Nemra

But humans need to exist outside social constructions in order to create them.

@Salvijus, dogmatism requires you to not test, try something, be open-minded, and think. Of course, if you accept the dogma, it becomes true. To effectively be dogmatic, you have to be brainwashed from childhood. Sorry, but you aren't dogmatic, at least for now.

@Salvijus, how will you know if it's legit if you are a dogmatic person? Even if it's legit, would you stay dogmatic? It's different to follow your intuition and be dogmatic from childhood.

Yep, the materialistic, separate, constructed God.

@Salvijus, it depends on how we define what is religious. There can't be awakening the way I defined it.

Why do you trust it?

Whoever follows dogmas unquestionably, believes their morality is absolute and is awakened by just being part of a religion.

Ok, we disagree. Sorry, but religion isn't about awakening.

Religion is religion no matter what. Have you seen awake religious person?

I would say that awareness helps you acknowledge the existence of ego.

They aren't the same, though. You become nihilistic when you start to see through your religion, which determined your reality.

I think the problem isn't about having an ego, but rather about not being aware of it.

Can you live without an ego?

Who lives without an ego?

Yep, a natural way of thinking for Christians.

Maybe you should question their spirituality. 😁 Maybe someone already traveled back in time. 👀

I have yet to see a pure-hearted Christian. When I say Christian, I don't mean SD Tier 2 person; I don't know if a person can be religious at that level. Maybe "green", but definitely someone who is mostly "blue". I think skeptics couldn't be at lower stages below than "orange". Also, being skeptical is important for being less biased.

Knowing whether something is socially constructed depends on the technology used. If someone traveled back in time with a camera and brought a picture of Jesus, then Jesus would mostly likely exist.

It's interesting, although not convincing for me. Even if it's proved to be true, it'll only make him a person that actually existed, but not the way that Christians believe of him to be. Also, bias could be relevant here if those scientists are Christians.

Christians are hella biased. 😏

The evidence is not enough to conclude that Jesus was wrapped by it. It's likely that the person Jesus existed, but Christians care about evidence as long as it strengthens their Christianity. They already believe that Jesus exists, because there can't be Christianity without him, and will just use that shroud thing as "proof" against the "skeptics".

He's coping so hard.

Armenians just can't shut up. Haha.

I agree. But for Jesus' case, it's different. He was dead long ago. People aren't even sure what he looked like. Even if there's a writing from the actual Jesus, how are we going to interpret his writing when we can't really imagine what life was like 2000 years ago where he lived? Although Jesus could be used to describe things that people associated him with, which don't have to be socially constructed.