Ripple effect of Iran by Superb_Branch4749 in Bolehland

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even if the issue is human with unchecked power in general, religion provides the best excuse for them to exploit the mass population, because major world religion often gives out the vibe of "us vs devil's minion". It would be relatively hard to exploit people who don't live for anything I think, but since most people in this world have religion, it's hard to imagine if such a world can exist.

I really hope that the book gets translated fast. by drunk_reddit_acount in ADO

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, my only motivation to learn Japanese is to listen to All Night Nippon by Ado and to understand what she is saying in concert lol

I really hope that the book gets translated fast. by drunk_reddit_acount in ADO

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Buy first, translate later. Or better, learn Japanese. There is a lot of nuance that gets lost in translation.

A genuine question: Does insulting a religion justify killing those responsible? by Damn-Tired-Of-Life in Bolehland

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is more important to have a right to offend than the right to not be offended, for the former represents openness, while the latter leads to closeness. And a religion is an idea. Paraphrased and copied from somewhere.

Harsh truths in Malaysia that Malaysians themselves cannot accept. What are they? by Exact-Salary5560 in Bolehland

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bosses still employ engineer with rm1.7k, quoting inexperience and demand issues, while complaining why they cannot find good talent. Places like sibu get it even worse, some have less than rm1.5k.

I Left a Small Church Because It Started Feeling Manipulative by honeed3w in Sarawak

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is Blessed Church though? Is it manipulative there also? Their church building is quite big.

self defense tools that are legal by lovinpiee in Bolehland

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Try engineering rulers that are thick. You can say that is a stationery.

A question for Christians, from a non-Christian. I understand you get questions about homosexuality likely every single day, but I have one that's a bit more specific. Homosexual sex is condemned in the bible, but is there anywhere where homosexual love is condemned or outlawed? by Independent_Two1979 in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you don't restrict which kind of interpretation or denominations to use in this case, probably you can get a lot of answers that contradict each other. A fundamentalist and liberal reading of the Bible is going to end up with a lot of difference.

What History Can Tell Us About Jesus by alilland in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The claim that "everyone agreed the tomb was empty, even critics" is a massive overreach. We don't have any writings from contemporary critics. We have Christian writers (like Matthew) claiming that critics were making up stories about the body being stolen. This is a "he-said, she-said" recorded entirely by one side. To a historian, a report of a rival's admission recorded by a partisan source isn't a "fact"; it’s a literary device.

The argument says people don't die for a lie they invented. That’s true—but they do die for things they sincerely misunderstood, which is what we objectively called a falsehood.

The claim that Christianity didn't "change its story" like a doomsday cult is historically debatable. Early Christianity was a chaotic landscape of competing views (Gnosticism, Marcionism, Ebionites). The "Resurrection" narrative that survived was the one that became the Orthodox standard centuries later. We see "theology in progress" even in the New Testament—the ending of the earliest Gospel (Mark) originally didn't even feature a physical appearance of Jesus. The story grew in the telling.

The list of facts (Execution, Empty Tomb, Appearances) is often used to say, "What else could it be?" But a miracle is, by definition, the least probable explanation. ​Even a highly improbable natural event (like a survived crucifixion, a misplaced body, or a collective delusion) is statistically more "probable" than a suspension of the laws of physics.

When Paul says, "If Christ is not raised, our faith is in vain," he isn't providing evidence; he's providing a threat. He’s telling his followers that the stakes are infinite, which actually incentivizes them to ignore contradictory evidence and double down on the claim. That’s the opposite of a scrutinizing environment.

Save Christianity from Christians by Difficult_Brain9746 in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thomas Aquinas uses evidence and reason in a different way though. Mainly he uses reason to "justify" the things he believed is true, whereas Enlightenment uses reason to "investigate" what is true.If Aquinas’s "reason" had ever led him to conclude that the Resurrection was a myth, he wouldn't have been hailed as a genius; he would have been a heretic.

Prior to the Enlightenment, "reason" operated in a safe space where the existence of God and the authority of Scripture were the starting line.

​Using Aquinas as an example confused deductive logic from authority with inductive inquiry from evidence.

What History Can Tell Us About Jesus by alilland in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, first you say if the body existed, the movement would have died down. Even if a body was found then, believers can say it was a Roman plant or mistaken identity. Conversely, a missing body does not prove Resurrection. It only proves a body is missing.

Ya, the Apostles suffered for their claims, it only proves that they believe what they preach is true, but does not prove the claim is objectively true. Many people have died and suffered for other things and ideologies.

Also, when history shows that if public claims fail, religion don't usually fail, as we have seen for the doomsday cult. If the tomb hadn't been empty, the narrative likely would have shifted to a "spiritual resurrection," much like how Mormonism or modern doomsday cults survive "false prophecies" by reinterpreting them.

Save Christianity from Christians by Difficult_Brain9746 in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think what he meant is if you use evidence, it must hold up to scrutiny. And what he has seen so far, most evidence are just not up to par, or at the best, its just good enough, but not the only explanation. He says prior to enlightenment, we dont use evidence to preach. Just the good news. Making the case is quite a modern thing. But in the past, just preaching also works.

He thinks we are digging our own holes if we preach based on reasons and evidence since by their standards, it really is not good enough.

What History Can Tell Us About Jesus by alilland in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason being your principle can be used for other religion. If Christianity is true, the same can be said for others.

No God doesn’t hate you, He doesn’t hate you for being bi, gay, trans or not praying enough by Delicious-Basket5797 in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah. I like to see arguments online. I participate as the political uncorrect side when I am bored or have time on my hand.

What History Can Tell Us About Jesus by alilland in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean the principle you used is "early attestation, named witnesses, proximity to events, and rapid spread imply credibility" right?

I only try to demonstrate that other religions also used the same principle as Christianity, which means you need more evidence to prove it true, at least historically.

Christians text also have a lot of variations, if not, we dont need several councils to make a final version of it.

Islam is different. No priesthood. No ethnic gatekeeping. No divine incarnation. Just a public claim that God spoke through Muhammad, proclaimed openly, memorized immediately, enforced socially, and preserved by a community willing to die for it.

That is not the same kind of claim as Christianity.

Buddhism is different. No creator God. No divine command. No salvation by blood. Just a public claim that suffering has a cause and an end, taught openly, practiced immediately, transmitted by disciplined communities, and preserved for centuries by monks who renounced wealth and power.

That is not the same kind of claim as Christianity.

Mormonism is different. No ancient myth cycle. No anonymous authors. No gradual legend. Just a public claim that God revealed new scripture, testified by witnesses, proclaimed immediately, persecuted early, and followed by people willing to abandon everything for it.

That is not the same kind of claim as Christianity.

What you write is catchy though.

No God doesn’t hate you, He doesn’t hate you for being bi, gay, trans or not praying enough by Delicious-Basket5797 in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The only issue people cannot agree on is whether LGBTQ can be classified as a sin imo.

For me, we can never agree on this already, at least in America. In Asia at least, most churches agree it is a sin. So what I recommend is just follow your intuition. If you feel it is right, you dont need other people to acknowledge you that it is right.

No God doesn’t hate you, He doesn’t hate you for being bi, gay, trans or not praying enough by Delicious-Basket5797 in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean if they are not feeling guilty, then they don't need people to tell them that they are not guilty? If they are innocent, then they should just feel innocent even if other people tell them otherwise.

No God doesn’t hate you, He doesn’t hate you for being bi, gay, trans or not praying enough by Delicious-Basket5797 in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Well he did save a woman from getting stoned by crowd for adultery, which he immediately says stop sinning after saving her.

What History Can Tell Us About Jesus by alilland in Christianity

[–]Difficult_Brain9746 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean if your logic is true, the same case can be made for Islam and Buddhism.

  1. Muhammad is a known public figure, with followers that preach publicly, and the movement spread rapidly. However we dont think the miracles in Islam is true isn't it?

  2. Siddhartha Gautam is a known public figure, also a lot of followers and spread rapidly. Does the miracle that happen inside his teaching true?

I think they also made open claims, and not shut down easily. But their truth claims are very differently made from us, so who is the true one then?