Why did God need to sacrifice Jesus to forgive sin?

First, doing such things pretty much shows that such ones were "Christians" in name only and second what does this have to do with the statement "science holds no personal ambitions"?

First, trying proving it is a "fairy tale" and then we'll talk about why people might believe it.

 

Well, some proof that my beliefs are mistaken would be nice and as for pride, you seem to have more than enough for all of us.

 

The retarded "all I have to do is say evolution and all is explained" argument.

Almost every thinking person believes that the universe had a beginning and has not always existed and you disagree, based on what proof?

Like it's not intellectual laziness to just jump to the conclusion that it all came from "nothing".

 

Have you even bothered to look into things like synchronicity, quantum physics, string theory? Once you have actually looked into the physics of today, come back and talk about magical powers.

 

I don't personally buy the story of Christianity in a literal sense, but I think an understanding of this concept is badly needed in our world. God sacrificed his only begotten Son TO THE WORLD; Jesus' existence on this plane of reality in and of itself was a sacrifice, as he was a perfect being sent down to teach humanity of their erroneous ways in the only way possible which was to become a martyr.

Jesus' death at the end of his life was in reality only the capping stone upon a life characterized by the torture of a perfect soul. There is a tremendously important point to this fairy tale; humanity as a whole cannot open it's eyes to sin unless faced with the most horrific of images, and we have already gotten bad enough that God resorted to an unbelievably drastic measure to at least attempt to salvage our souls.

 

Ah youth, thinking that spouting a little science and thinking that he has taught something or proved something for that matter.

Assuming things about a person that you do not know, such as that they do not know "simple science" or that they do not question things or that they do not learn about biology and cosmology is, on its face, a demonstration that you do not know the simplest forms of logic and reasoning.

As for Galileo, people seem to persecute those that disagree with them, even scientists do it.

 

Interesting to note that in your retort you never addressed even one of the points I brought up. Is that called your "scientific method"?

When you fill in the blanks in what you imagine I would say, it goes to the fact that you aren't really willing to consider things you don't agree with, and can't possibly understand. Good job continuing the dark ages, Mr.Scientist.

I didn't even mention God. I mentioned "intelligent design". As is commonly the case in the academic and "scientific" community today, I'm castigated for even considering an intelligent being of some sort behind life.

Your critique has no validity, since all you seem to be able to do is mock and use insults to "prove" your "scientific" point. Frankly, I believe this study shows that you are indeed a miserable and offensive dolt.

I've loved true science since I was a young boy, studying college chemistry, biology, and nuclear physics texts while still in my early teens, while most of my friends were out trying to pick up chicks. I was your OG (original geekster).

I also studied electronics, and built my own amateur radio.

Before becoming a believer, I fairly immersed myself in yoga and zen buddhism, and even gave Islam an unbiased consideration.

You think I'm just some fundie nut-job?

You, however, may not be a "fundie", but you're still a wack-job.

Try posting something of intelligent design. So far your post design lacks the intelligence for a true debate.

LOL

 

OWB:

Beliefs? I'm only talking about one OWB. Your belief that Jesus needed to be killed.
Not to worry though, I am not one to burden another with their burden of proof, so believe what you like, and with any luck the niceties you're after shall be granted! : D

Pride is the hide! But all I have left is laughter! It's a good healthy sort though, a helpful, funny, all around...sort! LOL


About the universe, it does create itself. I'd hate to think of a creator who thought otherwise. Perhaps we need to discuss the generosity of spirit that has us allow such a thing!? :sunny:

 

Cos he was a very naughty boy!

 

Oh that, It's not a belief but a fact.

I kind of noticed that you have no proof.

Your pride is showing.

I'd ask for proof but you don't seem to have any.

 

There is concrete evidence for evolution, the only evidence you have is "but c'mon look that's just the way it has to be because it's so obvious"

My belief is the universe is like an ouroburus the beginning is the end, the end is the beginning but that is not based on anything scientific those are my own personal beliefs which I separate from objective science. And here we come to the crux of the difference between science and religion if there was 100% proof tomorrow that God was real, scientist would accept it eventually. The religious would shut their minds off and immediately discount proof of no God without a further thought.

 

There is a lot of retarded statements there to address which frankly I don't want to get into because you will never go over and take anything I post seriously. Why should I go through the work?

I never claimed to be a scientist.

You can believe in intelligent design all you want just keep your religious agenda out of the schools. There is zero evidence for it "but we're here that's evidence" is not real evidence.

 

Kind of? You have understood then where the burden of proof lies?! The existence of Satan is a 'fact' for you also. I know you don't think I'm here to help you get over these difficult beliefs, but to mock you for them! I imagine you imagine if help was my intent that I would be more solicitous, more serious perhaps? lol

Should I be ashamed?! I am unlearning pity for all who proclaim the death sentence. I'm yet a merciful man in creating. Woe betide all who would have me a destroyer! lol

Ah OWB, even you have spirit! : D Even you are a creator! Where we differ is that in order for you to create, creation first has to be proven! lol

All these intelligent designers, these oh-so-humble souls, they only serve to make me feel like a god! It's embarrassing! :afro:

 

Concrete evidence? Your concrete evidence is just what you said; "but c'mon look that's just the way it has to be because it's so obvious" and that is pretty much the best evidence evolutionists have.

So why believe it?

Many scientists have already found enough proof to accept that there is a God.

If it could be proved, why would they?

 

Come back when your pride allows you something to say.

 

You're right. May as well just resort to being what you are by nature,,a lazy thinker and an insulting know-nothing.

That, in itself, has become apparent to me.

You can believe in Darwinian "natural selection" all you want, just keep your pseudo-scientific agenda out of the schools. Oh, wait, it's already there.

 

To both of you, there is lots of evidence for evolution including Darwins observations, the fossil records, etc that can be verified. Tell me what you find objectionable with it and I will do my best to answer it. A billion dollars it is the same tired b.s. about no proof for macroevolution.

Because I can separate my faith with my identity as a person. Just because I believe something doesn't mean I want to cram it down everyone elses throats which is my main beef with fundamentalist Christianity. Our society should be completely secular. I wouldn't want teachers using eastern and new age spirituality in school, even though I subscribe to those beliefs.

And many haven't. The majority know enough that you separate it from your work, because it doesn't belong there. Besides even the smartest people in the universe are afraid of death.

 

Darwin didn't have the same set of facts that we have today.

I believe, on a limited basis, in the principle of evolving species, but not in the extended presumption that man, as an extension, "evolved" from a lower form of life, like, say, "pond scum", or a mere tadpole.

It's clear that through genetic mutation, over a period of eons, things happen, things change, but it's just presumption to assume that that in itself is "scientific proof" that man evolved from a lower species. It's a "leap of faith", so to speak. In that sense, "science" is as much "faith based" as religion. There are gaps in the knowledge, unknowns, that if filled in by individual preference, simply make for convenient theory, rather than fact. This can be said on both sides, since every man has his/her preferences.

My main argument today is over the politicization of science and the educational realm. Rather than teaching children WHAT to think, we should be teaching them HOW to think, and to think objectively. Subjectivity has it's place, but only when subjected to scientific rigor, which I do not believe Darwinian theory has. It's a popular notion, popular among people who are biased against the idea of intelligent design.

I'm not accusing Darwin, as much as those who took his THEORY and ran with it, off the field and into the forest.

I have been through many different realms of thought. I am a retired electrician, who had many scientific hobbies of interest while growing up. I don't appreciate religious people much, and tend to avoid gatherings, unless I feel up to it. It is challenging to me to be with religious people, and I can spot a cult a mile away, when I begin to notice certain elements. I belonged to a famous "hippie-Jesus" cult, similar to the Jim Jones or Waco phenomenon back in 1970-72. I learned how to not follow blindly through that experience. I am a free thinking individual, with a scientific perspective, who believes in God, and Jesus as His manifestation, and the Spirit as His conveyance.

I did not arrive at my faith through others, but directly, through a process involving firstly a fertile, questioning mind, a curiosity of how things work, and what man is, inside and out. Secondarily, I was willing to approach God through prayer, not formal, but internally calling out to Him on various occasions, and finding peace, joy, and solace, in pressing circumstances. I have also seen things, seemingly co-incidental, but highly improbable co-incidence that showed me that prayer, and the leading of the Spirit are real and effectual, if properly applied.

The trouble with religion, in the traditional sense, is hypocrisy, or the tendency to say things without experience, and do things which are contrary to the nature of faith. This is not an exclusive experience, but common, and gives God, and the existence of God, a bad name. I believe a great number of religious "authorities" today are simply posturing pretenders.

But I am a scientist. I try things. I experiment, and I continue in what, in the end, strikes me as real, and not manufactured. It is very difficult for me to find one person I can look to as an example of faith, since that term, and the fact behind it, has been so overused, abused, and misrepresented. Anyone caught with their "hand in the till" today can simply profess a "new-found faith", and a "born-again experience", and come out looking pristine and "reformed". So much in today's Christianity is false. I'm not surprised at how many unbelievers there are, but feel as if people need to look further than what is spoon-fed them by the mainstream of "science" or "academia".

I just finished watching something on the tele called "Intelligence Not Allowed", narrated by Ben Stein. It's fascinating, all the interviews he did, throughout the world, with people from both sides of the fence. His premise is that the majority of the scientific community has become politicized to the extent that if one even MENTIONS "intelligent design", they are at risk, of their tenure, their job, their income. Many have been tossed out for this, including mere journalists wishing to provide unbiased coverage. This is wrong, and very "unscientific" in my view.

What doesn't belong "at work" is bias, in the scientific community. It is contrary to efficient research, in any field.

 

Okay.
Darwin's observations? What were those observations? Darwin observed the natural variations with the different animals and nothing more. He made conclusions from those observations but he did not observe those conclusions. He did not observe a bird changing into a butterfly, no one has.

The fossil record? What does the fossil record actually show? It shows that such things at one time existed, they do not show that evolution is true or that it even happened.

As for; a billion dollars it is the same tired b.s. about no proof for macroevolution. Isn't that pretty much what the discussion is about? And as such, have you come up with some kind of new proof of macroevolution, because nothing so far has proved it?

The thing is once you ignore God, then you are stuck with evolution, a very improbable, piece meal theory, that has some rather large holes. Atheists have no other way to explain man's existence and so must try to prove that evolution is a fact but the simple truth is that the facts can also be explained by a creator.

 

So can evolution.