The crucifixion was a fraud.

tiassa,

***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?***

Unlike Jesus, a striped necktie could not connect with sinners and outcasts like Jesus did. It could not embrace the sick, the weak, the imperfect, the homeless, the dirty or the hurting who need God*s presence the most.

Unlike Jesus, a striped necktie could not touch lepers, forgive sinners, bless the poor or make those who were dirty feel comfortable in its presence.

Unlike Jesus, a striped necktie could not express love and closeness to sinners, lepers and other outcasts.

Unlike Jesus, a striped necktie could not publicly teach that salvation would be based on our love for God* in how we treat the least of our brothers and sisters.

Unlike Jesus, a striped necktie could not relate to people the way Jesus did in His teaching of universal compassion.

Unlike Jesus, a striped necktie could not condescend to a sinful level, if necessary, and teach what is right or develop people in right values, attitudes, feelings and motives that would lead them to changed feelings and a new way of life.

Unlike Jesus, a striped necktie could not reach out to people unselfishly and cultivate internal spiritual peace and happiness.
 
Xev,

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

Now that's funny. Cry because people disagree?

If you only knew me... One of the things that has kept me extraordinarily healthy (thank God*) is that I don't let things bother me the way most people do.

Oh, well. So much for the impersonal internet.
 
Yeah, but a BMW 325ci could

Bmw.jpg


Don't forget the leather upholstery! I like the color it is already in. And it must be convertable. Thanks.

I feel better just looking at it.

Oh yes, and if somone would have Bill Gates give his disposable income to the charity of my choice.....and if I could have, say, ten tickets to a resort in Tahiti.....

*Grins*

No offense to Junior intended.
 
tiassa,


***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.***

I went back. There is no reference to John 3:16 in the topic post and Loone's quote refers to the Son's sacrifice, not the Fathers.

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

It's not semantics. It's not desperation. I was responding to your rant about John 3:16.

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

I've already addressed that. The gift was not temporary. Jesus was the Word made flesh. God* sent the Word into this world. It is still with us today... I'm sure you remember this concept.

Nor was the sacrifice temporary. The concept of afterlife was objectively demonstrated in the Resurrection. Jesus became as dead as any of us will ever be. If our death can be considered as permanent, then so can His.

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

It's not semantics. God* gave His only begotten son, the Word made flesh, to us in this world.
 
blonde_cupid,

I’d like to synchronize our views of Christianity before I continue.

A summary of Christian mythology.

1. Adam was immortal.
2. To sin means to disobey God.
3. Adam sinned.
4. The punishment for sin is death.
5. Adam died.
6. All men after Adam inherited his mortality.
7. The nature of all men became sinful.
8. All men sin.
9. All men died.
10. Jesus was divine.
11. Jesus gave up his divinity.
12. Jesus came to earth as a man.
13. Jesus never sinned.
14. Jesus did not deserve to die because he never sinned.
15. Jesus accepted the punishment due to every man.
16. Jesus sacrificed himself to God in place of all mankind.
17. God could raise Jesus to life again because Jesus did not break his laws.
18. God resurrected Jesus.
19. God gave Jesus a new nature that was free from the sinful nature of man.
20. God gave man the gift of eternal life if man believed in Jesus.
21. Man no longer needed to die for his sins.
22. Man had to request forgiveness from Jesus if he wanted to live.

This is to the best of my understanding. Some refinements might be possible.

Please correct me if I am wrong or have missed anything you would consider important.

Can we agree on these fundamentals, adjusted if needed?

Cris
 
Last edited:
1. Adam was immortal.
2. To sin means to disobey God.
3. Adam sinned.
4. The punishment for sin is death.
5. Adam died.
Click to expand...

Bloody hell! News to me! I'm going to cash in on my life insurance...

:p
 
Hey Xev,

I'll give you a ride in my 1999 Black M Coupe if you like.

side.jpg


Sorry I don't like convertibles - too much drag.

Cris
 
Last edited:
Xev,

***Blonde:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nor was the sacrifice temporary. The concept of afterlife was objectively demonstrated in the Resurrection. Jesus became as dead as any of us will ever be. If our death can be considered as permanent, then so can His.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A: No, it wasn't, because the alleged Resurrection is still only alleged

B: If the alleged Resurrection occured, His death was obviously not permanent.***

Buzzzzz. Sorry. Good try but wrong answer. :)

Cris gave up the Resurrection as true, not alleged, because in doing so, he thought that he could then say that since God* the Father got the Son back, then there was no real sacrifice. If the Resurrection is true, however, then there is life after death and as dead as Jesus was is as dead as we will all ever be.

The Resurrection was the objective, demonstrative proof of the afterlife.


***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not semantics. God* gave His only begotten son, the Word made flesh, to us in this world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought that

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is giving what to whom? And how does this affect humans?***

God* the Father gave us the gift of His Son, the Word made flesh (which continues in the written Word today). The Son, the Word made flesh, taught the world the truth - God*s truth... He taught love, living right, inclusiveness, forgiveness, compassion and salvation. There came a time when the Word in the flesh was physically crucified, died, was buried and rose in the Resurrection to demonstrate to the world in an objective manner that there is life after death as He/God* promised.
 
Something about a bucket?

I went back. There is no reference to John 3:16 in the topic post and Loone's quote refers to the Son's sacrifice, not the Fathers
Click to expand...
Are the two sacrifices, that of the Father and that of the Son, separate? That is, can one be and have effect without the other?

Furthermore, Proof #2 in Cris' topic post addressed the sacrifice of the Son.
It's not semantics. It's not desperation. I was responding to your rant about John 3:16
Click to expand...
Given your liberal abuse of adjectives ....

Besides, what do you expect? You're being dogmatic without discussing the nature of those sacrifices. The semantics game you're playing with give and sacrifice is lending toward the idea that you don't see suffering on the Father's part. For God so loved the world that He performed a ritual? Pennies in a fountain, something about a bucket?
I've already addressed that. The gift was not temporary. Jesus was the Word made flesh. God* sent the Word into this world. It is still with us today... I'm sure you remember this concept.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Word Made Flesh is still with us in Spirit.
Nor was the sacrifice temporary. The concept of afterlife was objectively demonstrated in the Resurrection. Jesus became as dead as any of us will ever be. If our death can be considered as permanent, then so can His.
Click to expand...
If Jesus' death was permanent, then he did not rise. Without that resurrection, there goes the credibility of the Bible and billions of Christians who have wasted their lives in pursuit of folly. Now, I personally may see the Bible as a crock, and its devastation of lives as tragic, but I'm not sure that's really what you want to be accomplishing with your arguments.
It's not semantics. God* gave His only begotten son, the Word made flesh, to us in this world.
Click to expand...
Your asterisk still cracks me up, by the way.

There is no sense of loss? No sense of sacrifice? For God so loved the world that he offered a mundane ritual? Pennies in a fountain?

Since any basis of Christian sacrifice I come up with is going to be wrong unless I sacrifice my integrity in order to believe the Bible authoritative, real, and true, why don't you do your Christian duty and spread the Good News of Christian sacrifice?
Oh. I'm sorry. Are you a striped necktie?
Click to expand...
Is this in lieu of an actual answer? If you don't know, just say so. It's more dignified if you're just honest about it.

Also, you chose not to address a vital issue. I shall presume that you do not have a reading impairment. So kindly pull out the cork.

Really, when MatticiousG compels me to spend a good deal of time on a post, it's because he is addressing issues worth debating. I don't look forward to spending another hour dragging through the topic to remind you of the points you have either forgotten about or chosen to pretend aren't there.

Kindly pull out the cork.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
tiassa,

***Shall we review?***

I think that would be beneficial because you missed something -actually, two things. Nothing wrong with that. We all do it at one time or another. It would be nice, though, if you got your facts straight before going on rants.

Let's compare the beginning of your version to what actually happened.

Your version:

***• Cris discusses the permanence of sacrificial loss.

• Blonde Cupid asks if Cris is referring to death. (incorrect. See 2 below)

• Cris asks if Bloned Cupid is making a case for God's sacrifice to not be permanent. (Out of Order. See 3 below)

• Blonde Cupid asks how, other than through death, the sacrifice could be permanent. ***

What actually happened:

1. Cris discusses the permanence of sacrificial loss.

2. Blonde_Cupid acknowledges that Cris was talking about his daughter's "death" as being permanent and points out a contradiction in Cris' argument. (3-21-02 5:02 PM)

3. Cris explicitly states that he was not talking about "death" and suggests that Blonde_Cupid choose another example where you experience permanent loss of the type Cris described. (3-21-02 8:32 PM)

4. Blonde_Cupid asks how, other than through death, the sacrifice could be permanent.
 
Blonde Cupid

I'll even add the hours to meet your time standard, just to make it a little easier on both of us, and, frankly, anyone who's (still) reading. Comparing notes, it would seem you're in the Eastern time zone; thus, for our international posters, we are now citing GMT-5.
2. Blonde_Cupid acknowledges that Cris was talking about his daughter's "death" as being permanent and points out a contradiction in Cris' argument. (3-21-02 5:02 PM)
Click to expand...
Are you talking about when you said death isn't permanent, and that Cris' belief in the permanence of death was unfounded? Let's look at Cris' 3.21.02/20.32 post:
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 and which I deliberately did not mention in my thread starter.
Click to expand...
What has happened here is that you, Blonde Cupid, focused on death. Cris' choice to avoid death specifically depends on its actual relevance to the issue: The issue of death and a potential afterlife is irrelevant here. The example is to show the concept of a permanent loss. In your 3.21.02/17.02 post, you fixated on death:

• First, it rests entirely on Cris' unfounded belief that death is permanent and that there is nothing beyond the physical death of the body
• Cris' belief that the death/sacrifice of his daughter would be the end of his daughter leads him to conclude that her sacrifice would be true.
• Ironically, Cris uses his own unfounded belief in the finality of death as the basis of his argument.
• If these things were true then Cris' unfounded belief in the absolute permanence of death would be false.

It would seem that you were missing the point. You chose to fixate on death when the point was permanent loss. This is the reason for Cris' attempt to separate the death issue. It seemed to be a stumbling block to your perception. The continued nature of your posts, though, shows that you, Blonde Cupid are the stumbling block to your perception.
3. Cris explicitly states that he was not talking about "death" and suggests that Blonde_Cupid choose another example where you experience permanent loss of the type Cris described. (3-21-02 8:32 PM)
Click to expand...
While death is an aspect of what Cris was presenting, it was surely not the focus you chose to give it in your 3.21/17.02 post. You have pulled a string of words out which reflect your argument, but again I'm questioning your focus. His invitation to pick another permanent loss was in the hope that you would look past this unnecessary fixation and move on with the actual topic at hand: that of whether or not God suffered a permanent loss. Points #1 and #4 in your recap seem okay. That you have not addressed the other two points indicates that you accept them?

Blonde Cupid, what disturbs me most about your present posting style is that you're attempting an equivalent of picking on spelling errors. What would surprise you is how sympathetically I attempt to read your posts. Try reading the whole post and absorbing its entirety before picking out keywords to respond to. Picking keywords, as we see, often leads you to focus on erroneous issues. And while there is, technically, nothing wrong with such errors from time to time, the consistency with which you make such errors of focus is alarming and your attitude toward those errors offensive.
The written Word. But, yes, also spirit.
Click to expand...
Read Pagels' Origin of Satan, at least. It has a lot of good insight on the formation of that written word. You know, that was developed and politicized after Jesus had allegedly been and died?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Originally posted by KalvinB
MarkX:

Hey Jack,

I don't need to look up any more, You just give me a good reasons not to. I am sure now, you like to disregard whole bible to justify only one verse. Very christian of you. Like you always whine and cry about one verse " I and Father are one". And prove it that Jesus was God.........Isn't that the typical christian way to ignore the verses those not favouring you and whine about the ones which will justify your needs. :rolleyes: :p
Click to expand...
 
No one should rely on Bible.........

Lies, more lies and distortion of truth, made up stories, imaginary things that might have happen or never happened. Blonde Cupid there were no witnesses of resurrection or crucifixion. It says in bible that in those time every one left Jesus. NO EYE WITNESSES of this Incident.

The Visitors to the Tomb


Matthew: "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary". 28:1

Mark : "Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome". 16:1
Luke :"Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother ofJames, and other women". 24:10

John "Mary Magdalene". 20:1


Their Purpose in Visiting the Tomb

More inconsistencies in witnesses:

Matthew: They came "to see the tomb". Doesn't previously mention that the body was already spiced, but only "wrapped" (27:59). 28:1

Mark They "brought spices" in order to "anoint him". Doesn't previously mention that the body was spiced, but only "wrapped" (15:46). 15:47, 16:1


Luke:: To bring "the spices which they had prepared". Previous to this it mentions that the body was "wrapped" (23:53) and that the women "prepared spices" (23:56). 24:1


John:: No reason stated, but the body was "bound" with "spices" by Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus on one of the day(s) previous to Sunday . Notice that Luke 23:55 says that "the women" observed the tomb and "how the body was laid" - but later had to return to bring the "spices which they had prepared" (24:1)!!! 19:38-40


The Time of the Visit to the Tomb


More made up stuff.


Matthew:: As it "began to dawn". 28:1

Mark:: It was "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NKJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV). 16:2

Luke:: It was "very early in the morning" (KJV); "very early in the morning" (NKJV); "at early dawn" (NRSV). 24:1


John:: It was "early, while it was still dark". 20:1
The Status of the Entrance of the Tomb


Matthew:: Closed, but opened by an angel after a "great earthquake". 28:2

Mark:: Open, since "the stone had been rolled away". They entered the tomb. 16:4-5

Luke:: Open, since "they found the stone rolled away". Seemingly their first visit to the tomb, since they were "greatly perplexed about this". 24:2-4

John:: Opened, and Mary runs to "Simon Peter, and to the other disciple". 20:1-2


The Angel(s)/Messenger(s) at the Tomb

Matthew: One "angel of the Lord". 28:2-7

Mark: One "young man clothed in a long white robe". 16:5

Luke: Two "men" who "stood by them in shining garments". 24:4

John: Two angels "in white" appear to Mary after "Simon Peter" and to the "other disciple" depart. 20:12


The Location of the Angel(s)/Messenger(s) at the Tomb


Matthew: Angel spoke while sitting on the stone. 28:2

Mark: Sitting inside the tomb, on the "right side".16:5

Luke: Standing "beside them" inside the tomb. 24:3-4

John: Sitting "one at the head and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain".20:12

The Statment(s) of the Angels(s)/Messenger(s)


Matthew: "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and indeed he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him: Behold, I have told you." 28:5-7

Mark: "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go and tell his disciples - and Peter - that he is going before you into Galilee; there you will see him, as he said to you." 16:6-7

Luke: "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen! Remember how he spoke to you when he was still in Galilee, saying, 'The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.'" 24:5-7

John: "Woman, why are you weeping?", Mary then turns around and sees Jesus, but doesn't recognize him. 20:13-14

Did the Visitors to the Tomb Tell Others?

And the difference continues...............;)

Matthew: Yes, since they "ran to bring his disciples word". 28:8
Mark: No, since "they said nothing to anyone". Later it says that Mary Magdalene "went and told those who had been with him". 16:8; 16:10
Luke: Yes, since "they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven and to all the rest". 24:9, 22-24
John: Yes, since "Mary Magdelene came and told the disciples". 20:18


Did "Mary" Know That Jesus was Resurrected?


Matthew: Yes. (28:7-8
Mark: Yes. 16:10,11
Luke: Yes. 24:10, 22-23
John: No. 20:2, 14


Who was the "First" to see Jesus?


Matthew: Apparently Mary Magdalene and Mary, since they "met" Jesus on the way to tell the disciples. 28:9

Mark: Mary Magdalene was "first". 16:9

Luke: Apparently the two on the road to Emmaus. 24:13

John: Mary Magdalene. 20:14

When did "Mary" First See Jesus?


Matthew: On her way to tell the disciples. 28:9

Mark: Before she returned to the disciples. 16:9, 10

Luke: Doesn't say.
---
John: At the tomb, after the angel(s) spoke to her - "Simon Peter, and to the other disciple" had "went away". 20:10, 14

Was Jesus in a Spiritual or Physical Body After the Resurrection?
Matthew Physical, since they "came and held him by the feet", even though he managed to get out of the tomb before the stone was rolled away. 28:9


Mark: Like a spirit, since he "appeared" to Mary Magdalene, but "appeared" in "another form" to the two men on the road. 16:9, 12

Luke: Physical, since Jesus says "a spirit does not have flesh and bones" and he eats. 24:39, 43

John: Seemingly spiritual, since Jesus says "do not cling to me". However, Thomas later touches Jesus. 20:17, 27


The First Appearance of Jesus (After the Women)

Matthew: To the "eleven disciples". 28:16

Mark: To "two" disciples "in the country", but later he appears to "the eleven". 16:12,14

Luke: To the two disciples travelling on the road to Emmaus, and later to "the eleven". 24:13,36

John: A number is not stated, but Thomas - "one of the twelve" - was absent (along with Judas), so apparently only ten. 20:19, 24

Paul: - I Corinthians To "Cephas" (i.e. Peter), and then to "the twelve" (even though all of the Gospels only mention "eleven", since Judas was already dead!!!) 15:5

The Location of Jesus’ First Appearance

Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee, which is, at a minimum, between 60 and 70 miles away!!!. 28:16-17

Mark: "In the country" to two disciples, but to the eleven "as they sat at the table". 16:12,14

Luke: On the road to Emmaus (about seven miles from Jerusalem), and later to the disciples in a room in Jerusalem in the "evening". 24:29, 31, 33, 36

John: In a room, during the "evening". 20:19
Did the Disciples of Jesus Believe the "Two Men"?

Matthew: Not mentioned.. ---


Mark: No, since "they did not believe them either". 16:13

Luke: Yes; since "the eleven" were saying "The Lord is risen indeed . . . " - as if they already knew. 24:34

John: Two men not mentioned. Doesn't say if they believed Mary. ---

What Happened at the Appearance of Jesus?


Matthew: The disciples "worshipped him", though "some doubted", Jesus speaks. 28:17-18

Mark: Jesus "rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart". 16:14

Luke: Jesus, unrecognizable to any of them, materializes out of nowhere, and the disciples "thought they had seen a spirit". Jesus questions "the eleven", eats, and then "led them out as far as Bethany". 24:36-50

John: Jesus appears "in their midst" (even though the "doors were shut") and the disciples were "glad" to see him. Jesus speaks, but does not reprimand them. 21:19-23

Did Jesus Stay on Earth for Very Long After the Resurrection?

Matthew: Doesn't say. 28:17-18

Mark: No, since he was "received up into heaven" after he had spoken. Note that John 20:19 says that the meeting took place on "the first day of the week" - i.e. Sunday.. 16:19

Luke: No, since he ascends on Sunday evening - the same day of his resurrection. This can be deduced because on "that same day" (24:13), which was "the third day since" the crucifixion (24:20-21), he met the two on the road to Emmau and continued with them until it was "toward evening" (24:29). After recognizing Jesus that evening, the two "rose up that very hour and returned to Jeruslam" (24:33), where they met "the eleven". Jesus appeared to them as "they said these things" (24:36). Jesus speaks to them and then accompanies them "as far as Bethany" (24:50), where he then ascends (24:51). 24:13, 20-21, 29, 33, 36, 50-51

John: Yes, at least "eight" days. 20:26

Acts: Yes, since it specifies "forty" days. 1:3

The Location of Jesus’ Ascension into Heaven

Matthew: No ascension reported and the book ends on the mountain in Galilee. ---

Mark: In "Galilee", after meeting "the eleven". 16:7; 16:14
Luke: In Bethany, near Jerusalem. 24:50-51
John: Jesus' ascension is not mentioned. ---
Acts: From the Mount of Olives. 1:9-12
Paul: Never mentions the ascension. ---


Did Jesus Tell His Disciples to Stay in Jerusalem?


Matthew: Not mentioned, but apparently not since they went to Galilee (a minium of 60-70 miles away). ---

Mark: Not mentioned, but apparently he did not, since they went to Galilee (a minium of 60-70 miles away). ---

Luke: Yes, he told them "tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high". After the ascension, they returned from Bethany "to Jersalam" and "were continually in the temple". The "power from on high " came fifty days after the resurrection on Pentecost (Acts 1 and 2). 24:50-53

John: Not mentioned. ---

Acts: Yes, he told them "not to depart from Jerusalem". 1:4


If some one still believes in that so called ressurection and crucifixion, then it is really sad. As we have seen above that all the witness and so called inspired writers were conflicting each other and it is pretty serious issue. Since it is the foundation of Christian religion, and from what we can see it is pretty shaky.
 
tiassa,

***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... 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?***

Oh, I was most assuredly "in" on the connection between death and permanence and sacrifice from the outset, tiassa, until I pointed out that it created a logical contradiction in Cris' proof. As you know, I asked Cris what else could he have possibly meant by permanent loss after he insisted that it was not death. However, rather than offering a valid alternative analogy which demonstrated such permanence and sacrifice, Cris suggested that I come up with another example for myself. Well, Cris sure did stump stupid ol' me with that suggestion. What, pray-tell, could Cris have meant by permanent loss in the human experience that might be considered greater and more permanent than the sacrifice in question? It wasn't until wise ol' you came up with the Grey analogy did I see the light of what he meant. :rolleyes:

***Shall we review?

• Cris discusses the permanence of sacrificial loss.
• Blonde Cupid asks if Cris is referring to death. (incorrect)
• Cris asks if Bloned Cupid is making a case for God's sacrifice to not be permanent.(out of order)
• Blonde Cupid asks how, other than through death, the sacrifice could be permanent.***

Why, do you think, did you fail to review the posts in the correct chronological order in accordance with what actually happened?
 
Why, do you think, did you fail to review the posts in the correct chronological order in accordance with what actually happened?
Click to expand...
Simple ... whenever you start contradicting yourself or ignoring established points without putting up any reasonable sort of argument--you know, when you respond to examinations of scriptural support for dogma with more dogma--I generally work backward from your current post. Like I said, I'm getting sick and tired of knowing what you wrote five days ago when such words are unimportant to you.

Furthermore, how important is the chronology to you when the issue is that you asked the f--king question? All your snotty attitude has told me is that you're upset that I answered your question.

How, then, would you justify your ridiculously poor attitude after receiving an answer to your question about permanent, non-death sacrifice? It's inexcusable.
Oh, I was most assuredly "in" on the connection between death and permanence and sacrifice from the outset, tiassa, until I pointed out that it created a logical contradiction in Cris' proof. As you know, I asked Cris what else could he have possibly meant by permanent loss after he insisted that it was not death. However, rather than offering a valid alternative analogy which demonstrated such permanence and sacrifice, Cris suggested that I come up with another example for myself.
Click to expand...
This is an excellent example. I have posted the point to MatticiousG and recycled it for you multiple times. Address the bit about the mystery novel or don't bother. The "logical contradiction" ( :rolleyes: ) you've pointed out is not a logical contradiction at all. I'm sure if you'd actually understood that point you would reject it, but at least do us the courtesy of undertaking that point and its rejection instead of simply pretending it's not there.
What, pray-tell, could Cris have meant by permanent loss in the human experience that might be considered greater and more permanent than the sacrifice in question? It wasn't until wise ol' you came up with the Grey analogy did I see the light of what he meant.
Click to expand...
Well, that's just the thing, Blonde Cupid. Given that your "logical contradiction" was invalid, Cris was seeking a way to move forward with the debate. Perhaps if you read with anything other than dogmatic eyes, you would see that.

Your continued recycling of dogma contributes nothing to the present debate. We are examining the scriptural basis of dogmatic beliefs. That you have refused to even acknowledge on this point speaks poorly of you.

We can always ignore you, if you like, and simply assume that you have nothing to contribute. That would help you, too, so that you wouldn't have to put effort into demonstrating that you have nothing to contribute.

An abstraction ... hopefully you can understand this one:

• Assertion: (Dogma) seems incorrect because of (Scripture)
• Response: (Dogma), (Dogma), (Dogma)

This is what I'm objecting to. What is actually constructive to this debate would go:

• Assertion: (Dogma) seems incorrect because of (Scripture)
• Response: (Dogma) is actually correct because of (Scripture)

We're trying to examine the plethora of Scripture which both affirms and invalidates the Dogma. Simply standing on the dogmatic intepretation of Scripture is inadequate. And, frankly, it's getting annoying.

or

• Assertion: (Dogma) seems incorrect because of (Scripture)
• Response: But (Dogma) is incorrect and the contradiction is invalid, according to (Scripture)

Of course, this would then oblige you to decide whether or not your Christian duty involves correcting the erroneous notions of your fellow faithful (e.g. Loone) so believe me, I understand why you're not anxious to follow that course ;)

There are, of course, other forms of response that will work, but it's not my job to write the argumentative handbook for you. The bottom line, Blonde Cupid, is that you're standing on dogma; furthermore, your attitude indicates that you're standing on dogma in order to quash examination of Scripture. Why, do you think, are you so insistent on mucking up this topic like that?

One would think that you, as a Christian, would want people to examine Scripture honestly, so they could make the ... uh ... free-will :rolleyes: ... decision to place their faith in God and the Bible?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Thanx for the summation, tiassa. It was a abbreviated summation, as I remember seeing more than 3-4 posts by b-c where she repeated the same thing about "death not being final". And this was despite prompt replies by cris and you saying that it did not matter.

At that time, I was wondering if b-c somehow missed reading your replies, because she showed no indication of incorporating the info into her posts. And later, she went on to say things like "I am still awaiting your refutation", all the more ridiculous, as it was a point which did not matter at all to the issue at hand.

This topic was more or less decided in the first page itself, but b-c's stuck record act, helped stretch it 4-5 pages more than necessary.

Somewhere in the middle, there was also something said to the effect that "the gift was not taken back, because the word* was left behind". And soon, another stuck record act followed. :rolleyes: One wonders if blonde-cupid would be insulted if presented her with flowers, and promptly took it away the next minute, saying that the fragrance is left behind .... :D
 
tiassa,

***Furthermore, how important is the chronology to you when the issue is that you asked the f--king question?***

The “correct” chronology is important when you put forth an erroneous chronological “review” in an attempt to establish that one was not in on the connection that Cris made between death and permanence of sacrifice. The fact that, at some point, I asked him a question about that connection is not relevant to what it is that you were attempting to establish. The fact that, at some point, I asked him a question about that connection does not establish that the question was stupid. As you very well know, the question was not asked because I was not in on the connection. It was asked because when confronted with a logical counter-argument, Cris denied said connection. The “correct” chronology is important when you put forth an erroneous chronological “review” in an attempt to establish that a question concerning whether Cris actually meant to make that connection was stupid.

You see, tiassa, the posts which you failed to include in the chronology established with certainty that not only was I in on the connection, but it also provided a valid reason for my having asked a valid question.

In other words, the “correct” chronology was important in establishing that your rant was baseless.

Like I said before, it would be nice if you could get your facts straight before ranting.

***Given that your "logical contradiction" was invalid, Cris was seeking a way to move forward with the debate.***

What a cop out. If the “logical contradiction” was invalid, then there would have been no need for Cris to deny the connection he made between death and permanence of sacrifice... His claim that he intentionally did not use the “word” death has no bearing on the connection he made... You remember that connection... The connection that everyone could see.

In this matter, you continue to demonstrate the same sort of blind support which caused you to resort to your Greys story.

Furthermore, what do you care or even care to know about logical contradiction, anyway? After all, examining Cris’ proof was only what he asked us to do. However, when I attempted to stay on that course, you accused me of side-tracking because I did not enter into your discussion of side considerations. Um… That’s a logical contradiction, tiassa. You know, the logical contradiction you haven’t stopped screaming about since I first pointed out the logical contradiction in Cris’ initial attempt at proof.

Don’t get me wrong about this. I have no problem with your debate with others about more abstract considerations. I only use your term side-tracked to demonstrate the contradictory nature of your objections to my staying the course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top