This is not about whether or not he was the son of God but whether he actually existed.Most atheists agree that he did live but there are some who don't so what are you're thoughts?
Are you tired of cheap spice? Do you need SATISFACTION?!!?!?!?!?!? Then roll on over to the AG convenience store where you, yes YOU can get your free sample!
side effects may include darkness, evil grins, hurt feelings, and spontaneous desires to urinate.
MRWalker82 wrote: Umm.. stardust is not dust, sorry. Technically speaking, the 'stardust' of which we are made are simply individual elementary particles which can only be created through the fission in the heart of a star, and are only released when that star goes supernova.
To quote Lawrence Krauss "Every molecule in your body came from a star, and the molecules in your left hand probably came from a different star than the molecules in your right. ... Forget Jesus, the STARS died so that you could be here today".
Did i say it was? Nope. I suggested that maybe a lot of things that scientists state are actually proving many things in the bible. The word stardust is not that far from dust. And jesus didnt die to have us here today. If that was his choice, im sure that he wouldnt have died for us. He died to forgive us of our sins and to give us the an easier way to enter heaven. Sure the stars died for us, but its not really 'dying' if you never had a soul.
I suggested that maybe a lot of things that scientists state are actually proving many things in the bible.
Unless you can back up this claim it's worth diddly bunk.
He died to forgive us of our sins and to give us the an easier way to enter heaven.
Seems like a rather unnecessary, cruel and bloodthirsty way to go about saying your forgiven. Especially for an omnipotent being. Even a below average person can forgive without requiring human sacrifices.
I would like to state that a lot of theorems that scientist come up with are proving the bible. Edward Zganjar has proved that humans are made of stardust. Notice a correlation? "then the Lord God formd the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living creature" Genesis 2:7
Basically the idea of it, Cinna, is that the idea of using Jesus to forgive our sins is equivalent to using him as a scapegoat. We, according to the Christians, are sinful and wicked creatures, and we place that sin on Jesus which eliminates us of sin. However we are simply scapegoating and using this to refuse to take responsibility for our actions.
Furthermore, this is simply a modification of a much older tradition, which Hitchens references several times in his books, in which the pagans had 'sin eaters' who would draw your sin out of your body, place it in an animal, and then sacrifice the animal which cleanses you of your wickedness. The parable of the crucifixion of Jesus parallels these ancient traditions.
Anyway, the idea of allowing one to take the blame for our actions is, to many, an immoral principle. This is how Hitchens arrives at the conclusion that the practice of Christianity is immoral in this particular sense.
Flag Basically the idea of it, Cinna, is that the idea of using Jesus to forgive our sins is equivalent to using him as a scapegoat. We, according to the Christians, are sinful and wicked creatures, and we place that sin on Jesus which eliminates us of sin. However we are simply scapegoating and using this to refuse to take responsibility for our actions.
Well we, the Christians, are not using Him as a scapegoat. I can see where you are coming from though, but the Bible fortells that a Savior would come and sacrfice himself for us. And Christians believe this. Thats why we worship Jesus, we don't blame Him which is what a scape goat is... so no its not equivalent in using him as a scapegoat.
considering that dust is just skin flakes from animals, and that animals were just created, then what other dust could it be? also, everything on the planet has traces of stardust in them. So if god took it from the ground, then it is still stardust in its essence.
Mistah Walker, yours is a thought provoking statement. What I would say in response to that is that Jesus wasn't necessarily the 'scapegoat' of our sins.
For one, he was willing to take our burden. At the Garden of Gethsemane, while he was in anguish and asked that the cup be passed on, he ultimately accepted his destiny and went to die. He did it not to take our sins away per say, but to open heaven to all those who lived a live worthy in God's eyes.
Although you say that we use Jesus to simply avoid the responsibility of sin, there are plenty of ways we take full responsibility. Reconciliation, for instance, is a way to confess our sins, afterwards where we commit a penance in reparation. It seems that either atheists are condemning reconciliation for being useless, or blaming us for not doing enough to fix our sins, which is a contradiction.
You don't find someone dying to clear you of something your ancestor did immoral? I don't see hoe it couldn't be anything but.
But that was one of the reasons why he was sent here. He also allowed us an easier passage into heaven.
Basically the idea of it, Cinna, is that the idea of using Jesus to forgive our sins is equivalent to using him as a scapegoat. We, according to the Christians, are sinful and wicked creatures, and we place that sin on Jesus which eliminates us of sin. However we are simply scapegoating and using this to refuse to take responsibility for our actions.
