I’m not religious but I’m a massive Trump and Q follower. I see lots Christians on the board, any other atheists around here?
How do you view the religious factor in the Q movement?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (252)
sorted by:
That's one of the misunderstandings right there, you said you're not religious. I am a Christian and I am not religious either. This often confuses people, but the simple answer is Jesus was probably the most anti-religious person who ever lived. So much so, they killed him for it.
Religion is mans attempt to reconcile himself to God. Jesus refutes this by stating HE is the ONLY way to God.
If you are truly anti-religion then Jesus and his teachings may shock you. He took a stand against every religious tradition of his day. This is what Jesus had to say about the religious leaders of his day ...
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Wonder why they plotted to kill him?
Jesus further states ..."Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Lord Lord? So they are obviously religious people who are calling him Lord. Yet Jesus says they won't get into heaven? Anyway don't mean to jump on into an Atheist post, but you know us Christians, always got to beat someone over the head with a Bible when we get the chance :P
Nice post. Wavering agnostic here (I don't like the word as it implies a lack of knowledge, but it's the best available and does describe some aspects). I enjoyed reading this- I've been learning a lot recently. I was never raised with faith at all and in fact would be ashamed to admit I wouldn't entertain the idea.
This changes with time and the more I learn about the world in general the more I can reconcile with the reasons religion (and particularly its lessons / laws) exists. It matters less to me the peoples involved than the message- the message was always the important part and people have tried to destroy it- all through history. That's what peaked my interest- I wanted to know why.
I'm gradually opening to the fact that something might have happened to me- the scripture people here quote that I used to skip over unread now holds my attention. I feel like I understand it when somebody uses it in context and explains it. I am slowly admitting to myself that there is something worth pursuing- in which capacity I'm still unsure. I'll stick with the historical / scientific interest for now, but my mind is very open to all things and will remain so.
Thanks fren. I'll continue for the moment on my slow path- I will pick up the Bible in its entirety at some point, not quite ready yet. It's been quite the climbdown from a previous life where I would have said regretfully unflattering things about faith. That kind of turnabout is quite a mental shock- still processing much of this as it is very unfamiliar. I'm gaining a slow enthusiasm for this, but it needs to be through a process of osmosis for me- a slow and less conscious absorbing works best for me to break down gradually the walls I have built (I am afraid they are/were considerable).
The hard part for me was to realize there is a God, and a Savior in Jesus Christ... but that doesn't always equate to what "religions" say and do. If you think of it from a perspective of the relationship you have with God, in your own mind and your life apart from other humans, you will see there is a God that is infallible, but humans create this fallible mentality because we will always try to relate to God as if he was human.
Once I was able to separate religion from a direct relationship with Christ, it felt as if that veil was lifted, I could see through the bs of pastors trying to build themselves up and churches making rules and laws and traditions that go against what the Holy Bible says.
I hope you get there! Good luck in your journey! Just always be honest with yourself and the true God will show Himself to you.
Fren, all you have to do is to earnestly reach out. The Almighty does not turn away true seekers. It is baby steps and He is patient with those that are genuine. But, the catch is, you must go where He takes you. When man wants to run the show and do what is right in their own eyes, the Almighty will allow them to have their way - the way of religion. True faith is a relationship - He already knows us but we need to get to know Him. He speaks in a still small voice that will not yell over the noise of our own self dialog and that of others. Quiet yourself and listen for him to speak. Part of that relationship is getting to recognize His voice. I can only speak for myselfb but this journey of relationship has been life changing and precious. I pray you find the same.
God is good. I'm glad you are still here.
How do you know God saved you, and that you didn't recover naturally? What about the 1,000s of other people also on their deathbeds who don't make it, despite also calling for his salvation, equally vocally? Is God still good despite letting those people die?
Sometimes it take a brush with our own mortality to realize that there is something much larger than ourselves and the world we have made for ourselves. Welcome to the family my fren. God bless you.
I will politely recommend this very approachable and intellectual series of doodles that illustrates one of CS Lewis’ books:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9boiLqIabFhrqabptq3ThGdwNanr65xU
God bless :)
what's wrong with admitting you don't know?
I do admit I do not know. One cannot 'know'. I believe the idea is faith, nothing is wrong with not knowing- in fact, if someone claimed absolute knowledge of this I would react with immediate suspicion.
then why reject the term agnostic? those who claim agnosticism generally aren't those who claim to have faith as well. those who have faith have it for a reason. you dont know how you will be provided for, but you know that you will be,'. so faith is not agnosticism, but rather knowledge. agnostics are still wondering whether they can trust the universe. agnostic faith is saying "oh well, whatever, couldn't be much worse, might as well continue" and that is not faith.
source: have identified with every end of the spectrum, from angry atheist to agnostic to angry theist.
Faith is stepping out and putting action to circumstances based upon the confidence that even though I do not have all the answers I know that someone greater than myself has my back and is guiding my steps. Faith is not having all the answers, but at the same time, being okay with that fact and still moving forward. This is the walk of faith. Those who do not experience this journey for themselves have no measure to compare it with and therefore cannot understand it. I pray you find it.
I have a lot more respect for agnostics than athiests. When you look into the difference between the two it becomes apparent that athiesm is itself a belief system, namely that no higher power exists, a hypothesis that cannot be proven to be true, not on a definitive nor a personal level.
Agnostics aren’t contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, and I find it hard to take issue with someone who just says “I don’t know”. Because you guys are at least open to the possibilities. It’s a very scientific mindset, and that attitude is good for a multitude of practical purposes.
And while it can be nice to not risk being wrong, I think it takes a certain kind of courage to say that you’re willing to “know” something that you’re not able to definitively prove to other people. But we’re all capable of it. Not gonna pester you about it, just gonna say that I highly recommend giving it a(nother?) shot. Maybe while you’re reading, like you mentioned you would in the other comment, try to keep a mental ear open, see if anything jumps out at you.
If you want proof, you’ll be able to find it for yourself. “How many coincidences before mathematically impossible?”
Exactly. I'm late to the party with much of this, but treat it all with the same scientific method (avoiding mainstream 'psy-ence' helps) and am gradually piecing it all together- Qincidences are building all over... It does help with people being gentle with it- everybody here has been quietly encouraging without force. It's nice, encourages people to find out for themselves. The scientific stuff is really helpful to me- I love to hear of the early discoveries (that we are allowed to see after censorship), it brings religious history to life.
Atheism isn't a belief system, it's the lack of belief in God or a higher power. It's the absence of belief.
I think most people who label themselves as atheists are really agnostics though. If somehow actual evidence of God was found, most "atheists" would switch to the other side and become believers, only real hardcore atheists would continue to deny the evidence in front of them.
Everyone has a belief system. It is hardwired within us. It is just that not everyone puts their faith in the same thing. Some believe in humanity, some science, some in God. Without faith in something, whether it is in our own efforts, efforts by someone else, or in God, we would be frozen to inaction. Everyone has a god to believe in - it is just that everyone defines that god differently. Therefore, Atheism is a belief system - it is just not a belief in God.
This has been a great thread. Thanks.
Same here. I was raised Catholic but over the last 25 years have moved away from participating any organized worship and instead pray and read the Bible to find my own peace with God. Feels more authentic to have a persional conversation any time, not just Sunday.
I was raised Mormon and have done the same thing.
Exactly! I am a Christian but I am not religious either. I do practice at a church for social reasons and to administer to others.
But I understand
It is NOT about religion. Religion is man made.
It is about a relationship with Him. ONLY.
Christianity is a religion. You're fooling yourself with your, canned response, word-salad.
From the outside looking in, you engage in rituals, unverifiable beliefs and center your life around said beliefs. Sure you can call it a relationship and/or a lifestyle but it's most definitely a religion and when it's called one, it's done so accurately.
Unverifiable? Can Christianity be falsified- Yes! If you could find solid evidence against three beliefs:
You would have a solid case. As it is, you have the burden of proof, historically, to prove us wrong. An author (Such as Luke) is to be given the benefit of the doubt unless he was self- contradictory.
Luke claims, in both his gospel and the acts of the apostles, to be the writer. Early written church history also verifies the claim that Luke himself is indeed the writer of both accounts. Luke, more than any other of the gospel writers, should be viewed in terms as a historian because, by his own words, this is what he set out to do - to give an account of the events surrounding the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as well as the events that followed his ministry in the lives of the apostolic believers. He was commissioned by Theophilos to write this history. The gospel of Luke is written in a more refined Greek than the other gospels or even Paul's writings. Luke was a learned man.
John was written by one of his disciples and was written much later in the first century than the synoptic gospels. It was not uncommon to dictate to a scribe that had a better command of Greek than the Apostles whose first language was Aramaic and Hebrew. Peter's account was written by his disciple Mark and was more than likely the first of the gospels. There are also several Jewish prayers in Hebrew still recited today that are attributed to Peter. They claim that Peter was tricked into becoming a Christian. Peter is recorded to have been a very well respected writer of Jewish poems and prayers in the first century Jewish community. The gospel of Matthew was written in part in Hebrew by Matthew for the Jewish believers that he was leaving behind in Jerusalem when he left. That Hebrew version later had portions added to it from Mark that became the Greek gospel of Luke.
There is much history by early church historians to give us a reasonable certainty that the gospels passed down to us are an accurate recording of the events. Any arguments given by naysayers as to the validity of these writings do not hold water upon closer examination.
The Jewish world of the apostles was one that passed down history through an oral culture. The Apostles themselves saw no need to write anything down, but passed the teachings of Jesus on by that same oral tradition. That culture was very careful to make sure that the transmission of history was accurate. They did not deviate from what was passed down to them by omission or by addition - something that is not understood well by the West. By the middle of the first century however, when Greco-Roman influence pressed into that world of oral tradition, and the body of believers expanded to all parts of the empire, the need to have the history written down became more of a necessity. This is why we have no records contemporary to the actual time of the events. But, this in no way makes what was written down only a couple of decades later less credible because the oral tradition that the information was derived from was reliable.
But like I've said in other parts of this thread. I don't really concern myself with the evidence stuff... To me, the deity of the bible isn't good nor loving and not someone I could align myself with.
This is like saying: "Outside of your eyewitnesses you have no eyewitnesses!"
Sharp logic.
Oof. why does Q seem to trust God then? Why do you trust Q? Does Q operate without evidence?
You can misrepresent what he said as you please. There is a clear difference between organized religion and personal beleif/habit.
Religion implies organized and social.
Your post is just so angsty it's laughable.
Likewise, if I am a child who was just born, I cant even comprehend the concept of Jesus. If I die coming out the womb because my mom wants a late term abortion, and I didnt repent to jesus, am I damned? I hate to dog on your religion like it is a centuries old psyop to control you, but all signs point to yes.
No, infants would not go to hell because they have not reached the age of accountability. They can't understand right from wrong yet.
https://www.gotquestions.org/age-of-accountability.html
There are no signs that point to yes. Repenting involves knowledge that you have wronged someone, sorrow for having done so, apologizing for having hurt someone, and resolving not to do it again. This is beyond the capacity of a pre-born to understand.
Jesus said: "Let the little children come to me and forbid them not, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven."
Wikipedia has the whole list, (I'm not the biggest WP fan, but this should give you more than enough to chew on) And here is just one:
**At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 18:1–10)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_of_Jesus_about_little_children
As to 'religion being a psyop' I agree! Any attempt to gain Heaven by our own effort is a very cunningly crafted psyop to steer people away from the truth: A relationship with your creator is Heaven itself. As far as Jesus is concerned, there is plenty of evidence for both his existence and the validity of his claims. Honest seekers of truth have always been welcomed by Him.
Okay so once I reach the age of accountability I still have to know Jesus and repent in his name? So even if i keep to my own moral code of accountability that is identical to that of Jesus, but I do not repent, am I still damned? Because I did not kneel and swear fealty and praise Jesus? I do not show praise to anyone who doesnt appreciate the time I take out of my day to seek them enough to show themself to me. Ya dig? If God or Jesus, or whoever doesnt hear that plea enough to show themself to me, far be it for me to dedicate my life to them. Lately the only signs that God exists are the signs that the Devil exists. Id like to think that if God was so much more powerful he could show himself to me. Am I taunting God now? I'm such a blasphemer! I guess he did create me in his image. Like when he made that bet with the devil and destroyed a man's life to prove himself right (story of Job)
Once you get beyond the cognitive biases that come about because you fear the unkown, you can see religion for what it is. is precisely the mentality that unless you come to the lord and repent to him, or through jesus, or allah ackbar, or whoever that justified the actions of the crusades and allowed Judeo-christian philosophy to very brutally conquer the world. Again. Its a very well played, thousands of years old psyop that has been perverted many times to appropriate other religions, i,e Christmas. Which is actually a Pagan holiday that was incorporated into Christianity to blur the lines over a couple generations to expand the influence of the vatican . Because for the people at the top it never was about congruency, or keeping with the original story, it was about expanding their base of power, and they did it well. Like I said, if God wants to come to me ill be happy when he does, but as far as im concerned he needs to meet me in the middle, and not make demands on which way I come to him. If he loves me and asks so much of me, I feel it is only fair to ask that of him. Edit, this comment also replied to another user, Inthough both comments were from the same person. Aorry for any confusion
Man I have been where you are. The reality is you don't know where one phsyop ends and another begins. In my veiw you pushing a 200 year old anti-relgion phsyop that leverages about 2000 years of authoritarian power plays layered on top of religious beleif. The net result is you are pointing out the evil of the powerful as the only example of what the meaning of Jesus is. There is a fallacy built into this. One thing does not share its meaning or interpretation uniformly across a group. Ie christ means different things to different people.
I don't care what organized religion has to say, never have, never will. But instead I have found real psychological utility in the archetype of the most good person who could exist, who was tortured and killed in proportion to how good he was. That is so patently true in so many areas of life, that we are punished for our virtues by the world around us, that it has become a daily reminder to recenter myself, "I am not that good, and I am not suffering that bad".
Be angry at religion, be angry at authority, but open up your mind.
I can recomend this lecture series that makes a rational case for the psychological utility of the Bible. It might help you sort out the phsy op from the ancestral wisdom.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQD_IZs7y60I3lUrrFTzkpat
If you kept a code that is identical to Jesus' code of ethics, perfectly, then we would look to you to lead us, and you would have no need of a savior. Jesus Himself said, "Those who sick need a physician." Jesus also said:
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
The will of the Father is explicitly explained in the two greatest commandments, love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself. Crusades were not loving.