Seismic activity as a sign of the last days

Originally posted by finnegan
"No one has claimed that the teachings of Jesus are proof of his historicity what was actually claimed was that they are amoung the most sublime and profound teachings."

To say they are among the most sublime and profound teachngs requires at least a modest effort to set them alongside alternatives and I am not convinced by this claim. They are b ...[text shortened]... gion would have taken up the gap in the market. No big deal. Human history has been like that.

Another infamous Finnegan opinion piece which betrays at its core an extreme lack of understanding of just how the Jewish system of things relates to the Christian. Thankfully for us those 'childish' writings of Paul explain it. I suggest that you find a copy of Alfred Edersheims book, 'The life and time of Jesus the Messiah', and read it.

Christianity as it was intended is more profound than both Judaism and Islam because it allows room for the free exercise of conscience and is not merely concerned with rules and ordinances and adherence to empty ritual. I resent and reject your pretentious and ludicrous claims of 'robbing accumulated social capital' Christianity did nothing of the sort. Christianity was the culmination and fulfilment of the Mosaic law in its entirety, beautifully portrayed and fully realised in the life and teaching of Christ the Messiah. A teaching so dynamic that not even Rome itself could grapple and contend with it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not entirely sure what your grievance is with the portion of scripture that you cite.

He's missed the point of the Liar Paradox. What's worse, while one can just about sustain the position that the statement "All Cretans always lie" is false when uttered by a Cretan, he agreed with it. Cretan to Cretin.

Originally posted by DeepThought
He's missed the point of the Liar Paradox. What's worse, while one can just about sustain the position that the statement "All Cretans always lie" is false when uttered by a Cretan, he agreed with it. Cretan to Cretin.

This is your gripe, wow, it appears to be nothing more than a plastic rhetorical argument the kind of which you seem so fond.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
This is your gripe, wow, it appears to be nothing more than a plastic rhetorical argument that you seem so fond of. A kind of extreme nitpicking.

You asked for an example and I gave one. St. Paul failed to understand the Liar Paradox. What is more he would "stop the mouths" of those who discussed it. This point isn't easily dismissed by your usual recourse to argument by insult. I'd like to see you produce a reasoned defence of his position, it's easy for me to call for this because his position is not defendable.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You asked for an example and I gave one. St. Paul failed to understand the Liar Paradox. What is more he would "stop the mouths" of those who discussed it. This point isn't easily dismissed by your usual recourse to argument by insult. I'd like to see you produce a reasoned defence of his position, it's easy for me to call for this because his position is not defendable.

On the contrary its you who have failed to understand why Paul utilised the saying of Epimenides, for clearly Paul understood that there were Cretan Christians who were not liars and lazy gluttons making the assertion that he 'agreed with it' and applied it to all Cretans as demonstrably false. This simple truth makes a mockery of your silly argument that he failed to understand 'the Liar paradox' because Paul never intended it as a blanket statement of ethnic or national denunciation and you have been found once again fabricating values that the author never intended with the sole objective to build ludicrous arguments on the basis of those assumed values. Not defensible? you silly man!

Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues about the magnificent things of God - Acts 2:11

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
On the contrary its you who have failed to understand why Paul utilised the saying of Epimenides, for clearly Paul understood that there were Cretan Christians who were not liars and lazy gluttons making the assertion that he 'agreed with it' and applied it to all Cretans as demonstrably false. This simple truth makes a mockery of your silly argumen ...[text shortened]... d Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues about the magnificent things of God - Acts 2:11

But he mentions it as one of their philosophers. He has clearly missed the point of the liar paradox. What is more in his own words he agreed with it. I'll repeat the verse:

12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway [sic] liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 This witness is true.

Titus 1:12-13 AKJV

You didn't even read the verse I quoted carefully.

What is more you have not dealt with the St. Paul's words: "stop their mouths". He would silence all those who spoke things he disagreed with. If you base your faith on the sayings of Jesus from the Gospels I have no particular quarrel, but if you put weight on the sayings of Saul of Tarsus then I think you should reconsider.

I draw attention to your repeated use of argument by insult for the benefit of those others who read these threads without commenting.

Originally posted by DeepThought
But he mentions it as one of their philosophers. He has clearly missed the point of the liar paradox. What is more in his own words he agreed with it. I'll repeat the verse:[quote]12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway [sic] liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. 13 [b]This witness is true.

[i]Titus 1:12-13[/ ...[text shortened]... of argument by insult for the benefit of those others who read these threads without commenting.[/b]

I have just explained to you why your position is erroneous and demonstrably false. I have no necessity to do so again.

Actually your argument regarding the term, 'this witness is true' is dependent for its efficacy on correlating it with what immediately preceded it when it could easily have been used to start an entirely new paragraph, for example, The New Berkeley Version as well as the translations by R. F. Weymouth, F. A. Spencer, K. S. Wuest, and Abner Kneeland begin an entirely new paragraph with verse 13, 'this witness is true' making it distinct from that which preceded it.

Either way its clear that Paul did not regard all Cretans as being gluttonous liars and had no intent to apply the text to all Cretans.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have just explained to you why your position is erroneous and demonstrably false. I have no necessity to do so again.

Actually your argument regarding the term, 'this witness is true' is dependent for its efficacy on correlating it with what immediately preceded it when it could easily have been used to start an entirely new paragraph, for ex ...[text shortened]... regard all Cretans as being gluttonous liars and had no intent to apply the text to all Cretans.

You've missed the point too. The text refers to the liar paradox and St. Paul failed to understand it. That you fail to as well isn't so much of a surprise given your lack of understanding of logic.

Originally posted by DeepThought
You've missed the point too. The text refers to the liar paradox and St. Paul failed to understand it. That you fail to as well isn't so much of a surprise given your lack of understanding of logic.

What is it about the idea that the saying itself is simply a proverbial utterance and was never intended to encompass all and every Cretan that you are having difficulty with? This being the case its absurd to attempt to build an argument on the basis that there is a paradox because no paradox infact exists if it was never intended to be anything other than a proverbial utterance. Furthermore it is entirely clear that Paul did not consider all Cretans to be subject to the saying. I suspect its simply an inability or more likely an unwillingness to understand why Paul utilised the saying that has led you to your absurd and petty gripe and attempts to fabricate a thoroughly plastic argument.

Logic? I am a logic machine! and remain fully capable of rational thought.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What is it about the idea that the saying itself is simply a proverbial utterance and was never intended to encompass all and every Cretan that you are having difficulty with? This being the case its absurd to attempt to build an argument on the basis that there is a paradox because no paradox infact exists if it was never intended to be anything ot ...[text shortened]... lastic argument.

Logic? I am a logic machine! and remain fully capable of rational thought.

How is it rational to worship a god you know full well from your own bible that it kills infants?

Originally posted by sonhouse
How is it rational to worship a god you know full well from your own bible that it kills infants?

because as the originator of life, life belongs to him.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
because as the originator of life, life belongs to him.

You won't catch me EVER worshiping a god like that, and if I could I would slap it in the face.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
What is it about the idea that the saying itself is simply a proverbial utterance and was never intended to encompass all and every Cretan that you are having difficulty with? This being the case its absurd to attempt to build an argument on the basis that there is a paradox because no paradox infact exists if it was never intended to be anything ot ...[text shortened]... lastic argument.

Logic? I am a logic machine! and remain fully capable of rational thought.

Do you know what the liar paradox is?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Do you know what the liar paradox is?

Yes I understand your petty gripe concerning the rather silly argument that a paradox exists when the saying of Epimenides is uttered by a Cretan but as I've pointed out, its nonsense, why?

1. because its a proverbial utterance and not intended to be literal and logically, ( I use the word with some trepidation knowing your failure to grasp most things logically) the only way a paradox exists is if its taken literally and ALL Cretans really are gluttonous liars.

2. Clearly Paul never intended it to be used as a literal statement for there were many Cretans he considered as not being gluttonous liars making a mockery of your assertion that he endorsed it as literally true.

3. The use of the term, 'this witness is true', lies for its efficacy in juxtaposing it immediately after the passage in question, whereas some translations recognise it as separate.

This is quite possibly the third time I have had to reiterate these things, I will not do so again, please find the tone control and turn it all the way up, as far as you can go, there's a good fellow.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You won't catch me EVER worshiping a god like that, and if I could I would slap it in the face.

and yet you have no qualms about 150,000 abortions mostly for social convenience. I don't think God will be taking lesson on morality for the likes of you.