The crucifixion was a fraud.

[Tiassa]

Tony1

OK, here is a list of the words I'm citing...
1. "the"
2. "and"
3. "you"

What I think is wrong is a little hard to pin down at this point, it's sort of a feeling, or a vague je-ne-sais-quoi...

You'll have to do better than that. Perhaps you should wait until you can put words to it? Perhaps some honest reflection will resolve the issue for you?

blonde_cupid is a "he?"
All this time I thought she was a "she."

Perhaps. I've noticed of late the discrepancy 'twixt how G0D and I refer to Blonde Cupid. But I've been calling Cupid by the masculine for months and I may have missed the objection, so someone go ahead and point that out to me.

In the meantime, I'll simply claim warrant. Cupid is a name commonly reserved to a pop-culture angel. Angels, like God, are without gender; in the Christian system, we refer to things without gender largely by the masculine--e.g. God. I suppose I could be accurate and simply refer to Blonde Cupid as It.

Now, do you have anything to contribute to the topic?

No more a threat than your blowhard antics.
In fact, it's no threat at all, merely a recitation of events.

You don't get to determine the style of quoting, as though Tiassa's Rules of Style were somehow in effect.

This isn't about style, Tony1. I know you would like to reduce it to a personal fight, since that's all you ever try to do. But you have to realize that, on the one hand, this is not your issue to defend, and to the other, people on the Christian side of the aisle (e.g. you, KalvinB, and others) have expressed displeasure when I've attempted to interpret their very poor writing. Judging by the marks in the sentence and the arrangement of the words, taking it as literally as I can leaves me with the perception of a threat. I will await Blonde Cupid's response, unless you would like to provide evidence that Cupid has assigned you as its official spokesperson.

Now, Tony1, do you have anything to contribute to the topic?

--Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Re: Tony1

*Originally posted by tiassa
You'll have to do better than that. Perhaps you should wait until you can put words to it? Perhaps some honest reflection will resolve the issue for you?*

Sorry, tiassa, my back's against the wall.
Your superior intellect and biting wit have reduced my joke to a shambles.
Everyone else seems to have gotten the joke, but not you.
Oh well.

*In the meantime, I'll simply claim warrant. Cupid is a name commonly reserved to a pop-culture angel. Angels, like God, are without gender*

Just air.
Cupid may be without gender, but adjectives aren't.

*This isn't about style, Tony1. I know you would like to reduce it to a personal fight, since that's all you ever try to do.*

Me reduce it to a personal fight? Me?
You forget that you are the one to refer to our posts as "legendary battles" etc.
To me, they're just posts.

*But you have to realize that, on the one hand, this is not your issue to defend,*

It is because I say it is.
The crucifixion is not a fraud.
The most common pro-fraud argument is that the sacrifice wasn't a real sacrifice because it wasn't permanent.
So what?
In chess, a pawn is commonly sacrificed to win the overall game.
If you and Cris don't feel that "sacrifice" is properly defined in the dictionary, then simply create a new word which defines what you're thinking of.

*and to the other, people on the Christian side of the aisle (e.g. you, KalvinB, and others) have expressed displeasure when I've attempted to interpret their very poor writing.*

I can't remember any time when you've taken issue with my "poor writing."

*Judging by the marks in the sentence and the arrangement of the words, taking it as literally as I can leaves me with the perception of a threat.*

Oh, poor frightened tiassa.
It's not as though you don't attempt threats yourself, particularly where your "goddess" is concerned.
Mind you, they are rather lame threats given that there is a complete lack of authority to back them up, either from you, or from your "goddess."

*Now, Tony1, do you have anything to contribute to the topic?*

Yes.

 

[Markx]

Re: Re: Tony1

Originally posted by tony1
*Originally posted by tiassa


Sorry, tiassa, my back's against the wall.
Your superior intellect and biting wit have reduced my joke to a shambles.
Everyone else seems to have gotten the joke, but not you.
Oh well.

Are you Ok Tony1? Joke and you?? You must be kidding us. I mean seriously, why would you joke about anything??


***It is because I say it is.
The crucifixion is not a fraud.
The most common pro-fraud argument is that the sacrifice wasn't a real sacrifice because it wasn't permanent.
So what?
In chess, a pawn is commonly sacrificed to win the overall game.
If you and Cris don't feel that "sacrifice" is properly defined in the dictionary, then simply create a new word which defines what you're thinking of.
*****


Oh really? Ok if it wasn't a Cruci-fiction then it was "Hoax". Are you also going to look for one word defination of Death like KALVINB. Some hidden defination in some hidden verse which will overcome all other definations of word Death which could only mean one thing i.e DEATH.

 

[Tiassa]

Wrong issue Tony1

*But you have to realize that, on the one hand, this is not your issue to defend,*

It is because I say it is.
The crucifixion is not a fraud.
The most common pro-fraud argument is that the sacrifice wasn't a real sacrifice because it wasn't permanent.
So what?
In chess, a pawn is commonly sacrificed to win the overall game.
If you and Cris don't feel that "sacrifice" is properly defined in the dictionary, then simply create a new word which defines what you're thinking of.

Um ... Tony1, you have the wrong issue in mind. It is not your place to defend Blonde Cupid.

Although I do thank you for further reducing the sense of the crucifixion: For God so loved chess that he sacrificed a pawn. You know, I play chess. Was Jesus a pawn without will? Was the life of Jesus on earth completely scripted out? Thank you for that, though.

Me reduce it to a personal fight? Me?
You forget that you are the one to refer to our posts as "legendary battles" etc.
To me, they're just posts.

And to the rest of us they're useless digressions loaded with insults, jokes, or whatever you would like to call them in an effort to discuss anything but the actual topic at hand. Furthermore, why are you sticking your nose into Blonde Cupid's and my argument if it's not personal? You're commenting on personal issues and not the larger topic at hand. Indeed, you like to personalize it; and yes, you are combative and pointless. So, yes, I feel well-justified in what I wrote.

*and to the other, people on the Christian side of the aisle (e.g. you, KalvinB, and others) have expressed displeasure when I've attempted to interpret their very poor writing.*

I can't remember any time when you've taken issue with my "poor writing."

You would have said I was "imagining things", and so forth. It comes from you using inaccurate, generalized language and other people having to guess at multiple interpretations of words to figure out what you've actually said. I figure if the Word was that important to you, you would put some greater effort into evangelizing it, or at least a little bit of integrity.

So, when you're not making sense, shall I merely assume what you're trying to say and go from there?

Oh, poor frightened tiassa.
It's not as though you don't attempt threats yourself, particularly where your "goddess" is concerned.
Mind you, they are rather lame threats given that there is a complete lack of authority to back them up, either from you, or from your "goddess."

Document a single threat. Go for it. Because I know you cannot.

Yes.

Then contribute something worthwhile or leave it be. The chess bit, for instance. Nice going. Relevant indeed, but I'm quite sure that you did not intend to undermine the crucifixion.

Thanks for that, anyway.

I look forward to your citation of threats I've made toward other posters. Oh, and you might want to put links with those to the posts where you find them. It's helpful for everyone who will assess your claims.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Re: Re: Re: Tony1

*Originally posted by Markx
Joke and you?? You must be kidding us. I mean seriously, why would you joke about anything??*

Atheism is sooooooo funny, that's why.
Anyway, others have noticed a lot of humor in my posts.
The ones who don't are arrayed against me.
No surprise there.

*Oh really? Ok if it wasn't a Cruci-fiction then it was "Hoax". Are you also going to look for one word defination of Death like KALVINB. Some hidden defination in some hidden verse which will overcome all other definations of word Death which could only mean one thing i.e DEATH. *

No hoax.
You simply do not know the power of God.

You simply wish to redefine "death" as "death forever."

*Originally posted by tiassa
Um ... Tony1, you have the wrong issue in mind.*

The one guy who is the most gung-ho about sticking to the topic is discussing something off-topic?
What's this going to do to your credibility?
Oh wait, what am I saying?

*Was Jesus a pawn without will?*

Since when is pawn defined as "without will?"

*Was the life of Jesus on earth completely scripted out?*

Do all pawns follow the same path to be defined as pawns?
Do you actually play chess, or merely claim to?

*And to the rest of us they're useless digressions loaded with insults, jokes, or whatever you would like to call them in an effort to discuss anything but the actual topic at hand.*

Such as your digression, which you thoughtfully documented as such earlier?

*Furthermore, why are you sticking your nose into Blonde Cupid's and my argument if it's not personal?*

Duhhhhhhhhh!!!!
It's the internet, stupid.

*Indeed, you like to personalize it; and yes, you are combative and pointless.*

I do like to personalize it.
I like to make sure that others realize that everyone else here is actually real people, including you, your sufiesque, "goddess"-worshipping, pseudo-superior affectations aside.

*I feel well-justified in what I wrote.*

But that's the very core of your problems.
You feel well-justified in being spiteful.
You feel well-justified in being bitter.
You feel well-justified in being resentful.
You feel well-justified in being ostracized at school.


You feel well-justified in being cursed, and it doesn't need to be that way.
You could be blessed instead, but you actually choose death and cursing, while feeling well-justified.
You may end up being the most well-justified corpse in existence.

*You would have said I was "imagining things", and so forth. It comes from you using inaccurate, generalized language and other people having to guess at multiple interpretations of words to figure out what you've actually said.*

Oh, you noticed.
I use words of multiple interpretations because it forces people to think, and it gives me plenty of cues where a person is coming from by their choice of interpretation.

*I figure if the Word was that important to you, you would put some greater effort into evangelizing it, or at least a little bit of integrity.*

Integrity as defined by you?
You who justify yourself so well?
Integrity and self-justification are pretty much opposites.
You should look into the distinction.

*Document a single threat. Go for it. Because I know you cannot.*

Ahh, you remember the veil on your threats then?
The veil was too thin, however, perhaps you can remember your wrath while I was poking fun at your "goddess?"
And while I was describing its true nature?

*Relevant indeed, but I'm quite sure that you did not intend to undermine the crucifixion.*

No undermining done.
The death of one for the salvation of billions.

*I look forward to your citation of threats I've made toward other posters.*

What "other" posters?

 

[Tiassa]

Tony1--what would you like?

What "other" posters?

Did you not write:

It's not as though you don't attempt threats yourself, particularly where your "goddess" is concerned.
Mind you, they are rather lame threats given that there is a complete lack of authority to back them up, either from you, or from your "goddess."

• Whom am I threatening?
• When and in what post did I threaten that whom?
• What are the words of that threat?
• The answer to your question is posters other than myself.

As to the rest of your post, Tony1, I would like to look at something you wrote a couple of posts ago.

*Now, Tony1, do you have anything to contribute to the topic?*

Yes.

Yet you haven't posted that contribution, choosing instead to focus on your personalized exchange with one poster.

I would ask that you post material relevant to the topic or leave it be. What is so hard about that?

Um ... Tony1, you have the wrong issue in mind.*

The one guy who is the most gung-ho about sticking to the topic is discussing something off-topic?
What's this going to do to your credibility?
Oh wait, what am I saying?

For instance, this. What was the point of this digression? Do you truly not understand? Is it just another of your jokes? The point is that it's not contributing a whit to the topic, and you really do need to either contribute to the topic or else go start your own.

--Tiassa

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

***And I know exactly what you're going to say...***

O.K. then.

 

[Tiassa]

Good enough, Blonde Cupid

O.K. then.

So as long as we understand each other, then? This means you're going to be more careful in the future about what you say and how you say it? That you will be more careful about how you cite the things you're referring to?

Can I ask what was so hard about being more careful in the first place, or is that something you'd rather not discuss?

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[tony1]

Re: Tony1--what would you like?

*Originally posted by tiassa
Did you not write:*

I did write what you quoted as I read this, but where is this mention of other posters?

*Yet you haven't posted that contribution, choosing instead to focus on your personalized exchange with one poster. *

?
I posted it prior to the statement of "Yes."
I can't help it if you place your questions and statements in such an order that you're the first person to get confused when someone actually answers them.

*For instance, this. What was the point of this digression? Do you truly not understand? Is it just another of your jokes? The point is that it's not contributing a whit to the topic, and you really do need to either contribute to the topic or else go start your own.*

Found some more high-quality cannabis products again?
Need I remind you that mere sentences prior to that, you were castigating me for dealing with an issue that YOU YOURSELF said had nothing to do with the topic, EVEN THOUGH I answered it within the constraints of the topic.

So, I ask, is this one of YOUR jokes?
What possible connection does this line of questioning have to do with the topic at hand, or are you already forgetting that you led us down this garden path?

*So as long as we understand each other, then? This means you're going to be more careful in the future about what you say and how you say it? That you will be more careful about how you cite the things you're referring to?

Can I ask what was so hard about being more careful in the first place, or is that something you'd rather not discuss?*

Just another example of tiassa's on-topic discussion.
Turns out it IS all about style, after all, right, tiassa?

I do have to congratulate you on your supreme sense of irony, though.

 

[blonde_cupid]

tony1,

***I did write what you quoted as I read this, but where is this mention of other posters?***

There is no mention of other posters.

tiassa,

***This means you're going to be more careful in the future about what you say and how you say it?***

This means you need to read more carefully and make a more honest attempt at understanding what it is you are actually reading before you lose your head. What could possibly happen, tiassa, if you got your facts straight before you went on your rants is that you might realize that you don't have to rant and rave.

 

[Tiassa]

Tony1, Blonde Cupid

Gentle ... um ... yeah ... Gentlesomethings

I did write what you quoted as I read this, but where is this mention of other posters? (Tony1)

There is no mention of other posters. (Blonde Cupid)

To start with Tony1: you said I was threatening ... what, whom? I repeat your own words:

It's not as though you don't attempt threats yourself, particularly where your "goddess" is concerned.
Mind you, they are rather lame threats given that there is a complete lack of authority to back them up, either from you, or from your "goddess."

So if it's not as though I don't attempt threats, who am I threatening? Why don't you try addressing the questions that were clearly spelled out for you:

• Whom am I threatening?
• When and in what post did I threaten that whom?
• What are the words of that threat?

I await your answers, Tony1. Your harassment is becoming quite tedious. It would be appreciated more if it wasn't your only consistent method of posting.

?
I posted it prior to the statement of "Yes."
I can't help it if you place your questions and statements in such an order that you're the first person to get confused when someone actually answers them.

Where, then, is that relevant contribution to the topic? Why don't you provide it?

Found some more high-quality cannabis products again?

I'm sure if you had a better defense of your conduct than to employ this stale offensive, you would have by now.

Just another example of tiassa's on-topic discussion.
Turns out it IS all about style, after all, right, tiassa?

I would like for either of you to participate honestly in a debate sometime. As G0D pointed out, this topic was essentially wrapped up in the first couple of pages. I believe you should inquire with your associate as to what the further problem is, and why he has been reduced to including threatening language in his posts.

Blonde Cupid

This means you need to read more carefully and make a more honest attempt at understanding what it is you are actually reading before you lose your head. What could possibly happen, tiassa, if you got your facts straight before you went on your rants is that you might realize that you don't have to rant and rave.

So what you're telling me, in essence, is that since you don't feel like actually writing in a communicative form, it is our responsibility to A) decide what you mean and B) make sure it agrees with what you want it to mean, but without bugging you about what you mean? Here, I'll quote you:

That's hilarious. I just heard one guy say almost that exact same thing to another last night except they followed up with growling and screaming... so if you value the nose on YOUR face you'll get the f*** out of MINE. Sorry, the words were so similar I couldn't help making the connection and sharing that with you. (Blonde Cupid, 3.29.02, 15.55 EST, pre-edit)

So help me out, Blonde Cupid, since you bothered to post it in the first place, what separations am I supposed to assign your writing? There are no "quotation marks", no italics, no ***asterisks around the cited text***, no (parentheses), no --hyphens--, no dividers of any kind. Would you like me to simply guess for you what you're saying so that you can tell me I'm wrong and I shouldn't be assuming so much? Being that I don't see the words that were so similar, it's not like I can pick them out that way, either. All I can ask is that you take care to say what you mean.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Adam]

This has turned into one amazingly dumb thread.

The word "ostracised" was used. Anyone care for a little tidbit of history? For a time in ancient Athens, each year the people would gather and vote for one person they wanted kicked out of town. Whoever got the most votes was booted out. The vote was done by writing the name of your choice on a small piece of pottery called an "ostra". Hence, whoever got tossed out was "ostracised". Absolutely unrelated to the topic, but I thought some of you might be interested.

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

This is what you said to me:

***Although it doesn't mean much to you, I'm sure, I'm almost done putting up with you.***

This is basically what I heard one guy say to another Thursday night:

'Although it doesn't mean much to you, I'm sure, I'm almost done putting up with you... so if you value the nose on YOUR face you'll get the f*** out of MINE.'

In other words, you reminded me of that violent guy. So, when I heard you talking about being "done putting up with me" I thought, "Oh. What now? Tiassa's going to threaten to punch me in the nose?" and I found that to be hilarious.

So, once again I'll say:

***Sorry, the words were so similar I couldn't help making the connection and sharing that with you.***

If you get a minute between rants, please consider a couple of things for future reference, as I will address my counter-argument to Cris rather than continuing to partake in the madness of this particular discussion with you:

First, as tony1 has already noted, you are the one who has lead us down this garden path, tiassa.

Second, as Adam adam has has already noted, it just seems odd, then, that you would belabor the point in such a manner.

 

[Xev]

That's hilarious. I just heard one guy say almost that exact same thing to another last night except they followed up with growling and screaming...

Blonde, I am hardly a homophobe but.....I'd rather not know.

Now, since we are discussing the discussion:

"He said!"
"She said!"
"Bitch!!"
"Callous pig!"

It is actually a bit worse than that:

"He said that she said that he said that I said...."

Tiassa is right because he is cutest.

NOW CAN WE PLEASE DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE SACRIFICE?!!

 

[Adam]

Homophobe = scared of homes.

 

[Adam]

Okay, discuss the actualy topic...

First, I suspect that if JFC ever really existed, he was a completely insane chap, probably foamed at the mouth when he jumped up on a rock to give his talks. Followed around by dumb-arse lackeys. Claiming he had divine ancestry? A nutter.

However, to the sacrifice/crucifiction issue...

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that the christian mythology is true.

IF JFC is/was a part of the christian god, then there was no loss at all, no pain, no sacrifice, nothing.

IF JFC was really the son of the christian god but not part of it/her/him, then really the three days tied to a post is nothing special, and certainly far less trouble than all the other crucified people there/then experienced, for at least JFC had prior knowledge of an end to suffering in sight, and a reward afterward.

IF JFC was only human, and received no divine inspiration, guidance, or assistance at all, only then is he worthy of any kind of respect. Why? Because a human, however insane, who takes pain for someone else for no reason other than to save that other person some pain, is a decent chap. Maybe he wasn't actually taking it for someone else but only believed it was so.

The point being that anyone who walks over glass knowing the pain will vanish at the far end is making less of a sacrifice than someone who expects the pain to endure. Regardless of myths about divinity and such, that seems rather obvious to me.

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by Adam
This has turned into one amazingly dumb thread.

The word "ostracised" was used. Anyone care for a little tidbit of history? For a time in ancient Athens, each year the people would gather and vote for one person they wanted kicked out of town. Whoever got the most votes was booted out. The vote was done by writing the name of your choice on a small piece of pottery called an "ostra". Hence, whoever got tossed out was "ostracised". Absolutely unrelated to the topic, but I thought some of you might be interested.

Hmmm........So the Idea of weakest link is not new after all.

 

[Adam]

I hate game-shows.

 

[Tiassa]

Then write better, Cupid

First, as tony1 has already noted, you are the one who has lead us down this garden path, tiassa.

Second, as Adam adam has has already noted, it just seems odd, then, that you would belabor the point in such a manner.

Which garden path is that, Cupid? You're welcome to PM me or carry this out in public, but given that you can so rarely give examples, and that Tony1 has zero credibility on this board, we might wonder which Garden path you're talking about.

Secondly, why does it seem odd? I'm now officially curious why it is that it's Christians who do the threatening. First Lawdog and now Blonde Cupid ... do you see the difference between your "explanation" and what you actually wrote? Be more careful in the future or I will call you out on such things.


Tiassa

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

***Be more careful in the future or I will call you out on such things.***

That IS a threat.