why did GOD stop sending messengers?!!

[SnakeLord]

I don't think you realize that Jesus did not die for our sins.

Every individual christian and every sect of christianity has different versions of what's what. It is somewhat difficult for anyone to know in advance exactly what brand of christianity each specific christian adopts, (especially when their post is more of an anti-jew rant than a statement of belief). If you say this jesus guy didn't die for your sins, then ok - you can continue ranting against the jews. I'm uncertain why it would matter exactly but there you go.

He died for a better cause.

Apologies but this short statement has the implication the his death was intentional on his part. If it was his intention, why are you blaming the jews?

If you believe in God, what you have to understand is that you will be judged alone. These things include thoughts, actions, and faith

I don't but it isn't relevant to the point.

The jews were the ones that condemned him so it is their fault

Not if the death had a purpose that jesus intended to fulfill, (while you argued against my statement that the intention was to forgive mankind, you have since replaced it with another intention: 'for a better cause' [that would need some further explanation]). In both instances the outcome is that the death was a purposeful event on behalf of the victim. As such, one can't blame the jews - they were but a means to get to the intended result.

---

God does not take human form that is one

Second he did not want Jesus to be killed

it just so happened that the jews wanted him dead because Jesus thaught them how to be a good person and they refused that

I would be interested to see if you have any support for any of these statements.

 

[Bishadi]

The Legend of Sargon dates 2279-2334 BC. In that, we see:

legends don't make fact

the boy grew up and she brought him to the daughter of Pharaoh and he was a son to her. She called his name Moses, as she said, " For I drew him from the water."

The name - although Egyptian in origin, comes from "[to] draw out" instead of 'son of' *

But since egypt was around before genesis, then i will observe reality over a belief.

Moses means 'son of' in egypt and moses was named by egyptians.

The origin of the Moses story would most certainly seem to stem from Sargon. I was talking about the origin of the story, not the names used in later versions.

just as noah's story reflects Enil being mad at man for being too noisy (summerian tablets)


point being, you are using a story of well over 1000 yrs before Moses, as well since moses and 'rameses' are so close, it seems that neither of us can know for a fact, other than to understand that in ramesis period, they recorded the plagues.

so in name, in birth place, in historical accounts; i will bet on ramesis and moses being of the same stories recorded in history.

quid pro quo

 

[Oli]

quid pro quo

:roflmao:

 

[Bishadi]

Or as they say in Zen: Moo!

Actually it was a pun on the word "Peter." Wow, you sure get points for just making shit up as you go.

sorry charlie as you read less than you know

Go back and read the old prophecies of the temple mount. (it is why the reference to the 'rock' was used)

But i will say, in the context of matthew, that frame you share in founded in writings just as the other STATEMENT of jesus

20Then did he charge his disciples that they may say to no one that he is Jesus the Christ.

as jesus knew he was not the christ too

 

[Bishadi]

:roflmao:

Oli
Intimidatingly competent


:roflmao:


not even timidly competent

 

[Oli]

Oli
Intimidatingly competent
:roflmao:
not even timidly competent

Possibly not, but at least I know how to use "quid pro quo" in context.

 

[Bishadi]

Possibly not, but at least I know how to use "quid pro quo" in context.

it is when people are communicating each are responsible to account for equality of the dialogue with a 'capacity of intent' to honoring the duty (responsibly)

you have no duty to anything but yourself and why you have no idea what responsibility is within articulating with people of the same species. (equality)

to you everyone else is 'less than' while you hold onto your ignorance as the only truth of the land.

i consider you a bonafide troll of this website!

 

[Oli]

it is when people are communicating each are responsible to account for equality of the dialogue with a 'capacity of intent' to honoring the duty (responsibly)
you have no duty to anything but yourself and why you have no idea what responsibility is within articulating with people of the same species. (equality)
to you everyone else is 'less than' while you hold onto your ignorance as the only truth of the land.
i consider you a bonafide troll of this website!

None of which validates (or even excuses) your atrocious mangling and misuse of the English (or Latin) language.

 

[Saquist]

God committed the offending actions.

Inevident.

You really should avoid words you don't understand.

That advice isn't sound. It leads to ignorance.

syllogistic:
A form of deductive reasoning..

Thus, with syllogistic results, or based on reasonable deduction.
If I have still error you may feel free to explain if you know the propper usage.

God created man.
Man is flawed and he goes to hell because of it.

Litteral interpretation without the traditionally misleading noun:
God was created.
Man is flawed and thus dies.

This is a propper statement.

Creating something flawed requires either not succeeding because of a lack of skill or a lack of ability to impliment one's skill or purposefully choosing to fail.

Purposefully chosing to fail in a way that would send some one to hell is a mark of being evil.

So, ...

if god lacks skill then he is not omniscient
if god lacks the ability to impliment his skill he is not omnipotent.
if god purposefully chooses to fail to send man to hell he is evil

Any way you shake it God fails and hell is the mark of his failure.

You lack a causal relationship between the creation and the current state of being of man. The logical fallacy still persist in your argument.

By way of example:
You propose that the World Trade Centers collasped because the engineers created a flawed design. This aswell as your statement fail to account for forces in action between the time of the collapse and the time creation that result in the failure. Thus this is not a logical line of reasoning.

This is also an example of uniformitarian thinking which propposes the no significant disturbances or changes in the enviroment has resulted in a current form, biological, geological or astronomical.

 

[SnakeLord]

legends don't make fact

I made no implication that they did - it was merely a suggestion that the Moses story probably has it's origins in the Sargon story.

Moses means 'son of' in egypt and moses was named by egyptians.

That explains it, I shall add it to my notes.

Oh, there is just one thing. Perhaps you could help me..

If the biblical story is factual then we know that Moses was named not because he was 'son of' anyone but because he was drawn from the water - as that story, which would be factual, explains, (yes - an Egyptian woman names him).

But what if the biblical story isn't factual? This author creates a fictional character and a fictional account of this characters life. He gives him the name Moses and goes on to explain why he was named Moses. Surely this would mean that the origin of this characters name is precisely because of the reason given that was decided upon by the author? It is after all a fictional account, surely you can't suggest the origin of the characters name isn't what the creator of that fictional character says it is?

If you could help with this problem, I'd be grateful.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
God committed the offending actions. ”

Inevident.

To you.

 

[swarm]

legends don't make fact

Oh! The irony.

You realize there are no collaberating texts from any other people about "Moses?"

 

[swarm]

Go back and read the old prophecies of the temple mount. (it is why the reference to the 'rock' was used)

Matthew 16:18 (New International Version)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.[c]


Footnotes:
Matthew 16:18 Peter means rock.
Matthew 16:18 Or hell
Matthew 16:18 Or not prove stronger than it
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+16:18

But don't let what the bible says get in your way.

 

[swarm]

That advice isn't sound. It leads to ignorance.

Sorry the ignorance is pre-existent. You simply are making it painfully evident.

If you want to cure the ignorance you need more than just looking it up briefly and then going with what you think it means. Look at how the word is used in context. Also, jargon in a field is usually inappropriate in general use even if its technically correct.

Here is a nice, but brief run down on syllogistic reasoning:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/syllogistic_reasoning.htm


"with syllogistic results"

Implies your results are in the form of syllogisms - 1 : a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion (as in “every virtue is laudable; kindness is a virtue; therefore kindness is laudable”)

This is not the same at all as "based on reasonable deduction."

These is no necessary requirement that your syllogisms be "based on reasonable deduction." In fact a lesser used definition of syllogism is - 2 : a subtle, specious, or crafty argument

Deductive reason, not reasonable deduction, makes heavy use of syllogisms and sometimes the two are used interchangeably as reflected here: 3 : deductive reasoning
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syllogistic

If you meant "based on reasonable deduction" just say that. You'll be much clearer to understand. Remember germane and succinct should be your guides for clear communication.

You lack a causal relationship between the creation and the current state of being of man.

Only if you concede that god is not omniscient, omnipotent or benevolent.

You propose that the World Trade Centers collapsed because the engineers created a flawed design.

Engineers are constrained by the materials at hand, budgets, and their limited foresight. The towers actually were designed to take an impact from a plane, just not like that and not one that big.

Being omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god has no such excuses. If there are flaws either he lacked the ability or foresight to remove them or they are there on purpose as an act of evil.

I know this blows your whole belief system but the logic is impeccable.

 

[Saquist]

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
God committed the offending actions. ”




To you.

Perspective is irrelevant.

Sorry the ignorance is pre-existent. You simply are making it painfully evident.

If you want to cure the ignorance you need more than just looking it up briefly and then going with what you think it means. Look at how the word is used in context. Also, jargon in a field is usually inappropriate in general use even if its technically correct.

Actually, as always I've looked up the word extensively. There was no one specificly acceptable definition. I ran into 3 or 4 different ways to express it. Some seem to contradict what you say at the bottom. I chose the most common agreement in it's simplicity to test the accepted use.

A syllogism, or logical appeal,

syllogism - deductive reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from two premise

syllogism - An inference in which one proposition (the conclusion) follows necessarily from two other propositions, known as the premisespremises

syllogism - An important variety of deductive argument in which a conclusion follows from two or more premises; especially the categorical syllogism.

syllogism - An elementary structure in informal logic,

...the formal analysis of logical terms and operators and the structures that make it possible to infer true conclusions from

syllogism - An ancient form of a logical argument, first put forward by Aristotle. A syllogism typically consists of three sentences; two premises, one conclusion. If the premises were true, the conclusion must be true. For example:

That's just a few but most agree with the two premises leading directly to a conclusion.

Here is a nice, but brief run down on syllogistic reasoning:
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/types_reasoning/syllogistic_reasoning.htm

Informative and exatly what I have read.

"with syllogistic results"

Implies your results are in the form of syllogisms - 1 : a deductive scheme of a formal argument consisting of a major and a minor premise and a conclusion (as in “every virtue is laudable; kindness is a virtue; therefore kindness is laudable”)

This is not the same at all as "based on reasonable deduction."

These is no necessary requirement that your syllogisms be "based on reasonable deduction." In fact a lesser used definition of syllogism is - 2 : a subtle, specious, or crafty argument

I'm sorry I've never run into that definition.
Could you provide a source?
I would also point out that some of the definition (yes not all) not only imply but specificly say "possible to infer true conclusions" another says "follows necessarily from the premise) , but if I've understood you correctly you saying a logical result isn't always the result. Which means a syllogism can be true or false?

Deductive reason, not reasonable deduction, makes heavy use of syllogisms and sometimes the two are used interchangeably as reflected here: 3 : deductive reasoning
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syllogistic

If you meant "based on reasonable deduction" just say that. You'll be much clearer to understand. Remember germane and succinct should be your guides for clear communication.

Gotcha, there is the definition you used before.
I had look up specious but that seems to confirm that syllogism don't have to be true they can be showy or deceptive. Which if I understand correctly that a syllogism is merely the arrangement of the argument. Two premise leading to a conclusion.

How confussing some of the definitions are then. So of them use the phrase "logical appeal."

I think I comprehend. I'll continue to research to glean further information.

Only if you concede that god is not omniscient, omnipotent or benevolent.

Those are descritptions.
None of them are casual.

Omnicience can not cause anything to happen.
Omnipotence must be associated with an action.
Emotion should give way to justice. ( In God's case it is a must.)

Engineers are constrained by the materials at hand, budgets, and their limited foresight. The towers actually were designed to take an impact from a plane, just not like that and not one that big.

Being omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god has no such excuses. If there are flaws either he lacked the ability or foresight to remove them or they are there on purpose as an act of evil.

I know this blows your whole belief system but the logic is impeccable.

But there is no logic here. It is an assumed responsibility.
An inaction can not be inherently evil.

 

[Bishadi]

I made no implication that they did - it was merely a suggestion that the Moses story probably has it's origins in the Sargon story.



That explains it, I shall add it to my notes.

at least someone is learning something new

Oh, there is just one thing. Perhaps you could help me..

sure

If the biblical story is factual then we know that Moses was named not because he was 'son of' anyone but because he was drawn from the water - as that story, which would be factual, explains, (yes - an Egyptian woman names him).

So the bible says

But what if the biblical story isn't factual?

Never has been, so nothing new.

This author creates a fictional character and a fictional account of this characters life. He gives him the name Moses and goes on to explain why he was named Moses. Surely this would mean that the origin of this characters name is precisely because of the reason given that was decided upon by the author?

the author is supposed to be Moses himself but no one will ever know that for certain

It is after all a fictional account, surely you can't suggest the origin of the characters name isn't what the creator of that fictional character says it is?

If you could help with this problem, I'd be grateful.

When religious folks are who maintained most of the biased accounts, then i believe it neccessary to question every live within.

Since the bible shares a pharoah and Ramesis so happens to have the best records over and above the biblical accounts that can be referenced to the same plagues then it seems that addressing reality towards ramesis being the pharoah of moses is far greater than referencing a story of a birth 'gathered from the water'.................

it seems best to follow evidence of accounts over religious beliefs, every time!

Meaning; the religions have reason to fib, history doesn't.

I will side with history over beliefs every day of the week!

 

[Bishadi]

None of which validates (or even excuses) your atrocious mangling and misuse of the English (or Latin) language.

Oli.............. you say the same thing to anyone who says something you do not comprehend. (basically most of your posts share your lack of comprehending most anything above a 2 syllable word)

Do you understand; . 'duck; da utter white meat?'

 

[Bishadi]

and of course; as ooosual the saquist don't like to articluate with anyone who is not an anti christ

 

[Saquist]

Oli.............. you say the same thing to anyone who says something you do not comprehend. (basically most of your posts share your lack of comprehending most anything above a 2 syllable word)

Do you understand; . 'duck; da utter white meat?'

That is not true.
Oli has proven to be quite intelligent in discourse and use of terms and lanuage. Don't be general when refering to one person's actions, it's predjudice and beligerent. If he's not comprehended something in your eyes, then be specific.

 

[Bishadi]

That is not true.
Oli has proven to be quite intelligent in discourse and use of terms and lanuage.

oooops~

it seems you are not well read on Oli and how most every thread he gets into, he is not addressing the threads.

do a history and read; i am not making it up, just reflecting exactly what he did in the comment to me.

Don't be general when refering to one person's actions, it's predjudice and beligerent.

that is what he just did to me.

attacking me for using 'quid pro quo' as if he is authority when in reality, he not only did not offer a reference but simply attacked me with pure selfishness

saquist; your insult is not fair, not of quality as well completely irresponsible.

If he's not comprehended something in your eyes, then be specific.

that is what i say; he made a stupid comment just to insult me and offered no explanation; (kind of the same thing you just did with your post here; took a path, leaned in error and still not addressing the thread or the comments/questions applied to you)

ad hominen is where folks go when comprehension fails their ability to articulate