The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

> Yeah, I won't rule out that they exist,

Word of Faith/Prosperity churches - God is a genie.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_of_Faith

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

John Goodman’s character in O Brother was a man who realized selling bibles was a lucrative business. He was a con man.

I think you’re on the right track. It’s not the betters but the bookie who you need to look askance at here.

> Come back and reign for a thousand years, but not touch private contact law and definitively let you keep and enjoy the fruits of the money you bet on him.

Modern Evangelical Christian movements have from the beginning incorporated (classically) liberal political theory, including economic theory, into their theology, not merely their ethics (as almost all faiths must do to some extent). But more recently there has been incorporation of more (classically) illiberal libertarian and conservative ideas in their theology. Someone else pointed out Prosperity Gospel, but the new hotness is the idea that charity and empathy is un-Christian. (Or to steel man it, the idea is that excessive charity and empathy is un-Christian, but that begs alot of questions and arguably invites more self-serving utilitarian line drawing--the movement presupposes that contemporary American political culture is too charitable and empathetic.)

[flagged]

I feel like some of the angels would probably be able to calculate very large primes easily. I’m not an angeloligist, but maybe the ones that are wheels all covered in eyes.

Only if you can also take the worldwide network and infrastructure that make it possible. Though a room full of human computers processing math out loud to send wealth around seems more associated with another part of the afterlife ;)

Is that how the rich men are squeezing into heaven these days?

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"

There's a theory that the eye of the needle was a narrow gate in Jerusalem's city wall that was notoriously hard for camels to squeeze through. But seems the hard evidence for that is limited.

I feel like they accept crypto in Hell only.

Of course they would have money in heaven. Some people are in a little bit more of a paradise than others I guess...

Well of course - those heretics were descended from those excommunicated in the 1500s.

Just my opinion, I think at least a portion of them have to learn to live with "faith" being the answer to some hard questions. You also don't have to look hard for doctrines that are contradictory. For example: was Jesus human or God? (and keep in mind that God is traditinally viewed as tri-omni, meaning omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent)

Many times I've asked that I'm told "he was 100% human and also 100% God." I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question (it answers a question about how Jesus and God the Father can both be God yet still be "monotheistic"). When pushed it has always come down to "some things have to be accepted on faith." That is obviously enough for plenty of people, but I personally find it insufficient. Back when I was a believer I had cognitive dissonance over that question that I somewhat learned to live with (obviously not entirely as I am no longer a believer, but it wasn't that question that led me to ultimately lose my faith).

One data point: I took the first few chapters of Genesis literally until age 27. I also went through college as a physics major. I’m sure I embarrassed myself in debates with my atheist lab partner.

I loved science from when I was really young, read every book in my school library’s J523/Astronomy section, including Cosmos in 3rd grade. But I also went to church every week with my family, read through the entire Bible in middle school, and believed that my faith would crumble and I’d go to hell if I ever gave up the belief that the Bible was 100% true and literal.

I also chose to keep emotional distance from non-Christian friends. They might lead me astray.

I remember an exchange with my mom (who was a teacher, mostly at Lutheran schools) during a car ride when I was maybe 6 or 7. I was excitedly talking about the big bang or something, and she said “yes, but we know from the Bible that the earth is 6,000 years old, right?” “Yes,” I answered, and in that moment I believed it. I didn’t feel conflicted: the Bible must be true, so someday I’d figure out in what sense the science was true too.

As I got older, I sustained this by basically hand-waving away the less intuitive explanations for an old earth. There are plenty of books out there for helping people do just that. Maybe the speed of life was different in the past. What can we really say with certainty about evolution? That kind of thing.

The beginning of the end was the day I learned about dendrochronology: tree rings. They’re too simple to hand-wave away. Soon after, I lost my faith.

Another huge area of cognitive dissonance: we prayed all the time, we talked about “miracles”, but I never heard any really credible evidence for one. It took some serious introspection, while still a Christian, to discern whether I actually believed in them or not.

Presumably the conflict between an ostensibly scientific, materialist, atheistic reality of modernity and the non-empirical, spiritual, theistic reality of their faith. Though I think it's implicit in the criticism of religious believers that they resolve the dissonance by, e.g., rejecting scientific truths. And arguably the other side does the same, by rejecting the metaphysical; compare atheism to agnosticism, where the former rejects what the latter says it cannot logically do as core religious beliefs tend not to be falsifiable. Personally, I like F. Scott Fitzgerald's perspective--"the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." Dissonance is everywhere, including in the modern so-called evidence-based world, often inescapable, and perhaps even fundamental to the human experience.

Getting downvoted for asking a question lol.

There is no dissonance in Catholic faith / philosophy? No hoop jumping to explain why Biblical claims don't match the lived experience of most people?

I'm genuinely curious. What would that be?

Judging by their creeds it's believing that Easter really happened, and that the highest being is a composition that must be explained in hard to understand greek ontological terms.

Get off your high horse. The muscle and heft of the Catholic tradition? LOL

Do you think it's weird that ethnic groups separated by thousands of years of evolution came up with completely different gods and forms of worship? If there was an omniscient being don't you think it would make itself known in a little more universal fashion? And isn't it strange that the institutions built around our current iteration of God are soft power structures that wield huge amounts of influence both financially and politically?

> In fact, if you are true believer, you almost need to keep it hidden because it’s going to come off as mentally ill.

Even agreeing on what a "True Believer" is would be impossible but, from what I have read of the bible and know from 18+ years in the church I agree. As I child I got in trouble a few times for suggesting we take the concepts in the bible to their logical end. Things like:

- If we really believe all these people will burn in hell then why aren't we all becoming missionaries?

Then when I learned about "age of accountability" [0] I had 2 questions:

- If there is no age set on the age of accountability (to account for people living in remote areas who never heard the word of god) then isn't being a missionary and going to those places damning some percentage of them to hell if they don't accept jesus as their lord and savior? Aren't you making it worse? Even if you are able to "save" 60% you've damned the other 40% when before you visiting 100% would never have met the "age of accountability" due to never hearing about jesus?

and the much more horrifying question (note: I was 6 or 7 at the time)

- If the the age of accountability is real, and if our time on earth is truly inconsequential compared to eternity in heaven then (AGAIN: I was a child, I want just following logical chains), isn't the best option to kill everyone before that age so they will live for eternity in heaven?

Needless to say none of these questions were appreciated and all of them resulted in anger from the adults I mentioned it to. It taught me from a very young age how to lie or obscure what I thought/believed since voicing it or even asking innocent questions got me in trouble for reasons I could not understand. Perhaps there are logical flaws in my questions that a biblical scholar could point out but all I got was the fury of people too invested in a myth to question it.

[0] Concept that if you are younger than it and you die without being "saved" then you will still go to heaven because, essentially, you didn't know any better. There is no age defined since people reach that state at different ages and, IIRC, it even accounts for people who never hear the word of god and thus don't have an opportunity to be saved.

> The closest science has gotten was to actually corroborate that, yes, this was all not infinite and had a starting point (big bang), literally corroborated let there be light.

Georges Lemaître, one of the original articulators of the Big Bang was a Catholic priest. He did not appreciate Pope Pius XII characterizing his research as confirming "let there be light." There are many references to criticism he received for publishing a theory that meshed well with "let there be light," however I am not able to find any primary sources for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre#Views_on...

Revelations is problematic if you attempt to take it literally rather than understanding that it makes heavy use of symbolism and other literary devices. That literalism is largely specific to American society - and I don't just mean American Christians here. It's not particularly easy to understand the way that ancient literature works, but even if you don't want to put in the time, it's important to understand that the writers were often quite sophisticated, and worked in different ways from what you are used to.

There’s “science doesn’t adequately explain the origins of the universe,” and then there’s “this particular middle eastern tribe had the right answers thousands of years ago.” I can see the former but the latter makes no sense.

depends how you define a true believer. i am not christian, but i would claim that the people you describe aren't true believers because they haven't really understood the bible.

What is so special about reality?

I like Feynman's take that "I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1RqTP5Unr4

The true believers in Christianity have to know, their world view is hinged on knowing that there is a god, that the world was created in 7 days, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old, among many other questionable religious beliefs. They're wrong about all of it (IMHO as someone who grew up Catholic), but at least in their own minds, they know. And that's good enough for them, they don't have to ask any more questions because a book written by kings told them so.

If not "the majority", then a proportion conceivably large enough to affect the polymarket results.

The tribulation occurs 7 years after 144,000 of the most boring most devout people disappeared forever.

Are you sure you would even notice? Especially not for long.

Supernatural things won't start occurring again for 7 years, and in a fairly slow drip. Unexplained loud trumpets in the sky? Natural disasters that already occur?

This isn't an issue regarding the existence of money and markets. That still functions. Maybe even in more degenerate ways than before, which is super exciting!

https://calibration.city/

Yea but that's the thing, if a company is bankrupt, shouldn't it be 0? Like rationally? In that sense, it feels thematically similar as people were trying to outsmart each other with trickery.

In your example the saying suggests that a Camel going through the eye of a needle is an extraordinary event like a rich person going to heaven in the traditional Christian saying.

It is incredibly clear and without nuance nor is there a reason to suppose it's an issue with translation. Its also consistent philosophically nor is it the sort of thing that the powerful would want inserted when they compiled works.

If you disregard it then it makes more sense to disregard the entire bible.

'I don't believe their being or not being rich is part of the calculus for "getting into heaven" as you said' -> I think viewing that some rich people go to heaven as Jesus not explicitly condemning rich people (which he clearly does multiple times) and not him showing the unlimited power of God's grace is a misreading of the text.

The subsequent verses are much less quoted but very explicit about this: And looking at them, Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

This is supported by other text where Jesus says explicitly what people should do with money:

Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me"

So anyway it's very clear that using money selfishly (which is what many Christians do) is clearly not what God wants from us, it's just that God can love us for our imperfections and sin, which in my view is sorta the main idea behind the New Testament. God wants us to love each other like he loves us, and he would certainly give up his money for us since he even gave up his own son, but accepts that we will be more selfish than that.

This is the outcome when pearls are cast before swine.

5. Interpret that the passage, especially in the context of the subsequent verses, is about the need for God to get into heaven. That is; it's claiming that wealth cannot empower people to find their own route in, absent spirituality.

In the flavor of religion in which I grew up, it's easier to just quickly pray for forgiveness than to bother justifying anything. The most vile genocidal maniac could pray for thirty seconds right before death and get into heaven. Why bother following rules when someone already served the punishment?

Probably easier to just make a really big needle

This. There are a lot of biblical teaching about money and how to handle it, and to multiply it. Unfortunately people tend to make that an end unto itself and that was never the point.

Especially the 3rd, which isn't just about swearing.

As a non-believer I am worried what will he do to us.

You have faith that your choice is the right one!

That's the whole point of faith. You're supposed to believe despite evidence.

Hey I don't know what works for everyone, but I know what works for me. I'm encouraging you to let it work for you, but that's a personal choice and I wouldn't force it on anyone.

I don't think God wants to "trick" anyone. I also don't believe there is any hard set of "rules" he applies to 100% of humanity without exception. Take little children for instance...tragedies happen every day, and they are too young to know what those rules are, or have a chance to follow them. Those children aren't destined for eternal torture - that would be cruel and heartless - and I don't believe God is cruel or heartless.

I apologize for coming off as an elitist jerk. I didn't realize it would be read that way, and it was not my intent at all. I'm not better than you, I don't /think/ I'm better than you, and I'm too inexperienced/ignorant/prideful to even be able to know what "better" is, much less which one of us it would apply to.

All my comments, posts, and intentions are that 1 person is positively influenced by them. Maybe they go on to influence someone else, and it spreads throughout people - I have no idea what will happen that is influenced by things like my post. However, I don't think my post is going to hurt anyone - my hope is that it will help someone. Think of it like throwing seeds(in the parable!)... some of them, maybe just /one/ of them, will fall in fertile ground - and lead that person(s) to the same peace with God that I feel.

> IMO, you are also an elitist jerk by telling non-believers that they will be going to hell for not believing your religion, a religion which 69% of the entire world does not believe.

Catholics don't believe that you have to be Catholic to go to heaven. In fact, believing that you do is explicitly condemned as a heresy (Feeneyism).

> IMO, you are also an elitist jerk by telling non-believers that they will be going to hell for not believing your religion, a religion which 69% of the entire world does not believe.

Dude, that's pretty harsh and I would say quite unfair given what they've said. If he/she/they/whatever believes that we are going to Hell, wouldn't the right thing to do be to tell us and try to save us?

I do think that plenty of people saying similar things can be elitist and requires a certain level of hubris/arrogance, but I don't think that's always the case, and GP definitely didn't strike me as one of those assholes.

> What kind of god creates beings only to punish the majority of them with hellfire? Why would god allow alternative religions to be created just to "trick" his creations into believing the wrong thing?

These are excellent questions/arguments and are on my top five list of "reasons I am not a Christian," and I'd love to hear an explanation from any believers if they'd like to tackle them.

Hypocrisy is always easier to see from the outside. That said I do think non-believers (such as myself) often have unreasonable and unrealistic "standards" for what they expect from a Christian.

That said many Christians I know are much harsher critics of other Christians who don't live their beliefs than most of the atheists I know, and IMHO that's how it should be.

Story of my life, my friend

I have always thought that Jesus would not be too great fan of Churches as big buildings in general... Community centres probably, but the churches themselves... And specially not broadcasting it on tv...

Paul and Daniel didn't have any temporal power, our religion teaches us Christians should seek to wield temporal power when possible to create more virtuous societies.

Regarding the Robert Morris reference, not going to defend any action, but I will point out his 'bad action' was 40 years ago.

Why does that matter? There are abuses happening now, every day, by high profile. Some (Epstein, Diddy) are starting to be caught. Others (Drake) may face judgement far into the future. Others (Chris Brown) never will.

If criticizing modern church culture requires referencing acts of 40 years ago, and criticizing secular culture requires references acts that happened recently, and will probably happen again tomorrow, that could indicate that the modern USA church is doing better than we think. Possibly a lot better.

Sadly, this is very true in my experience. We are all fallen to some degree, but few, including Christians, seem to have the humility to recognize this in themselves.

The idea that Christians are more "hateful, spiteful, and conceited" than the average non-Christian is laughable. Hop into a few secular echo-chambers and a few Christian forums and tell me who is full of hate and spite!

Of course, any moral code which extends beyond secular humanist mantra of "be kind" will be considered "mean" by comparison. Saying "no" isn't kind, but as any parent will tell you, optimizing for kindness in the moment is regularly in conflict with long term goals. Thus the oh-so-common criticism of Christianity, which is basically that its conception of kindness is insufficiently myopic, doesn't quite stand up.

A perfect example of this is the bygone practice of encouraging abstinence and of shaming (even disowning!) single mothers and illegitimate children. This practice, when viewed through a myopic lens of the "be kind" mantra, is hard to defend. It's not kind, and so long as you rigorously avoid second-order thinking, it can even appear to be hateful! But the cost of this practice ~100 years ago was low--the ill treatment of the mothers of those ~2% of children who were born out of wedlock. Two generations and 63 million abortions after the successful dismantling of that social stigma, the costs of having abandoned it seem far higher--40% of children are born out of wedlock, with 10+% living with a single, never-married mother (a situation which results in significantly higher rates of poverty, worse academic outcomes, and even higher rates of criminality). While they recognized the negatives of that cultural practice, they failed to fully conceive of its purpose, and thus could not fully appreciate its benefits. Acting without this information, they took action and made things worse.

I, for one, am deeply suspicious of the "be kind" crowd. They will happily consign you to worse outcomes tomorrow for a sweet, sweet hit of self-righteousness today.

Consider maybe how a broad statement on people's relationships: you know, their marriages, long term partners, people they raise children with sounds.

Like I said: it shouldn't be hard to figure out why.

This is Polymarket, not Manifold. It's not "anyone can create a market and can resolve it however they want". Polymarket creates the markets and resolves them, so an unfair resolution could undercut their reputation and hurt their business. People know what "Jesus returning" means and if they interpret it some other way people won't just say "oh well I guess that was technically within the criteria".

Again, this is in the article! If you want to argue it's a problem, you should start by responding to what the article has to say on the subject, not just asserting it from scratch as if it isn't discussed!