What if God is real but he doesn't reveal himself to atheists because they don't believe in him?

i was a believer, now im not. gods never revealed itself to me.

what does it mean to believe in something which you don't know?

if believing in god without knowing he's real is a vritue then so is believing in every piece of buillshit you can conceive of.

you are supposed to see a justification for a belief before you hold it true, even shitty Plato knew this one

Can confirm this is not true

But here's some food for thought---

1 Kings 19:11-13

11 And he said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:

12 And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

13 And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

Man created god

According to who

What if you killed yourself?

Arian

Jesus was a divine android

but the devil was ios

Jesus isn't really considering her sentimentality for that particular doll in that picture. Children would certainly forgo a bigger doll for their doll.

What if God is real but he is malevolent?
And when you die everyone goes to hell regardless of their life on earth.
Mortal religions are just a way to trick humans who get their hopes up, only to be driven into greater despair once they find out their religion was false and they wasted their lives.

>What if God is real but he is malevolent?

What if there are multiple Gods, the good God and the bad God are constantly balancing each other out and the world goes to shit when either of them get the upper hand, resulting in an eventual restabilization, and later on another destabilization?

What if I killed myself?

>jesus giving a little girl a teddy bear

cool chain email grandma
i'll forward it to 5 friends right away

The bigger gift isn't revealed to her. OP's image portrays that she's essentially blind to the truth and holding onto something less significant. It's kind of a parable how people are afraid to let go of the tangible for the broader truths that can't be seen with out Christ.

Kinda like how dimensions work, we can't see anything in a higher dimension because there's not enough space for us to see it. God though, Christ, they teach of things that we can both see and not see. They teach tangible truths and truths about things of the spirit, which we can't see. OP's image refers to that which we can't see.

2 Corinthians 4:18
So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

Unseen = Things of the Spirit

A better analogy would be instead of a physically incarnate Christ offering to replace the bear, it should be a preacher telling the girl to sacrifice the bear, and he promises an infinitly large replacement bear after she dies, without depicting with any certainty if what the preacher says is true or not.

That would better illustrate the psychological situation.

and then there's people like me that tried to believe and couldn't. there is no gift to be recieved, I've already held my arms wide open for Christ

This kind of reasoning is tantamount to saying "for it to be made apparent to you, you have to agree with it." Which basically means you have to be seeking out a higher power. I don't know about you, but a truth that can't convince someone of an opposing opinion on its own merits isn't much of a truth.

Lol nah..

The entire testimony of Christ and his teachings are there for anyone to read. But the general message, the general teaching being passed on, is one that releases the anxieties of life. The worry about wealth, food, and image just to name a few. With the release of these, so goes the bondage of life and so goes the over consumption, through greed, lust, gluttony, which are all related at the foundation and impact people in more ways than just money, sex, and over consumption of food. You could have greed generally, seeking more of anything than you need, it could be out of spite or vanity or any other evil etc etc. It doesn't only apply to money etc etc The focal teaching of Christ though, which is love for your neighbor, it quells the flesh's desire for more. I mean the more you examine the teachings, the more you'll see, so I'm not even bringing Christ's teachings justice just from this description, simply because there's plenty more that can be said about what there is to learn from His teachings.

Heaven though, the unseen, the hidden bigger teddy bear so to speak, that's just a perk. The truth LEADS to that, but no...the teachings are not about dangling a carrot so to speak in order to get people to behave. The carrot being the bigger teddy bear or rewards of Heaven. That's only what people assume because they either don't understand what they're reading or just automatically assuming that's what is being taught out their arrogance in thinking they just automatically "get it" without even doing the math.

I'm saying that the OP image "cheats" by equating a physically obvious Christ with the real-life religious belief with cannot be proven.

Then you never believed to begin with user. It's constant user, not a "do this for me and I'll do this for you" relationship. It's unconditional in nature.

You put conditions on it and the moment those conditions are not met, you're building a wall and not allowing Him to work, without even knowing you're building a wall and not allowing Him to work.

It is disconcerting how much faith is needed on our part to be honest, it what scares me personally. Makes me scared for myself and others. But as with anything in life, we have our part. We always have our part.

You know....I take that back, what is disconcerting is how hidden God and Christ is from us. To be in the dark like that, that darkness is the source of confusion and lack of knowledge. In the dark "anything could be possible...there could be many gods...it could all mean nothing...yolo so go out in a bang"- When a life of discipline and love is what truly helps not only others but yourself as well. As Christ taught.

If you are "disconcerted" and actually scared by the amount of self-hypnosis is needed to maintain your faith, why are you condemning him for "building a wall" against the force of religious conversion? By your own account it should be quite natural to not believe due to not reaching a faith threshold.

Of course this wouldn't be a problem for any religion except so often they claim the domain of morality as exclusive, so then you get the blame the victim game.

See that's it though, there's no forcing anything. The conditions that require the search is what's so disconcerting. Being unaware and being susceptible to being shaped by other people who are unaware, essentially being raised by the world who doesn't even know. That's what's disconcerting. How hidden truth is. How difficult self control can be, even after being told their benefits. As for the understanding from the teachings though, they're exactly that, obvious and an understanding. I already stated how having conditions in anything disallow progression. Not just in faith but with everything in life. If you put conditions before anything and conditions aren't met, you're going to have to utilize "self hypnoses" and various other fights to get over walls. The only way that can be considered as "blaming the vicitim" is if one is offended and hurt by pointing that out. And I'm pretty sure that's the ill benefits of the victim mentality in general, constantly offended, even in correction. The victim mentality is a source cause for depression itself.

Not only all that, but you're also you're inaccurate in your accusations. Meither me or someone else was forcing anything upon him. He simply stated that he opened his arms to Christ and got nothing from it, so he seized to believe. You really can't just go around throwing accusations and baseless claims, I mean it's counter productive.

>girl has an emotional bond with her teddy
>jesus thinks she will prefer his one just cause it's bigger

is this a metaphor for penis or something?

It's an offering of something better that can only be received by faith in there being something better.

It's about salvation, not cannolis user

Respond to this image.

Or even worse, they go to Heaven, where God can sit there and torture them all he wants, and no one will be the wiser. Maybe John's visit to Heaven in the book of Revelation was more of a potemkin village situation.

If she had a gun she could shoot Jesus and take the big bear.

Some monks are smart indeed and used decades of their lives to literally research everything there is to be researched on the subject and mainly find answers or complete older obviously incomplete ones...

But problem is all the answers are built up from the premise that Jesus literally rose up from dead and he is God.

They also assume the creation myths were literally true - so Adam and Eve existed and that's the cause of death.... there are lots of errors.

And why is it specifically framed in an action-reward way? Don't you think that kind of exposes the human origins of Christianity and Abrahamic religion in general?

Yeshua does literally rise up from the dead, and is God, however is one part of God. The Trinity is but one aspect of the Complete Whole of God.

See it isn't about going to church to hear Christ came back alive 2000 years ago, it is about experiencing the Living Spirit of The Christ in the now. It is not different than Buddhist monks who believe in the Dharmakaya of Sakyamuni Buddha.

Even to assume that they all have the same idea of the Creation Story is only a biased presumption based off of an opinion. What they know outside the "take it completely literal" box is significantly more intelligent than what we are taught by the "church officials" (Pharisees) and "historical scholars" (Scribes)

You are assuming that you are able, competent, and willing to understand and accept such conviction. I tend to doubt that. Also, I fail to see what a GUT has to do with the above statement. Seems like fedora-tipping failue to understand categories, as usual.

>Yeshua does literally rise up from the dead, and is God, however is one part of God. The Trinity is but one aspect of the Complete Whole of God.

No, that's your belief, not a fact

The Trinity is a concept that you give credibility only trough faith.

You can not test Trinity you just have to believe in it, because other church fathers told you to believe it is so and not the other way around.

That's how arguments are constructed in the early church, and looong interesting stories are built after that - but they start from a irrational assumption with no base on reality or literal proof.

Jesus as the Jewish Messiah failed badly - Christians rationalized the events saying ... that there would be a second coming where the dead will rise up.

But alongside that, the church also developed a new religion - and entirely new and independent way of interpreting God... Christ being the embodiment of literal God and the meaning of that and the effects in our lives can be only learned from the church - otherwise there is no way for you to know that.... you see the problems all this arise?

So the long bearded monks that say science of the world is satanic and lead to eternal damnation are more competent?

Yea just throw random comments in form of insults and you surely won the argument.

Problem is we are all anonymous here so in real life I could just label you as stupid, but now I have to be more cautious with every Christian at least in this environment.

This would make everything only belief and no fact. You could show me documents upon documents of a historical figure existing and I can say "only because you believe it to be true doesn't make it a fact"

Even Pythagoras didn't "exist" because of the "lack of evidence" but the records show Christ Yeshua and Pythagoras did exist, even though they are less accounted for mysteriously after their death for some odd reason.

You can believe it is my belief, not here to argue with you or convert you.

The Trinity is also credible through rationalization. The Father is the Creation, not just of the Earth, not just the literal Creation story of the Bible. The Father is the Original Substance of Creation, while the Son, Christ Yeshua, the prophesied Messiah, is the Word of God, the Logos, where God manifests Himself directly through humanity to impart Wisdom and Eternal Life. The Holy Spirit, needs not to be defined but experienced for the Spirit is above all definition.

The "church father" do not teach you the Trinity, but they tell you words upon words about it, but never show you a direct path to experience it.

>you see the problems all this arise
No, I don't because those church people are not me, and the words they preach are not me. Their disputes are not me, and their war against each other are not me. Their true blasphemy is condemning each other, and is not me.

I am myself. You are yourself. You control your own being, rather than let arguments of other people influence your opinion

>This would make everything only belief and no fact.

No, that would make it a fallible piece of knowledge. I have no guarantee that Pythagoras' existence is a fiction, but the amount of evidence points firmly toward it being true

>"the amount of evidence points firmly towards it being true"

Exactly, the amount of evidence of the Resurrection of Christ is substantial enough for me to maintain by position. The evidence outside of the church are the most convincing.

> the amount of evidence of the Resurrection of Christ is substantial enough for me to maintain by position

>Exactly, the amount of evidence of the Resurrection of Christ is substantial enough for me to maintain by position.

And not enough for me, or a lot of Christians for that matter. Many Christians view the Resurrection as poetic, not as an actual report. The differences between the four Gospels is a big indication that they may be closer to the truth than literalists like you, along with the complete absence of any evidence for it outside of the Bible

"Man is not responsible for the rightness of his faith but rather the uprightness of his faith."

You believe there is not enough evidence, I believe there is plenty of evidence, it is pretty well known where this conversation will go from here on out.

I will never understand why people believe a human can come from a virgin and die and come back to life after three days, based only on shoddy evidence and apocryphal accounts.

Christians also see the poetic and literal Resurrection and put them together. It is sentimental to believe in one and not the other.

There are no major differences in the four Gospels. There is plenty of evidence outside the Bible and the "church" when you look for it. They have more credibility than the standard views, or at least seem to.

Most atheists used to believe in god before they became atheist, i was a christian and i wanted to believe but i just couldnt make sense of it anymore.

It is more complicated than that. Civilizations were waiting for this Virgin Birth and Saviour to happen, and it did. Then, even as it was happening, they didn't believe it. This is a piece of human natures inability to see what is in front of them because of strongly held bias.

You have to look outside the books

Many Christians used to be atheist before they started to believe in Christ.

The best way to believe in Christ is to follow Him rather than look for Him in a specific denomination of Church that doesn't teach you anything new, but simply follows the processes it does without any change

>Christians also see the poetic and literal Resurrection and put them together.

No, they really don't. You might, but you come across as the typical American-evangelical zealot

>There are no major differences in the four Gospels.

False.

>There is plenty of evidence outside the Bible and the "church" when you look for it.
>when you look for it.

That's not how critical inquiry works. In research, you usually falsify, you almost never verify

>They have more credibility than the standard views, or at least seem to.

Then you should have no problem giving us a few examples

Rationalization is irrelevant, the stories are beautiful but irrelevant for real life or for a "meaning".

We went beyond that, now we photographiate earth from space, have world wide health care and social aid agencies - research programs where we discover the fundamental configuration of the universe and so on...

We live longer, healthier, happier - have more freedom mainly.

We have this scientific method now and mainly rational thinking to develop. W/e was funny and interesting and developed in the thousands of years of intellectual darkness now is irrelevant and only left behind for the archives.

Jesus's brother Isukiri was the one that actually died, Jesus escaped Rome and returned to his Homeland.

First, Jesus's virgin birth account isn't unique. And second, it's a very basic fact that women require insemination to birth children and that when people die, they don't come back. If you actually believed it happened the way you think then you have to explain by what mechanisms such events would be physically possible.

I don't see what's so tough to understand. They believe in magic so the explanation is just 'magic'..

I guess the tough part is accepting that adults in modern society still believe in literal magic.

I don't doubt that there's cases of atheists becoming christians also. the point of that post was to attack the logic of the OP, that atheists just need to attempt belief in order for it to be revealed to them (though I'm not that poster). when christians say this and then say that ex-christians never actually believed and just didn't try hard enough it frustrates me to no end. it reminds me of when Joseph Smith "showed" his golden tablets some people already within his cult. he took them into the woods and opened the box. they saw nothing. he then chastized them for not having enough faith to see them until they finally claimed to see them too

>No, they really don't
Yes they really do. You see how easy it is to call someone wrong just because they have a different opinion than you do. Literal and Poetic your perception of Christians is what is stopping you from seeing the Poetic and Literal Resurrection.

>False.

"False" as in "does not agree with my opinion", please show the major differences in the four Gospels.

Here is an example ouside the church on Ressurection:

>According to Indian spiritual master Meher Baba, when Jesus was crucified, he did not die physically. But, He entered the state of Nirvikalp Samadhi (the I-am-God state without bodily consciousness). On the third day, He again became conscious of his body, and he travelled secretly in disguise eastward with some apostles, most importantly with Bartholomew and Thaddeus, to India. This was called Jesus resurrection. After reaching India, Jesus travelled further east to Rangoon, in Burma, where he remained for some time. He then went north to Kashmir, where he settled. After Jesus's spiritual work was completed, Jesus subsequently dropped his body, and the body was buried by the Two Apostles in Harvan, at Kan Yar, district of Kashmir.[49] This theory of Meher Baba was endorsed by other masters like Swamy Abhedananda, Shankaracharya, etc. Modern Research about the Tomb of Jesus by Nicholas Notovitch, Fida Hasnain, Aziz Kashmiri, James Deardoff, Mantoshe Devji etc. also approve this Gospel.

Just because it isn't canon does not make it more or less true. Actually this makes more sense, that Christ came back alive. Am I saying it is completely accurate? No. Am I saying it is heretical and false because it doesn't agree with the common church go-er? No.

The scientific method is one method. There are millions of other methods more efficient

This is but one example, it is not truth, it is not falsehood, it is not a final answer, because what it does it motivate you to think and research it for yourself

Actually, it isn't my field to explain how someone 2000 years ago go pregnant as a virgin. It is a great wonder the repetition of the virgin birth, how unique it is that it appears again and again throughout ancient times.

It isn't anyone's field to explain such a thing because such a thing doesn't happen, which is my point.

Perhaps God's plan for atheists is to have them not believe for a time in order to eventually reveal to them that they chose not to believe or something crazy like this.

I used to be against Christianity only to see that what I really was against the Church and not Christ and God, but then I realized my battle against the Christianity only made me ignorant. Faith over Religion, not Religion over Faith.

That Smith story reminds me of the Inquisition, where the "true Christians" killed a bunch of people when really they don't follow the teachings of Christ, who also was persecuted in the same way.

>There are millions of other methods more efficient
name one

It is in someone's field to explain it, just not over Veeky Forums.

It does happen though. If it didn't, it would not have kept repeating itself over and over again.

Also, virgin implies without husband/ can mean something different than what our definition in 2016 is So, if you want to believe in everyone else's opinions, you can, but if you want to change your angle on it, you can.

>The scientific method is one method. There are millions of other methods more efficient
I'm not a STEMfag but christ this is retarded. there is no better method for doing what science is made to do. good luck getting empirical results with a theory not grounded in empiricism (especially religion)

>If it didn't, it would not have kept repeating itself over and over again.

Or, like many repeating mythical motifs, such as giants, wizards, sea monsters, and dragons. These things are described in countless myths because they are explicitly fantastical and impossible.

Something being repeated in ignorant ancient people's mythology doesn't mean it happens. Also, you have to get past the obvious hurdle of figuring out why it's impossible today if it wasn't in the past.

Sit down and be quiet for ten minutes, don't speak, don't try to think anything and let the thoughts pass in front of you. Contemplate the reality of the Creator, or just feel the inner being within you.

If you can't take ten minutes out of your day to do this, then at least use the "exalted" scientific method and observe your study on meditation.

You have plenty of time to exalt science over the internet, but have you any time to sit silently

Meditation does not accrue new knowledge.

The nature of the Buddha is enough to inquire the Absolute truth without vainly using the scientific method.

They are not impossible, especially when you compare all of them side by side and see how they are all connected without any coincidence. They all just didn't "make it all up" all the ways across the planets continents and just have all the same conclusions in different languages

Calling it mythology does not mean it is actually mythological. All you have to do is get over the hurdle of cradling everyone elses assumptions and opinions and actually look for the answers yourself

It can. You don't need to intend to "gain" knowledge, knowledge is only one half of the brain. Insight and wisdom, abstract ideas are the other half, so not utilizing both faculties isn't knowledgeable either

>Perhaps God's plan for atheists is to have them not believe for a time in order to eventually reveal to them that they chose not to believe or something crazy like this.
oh so reveal it to them on Judgement Day when it is too late to repent? oh yeah just part of his plan for our personal growth.

I can tell you for sure my problem is with the religion itself, not the Church. the problems within the various organizations did not drive me from christianity. I came to no longer believe in God after trying to get closer to him through prayer and reading the bible and by researching biblical history and the origins of the texts so I could actually prove christianity and convert atheists. Instead I found evidence pointing towards it being wrong time and time again. only the fear of hellfire kept me in the religion until the pile of evidence became to great for me to deny

>Calling it mythology does not mean it is actually mythological
No, being mythological makes it mythological. My assumptions and opinions are hypotheses, backed up by what happens in the observable world. You made a claim, so provide the mechanisms that would make your claim possible.

I don't assume concepts just pop out of the aether. Giants are a pretty easy one, humans but bigger! Magic too, what if stuff that can't happen, like, happened, WHOA! Pretty easy to imagine various groups of humans arriving at ideas like these and the fact that similar concepts appear in different cultures with different cultural tapestry is not at all surprising.

The commonality of these ideas however does absolutely nothing to verify their actual existence. That's very wishy-washy "logic".

You need to understand that these poor people are terrified of dying. Like little children they will believe literally anything that mollycoddles them from the truth.

They will insist that magic is real because they don't have to confront the fact that one day they will die.

Notice the word "Perhaps"

Even Martin Luther King was against Christianity, only to appreciate its value later on in life. That's all.

You don't need to strive to convert anyone, it is counter productive. You don't control what others think or do. Some people find the evidence of it being true, and other find evidence of it not being true, even though they do have a Christ person who did exists during the beginning of AD, the Jews called Him evil, especially in the Talmud, even though they don't have the same opinion of Him, they still recognize Him.

You are calling it mythology. If you stop calling it mythology, then you see that it is a really big map that your soul can use.

You also made a claim, "my assumption" "my opinion" " my hypothesis" based on the observable world, which the Spirit is above the nature of the observable world.

If you want to keep calling it mythology, then you will dismiss it as having no meaning. If you want to see it as allegories, rather than "its fake because me and science are always right religion is wrong". If you call it myth, you manifest it as myth, but back then, it was not mythology, it was purely cosmological and not separate from their science

>Even Martin Luther King was against Christianity, only to appreciate its value later on in life.
exactly how later in life? he was educated to be a minister and was one at a young age. his civil rights movement relied heavily on churches for mobilization

how exactly is trying to convert people counter productive assuming that christianity is true? that's just trying to save people from eternal torment. this is what christianity was founded on: evangelizing. how can you be a christian and reject the entire life mission of Paul and the apostles?

It doesn't discredit it as "wishy washy" either. You can verify the existence of all of this, but because you believe you can't, you will spend all day online trying to convince others that your opinion is the truth.

The flood, is in many regions which did not have airplanes to travel to tell everyone about their "made up story", different energy spheres and astrological sciences were not just made up but proven and recorded very similarly throughout these "religions"

What makes it any more true than any other claim of the divine? Why should I believe in God over the Tao or over Samsara?

No where did I deny Paul in any of my posts but rather you assumed it because something I said.

His ministry isn't counter productive, but have you noticed how when people use quotes from the Bible it only makes people less inclined to be Christians. Christians think saving people from eternal torment is by condemning them to eternal torment, when in the Truth of Christian Teachings this is extremely counter productive.

The bow was also invented in a bunch of different places. Floods are major features of most cradles of civilization since they tended to form around large rivers that regularly flooded. These mystical sciences also tended to take different forms even if they shared superficial similarities.

Belief is of little value.
God can comvince anyone at anytime, nut chooses not to.

Take out the word samsara in your post. Why would you separate the other two elements in the sentence, or put one over the other? That is counter productive to the vastness of both of those.

Let me restate myself: why should I swallow your meme over any other?

The great flood. But even the bow, they all just coincidentally came up the same idea? They just all somehow knew geometrical patterns coincidentally? They just all knew ancient forms or surgery and occultism coincidentally?

It is obvious something far greater is being.

So close to just being retarded, nails it withe thee ole' 'worshiped'.

It is not mine, and it is not a meme.

Your idea is that you have to put it over your beliefs or under your beliefs rather than just take a second and think about how to incorporate it without putting it over or under

Or that we live in a universe of set laws and forms and ideas relating to those will take similar forms because the human body and the natural world aren't substantially different in different geographies.

Also, the great flood appearing repeatedly is easy to explain: civilization develops around large rivers that make good farm land, these rivers tend to flood disastrously.

>It is not mine, and it is not a meme.

Yes it is, by the strict definition of a meme. It is an idea that propagates itself through individuals exchanging it.

Also, no I'm pretty fucking sure Christians want me to put their meme over others.

You're making a LOT of assumptions about how seriously I take this discussion and how much time I put into it. I would definitely say however that if you're trying to posit that these mythological elements have some element of truth based on their commonality that specific logic is definitely airy.

You definitely can verify whether or not magic or monsters exist but most investigation has turned up disappointing. Believe you me, I wish I could be a wizard, it just doesn't appear to be the case. Now personally I'm skeptical about the concept of dragons and if we're to be hard skeptics we also can't entirely write them off, but that doesn't mean these assertions have to be taken very seriously.

Bringing this back around, we started this line of discussion based on the concept of virgin births. These do crop up fairly frequently in many divine origin stories and I posit this is not because they happened a lot, but in fact, that they didn't happen. Similar to stories about faeries and wizards and dragons, this was proof of miracles or magic because it is very much impossible based on what even ancient people knew of the reproductive system.

Civilizations record the Great Flood "myth" and all just so happen to correspond the same Astrological Ideas and Spiritual Wisdom.. Not, because they lived near water, because at some point in time, civilizations recognized giants and a Great Flood, and many other of the same things esoterically, all pointing to the Original Source.

That's all, it isn't a coincidence, it just means something Higher Above is recognized in all of these civilizations and is only mythology now, even though back then it was not at all mythological but very widely and practically used.

The word, meme, is going to stop you more than it is going to help you.

You think Christians want you to put their ideas over your own, but because you keep thinking that way, that is how it returns to you.

>You think Christians want you to put their ideas over your own

No I'm pretty sure this is what every major church thinks. Try to approach an orthodox or catholic priest or fuck, even some weirdo protestant minister about your syncretic beliefs relating to Buddha and you will be strictly reminded that is in fact, heresy.

I don't have a problem with other people's spiritual beliefs, I have some myself despite how irrational they might be. However, when you have a dogmatic religion like Christianity which accepts nothing but total and complete acceptance of their thinking you are indeed going to run into some issues. As a couple thousand years of religious wars will attest.

They used the "mythology" back then as a practical usage, and it is not called mythology back then, it is their religion and science. Egyptians were not stupid enough to believe in mythology, they were smart enough to recognize divine entities that played a wide role in their development.

Dragons, wizards, that is not up to me to say what to believe on that or not, but the magic of the wizards and the dragons, these are repeated throughout many cultures, not just from some delusional Veeky Forums-er or something like that. Even records of cultures expecting a Virgin Birth and the records of Virgin Births, can not be denied just because it is transcending known science, but can be, at the very least partially accepted due to their being recorded.

(1/2)

>And why is it specifically framed in an action-reward way?
As opposed to a insta-reward way? Where even the content on destruction are given salvation?

Are you sure you know what you're asking?

Look, the nature of the world is to oppress man, man oppresses his brother by sinning against him. So who was Jesus talking to and what was His message? He was talking to the ones sick and tired of the oppression. He was teaching them the secrets that the world and the flesh use to oppress, how the world and flesh engineer the act of sin against another, sin which creates the oppression against the individuals soul, which will in turn get that individual receiving soul into the same exact bondage of sin as their oppressor. The whole Bible teaches this and exposes it as a virus that spreads. Now Jesus taught that love, which is what God is, which is what Christ was as a man, he taught that love , which again is God, so he's essentially teaching that God/Love is how the oppression is not only defeated, but it was defeated from beginning of creation, but that God/Love is how the oppression ends. Now what makes this so significant is that the Pharisee's/Preachers, the "religious" leaders of those times, we're not willing to understand this, every time God tried to explain this through a prophet, the Israelite's would kill the prophets of the old testament because these Israelite's enjoyed participating in evil, the gentiles had no idea about this truth either, they feasted on consumption of people and war for expansion and slavery in the name of idols. They actually believed life is about enslavement and exploitation. To this day men of power believe this.

you did by saying my attempt to convert people was counter productive. all these attempts at convert by saying people are going to hell and quoting bible verses is exactly why I tried to make a better way, more honest, more intellectual. I couldn't find it. the reason most preachers use emotion is because that's the only way to christianity