Quantcast
Why did Jesus Christ sacrifice his self for you?

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

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?



Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
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? 

What made you think that?



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

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.

Nah, we already banned someone for denying the holocaust. People denying science or common sense get a free pass here.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

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.



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?


Jesus was a successful human-alien hybrid. If you want to know more, I recommend reading Erich von Däniken.



Visit my eBay stampers store: eims-stampers

Deus Ex (2000) - a game that pushes the boundaries of what the video game medium is capable of to a degree unmatched to this very day.

Around the Network
0D0 said:

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".

Well, in fairness, you might be a fool or evil. Or I might be. We neither of us knows each other all that well, right? Don't worry about what the "majority" thinks. The majority are too busy keeping up with the Kardashians to care much about early Church history, anyways.

But if it helps, I still regard Christianity as "the majority," even if that's not the case in a smaller cultural subset, like on VGChartz. You'll know that Christianity is no longer "the majority" in any meaningful sense when it is no longer a virtual requirement to be Christian to be elected President. (And when an avowed atheist is elected in some far-off future, well then, all bets will truly be off.)

Anyway, as I say, if you come from the perspective of not defending the Church but defending the truth, then nothing else really matters. If you're right with respect to the truth, then you have God on your side (perhaps literally, in this case). If you're wrong, then you stand to gain by learning. That's what is important -- not what internet randos (myself emphatically included) you'll never meet in real life think about you or your avatar.

0D0 said:

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.

Is it really impossible to say positive historical things about the Church on the internet and "survive"? I think you could manage it. In fact, let me start: Christianity helped to elevate the social status of many people who were considered lower status in Roman society, including slaves. Though I would argue that Christianity had a hand in bringing about the Dark Ages, it cannot be denied that the Church helped "keep the flame alive" until the Renaissance through its monasteries; and the Church played a vital early role in the development of the university. Christianity has inspired countless works of art, and heroic deeds, and charitable acts, and individual Christians (and sometimes institutions) have often contributed to science and any number of other disciplines.

The Church is neither all good nor all bad. As I've said before, that shouldn't pose much of a problem to an atheist such as myself (except that in 2019 we live in a culture of extremes: and you're either with us or against us, Team X or Team Y). I think it poses a much larger problem to the Christian theist. But that is perhaps a separate discussion.

0D0 said:

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.

You're describing "martyrdom," but I thought that was supposed to be a good thing? ;)

Yes, I've been in the position you describe, many times in my life. Sometimes amongst Christians. But I'm willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt that you're not an idiot and give you as fair a ground as I can manage. As for the others, there's no requirement I'm aware of that you respond to everything and everyone. You sometimes have to choose your battles.

0D0 said:

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.

That's your prerogative, though I'm sorry to hear it (and I thought you'd explicitly invited just such a discussion). I won't accuse you of being a "know-nothing guy that can't defend his position with sources" -- I'm sure you know a great many things -- though I do believe that you cannot defend your particular position about Christianity ending Roman slavery with any reputable source, because I don't believe that it's true (even if I'm yet willing to entertain argument to the contrary).

Part of me fears that your unwillingness to discuss (or "debate") the issue might come from a recognition on your part that I'm correct about that point, and you don't want to have to admit it. But maybe that's not true, and I hope that it is not true.

Anyways, if you're asking that I drop the subject, I will. Maybe we'll have better occasion to revisit it another time.



Why is this thread even a thing? OP is just proselytizing with low effort nonsense.

OP, learn logic, learn science, abandon superstition. Your life will improve dramatically.

Tons of humans have "sacrificed" themselves. What do you think war is, exactly? Mind-boggling how a story from the bronze age captivates adults in 2019 while we've just discovered the key to fusion power.

I only imagine you literally live under a rock, completely isolated from any redeeming thoughts that controvert your incredibly sophomoric positions on life.



Cerebralbore101 said:
sethnintendo said:
All praise Odin.

Found the one guy that hasn't yet played God of War. ;)

Guilty as charged.  Do I need to update my Norse beliefs based off a video game?



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

"Sin" is a religious invention... And I am of the belief that if said religions aren't able to substantiate their various religious assertions with actual empirical evidence... Then we can discard all of said claims with zero evidence... And Sin can go away with it.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Pemalite said:
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

"Sin" is a religious invention... And I am of the belief that if said religions aren't able to substantiate their various religious assertions with actual empirical evidence... Then we can discard all of said claims with zero evidence... And Sin can go away with it.

That is a very abstract and philosophical conversation, not a scientific one. You can't shoehorn science into everything. Because science can measure the physical, not the abstract. Is murder wrong because it's an evolutionary advantage and is in our genes or is there actually a soul and a set morality that is ingrained in us not biologically but metaphysically. Is morality the consequence of our time or is there an absolute morality that we are following or not. These are questions beyond science. Science has a lot of advantages but can't do everything. All intellectuals including atheists acknowledge that. Try asking people at the top of their scientific fields and they will tell you the same



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