confess that you based your bet on bias instead of on truth?

You seem to fail to realize that if there were any TRUTH to this proposition then no white boxer could EVER win a boxing match against a black boxer. Is that the truth of reality? If not, then clearly we aren't talking about TRUTH but instead we're talking about pure unwarranted bias.

I wouldn't call that bias. I would simply call that intelligence.

It's both bias and intelligence, in my opinion. Intelligence and bias are not mutually exclusive.

They can be mutually exclusive if a person can actually see the truth but instead continues to cling to their biases in spite of the truth.

I have no preference to believe in a purely materialistic world. I have no preference to even be an atheist. In fact, I would actually prefer for the world to turn out to be mystical and magical with some type of higher entity or entities in charge. Especially if they are righteous.

In fact, I feel quite confident that if there is a righteous entity behind reality then I'm in great shape.

In that case you have overcome a bias for Christianity. It is possible to overcome a bias.

Absolutely, it is possible to overcome biases.

Again, I'd ask you to recognize a bias that's very obvious to me. Once you recognize it, then you are more likely to open your mind to what you see as "horrible."

Christians agree that the situation we are in is "horrible". This is why they claim that it is "Good News" that we can supposedly be freed from this "horrible" situation.

Apparently they are so blinded by this promise of "Good News" that they seem to have totally forgotten about the fact that there would be no need for any "Good News" if they hadn't first believed the "Bad News".

When an evangelists comes preaching to you do they EVER ask you to accept Yahweh as your condemner?

No they NEVER do that.

Instead they ask you to accept Jesus as your savior. They act like the condemnation is automatic and has little to nothing to do with it. But without the condemnation there would be nothing to be "saved" from.

So Christians are the ones who are extremely biased to only looking at being "saved" and never really thinking about the "bad news" that they supposedly deserved to be damned in the first place.

Surely being in a situation where you deserve to be damned is a "horrible" situation to be in.

How could deny that?

And in Christianity you must FIRST believe in his horror, before it can even begin to make sense that you would need to be 'saved' from this horrible situation.

So Christianity is founded on horror. Let there be no mistake about that.

[tam]

[Replying to post 1 by Jagella]

Peace to you!


I am a little confused about the OP.

I'll start with this quote:

So yes, I think the figure of Jesus sways our conclusions about him.

So I have to ask...

What else could sway our conclusions about Christ? If you want to know the truth about someone, how else do you find out that truth except by looking at and listening to the person, themselves?


**


Second part I am confused about... though I think this might show a bias (not sure if that is the right description) on both yours and DI's behalf.

You begin by asking if we can overcome our bias about "Jesus", and then you each start speaking about Christianity and its doctrines, as if Christ and Christianity (the religion and all of its many doctrines) are the same thing.

They are not the same thing.


But I'm not sure that is a bias more than it is a deeply ingrained teaching that has gone unquestioned and untested.



**

This, however, seems like it might be a bias (and since you admit to having them, I am merely suggesting that this is one you have yet to recognize):

He was on a mission from God to establish God's kingdom and save all those who repent and believe what he said. All others would suffer eternal torment in a lake of fire. Jesus then separated all of us into the "sheep" and the "goats," respectively. There is no middle ground. You are "with him or against him."

There is a verse where Christ states, "He who is not with me is against me."

But there is another verse where He states, "He who is not against you is for you."

Both can be true depending upon the circumstance, but to focus on the one statement and ignore other statement (if you were aware of that statement)... that might show a bias, right? That you are looking for division (perhaps because those were the eyes you were taught by men and religion to see with), and so that is what you found?

(And even in your second opening paragraph, you show three groups. Those who embrace the gospel, those who disregard it, and those who fight against it.)

Regardless, the OP statement about the sheep and the goats is incorrect. The sheep are not Christians. The sheep and the goats are people of the nations (from whatever religion or NO religion, including atheists and agnostics, etc). The sheep are invited into the Kingdom - (the goats cast out) - because of how they treated even a least one of Christ's brothers (as whatever they did to even a least one of His brothers, they did to Him), unknowingly. They do this because the law (of love) is written upon their hearts, and so they do NATURALLY the requirements of that law.

Post 877 from this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=22894&postdays=0&postor ... &start=870


**

As for the question up for debate:

Can you set aside your own bias and free your minds to the truth about Jesus if there is any truth at all?

Yes. You can. Start by tearing everything down to the foundation stone: Christ. Tear down everything that men (and Christianity) have taught about Him and start from scratch, from Christ, Himself. Then build back up upon Him... or rather, let Him build your house back up, piece by piece, upon Him.


So that you look at Him, listen to Him, in order to know Him.

I personally needed His help to overcome some preconceived notions, and I did not even have much in the way of preconceived notions and indoctrination from men to begin with. I was never a member of any religion or denomination.


I can imagine how much harder that would be for someone raised in a particular denomination; those doctrines can be so deeply ingrained. That is why it is so important to tear them all down... and just look to Christ to build you back up, upon Him, upon Truth.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy