The crucifixion was a fraud.
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
LOL. The comment you made about 3 days of suffering (Jebus) vs. eternity of suffering (us), really cracked me up. It seems that no one followed up that line - ie. True sacrifice would be sending Jebus to hell forever.Originally posted by Avatar
lol true. here's my version.
crusci-fiction
you have talked it all out here, haventhing to add
I missed it
If I'm not mistaken, this entire topic was covered by Cris before. I saw it in Religion Archives, maybe? Anyway, the arguments in the first installment were as good as they are here.
I've seen that the most ppl who are the most knowledgable about x-tianity, are invariably AGAINST it. Tiassa, for instance, appears to have a theological Phd
. No "believer" on this forum has demonstrated that high a level of knowledge. The converse also applies, the ppl who are the most convinced, in many cases, have never even read the bible.
God,
It is often good to revisit old topics especially since the active members change quite frequently. There is often fresh ideas posted.
But I still do not see any credible counter-argument, most attempts this time are either weak or try to change the topic theme to their own liking.
Cris
It is often good to revisit old topics especially since the active members change quite frequently. There is often fresh ideas posted.
But I still do not see any credible counter-argument, most attempts this time are either weak or try to change the topic theme to their own liking.
Cris
Three days:
Friday. Saturday. Sunday.
"Jonah was alive and jesus was dead."
Jesus wasn't in a fish either.
"I agree with you."
Well then. The imps have spoken. Who am I to say otherwise? Considering the amount of rehashed bullshit that floods these forums it's quite obvious you people don't pay attention anyway. Why talk if you won't listen?
Maybe Tiassa will break out the milk and cookies for your good work. Then you can break out your blankies and have a little nap.
Ben
Friday. Saturday. Sunday.
"Jonah was alive and jesus was dead."
Jesus wasn't in a fish either.
"I agree with you."
Well then. The imps have spoken. Who am I to say otherwise? Considering the amount of rehashed bullshit that floods these forums it's quite obvious you people don't pay attention anyway. Why talk if you won't listen?
Maybe Tiassa will break out the milk and cookies for your good work. Then you can break out your blankies and have a little nap.
Ben
LoL.... you sound so funny. Just please don't start crying. It is not your fault that you didn't get the message. Just try hard and you will get it.
See you missed it again. Three days and three night?. Jesus said just like jonah as he was in the belly of whale so shall the son of man will be in the belly of earth. He made it damn clear.
Specialy for people like you. But too sad you didn't get it. Hmm.......programed or brianwashed. I wonder which one. _______________________________________________
Originally posted by KalvinB
3 days of God's full out wrath is meaningless to you? Couple that with the fact that all will rise from the dead. 3 days wasn't enough is just your opinion and since it's the crux of your argument, you're argument falls flat.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No 3 days are not enough. if looking at the christian beliefs, then we all should face the "wrath of god" for all enternity. what is 3 days compared to it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
no I don't see how this changes the theme to my liking
cris . my liking is tht we productivly discuss this subject and nth more [ ph and yes, come to an mutual conclusion, but this is extremely rare @ sciforums]
MatticiousG ....
MatticiousG
First perusal of your latest post says your logic is, indeed considerably tighter. If I forego a proper response right now, please accept my apologies. It has been pointed out to me what day of the week it is, and therefore that I have responsibilities which preclude the amount of time I need to spend reviewing the whole of the topic. I shall endevor to offer a proper response to your post at some point today or this evening (Pacific Standard Time) ...
In addition, frankly, I'm tired; I think I spent seventeen hours writing yesterday ... which, actually, I enjoy; it is, technically, my life. But it is taxing and I have to drag my ass over to the cable company to keep them from cutting my internet service
I do appreciate the patience you've shown thus far and your desire to increase and refine your knowledge. And so I beg even greater patience ....
thanx much,
Tiassa
MatticiousG
First perusal of your latest post says your logic is, indeed considerably tighter. If I forego a proper response right now, please accept my apologies. It has been pointed out to me what day of the week it is, and therefore that I have responsibilities which preclude the amount of time I need to spend reviewing the whole of the topic. I shall endevor to offer a proper response to your post at some point today or this evening (Pacific Standard Time) ...
In addition, frankly, I'm tired; I think I spent seventeen hours writing yesterday ... which, actually, I enjoy; it is, technically, my life. But it is taxing and I have to drag my ass over to the cable company to keep them from cutting my internet service
I do appreciate the patience you've shown thus far and your desire to increase and refine your knowledge. And so I beg even greater patience ....
thanx much,
Tiassa
blonde_cupid
Registered Senior Member
Cris,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sure sounds like you're talking about death, Cris. If not, then how else do you think you could sacrifice your daughter so that she is permanently lost, Cris?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***I avoided introducing the term ‘death’ because based on other threads there has been little agreement on what is meant by death. And here you are trying to tie down your perspective to a particular definition of death, and argue that I am wrong because of your perspective.
So let’s turn this around. ***
Let's not, for now, and stick to your original attempt at proof.
I thought your argument was quite clear, Cris. Clear but faulty. You asked if we agreed with your proof. I do not because I see a fault in your logic. Death cannot be both temporary and permanent in that same argument. Now you are telling me that you were intentionally being ambiguous in your comparison which was your basis to explain a permanent loss and a real sacrifice? If so, then your argument is even faultier than I thought. It was your argument, Cris, and your perspective (not mine) which you need to "tie down" if you want to be taken seriously.
Were we to understand that your daughter was being sacrificed through death or not?
1. If not, then you need to be clearer and demonstrate the alternative, permanent loss, that qualifies as a true sacrifice for the sake of your argument.
2. If so, and you are concerned that there could be multiple interpretations of death, then you need to define it for the sake of your argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sure sounds like you're talking about death, Cris. If not, then how else do you think you could sacrifice your daughter so that she is permanently lost, Cris?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
***I avoided introducing the term ‘death’ because based on other threads there has been little agreement on what is meant by death. And here you are trying to tie down your perspective to a particular definition of death, and argue that I am wrong because of your perspective.
So let’s turn this around. ***
Let's not, for now, and stick to your original attempt at proof.
I thought your argument was quite clear, Cris. Clear but faulty. You asked if we agreed with your proof. I do not because I see a fault in your logic. Death cannot be both temporary and permanent in that same argument. Now you are telling me that you were intentionally being ambiguous in your comparison which was your basis to explain a permanent loss and a real sacrifice? If so, then your argument is even faultier than I thought. It was your argument, Cris, and your perspective (not mine) which you need to "tie down" if you want to be taken seriously.
Were we to understand that your daughter was being sacrificed through death or not?
1. If not, then you need to be clearer and demonstrate the alternative, permanent loss, that qualifies as a true sacrifice for the sake of your argument.
2. If so, and you are concerned that there could be multiple interpretations of death, then you need to define it for the sake of your argument.
blonde_cupid,
Are you trying to make a case for sacrifice not being a permanent loss?
In John 3:16 when it says God gave his only son, does ‘gave’ imply temporary or permanence?
In normal usage both ‘sacrifice’ and ‘giving’ imply a permanent state, would you agree?
Proof 1, does not rest on the notion of permanence, only in the concept that something immortal cannot cease to exist, i.e. it cannot die otherwise it would not be immortal.
To disprove (1) you need to show that Jesus was not God and was not immortal.
Proof 2, specifically assumes that sacrifice means a permanent loss. I have not seen any definition of the word that implies anything other than permanence. I.e. something sacrificed never returns.
To disprove (2) you need to show that a sacrifice does not mean permanent loss.
Proof 3, also does not depend on permanence but on whether God suffered in a way that can be related to human suffering.
To disprove (3) you need to show that there was a real loss and that God could not know if the loss was permanent or not (equivalent to a human loss). This is impossible because of the claims for omniscience.
Which proof(s) are you objecting to?
Cris
Are you trying to make a case for sacrifice not being a permanent loss?
In John 3:16 when it says God gave his only son, does ‘gave’ imply temporary or permanence?
In normal usage both ‘sacrifice’ and ‘giving’ imply a permanent state, would you agree?
Proof 1, does not rest on the notion of permanence, only in the concept that something immortal cannot cease to exist, i.e. it cannot die otherwise it would not be immortal.
To disprove (1) you need to show that Jesus was not God and was not immortal.
Proof 2, specifically assumes that sacrifice means a permanent loss. I have not seen any definition of the word that implies anything other than permanence. I.e. something sacrificed never returns.
To disprove (2) you need to show that a sacrifice does not mean permanent loss.
Proof 3, also does not depend on permanence but on whether God suffered in a way that can be related to human suffering.
To disprove (3) you need to show that there was a real loss and that God could not know if the loss was permanent or not (equivalent to a human loss). This is impossible because of the claims for omniscience.
Which proof(s) are you objecting to?
Cris
Keep trying MarkX. Eventually you may make a coherent argument. In the mean time you're just an ignorant jack ass.
"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."
"And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on."
The day of preparation is friday which is when they took him down. He was crucified thursday.
thursday,
thursday night,
friday,
friday night,
saturday,
saturday night,
sunday morning
3 days. And 3 nights.
Now why don't you crawl back in the hole you came from.
k bye.
Ben
"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."
"And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on."
The day of preparation is friday which is when they took him down. He was crucified thursday.
thursday,
thursday night,
friday,
friday night,
saturday,
saturday night,
sunday morning
3 days. And 3 nights.
Now why don't you crawl back in the hole you came from.
k bye.
Ben
Could it be, then?
Cris
Or loaned? What's the interest worth? Your vitality?
thanx,
Tiassa
(PS--MatticiousG ... I'm obviously too drunk to give a good answer; strangely, first Guinness and then red wine ... what happens if we mix Joyce and Descartes? )
Cris
Perhaps God "lent" Jesus?
Or loaned? What's the interest worth? Your vitality?
thanx,
Tiassa
(PS--MatticiousG ... I'm obviously too drunk to give a good answer; strangely, first Guinness and then red wine ... what happens if we mix Joyce and Descartes?
)
A loan huh?
That would fit maybe. But I really don't see priests becoming very excited about a loan, although loan sharks can make a real killing. And I think Jews come into this somehow. Oops, better not go there, sounds a bit like racial profiling.
But nah, I don't see the masses becoming hysterial over a loan, just not enough emotionalism, or rather the wrong type of emotionalism.
But -
For God so loved the world that he lent his only son at x deaths per annum, compounded. Hmm, maybe we are closing in on the meaning of life - capitalism - Ok maybe this Chrstian stuff isn't so daft after all.
Thanks for the giggle though.
Cris
That would fit maybe. But I really don't see priests becoming very excited about a loan, although loan sharks can make a real killing.
And I think Jews come into this somehow. Oops, better not go there, sounds a bit like racial profiling.But nah, I don't see the masses becoming hysterial over a loan, just not enough emotionalism, or rather the wrong type of emotionalism.
But -
For God so loved the world that he lent his only son at x deaths per annum, compounded. Hmm, maybe we are closing in on the meaning of life - capitalism - Ok maybe this Chrstian stuff isn't so daft after all.
Thanks for the giggle though.
Cris
blonde_cupid
Registered Senior Member
Cris,
How about answering the question.
How about answering the question.
Matticious G ...
MatticiousG--
Of Docetism, let me point out, as per the broader topic, I do believe that the questions Cris are invoking are the reason for the Church regard toward what I have learned the standard definition of the heresy. However, the clarification you've provided from Saint Thomas is most helpful. How, for instance, are those dogmas established? In the longer run, this becomes vital to the topic; for the moment, I propose it as food for thought.
Of the catechism ... does this imply, then that God and Man are not disparate states? Such as, for instance, square circle? Again, in the longer run, this idea becomes vital... I hope to explain that vital necessity as we go.
• Jesus, on the Cross, had both his divine and human nature. As per the nature of experience, we can say that neither you nor I, on the Cross, would have that divine perspective. I submit that, with additional knowledge and security, the nature of suffering was changed. It isn't that Jesus isn't you, or isn't me, and therefore cannot have that perspective. But, having divine knowledge, he has a perspective which is unique from humankind; that is, it is beyond human.
• God, in giving his Son, knows that despite all else, the Son is still coming home. This security in relation to death is beyond the human experience as well. Knowing your Son is about to die, you cannot smile and say, "He'll be home Sunday."
Jesus' human nature affects the conclusion drastically only if the sacrifice is made without the knowledge of his station unto God. Let's put it this way: Clark Kent took a bullet for Lois Lane in the 1970s Superman film. He took a bullet for her. What a sacrifice. Oh, what a noble man. He's Superman: he caught the bullet. It's all in how you say it, of a sort.
A question, then: Is the Son still crucified in Heaven, or is he whole and perfect in the Glory of the Father?
I mean, Superman has a human nature--Clark Kent. Christ has a human nature--Jesus. And Jesus knew his station unto God, and made that quite clear.
First of all, are you proposing that that God expressed thankfulness to Himself by sacrificing himself through His Son? It almost seems inherent in that definition.
Furthermore, did God give, lend, or loan his Son unto us?
Was it just a little sacrifice, then? Loone, for instance, called it the Ultimate Sacrifice. That doesn't sound little. But three days in the face of eternity, the knowledge that one will be home three days after this part ends, the knowledge that this is what you wanted it to lead up to since the Creation of these human wretches?
I just don't get what constitutes an "Ultimate Sacrifice".
Sure, Jesus, by virtue of his human essence was sacrificed. As you've pointed out, though, there are many kinds of sacrifices. This one just doesn't seem as large as the idea it fosters.
(2) Were the actual goats and birds willing to be stabbed or cut or burned? Nothing happens without God's Will. God knew from before Creation what would result. The scope of God's knowledge is made clear in a few places in the Bible. Did God not really know what was going to happen? What happens in the Universe without God's Will? When the corruption of humankind is such that it requires the Creator to patch the problem, it is because something is wrong with the creation. Are we to accept, then, that God doesn't know quite what He is doing? Hardly. Are we to accept that God didn't know Adam and Eve would fall? (Who is the "us" in Genesis?)
(3) As Cris is reminding: John 3.16. What, that God so loved the world that it was no big deal? God gave his Son, according to the Bible. If there is no association between the sufferings of human and divine parents, then are we thankful to God for the dog-and-pony microdrama that ended with that grisly execution on Golgotha? I think the Bible clearly reflects the notion that the meaning of the Bible is that God was to have lost his child; he so loved us that he would feel that pain on our behalf if it would save us. Is that not the principle of John 3.16, one of the most evangelized scriptural snippets ever?
(2) Knowledge, security, and all those issues. Terminal disease? Yeah, I suppose it would suck. Of course, I wouldn't so much worry if I knew that my child would be back, perfect and healthy three days after dying. I would do what I could, in the meantime, to reduce their discomfort. That's more than God did.
(3) I thought Jesus rose from the dead. Kym is dead; I didn't get to have one last fish dinner with her. G is dead, and J didn't get to see him one last time. And, as the myth has it, Jesus went home after that, something else our dead friends don't get to do.
Seriously, I'm thinking what everyone needs to do is watch Soul Man; however, being that it does star C Thomas Howell, I'll summarize it and spare anyone who hasn't, uh, suffered through it ... A rich UCLA graduate is cut off from his family the day he is accepted to Harvard Law. Desperate, he takes experimental tanning pills to make himself look like an African-American in order to obtain a specific scholarship. Aside from coincidentally stealing the scholarship from the woman he falls in love with, he experiences all manner of racism and harassment. But, in the end, with the ruse exposed and the world falling down around him, he tells his black professor something to the essence of, "No, I didn't learn what it was like to be black; I can stop being black." Just as he knows he is truly white, and has an out from his suffering, so, too does Jesus know he is divine, and this is his out from suffering. He knows what nobody else will know.
God designed the Universe so that He would have to build a solution to a fundamental problem He did not wish to address any other way and, endowing that solution with flesh of humanity and knowledge of divinity ... how did God suffer? If God suffered, He's a little too hung up on Himself.
I think it has, but you might think I'm still missing something.
Hope the weekend is enjoyable ...
thanx,
Tiassa
MatticiousG--
Of Docetism, let me point out, as per the broader topic, I do believe that the questions Cris are invoking are the reason for the Church regard toward what I have learned the standard definition of the heresy. However, the clarification you've provided from Saint Thomas is most helpful. How, for instance, are those dogmas established? In the longer run, this becomes vital to the topic; for the moment, I propose it as food for thought.
Of the catechism ... does this imply, then that God and Man are not disparate states? Such as, for instance, square circle? Again, in the longer run, this idea becomes vital... I hope to explain that vital necessity as we go.
This is an excellent point, but again, I must necessarily point out the separation this maintains 'twixt Jesus and you or I. Even if we include that human nature, doesn't seem to change much. Such as we see"
• Jesus, on the Cross, had both his divine and human nature. As per the nature of experience, we can say that neither you nor I, on the Cross, would have that divine perspective. I submit that, with additional knowledge and security, the nature of suffering was changed. It isn't that Jesus isn't you, or isn't me, and therefore cannot have that perspective. But, having divine knowledge, he has a perspective which is unique from humankind; that is, it is beyond human.
• God, in giving his Son, knows that despite all else, the Son is still coming home. This security in relation to death is beyond the human experience as well. Knowing your Son is about to die, you cannot smile and say, "He'll be home Sunday."
Jesus' human nature affects the conclusion drastically only if the sacrifice is made without the knowledge of his station unto God. Let's put it this way: Clark Kent took a bullet for Lois Lane in the 1970s Superman film. He took a bullet for her. What a sacrifice. Oh, what a noble man. He's Superman: he caught the bullet. It's all in how you say it, of a sort.
A question, then: Is the Son still crucified in Heaven, or is he whole and perfect in the Glory of the Father?
I mean, Superman has a human nature--Clark Kent. Christ has a human nature--Jesus. And Jesus knew his station unto God, and made that quite clear.
I must put this question to you, as it really does puzzle me how much it's coming into play: What degree of sacrifice are we discussing, then?
First of all, are you proposing that that God expressed thankfulness to Himself by sacrificing himself through His Son? It almost seems inherent in that definition.
Furthermore, did God give, lend, or loan his Son unto us?
Was it just a little sacrifice, then? Loone, for instance, called it the Ultimate Sacrifice. That doesn't sound little. But three days in the face of eternity, the knowledge that one will be home three days after this part ends, the knowledge that this is what you wanted it to lead up to since the Creation of these human wretches?
I just don't get what constitutes an "Ultimate Sacrifice".
You are enacting your own sense of exclusion here. The fallacy of exclusion you point out is only relevant if Jesus' human nature is utterly and completely exclusive. The combination of this trait and an advantage casts the sacrifice against the advantageous. When the human essence hurt and died, it did so with the knowledge that it (the human essence) was nonessential, since the source of being was known (e.g.--not held in faith) to be of something greater. In holding so exclusively to the human essence, you are overlooking the fact that the human essence had a different human experience than any other human essence in the history or future of the world. And again, I'm not being so specific as to say Jesus isn't me and Jesus isn't you and Jesus isn't .... What I'm after here is that never before, not presently, and never again among humanity will human beings enjoy the advantages of divinity in any sense relevant to the sacrifice. If, for instance, God does redeem the world, it means we all get to share, and then we get to approximate what that sacrifice was. And it will be something less than Ultimate or Supreme. In fact, given the range of God's power, the sacrifice seems somewhat mundane. In that abstraction, then certes we are redeemed, but why put on the show and cause so much misery and sin in the mortal world with dishonesty? That result makes God out to be slightly lunatic, or at least extraneous.
Sure, Jesus, by virtue of his human essence was sacrificed. As you've pointed out, though, there are many kinds of sacrifices. This one just doesn't seem as large as the idea it fosters.
Correct. Whether or not to devote oneself to Jesus and entrust him as a Redeemer based on the magnitude of that sacrifice also becomes a False Dilemma, since the magnitude does not necessarily--in fact, does not by any appearance constitute--a great sacrifice. It is a demonstrative sacrifice, but being that the man-made (imperfect) dogmas create a situation of either disparate states, whereupon Jesus has knowledge and security by his divine nature, which no other human essence has, or else common states, in which mankind and God are not actually different except for the sake of God's Will and our perception. For as God cannot create disparate states, such as square circle how, then, can God invoke true God and true Man in one act of will unless they be of common state? At that point, this whole ritual of Christianity becomes an utter farce, and that, while it would please a great many infidels, doesn't seem to be the philosophical result Christians themselves seek.
Given the invalidity of the false dilemma which you feel invalidates said conclusion, I invalidate your invalidation
(1) I just went out, got laid by the most beautiful woman in the world, and spent a million dollars on hashish which I will proceed to smoke for the rest of my life. You ought to be thankful for the sacrifice I've made on your behalf. If the entity making the sacrifice indicates the high priest who is killing the bird or wounding the goat, sure. But if you're the scapegoat? Say, the "Lamb of God"? And since, as you note, creeds point out Jesus' suffering, might I note that it is not groundless to assume suffering is part of the sacrifice Jesus and God are said to have made for us?
(2) Were the actual goats and birds willing to be stabbed or cut or burned? Nothing happens without God's Will. God knew from before Creation what would result. The scope of God's knowledge is made clear in a few places in the Bible. Did God not really know what was going to happen? What happens in the Universe without God's Will? When the corruption of humankind is such that it requires the Creator to patch the problem, it is because something is wrong with the creation. Are we to accept, then, that God doesn't know quite what He is doing? Hardly. Are we to accept that God didn't know Adam and Eve would fall? (Who is the "us" in Genesis?)
(3) As Cris is reminding: John 3.16. What, that God so loved the world that it was no big deal? God gave his Son, according to the Bible. If there is no association between the sufferings of human and divine parents, then are we thankful to God for the dog-and-pony microdrama that ended with that grisly execution on Golgotha? I think the Bible clearly reflects the notion that the meaning of the Bible is that God was to have lost his child; he so loved us that he would feel that pain on our behalf if it would save us. Is that not the principle of John 3.16, one of the most evangelized scriptural snippets ever?
(1) If God suffers because He knows the child is suffering, then why did God, knowing that if he said, "Go," on this particular design for life, the Unviverse, and everything, he would have to sacrifice his son, go forward? Was not Jesus born specifically to serve as this tool?
(2) Knowledge, security, and all those issues. Terminal disease? Yeah, I suppose it would suck. Of course, I wouldn't so much worry if I knew that my child would be back, perfect and healthy three days after dying. I would do what I could, in the meantime, to reduce their discomfort. That's more than God did.
(3) I thought Jesus rose from the dead. Kym is dead; I didn't get to have one last fish dinner with her. G is dead, and J didn't get to see him one last time. And, as the myth has it, Jesus went home after that, something else our dead friends don't get to do.
I think it's been quite clearly outlined that the alleged suffering of the divine agents in the crucifixion comedy is a different state than suffering in human beings.
Seriously, I'm thinking what everyone needs to do is watch Soul Man; however, being that it does star C Thomas Howell, I'll summarize it and spare anyone who hasn't, uh, suffered through it ... A rich UCLA graduate is cut off from his family the day he is accepted to Harvard Law. Desperate, he takes experimental tanning pills to make himself look like an African-American in order to obtain a specific scholarship. Aside from coincidentally stealing the scholarship from the woman he falls in love with, he experiences all manner of racism and harassment. But, in the end, with the ruse exposed and the world falling down around him, he tells his black professor something to the essence of, "No, I didn't learn what it was like to be black; I can stop being black." Just as he knows he is truly white, and has an out from his suffering, so, too does Jesus know he is divine, and this is his out from suffering. He knows what nobody else will know.
God designed the Universe so that He would have to build a solution to a fundamental problem He did not wish to address any other way and, endowing that solution with flesh of humanity and knowledge of divinity ... how did God suffer? If God suffered, He's a little too hung up on Himself.
But you're just switching definitions.
Well enough, and I believe the issue is directly addressed above.
Well, the problem with this portion of the debate is that I thought we'd covered that part a couple pages back, acknowledging the Christian source of the arguments; at that point, I suppose, I should withdraw the question about what you meant with the illusion comparison. It didn't seem to make any relevant sense to me, but given that we have resolved the point it addrsses, I'm willing to put it aside.
So do I
I think it has, but you might think I'm still missing something.
You read Descartes? I made that joke about German and French philosophers a couple times already. Hmmm ... now you've offered a reason to point to one of them. Descartes is a great place to start. Essentially, how do you know you're not dreaming right now? It's a nasty, nasty quandary. How, in fact, do you know that you are the dreamer?
Faith is affirmed, else it is blind or incorrect. That is, your faith will prove out or it won't, or you'll never find out. One or the other or the other. Well, sort of. But skepticism is a healthy facet of religious faith. Faith in God? Trust yourself. Faith in dogma? Skepticism on all levels works best. And it would make a wonderful thread; I can't recall the last time we delved that issue here in any way.
That, too, would be an excellent topic of its own ... hmmm work to do?
Hope the weekend is enjoyable ...
thanx,
Tiassa
Re: Matticious G ...
*Originally posted by tiassa
A question, then: Is the Son still crucified in Heaven, or is he whole and perfect in the Glory of the Father? *
Neither.
*What degree of sacrifice are we discussing, then?*
This is starting to sound like a variation on the True Scotsman argument.
Well, it wasn't a sacrifice because it wasn't a "true" sacrifice, as defined by, tiassa? Cris? whoever?
*In that abstraction, then certes we are redeemed, but why put on the show and cause so much misery and sin in the mortal world with dishonesty?*
What show?
And how would the crucifixion cause misery and sin, with or without dishionesty, when all three existed before the crucifixion?
*how, then, can God invoke true God and true Man in one act of will unless they be of common state?*
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(Psalms 82:6, KJV).
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
(John 10:35, KJV).
*At that point, this whole ritual of Christianity becomes an utter farce, and that, while it would please a great many infidels, doesn't seem to be the philosophical result Christians themselves seek.*
This makes zero sense at all.
It's like saying a=b because you just ran out of hash.
In any case, the difference between life and death is a simple choice.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).
Just choose.
*Originally posted by tiassa
A question, then: Is the Son still crucified in Heaven, or is he whole and perfect in the Glory of the Father? *
Neither.
*What degree of sacrifice are we discussing, then?*
This is starting to sound like a variation on the True Scotsman argument.
Well, it wasn't a sacrifice because it wasn't a "true" sacrifice, as defined by, tiassa? Cris? whoever?
*In that abstraction, then certes we are redeemed, but why put on the show and cause so much misery and sin in the mortal world with dishonesty?*
What show?
And how would the crucifixion cause misery and sin, with or without dishionesty, when all three existed before the crucifixion?
*how, then, can God invoke true God and true Man in one act of will unless they be of common state?*
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
(Psalms 82:6, KJV).
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
(John 10:35, KJV).
*At that point, this whole ritual of Christianity becomes an utter farce, and that, while it would please a great many infidels, doesn't seem to be the philosophical result Christians themselves seek.*
This makes zero sense at all.
It's like saying a=b because you just ran out of hash.
In any case, the difference between life and death is a simple choice.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).
Just choose.
quote
In any case, the difference between life and death is a simple choice.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).
----------------------
Here are some more Deuteronomy for your reading enjoyment and show how insane the entire book was...
DEUTERONOMY 21:10
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your god delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice amoung the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and make her shave her head.
DEUTERONOMY 21:18
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listnen to them when they disciplin him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the gate of his town... then all the men in the town shall stone him to death.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of the town and stone them to death.
DEUTERONOMY 23:1
No-one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the essembly of the LORD.
DEUTERONOMY 25:4
Do not muzzle an oxe while it is treading out the grain.
DEUTERONOMY 22:5
A woman must not wear mens clothing, nor a man wear womens clothing, for the LORD your god detests anyone who does this.
DEUTERONOMY 22:6
If you come across a birds nest by the side of the road, either in a tree or on the ground and the mother is sitting on the young or the eggs, do not take the mother with the young. You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go.
DEUTERONOMY 23:10
If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emmision, he is to go outside the camp and stay there.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her huband from her assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
DEUTERONOMY 23:12
Designate a place outside the camp, where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equiptment have something to dig with.
In any case, the difference between life and death is a simple choice.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).
----------------------
Here are some more Deuteronomy for your reading enjoyment and show how insane the entire book was...
DEUTERONOMY 21:10
When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your god delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice amoung the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. Bring her into your home and make her shave her head.
DEUTERONOMY 21:18
If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listnen to them when they disciplin him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the gate of his town... then all the men in the town shall stone him to death.
DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of the town and stone them to death.
DEUTERONOMY 23:1
No-one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the essembly of the LORD.
DEUTERONOMY 25:4
Do not muzzle an oxe while it is treading out the grain.
DEUTERONOMY 22:5
A woman must not wear mens clothing, nor a man wear womens clothing, for the LORD your god detests anyone who does this.
DEUTERONOMY 22:6
If you come across a birds nest by the side of the road, either in a tree or on the ground and the mother is sitting on the young or the eggs, do not take the mother with the young. You may take the young, but be sure to let the mother go.
DEUTERONOMY 23:10
If one of your men is unclean because of a nocturnal emmision, he is to go outside the camp and stay there.
DEUTERONOMY 25:11
If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her huband from her assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
DEUTERONOMY 23:12
Designate a place outside the camp, where you can go to relieve yourself. As part of your equiptment have something to dig with.
blonde_cupid,
I've just started a 3 week vacation and I should not have started this thread at this time - shows how dumb I am. However, tiassa Is clearly enjoyng himself on this and he is doing a far better job tham me on these issues. So I doubt I'll have much time for sciforums in these 3 weeks, but you are in safe hands with tiassa. Will be back soon.
Cris
Well I have answered you to the point that I think is relevant. But not to your satisfaction, right? But I do know what you want, and I promise I'll get back you.
I've just started a 3 week vacation and I should not have started this thread at this time - shows how dumb I am. However, tiassa Is clearly enjoyng himself on this and he is doing a far better job tham me on these issues. So I doubt I'll have much time for sciforums in these 3 weeks, but you are in safe hands with tiassa. Will be back soon.
Cris
blonde_cupid
Registered Senior Member
Cris,
***Were we to understand that your daughter was being sacrificed through death or not?***
From the beginning, this required a "yes" or "no" answer. You sure have wasted much of your valuable time avoiding the issue. It's a pity that you really didn't want our opinion unless we agreed with you. In fact, right now, you are coming across as being a bit fraudulent in your intent.
***1. If not, then you need to be clearer and demonstrate the alternative, permanent loss, that qualifies as a true sacrifice for the sake of your argument.
2. If so, and you are concerned that there could be multiple interpretations of death, then you need to define it for the sake of your argument.***
I await your response.
***Were we to understand that your daughter was being sacrificed through death or not?***
From the beginning, this required a "yes" or "no" answer. You sure have wasted much of your valuable time avoiding the issue. It's a pity that you really didn't want our opinion unless we agreed with you. In fact, right now, you are coming across as being a bit fraudulent in your intent.
***1. If not, then you need to be clearer and demonstrate the alternative, permanent loss, that qualifies as a true sacrifice for the sake of your argument.
2. If so, and you are concerned that there could be multiple interpretations of death, then you need to define it for the sake of your argument.***
I await your response.