u/According_Affect9568

It’s funny that I’m back here again after just a few days, but it was great fun. I’ve learnt so much from my last post and your answers :D that I’d like to tackle another problem. This one’s very short too. I was on a Discord server back then in the self-improvement section and believed the people there because a lot of the advice – like ‘do strength training’ or ‘get enough sleep’ and so on – actually works, so you just give them the benefit of the doubt, thinking, ‘Hey, they really do know what they’re on about.’ Then, at some point, I heard them talking about religious stuff too and I completely fell for it. It all came down very quickly to the idea that there’s no other true faith apart from Catholicism, and then they had these really, really long texts ready, with all this ‘evidence’ to prove, for example, that the Exodus was real, that the Shroud of Turin is genuine, that Marian apparitions are real, and that the ancient scriptures all show that it makes logical, internal sense that the universe is finely tuned (Firstly, that’s not true – most of it would kill us instantly, and if it is designed for one thing, it’s for the formation of black holes.) That, for example, is exactly the point I learnt after a friend who knows a lot about this sort of thing had a look at it and told me, ‘Hey, they’re completely taking the mick out of you.’

And ever since then, I’ve also been keen to further my education, particularly on topics like these (space, origion of live, science etc), and I always say that education is the enemy of ignorance.

And my main question would be – because I always feel, so to speak, a little better about it – that when I used to go to church, "I had divine experiences" , and when I soemtimes attended Catholic services (I had no prior experience of it because I come from the Protestant Church, which here in Germany is quite different from the one in the USA (its better)), whether when they were singing or during evening services – those were divine experiences. I just need some reassurance as to (mentioned in the previous post they can’t possibly be true) if they were "real" → "the feeling of something greater, connection, spine chill and similar" and if I need to be afraid of them." Because if it were true, I’d have to believe it too, as it’s become clear that I really did meet God and if he is real i have to follow him because thats the only way." That is scaring me all the time, i dont want to go to hell.

Whenever I see a religious post, spot a cross somewhere, or something bad happens to me, I always think, ‘Oh God, is trying to tell me something?’. The whole thing is a bit strange, actually, because I’m not religious myself, and I only started believing because I used to believe in something like fate – but that was really just confirmation bias in the end. And i cannot free myself from these things. And yes i have Something close to ADHD, but its not ADHD - meaning these patterns of thinking and feeling are not that uncommon in me at all.

And it’s precisely these patterns of thought that sometimes prevent me from breaking free from certain religious beliefs, for For example, I always think: ‘Oh yes, you can’t explain marian apparitions with science (yet!!!) – at least some of the well-known ones – so it must have been true; or you can’t explain the circumstances surrounding the empty tomb, so it must be historical; and (imagine apologists saying that): it’s not possible to explain it naturally because, after all, different traditions could never have come together and formed something like that and it was all written so early or they just recited what jesus said perfectly and chrcked themselves each other so they could remember everything.’

At this point, as this doesn’t really belong here anymore, I’ll send in my theories on the subject of the empty tomb at the end. And I just want to hope that it didn’t happen, because I simply don’t want to believe that anything supernatural exists.

And especially as, like everyone else, I’ve done bad things → i feel like ’m not a good person because I don’t go to confession. And some things are marks on me forever, for example, the fact that I used to bully people at school and was bullied too (but these were seperate things) – though that was a very long time ago and I can’t find some of them anymore , so I can’t apologise to them. I think these are just school problems, which isn’t good at all still, but in fact I’m also against that sort of thing these days, because I’m involved in lots of projects that help children and promote peace globally.

I’m not even doing it to ‘make amends’, so to speak – that would actually be a side effect – but simply because I enjoy it and I have a humanistic world view and believe that we should help people, animals and nature. That was also something I asked myself: ‘Yes, but what if I do have that kind of view? Surely it must come from God?’ But I’ve already found an answer to that: it’s simply that, For example, as a small child, I’d rather play with animals than see them on my plate; that’s why it makes me really sad to see fish – they’re actually so cute – and I didn’t want to eat them at all. Besides that morality has clearly and proven developed among people and cultures and is constantly changing and different among the world. And yes there are actually People that do not find murder all that wrong.

Empty Tomb Corner🎷🐛🌿🦣

To Arguments, actually there are some interesting ones regarding the tomb.

Of course, we only have some of the material we can work with, and we can't rule out the possibility that bits of text were lost or that something else happened in the meantime, but that's just what a naturalistic explanation entails - it's rooted in reality. But what always bothers me is how it can all fit together: that there was a Joseph, and that there was the story about the women. And I'd really bet that at least one of these things - if not all of them - has been greatly exaggerated to the point of becoming the stuff of legend. Of course, it's not that these people deliberately told something false; it was simply their beliefs, or rather the way the story developed over time.

Or the fact that there really is historical evidence that those who were crucified were not released but simply left on the cross also why would pilate do that???! And even when he was given to be put into the tomb - everything after the burial could still be complete bonkers too. And yet it's still a more plausible explanation than something supernatural having happened; but on the other hand, I just don't understand why people would concoct a story like that. I'm not saying it's impossible at all, it's just incredibly illogical. And to be honest, I think the bit about the women is absolutely true. Because it could simply be that women, who were very important in the early movement, found the wrong tomb or thought it was empty, and that they are simply the basis of this myth. And I would almost go so far as to say that that is the basis of it.

Temporary burial and subsequent reburial Many historians consider this more plausible than the theory of a false tomb. Jesus is initially buried in haste (because of the Sabbath). Later, the body is moved to another location (e.g. a communal grave). The women go to the first site and find it empty.

Joseph of Arimathea existed, but the tomb was only temporary Joseph makes his tomb available at short notice. The body is later reburied. This information does not reach the disciples. Over time, the tradition of a permanently empty tomb develops.

No honourable burial, later tomb tradition This is a hypothesis discussed by, amongst others, John Dominic Crossan and, to some extent, Bart D. Ehrman. Jesus is not laid in a private tomb after the crucifixion. Later, a tradition develops that he was buried with honour. This burial tradition eventually becomes linked to a narrative of the empty tomb.

Several traditions merge There is a local tradition concerning women at the tomb. In another place, reports of apparitions are circulating. Elsewhere again, stories are told about Joseph of Arimathea. When the Gospels were written, these traditions were woven together into a coherent narrative.

And not to forget "my" funny theories:

A hoax, and in reality there was either a real tomb or a fake one

Cannibalism (think of the my body and blood part regarding bread and wine)

People who thought, 'No, this is too important to us; we're actually going to take the body with us!

Jesus did not exist (actually, that one is probably not true, and he most certainly did exist, at the very least)

The Romans changing the location

Mistakes

Eartquake??!

It’s funny that I’m back here again after just a few days, but it was great fun. I’ve learnt so much from my last post and your answers :D that I’d like to tackle another problem. This one’s very short too. I was on a Discord server back then in the self-improvement section and believed the people there because a lot of the advice – like ‘do strength training’ or ‘get enough sleep’ and so on – actually works, so you just give them the benefit of the doubt, thinking, ‘Hey, they really do know what they’re on about.’ Then, at some point, I heard them talking about religious stuff too and I completely fell for it. It all came down very quickly to the idea that there’s no other true faith apart from Catholicism, and then they had these really, really long texts ready, with all this ‘evidence’ to prove, for example, that the Exodus was real, that the Shroud of Turin is genuine, that Marian apparitions are real, and that the ancient scriptures all show that it makes logical, internal sense that the universe is finely tuned (Firstly, that’s not true – most of it would kill us instantly, and if it is designed for one thing, it’s for the formation of black holes.) That, for example, is exactly the point I learnt after a friend who knows a lot about this sort of thing had a look at it and told me, ‘Hey, they’re completely taking the mick out of you.’

And ever since then, I’ve also been keen to further my education, particularly on topics like these (space, origion of live, science etc), and I always say that education is the enemy of ignorance.

And my main question would be – because I always feel, so to speak, a little better about it – that when I used to go to church, "I had divine experiences" , and when I soemtimes attended Catholic services (I had no prior experience of it because I come from the Protestant Church, which here in Germany is quite different from the one in the USA (its better)), whether when they were singing or during evening services – those were divine experiences. I just need some reassurance as to (mentioned in the previous post they can’t possibly be true) if they were "real" → "the feeling of something greater, connection, spine chill and similar" and if I need to be afraid of them." Because if it were true, I’d have to believe it too, as it’s become clear that I really did meet God and if he is real i have to follow him because thats the only way." That is scaring me all the time, i dont want to go to hell.

Whenever I see a religious post, spot a cross somewhere, or something bad happens to me, I always think, ‘Oh God, is trying to tell me something?’. The whole thing is a bit strange, actually, because I’m not religious myself, and I only started believing because I used to believe in something like fate – but that was really just confirmation bias in the end. And i cannot free myself from these things. And yes i have Something close to ADHD, but its not ADHD - meaning these patterns of thinking and feeling are not that uncommon in me at all.

And it’s precisely these patterns of thought that sometimes prevent me from breaking free from certain religious beliefs, for For example, I always think: ‘Oh yes, you can’t explain marian apparitions with science (yet!!!) – at least some of the well-known ones – so it must have been true; or you can’t explain the circumstances surrounding the empty tomb, so it must be historical; and (imagine apologists saying that): it’s not possible to explain it naturally because, after all, different traditions could never have come together and formed something like that and it was all written so early or they just recited what jesus said perfectly and chrcked themselves each other so they could remember everything.’

At this point, as this doesn’t really belong here anymore, I’ll send in my theories on the subject of the empty tomb at the end. And I just want to hope that it didn’t happen, because I simply don’t want to believe that anything supernatural exists.

And especially as, like everyone else, I’ve done bad things → i feel like ’m not a good person because I don’t go to confession. And some things are marks on me forever, for example, the fact that I used to bully people at school and was bullied too (but these were seperate things) – though that was a very long time ago and I can’t find some of them anymore , so I can’t apologise to them. I think these are just school problems, which isn’t good at all still, but in fact I’m also against that sort of thing these days, because I’m involved in lots of projects that help children and promote peace globally.

I’m not even doing it to ‘make amends’, so to speak – that would actually be a side effect – but simply because I enjoy it and I have a humanistic world view and believe that we should help people, animals and nature. That was also something I asked myself: ‘Yes, but what if I do have that kind of view? Surely it must come from God?’ But I’ve already found an answer to that: it’s simply that, For example, as a small child, I’d rather play with animals than see them on my plate; that’s why it makes me really sad to see fish – they’re actually so cute – and I didn’t want to eat them at all. Besides that morality has clearly and proven developed among people and cultures and is constantly changing and different among the world. And yes there are actually People that do not find murder all that wrong.

Empty Tomb Corner🎷🐛🌿🦣

To Arguments, actually there are some interesting ones regarding the tomb.

Of course, we only have some of the material we can work with, and we can't rule out the possibility that bits of text were lost or that something else happened in the meantime, but that's just what a naturalistic explanation entails - it's rooted in reality. But what always bothers me is how it can all fit together: that there was a Joseph, and that there was the story about the women. And I'd really bet that at least one of these things - if not all of them - has been greatly exaggerated to the point of becoming the stuff of legend. Of course, it's not that these people deliberately told something false; it was simply their beliefs, or rather the way the story developed over time.

Or the fact that there really is historical evidence that those who were crucified were not released but simply left on the cross also why would pilate do that???! And even when he was given to be put into the tomb - everything after the burial could still be complete bonkers too. And yet it's still a more plausible explanation than something supernatural having happened; but on the other hand, I just don't understand why people would concoct a story like that. I'm not saying it's impossible at all, it's just incredibly illogical. And to be honest, I think the bit about the women is absolutely true. Because it could simply be that women, who were very important in the early movement, found the wrong tomb or thought it was empty, and that they are simply the basis of this myth. And I would almost go so far as to say that that is the basis of it.

Temporary burial and subsequent reburial Many historians consider this more plausible than the theory of a false tomb. Jesus is initially buried in haste (because of the Sabbath). Later, the body is moved to another location (e.g. a communal grave). The women go to the first site and find it empty.

Joseph of Arimathea existed, but the tomb was only temporary Joseph makes his tomb available at short notice. The body is later reburied. This information does not reach the disciples. Over time, the tradition of a permanently empty tomb develops.

No honourable burial, later tomb tradition This is a hypothesis discussed by, amongst others, John Dominic Crossan and, to some extent, Bart D. Ehrman. Jesus is not laid in a private tomb after the crucifixion. Later, a tradition develops that he was buried with honour. This burial tradition eventually becomes linked to a narrative of the empty tomb.

Several traditions merge There is a local tradition concerning women at the tomb. In another place, reports of apparitions are circulating. Elsewhere again, stories are told about Joseph of Arimathea. When the Gospels were written, these traditions were woven together into a coherent narrative.

And not to forget "my" funny theories:

A hoax, and in reality there was either a real tomb or a fake one

Cannibalism (think of the my body and blood part regarding bread and wine)

People who thought, 'No, this is too important to us; we're actually going to take the body with us!

Jesus did not exist (actually, that one is probably not true, and he most certainly did exist, at the very least)

The Romans changing the location

Mistakes

Eartquake??!

So I'm writing this here because it's been tormenting me for over a year - like even physically (i have acid reflux very suspiciously closely developed since these things started stressing me). For context why all of this is so heavy for me, I'm quite involved in self-improvement and therefore often try to find a scientific explanation for things.

So - When a Bible scholar (probably also a skeptic themselves) contradicts a well-known figure, e.g., Bart Ehrman — then that's of course more of a substantive/ academic question, and naturally there are different interpretations and possible readings. But when an apologist criticizes that, it's on a completely different level, and that's exactly where my problem lies. It's destroying me because according to them, everything you say is always wrong, and they always have to dig up some detail or another interpretation, or claim that researchers are wrong or lying.

So I need an assessment here. What can I use as a basis to determine that I don't have to believe what believers say? For myself, I've found, for example, that the problem of evil, or the fact that evolution exists and humans developed gradually — which therefore makes no sense in terms of our ancestors having no souls and the modern human at some point apparently has. Or the whole thing with animals and nature that clearly show natural processes — parts of nature, like homosexuality, gender changing; even ethics etc. — or viruses, parasites, cannibalism, diseases. Even though a God who is good, according to texts, can influence people's minds, why doesn't he enter the minds of people who are currently in the process of destroying and governing the world and lead them toward peace??! And of course, we also shouldn't forget that there was a development from apocalyptic punishment to the modern concept of hell, etc. This notion is also, I believe, a big problem for many of us, but it's also something that keeps people in the faith.

And then there's another thing I have a problem with. I hear things, I inform myself about them. I fact-check them. I listen to trustworthy sources from people who aren't ideologically committed to telling you supernatural stories (MythVision Podcast, Paulogia, Mindshift Brandon, Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Alex O'Connor, Holy Koolaid, Gerd Lüdemann, Sir Sic, Skeptic Scriptura, Rationality Rules, Professor Dave Explains — of course some of these are NOT scholars but still expertised in their fields(even if some have a more humorous way of adressing things)). And that's exactly when thoughts come up again: "Yeah, but what about apologists and people who affirm the supernatural things? They have a lot of experience too. I must believe them as well and since they found some apparent mistakes in valid research or critical bible science and what they propose anti theistic (in my vision it sounds like they destroyed everything - i cannot keep to any secular believe they dont destroy for me)." And shortly after — let's say a day later — I think about it again and I'm totally uncertain about it, and someone could tell me the very things I've worked against and I'd almost believe it. The only certainty I have is kind of like, "Oh right, there was something about that yesterday." I'm not forgetful at all in general. It's just in this area that I let myself get intimidated, because I try to approach things in a scientific manner e.g. falsifying and affirming things , but in this area it's partly ideology and science mixed together. And I can't really see the difference, even though I'd like to.

Or the empty tomb - It’s more realistic to assume that nothing supernatural happened, but unfortunately there’s very little evidence for many of these natural explanations , and apologists always say, ‘But here and there, and this and that…’ I always feel as though the naturalistic explanations – which also differ greatly from one another – and would have absolutely no merit whatsoever. And I’m absolutely certain that it’s incredibly easy to attribute this to a few errors that have crept into a tradition, or simply to a few beliefs that people have used to interpret things, and that’s how this story came about. But believers always raise objections, saying that we’d be leaving things out and that it would be cherry-picking. And it could never be any other way, could it? Why would women be involved, and nobody would make that up etc.

Another example is when I hear a statement from the Church regarding Genesis where they say, "Yes, but that is compatible with the modern world," and maybe it's not so far-fetched after all that god and evolution work together, etc. That Genesis is nowadays predominantly understood metaphorically was certainly not always the case. Most people definitely believed it was meant literally.

What also needs to be taken into account, of course, is that some things are distorted and simply misrepresented. For example, there are assaults not only in the Catholic Church but also in other (religious) organizations. These exist just as much in Protestant churches, etc. Or regarding colonialism: the Church wasn't the one carrying out large-scale killings across entire countries. But it was involved in other processes, physical resource grabbing, and also partly in violence ofcourse too. But especially by today's standards — and actually even by the standards that should have applied back then — it's already terrible enough to impose a religion on people en masse. Of course it wasn't like that for everyone. Some adopted it willingly, but for the people who didn't want it, it wasn't good at all. And we don't even need to talk about the introduction of diseases.

So I'm writing this here because it's been tormenting me for over a year - like even physically (i have acid reflux very suspiciously closely developed since these things started stressing me). For context why all of this is so heavy for me, I'm quite involved in self-improvement and therefore often try to find a scientific explanation for things.

So - When a Bible scholar (probably also a skeptic themselves) contradicts a well-known figure, e.g., Bart Ehrman — then that's of course more of a substantive/ academic question, and naturally there are different interpretations and possible readings. But when an apologist criticizes that, it's on a completely different level, and that's exactly where my problem lies. It's destroying me because according to them, everything you say is always wrong, and they always have to dig up some detail or another interpretation, or claim that researchers are wrong or lying.

So I need an assessment here. What can I use as a basis to determine that I don't have to believe what believers say? For myself, I've found, for example, that the problem of evil, or the fact that evolution exists and humans developed gradually — which therefore makes no sense in terms of our ancestors having no souls and the modern human at some point apparently has. Or the whole thing with animals and nature that clearly show natural processes — parts of nature, like homosexuality, gender changing; even ethics etc. — or viruses, parasites, cannibalism, diseases. Even though a God who is good, according to texts, can influence people's minds, why doesn't he enter the minds of people who are currently in the process of destroying and governing the world and lead them toward peace??! And of course, we also shouldn't forget that there was a development from apocalyptic punishment to the modern concept of hell, etc. This notion is also, I believe, a big problem for many of us, but it's also something that keeps people in the faith.

And then there's another thing I have a problem with. I hear things, I inform myself about them. I fact-check them. I listen to trustworthy sources from people who aren't ideologically committed to telling you supernatural stories (MythVision Podcast, Paulogia, Mindshift Brandon, Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Alex O'Connor, Holy Koolaid, Gerd Lüdemann, Sir Sic, Skeptic Scriptura, Rationality Rules, Professor Dave Explains — of course some of these are NOT scholars but still expertised in their fields(even if some have a more humorous way of adressing things)). And that's exactly when thoughts come up again: "Yeah, but what about apologists and people who affirm the supernatural things? They have a lot of experience too. I must believe them as well and since they found some apparent mistakes in valid research or critical bible science and what they propose anti theistic (in my vision it sounds like they destroyed everything - i cannot keep to any secular believe they dont destroy for me)." And shortly after — let's say a day later — I think about it again and I'm totally uncertain about it, and someone could tell me the very things I've worked against and I'd almost believe it. The only certainty I have is kind of like, "Oh right, there was something about that yesterday." I'm not forgetful at all in general. It's just in this area that I let myself get intimidated, because I try to approach things in a scientific manner e.g. falsifying and affirming things , but in this area it's partly ideology and science mixed together. And I can't really see the difference, even though I'd like to.

Or the empty tomb - It’s more realistic to assume that nothing supernatural happened, but unfortunately there’s very little evidence for many of these natural explanations , and apologists always say, ‘But here and there, and this and that…’ I always feel as though the naturalistic explanations – which also differ greatly from one another – and would have absolutely no merit whatsoever. And I’m absolutely certain that it’s incredibly easy to attribute this to a few errors that have crept into a tradition, or simply to a few beliefs that people have used to interpret things, and that’s how this story came about. But believers always raise objections, saying that we’d be leaving things out and that it would be cherry-picking. And it could never be any other way, could it? Why would women be involved, and nobody would make that up etc.

Another example is when I hear a statement from the Church regarding Genesis where they say, "Yes, but that is compatible with the modern world," and maybe it's not so far-fetched after all that god and evolution work together, etc. That Genesis is nowadays predominantly understood metaphorically was certainly not always the case. Most people definitely believed it was meant literally.

What also needs to be taken into account, of course, is that some things are distorted and simply misrepresented. For example, there are assaults not only in the Catholic Church but also in other (religious) organizations. These exist just as much in Protestant churches, etc. Or regarding colonialism: the Church wasn't the one carrying out large-scale killings across entire countries. But it was involved in other processes, physical resource grabbing, and also partly in violence ofcourse too. But especially by today's standards — and actually even by the standards that should have applied back then — it's already terrible enough to impose a religion on people en masse. Of course it wasn't like that for everyone. Some adopted it willingly, but for the people who didn't want it, it wasn't good at all. And we don't even need to talk about the introduction of diseases.