Why did God send Jesus to Earth 2005

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

Where's that big thread that IDRM designed to stomp the feebs?

[Skywarp! 0]

Why did God send Jesus to Earth 2005, years ago?

 

He didn't. 2005 years ago was when Jesus died, or something like that (been a while since I went to Sunday School)...

No, our modern calendar was intended to coincide the year of Jesus's birth with 0. Unfortunately, the guy converting all the different calendars and gave us the one we're working with today fucked up his math. Experts today believe that Jesus was born around 6 B.C.

[SuperJerk 0]

^He is correct.^

 

According to the estimates of our calendar, Jesus died around 33 AD, although the date was probably 27 AD.

 

(I believe in Jesus, I just don't beleive he had supernatural powers or was the son of God.)

 

It's a simple equation. Matter exists. In order for atheism to be correct, matter came from nothing. That's spontaneous generation, disproved 150 years ago. Therefore, either there is or was at some time, a god, or, the universe always existed. Neither is less likely than the other, however, an atheistic view is what I would call a willfully stolid view. Atheism removes any responsibility (obviously what we would prefer) so it's the conclusion jumped to. It's a view which presupposes intellectualism, but is, at it's core, a primal view, in that it is adhered to for personal gain. There isn't any rationality behind it, yet it claims to be the very embodiment of rationality. A bit heady, I know. Too heady for old Slayer, apparently.

Yes, because believing that an invisible man who lives in the sky having absolute control over everything in the universe is just so fucking rational.

 

You hit the part about either God or the universe having to always exist right on the head, but your criticism of atheism leaves something to be desired...such as coherence.

[Nighthawk 0]

Coherance? (I'm very drunk, note) Invisible man in the sky is a phrase you like to invoke, but it's either "Supernatural being exists of no beginning and end, all powerful and beyond rules of nature" or "Non-sentient matter exists of no beginning and end, beyond rules of nature"... all powerful saves the ideology from lack of coherance. Is nature all powerful? No, unless you're a filthy hippie. Therefore, between nature and god, god remains the only option with sense.

[Nighthawk 0]

Bible's literally true

 

There's my thread, for the curious.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Why do you have against athesim IDRM?

It's a simple equation. Matter exists. In order for atheism to be correct, matter came from nothing. That's spontaneous generation, disproved 150 years ago. Therefore, either there is or was at some time, a god, or, the universe always existed.

That's totally oversimplified nonsense. A nice attempt at a false dilemma though, but not hard to refute using mathematical physics.

Good. This is a simplifieded forum (in the broader sense of the word). As a mathematician I would expect such a response from you. It remains essentially true, however. I've been impressed with you, though I admit it's a bit strange doing this with a fellow called Hogan Made Wrestling (but hey, St. IDrinkRatsMilk isn't much better) But let's do it. Refute. I live for a challenge.

The mathematical theory of singularities (as developed by Hawking, Friedman, et al) makes it possible to work coherently with points of "infinite density", where spacetime has dimension zero. When such a point "breaks down" it can "expand" (Linde, Guth, and others are the experts in this) releasing matter and space-time dimensions. Your claim about "spontaneous generation" being disproven only refers to within the universe (and in fact, only if one accepts Einstein's basic principle that the laws of nature are the same at all points in the universe); it says nothing about the universe itself. It's similar to the question of "what came before the Big Bang?", which makes no sense since the time dimension only begins to expand after the BB takes place.

[Red Hot Thumbtack In The Eye 0]

Oh, that thread is just gabbing about the bible, and not about back and forth about the religion?

[Nighthawk 0]

Now, I'm no mathematician. I love the field (in fact, to peek into my mind here... my ultimate theory is that math defeats god [not in the literal sense, O faithful, fear not]). But it was always my worst subject in school, so you'll have to bear with me

 

I think we can say the Big Bang, and God's creation of the universe can be addressed similarly, as the implications are the same. Now, if we break all this down, we can say that to you, "what came before the Big Bang (or in the religious vernacular, before the "Beginning")?" is not a question at all, and to most who are not experts in the field, it's a question which is unanswerable. To aside for the onlookers, the question can not even begin to be addressed because all means we would use to determine the answer are defined by the act itself. The result of this is, in a sense, agnosticism, which I do not hold in the same contempt as atheism. Atheism presupposes an ultimate knowledge, which I think you'll agree, cannot be attained. Our knowledge, in fact our ability to gain knowledge, is finite. I would agree with you there.

 

I don't think an atheist would accept this any more than a fundamentalist. My claim exists within the realm of the universe, which is the same realm the atheist functions in, and therefore I think valid. Of course in the end... "math defeats god". That's not an idea I think most I engage in discussion here are ready to accept, however.

[Nighthawk 0]

Oh, that thread is just gabbing about the bible, and not about back and forth about the religion?

I bash Catholics pretty good.

[SuperJerk 0]

Coherance? (I'm very drunk, note) Invisible man in the sky is a phrase you like to invoke, but it's either "Supernatural being exists of no beginning and end, all powerful and beyond rules of nature" or "Non-sentient matter exists of no beginning and end, beyond rules of nature"... all powerful saves the ideology from lack of coherance.

Your altering of the wording, while technically accurate, does nothing to convince me that intelligence design is somehow a more rational argument.

 

However, I must admit that I admire the way you aknowledge the argument in scientific terms (even if your grasp of science is questionable), versus the idiotic "everything had to start from somewhere so God must have created the universe because while the universe can't exist without a creator, God can" self-contradictory bullshit I get from most theistic simpletons.

 

Having said that, let me point out that your insistance that atheism "presupposes an ultimate knowledge" is incorrect. Its not that atheists claim that they can prove there is no God, but that they BELIEVE there is no God based on the evidence.

[Nighthawk 0]

Now, Huck, don't be making them definitive claims about me. Your view of atheism is more agnosticism with an attitude. I can side with that. Atheists I commonly meet, truly believe they can prove, ultimateley, the lack of God's existence. They can't.

 

Now what you're saying, I think that the evidence points the same either way in the end (that's what I love about Christianity... even if it's completely made up, it's internal logic is entirely self-sufficient).

[SuperJerk 0]

Interesting how the thing you love about it is the thing I hate about it.

 

I take no issue with Jesus and his message of love, I take issue with the supernatural elements that Christianity requires you to accept.

 

Then again, let me also point out that its entirely possible that God exists, but Christianity and the Bible are entirely untrue.

[Nighthawk 0]

Well, entirely is a stong word. Christianity is thus: "Jesus died for your sins." That's, quite literally, it. Much has sprung up around it, but it's, in it's core, unbelievably simple. That's the other thing I love about it.

 

Let me also point out, that I'm entirely self educated. The short time I spent in college had nothing to do with this, and I don't intend to study it again when I go back. This is all just from my own research. Recommend me books if you like, I will read them. Knowledge for it's own sake is my narcotic.

[SuperJerk 0]

Please explain why Jesus died for our sins.

 

I've never gotten a satisfactory explanation.

[Nighthawk 0]

Has to do with God being love. God is love, therefore, all he can do is kill himself for you, because it's the ultimate expression of love. If you've read the Preacher comics, you'll understand. God needs us to love him (that's why he exists), and he must perform the ultimate sacrifice for us (that's his nature). It explains everything neatly... God needs us to need him to die for us, and he needs to die for us... because he is love.

[SuperJerk 0]

Has to do with God being love. God is love, therefore, all he can do is kill himself for you, because it's the ultimate expression of love. If you've read the Preacher comics, you'll understand. God needs us to love him (that's why he exists), and he must perform the ultimate sacrifice for us (that's his nature). It explains everything neatly... God needs us to need him to die for us, and he needs to die for us... because he is love.

All that symbolism is just adding weight to my belief that the Bible is mostly a work of fiction.

[Guest Brian]

My bible has a dick. It's flashing me right now. Tempting me. Smiling. It's trying to whisper me some sweet songs of the heart.

 

Bible = gay

[chaosrage 0]

He didn't because there was no Jesus or God. I thought we settled that in the 19 page bible thread.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

^He is correct.^

Yeah, I corrected myself. Shows how much I paid attention in Sunday School...

[Guest BobBacklundRules]

God created mankind primarily because He desired to have a

family. In order to truly fellowship with God, man had to have

freedom of choice. Unfortunately, man used his freedom to rebel

against God and fell from fellowship with God.

 

When man fell he came under the dominion of the devil, because

he followed the devil's suggestion to disobey God. With this

came spiritual death and a new nature which was selfish. Man

became self-centered -- actually worshiping himself by making

every decision based on what was best for him. The result of

this selfishness is evident all around us: horrible misery and

suffering.

 

God is just and obeys His own laws. Justice requires that

rebellion be punished. To be just, yet allow mankind to come

back into fellowship with Him, God Himself came to earth as the

man Jesus Christ. He suffered a horrible death as the

substitute for all mankind, taking the punishment we deserved

for our sins. Because of what Jesus did, God could justly

forgive all sin, and open a way for all people to come back

into fellowship with God.

 

Jesus Christ Himself is the only way to God. Only by receiving

Jesus can we enjoy the benefits of His sacrifice, which sets us

free from sin and its judgment.

 

Our life on earth now is testing and preparation for eternity,

to determine if we qualify to be in God's family. This is not

determined by human beauty or achievement, but by our

willingness to submit to the lordship of Jesus Christ.

[Nighthawk 0]

Has to do with God being love. God is love, therefore, all he can do is kill himself for you, because it's the ultimate expression of love. If you've read the Preacher comics, you'll understand. God needs us to love him (that's why he exists), and he must perform the ultimate sacrifice for us (that's his nature). It explains everything neatly... God needs us to need him to die for us, and he needs to die for us... because he is love.

All that symbolism is just adding weight to my belief that the Bible is mostly a work of fiction.

Not really symbolism. It shouldn't make you think that, really, I don't think you quite understood. To understand that isn't going to make you happy with God, it makes him look bad. When you understand that God is love, and stop thinking about them as two seperate things, at most wrapped up in each other, that's why an almighty God allows bad things to happen. That's why the world is screwed up. He needs (and I mean needs quite literally here... it would be a craving akin to breathing) us to love him. Why is it that a blood sacrifice is required for sin? Why is it that the death of Jesus is the only thing that can save us? Who set up those rules? God did. He did because he has to sacrifice himself... that's what love is (now a lot of people say here it isn't love because he fucked us over first and made us need him to do it... remember, there is no love which is not God. Love as a freely sentient entity has to do those things, because that's the only way to get us in a position where we need it).

When people understand this, they can say "Well, I wouldn't have anything to do with a god like that." or they accept it. A God who is love needs both responses.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

That's so catholic.

[Nighthawk 0]

Ha ha.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

IDRM argues solely for the sake of argument

 

He's like Paragon of Virtue, except with 50% more meta

This is true but I've pretty much stopped arguing on the board, especially at CE. There are so many contradicitions that people make but refuse to admit to that I just stopped bothering with it, since that's no way to have a discussion.

 

Question for you guys inspired by CWM's question; what do you guys have against Christianity?

[AndrewTS 0]

He thought it was time he moved out and got a job.

[Hogan Made Wrestling 0]

Now, I'm no mathematician. I love the field (in fact, to peek into my mind here... my ultimate theory is that math defeats god [not in the literal sense, O faithful, fear not]). But it was always my worst subject in school, so you'll have to bear with me

 

I think we can say the Big Bang, and God's creation of the universe can be addressed similarly, as the implications are the same. Now, if we break all this down, we can say that to you, "what came before the Big Bang (or in the religious vernacular, before the "Beginning")?" is not a question at all, and to most who are not experts in the field, it's a question which is unanswerable. To aside for the onlookers, the question can not even begin to be addressed because all means we would use to determine the answer are defined by the act itself. The result of this is, in a sense, agnosticism, which I do not hold in the same contempt as atheism. Atheism presupposes an ultimate knowledge, which I think you'll agree, cannot be attained. Our knowledge, in fact our ability to gain knowledge, is finite. I would agree with you there.

 

I don't think an atheist would accept this any more than a fundamentalist. My claim exists within the realm of the universe, which is the same realm the atheist functions in, and therefore I think valid. Of course in the end... "math defeats god". That's not an idea I think most I engage in discussion here are ready to accept, however.

Just a note: I am in no way attempting to disprove the existence of God, or whether or not "God got the ball rolling". I'm simply explaining that the Big Bang theory (which most scientifically attuned people, religious and non-religious, seem the believe - the Pope among them apparently, if you trust Stephen Hawking) is sensible even if you don't believe in God. Anyone who claims they can use physics to disprove that "God made the universe" is full of shit, because physics cannot explain anything that happened prior to the Big Bang, since physics by definition doesn't exist until the universe actually begins to exist. So scientifically, "what caused the universe to be?" is an unanswerable question.

[Guest Arnold_OldSchool]

He thought it was time he moved out and got a job.

His step Dad was a hell of a carpenter though

[Guest cosbywasmurdered]

Question for you guys inspired by CWM's question; what do you guys have against Christianity?

The hypocrisy. I don't have any problem with people believeing what they want to though. I just find most religion to be too hypocritical for my tastes. I don't like the arrogancey of people saying that their relgion is the only correct one either. I think alot of the ideas expressed by Jesus Christ and in the bible are good ideas, but I think there's alot of nonsense in their too.

[2GOLD 0]

I don't care enough about Christianity to have anything against it. What I have something against is the people who when they see me at my lowest, who try to convert me to Christianity.

 

People want to be Christianity, good for them and much respect. The minute you try to bring me into the fold, we have a problem. They can do their thing but they best understand I'm going to do mine.

[Jingus 0]

Question for you guys inspired by CWM's question; what do you guys have against Christianity?

I live in the South. (Do I need to specify further?)