Quantcast
Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his self for you?

Forums - General Discussion - Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his self for you?

RaptorChrist said:

As I've gotten older I have pondered more and more about the philosophical aspects of life. Why are we here? What happens after you die? You get the point. I'm not religious by any means, and I would even go as to say that *certain* religious people actually bother me to some extent.

The truth of the matter is that no one knows the answers to these questions, and many religions seem to exist to try and answer them anyways. Some gain traction and end up with a population of people that accept their answers and try to spread the word. Maybe it made more sense a thousand years ago before we had some of the technology of today, but nowadays most people I know that identify themselves as "Catholic" don't actually believe in God, but will identify as such simply because they were raised in a Catholic family. In other words, religion is sort of a tradition that you are born into.

I was raised Catholic. I went to Sunday school maybe a dozen times, and to church maybe two dozen more. My daughter was baptized in a Catholic church. Even at a very young age I remember wondering to myself how people actually believe the stuff they are saying.

So yeah, I don't think anyone knows the meaning of life. I don't buy into any religion. It's frustrating not being able to know all the answers, but there are so many people who want to pretend like they do. Not everyone can be right. It's more likely that none of them are right. At the end of the day, there is a great possibility that when we die, everything just stops. I hope there is some sort of heaven, or afterlife, or reincarnation based on karma, but realistically, that seems more like a fantasy to me, and I don't really gain piece of mind from believing in a fantasy. Many do.

Your married with kids and you haven't worked out the meaning of life yet??



Around the Network

I wish I could get that many replies as I got here when I'm posting about PS4 goodness.



My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


0D0 said:

I wish I could get that many replies as I got here when I'm posting about PS4 goodness.

Because the PS4 is good, it would just be agreement with your points for the most part, unlike this thread.



Fancy hearing me on an amateur podcast with friends gushing over one of my favourite games? https://youtu.be/1I7JfMMxhf8

The most disappointing thing about this thread is finding out Superman is a science skeptic.

I knew there was a reason why I always liked Batman better :X



We dont exactly know that he did.  Even christian's proceed through life on giant assumptions that an all powerful god, that created everything, would have to send his son to die a horrible death for his creations, as opposed to just....  making it so.  If this is true, whats in the bible, this is at best a simulation that god is playing, that doesnt make a whole lot of sense.  



Around the Network
0D0 said:

I'm not into trying to prove that God exists in this thread, but saying that many take science like it's the Word of Truth, exactly like Christians take Jesus word like Word of Truth.

You're right that there are people who misunderstand or abuse science. The "Word of Truth" approach you mention, where people invest themselves into some belief and then close themselves off from further evidence or thought, is disastrous. Especially dangerous is the doctrine of "faith," which directly invites (or compels) people to do that very thing.

However, it seems to me that religion requires that sort of "Word of Truth" mindset, or at least encourages it, whereas science is precisely that force fighting against it. When you level the charge against science that, "Well, scientists have been wrong before," you're missing the point. That scientists have been wrong before is exactly how science is supposed to operate. We don't lock ourselves in with one understanding, one "truth," one dogma, but we work continually to better our understanding of the world and ourselves. We show ourselves to have been wrong about things, time and time again, and this is how we manage to do better. It's a slow and imperfect process, perhaps, but it's the best we can manage thus far.

You can contrast this against religion, which routinely claims to discover capital-t Truth -- a universal Truth for all people and all time -- and then fights (often literally) to keep other people from questioning those Truths or arguing against them or considering other possibilities. Religion does not allow for the kinds of corrections science demands. Science admits it when it has gotten something wrong; religion embraces its errors and enshrines them into (again, sometimes literal) law.

0D0 said:

So it's not simple as God doesn't exist because science said so.

God doesn't exist in the same way that fairies don't exist, unicorns don't exist, etc. It's not as though scientists have gone out of their way to prove that God doesn't exist, no. ("Proving negatives" has a negative connotation anyways, though I'd say it can be done in a sense -- see Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World and his discussion of "The Dragon in My Garage" for details.)

What science has done instead, from the beginning, is to work out causes for all of the things that "god" was initially evoked to explain. At some point, people thought you would find god if you climbed Mt. Olympus, but eventually people did and they did not find Zeus waiting there. As human knowledge has grown, our ideas about god have been pushed back further and further into what's sometimes described as "god of the gaps," where our present conception of "god" is really just a reflection of our current ignorance. A sorry state for the great spirits which once were held to move the sun across the sky, carry the Earth upon their backs, etc.

So you're right, it's not as simple as "God doesn't exist because science said so." It's more like, we haven't found God in all of our searching/investigating, or any good evidence for any god, so there's no good reason to believe that any god exists. Like fairies and unicorns, if we discover some god tomorrow hiding in a burning bush somewhere, then it might be sensible to believe that it exists (whatever that "god" might actually be), but until then, I'll remain "atheist" to gods and fairies and unicorns and so forth.

0D0 said:

Religion is not my racist grandfather, it was the Christian religion that made the Roman Empire stop slavery and it was the state thousands of years after that, after the Church lost almost all of its political influence, that brought back slavery, and scientists did nothing about it.

I recognize that it's a bit of a tangent, but is this really your take on the history? The Christian religion made the Roman Empire stop slavery -- but then the state brought it back after the Church lost influence? It's an... extraordinarily complex topic, I'll grant, so it's hard to say things are simply one way or the other, but this idea of Christianity as some moral or social improvement over pre-Christian Rome is, I think, at least questionable.

Not only complex, but also controversial, and it seems to me that people have been making efforts over the last several decades to redeem the Christian world -- and maybe your opinion is a product of that -- but let's look:

Slavery did not end in the Roman Empire with the advent of Christianity. It's true that Christianity helped raise the status of many slaves (as all believers were considered equals in the eyes of God), and women, and etc., but at the same time, the Bible does not condemn slavery (and can be seen as implicitly supporting the institution) and slavery survived the Christian conversion of Rome.

Economic realities did change over time, so much European slavery was eventually supplanted by the institution of "serfdom," though slavery itself persisted into the modern age. (And while serfdom may be seen as a kind of "improvement" over chattel slavery, it's no great shakes itself.) Christianity did not fight against this development, either, and can be seen as having a hand in it. When Christian political influence was at its peak, we call it the Middle Ages -- and these were no shining light of racial tolerance or social grace. Were they better or worse than Rome or Greece? Better in some aspects, no doubt, and worse in many, many others. But the emergence of Europe from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance and then Enlightenment, and so forth, was not primarily the Church's doing. Rather, the Church fought tooth and nail against many of the reforms that we now take for granted.

Were there relatively enlightened Christians along the way, and did people sometimes do great things in the name of Jesus/God/the Church? Absolutely. History is a complicated topic, and people are, as always, individual. But to act as though Christianity was some sort of general benefactor for the world I think is just an utter distortion, because there were just as many (or more) atrocities also in the name of Jesus/God/the Church. Christianity was certainly no Khaleesi-esque freer of the slaves; that's simply wrong.



setsunatenshi said:
The most disappointing thing about this thread is finding out Superman is a science skeptic.

I knew there was a reason why I always liked Batman better :X

Superman went to Church with his parents in Kansas. He learned a lot about helping his neighbours on Sunday's school.



My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


donathos said:
0D0 said:

I'm not into trying to prove that God exists in this thread, but saying that many take science like it's the Word of Truth, exactly like Christians take Jesus word like Word of Truth.

You're right that there are people who misunderstand or abuse science. The "Word of Truth" approach you mention, where people invest themselves into some belief and then close themselves off from further evidence or thought, is disastrous. Especially dangerous is the doctrine of "faith," which directly invites (or compels) people to do that very thing.

However, it seems to me that religion requires that sort of "Word of Truth" mindset, or at least encourages it, whereas science is precisely that force fighting against it. When you level the charge against science that, "Well, scientists have been wrong before," you're missing the point. That scientists have been wrong before is exactly how science is supposed to operate. We don't lock ourselves in with one understanding, one "truth," one dogma, but we work continually to better our understanding of the world and ourselves. We show ourselves to have been wrong about things, time and time again, and this is how we manage to do better. It's a slow and imperfect process, perhaps, but it's the best we can manage thus far.

You can contrast this against religion, which routinely claims to discover capital-t Truth -- a universal Truth for all people and all time -- and then fights (often literally) to keep other people from questioning those Truths or arguing against them or considering other possibilities. Religion does not allow for the kinds of corrections science demands. Science admits it when it has gotten something wrong; religion embraces its errors and enshrines them into (again, sometimes literal) law.

0D0 said:

So it's not simple as God doesn't exist because science said so.

God doesn't exist in the same way that fairies don't exist, unicorns don't exist, etc. It's not as though scientists have gone out of their way to prove that God doesn't exist, no. ("Proving negatives" has a negative connotation anyways, though I'd say it can be done in a sense -- see Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World and his discussion of "The Dragon in My Garage" for details.)

What science has done instead, from the beginning, is to work out causes for all of the things that "god" was initially evoked to explain. At some point, people thought you would find god if you climbed Mt. Olympus, but eventually people did and they did not find Zeus waiting there. As human knowledge has grown, our ideas about god have been pushed back further and further into what's sometimes described as "god of the gaps," where our present conception of "god" is really just a reflection of our current ignorance. A sorry state for the great spirits which once were held to move the sun across the sky, carry the Earth upon their backs, etc.

So you're right, it's not as simple as "God doesn't exist because science said so." It's more like, we haven't found God in all of our searching/investigating, or any good evidence for any god, so there's no good reason to believe that any god exists. Like fairies and unicorns, if we discover some god tomorrow hiding in a burning bush somewhere, then it might be sensible to believe that it exists (whatever that "god" might actually be), but until then, I'll remain "atheist" to gods and fairies and unicorns and so forth.

0D0 said:

Religion is not my racist grandfather, it was the Christian religion that made the Roman Empire stop slavery and it was the state thousands of years after that, after the Church lost almost all of its political influence, that brought back slavery, and scientists did nothing about it.

I recognize that it's a bit of a tangent, but is this really your take on the history? The Christian religion made the Roman Empire stop slavery -- but then the state brought it back after the Church lost influence? It's an... extraordinarily complex topic, I'll grant, so it's hard to say things are simply one way or the other, but this idea of Christianity as some moral or social improvement over pre-Christian Rome is, I think, at least questionable.

Not only complex, but also controversial, and it seems to me that people have been making efforts over the last several decades to redeem the Christian world -- and maybe your opinion is a product of that -- but let's look:

Slavery did not end in the Roman Empire with the advent of Christianity. It's true that Christianity helped raise the status of many slaves (as all believers were considered equals in the eyes of God), and women, and etc., but at the same time, the Bible does not condemn slavery (and can be seen as implicitly supporting the institution) and slavery survived the Christian conversion of Rome.

Economic realities did change over time, so much European slavery was eventually supplanted by the institution of "serfdom," though slavery itself persisted into the modern age. (And while serfdom may be seen as a kind of "improvement" over chattel slavery, it's no great shakes itself.) Christianity did not fight against this development, either, and can be seen as having a hand in it. When Christian political influence was at its peak, we call it the Middle Ages -- and these were no shining light of racial tolerance or social grace. Were they better or worse than Rome or Greece? Better in some aspects, no doubt, and worse in many, many others. But the emergence of Europe from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance and then Enlightenment, and so forth, was not primarily the Church's doing. Rather, the Church fought tooth and nail against many of the reforms that we now take for granted.

Were there relatively enlightened Christians along the way, and did people sometimes do great things in the name of Jesus/God/the Church? Absolutely. History is a complicated topic, and people are, as always, individual. But to act as though Christianity was some sort of general benefactor for the world I think is just an utter distortion, because there were just as many (or more) atrocities also in the name of Jesus/God/the Church. Christianity was certainly no Khaleesi-esque freer of the slaves; that's simply wrong.

I've already left the building.. so I'll only point out that saying that the Church is my racist grandfather is ok, no complex explanation needed, but saying that it did a lot of great stuff, now I need to write a white paper to explain how History is complex about that.

I replied simple statement with another simple statement.

It seems like history doesn't need to be complex enough when statements like "Church is evil" or "Church is your racist grandfather" come out. Nobody here goes correct history complexity when someone just say "Church has been stinking".

We can go on in an adult history discussion, I'm a history nerd here, but I know I'll be ganged up, since I'll be defending the Church. It's easier to defend the Nazis and deny the holocaust.



My Total Sales prediction for PS4 by the end of 2021: 110m+

When PS4 will hit 100m consoles sold: Before Christmas 2019

There were three ravens sat on a tree / They were as blacke as they might be / The one of them said to his mate, Where shall we our breakfast take?


setsunatenshi said:
The most disappointing thing about this thread is finding out Superman is a science skeptic.

I knew there was a reason why I always liked Batman better :X

Rocks are science and superman is afraid of them so we could assume his aversion to science has something to do with that.



KratosLives said:
RaptorChrist said:

As I've gotten older I have pondered more and more about the philosophical aspects of life. Why are we here? What happens after you die? You get the point. I'm not religious by any means, and I would even go as to say that *certain* religious people actually bother me to some extent.

The truth of the matter is that no one knows the answers to these questions, and many religions seem to exist to try and answer them anyways. Some gain traction and end up with a population of people that accept their answers and try to spread the word. Maybe it made more sense a thousand years ago before we had some of the technology of today, but nowadays most people I know that identify themselves as "Catholic" don't actually believe in God, but will identify as such simply because they were raised in a Catholic family. In other words, religion is sort of a tradition that you are born into.

I was raised Catholic. I went to Sunday school maybe a dozen times, and to church maybe two dozen more. My daughter was baptized in a Catholic church. Even at a very young age I remember wondering to myself how people actually believe the stuff they are saying.

So yeah, I don't think anyone knows the meaning of life. I don't buy into any religion. It's frustrating not being able to know all the answers, but there are so many people who want to pretend like they do. Not everyone can be right. It's more likely that none of them are right. At the end of the day, there is a great possibility that when we die, everything just stops. I hope there is some sort of heaven, or afterlife, or reincarnation based on karma, but realistically, that seems more like a fantasy to me, and I don't really gain piece of mind from believing in a fantasy. Many do.

Your married with kids and you haven't worked out the meaning of life yet??

Gotta keep an open mind.