Blonde Cupid
Blonde Cupid
You assert, for the sake of your argument, that the resurrection is true. (Death is temporary).
Since you're recycling material already discussed, I shall recycle part of that discussion.
At this point, I would have to ask you to demonstrate the matters of faith. On the one hand, I'm thinking of Blonde Cupid's and my exchange over the finality of death. To the other, the a priori of Cris' argument--e.g. that God exists--isn't as relevant to the abstract considerations of what we're discussing. Have you ever, for instance, read a bad mystery novel in which the final exposition of the whodunit makes absolutely no sense? (As a literary note, what I'm referring to, for example, is when the "frame-up" of the apparent guilty party is exposed and the reader realizes they were given no clues toward this conclusion; it is, literally, for the reader, out of thin air.) Does it matter whether or not we assume The Detective and The Victim and The Butler, as such, existed? Or can we look at what the story tells us and determine that it doesn't add up the way it's explained?
To even discuss Biblical measures, one must accept a certain degree of a priori that God exists. What, for instance, is the point of discussing whether or not God lied in Genesis if we do not accept, for the sake of that argument, that God exists?
To discuss the validity of the so-called sacrifice, of the so-called
giving of the Son, of the obeying unto death, we can accept for the sake of argument that it occurred. This is no different from suspending reality while reading a mystery novel to accept that a murder has occurred; or a diamond theft, or so forth ....
....
For all the theists complain of atheistic stubbornness, why is it that when an atheist enters the arena and works with what is before them, they are accused of holding a priori views? Quite simply, in terms of the debate, they are respecting the existence of the a priori.
So if what Loone put up is true as Cris has summarized it, the situation creates the paradoxical result that Cris has documented.
I have to ask whether you're actually
reading the posts? Copy and paste only means you
see the words; your responses, by and large, tell us you're not paying attention. This above portion comes from a post to
Matticious G, but you have commented on the contents of my exchange with him, so I would have thought you would have
tried, at least, to not run face-first into it.
You see, the basis for Christian "sacrifice" is not that the Father sacrificed the Son... Although I can understand you wanting to place yourself in the Father's position
For God so loved the world that he
gave his only begotten Son ....
What part of your Bible are you least familiar with? Strangely, it seems like you're forgetting what it says. Oh, did you need a verse number to look that one up? It's John 3.16; you know, the verse that's plastered all over this thread, that you see at football and basketball and hockey games, on bumper stickers and so forth that is intended to be an evangelical message to sell the idea of the Christian faith?
Thus, when we look at God
giving his Son ... well, it's not the same as a human relationship.
The basis of Christian "sacrifice" is Christ offering Himself to the Father, even to the point of death, and the Father's acceptance of His Son's offer.
Right ... and Christ
knew that he would be raised; what is death if it doesn't kill you?
How many times do we have to point out that if Christ had no knowledge of his station unto God, then we might have grounds for a sacrifice being made?
And of your distinction of whether the sacrifice was
to or
of the father: What does this matter? John 3.16 says God so loved the world that he gave his only son; it does not say lent, it does not say loaned. Should we, then, in ignoring the sacrifice
of the father, read John 3.16 to say,
For God so loved the world that he was just dicking around?
This is why the "sacrifice of the Father" has been addressed.
So also has the sacrifice of the Son been addressed. Jesus redeems us by delivering himself obediently unto death at the Cross. Yeah, tough sacrifice since death doesn't kill him and he knows it riding his ass in.
Why are you drawing such petty distinctions? And ones that are inherently covered by the existing portions of the debate?
Stop attacking the proof and start considering the faith. As long as you approach it with the idea that you are right and must discredit the proofs, you will continue to overlook the fact that Jesus Christ "died" under different circumstances and perspectives than any human being could undergo. And you are also overlooking the fact that God so loved the world that he gave his only Son (apparently not that big a sacrifice as far as you're concerned, but I do agree on that point). You know, God knew this from Creation; some even have gone so far as to assert that Jesus/Logos was the other part of the "us" to which God referred when Adam so frightened Him that he had to kick humanity out of the garden according to schedule.
Think of it this way: before the Logos became flesh, it was known what would happen. It was part of God's plan that this should happen.
The distinctions you're drawing in the proof have been repeatedly addressed by multiple posters, and its evident that you're not really paying attention because you just keep rehashing the same old points. What? You don't seem to care about the fact that your attacks against the proof are damaging the credibility of other portions of the Bible. I, for instance, have had to remind you of John 3.16
Get it together, man. If you keep splitting hairs, all you'll get is really fine hair and a dull knife.
thanx,
Tiassa