Who Killed Jesus?

Great Debates
642

RE: The Sacrifice of Isaac story (and how it ties forward)

It’s important to remember that Abraham didn’t get up from having a cold beer fresh out of the refrigerator and watching the Dodgers game to take Isaac up to Mount Moriah and sacrifice him. This was his miracle child, the one who came after he and Sarah had given up all hope of children, his only son, the one that God had already prophesied would carry on his line. And ABRAHam was the product of a civilization that considered sacrifice to their gods, including human sacrifice, morally good. So at least two things are going on here:

  1. God is testing Abraham’s commitment to Him, to start with. Whatever God intends, Abraham at least thinks He means that he has to sacrifice his only son (never mind Ishmael, he’s by a concubine and didn’t get the promise) to Him. Abraham may well have been hoping that God intended to pull a rabbit from a hat, but he knew what his role was, and despite his anguish he was going to carry it out.

  2. God is teaching Abraham, “What kind of god do you think I am, anyway?” He brings across the message that He is righteous and loving by putting Abraham to the test and then saying, “Hey, child sacrifice is not My thing. Offer up this lamb here, instead. Write that down: I’m not like those other gods, I don’t demand human sacrifice.”

There’s also, for a Christian, a third, typological element here. What God demands of Abraham is exactly what He Himself will do 1900 years later: offer His only Son up as sacrifice, a substitutionary Lamb to atone for sin. While it’s purely coincidental, I’ve always been touched by the phrasing in the KJV of Abraham’s answer to Isaac: Isaac says, “Well, here we are, and here’s the altar, and here’s the knife, but where’s the lamb to sacrifice?” And Abraham responds, “My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for the sacrifice.” Indirect and direct objects, or direct object and phrase in apposition? You decide.

643

I agree with everything you say about the Abraham story, Polycarp, but I think it’s important to remember that we are most likely dealing not with an actual supernatural being and a real event, but a tale invented by a storyteller and passed down thru word of mouth.

We’re reading the intent more of the storyteller than God.

644

You’re obviously a very, very, very old person who must have been alive and witnessed the passing down of this tale.

I think it’s important to remember that you weren’t there… and this was a very real event… and God did speak to Abraham. I’m sure you assume that when God spoke with Abraham there was a BOOMING voice coming from the clouds… well… that’s not how God speaks to His people…

I Kings 19:11-12–

  1. "The LORD said, “Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.” Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake.

12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper".

Since you obviously were there and know for certain the history of Abraham was just a fairy tale… I’m sure it isn’t at all impossible that Abraham was magically transported to the future at some point in his life and watched Pinocchio and took the advice of Jimminey Cricket and “let his conscience be his guide”.

Quite simply put… When God talks to someone they don’t necessarily hear it with their ears… they hear Him with their heart.

645

Bolding mine -

Were you there? If not, then you have no better evidence than the other poster…

646

Quell, you really do not do sarcasm well, and if not done well, sarcasm should never be attempted. Given that Polycarp has an actual knowledge of Scripture, (a knowledge that you have now demonstrated that you lack on multiple occasions), you would be much better off attempting to learn from him–even if you ultimately disagree–than lecturing to him.

Beyond that, given your demonstrated ignorance of both science and scripture, (Hebrew and Christian), while I am fairly tolerant of witnessing in this forum, I am growing less tolerant of your shots at other posters. If you wish to simply rant on with your beliefs, have at it, but rein in your comments about other posters.

[ /Modding ]

647

No, I wasn’t there… but I know the One who was.

648

Better give it to Frodo before it’s too late !

649

Please don’t tell me I don’t have a knowledge of the Scriptures. I may have made a mistake with the history of Abraham, but you can let that go now. I’ve admitted my mistake… and so far that’s the only thing anyone has picked on me about when it comes to the scripture I’ve quoted (besides the “sons of God” which I used scripture to prove that the “sons of God” were not of the line of Seth)… and when I made the mistake about the history of Abraham I wasn’t even using scripture. I’ve pointed all of this out. Will you let it go now?

I know what the Scriptures say and I know what they mean (provided I read them instead of try to recall what they say off the top of my head, as was the case with the history of Abraham). I also know how to use the scriptures, so please don’t imply or assume I am ignorant when it comes to the scriptures. I have repeatedly used the scriptures in context making cross references to other scriptures which remain in context and support my case.

I guess you missed my post about the “sons of God”. I suppose that I must have really showed a lack of knowledge concerning those scriptures… I mean… no one has busted my balls about that like they did with the history of Abraham (when I wasn’t quoting scripture).

p.s. I wasn’t being sarcastic. I was being logical. I was also replying to Musicat’s post… not Polycarp’s. Polycarp does have a knowledge of the scripture and s/he had an excellent post.

650

So mockery is what people resort to when they are full of ignorance, huh?

651

No, I really can’t.

652

More a matter of being confronted by ignorance and empty claims in this case.

It’s not like your claims and beliefs deserve anything else beside mockery.

653

No, they allege that space aliens cloned a fictional Eve from a non-existent Adam.

Mockery is what people do when faced with someone like you whose arguments are the most blatantly, gleefully, willfully ignorant sillyness. Your argument is impervious to reason because you’ve designed it that way, on purpose. All that’s left is mockery since you’re obviously not here for an intellectual exchange.

654

…what? A guy can’t make a joke? That whole post wasn’t just gibberish…

Why do you try to make it look like I actually believe bears or penguins helped create Eve? Why can’t you mention the fact I believe it was Extraterrestrial Biological Entities that helped create Eve from Adam’s rib with a cloning process that humankind still hasn’t perfected? Sheesh… bears and penguins cloning people is just silly.

I think a lot of humans are scared that there REALLY is life more intelligent than they… that’s why so many are in denial…

655

I’d rather know about my ignorance than to be ignorant of my ignorance.

656

This is getting old.

657

Well I guess it’s a good thing that post wasn’t written to you… or else I might be distraught right about now.

658

Yes, but then one has to learn to act from the new information, dropping the Apologetic Press as a cite would be a good beginning.

There had been times where I was shown to be wrong here and in other threads, but I got better when I acknowledged the mistake and learned from it.

659

A Primer for Erisian Evangelists
**
The Socratic Approach** is most successful when confronting the ignorant. The "Socratic Approach’’ is what you call starting an argument by asking questions. You approach the innocent and simply ask "Did you know that God’s name is ERIS, and that He is a girl?’’ If he should answer "Yes.’’ then he probably is a fellow Erisian and so you can forget it. If he says "No.’’ then quickly proceed to:

The Blind Assertion and say "Well, He is a girl, and His name is ERIS!’’ Shrewdly observe if the subject is convinced. If he is, swear him into the Legion of Dynamic Discord before he changes his mind. If he does not appear convinced, then proceed to:

The Faith Bit: "But you must have Faith! All is lost without Faith! I sure feel sorry for you if you don’t have Faith.’’ And then add:
**
The Argument by Fear** and in an ominous voice ask "Do you know what happens to those who deny Goddess?’’ If he hesitates, don’t tell him that he will surely be reincarnated as a precious Mao Button and distributed to the poor in the Region of Thud (which would be a mean thing to say), just shake your head sadly and, while wiping a tear from your eye, go to:

The First Clause Ploy wherein you point to all of the discord and confusion in the world and exclaim "Well who the hell do you think did all of this, wise guy?’’ If he says, "Nobody, just impersonal forces.’’ then quickly respond with:

The Argument by Semantical Gymnastics and say that he is absolutely right, and that those impersonal forces are female and that Her name is ERIS. If he, wonder of wonders, still remains obstinate, then finally resort to:

The Figurative Symbolism Dodge and confide that sophisticated people like himself recognize that Eris is a Figurative Symbol for an Ineffable Metaphysical Reality and that The Erisian Movement is really more like a poem than like a science and that he is liable to be turned into a Precious Mao Button and Distributed to The Poor in The Region of Thud if he does not get hip. Then put him on your mailing list.

660

Not bad for a first step, but why don’t you go ahead and scroll back up to the top of the page and read what it says under the words THE STRAIGHT DOPE.

661

wtf is a lulzorz, dude?

I’m not trolling. I’m witnessing in the designated “witnessing” area.

Trolling–

Definition:

In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion.

A.) If I recall correctly I started this thread and was immediately attacked with rude comments, offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize me, while simultaneously disrupting the flow of discussion.

On Labeling/Being Labeled a Troll:

The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument ad hominem. When appropriately applied to purposefully disruptive online behavior, the word troll economically converts an abstract code of online manners into a concrete image.

B.) Please note the bold italics. That is describing you, my friend.

Often, calling someone a troll makes assumptions about a writer’s motives that may be incorrect. Regardless of the writer’s motives, controversial posts are likely to attract a corrective or patronizing or outraged response by those who do not distinguish between real physical community (where people are actually exposed to some shared risk of bodily harm by their actions), and epistemic community (based on a mere exchange of words and ideas). Customs of discourse, or etiquette, originating in physical communities are often applied naively to online discourse by newcomers who are not used to the range of views expressed online, often anonymously. Hence, both users and posts are commonly, and sometimes inaccurately, labelled as trolls when their content upsets people — ironically, the accusatory labeling of a troll may be more disruptive than the original alleged offense itself. Also, people may be more inclined to use epithets like troll in online public discussion than they would be in person, because online forums may seem more impersonal.

“Feeding the Troll”:

"…*Experienced participants in online forums know that *the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her[/B[, because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts to that forum — hence the often-seen warning “Please do not feed the troll”, for which PDNFTT is a common initialism. Posting this warning publicly, in reply to a troll’s behavior to discourage further replies, may discourage the troll. However, it can also have the reverse effect, becoming itself food for the troll. Therefore, when a forum participant sees an apparently innocent answer to a troll as potential troll food, it may be more prudent to deliver the “Please do not feed the troll” warning in a private message to the answerer.
C.) If I actually was “trolling”… many of you are guilty of “feeding the troll”. All of you who have posted here have done so willingly. I don’t ask any of you to come back. I answer all the posts I can to the best of my knowledge, and somehow the “lack of knowledge” I display challenges the knowledge of those whom continue to return to this thread.
D.) It takes one to know one.
Z.) There are plenty of “trolls” posting in this thread and I am not one of them. I guess no one has noticed I’m a pacifist, but I will defend myself, and though I try not to resort to the mockery and insults the majority of the people here use, I am a product of my environment, and if you can dish it out I would most certainly expect you to be able to digest the same thing when it’s force fed to you. The truth is it’s not very pleasant… is it?

EFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY.) The golden rule is a bitch, ain’t it?

(trolling)