Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his self for you?

[0D0]

donathos said:

0D0 said:

You can see how enormous the task of discussing this matter would be to me when I don't get a pass even when I use a simple elliptical construction.

You don't get a pass because it is important that you approach this, not from the perspective of "defending the Church," but valuing the truth of the matter, regardless of what that means for the Church. I know, this is different from how most people approach things, either as an ally or opponent, but it's important. If you and I are on opposite teams -- one pro, the other anti -- then there is no point to our discussion. If we stake our egos on the line then we fight just for the sake of fighting, and neither will ever be satisfied.

If, however, we approach this from the same place, as seekers and valuers of truth, then we might get something out of the exchange. So I hope you see that your "simple elliptical construction" suggested something that I thought needed to be addressed (howsoever briefly).

So if we can agree on that, then we can simply talk as one history nerd to another. The totality of the task may be enormous, but we can start as small as you'd like. How about this: the claim that brought me to this particular dance was that Christianity ended Roman slavery, but that slavery was later reintroduced by "states." I claim that this is incorrect: that slavery persisted, despite the rise of Christianity, into the modern era. I will go further and say that slavery was sometimes aided and abetted by Christian institutions (and, of course, by many Christians).

Shall we discuss that?

My elliptical construction is simple: it means that I'd be discussing to bring the historical truth about all the things that the Church is accused without fault. Maybe not you, but the majority would call me the guy "defending the Church, so he might be a fool or evil".

Having said that, that'd bring me the task to be positive about the Church and nobody survives on a debate on the internet when one brings positive historical things about the Church. I've been there before. On the internet, forums, social media, whatever, in my position, I'd be called fanatic, churchgoer nutter, I'd be ganged up by the majority that is not only atheist but anti-Church and anti-Religion, laughed at, I'd have to reply to so many quotes from everyone, and all alone. Bringing anything positive about the Church makes me a God believer idiot from the start. There's no fair ground for a debate like this on the internet.

That's why I'll not debate it, even with the risk of being accused know-nothing guy that can't defend his position with sources.