• jerkface@lemmy.caEnglish
    12·
    2 minutes ago

    Jesus was way cool
    Everybody liked Jesus
    Everybody wanted to hang out with him
    Anything he wanted to do, he did
    He turned water into wine
    And if he wanted to
    He could have turned wheat into marijuana
    Or sugar into cocaine
    Or vitamin pills into amphetamines

    He walked on the water
    And swam on the land
    He would tell these stories
    And people would listen
    He was really cool

    If you were blind or lame
    You just went to Jesus
    And he would put his hands on you
    And you would be healed
    That’s so cool

    He could’ve played guitar better than Hendrix
    He could’ve told the future
    He could’ve baked the most delicious cake in the world
    He could’ve scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky
    He could’ve danced better than Baryshnikov
    Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of
    Jesus was way cool

    He told people to eat his body and drink his blood
    That’s so cool
    Jesus was so cool
    But then some people got jealous of how cool he was
    So they killed him
    But then he rose from the dead
    He rose from the dead, danced around
    Then went up to heaven
    I mean, that’s so cool
    Jesus was way cool

    No wonder there are so many Christians

  • Egg_Egg@lemm.ee
    10·
    7 hours ago

    Jesus is said to be God, therefore he should be omnipotent and capable of literally anything we could comprehend as humans, or even more than that even.

    Obviously it’s all bullshit but yeah.

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      6·
      4 hours ago

      so does that mean Jesus could change semen to wine if he was giving a handy since semen is mostly water?

      follow up question, would there still be semen in the wine if all he’s changing is the water?

      follow follow up question, how much money do you think one could make if they ejaculated wine instead of semen?

      finally, do you think Jesus masturbates and ejaculates wine for a refreshing post-nut beverage?

      • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        1 hour ago

        First two, yup, if those are what he wants to happen. The others depend on the buyer and Jesus’ mood that day.

  • just_an_average_joe@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    8·
    8 hours ago

    I don’t think so, the premise is that water can be converted to wine. Water here does not mean the chemical composition (ie h2o) but rather as a concept. So once water is converted the whole of it is refered to as “wine”. If you were to separate it into components you can do so but they won’t be called wine. Then you can use jesus to convert the water component again and repeat the process.

    Another caveat, water is more than just h2o ie, what we usually refer to as “water” can contain many things like minerals, salt and even bacteria etc, in fact i doubt you can get pure h2o easily.

  • Allero@lemmy.today
    16·
    23 hours ago

    Everyone’s focused on whether Jesus can do it or not while completely forgetting regular people can do that

    Just, remove the water, c’mon.

    • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
      3·
      6 hours ago

      You need a distillery and a fair bit of knowledge what to do for that. Ethanol boils off faster than water, so if you just simmer it down, you get more wine flavor, but less alcohol (still enough to get you drunk, see christmas markets).

  • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
    22·
    1 day ago

    Yes? He’s literally God and created the world. Doing other things as well like multiplying loaves and rising from the dead. I think He could make wine more and more concentrated, lol

    • supertonik@sopuli.xyz
      72·
      1 day ago

      I’ve always found it amusing when people try to use logic to state that Jesus did this and this and it isn’t logical or God isn’t logical.

        • HeavyRaptor@lemmy.zipEnglish
          9·
          21 hours ago

          Well, not to get into a theological debate here but there are many logical inconsistencies and paradoxes with religion in general.

          Stuff like the “can God create a stone so large that he cannot lift it”; or just seeing all the suffering in the world and trying to justify why a benevolent, all seeing, all knowing, omnipotent being would allow kids to get cancer - either god is not capable to fix it or doesn’t care, neither of which is a great outcome.

          Just applying Occam’s Razor in general makes religion pretty far fetched, especially the more hardline old testament you go: God creating the earth, Noah and the flood, etc. There is just a much simpler explanation to all of it.

          I mean no offence to religious people in general, in fact I think religion can be very useful for some to find a purpose or belonging in their lives. I just find the cognitive dissonance of religion impossible to reconcile with reality.

          • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
            16·
            20 hours ago

            I think the Problem of Evil actually makes sense when you consider eternity and infinity. The infinity that God is and Eternity that Heaven is, earthly sufferings really will be seen to be nothing. You probably don’t worry about that exam anymore that you were studying for as a kid. As for the boulder thing, you may as well say maths is illogical as “can you make something greater than infinity” while infinity + 1 is equal to infinity.

            As for Occam’s razor- how does it explain the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? There’s not really a simple explanation to why 2000 years ago, a lot of guys simultaneously told of the same dude who rose from the dead, then lived a life of suffering and no gain and end up dying because they wouldn’t claim to be wrong. Along with hundreds of these early Christians turning into thousands. Something big did happen - we count our years by it. It’s as if God actually did enter earth as a human.

            • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
              2·
              3 hours ago

              But the moral code of the Bible is strict and unchangeable. Yet you yourself believe morality is relative. Why then are you content letting this being you admit has no capability for relativistic perspective judge our eternal souls based on said unchangeable moral code? Seems pretty illogical.

                • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  1 hour ago

                  I think the Problem of Evil actually makes sense when you consider eternity and infinity. The infinity that God is and Eternity that Heaven is, earthly sufferings really will be seen to be nothing. You probably don’t worry about that exam anymore that you were studying for as a kid.

                  That’s moral relativism to a T. The evil perpetrated by God on humans via unnecessary pain, disease, and death is relatively moral given the vastness of eternity. Basically you’re saying it’s ok for a god to create little playthings to torture because it lives a long time. I disagree.

            • HeavyRaptor@lemmy.zipEnglish
              4·
              9 hours ago

              Let me start with the calendar because I actually had to look up the history of calendars (which was super interesting). The first person to use A.D. was a monk called Dionysius who used it around 525. In the Roman empire years were counted by the year of the current reigning Consul. Dionysius wanted to avoid using the calendar based on Roman emperor Diocletian who widely persecuted christians. This new system was adopted by the church only.

              Centering the calendar around nativity of Jesus was only adopted as an official calendar by Holy Roman emperor Charlemagne in around 1600, and the rest of the world changed over to it over time until around 1900.

              So the people actually living in 1 A.D. had no idea they were living in the year of the lord.

              As far as I know we only really know that Jesus was a real man in the Herodian Kingdom at the time and that he was in fact crucified around 33 A.D. (which would not have been called A.D. at the time). Weather we believe he was truly resurrected is more of a question of faith, relying on religious sources. So basically applying Occam’s razor I would say that the resurrection was just part of the religious texts written by monks, not necessarily something that was 100% true.

              In maths there are definitely larger and smaller infinities. Take for example the set of all natural numbers [1, 2, 3, …]. This is an infinite set. Compare this to the set of rational numbers, these can be expressed as a fraction of two natural numbers [1/1, 1/2, 1/3, …]. There is already an infinite amount of rational numbers between 1 and 2, making this an uncountably larger infinite set. All this being said, the boulder thing always sounded a bit weird to me but it does raise the question of what we mean by omnipotence, and can we accept the existance of such a being, all of this gets very philosophical. (the paradox has several proposed resolutions if you are interested btw, some more satisfying than others)

              Which brings us back to the problem of evil. Let’s say our lives on Earth are just a test to see if we are accepted in heaven. This explains why bad things happen as they are a test of faith. But this just raises more questions:

              Why does it take God our entire lives to decide whether we are accepted? What about babies that die during birth or shortly after? How can they prove their faith?

              Anyway, this got way too long. I’d like to reiterate that I think religion has very positive aspects: community, belonging, purpose, an answer to what happens after death.

              But I’d also say that historically, religion (especially Christianity) was a tool to keep the masses docile and subdued, allowing the church to hold power over hundreds of years but also kept believers somewhat safe, at lest from their own community - commandments like do not kill, steal, or even Jewish customs of not eating specific types of meat. If they had to make up, or embellish things to keep it going, that was a price they were willing to pay.

              • xigoi@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
                1·
                8 hours ago

                Sorry for being pedantic, but the set of rational numbers has the same cardinality (size) as the set of natural numbers, so it’s not “uncountably larger” (in fact, it’s countable). You should’ve chosen the real numbers for your example, which are uncountable.

              • jsqribe@lemm.ee
                11·
                7 hours ago

                Very interesting and balanced response.

                I think we choose to believe logic(maths,physics) based on some form of faith, it’s more scientific and based on peer reviews but ultimately there are times when some of this logic starts to break down e.g when you start looking at quantum and all the interesting things that can happen in theoretical physics with multiverse theory.

                As far fetched as it can seem, I don’t think we can totally count out some form of mysticism or higher power. What I would say is that the current versions we have been given are all man made so by nature they have all been manipulated in some way e.g crusades or more currently, the conflict in the middle east.

                Some people are afraid of the answer being as simple as “we don’t actually know” so they find the closest thing they can stick with to give them purpose.

              • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
                12·
                7 hours ago

                Why does it take God our entire lives to decide whether we are accepted? What about babies that die during birth or shortly after? How can they prove their faith?

                Simple. Mercy. If we screwed up, then God would destroy us immediately. If God were to just stop evil happening on Earth, he’d have to kill everyone at the first moment that they sin. Either that or take away free will.

                I would say that the resurrection was just part of the religious texts written by monks, not necessarily something that was 100% true.

                Biblical scholars would disagree. The earliest text that we have that mentions the resurrection was written by AD 51.

                1 Thessalonians 1:9-10

                For the people of those regions report about us what kind of welcome we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath that is coming.

                Again, it’s worth mentioning that immediate writings were VERY RARE then. The entire Gospel of Mark would have cost the same as a house for a scribe to copy. Which is why we don’t have many writings from that time.

                • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
                  1·
                  2 hours ago

                  Sorry, but Biblical scholars’ proof of the resurrection is from the Bible? You see how that’s not convincing right?

                  God created sin and hell, it didn’t need to do that. After three decades as a Christian, the best answer I could get to the question “Why did God make the universe and us in it?” was “so we could praise it for eternity in heaven.” So it could have just created us in heaven already. Instead it created a whole universe of randomness and ever-increasing chaos, stuck us in it and said, “You better love me and follow these very specific, often inane and arbitrary rules, or I’ll send you to this other place I made where all you feel is pain for eternity.” The god of the Bible is an egomaniacal sadist and it’s not worthy of your praise.

    • Vandals_handle@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      18 hours ago

      Ruby port. Stomped with stigmata. Notes of berries, plums, Euphorbia milii, leather, plasma and iron. Strong finish.

      • Hexarei@programming.dev
        132·
        1 day ago

        The easiest answer to this is yes, he could create a stone he couldn’t lift. And then he could lift it anyway.

      • dwindling7373@feddit.itEnglish
        16·
        1 day ago

        Unironically the question by witch many Christian faiths differ: does God needs abide to the rules of logic or not?

        For the Roman Catholic, yes, for Calvinists and a bunch other (ok, many other but I’m not an expert), no.

        • scarabic@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          4 hours ago

          Ah theologians. When we invented agriculture so that not everyone had to work on gathering food, this enabled some of us to specialize in advanced skills. But theology, wow. What a waste of time. Get those dudes out in the fields.

        • fsxylo@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          12·
          1 day ago

          Answer: whatever causes the person you’re arguing with to throw their hands up and storm off more exasperated…

          • dwindling7373@feddit.itEnglish
            81·
            1 day ago

            No, not really, it’s mostly a matter of power.

            The Church itself is rooted in the idea that there are autorities on matter of faith and they adopted the Platonical Agostinean idea that faith is empowered by reason. Reason being a valid tool means you have experts that reasoned a lot about religion and people that know less and needs to be taught, ultimately by the Pope.

            The “other” side tends to reject authorities, and take the words of the bible as sobjected to personal interpretation or, to an extent, make it into some sort of magical object that the faithfull subjects itself to, without questions. Accepting the contradictions, the illogal parts, are what that kind of faith is about because to question (throught reasoning) God is a Sin.

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          2·
          1 day ago

          Calvanists the ones that say since god is all powerful there can be no free will/everything is decided don’t apply logic?

          • dwindling7373@feddit.itEnglish
            2·
            1 day ago

            That’s the one, funnily enough in a perverted twist, they tend to see wealth as a sign that God has picked them as favourites (graced them) and they storically gravitated toward seeing poor people as, well, sinners, even thought their principles state that anyone could be graced or not no matter the more evident aspects of life.

            • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
              2·
              1 day ago

              This isn’t Calvinism. This is prosperity theology, which is it’s own thing.

    • Match!!@pawb.socialEnglish
      1·
      24 hours ago

      I interpreted this as “having the basic ability to take as actions would allow you to do this”, which is also true, I can ferment wine and then gradually make it more concentrated