By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Chris Hu said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

That isn't a rebuttal though. I keep giving you evidence that he existed, and you keep simply stating that there is no evidence, without dealing with what I actually said. 

Did I miss something here you didn't present any decent evidence of Jesus existence to me.  The overwhelming evidence brought fourth in the last 20 years all supports the fact that Jesus never existed or at best he was just some regular guy that got turned into a legend after his death.  Anyway if you want some deep insides of how flawed Christianity is I'm not the guy to asked since I never considered myself to be true believer anyway I always believed that the Bible is nothing more then a loose collection of myth and fair tales and not a very good one either since it borrowed many of its myth from other religions.  I suggest you watch some videos from Seth Andrews.

So you don't think that the three Josephus passages, the Tacitus passage, or Paul's letter are good evidence? Why not? 

Any Seth Andrews videos you would like me to watch? Point them out, and I'll watch them. 

I'm an Atheist, but I think that Jesus Mythicism is almost as intellectually devoid as young earth creationism. Almost

Earl Doherty (the guy who originally put forth the Christ-Myth theory) doesn't have an actual degree in history as far as I can tell. He claims to have a degree in history, but when asked for proof, he dances around the subject. 

Richard Carrier (another Mythicist) doesn't have a degree in history either. 

Nearly all ancient historians and bible scholars agree that Jesus was a historical person. 

I mean, trust me man, if there were real evidence pointing to Jesus just being a myth, I'd jump all over it. I'd absolutely love to have such ammo to throw in the faces of proselytizerslike the OP of this thread. But sadly it isn't so. All the evidence points towards Jesus having existed. But I promise I'll watch any videos you link to, and keep an open mind. 

Bart Erhman 



Around the Network
TranceformerFX said:
Jesus Christ of Nazarath wasn't a real person. He's a complete work of fiction; as well as the Bible. Jesus Christ and everything about him was a Christian reinterpretation of the Egyptian Sun God, Horus.

Being born on December 25th, virgin birth, walking on water, 12 disciples, crucifixion, resurrection...all of it to be credited to Horus. Jesus Christ is just a plagiarization of Egyptian mythology...

Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. That was added in by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after, in order to get European pagans to convert. There is not a single bible passage saying that Jesus was born on the 25th. Horus didn't have a virgin birth. Isis was impregnated by her resurrected husband Osiris. Any book on ancient Egyptian mythology will confirm tell you as such. As for walking on water, 12 disciples, crucifixion, and resurrection do you have a source? Can you show me some Egyptian hieroglyphs that attest to such things? 



Cerebralbore101 said:
Chris Hu said:

Did I miss something here you didn't present any decent evidence of Jesus existence to me.  The overwhelming evidence brought fourth in the last 20 years all supports the fact that Jesus never existed or at best he was just some regular guy that got turned into a legend after his death.  Anyway if you want some deep insides of how flawed Christianity is I'm not the guy to asked since I never considered myself to be true believer anyway I always believed that the Bible is nothing more then a loose collection of myth and fair tales and not a very good one either since it borrowed many of its myth from other religions.  I suggest you watch some videos from Seth Andrews.

So you don't think that the three Josephus passages, the Tacitus passage, or Paul's letter are good evidence? Why not? 

Any Seth Andrews videos you would like me to watch? Point them out, and I'll watch them. 

I'm an Atheist, but I think that Jesus Mythicism is almost as intellectually devoid as young earth creationism. Almost

Earl Doherty (the guy who originally put forth the Christ-Myth theory) doesn't have an actual degree in history as far as I can tell. He claims to have a degree in history, but when asked for proof, he dances around the subject. 

Richard Carrier (another Mythicist) doesn't have a degree in history either. 

Nearly all ancient historians and bible scholars agree that Jesus was a historical person. 

I mean, trust me man, if there were real evidence pointing to Jesus just being a myth, I'd jump all over it. I'd absolutely love to have such ammo to throw in the faces of proselytizerslike the OP of this thread. But sadly it isn't so. All the evidence points towards Jesus having existed. But I promise I'll watch any videos you link to, and keep an open mind. 

Bart Erhman 

Evidence is nonexistent and all info we have is very vague but there is a good chance someone with his name got caught up into this story that kept on carrying him into these modern ages,outside of the magical stuff there could be a fraction of truth hidden but in my opinion that does not even matter because it is most likely other minds that twisted the story about his being to make it more influential.



PortisheadBiscuit said:
He sacrificed his life so that man could use religion to persecute humans

A world without religion would have been far more barbaric.



epicurean said:
Peh said:

You shouldn't take the movie Zeitgeist / Religolous as a source. That part is completely made up.

Christians also don't believe he was actually born on December 25th, FWIW.

I believe that most christians don't know that the birth date of Jesus is unknown and do think the 25th of december is his birthday.

Last edited by Peh - on 16 January 2019

Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

Around the Network
Runa216 said:
0D0 said:

The point of my post is, yes, science is awesome, I agree, even though it didn't know that bacteria did exist and even though it was wrong a lot of times.

There's a limit to what science can see. They can see today a lot of things that they couldn't in the past. They still can't see God though.

Science do can be wrong and needs to correct itself all the time.

Yes, that's because new evidence and new studies can enlighten us. The purpose of science is to be malleable and change as new information comes to us. Without that, it's stagnant. Can science be wrong? Yes, it certainly can. However, the advent of the scientific method has gone to great lengths to minimize such inaccuracies and we've made leaps and bounds towards knowing what's around us. 

Religion, on the other hand, doesn't have any of that. It's rigid in its presentation of facts and yet up for interpretation from its believers. It brings nothing new to the table, doesn't allow new facts and evidence influence it, and demands respect while refusing to adapt with the times. 

Religion is your racist grandfather, set in his ways and convinced the world was better when black folk or women weren't given the same rights as white men. 

That's why religion has no place outside of ancient history class, and certainly no place next to science. 

Absolutely right on what I highlighted and that's my point.

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.

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

 

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.

Yes, there's evil in religion because religion is governed by human institutions, but there's evil everywhere, and I'm not going to discuss this because if we start looking for misdoings here and there we won't never get this discussion done. Going back to my point, scientists can be wrong and they can and they were as bad as finding evidences for racism and the natural inferiority of slaves.

 

collint0101 said:
0D0 said:
To all those asking for scientific proof:

Well science said that butter is bad for us, then everybody went to margarine and them science said that butter is better than margarine and then margarine is the real problem.

Science said animal fat was bad, industry food went to vegetal fat, everybody got heart diseases and heart attacks for decades, then science found out that animal fat vs vegetal fat is not that simple and that animal fat can actually be better, like butter.

Science said that eggs are bad to our hearts, then it's not, science says it's actually good, because they found out stuff that they haven't found out before.

Science said that coffee is bad, now it's not so bad.

Science can't make up its mind about Wine.

Science said that the world would go to a new ice age. Then global warming. It didn't work very well. Now it's climate change (neigher very hot nor very cold). Tomorrow is gonna be something else.

Science thought that diseases were cause by lots of things. Doctors used to perform surgeries with bare dirty hands. Then they found out that bacteria exist. They didn't know before that bacteria exist. They know now. It exists.

Science said that the black race was inferior to white race. The overall non Western race was underdeveloped. It was taught on many universities. Then it became racism, DNA came out and such. Science knows now that it was all nonsense.

What science knew yesterday or never knew, they know today, or doesn't, they can change their minds. They can see today things that they didn't see and in the future they'll see things that they don't today.

The things you listed probably aren't actual science though. There's propably no peer reviewed, well researched and tested clain that wine is good for you or eggs are bad for you or white people are inherently superior ect most claims like that typically come from random jack asses or take an actual well researched idea and skews the facts to push a narrative. Scientists probably said something like there's a specific chemical in wine that is linked to good health then you get a hundred health blogs posting "wine is good for you" over and over again when the actual scientific fact is that it's only this 1 specific chemical that is loosely related to health in specific circumstances. As for climate change it's just the more accurate term. global warming isn't as simple as the entire world being 3 degrees hotter a rise of like .5 degrees in the artic circle can cause a snow storm in California, a drought in the rainforest, floods in africa ect. 

The things that lots of people say about Jesus weren't actual Jesus words though, lots of people can't see the difference between God's word and the popes and bishops committing mistakes.

But no, it was science. Any person studying in the Victorian age would have access to texts from scientists and intellectuals teaching that men from certain cultures were naturally inferior due to their brains and race.

The stuff about fat and bread is so true to the point that lard almost vanished in the 20th century. The whole industry moved on from pork fat to vegetable oil. There were numerous studies that backed that and it's known that it most likely created more heart problems for generations of people than the good old butter that humanity used to eat for thousands of years.

 

Ganoncrotch said:
0D0 said:

The point of my post is, yes, science is awesome, I agree, even though it didn't know that bacteria did exist and even though it was wrong a lot of times.

There's a limit to what science can see. They can see today a lot of things that they couldn't in the past. They still can't see God though.

Science do can be wrong and needs to correct itself all the time.

There is as much chance that Science invents some form of telescope that can see a man chilling out in the clouds in a robe as there is of them inventing a ray gun that fires one long stream of ginger kittens. You're hoping science fiction might find the man in the clouds someday, nothing else.

This logic leap though from "they were incorrect about X being good for you because they didn't know it could increase the chances of Y" is sort of like suggesting that a Kid corrected himself after getting ABC's wrong so at some stage in his life he might discover how to flap his arms and fly because he currently cannot and he has corrected shortcomings before.

I disagree that it's a nonsense leap, but that's ok, my point is that many see science as their gods too. They got blinder than some fanatics.

 

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
*Person creates a post about a topic that isn't even covered on the site*
*Atheists and opposers of said idea argue against it*
*Defenders come out of nowhere and cry about how these religious threads are always "derailed"*

Really?

This is VGChartz, not ChristianCenter.com. People are allowed to argue with things said in the OP, or the basis of them, it's not like this site was set up as a safe space for particular religions.

This is General discussion of VGChartz. I haven't seen any mod getting cross because of this thread.

 

Cerebralbore101 said:
0D0 said:
To all those asking for scientific proof:

Well science said that butter is bad for us, then everybody went to margarine and them science said that butter is better than margarine and then margarine is the real problem.

Science said animal fat was bad, industry food went to vegetal fat, everybody got heart diseases and heart attacks for decades, then science found out that animal fat vs vegetal fat is not that simple and that animal fat can actually be better, like butter.

Science said that eggs are bad to our hearts, then it's not, science says it's actually good, because they found out stuff that they haven't found out before.

Science said that coffee is bad, now it's not so bad.

Science can't make up its mind about Wine.

Science said that the world would go to a new ice age. Then global warming. It didn't work very well. Now it's climate change (neigher very hot nor very cold). Tomorrow is gonna be something else.

Science thought that diseases were cause by lots of things. Doctors used to perform surgeries with bare dirty hands. Then they found out that bacteria exist. They didn't know before that bacteria exist. They know now. It exists.

Science said that the black race was inferior to white race. The overall non Western race was underdeveloped. It was taught on many universities. Then it became racism, DNA came out and such. Science knows now that it was all nonsense.

What science knew yesterday or never knew, they know today, or doesn't, they can change their minds. They can see today things that they didn't see and in the future they'll see things that they don't today.

The problem with the food examples you give, comes from journalists, jumping at every chance of a story. They would often read a single study, and then proceed to write up an article for whatever magazine, or newspaper they worked for.  In reality scientists never agreed that butter, or eggs, or animal fat, or coffee was bad for us. They continue to do it to this day, much to the annoyance of actual scientists.

Science never said that the world would go into a new ice age. Can you provide a source for this claim? Climate change doesn't mean neither hot nor very cold. It means change, and scientists still say the earth is getting hotter. 

As for the disease example; Yes, that's how science works. We didn't know about something, then made a discovery, and corrected ourselves. That is how science works. 

Evolutionary theory never promoted racism. People at the time simply assumed that non-whites must be lower on the evolutionary ladder, without doing any actual research into the matter. And once actual research was done it showed that assumption to be horribly wrong. 

Just to be clear, I'm not asking for scientific proof. If you were to produce writings by three or four roman senators, alive at the time, all saying that Jesus resurrected from the grave I would believe it. If you could produce an ancient Korean text that talked about how Jesus visited the Koreans and told them all about his exploits in the Roman empire, I would accept that as evidence as well.

Sadly, there is no good evidence that Jesus resurrected from the grave. If you point to the Gospels, I will explain how the Gospel writers were deceptive, and how modern scholars have caught them in their deceit. I will explain how we know that the Gospels were not written by Mark, Mathew, Luke, or John. 

Like I wrote above: The stuff about fat and bread is so true to the point that lard almost vanished in the 20th century. The whole industry moved on from pork fat to vegetable oil. There were numerous studies that backed that and it's known that it most likely created more heart problems for generations of people than the good old butter that humanity used to eat for thousands of years.

You can find the ice age, global cooling and other similar theories from the 20th century looking up on Google in two seconds and you know it. C'mon. :D

And yes, that's how science works, they have to correct themselves because they're wrong about lots of things, that's my point, thank you.



God bless You.

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:
To all those asking for scientific proof:

Well science said that butter is bad for us, then everybody went to margarine and them science said that butter is better than margarine and then margarine is the real problem.

Science said animal fat was bad, industry food went to vegetal fat, everybody got heart diseases and heart attacks for decades, then science found out that animal fat vs vegetal fat is not that simple and that animal fat can actually be better, like butter.

Science said that eggs are bad to our hearts, then it's not, science says it's actually good, because they found out stuff that they haven't found out before.

Science said that coffee is bad, now it's not so bad.

Science can't make up its mind about Wine.

Science said that the world would go to a new ice age. Then global warming. It didn't work very well. Now it's climate change (neigher very hot nor very cold). Tomorrow is gonna be something else.

Science thought that diseases were cause by lots of things. Doctors used to perform surgeries with bare dirty hands. Then they found out that bacteria exist. They didn't know before that bacteria exist. They know now. It exists.

Science said that the black race was inferior to white race. The overall non Western race was underdeveloped. It was taught on many universities. Then it became racism, DNA came out and such. Science knows now that it was all nonsense.

What science knew yesterday or never knew, they know today, or doesn't, they can change their minds. They can see today things that they didn't see and in the future they'll see things that they don't today.

So you're saying scientists are corruptible but clerics aren't?



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

vivster said:
0D0 said:
To all those asking for scientific proof:

Well science said that butter is bad for us, then everybody went to margarine and them science said that butter is better than margarine and then margarine is the real problem.

Science said animal fat was bad, industry food went to vegetal fat, everybody got heart diseases and heart attacks for decades, then science found out that animal fat vs vegetal fat is not that simple and that animal fat can actually be better, like butter.

Science said that eggs are bad to our hearts, then it's not, science says it's actually good, because they found out stuff that they haven't found out before.

Science said that coffee is bad, now it's not so bad.

Science can't make up its mind about Wine.

Science said that the world would go to a new ice age. Then global warming. It didn't work very well. Now it's climate change (neigher very hot nor very cold). Tomorrow is gonna be something else.

Science thought that diseases were cause by lots of things. Doctors used to perform surgeries with bare dirty hands. Then they found out that bacteria exist. They didn't know before that bacteria exist. They know now. It exists.

Science said that the black race was inferior to white race. The overall non Western race was underdeveloped. It was taught on many universities. Then it became racism, DNA came out and such. Science knows now that it was all nonsense.

What science knew yesterday or never knew, they know today, or doesn't, they can change their minds. They can see today things that they didn't see and in the future they'll see things that they don't today.

So you're saying scientists are corruptible but clerics aren't?

Keep reading my other posts.



God bless You.

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:

And yes, that's how science works, they have to correct themselves because they're wrong about lots of things, that's my point, thank you.

But you're using that self correcting nature of science to say that belief in scientific understanding and belief in religion have the same validity, and that's just wrong.  Why did our scientific understanding evolve?  It was based off of experimental data which is how we adjust our scientific models towards the real world. Here's a simple illustration:

In science, while you take a guess without much understanding at first the scientific community then does more and more experiments to try to make a model that most closely matches what is seen in the real world. 

With religion on the other hand you have a system that takes a guess at how the real world works and then never adjusts, never does experiments to figure out if their original guess about the creation of the world, or the value of pi, or a million other claims being made is actually valid.

The idea that belief in both of these systems of creating models are equivalent is fundamentally flawed. 



...

Torillian said:
0D0 said:

And yes, that's how science works, they have to correct themselves because they're wrong about lots of things, that's my point, thank you.

But you're using that self correcting nature of science to say that belief in scientific understanding and belief in religion have the same validity, and that's just wrong.  Why did our scientific understanding evolve?  It was based off of experimental data which is how we adjust our scientific models towards the real world. Here's a simple illustration:

In science, while you take a guess without much understanding at first the scientific community then does more and more experiments to try to make a model that most closely matches what is seen in the real world. 

With religion on the other hand you have a system that takes a guess at how the real world works and then never adjusts, never does experiments to figure out if their original guess about the creation of the world, or the value of pi, or a million other claims being made is actually valid.

The idea that belief in both of these systems of creating models are equivalent is fundamentally flawed. 

No, I haven't said that at all.



God bless You.

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?