Quantcast
Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his self for you?

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

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??

Well, I don't blame him, because no one does. 



Around the Network
0D0 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-coming-ice-age/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/time-magazine-cover-global-cooling/

I've met scientists and university professors that remember all of the global cooling topic.

I googled and I found a 1974 Time magazine with the Ice Age story:

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/0,9263,7601740624,00.html

Newsweek also ran stories

https://www.newsweek.com/newsweek-rewind-debunking-global-cooling-252326

These quant tidbits come from a short article penned by Gwynne and printed on Page 64 of Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue. Titled “The Cooling World,” it argued that global temperatures were falling—and terrible consequences for food production were on the horizon. Meteorologists “are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” Gwynne wrote. “The resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

The story, and others like it, has been cited by people who like to challenge current climate science and global warming.

 

I may be wrong about being cover story. There was this story and others like it.

There was a consensus about global cooling. Yes there was. You know it. You can find little ridiculous details of something that I might have said that isn't 100% correct according to the "Cambridge/Oxford correct way of discussing stuff on Jesus Christ threads in a smart-ass way" or whatever, but everybody knows that the subject was enormous back then. If it was peer reviewed stuff or not, if I don't have the exact percentage of scientists that stated that according to the Library of the Congress I don't care. My point is still valid, people assume things like "scientists said that, so I should do it" and I'm saying that "no, you shouldn't believe in science blindly".

Now, you can keep looking for little small details that prove that I'm can't post like a scientist smart ass and so I'm completely wrong but, it doesn't matter:

Science is not always right. Science commit mistakes. Science says something is A and then it's B. Science has to correct themselves. Science doesn't know that certain things exist, even though they exist.

Now, what's next? Is it my "epistemologyical philosophical true scotsman of cartesian logical thinking" or whatever that is wrong?

Here's the problem. You were wrong about the cover story, because you don't bother to doublecheck things. If I had asked you to prove there ever was a Time Magazine cover on an Ice Age you would have replied with "You know it's true. Look it up." But it isn't true. 

Your idea of a consensus on an ice age in the 70's is also wrong. It has been debunked many times. For example in this video... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms&t=176s

The problem with the supposed ice age, eggs are bad for you, wine is good for you nonsense, is a problem with science journalists looking for a story to write. Yes the newsweek article says that "meteorologists are almost unanimous". But the person who wrote said article in 1975 has admitted that he jumped the gun of sorts. 

"Here I must admit mea culpa. In retrospect, I was over-enthusiastic in parts of my Newsweek article. Thus, I suggested a connection between the purported global cooling and increases in tornado activity that was unjustified by climate science. I also predicted a forthcoming impact of global cooling on the world’s food production that had scant research to back it." - The writer of the 1975 newsweek article. 

The funny thing here is that your newsweek article in support of your idea of a global cooling is nothing new to me. Why? Because had you actually read the snopes article I linked to you would have found the above quote already. But you just don't doublecheck things or bother to read things completely. 

I'll say it again. You don't bother to doublecheck things or read things completely. And that is the heart of the problem. 

I'll have you know you are not completely wrong though. If you were to change your point from "don't believe everything science tells you", to "don't believe everything science journalists tell you, without doublechecking it yourself" you would be absolutely right. In fact, we can simplify that to "don't believe anything anybody tells you without doublechecking it yourself". 




The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

0D0 said:

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 didn't write the line about the Church being a "racist grandfather" (though for what it's worth, I think you mistook that person's intent: it was not to call the Church racist, imo, but to compare its inability to change to a "racist grandfather"; to demonstrate how, unlike science which is often wrong and evolving/improving because of it, religion is stuck in its ways). But come on, anything having to do with history, with religion, with psychology -- with freaking people -- is going to be complex. At least if we want to get things right, it will be.

There are simple observations we can make along the way, of course, and there's nothing wrong with it. But to understand something as big as comparing the scientific approach against religious attitudes, or whether Christianity is/was "good or bad," etc., of course those things are hella complex. How could they not be?

Did the Church do good things? Certainly. Did it do bad things? Yes. That's no big hurdle for an atheist such as myself -- I have no interest in either attacking or defending the Church (let alone the Church of Late Antiquity, or the Middle Ages). But when you're on the side of supposedly divine inspiration or authority, etc., I think it becomes a slightly more pressing matter...

0D0 said:

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.

By all means. If we do want to talk history, I'd ask that you not try to "defend the Church." Instead, defend the truth. If the truth is on the Church's side, so be it. I'm prepared to say that the Church has done some good in the world, and continues to do it (though I might make the case that a lot of this good comes from outside of Christianity itself); and of course there have been -- and continue to be -- wonderful Christians in the world. My best friend of nearly thirty-five years is, and likely will always be, a Christian. So we can and should look fairly at whatever blessings Christianity has brought.

Did Christianity end slavery in the Roman world? My sources say no. Tell me where I'm wrong about that and (as a good science or historian should) I will endeavor to consider your evidence as fairly as I can.

But at the same time, we have to look seriously at the other side of the ledger. We can start with some of the most famous episodes, if you'd like? Off the top of my head, there was the intolerance against "heretics"; the shuttering of the Academy; the campaigns against paganism; the regressing of science, economy and art sometimes called the Dark Ages; the Crusades; the Inquisition; the persecution of witches; the various schisms and wars between various Christian sects; and so forth.

And there is further the question of damage done to people who might slip through the cracks of the historical record, the "small folk," but who personally succumbed to the regular Christian promotion of guilt, asceticism, anti-intellectualism, etc. All of the "sinners in the hands of an angry God," who might have better enjoyed their brief lives on earth, but did not, in part because they were convinced that such enjoyment was somehow impious. The hermits and monks who sealed themselves away from the world, to avoid temptation. The victims of the Conquistadors who sought to convert indigenous peoples by taking their children from them, for forced education, and stamping out their cultural traditions. Those who enjoyed justice "by ordeal"; those who tithed and donated and bequeathed to religious authorities -- trying wretchedly to buy some prayer, or other means of escaping threatened torment -- so that the Church could continue to grow wealthier and wealthier, own more and more land, and the bishops live better and better amidst a general poverty.

There is a lot to answer for, I believe, so yes, I'll agree that it might be a difficult task to make the case that the Church was, on balance, a force for good. But if you'd like to make it, I'm willing to listen.



donathos said:
0D0 said:

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 didn't write the line about the Church being a "racist grandfather" (though for what it's worth, I think you mistook that person's intent: it was not to call the Church racist, imo, but to compare its inability to change to a "racist grandfather"; to demonstrate how, unlike science which is often wrong and evolving/improving because of it, religion is stuck in its ways). But come on, anything having to do with history, with religion, with psychology -- with freaking people -- is going to be complex. At least if we want to get things right, it will be.

There are simple observations we can make along the way, of course, and there's nothing wrong with it. But to understand something as big as comparing the scientific approach against religious attitudes, or whether Christianity is/was "good or bad," etc., of course those things are hella complex. How could they not be?

Did the Church do good things? Certainly. Did it do bad things? Yes. That's no big hurdle for an atheist such as myself -- I have no interest in either attacking or defending the Church (let alone the Church of Late Antiquity, or the Middle Ages). But when you're on the side of supposedly divine inspiration or authority, etc., I think it becomes a slightly more pressing matter...

0D0 said:

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.

By all means. If we do want to talk history, I'd ask that you not try to "defend the Church." Instead, defend the truth. If the truth is on the Church's side, so be it. I'm prepared to say that the Church has done some good in the world, and continues to do it (though I might make the case that a lot of this good comes from outside of Christianity itself); and of course there have been -- and continue to be -- wonderful Christians in the world. My best friend of nearly thirty-five years is, and likely will always be, a Christian. So we can and should look fairly at whatever blessings Christianity has brought.

Did Christianity end slavery in the Roman world? My sources say no. Tell me where I'm wrong about that and (as a good science or historian should) I will endeavor to consider your evidence as fairly as I can.

But at the same time, we have to look seriously at the other side of the ledger. We can start with some of the most famous episodes, if you'd like? Off the top of my head, there was the intolerance against "heretics"; the shuttering of the Academy; the campaigns against paganism; the regressing of science, economy and art sometimes called the Dark Ages; the Crusades; the Inquisition; the persecution of witches; the various schisms and wars between various Christian sects; and so forth.

And there is further the question of damage done to people who might slip through the cracks of the historical record, the "small folk," but who personally succumbed to the regular Christian promotion of guilt, asceticism, anti-intellectualism, etc. All of the "sinners in the hands of an angry God," who might have better enjoyed their brief lives on earth, but did not, in part because they were convinced that such enjoyment was somehow impious. The hermits and monks who sealed themselves away from the world, to avoid temptation. The victims of the Conquistadors who sought to convert indigenous peoples by taking their children from them, for forced education, and stamping out their cultural traditions. Those who enjoyed justice "by ordeal"; those who tithed and donated and bequeathed to religious authorities -- trying wretchedly to buy some prayer, or other means of escaping threatened torment -- so that the Church could continue to grow wealthier and wealthier, own more and more land, and the bishops live better and better amidst a general poverty.

There is a lot to answer for, I believe, so yes, I'll agree that it might be a difficult task to make the case that the Church was, on balance, a force for good. But if you'd like to make it, I'm willing to listen.

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.



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?


In my religion, he didn't because in my religion the sole person who can take on your sins is you, yourself and you alone. And God has the power to forgive your sins if you ask for forgiveness from the bottom of your heart without any sacrifice. There is no original sin nor does anyone bear the sins of their ancestors or descendants. Jesus was a prophet in my religion and a remarkable one but no where close to God. And the entire mythos of Jesus is long to explain here in my religion



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also

Around the Network
0D0 said:
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.

he's basically immortal and still gets his ass kicked by a guy that had his parents killed when he was a kid, raised by his man servant and uses science, psychology, tactics and dresses like a bat to fight crime. 

science wins again :D



For me the question is.
If god does exist why would i follow him and why does he deserves followers?



setsunatenshi said:
0D0 said:

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

he's basically immortal and still gets his ass kicked by a guy that had his parents killed when he was a kid, raised by his man servant and uses science, psychology, tactics and dresses like a bat to fight crime. 

science wins again :D



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

Chris Hu said:
He didn't because he is a fictional character and there is no concrete evidence that he ever existed.

*tips fedora*



Eagle367 said:
In my religion, he didn't because in my religion the sole person who can take on your sins is you, yourself and you alone. And God has the power to forgive your sins if you ask for forgiveness from the bottom of your heart without any sacrifice. There is no original sin nor does anyone bear the sins of their ancestors or descendants. Jesus was a prophet in my religion and a remarkable one but no where close to God. And the entire mythos of Jesus is long to explain here in my religion

Is your religion anime and is your god Astroboy?