# Would you move to Australia for Jesus?



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2011)

Time to put that faith to the test!


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 21, 2011)

No.


----------



## mtnwoman (Sep 21, 2011)

Not that Jesus, I wouldn't. 

If I were younger, I might go there to battle against what this guy is trying to set up, but I'm too old for that now. Hopefully some missionaries there can intervene.
Prayers going up for those totally spiritually deprived people.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2011)

But he says he is Jesus and look at how the people who know him react. You think all those people are lying? Maybe you just don't see what they do.


----------



## dawg2 (Sep 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> But he says he is Jesus and look at how the people who know him react. You think all those people are lying? Maybe you just don't see what they do.



I can say I am Kermit the frog or Count Dracula, but it doesn't make it so...

Just because other people believe it doesn't make it so, either.

Seems I would have gotten an e-mail or something if he was in fact the real Jesus.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> I can say I am Kermit the frog or Count Dracula, but it doesn't make it so...
> 
> Just because other people believe it doesn't make it so, either.
> 
> Seems I would have gotten an e-mail or something if he was in fact the real Jesus.



This thread is that something. Might want to rethink your rejection before it's too late!


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> This thread is that something. Might want to rethink your rejection before it's too late!



That's good stuff.

The truth is, every response to your comments will be invalidated by disbelief.  That's why they call it faith.  You make a great point, if you don't have it. But, the fact that a person believes Jesus already came eliminates another Jesus, or, the first one wasn't real.  Clearly, a Christian would believe the first.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> That's good stuff.
> 
> The truth is, every response to your comments will be invalidated by disbelief.  That's why they call it faith.  You make a great point, if you don't have it. But, the fact that a person believes Jesus already came eliminates another Jesus, or, the first one wasn't real.  Clearly, a Christian would believe the first.



Perhaps. Or maybe John of Patmos ate the wrong mushrooms and the original message got distorted and this really is a return of the real Jesus. Why risk getting it wrong about this guy? Better safe than sorry right?


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Perhaps. Or maybe John of Patmos ate the wrong mushrooms and the original message got distorted and this really is a return of the real Jesus. Why risk getting it wrong about this guy? Better safe than sorry right?



You know, Revelation sounds like John was eatin' something good while writing.....

My 11 yr old reads it for fun.  All the horsemen and dragons and stuff......


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Better safe than sorry right?



How 'bout this, believers are mindless followers, right?  Lead the way....we're right behind you.....


----------



## hummdaddy (Sep 21, 2011)

i'm packin up now ... if anyone could do it god could...


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> How 'bout this, believers are mindless followers, right?  Lead the way....we're right behind you.....



I'll pass. Just trying to play Jesus advocate here.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Sep 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> You know, Revelation sounds like John was eatin' something good while writing.....
> 
> My 11 yr old reads it for fun.  All the horsemen and dragons and stuff......



I struggle with accepting Rev. Not because of it's content but because it came to be some 60+ years later. You can't reveal anything new to the faith after the fact. There should be nothing contained in Rev that the first converts did not already know. Otherwise you have an "evolving" faith. Which would not be the gospel first entrusted to the saints


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 21, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I struggle with accepting Rev. Not because of it's content but because it came to be some 60+ years later.



I have a similar problem, but I haven't started really digging there yet, though.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 22, 2011)

I will move to Australia if He can make feel like the girl does does at the 7:50 mark.


----------



## vowell462 (Sep 22, 2011)

Wow. Awsome video.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 22, 2011)

Is it possible the Jesus from 2000 years ago was someone like this guy with a pack of similar followers?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Is it possible the Jesus from 2000 years ago was someone like this guy with a pack of similar followers?



The Magic 8 Ball says "Outlook Good"


----------



## pnome (Sep 22, 2011)

I somehow doubt this guy is a carpenter by trade.


----------



## biggtruxx (Sep 22, 2011)

Can you post the link instead of the actual video. Access here is not available.I can look at the link though.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 22, 2011)

pnome said:


> I somehow doubt this guy is a carpenter by trade.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 22, 2011)

biggtruxx said:


> Can you post the link instead of the actual video. Access here is not available.I can look at the link though.



Forum rules require videos be embedded. You can find it by doing a search for "Inside Australia's Chilling New Cult".


----------



## vowell462 (Sep 22, 2011)

pnome said:


> I somehow doubt this guy is a carpenter by trade.


----------



## TheBishop (Sep 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Is it possible the Jesus from 2000 years ago was someone like this guy with a pack of similar followers?



I think he was more like this.

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/WBFm-LhhrqM?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/WBFm-LhhrqM?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>


----------



## applejuice (Sep 22, 2011)

Wow ,is the only response I have!


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 22, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I struggle with accepting Rev. Not because of it's content but because it came to be some 60+ years later. You can't reveal anything new to the faith after the fact. There should be nothing contained in Rev that the first converts did not already know. Otherwise you have an "evolving" faith. Which would not be the gospel first entrusted to the saints



You really don't have any problem believing the content of Revelation?


----------



## pnome (Sep 23, 2011)

I was thinking about this video on the way into work this morning.

I've often seen the argument made that the Gospel is true because the biblical disciples would not have been capable of taking a lie to their grave.   Now, watch those interviews they do with some of this guy's "disciples" again.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 23, 2011)

pnome said:


> I've often seen the argument made that the Gospel is true because the biblical disciples would not have been capable of taking a lie to their grave.   Now, watch those interviews they do with some of this guy's "disciples" again.



Its not the concept of taking a lie to the grave, its the concept of dieing for a hoax.  The folks who started the early church saw something that made them willing to put thier life on the line for.  I know that's not great evidence, its just something for me to think about.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 23, 2011)

There are many followers that have died for someone that they thought was their messiah. To them they were just as convinced as the people back in Jesus time. There were many that died along those lines before Jesus' following and there will be many that die after him by people thinking who they are following is Jesus or in their minds someone better. Putting lives on the line or taking it to a deathbed is not unique for following religious leaders/beliefs.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 23, 2011)

bullethead said:


> There are many followers that have died for someone that they thought was their messiah. To them they were just as convinced as the people back in Jesus time. There were many that died along those lines before Jesus' following and there will be many that die after him by people thinking who they are following is Jesus or in their minds someone better. Putting lives on the line or taking it to a deathbed is not unique for following religious leaders/beliefs.



I know.  I was talking about the hoax theory.  Muslims die all the time for what they believe in.  I also said it was not great evidence.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 23, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I know.  I was talking about the hoax theory.  Muslims die all the time for what they believe in.  I also said it was not great evidence.



I agree. But it isn't uncommon to see it put forward as evidence.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I agree. But it isn't uncommon to see it put forward as evidence.



For me, it could be evidence that it was not a big joke.  Not many people would die for a laugh.  They believed in whatever they saw.  Does that validate what they saw, no.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 23, 2011)

It amazes me how malleable the human mind can be. Also amazes me that religious people can look at those indoctrinated into other beliefs and see it with a rational mind but they can't do the same with their own religion. Understand how Aussie Jesus followers look to you and you'll understand how you look to non-believers.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Understand how Aussie Jesus followers look to you and you'll understand how you look to non-believers.



I know how I look to non-believers.  And I understand their perspective, I get it.  I just can't take their side, if that makes sense.....


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 23, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I know how I look to non-believers.  And I understand their perspective, I get it.  I just can't take their side, if that makes sense.....



The thing about people of faith, those Aussie cultists included, is that when it comes down to it, what they will all say is "I know it doesn't make sense but I just know it's true with every fiber of my being."

"I know it doesn't make sense....."

That's the part I just can't get passed.  It's just so much easier to go through life and to maintain spiritual integrity by operating only by things that DO make sense.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 23, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> "I know it doesn't make sense....."
> 
> That's the part I just can't get passed.  It's just so much easier to go through life and to maintain spiritual integrity by operating only by only things that DO make sense.



My belief system makes sense to me, it probably wouldn't to you because you and I have a different conclusion to the OC problem.

Existence came from somewhere, or existence is infinite.  In order for that to happen, something beyond the natural would have had to get the ball rolling, or everything is infinite.  This logical problem leads me to believe in God, it leads a typical atheist to say "it is unknowable."

Those two positions will never meet, and they will not make sense to each other.  

So, I get that it does not make sense to you, but it makes plenty of sense to me......does that make sense?


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 23, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> My belief system makes sense to me, it probably wouldn't to you because you and I have a different conclusion to the OC problem.
> 
> Existence came from somewhere, or existence is infinite.  In order for that to happen, something beyond the natural would have had to get the ball rolling, or everything is infinite.  This logical problem leads me to believe in God, it leads a typical atheist to say "it is unknowable."
> 
> ...



But "God" is not an answer to that question. It's only a question mark renamed.


----------



## Huntinfool (Sep 23, 2011)

I actually sat down and watched the whole thing.  It was truly frightening from a number of different perspectives.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> But "God" is not an answer to that question. It's only a question mark renamed.



.....and you made my point for me.  Same information, two different conclusions. It's like when all of those folks sent GON pictures of housecats claiming they were cougars, who is on which side?

If two folks can't agree on the OC, none of the rest of their system will make sense either.  That's why you don't see the differences between me and the folks out in Australia, and I get that, and will never be able to convince you otherwise.


----------



## archerholic (Sep 23, 2011)

Absolutely pathetic. I can only pray that the good Lord takes me outta here before I ever allow myself to be so mislead. Is it just me or did anyone notice that this 'Jesus' has to wear glasses????


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 23, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> .....and you made my point for me.  Same information, two different conclusions. It's like when all of those folks sent GON pictures of housecats claiming they were cougars, who is on which side?
> 
> If two folks can't agree on the OC, none of the rest of their system will make sense either.  That's why you don't see the differences between me and the folks out in Australia, and I get that, and will never be able to convince you otherwise.



Yes but do you see differences between you and the folks in that video? I'm not talking about differences in belief I'm talking about differences in the process that led you to your belief. If you want to plug a gap in our knowledge with a being that isn't even known to exist what makes one such theory any better than the other? It's the suspension of rationality and then denying it that is of greater concern than the details of the conclusions doing so leads you to. If we're just speculating... "God did it.", "There's a multiverse.", "Cosmic membranes collided", "An alien named Ralph had a science experiment go wrong in his basement.", or whatever you want to dream up that is OK. But be honest that it's speculation, not something that you know or have good evidence to believe.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 23, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> .....and you made my point for me.  Same information, two different conclusions. It's like when all of those folks sent GON pictures of housecats claiming they were cougars, who is on which side?
> 
> If two folks can't agree on the OC, none of the rest of their system will make sense either.  That's why you don't see the differences between me and the folks out in Australia, and I get that, and will never be able to convince you otherwise.



So what leads you to "Creator"?  Irreducible Complexity? Gut feeling?

I'm sorry if you've answered this somewhere before.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yes but do you see differences between you and the folks in that video?.



Yes.  My belief has to make sense to me.  I will not suspend logic (according to me) to reach a conclusion.  Like I said, check out some of my debates with the other Christians on the SD&S to see where I am going on that.



atlashunter said:


> If you want to plug a gap in our knowledge with a being that isn't even known to exist what makes one such theory any better than the other?



There are multiple levels to what I believe.  God, from my perspective, is a logical conclusion.  You and I will never see eye to eye on that.  We have debated it a few times and got nowhere.  Could I be wrong, yes. But, obviously, I don't think that I am.

But, to be a Christian, or to understand anything a Christian believes, you have to accept something, a being, a flying spaghetti monster, Ralph, something got the wheel spinning.  Until then, the conversation will go nowhere because there is no common basis.  I clearly don't believe like most Christians do about many, many things.  So I don't think I can be lumped into that crowd either, they probably don't want me to be either.



atlashunter said:


> But be honest that it's speculation, not something that you know or have good evidence to believe.



Speculation laced with a hint of logic which leads me to a place where I am at peace with the universe.

Let me ask you this, and be honest, have I ever tried to force my beliefs on anybody here?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yes but do you see differences between you and the folks in that video? I'm not talking about differences in belief I'm talking about differences in the process that led you to your belief. If you want to plug a gap in our knowledge with a being that isn't even known to exist what makes one such theory any better than the other? It's the suspension of rationality and then denying it that is of greater concern than the details of the conclusions doing so leads you to. If we're just speculating... "God did it.", "There's a multiverse.", "Cosmic membranes collided", "An alien named Ralph had a science experiment go wrong in his basement.", or whatever you want to dream up that is OK. But be honest that it's speculation, not something that you know or have good evidence to believe.



And I would add: there is no natural or rational model to support the existence of such a being.

The most reasonable explanation I have for the development of a "God" notion is that people combined the concepts of "one being is superior to another" (the lion has dominion over the gazelle.  I have dominion over the lion.  The lightning has dominion over me.  Maybe someone has dominion over the lightning.) and "I can manipulate things and turn clay into a vessel".   What I still don't understand is how the notion of things "poofing" into existence came about.  There's no natural model for it.  Or the notion that people have an essence that remains after death, distinct and whole.  Natural observation favors the concept of reincarnation; stuff goes back into the soup to get rearranged  and re-used.   It must have been a hiccup that came from having a big brain and idle time that brought about the first God concept.


----------



## tournament fisher (Sep 23, 2011)

absolute sick folks right there. i cant believe a human being can be mislead into that. god gave us brains to use not to fry!!!!!


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 23, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> So what leads you to "Creator"?  Irreducible Complexity? Gut feeling?
> 
> I'm sorry if you've answered this somewhere before.




I wrote a long response to this, and for some reason it vanished when I submitted it.  Not sure what happend, but......

I believe in evolution, so I do not believe the entire OT is literal.  I believe science and faith can work together, depending on one's perspective.

Life is different than matter and energy.  It sustains a species, not an individual organism.  Electricity and carbon very well may have combined to create the first living molecules, but what made that want to sustain itself.  How many electro-carbon "cells" were made before one reproduced?  The chances and possibilities of that occurring are not as logical as concluding that life was created from life.  And, because individual life is temporary, ther is an infinite regress, or an OC.  I view the OC as the most logical conclusion.  Something beyond the physical.  

I have no evidence of anything beyond the physical existing, it is just where the logical road leads me.

As far as "poofing" into existence is concerned, well, if something beyond the physical exists, then it might be able to "poof" things.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 23, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Yes.  My belief has to make sense to me.  I will not suspend logic (according to me) to reach a conclusion.  Like I said, check out some of my debates with the other Christians on the SD&S to see where I am going on that.



Fair enough. I don't question the sincerity of your belief any more than I would question the sincerity of the people in that video. I do question how you/they reach the conclusions. If you listen to them answering the questions you'll hear the same kind of reasoning Christians offer all the time, personal experience, gut feelings, voices in the head, etc. Using these as a means of determining fantasy from reality is not rational IMO.




JB0704 said:


> There are multiple levels to what I believe.  God, from my perspective, is a logical conclusion.  You and I will never see eye to eye on that.  We have debated it a few times and got nowhere.  Could I be wrong, yes. But, obviously, I don't think that I am.
> 
> But, to be a Christian, or to understand anything a Christian believes, you have to accept something, a being, a flying spaghetti monster, Ralph, something got the wheel spinning.  Until then, the conversation will go nowhere because there is no common basis.  I clearly don't believe like most Christians do about many, many things.  So I don't think I can be lumped into that crowd either, they probably don't want me to be either.



I don't recall us specifically having that discussion but I agree we won't see eye to eye. The part in red stands out to me. To me, they are all speculation. There _could_ be Ralph, there _could_ be the FSM, and there _could_ be the deity described in the bible. There could be any great number of things. I'll go that far with you. To make the leap from _could_ to _is_ will require good solid evidence and the more extraordinary the claim the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be. To whatever degree of certainty you are claiming there _is_ a god I'm asking why you believe it and why anyone else should.




JB0704 said:


> Speculation laced with a hint of logic which leads me to a place where I am at peace with the universe.



While there is certainly something to be said for what makes us feel at peace if our concern is for what is true it isn't relevant. There are truths about the universe that we may find comforting or unsettling but that truth is what it is regardless of how it makes us feel. 




JB0704 said:


> Let me ask you this, and be honest, have I ever tried to force my beliefs on anybody here?



Not that I'm aware of. I don't recall having any previous discussions with you on here but you do seem more rational than the average believer.


----------



## JB0704 (Sep 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Not that I'm aware of. I don't recall having any previous discussions with you on here but you do seem more rational than the average believer.



We debated abortion once, and the OC on pnome's thread about becoming a deist, I think.  I changed my avatar in a sarcastic response to a divorce thread in the SD&S.

As far as the rest of your post goes, check out some thoughts I responded to with ambush, and that will clarify a little bit of the logical process which leads me to believe there is a God.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 23, 2011)

I am not going to read this thread now, but about moving to Australia, I am told by people who have lived and worked there that Australia is the best kept secret in the world. And part of the reason it a best kept secret is that it is secret. So don't tell...to many folk. And the people that say it is not possible my country is the best of the best, the goodest of the goodest. Leave them to their truths.


----------



## gordon 2 (Sep 24, 2011)

hummerpoo said:


> I'm ready to go, but we have to get to Melbourne in time for the AFL Final at 2:30 AEST next Saturday.  I'm rooting for Geelong, how about you?
> 
> Oh! who's got tickets?



Go where? Mums the word.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Sep 26, 2011)

He's got my vote.. He IS left handed


----------

