The crucifixion was a fraud.

[Xev]

For the record, not all Christian sects believe that Jesus felt pain.

Exactly. God* promised an afterlife. God* also promised to provide proof of life beyond what we perceived death to be. If you accept the Resurrection as being true, as you did for the sake of your argument, then the only basis that you have for not believing and for calling God* a liar and a fraud comes from your own will.

Pardon? Cris postulated, for the sake of argument, that the resurrection actually occured, then argued that it was meaningless. So, he still has a basis for not believing.

And if you accept the Resurrection as being true, as you did for the sake of your argument, and you trust God*s Word based on the fulfillment of promises and the objective evidence of the Resurrection itself, then you have no doubt. You know with absolute certainty that we are all immortal as God* promised and that we cannot be lost to death in the way you perceive death to be.

Objective evidence? Where?

Again, there are many people who know with absolute certainty that they will survive death as you perceive it. Do you think that they experience less emotional pain than you? Is pain and suffering relative to knowledge and belief?

Believe, not know. You keep substituting 'know' for 'believe', I will annoy everybody by going on about Cthulhu.....

And, physical pain, yes, that is the same. Emotional pain? I doubt it. If one felt absolutly certain that they would live again, there would be no reason to fear death or mourn the dead.

It would be merely separation.

The crucifixion did not prove the afterlife, Cris. The Resurrection did. Death is temporary whether we believe in Jesus or not. By the way, there were no believers (in Jesus) before the Resurrection.

Well, neither did. And it is probably not. But in any case, who were the apostles then?

That is the mechanism that you perceive based on your interpretation of "part" of one Biblical verse. Again, that God* gave his only Son, the Word of God* made flesh, was a gift. It was not a sacrifice. The sacrifice was made in the flesh by the Son to the Father. Your attempted analogy in your original post was backwards.

No wonder people killed over this. I am getting a headache just trying to figure out whether Jesus was supposed to be God!

In any case, we are still dealing with a 'sacrifice' or a 'gift'. Whichever term you choose to use, they mean virtually the same thing in this context.

A sacrifice is a gift to one's God, no?

I do not limit my knowledge exclusively to that derived from the scientific method. Therefore, I know there is an afterlife, Cris.

I do not either. That is how I know that Great Cthulhu exists, and that his dreams can transform the world. Ia Cthulhu!

Oh wait, that was a non sequiter, wasn't it?

Now prove to me that I do not experience loss and emotional pain.

How can Cris prove a negative?

Markx:

I also notice for some reason you like the word "ass" a lot. But that's your personal problem and I don't want to know about it.

I think he has a crush on somone named 'Jack', and Jack has a nice ass. So he is constantly thinking of Jack's ass.

As for death,
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die"

 

[Avatar]

better shoot yourself . it's so frustrating. what can you put against them, when all logic, common sense and proofs have been trashed.

 

[blonde_cupid]

Xev,

***In any case, we are still dealing with a 'sacrifice' or a 'gift'. Whichever term you choose to use, they mean virtually the same thing in this context.***

No they don't mean the same thing in this context. Do you feel emotional pain when you give someone a gift? Cris is arguing that God* the Father did not really make the sacrifice that Cris interprets that he should have made based Cris' interpretation of part of John 3:16. Cris is somewhat correct, but for the wrong reason. The giving in John 3:16 was a gift, not a sacrifice.

 

[Markx]

Originally posted by Avatar
better shoot yourself . it's so frustrating. what can you put against them, when all logic, common sense and proofs have been trashed.

LOL...........I agree but it is sad at the same time.

 

[Tiassa]

Well, there we go ...

Blonde Cupid

Do you feel emotional pain when you give someone a gift?

So God so loved the world that he gave it a present? What about a striped necktie, in that case, would have failed to do the trick?

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Xev]

3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Gave = Sacrificed

I fail to see how this could be anything but sacrifice. A gift? Well, theoretically, when I pitch jewels into the sea for Cthulhu*, I am giving a gift.....is it not a sacrifice as well?

Tiassa: I would have appreciated a Pontiac Solstice.....or a beemer with leather upholstery and a sunroof.

*Note to the ironically-challenged: Is a joke

 

[Tiassa]

Xev ...

I'm just surprised nobody's called you out on your sig.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Xev]

Tiassa

Actually, Tony1 took the whole thing seriously and started talking about stepping on Great Cthulhu. Presumably, he forgot this.

That was an odd conversation.

*"I am too the High Priestess of Great Cthulhu!" Xev yells at the men in white coats*

 

[blonde_cupid]

Cris,

***blonde_cupid,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
would you still want to endure the pain of being tied to a pillar and having the flesh of your back torn and ripped open by the viscious lash of a whip - over and over and over again - until your back was so torn and mutilated that there was no fresh meat for the whip to tear and rip - until each new lash dug deeper into a freshly opened wound? Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of hundreds of thorns being pushed into your scalp and forehead? Knowing this, would you still want to carry the burden of your own cross uphill for what must seem forever, tired and so exhausted from the beating and the loss of blood that you can hardly carry your own weight, never mind the weight of the cross, with the flesh of your back freshly torn and bleeding, with your head bleeding, with your tormenters prodding you and clubbing you and pushing the thorns into your head farther and farther each time you dare to stumble. Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of being nailed to a cross and hung up to die a slow and torturous death? Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of of being sliced open under your ribs and having your internal wounds drenched in a burning liquid?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As tiassa so nicely indicates you are enforcing the whole point of my topic. Here again you are trying to evoke a human emotional response.***

Your whole topic is based on human emotional response, Cris.

Remember you sacrificing your daughter in death... ???

Or... uh... what was it? Oh, now I remember. My mistake. If I thought you were talking about death, you weren't. You set me straight on that and then tiassa explained it to make it more relevant to the human condition. It was the Greys! Ooops... My mistake. I was wrong again. You most recently informed me that it was death. Hmmm... and here I thought you might have been behaving a bit fraudulently because you couldn't face the fact that your attempt at logical proof was flawed... silly me.

***All this pain and torment are completely relevant to the human condition. But Jesus was a god and he knew it.***

Jesus was in human form with all the pain receptors that we have, Cris.

***The pain was going to be very temporary from his immortal perspective, and on the other side is paradise.***

Pain is always temporary, even from your mortal perspective. On the other side is nothing, according to you, including no pain. So suck it up! It's only temporary!

***Heck, if I knew (with certainty) that I was going to find eternal paradise after a short period of pain then that seems like a no-brainer to me.***

Yeah. Sure, Cris. Is this like you sacrificing your daughter permanently but not in death? But you're right in a way. It has nothing to do with the brain. (well, it does, but, heck. you know what I mean). It has to do with the pain, the flesh, the human body.

***The crucifixion, as tiassa notes can only be an empty gesture...***

The pain and suffering which Jesus endured was real. He gave his entire life (as we knew it to be then) for us, as promised.

***...or in my terms a fraud.***

Yes, fraud does seem to be one of your terms.

 

[KalvinB]

MarkX:

"Can you be little bit more clear?"

Nope. I know what verse it is, why don't you?

I would think you'd be a little more dedicated to removing the title of "ignorant jackass" from your name.

Cris:

"So his ability to perform miracles, was what, an oversight?"

I know you're not so stupid as think miracles prove divinity because I know you've read the OT and I know you know that every prophet in the OT performed miracles. And I know you know the prophets weren't God.

The only time he was granted back his divinity was after he was crucified. That's why he could rise from the dead of his own power. Which is what made it unique. No one else can rise from the dead of their own power.

The only reason he could do any miracles is because his Daddy gave him the authority to. The Jews even asked "by whose authority do you do these things" and I know you've read that.

So why are you asking stupid questions?

Ben

 

[blonde_cupid]

Xev,

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gave = Sacrificed

I fail to see how this could be anything but sacrifice. A gift?***


What we got, Xev, was the fulfillment of God*s promise. What we got was the Word of God* made flesh. We got the Son, the Word, for the entirety of His life in the flesh, here on earth… from the moment of His birth to the moment of His death on the cross and beyond. The gift has not been taken back. After 2000 years, the Word remains with us to this very day. The gift of the Word is timeless. It is a gift for all ages. Whether you consider it for better or for worse, the Word’s existence and it’s affect on our lives is evidenced in this very discussion. The best thing of all is that with the fulfillment of God*s promise of the Resurrection came the promise of eternal life for all of us. Again, in its entirety... "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him might not perish but might have eternal life." God* has come through with the promise of the Word thus far and we can trust that God*s promise which came with the Resurrection will be fulfilled.

Note: 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.

 

[Tiassa]

Blonde Cupid

As we delve into the scripture behind dogma, why are you retreating further and further into dogmatic recitation and affirmation? You've written an excellent post if you're preaching to the converted and affirming their faith. But, unfortunately, it lacks any real substance in terms of this debate.

For instance:

Note: 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

And?

Why not throw pennies into a fountain then?

And since, frankly, I expect that one to fly right by you, I'll explain: How does the Son offering himself unto the Father effect the redemption of sinners?

And we're not looking for the quantum-physics or whatever of the transformation of matter, energy, and spirit unless you really, really want to try. More directly, what those of us who question the crucifixion are seeking here is the idea of what makes the crucifixion any different from any other ritual sacrifice? (And don't tell me that priests didn't offer this sacrifice and that's the difference; we can see those coming from miles away.) Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice? What makes that any different than Jesus offering a penny in the fountain?

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Actually ...

Xev

I was thinking more in terms of its translation. I remember at least one Tony1 digression. But does he know what the phrase means?

To me it's a crying shame that nobody asked you about the relation of the sig phrase to issues related to this thread. Of course, it would be arrogant of me to assume that anyone at this site aside from you or I actually know what it says. But I would have thought someone would have asked by now what it means. Or pointed out the comparison of ideas if they already knew.

After all, while not the most thoroughly literal juxtaposition, it does provide an interesting philosophical contrast.

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[blonde_cupid]

Xev,

***For the record, not all Christian sects believe that Jesus felt pain.***

Not all Christian sects believe that Jesus was God* either.

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you accept the Resurrection as being true, as you did for the sake of your argument, and you trust God*s Word based on the fulfillment of promises and the objective evidence of the Resurrection itself, then you have no doubt. You know with absolute certainty that we are all immortal as God* promised and that we cannot be lost to death in the way you perceive death to be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Objective evidence? Where?***

Objective evidence of the Resurrection. Observation of the event. Documentation of the observation.


***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, there are many people who know with absolute certainty that they will survive death as you perceive it. Do you think that they experience less emotional pain than you? Is pain and suffering relative to knowledge and belief?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Believe, not know. You keep substituting 'know' for 'believe', I will annoy everybody by going on about Cthulhu.....***

Know. Some people don't limit themselves to certain modes of knowing.

***Emotional pain? I doubt it. If one felt absolutly certain that they would live again, there would be no reason to fear death or mourn the dead.***

I am absolutely certain that we all will live again and you're correct in that I don't fear death. I do, however, mourn when someone passes. Mourning is for the living, not for those who have passed.

***It would be merely separation.***

It is. That's why I mourn. It's probably really a selfish human response.


***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The crucifixion did not prove the afterlife, Cris. The Resurrection did. Death is temporary whether we believe in Jesus or not. By the way, there were no believers (in Jesus) before the Resurrection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, neither did. And it is probably not. But in any case, who were the apostles then?***

Resurrection is a rising of the dead, a returning to life. Resurrection is proof of life after death. It is objective proof that life is temporary. The original Apostles were followers of Jesus during his adult life on earth. However, they did not understand the concept of the Resurrection fully until they witnessed it with their own eyes.

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not limit my knowledge exclusively to that derived from the scientific method. Therefore, I know there is an afterlife, Cris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not either. That is how I know that Great Cthulhu exists, and that his dreams can transform the world. Ia Cthulhu!

Oh wait, that was a non sequiter, wasn't it?***

Yes it was. Lovecraft(?) put forth Cthulhu in fiction so it does not follow that Cthulhu exists. The life, passion, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus are historical events which were observed by many people who lived during the same time that Jesus was here on this earth.


***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now prove to me that I do not experience loss and emotional pain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can Cris prove a negative?***

Cris doggedly seems to think that he proved that there was no sacrifice, which he didn't, so I thought I'd throw him another bone to chew on... Give it back, now, Xev.

 

[Xev]

"ignorant jackass"

Hrm, so is Kalvin ignorent, or is Jack of the nice ass ignorent?

Blonde:

Note: 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.

So Jesus sacrificed Himself to His Father? Why? And how does this affect humans? (As Tiassa noted. Thanks Tiassa)

Objective evidence of the Resurrection. Observation of the event. Documentation of the observation.

Where?

Know. Some people don't limit themselves to certain modes of knowing.

Okay, but I submit that you do not use 'know' in the usual sense of 'to be certain of'.

Yes it was. Lovecraft(?) put forth Cthulhu in fiction so it does not follow that Cthulhu exists. The life, passion, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus are historical events which were observed by many people who lived during the same time that Jesus was here on this earth.

Fiction?! Lovecraft merely REVEALED the TRUTH! (Yes, I know I should switch to decaf )

But, there is no evidence, save the testimony in the Bible, of the occurence of the Ressurection. Who knows, in 2000 years, perhaps people will take Cthulhu seriously.

Tiassa:

what makes the crucifixion any different from any other ritual sacrifice?

Well, for one thing, there was no ritualistic sex involved.....or sunken cities....

Of course, it would be arrogant of me to assume that anyone at this site aside from you or I actually know what it says. But I would have thought someone would have asked by now what it means. Or pointed out the comparison of ideas if they already knew.

Indeed. I had not noticed the juxtaposition.....

"In His House dead Cthulhu waits dreaming, yet He shall rise and His kingdom shall cover the Earth."

or consider:

"La mayyitan ma qadirun yatabaqqa sarmadi
Fa idha yaji' al-shudhdhadh fa-l-maut qad yantahi."

"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die."

There is a certain simularity to Christianity. One wonders how much of this was intentional. Was Lovecraft (an athiest, after all) intentionally parodying Christianity? Or has Christianity so influenced our culture that it seeps in unnoticed?

I should start a topic on this, rather than hyjack this one.

Xev, hafh'drn Great Cthulhu!

 

[Tiassa]

Rather than hijack the topic

Hi Jack, nice ass?

Okay, I'll stop

Was Lovecraft (an athiest, after all) intentionally parodying Christianity? Or has Christianity so influenced our culture that it seeps in unnoticed?

I'm presently reading Lovecraft's seminal essay, Supernatural Horror in Fiction, which should, hopefully provide us grounds for that topic ...

Yes, it seeps in unnoticed. I'll try to dig up some bits from Adilbai Kharkovli or Emir Ali Khan (I can't remember which right now) on that very subject.

But in the meantime, my inclination is that Lovecraft was thinking more in terms of the human psyche than the Christian psyche, but having been who he was, it is possible that his brilliant vision was overridden by the thick, Puritan strains of his Providence upbringing seeping into his conscience.

I have to read the essay and then read some of the stories again; Charles Dexter Ward was the last Lovecraft I read, and Cthulhu and I are, technically, ten years separated. (Well ... you know. Like you can ever separate yourself from Cthulhu.)

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Oh, boy!

The life, passion, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus are historical events which were observed by many people who lived during the same time that Jesus was here on this earth.

When will you be posting those documents, Blonde Cupid? Have you called the Vatican? CoE? SBC? SDA? LDS? LCA? Missouri Synod? I think just about any sect of Christianity would love to have the proof you're talking about.

They don't. You're doing a terrible disservice to your faith and your God by not presenting that evidence. Geez ... have you called the Institute for Creation Research?

Looking forward to those citations.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[blonde_cupid]

tiassa,

***A clarification, please:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gift of the Word is timeless. It is a gift for all ages. Whether you consider it for better or for worse, the Word’s existence and it’s affect on our lives is evidenced in this very discussion. As a matter of fact, the Word has been with you daily for at least the past three years (if I remember correctly, you stated that you have been coming here daily to discuss matters of the Word with Christians daily for that length of time).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What, pray tell, has this to do with anything?***

You asked me if I understood a portion of John 3:16 which, taken out of context, you and Cris interpreted "gave" to mean "sacrificed".

What it has to do with is your's and Cris' interpretation of "gave" in John 3:16. It referred to a gift, not a sacrifice, as you and Cris argue. If you're going to try and argue that there was no Christian sacrifice, at least know beforehand what the basis of Christian sacrifice is.

***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?***

I don't think I was complaining of Cris' stubborness then. What I was doing was pointing out a flaw in his logic which probably stemmed from his belief in the nature of death. Subsequently, however, he did become rather dogged in his insistence that he wasn't talking about sacrificing his daughter through death when any rational-thinking person knew that it could be the only way he knew how to attempt to substantiate the type of permanent sacrifice that he was alluding to. Now, he admits that, of course that's what he was talking about. By the way, your defense of his position in this matter was as pathetic as his avoidance of the truth. The Greys...

***But, if you would like for us to consider the gift God gave us as alleged in the Bible, well ...? If Christians are not prepared to give consideration to such ideas as they encounter in their evangelizations, then they shouldn't be evangelizing.

What is so hard about stepping back and examining the scripture that lies beneath the dogma?***

It's not hard tiassa. Why don't you do it so that you can understand the basis of Christian sacrifice rather than blindly supporting Cris' position with tales of the Greys? Actually, I think you probably know that the sacrifice does not rest with whether or not God* the Father experienced emotional pain.

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And we now have knowledge of our station unto God*... What now?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how do you know?***

Because I'm open to various modes of knowing, which, at present, you demonstrate no interest in being open to in order to receive.

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As pointed out previously, as promised, God* gave us the "gift" of the Word which is still with us today. The gift is timeless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For God so loved the world that He made no real effort? Why are you downplaying the significance of the crucifixion in favor of dogma?***

Why are you downplaying the effort? As far as the crucifixion goes, I believe I've elaborated on it more than any other poster in this discussion so far. But I'll go back and peruse the posts again.

***Are you conceding the reduced significance?***

Silly, silly.

***Fine. Because then we can go back to Cris' topic post and finally put this topic to rest:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christianity makes a massive issue out of God sacrificing his son to save mankind. In fact it is the essential basis for Christianity, the alleged atonement. And as Loone says, a supreme sacrifice. But did God really make a sacrifice; was the claim at least equal to that of me sacrificing my daughter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------***

Why don't you and Cris first get an understanding of the basis of Christian sacrifice and then go back to Cris' topic post and start over.

***As Loone, whose standard we are originally examining, has claimed the "Ultimate Sacrifice", you're handing Cris the point by reducing the significance of the crucifixion with dogmatic needs.***

I don't think so. The crucifixion itself had not even been addressed previously from the perspective of Jesus' human condition.

***Insofar as I can tell, Blonde Cupid, your post tells me that you think someone got tacked to a Cross and that's good enough for you.***

That's what it tells you because that's what you want it to tell you, tiassa. Your demonstrations of your search for angles to give yourself more writing material are becoming as pathetic as your story about the Greys.

***As Cris noted, Christianity makes a massive issue out of God's giving his Son.***

Yeah. So? Too bad Cris doesn't understand John 3:16, huh? Too bad Cris didn't know the basis for Christian sacrifice before he started his argument. Where has Cris proven that there was no emotional pain?

***By relying on dogma as your answer, you're givign the point away. The crucifixion does not represent an "Ultimate Sacrifice".***

Sure it does. Jesus suffered profoundly in the flesh and offered His body up to God* the Father as a sacrifice for us - so that we would have eternal life. Once done, and resurrected, that's the deadest any of us can ever be. If His sacrifice is not considered permanent, then there is no such thing as a permanent sacrifice.

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As evidenced by the fulfillment of God*s promise concerning the Word, we now know that death is transient and we will know this riding our butts in... Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of being tied to a pillar and having the flesh of your back torn and ripped open by the viscious lash of a whip - over and over and over again - until your back was so torn and mutilated that there was no fresh meat for the whip to tear and rip - until each new lash dug deeper into a freshly opened wound? Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of hundreds of thorns being pushed into your scalp and forehead? Knowing this, would you still want to carry the burden of your own cross uphill for what must seem forever, tired and so exhausted from the beating and the loss of blood that you can hardly carry your own weight, never mind the weight of the cross, with the flesh of your back freshly torn and bleeding, with your head bleeding, with your tormenters prodding you and clubbing you and pushing the thorns into your head farther and farther each time you dare to stumble. Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of being nailed to a cross and hung up to die a slow and torturous death? Knowing this, would you still want to endure the pain of of being sliced open under your ribs and having your internal wounds drenched in a burning liquid?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, therein lies the point: "I'm God ... whoopee."***

This is not about your cold-heartedness, tiassa.

***And in order to spare the inevitable digression on megalomania, I will clarify: having divine knowledge, and divine power, I would be approaching those pains from a far different perspective. You note, what must seem forever ... okay ... now we're onto something.

Are you saying that Jesus didn't know his role? Of course he did, else you wouldn't have written that silly paragraph. But you're being quite arrogant if you think you understand what perspective Jesus had. Are you claiming the same knowledge, at this moment, that Jesus had?***

Well, I know of a woman who planned on getting pregnant and did. She planned on giving life to a child who would be given up in an open adoption to a needy couple. She did this despite knowing exactly what she was in for as far as the emotional pain, discomfort of the pregnancy, the excrutiating pain of labor and delivery. Sure, she could have had it easier with the aid of drugs but she endured the pain naturally because she knew it would be best for the baby. Sure, she planned it. Sure, she knew what she was getting herself into. Sure, she knew that her pain was only temporary. Sure, she knew that the adoption was open and that she would be able to see the baby on a regular basis. Heck, when the child got older they might even be together again on a more permanent basis. Now tell me this woman didn't suffer emotionally. Tell me she endured no pain. Tell me she didn't make a great sacrifice. Go ahead. Show your true colors, tiassa.

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As long as your butt was still in tact so that you could ride yourself in, it wouldn't be tough for you if you knew where you were going?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christ on a pony ... what does anyone's butt have to do with it?***

That was a reference to your comment about Christ riding home on his ass. Take my word for it or go back and look for yourself. I'm not citing it.

***Look, if I had planned this for that many generations, had hurt that many people and ordered that many killings and strifes as God ordered in the Bible, and knowing that the only reason I had to do all of that was because it was how I wanted it to be ... frankly, I'd look forward to it finally being over. This is the Glory!***

Yeah. See what happens when it's God*s will that people exercise their will freely? And when they screw up royally, God*s still willing to help out. I suppose that woman wanted to find a needy couple so that she could go through all that, too. What a fraud she is, huh?

***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah. And He endured the excrutiating pain and suffering for us as promised. And the Word is still with us today as promised. And we can trust in the promise of the Resurrection - as promised.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have not established that he endured excruciating pain and suffering. At this point, you have now brougt the topic back to its starting point.***

If it's not established in your mind by now, it's probably more a matter of your unwillingness to allow it to be established in your mind, tiassa.

 

[Xev]

Tiassa: Of course, some make the Cthulhu Cult sound like Christianity on purpose......

*Points at new signature*

I sound like Sir Loone!

Well ... you know. Like you can ever separate yourself from Cthulhu.

Of course not. Cthulhu fhtagn!

Blonde: Whoa girl, calm down a bit. People disagree. What are you going to do, cry about it?

 

[Tiassa]

Absolutely stunning ....

You asked me if I understood a portion of John 3:16 which, taken out of context, you and Cris interpreted "gave" to mean "sacrificed".

What it has to do with is your's and Cris' interpretation of "gave" in John 3:16. It referred to a gift, not a sacrifice, as you and Cris argue. If you're going to try and argue that there was no Christian sacrifice, at least know beforehand what the basis of Christian sacrifice is

Stunning .... Blonde Cupid, I would recommend that you go back to Cris' topic post and read the criteria upon which it is built, namely the witness of a Christian.

You've tried to play a semantics game, but in case you've noticed, other Christian posters are not so nearly as desperate.

Furthermore, whether you choose sacrificed or gave, in what sense is that temporary? Did God lend His Son to the world?

And, since you'd like to play a semantics game, you're welcome to address this hair-splitting:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

To whom did God give his only begotten son?

I don't think I was complaining of Cris' stubborness then. What I was doing was pointing out a flaw in his logic which probably stemmed from his belief in the nature of death.

Why don't we take a look at your post to Cris logged 3.25.02, 5.04 PST

***I believe your objection is to my perceived materialistic perspective by the words “and with no hope and with a belief that I would never see my daughter again”. That really covers the concept of a sacrifice being permanent. When someone dies then I would assert that this is how all rational people view the issue in physical terms.***

No. My objection is to the contradiction in your argument.

You assert, for the sake of your argument, that the resurrection is true. (Death is temporary).

You then assert, in the same argument, that people would view the issue of their child's death as if the resurrection had not ocurred. (Death is permanent).

It is a logical contradiction in your argument.

You have attempted to take the point we are discussing and use it to establish a contradiction. I have already recycled my own post for you in response to these issues, and I see that you have either failed to read or failed to comprehend those words. So ... once again, I will recycle the point so that you don't miss it:

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?

Now, perhaps this seems irrelevant or complicated to you, but it really is quite simple. In acknowledging the story as it is told, e.g. the Bible, we can discuss whether or not the story adds up.

Subsequently, however, he did become rather dogged in his insistence that he wasn't talking about sacrificing his daughter through death when any rational-thinking person knew that it could be the only way he knew how to attempt to substantiate the type of permanent sacrifice that he was alluding to. Now, he admits that, of course that's what he was talking about. By the way, your defense of his position in this matter was as pathetic as his avoidance of the truth. The Greys..

Before you go rolling your eyes, you should consider how offensive you're being. After all, sir, you freakin' asked:

***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. (Blonde Cupid, 3.24.02, 21.04 PST)

Perhaps you hadn't followed the debate up to that point. We had been discussing sacrifice as a permanent loss; you seemed to have a problem with what that meant, and started asking if it meant death. Everyone seems to be in on the connection between death and permanence and sacrifice, to the point that they don't have to ask about it like you did on 3.21.02, 22.43 PST

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?

So if you have a problem with the Greys answer, Blonde Cupid, don't ask such stupid questions. Do you understand that it's five days and some four post-pages later that you're bandying about words like pathetic? Did you ask simply so that you could have an answer to ridicule?

Shall we review?

• Cris discusses the permanence of sacrificial loss.
• Blonde Cupid asks if Cris is referring to death.
• Cris asks if Bloned Cupid is making a case for God's sacrifice to not be permanent.
• Blonde Cupid asks how, other than through death, the sacrifice could be permanent.
• Tiassa offers a permanent-not-death loss--the giving of the daughter to the Greys.
• Blonde Cupid throws a hissy-fit:

Oh. Thanks, tiassa.... The Greys, huh? Now, why didn't stupid li'l ol' me think of that? See what happens when I sacrifice my intellect? I just couln't think clearly and got sidetracked into thinking that Cris was talking about death. Now I see that it must have been the Greys, because according to Cris:

**A good try, but you seem to have missed the point of the thread and have become sidetracked into thinking I was talking about death, which I wasn’t...*** (Blonde Cupid, 3.25.02, 1.58 PST)

• Over 20 posts later, Blonde Cupid is still pouting about it. (See above; 3.26.02, 19.07 PST)

Now, take a look at it, Blonde Cupid. I've just had to pull up five days' worth of posts to remind you that you freakin' asked.

It's not hard tiassa. Why don't you do it so that you can understand the basis of Christian sacrifice rather than blindly supporting Cris' position with tales of the Greys?

Like I noted, Blonde Cupid, you effing asked. What, you don't like stupid answers? Don't ask stupid questions.

Actually, I think you probably know that the sacrifice does not rest with whether or not God* the Father experienced emotional pain

So, in other words, the sacrifice wasn't that big a deal? Is it hard to follow all the ways to treat the word sacrifice? Then perhaps you shouldn't play semantic games.

Because I'm open to various modes of knowing, which, at present, you demonstrate no interest in being open to in order to receive

Is this the, I say so, therefore it's true kind of knowing? Or is this the one where you just believe that it's true? Why don't you discuss those modes of knowing.

Why are you downplaying the effort? As far as the crucifixion goes, I believe I've elaborated on it more than any other poster in this discussion so far. But I'll go back and peruse the posts again.

Thanks for the giggle, Blonde Cupid. Well, let's see .. you're discussing it as a general process, a mere ritual offering of Christ unto God; like I said, if it's just the enactment of a ritual, then pissing in a bucket or throwing pennies into a fountain would have done it.

Silly, silly

Did you want to take a serious stab at that answer? Or should we conclude that you have no response, and therefore are condceding to the reduced significance of the crucifixion?

Why don't you and Cris first get an understanding of the basis of Christian sacrifice and then go back to Cris' topic post and start over

So did you want us to "understand" by simply believing everything people tell us? Is that it? Is "understanding" mere faith? Does one understand only after one excludes the intellectual processes that, apparently, God gave them for no good reason? After one sacrifices the intellect unto God?

I don't think so. The crucifixion itself had not even been addressed previously from the perspective of Jesus' human condition

Obviously, you aren't reading the rest of the topic. MatticiousG and I have been discussing the nature of Jesus' humanity and how it relates to the nature of Jesus' divinity and the crucifixion for several days now.

That's what it tells you because that's what you want it to tell you, tiassa. Your demonstrations of your search for angles to give yourself more writing material are becoming as pathetic as your story about the Greys.

Are you just upset because I handed you a permanent sacrifice that doesn't involve death when you asked? Don't pout so much, your face will stick like that. This topic examines that tacking to the Cross, and what it means. And over and over you dogmatically repeat that it happened, it happened, it happened. Good. Fine. Now, what does that mean? Did you want to talk about what that process caused? How it brought its result? That somebody got nailed to a Cross in olde Jerusalem towne is nothing new. It used to happen every day, several times.

***By relying on dogma as your answer, you're givign the point away. The crucifixion does not represent an "Ultimate Sacrifice".***

Sure it does. Jesus suffered profoundly in the flesh and offered His body up to God* the Father as a sacrifice for us - so that we would have eternal life. Once done, and resurrected, that's the deadest any of us can ever be. If His sacrifice is not considered permanent, then there is no such thing as a permanent sacrifice.

What is it that you don't understand about examining the scripture behind dogma? We're talking about what the scripture says and how it doesn't support the dogma, and all you're doing is stamping your feet and bellowing dogma. I'd say it's funny, but it's not. It's sad. And it's annoying because you are either failing to read posts or deliberately refusing them without comment. I mean, really, Blonde Cupid ... five days worth of posts? What, can you not remember what you're saying from day to day? Or is it just not that important to you? What?

This is not about your cold-heartedness, tiassa.

Well, I have to admit that this wasn't the digression I was expecting. Congratulations on that. Perhaps my disclaimer worked, but then again you still missed it.

Well, I know of a woman who planned on getting pregnant and did. She planned on giving life to a child who would be given up in an open adoption to a needy couple. She did this despite knowing exactly what she was in for as far as the emotional pain, discomfort of the pregnancy, the excrutiating pain of labor and delivery. Sure, she could have had it easier with the aid of drugs but she endured the pain naturally because she knew it would be best for the baby. Sure, she planned it. Sure, she knew what she was getting herself into. Sure, she knew that her pain was only temporary. Sure, she knew that the adoption was open and that she would be able to see the baby on a regular basis. Heck, when the child got older they might even be together again on a more permanent basis. Now tell me this woman didn't suffer emotionally. Tell me she endured no pain. Tell me she didn't make a great sacrifice. Go ahead. Show your true colors, tiassa.

I find surrogate parenthood ridiculous. Look, God doesn't want us to have children; let's go buy one. Pain is pain when you're human. But no, she didn't make a sacrifice. Given the number of children in the world who need homes, it seems a pretty extraneous way to add to your family.

I always loved that line from parents about the sacrifices they make for their ungrateful children. The mother who carried them and labored for them, the father who works so hard to feed his family. Hey, maybe they shouldn't be reproducing if they're not prepared?

That was a reference to your comment about Christ riding home on his ass. Take my word for it or go back and look for yourself. I'm not citing it.

You know what, Blonde Cupid? You get to have this point. Strange ... it's a consequence of trusting Chrisitans; they used to teach that Jesus Christ rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (ass), not a horse; a sign of humility--let's see ... one, two ... three Lutheran churches, a Catholic theology class ... here we see the dogma I learned having led me to perceive scripture incorrectly. In fact, I also learned not to say Christ on a pony not only because it was abuse of the name of the Son of God but because it was a foul aspersion against him. Oh, well. You have my apology on this point.

Yeah. See what happens when it's God*s will that people exercise their will freely? And when they screw up royally, God*s still willing to help out. I suppose that woman wanted to find a needy couple so that she could go through all that, too. What a fraud she is, huh?

I don't know. How many people did the woman kill along the way? Free will? You know ... read your Bible. Was not Saul punished by God for free will? For not murdering someone in order to settle God's age-old score against the Amelekites? Free will, indeed. With God, you have the freedom to obey or be punished. You know, kind of like tyranny?

And yet you continue to overlook the fact that God knew damn well that the creatures He was endowing with free will would fail to meet His standards; He knew that redemption would be required, and He still went ahead with the plan and called it Good.

If it's not established in your mind by now, it's probably more a matter of your unwillingness to allow it to be established in your mind, tiassa.

You have to understand, Blonde Cupid that just because you want it to be that way doesn't make it so. For all the discussion of the validity of dogma going on, all you can contribute to the debate is dogma and spite. You have not established excruciating pain and suffering merely because you are repeating the dogma which leads up to this topic. Why don't you discuss the scriptural basis for dogma?

And I'm now going to call you out on a point, Blonde Cupid:

• What is your purpose in this topic? As you can plainly see, other Christians involved in this debate aren't experiencing the difficulty you seem to be having. To one hand, you seem to think that repeating dogmatic points over and over is somehow going to establish them as true amid a debate about the validity of that dogma. To another, you're letting your anger get the best of you. To yet another, you are being disrespectful. Is it that you don't know what you're writing? Not remembering? Is it, in fact, deliberate duplicity, the raising of enough din as to quiet the topic? Your responses suggest either some difficulty in your reading comprehension or else calculated behavior. In the case of the former, I would ask then that you reserve your spite until you're sure you know what you're being spiteful toward; in the case of the latter, I would ask you to please pull the cork out.

Seriously, I can try to keep everything to two syllables, but I'm not sure it's necessary. If you do have a reading disability, please let us know--we are, indeed, willing to do our best to accommodate it. But if you do not, then kindly be respectful or just shut up and let the real Christians do the debating on behalf of Jesus.

Take this post, for instance. Can you imagine how much shorter it would be if I didn't have to remind you of five days worth of your own words?

thanx much,
Tiassa