Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You see, this is one of the main blunders ToO brings to any conversation. He doesn't realize the precision employed with doctrine and often makes conclusions based upon generalities derived from such fuzziness.

Unless and until such time as he comes to humble himself and become a student of the word instead of the supposed teacher he has made himself o ...[text shortened]... he will never understand the true message of the Gospel, grace, doctrine or the spiritual life.

lol. Why would someone want to "understand" a doctrine that is so obviously false and corrupt? From what I can tell, people keep leaving Christianity not because of the teachings of Jesus, but rather because of the falseness they recognize in what has become Christianity at large. Many of those people still hang on to most if not all of the teachings of Jesus because they see them to be true. For that matter, many people of many different belief systems including atheism embrace many of the teachings of Jesus because they see them to be true.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Why would someone want to "understand" a doctrine that is so obviously false and corrupt? From what I can tell, people keep leaving Christianity not because of the teachings of Jesus, but rather because of the falseness they recognize in what has become Christianity at large. Many of those people still hang on to most if not all of the teachings of J ...[text shortened]... ems including atheism embrace many of the teachings of Jesus because they see them to be true.

From what I can tell, people keep leaving Christianity not because of the teachings of Jesus, but rather because of the falseness they recognize in what has become Christianity at large.
------------------ToOne---------------

The problem is that we only know of the teachings of Jesus because of the records of what he said. Therefore , we cannot just "select" some of his words and de-select others. You appear to think you have that luxury. We do not .

Jesus clearly said things and taught things that you probably don't like - for example about his ressurection , his blood forgiving sins , the Holy Spirit , miracles, the existence of a Living God etc etc.

If you want to get all that "God stuff" out of Jesus' teachings then why don't you just be honest and say that he was misquoted in the passages you disagree with? Or it was all made up? At least that would make more sense.

Alternatively you could just say he was bonkers because of all the "God stuff" he said and go follow many other great moral teachers that are around.

So why get all frothed at the mouth about his moral teachings but then also ignore or struggle with all the "God stuff" he said? Just go and follow the Buddha or something and then you won't have this problem. You won't have to sledgehammer Buddha into some atheistic world view , indeed this is why many atheists go for Buddhism because it's spirituality and moral teachings without all that other awkward God stuff.

For someone who seems to be looking for a moral teacher who fits neatly into an atheistic view of the world you really have made a very curious choice in Jesus because there are so many things he said that just don't fit.

CS Lewis convincingly pointed out that to try and tag him with the "great moral teacher" label is really disingenuous and doesn't work if you think logically about it.

If you want to blame Christianity for it's blood sacrifice model or the idea that one can be saved by receiving the Holy Spirit and all that jazz then fine , but really you ought to have a pop at Jesus for making it so easy for his words to be interpreted this way.

That Jesus eh? He must have been so naive! What was he thinking of??

It seems that rather than just go along peacefully following someone like Buddha who doesn't have all thse problems you prefer to stick your head right into the hornets nest and take as many pops as you can at Christianity.

It's like you don't have an actual position , you take up a "non"-position that defines itself in terms of what you despise about Christianity rather than something positive of your own. Like the dog in the proverbial manger , you don't want the cows to eat their hay but just sit there gnashing your teeth and not caring if any of it holds together.

Sadly , the axe you have to grind may be buried too deep within you for you to see it yourself.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well I should think ThinkofOne should counter and perhaps explain why he would not take on such a challenge.
(I gotta split..but I wont be far away. Keep up the good work😉 )

You replied to the other posts is there some reason you didn't reply to this one? I'm not going to assume stuff yet but if you don't respond you will leave me no choice.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You replied to the other posts is there some reason you didn't reply to this one? I'm not going to assume stuff yet but if you don't respond you will leave me no choice.

KM uses whatever he believes to be to his benefit.

When KM believes it to be to his benefit, KM denies being a stalker and accuses me of being "paranoid".

When KM believes it to be to his benefit, KM admits being a stalker.

So as the wind blows so does what KM says.

KM lives in a world of half-truths, lies and deception.

Pay attention to which way the wind blows and what KM says.

Pay attention to what KM uses to his benefit.

Are you useful?

Which way is the wind blowing?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
: But yeah, you're the well versed in the bible commentator, are you? Who do you have as 'winning'? Knightmeister or ThinkofOne?[/b]

Winning? Winning what? I have to say, I have been engaged in many a debate, some of which I lost because I was either ill prepared for or simply outgunned. However, it was only later that I found answers for what I had been dinged for in the debates I had lost. So even though I lost, I realized that losing a debate does not mean I was not on the wrong side of the truth. Likewise, I have been on the winning side of debates. One such debate was about abortion. I was in rare form that day, as I layed knock out punch after knock out punch. In fact, at the end of the debate I could tell my opponent was beginning to raise the white flag, so I moved in for the kill as I was arrogantly patting myself on the back. Then she said, "You know, you should have been a lawyer or something. In fact, I know your right in everything you say, but....but I still believe a woman should have a right to choose." and she turned her back on me and walked off. At that moment you could have heard a needle pop me in two. It was then I realized, belief is not only about logic, nor is it only about the facts. Belief goes much deeper than that, and is something I think we all continue to scratch our heads about. As for Jesus, he gave some insight into belief with the parable about the sower and the seed. According to Jesus, alot of ones beliefs are dictated by the condition of ones heart.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
KM uses whatever he believes to be to his benefit.

When KM believes it to be to his benefit, KM denies being a stalker and accuses me of being "paranoid".

When KM believes it to be to his benefit, KM admits being a stalker.

So as the wind blows so does what KM says.

KM lives in a world of half-truths, lies and deception.

Pay attention to wh ...[text shortened]... attention to what KM uses to his benefit.

Are you useful?

Which way is the wind blowing?

So what do you say to a direct debate between you two?

I know it may sound like a bad idea but at least you could refuse directly and give a reason why.

As for going the way the wind blows, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea on the surface but I suspect you mean not to be so wishy-washy, right?

At the end of the day its really tough , nigh impossible, to go against the "whims of the Great Magnet"

Originally posted by whodey
Winning? Winning what? I have to say, I have been engaged in many a debate, some of which I lost because I was either ill prepared for or simply outgunned. However, it was only later that I found answers for what I had been dinged for in the debates I had lost. So even though I lost, I realized that losing a debate does not mean I was not on the wrong sid ...[text shortened]... e seed. According to Jesus, alot of ones beliefs are dictated by the condition of ones heart.

Beliefs should be supported by facts and logic though. Wouldn't you agree?

As for winning what, it sounds as if you know quite well what I mean. Winning a debate.
On the whole though, I do agree with your post.

As to a debate between ToO and KM, what do you think? What would Jesus do?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
So what do you say to a direct debate between you two?

I know it may sound like a bad idea but at least you could refuse directly and give a reason why.

As for going the way the wind blows, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea on the surface but I suspect you mean not to be so wishy-washy, right?

At the end of the day its really tough , nigh impossible, to go against the "whims of the Great Magnet"

No I'm not interested. I've said so and stated my reasons why on numerous occasions. This is just a part of the games that KM plays. He stalks my posts and denies it unless he wants someone to believe he's being "open and honest" and then admits to it. I don't know how many times he's switched his position on that. As you've seen on this thread he also likes to try to get support for his side by "buddying up" to people. We've seen the "let's ignore his posts" once again. We've seen the "he doesn't answer questions" bit once again. The reality is that I've answered the vast majority of questions put to me, but if they're too far off topic I decline and then he and his minions cry "foul". But if you notice, none of them have addressed the topic of this thread. They just pepper me with off topic responses. Even at that, I addressed not only his post on Matthew 26:26-28, but also epi's (see page 1). But neither of them responded and of course, like usual, KM starts waving his arms and crying "foul" and saying that I don't answer questions. I tell ya, the boy can lie and has no reservations about doing so. You've got to understand that this has been going on for a couple of years in one form or another. The real issue is that the teachings of Jesus do not support some of his core beliefs. He seems to have trouble dealing with this fact.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice
[quote]Animal sacrifice is the ritual killing of an animal as part of a religion. [b]It is practiced by many religions as a means of appeasing a god or gods or changing the course of nature. Animal sacrifice has turned up in almost all cultures, from the Hebrews to the Greeks and Romans and from the ...[text shortened]... that He may sacrifice Himself in order to appease Himself. Seriously, really think about it.[/b]

Ok, lets go back to your origonal post here and see if I cant figure this thing out a bit more. Because so far you two have got me confounded. Whereas rajks 'stalking' of jehovas witnesses I can understand.

As far as I know Jesus was tortured and hung on a cross to die, right? But he was not sacrificed by the people of the time.
You claim he was sacrificed by God but thats out of context with the whole rest of your post where you outline the tradition of animal sacrifices.

Jesus wasn't hung to appease any god(s).
I'm really interested to know where you are going with this, or whether I've missed something.

As for you and KM I suspect the 'feud' will go on without any direct 'settlement'.
Anyway, good luck with all that🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Ok, lets go back to your origonal post here and see if I cant figure this thing out a bit more. Because so far you two have got me confounded. Whereas rajks 'stalking' of jehovas witnesses I can understand.

As far as I know Jesus was tortured and hung on a cross to die, right? But he was not sacrificed by the people of the time.
You claim he was sa 'feud' will go on without any direct 'settlement'.
Anyway, good luck with all that🙂

Evidently my writing needs to be clearer. I was trying to point out the absurdity of Christianity basing its doctrine of "salvation by grace" on such a common primitive concept and having God send Himself to Earth so that He may sacrifice Himself so that man could be set right with Him. You'd think an OOO God could have just decided that He wanted man to be set right instead of inventing such a convoluted process. A couple of later posts also point out that there is evidence that Judaism had already started moving away from blood sacrifice because of its primitive nature and had replaced it with repentance and to a lesser extent charity as the means of atonement for all but very minor sins.

I really wish KM would just knock it off. You don't see me following that guy around and badgering him because he believes differently than me. So far as I know he's the only one on RHP who has that kind of "fatal attraction" toward someone. Seriously, what's up with that?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]1. I am not putting forward the Catholic position on Redemption. I have argued a very non-Catholic position which is very popular and which clearly demonstrates that appeasement is easily distinguished from redemption. If you want to argue the Catholic doctrine, then fine., but understand that is not what I intended

I never said you did. ...[text shortened]... st He stood between heaven and earth, reconciling sinful man with his angry God".[/b]

Again, my point is that the doctrine of Redemption need not give any credence to primitive ideas of appeasement. Exemplarism, which analyses Jesus' sacrifice as the supreme lesson in discipleship, would not support any notion of appeasement (I would think that you would support this understanding.) There are other theories which avoid the same difficulties. Liberation Theology tends to analyse the crucifixion in terms of solidarity, that God became incarnate and died in solidarity with man. In dying, God became 'one of us' and humanity was thus saved. Again, no doctrine of appeasement enters into this.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Again, my point is that the doctrine of Redemption need not give any credence to primitive ideas of appeasement. Exemplarism, which analyses Jesus' sacrifice as the supreme lesson in discipleship, would not support any notion of appeasement (I would think that you would support this understanding.) There are other theories which avoid the same difficulties. ...[text shortened]... 'one of us' and humanity was thus saved. Again, no doctrine of appeasement enters into this.

lol. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

As I indicated earlier I get that you don't think "appeasement" fits all flavors of Christianity. As I also indicated earlier, my OP wasn't looking to fit all flavors either. If you don't like the word "appease" I have absolutely no problem with you substituting something else you believe is broader in scope. Since you decline to suggest something, how about if you take my OP and substitute all occurrences of "appease" with "make man right with God" or something else you believe best captures all of the flavors of Christianity if that is possible? Or you can qualify the word "Christianity" with something that you believe brings it down to an appropriate subset. Or both? Seriously I really don't see this as a big issue and don't know why you are belaboring the point.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. What we have here is a failure to communicate.

As I indicated earlier I get that you don't think "appeasement" fits all flavors of Christianity. As I also indicated earlier, my OP wasn't looking to fit all flavors either. If you don't like the word "appease" I have absolutely no problem with you substituting something else you believe is broader ...[text shortened]... ly don't see this as a big issue and don't know why you are belaboring the point.

Again, I think that the point needs to be belabored. I do not see how exemplarism (which is, as I see it, the more popular view in rationalist circles) has any idea of appeasement. If it has any sense of 'make right with God', it is only in a very limited way. I would think that exemplarism would suit you perfectly.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Evidently my writing needs to be clearer. I was trying to point out the absurdity of Christianity basing its doctrine of "salvation by grace" on such a common primitive concept and having God send Himself to Earth so that He may sacrifice Himself so that man could be set right with Him. You'd think an OOO God could have just decided that He wanted man to ...[text shortened]... who has that kind of "fatal attraction" toward someone. Seriously, what's up with that?

I see your point now. Its good food for thought for the time being.

Yes. Perhaps KM should knock it off. Clearly you are not "coming to the party". Which is well within your rights.
The only problem is then anytime KM replies to your posts you will accuse him of 'stalking'.
What if he just replied every now and then? I still see problems.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
So what do you say to a direct debate between you two?

I know it may sound like a bad idea but at least you could refuse directly and give a reason why.

As for going the way the wind blows, it doesn't sound like such a bad idea on the surface but I suspect you mean not to be so wishy-washy, right?

At the end of the day its really tough , nigh impossible, to go against the "whims of the Great Magnet"

Did you notice how ToOne's "which way the wind blows" post was devoid of evidence or logical argument? He was far from explcit from explaining why he would not enter such a debate.

In any case , here's a thought , I would have thought that if I am as wishy-washy , irrational , delusional and idiotic as ToOne says I am then he should be chomping at the bit to go into such a debate with me. What better than to have KM for breakfast and show what a load of tosh his position really is!!!!!!!

Then everyone could see how robust his position was compared to KM's position, and KM would be resigned to going off and licking his wounds in humiliation!

But no. He will probably not go there because he knows deep down he would have to play on a level playing field and answer some questions for a change. And that would expose him too much and take him away from his comfort zones. But more than this the Truth would be given a chance to breath and be what it is - ie the Truth that is bigger than ToOne and KM.

You see you always know who is not confident that their position will stand because when the time comes they shy away from real debate. His "pseudo" Jesus will not stand the heat of the furnace because it's based on a selective reading of scripture. He senses this or knows this and thus cannot enter , because an arbiter would hold him to certain constraints and logic that he refuses to hold himself to.

You watch what happens and judge for yourself. Don't just take my word for it - watch , observe and think.