Originally posted by FreakyKBHLOL!
[b]You resort to mere insults and discrediting the writer rather than tackling the argument (which you fail to acknowledge exists!).
More contrarian-speak from the contrarian himself, it appears. The original poster (nameless to date) did not present a single new idea and/or charge. In light of his lack of originality, I labeled the work as -surpris ...[text shortened]... ful proposition in letting go.
You should be ashamed.
Not so much. You?[/b]
Whatever Freaky! I'm not going to let you drag me into the insult cesspool which I'm sure
would be the one place where your skills would outshine mine.
When you want to put forth reasonable thoughts rather than clever insults, I'll jump in.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioMakes me think of the scene in Ed Wood where Bela Lugosi has to jump into a swimming pool and pretend he's being attacked by a broken-down mechanical octopus.
I'm not going to let you drag me into the insult cesspool which I'm sure
would be the one place where your skills would outshine mine.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioLet me just point out that God is God and therefore he is free to do as he wills. Assuming he exists I see no one who can dispute this fact. To gain a better insight into his methods, however, it would behoove one to better understand what makes him tick or in other words better understand his nature. According to the Bible he is a God of love. Love is the first and greatest commandment. It is the fulfillment of the law. In regards to changing the rules of animal sacrifice, I would say that the law of love in no way has been violated. In fact, the change shows us God's greater love. As the Bible states about Christs UTTIMATE sacrifice, "No man has greater love for his friends than to lay down his life for them." It is not so much of a retraction as it is an improvement of the law. God still requires blood sacrifice to remove sin from humanity. Instead of the blood of animals it has become the blood of Christ.
I wish to comment on two points you've raised.
Originally posted by whodey
[b]As far as your insistance that Christian people sacrifice animals for their sins, I would point out that Christ has replaced the need for animal sacrifice. Christ is referred to as the lamb of God and has become the perfect sacrifice for the sins of humanity.
So ...[text shortened]... andments from His law. So,
theoretically, God could say: Murder is no longer a sin. Go have fun.
Originally posted by NemesioApparently, you're already in the insult cesspool.
LOL!
Whatever Freaky! I'm not going to let you drag me into the insult cesspool which I'm sure
would be the one place where your skills would outshine mine.
When you want to put forth reasonable thoughts rather than clever insults, I'll jump in.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioIt would have been interesting to hear what Jesus would have said to them had anyone stuck around after he told them, "He that is without sin, cast the first stone." Unfortunatly, we will never know and therefore it is pure speculation. After uttering those words they all crawled back under their respective rocks having been convicted by their own consceince. What I do know is that Christ ushered in the era of grace. Grace was the oppurtunity for us to deal with our sin as death looks us square in the eye and demands justice for our sin. Our situation is no different than the woman caught in the act of adultery. If we go it alone, we will die for our sins. If we invite Christ onto the scene, however, we can and will give us grace and pardon us of our sins as we lay those sins at the cross. It is by no means deserved, rather, it is a gift. By law we are sinners and sin brings death. This has and always will be the case.
I wish to comment on two points you've raised.
While I agree that it is no longer necessary given what I think is an accurate reading of
this 'Johannine' passage (I bet you didn't know that it was a later editorial insert probably of
Lucan origin), nothing that Jesus did excludes the possibility that people might still be
permitted to d ...[text shortened]...
Certainly you don't think that God's Law would encourage you to sin, do you?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI don't know what is funnier: the idea that a man could put forth such contradictory messages under the guise of objectivity, or the idea that the man actually believes he is being objective and consistent.
LOL!
Whatever Freaky! I'm not going to let you drag me into the insult cesspool which I'm sure
would be the one place where your skills would outshine mine.
Nemesio
'Could be that you're unclear as to what constitutes an insult (doubtful).
Or, maybe you're hoping your ability to put smart-sounding sentences together will mesmerize the crowd, thus obscuring the obvious skeleton of your posts (probable).
Or, perhaps you are oblivious to all of it and have been truly blinded by your own intelligence, now stabbing away at all real and perceived threats to your (self-described) position of 'deep, thoughtful thinker.'
Whatever the cause, allow me to point out to you a slight correction. You refuse "to let (me) drag (you) into the insult cesspool," and then finish the sentence with -gasp!- an insult! And just in case one might consider this a new development, here's one just a few posts back, with love and kisses, from you to me:
Originally posted by Nemesio
And, pretending you did present an argument, if someone with some theological wherewithal
were to respond, you'd toss out some smoke bombs, try to distract and, when the person
presenting actual information were to press, you'd cry foul and give up.
Now, I don't know where you went to school or the part of the country in which you were raised, but my people would call that an insult. Maybe I'm wrong.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Whatever the cause, allow me to point out to you a slight correction. You refuse "to let (me) drag (you) into the insult cesspool," and then finish the sentence with -gasp!- an insult!
Actually, it was a statement of belief. I suspect you are better at insulting than I am. You
certainly exercise the skill more often. You have a better flair for the dramatic in language; I'm
sure it's one of the devices you use as a so-called Christian (though I have come to doubt this)
to compel people to belief, given that rationale is not your strong point.
Now, I don't know where you went to school or the part of the country in which you were raised, but my people would call that an insult. Maybe I'm wrong.
I don't deny it. I cannot force you to observe and reflect upon your own behavior. However, I
am certain that anyone reading this thread will rightly recognize the absence of opened mindedness
on your part and the compromise of logic and reason which your closed mindedness requires you to
maintain in order to continue to believe the things you do.
That having been said, I've exposed as clearly as the daylight will allow the absurdity of your
belief about the first two chapters of Genesis -- specifically, the contortions you are forced to make
the text endure in order to assert that the two stories compliment each other. That scholars and
Rabbis agree with me would, naturally, hold no currency with you given that you genuinely believe
that you are in possession of the 'right' way to read the Hebrew Scriptures. All my citations of
these esteemed individuals do is provide further demonstration of the perversity of your position.
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioActually, it was a statement of belief. I suspect you are better at insulting than I am.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Whatever the cause, allow me to point out to you a slight correction. You refuse "to let (me) drag (you) into the insult cesspool," and then finish the sentence with -gasp!- an insult!
Actually, it was a statement of belief. I suspect you are better at insulting than I am. You
certainly exercise the skill mor ls do is provide further demonstration of the perversity of your position.
Nemesio[/b]
I see. So, in your 'objective' world, a statement of belief turns insults into... compliments? That's a hell of a perspective you got going there. I will definitely have to try my hand at this.
"Ma'am, you have achieved a level of fatness of which I can only dream."
Say! That is novel and fun!
You certainly exercise the skill more often.
More often than, say, you? But, Nemmy! I'm just now realizing that I've been couching the words the wrong way. Had I been using your ingenious techniqe, I would be the most complimentary poster.
I'm sure it's one of the devices you use as a so-called Christian (though I have come to doubt this) to compel people to belief, given that rationale is not your strong point.
Oh, Master: using 34 simple words, you have shown me how far I have to grow just to reach the front porch of your insults-are-compliments house.
And the range! Not only do you cast doubt on my conversion to Christ, but you also throw in a bullying nature and assert how I wouldn't recognize logic if it hit me in the face. Brilliance. Sheer and unadulterated brilliance. I'm surprised you couldn't work in something about pedophilia and/or tax evasion. But I defer to your better judgment. No sense looking heavy-handed, right?
However, I am certain that anyone reading this thread will rightly recognize the absence of opened mindedness on your part and the compromise of logic and reason which your closed mindedness requires you to maintain in order to continue to believe the things you do.
Of that, I have do doubt. Given that the overwhelming majority of people who frequent this forum are antagonistic to the Bible in the first place, I believe a majority of those people would likely side with your assessment of my position.
But my position is really not relevant in the scheme of things, now is it? Whether I choose to believe the Bible for the reasons I numerate or not should have no bearing on your walk with Christ (oops! sorry: supposed walk with Christ. It's going to take me awhile to get the hang of this thing, so bear with me, please) I take my positions in light of two things: the facts and my ability to reason. While strength in numbers can sometimes indicate correctness, usually the crowd--- even when it is right--- is right for the wrong reasons, or is wrong altogether.
That being said, I can find just as many 'authorities' (Jewish and otherwise) who do not see the two accounts of Genesis as originating from separate authors, or as contradictory... given careful study and respect for the textual indications. Much of what these experts have concluded has been spelled out here, but, according to you, my thinking is lacking in rationale. I don't believe I did a poor job in communicating that information in a concise manner.
Then again, I also didn't believe that anyone could call an insult a compliment, either.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat?
Nope nothing wrong with that, but its perfered, but one of the more
difficult things to be as a male, since our sex drives are quite powerful.
It is better to marry than sin, that was it?
Kelly
The single point I suggested you could tackle was that Jesus was not only unmarried, but celibate. According to the information outlined in the OP, the issue is that Jews of that era would not have permitted an unmarried Jewish preacher to preach. I'm not familiar enough with Jewish Rabbinical requirements or custom of the era. Care to try again?
Originally posted by David CPost where it says the unmarried were not allowed to preach.
What?
The single point I suggested you could tackle was that Jesus was not only unmarried, but celibate. According to the information outlined in the OP, the issue is that Jews of that era would not have permitted an unmarried Jewish preacher to preach. I'm not familiar enough with Jewish Rabbinical requirements or custom of the era. Care to try again?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by David CI skimmed through it, it only seemed to say that the culture typically
I'm quoting the Opening Post, Kelly. If it's a falsehood, then it should be an easy task to disprove.
didn't do it, not that it was a hard fast rule. I'd also point out that
because Jesus was called teacher had more to do by his followers at
first than it did with the schooled of his time, until later when his fame
was so great it just seemed like the right things to say even by those
that did go to school. There were more than a few people looking down
on Jesus who were educated than not, it seems like it fits rather nicely
looking at it as written.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by David CActually, the burden of proof is on the person asserting the fact; in this case, it is the person you are citing.
I'm quoting the Opening Post, Kelly. If it's a falsehood, then it should be an easy task to disprove.
EDIT: I also notice how he brings up various Gnostic Gospels as "evidence".
Rather rich, considering the dating.
Originally posted by KellyJayAdd to that, Jesus was from Galilee, the hillbillies of Israel. The Judeans were the lettered, educated ones. They even had a saying at the time,"Can anything good come out of Galilee?"
I skimmed through it, it only seemed to say that the culture typically
didn't do it, not that it was a hard fast rule. I'd also point out that
because Jesus was called teacher had more to do by his followers at
first than it did with the schooled of his time, until later when his fame
was so great it just seemed like the right things to say even by thos ...[text shortened]... were educated than not, it seems like it fits rather nicely
looking at it as written.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by YozzerYou really should read the Pope's Regensburger speech. It'll teach you a few things about interpreting the developments and their consequenses in the history of God's Revelation. In particular it'll teach you about the synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit, the inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry, between Faith and Reason.
In its two-thousand year history, the Christian faith has endured persecution. It has survived heresy, and dissention in the ranks. It has persevered in the face of war, famine, and disease. The Church has been proof against all these things. What it has not been proof against, however, is scrutiny. Close scrutiny by educated scholars, be they archaeologists, edic knowledge of the scriptures is well documented.
Read all about it at:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html