Caged Finally at peace with death

DirtyCurryCell

DirtyCurryCell

Well-known member
Been suicidal on and off.
But now... the idea that it's gonna end and the suffering would sieze.
It feels comforting.

I'm gonna delete all the junk on my hd and leave them for friends.
I'm finally gonna be at piece with it when I'm dead.

It will still take a while. Probably after December next year.
I was gonna do a Club 27. Guess I'll have to settle for a logan's run.

I don't see my life getting any better.

I will never have a well paid job, get to immigrate or have sex.
I'm just a burden on my parents. A waste of space.

The weird thing is I think about my mum a lot, even though she was the one who destroyed my life, I just feel sad about her. I don't think my dad is gonna care.

I have some projects I want to finish before I die. Round out my Incel ideology.
 
How are you feeling today, man? Christ loves you, you know, for He died and rose to resolve our souls, and everything is within His will. He has a purpose for your soul as He does for all other believers in Him, so we aren't to fall into despair in opposition to that purpose, don't you think?
 
baqqrih said:
How are you feeling today, man? Christ loves you, you know, for He died and rose to resolve our souls, and everything is within His will. He has a purpose for your soul as He does for all other believers in Him, so we aren't to fall into despair in opposition to that purpose, don't you think?
Click to expand...
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.

But...
a81e7a2dc7aecdd6eeb7da32f996d45e77de0919.gifv


That being said, I do believe Christ is better than Sid.
 
baqqrih said:
Oh, my apologies. I'm new around here so I'm not familiar with everybody. But, no, I wasn't being sarcastic. Just wanted to provide you some kind words and concern.
Click to expand...
Christianity is the best religion tbh.
I once considered converting. But I realized I could never be a christian for the same reason I can never be a hindu or muslim or buddhist.
 
DirtyCurryCell said:
both
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, what I was asking is why you can't, not if you'd be unable to accept either a deity or a person's divinity. You have your own free will of study, of course, so don't feel like I'm trying to force something on you, but have you ever tried comparing the Messianic prophecies of before Christ's time to Christ's documented life? Those might help you comprehend better His status on this planet.
 
baqqrih said:
Well, yeah, what I was asking is why you can't, not if you'd be unable to accept either a deity or a person's divinity. You have your own free will of study, of course, so don't feel like I'm trying to force something on you, but have you ever tried comparing the Messianic prophecies of before Christ's time to Christ's documented life? Those might help you comprehend better His status on this planet.
Click to expand...
How do know the original accounts are true?
 
DirtyCurryCell said:
How do know the original accounts are true?
Click to expand...
Well, archaeology, scribal history, and manuscript evidence all play a part, I'd say (if you're asking how we know the original scriptures haven't been tarnished with lies and fables). Archaeological discoveries like the famous Dead Sea Scrolls have allowed us to identify astounding identicality to other copies of ancient scriptures younger than those scrolls, the meticulous process of scribes jotting down scripture over and over again, and translating it into different languages, has allowed for human, textual errors to eventually be entirely driven out of our modern Bible translations through comparisons of different texts by scribes (i.e if one scribe mistakes a Hebrew character that looks similar to another for that other symbol, and then ten other scribes see it for what it is as they write it down, we then know that there was an error made by a scribe that must be corrected), and manuscripts dating from the thirteenth century to today and to the times of even the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of the oldest copies we've ever discovered, all align in their presentation of scripture, the only differences that are present being mild sentence structure or grammatical changes that don't modify or provide any theological difference dependent on the copy. I hope I interpreted your question right, anyway.
 
baqqrih said:
Well, archaeology, scribal history, and manuscript evidence all play a part, I'd say (if you're asking how we know the original scriptures haven't been tarnished with lies and fables). Archaeological discoveries like the famous Dead Sea Scrolls have allowed us to identify astounding identicality to other copies of ancient scriptures younger than those scrolls, the meticulous process of scribes jotting down scripture over and over again, and translating it into different languages, has allowed for human, textual errors to eventually be entirely driven out of our modern Bible translations through comparisons of different texts by scribes (i.e if one scribe mistakes a Hebrew character that looks similar to another for that other symbol, and then ten other scribes see it for what it is as they write it down, we then know that there was an error made by a scribe that must be corrected), and manuscripts dating from the thirteenth century to today and to the times of even the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of the oldest copies we've ever discovered, all align in their presentation of scripture, the only differences that are present being mild sentence structure or grammatical changes that don't modify or provide any theological difference dependent on the copy. I hope I interpreted your question right, anyway.
Click to expand...
No, I'm asking how we know that authors of the original texts were being honest.
 
DirtyCurryCell said:
No, I'm asking how we know that authors of the original texts were being honest.
Click to expand...
Ah, alright. Well, let me frame it in this sense: let's imagine that they were all lying, the disciples, the apostles, every single person involved in composing and contributing to the Gospels and the New Testament. Spiritually, in knowing that they are lying about a guy being the Son of God, they'd therefore be at the understanding that they're going to hell for this, but that there, then, must be some reward on Earth worth making such a big lie over, since hell is eventual, but maybe they'll get some joy out of this heresy in the meantime, something worth deceiving the masses for. So, what reward do they get on Earth, then, that this heretical thought must be worth? Could it be abundant glory, riches, women, land, fame? Maybe if they deceive enough people, they could have palaces of concubines, or a vast empire, all to be ruled amongst themselves together! No. They get persecuted and driven out from town to town, locked up in deep dungeons, stoned to death, beheaded, flayed alive, burnt to death, crucified, clubbed to death, one had rope bound to his neck as a horse dragged him through streets of cobblestone, another burnt with hot plates and stabbed with spears, another hanged upon the branch of an olive tree, the list continues. Does this sound like the type of plan that people would be so willing to spend their lives for, without any resistance to the ruling authorities oppressing them, for these people truly believed that those who die for The Lord are blessed with eternal life, and that, even as they were so gruesomely killed, that they would inhabit a place alongside The Lord in the hereafter? My response, then, is: why would they, the early Christians, the original followers of Christ, lie and deceive to the point of the most unimaginable human pain when they could have, at any moment, packed up and given up on their lie? Why would they have written these historical accounts if they knew what would come to them? Why would they report and spread news of all of these miracles of Christ, following Him as He healed and blessed, when they knew it would have the authorities on their tail, desperate for a justification to slay them all? Clearly, then, at least in my eyes, it's very blatant that something divine is going on here, for something so peculiar to occur that so many would sacrifice their whole existence just to praise what must be a random, false prophet, right? Well, no, He wasn't any false prophet, He was the Son of God, as proven to me, and hopefully, eventually, with your own study, to you, through the documentations of His own miracles, through the hundreds of Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Him, and through the sheer determination and willpower His first followers showed to the world with their acts of courage and bravery in the face of the severest oppression one could encounter in their time.
 
baqqrih said:
Ah, alright. Well, let me frame it in this sense: let's imagine that they were all lying, the disciples, the apostles, every single person involved in composing and contributing to the Gospels and the New Testament. Spiritually, in knowing that they are lying about a guy being the Son of God, they'd therefore be at the understanding that they're going to hell for this, but that there, then, must be some reward on Earth worth making such a big lie over, since hell is eventual, but maybe they'll get some joy out of this heresy in the meantime, something worth deceiving the masses for. So, what reward do they get on Earth, then, that this heretical thought must be worth? Could it be abundant glory, riches, women, land, fame? Maybe if they deceive enough people, they could have palaces of concubines, or a vast empire, all to be ruled amongst themselves together! No. They get persecuted and driven out from town to town, locked up in deep dungeons, stoned to death, beheaded, flayed alive, burnt to death, crucified, clubbed to death, one had rope bound to his neck as a horse dragged him through streets of cobblestone, another burnt with hot plates and stabbed with spears, another hanged upon the branch of an olive tree, the list continues. Does this sound like the type of plan that people would be so willing to spend their lives for, without any resistance to the ruling authorities oppressing them, for these people truly believed that those who die for The Lord are blessed with eternal life, and that, even as they were so gruesomely killed, that they would inhabit a place alongside The Lord in the hereafter? My response, then, is: why would they, the early Christians, the original followers of Christ, lie and deceive to the point of the most unimaginable human pain when they could have, at any moment, packed up and given up on their lie? Why would they have written these historical accounts if they knew what would come to them? Why would they report and spread news of all of these miracles of Christ, following Him as He healed and blessed, when they knew it would have the authorities on their tail, desperate for a justification to slay them all? Clearly, then, at least in my eyes, it's very blatant that something divine is going on here, for something so peculiar to occur that so many would sacrifice their whole existence just to praise what must be a random, false prophet, right? Well, no, He wasn't any false prophet, He was the Son of God, as proven to me, and hopefully, eventually, with your own study, to you, through the documentations of His own miracles, through the hundreds of Messianic prophecies fulfilled by Him, and through the sheer determination and willpower His first followers showed to the world with their acts of courage and bravery in the face of the severest oppression one could encounter in their time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but what I'm saying is this. It is true that when the romans tortured the church fathers, they all swore jesus rose from the grave.

But how do we know that THIS account was true.

What motive would they have?

Could it be that they were simply atheists did only for political gain?
 
DirtyCurryCell said:
Yeah, but what I'm saying is this. It is true that when the romans tortured the church fathers, they all swore jesus rose from the grave.

But how do we know that THIS account was true.

What motive would they have?

Could it be that they were simply atheists did only for political gain?
Click to expand...
Good questions, sorry I didn't respond earlier, as I had to go to bed. To start off, I'd have to also ponder what motive the church fathers could've had for proclaiming their beliefs besides having clear faith in what they believed, as they clearly didn't get anything out of it as they were being killed. I don't see what other reasoning one could have for doing such a thing, of propping up a lie even in their death, when no political gain or other such benefit would've ever been given to them in the midst of their torture or to the believers around them who persisted after they died. Take Justin Martyr, as one example; a Christian teacher, writer, and philosopher of amazing intellect who later migrated to Rome to continue his teachings, had angered the authorities after a Cynic philosopher named Crescens reported him to them, and who ended up, after refusing to make a sacrifice to the Hellenic gods, proclaiming (I'm not a Papist but that site I've linked is decent for reading some saintly works):
>That is our desire, to be tortured for Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and so to be saved, for that will give us salvation and firm confidence at the more terrible universal tribunal of Our Lord and Saviour.
Before being beheaded alongside several of his students, who also insisted upon the grace of The Lord. We must ask ourselves, then; "did these people, who, in Rome, would never have their ideas gain any great political power until centuries afterward, have their heads chopped off for the sake of their own personal, political gain?" I'm not sure how we could come to that conclusion. They were dying, they were at life's end, they couldn't hold a political office after that case, of course, and even after so many martyrdoms, Christians still continued to suffer persecution for a very long while afterward in the places of those martyrs' deaths, so it wasn't done as a sacrifice for any political gain for the believers as a whole, either.
 
baqqrih said:
Good questions, sorry I didn't respond earlier, as I had to go to bed. To start off, I'd have to also ponder what motive the church fathers could've had for proclaiming their beliefs besides having clear faith in what they believed, as they clearly didn't get anything out of it as they were being killed. I don't see what other reasoning one could have for doing such a thing, of propping up a lie even in their death, when no political gain or other such benefit would've ever been given to them in the midst of their torture or to the believers around them who persisted after they died. Take Justin Martyr, as one example; a Christian teacher, writer, and philosopher of amazing intellect who later migrated to Rome to continue his teachings, had angered the authorities after a Cynic philosopher named Crescens reported him to them, and who ended up, after refusing to make a sacrifice to the Hellenic gods, proclaiming (I'm not a Papist but that site I've linked is decent for reading some saintly works):
>That is our desire, to be tortured for Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and so to be saved, for that will give us salvation and firm confidence at the more terrible universal tribunal of Our Lord and Saviour.
Before being beheaded alongside several of his students, who also insisted upon the grace of The Lord. We must ask ourselves, then; "did these people, who, in Rome, would never have their ideas gain any great political power until centuries afterward, have their heads chopped off for the sake of their own personal, political gain?" I'm not sure how we could come to that conclusion. They were dying, they were at life's end, they couldn't hold a political office after that case, of course, and even after so many martyrdoms, Christians still continued to suffer persecution for a very long while afterward in the places of those martyrs' deaths, so it wasn't done as a sacrifice for any political gain for the believers as a whole, either.
Click to expand...
Yes, but what I'm asking is that how do we know the accounts that say the church fathers didn't denounce christ and were executed are true and not fabrications added by later christian rulers.

Think about it, the Romans wouldn't have much of a reason to care about Jews or Christians so long as they could maintain their empire.
 
DirtyCurryCell said:
Yes, but what I'm asking is that how do we know the accounts that say the church fathers didn't denounce christ and were executed are true and not fabrications added by later christian rulers.

Think about it, the Romans wouldn't have much of a reason to care about Jews or Christians so long as they could maintain their empire.
Click to expand...
I will start by saying that your doubts are certainly justified, as, for example, if a guy writes a book about how great his best friend is, it would only be natural to believe that this guy, being friends with that man, has a positive bias towards him. Similarly, how do we know that the Christians who documented those accounts of martyrdom weren't just making hagiographies of their dead brethren? Well, we know that some accounts were written by non-Christians, like Flavius Josephus, who reported on the death of James in his text The Antiquities of the Jews, but, in addition, we know that other early, significant martyrs who personally knew or greatly spread the word of Christ, like Peter or Paul, have had their deaths also recorded in extra-Biblical resources like the epistle of Clement, Ignatius' epistle to the Ephesians, or Tertullian's documentation in his text, Scorpiace. So, we know that the martyrs were described in such a way of martyrdom just years after their deaths, before Christians could have held power to change manuscripts away from such a description. However, I will also say that, at some point, one must simply make a decision to have trust in what historical documentation is present regarding where we may have doubts, which is where you and I differ, as I have trust in these manuscripts documenting the martyrs, a trust that stems from my own, personal faith and religion, while you do not share that faith with me from the position and will of yourself, and so, I really can't formulate much more than that; it eventually comes down to faith in Christ or no faith in Christ, and so I'd say that's where this conundrum would settle itself, since nothing more can be stated. Still, it's been very good talking to you, so I thank you for the discussion.
 
baqqrih said:
I will start by saying that your doubts are certainly justified, as, for example, if a guy writes a book about how great his best friend is, it would only be natural to believe that this guy, being friends with that man, has a positive bias towards him. Similarly, how do we know that the Christians who documented those accounts of martyrdom weren't just making hagiographies of their dead brethren? Well, we know that some accounts were written by non-Christians, like Flavius Josephus, who reported on the death of James in his text The Antiquities of the Jews, but, in addition, we know that other early, significant martyrs who personally knew or greatly spread the word of Christ, like Peter or Paul, have had their deaths also recorded in extra-Biblical resources like the epistle of Clement, Ignatius' epistle to the Ephesians, or Tertullian's documentation in his text, Scorpiace. So, we know that the martyrs were described in such a way of martyrdom just years after their deaths, before Christians could have held power to change manuscripts away from such a description. However, I will also say that, at some point, one must simply make a decision to have trust in what historical documentation is present regarding where we may have doubts, which is where you and I differ, as I have trust in these manuscripts documenting the martyrs, a trust that stems from my own, personal faith and religion, while you do not share that faith with me from the position and will of yourself, and so, I really can't formulate much more than that; it eventually comes down to faith in Christ or no faith in Christ, and so I'd say that's where this conundrum would settle itself, since nothing more can be stated. Still, it's been very good talking to you, so I thank you for the discussion.
Click to expand...
Did figures like Flavius Josephus write about the resurrection of Christ? And if so, was it a first hand account.

The thing about any religion is that the founders would and outsiders would all have reason to lie.

BUT... the difference between christianity and Buddhism, for example is that primary buddhist sources admit that the miracles attributed to Buddha were didactic. They were told with the intention of teaching a lesson. But Christian sources insist christ's miracles were genuine.
So with Buddhist ones being didactic, why can't christian ones.

All this leads me to is a form of agnosticism towards Jesus's miracles.

THAT being said.


My real beef with Christianity is the same which Ibn Warraq, a former muslim and defender of the west had with Mahathma Gandhi. Which is that Gandhi's actions only worked because the british allowed it.

Likewise with Jesus, Zarathustra and Buddha, as well as many others like them. Their reformations only worked because they were under Roman, Persian and Hindu, and said rulers tolerated them. This applies to left wingers as well. If Karl Marx had been born in a jewish village in iraq, the local rabbi would've told him to shut the fuck up.

Jesus, Buddha and Zarathustra all had attempts made on their lives. Or faced opposition.

And remember, the jews won in the end. They managed to get the romans to crucify jesus.

If I was Jesus, Buddha or Zarathustra, I would've gotten my disciples to gymmax, and lead a rebellion agains the existing oligarchy. So basically Islam.

My beef with Islam, is that Arab culture is backwards and doesn't have the necessary building blocks to form a functioning society. Muhammad basically tried to reform the arabs and he was kicked out. This blackpilled him to the true nature of the world. He was no Buddha or Jesus or Zarathustra. He was an incel and unwanted child. So he raised and army. Islamic sources describe him as a depressed schizo. He probably knew what would happen. A depressed schizo is the only kind of prophets a sick world like that of the arabs would perform. While the world of the Iranic, Indic and Roman people created gentler and loving prophets/messiahs.
 
DirtyCurryCell said:
Did figures like Flavius Josephus write about the resurrection of Christ? And if so, was it a first hand account.

The thing about any religion is that the founders would and outsiders would all have reason to lie.

BUT... the difference between christianity and Buddhism, for example is that primary buddhist sources admit that the miracles attributed to Buddha were didactic. They were told with the intention of teaching a lesson. But Christian sources insist christ's miracles were genuine.
So with Buddhist ones being didactic, why can't christian ones.

All this leads me to is a form of agnosticism towards Jesus's miracles.

THAT being said.


My real beef with Christianity is the same which Ibn Warraq, a former muslim and defender of the west had with Mahathma Gandhi. Which is that Gandhi's actions only worked because the british allowed it.

Likewise with Jesus, Zarathustra and Buddha, as well as many others like them. Their reformations only worked because they were under Roman, Persian and Hindu, and said rulers tolerated them. This applies to left wingers as well. If Karl Marx had been born in a jewish village in iraq, the local rabbi would've told him to shut the fuck up.

Jesus, Buddha and Zarathustra all had attempts made on their lives. Or faced opposition.

And remember, the jews won in the end. They managed to get the romans to crucify jesus.

If I was Jesus, Buddha or Zarathustra, I would've gotten my disciples to gymmax, and lead a rebellion agains the existing oligarchy. So basically Islam.

My beef with Islam, is that Arab culture is backwards and doesn't have the necessary building blocks to form a functioning society. Muhammad basically tried to reform the arabs and he was kicked out. This blackpilled him to the true nature of the world. He was no Buddha or Jesus or Zarathustra. He was an incel and unwanted child. So he raised and army. Islamic sources describe him as a depressed schizo. He probably knew what would happen. A depressed schizo is the only kind of prophets a sick world like that of the arabs would perform. While the world of the Iranic, Indic and Roman people created gentler and loving prophets/messiahs.
Click to expand...
Certainly some interesting thoughts. Well, to answer your question about Josephus, he actually did, writing of it in that same text I mentioned about a chapter before the mention of James' martyrdom. This wasn't a first-hand account, as Josephus didn't directly witness Christ's resurrection, but he did hear of it during his time in the Holy Land, and jotted it down among his histories. The excerpt of it (there have been scholarly squabbles over parts of what he wrote and their authenticity, like whether or not he did actually accept Jesus as the Christ and Messiah) I will post here:
>About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
 
Back
Top