Christian God theme debunked.

Can anyone Picture spirits lined up in heaven, watching us wank?

 

Ukr-Cdn,

Who said that what I've brought up are "new" debunkings? They're just old ones that are never answered. It sounds to me like you're one of the "washed in the blood" proponents. If that is true, perhaps you could explain how you have come to attribute such voodoo-style machinations to your God. Or should I just consider the opinion of St Thomas Aquinas as your own?

 

Well, you do bring to the table some intriguing points to be sure, but whatever. Going to other sources is ok, but I did repeatedly point out that "ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS COMMONLY AVAILABLE", it would also seem that you have been forced to make a considerable amount of assumptions in your assessment, you do realize that I'm sure.
But as I said, I have no desire to get dragged into another endless debate concerning this shit.
You keep saying "your diety, your religion", I'm curious, could you tell me what that is, because I don't know what you would call my "belief system", while encompassing Christianity, it is much broader and not constrained by it.

I guess you missed that part the three or four times I stated it.

Now Indy you have stated that you have a scholarly background in these matters, probably more so than I, and you have evidenced that with your contributions.
But may I point out that from the beginning I said I wasn't out to prove or disprove anything, merely pointed out that Storch has no idea what he is talking about ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS COMMONLY AVAILABLE.
I feel I have done that more than adequately.

As I have previously stated, I have no desire to "convert" anyone or "demand" that they believe as I do, that is all crap YOU folks have projected into the situation.

Nor do I have any desire to get dragged into an endless debate that will ultimately end with either the thedope and some other member, usually dejavu, posting back and forth, dissecting every word in a never ending linguistic duel, or people will start getting nasty again and Meagain will close the thread.

Sorry, I prefer physical masturbation to mental masturbation, so I won't be engaging you in some endless "debate" over points of contention that really are non-issues for me.
Not because I'm "blindly accepting" but rather because I explored/exhausted these various avenues decades ago and I am confidant in my current paradigm.
If someone can not accept that, that is not my problem.


But I do thank you for the well constructed and scholarly post, Indy.:2thumbsup:

 

Tastes Great :2thumbsup:

 

LOL, please respond to this. Never-ever-ever. OOpse, I just did.

 

Your issue is that storch has it wrong because he hasn't done enough book reports. Your issue is you don't think the study of meaning is as fun as jerking off. Your issue is that you don't want to accept responsibility for the effects of your own thinking.

this statement;

Is full of self contradiction. You don't want to prove anything or convert anyone to perceive it as you do butwant to make the point that storch has no idea what he is talking about based on an arbitrary metric, i.e. your standard of commonly available. You have satisfied certainly that storch does not meet your standards but you have in no wise established that storch doesn't know what he is talking about and that is even by virtue of your standard as you do not know what materials or records he commonly avails himself of. You say are satisfied with your conclusions or the paradigms you've come to but I would question that on the basis of your complaints.

 

or maybe it's less filling

 

Something you will learn about me Noxious if you havn't already is that I seek discussion not debate. Sometimes my words may come across as confrontational or even unintelligible but I never intend to begin a debate with anyone. Frankly I have no idea what deity you claim. You constantly refer to Jesus and the bible so I naturally make the connection with Christianity. I also understand that one can acknowledge Jesus without being his avid disciple. I am evidence of this. I never accused you of trying to convert anyone. I merely suggested that you seem to be a biblical man. On the whole commonly available theme I would say that the traditional Tanakh and Torah are in that category. You don't even have to be able to read Hebrew to check them out

 

You have my respect i don't care about the fluff. I agree with you about the presence of cognitive dissonance in general. What is not true however cannot hurt us but it can appear so to the extent we believe what is not so is so. What is not so does not exist.

True things give the experience of essential fulfillment. Questionable things appear to offer substantial reward, at times, at other times not.
In a popular vernacular we know them by their fruit. Reality supports it's constituents. There was a time when I struggled against because I was right.
Now is a time when I am consistently relieved to discover I had been mistaken.

 

Something people miss about me. I try to synthesize various viewpoints on the basis of our common experience. I am not a scholar of anything but am studious of nature.

 

Thereby that you two have done all your Christmas shopping, is that hades (haydnen) as hell as the dead: meaning the descending of Jesus into hell followed by on the third ascending from the dead?

 

you have an aesthetic . it's mean and lean like jesus in rags with
dirty feet . you needn't say it is only an opinion . is the sparkl-ee
feeling of the Christmas Eve children's program by candlelight ok ?
the children are making a gift , and it is received with appropriate
understanding .

 

How about you, what is the heart of the earth?

 

I'm the the worst of the best and the best of the worst.
No Program Eve candlelight children are cursed.
But you . . . Oh you! Yes you, tikoo!

 

life vibration One .

 

Well, if it was such a good debunking, we'd have a world of atheists right now.

St Thomas Aquinas gives a very detailed response with one aspect of the crucifixion, but surely not the only orthodox one. Christ's Sacrifice is not to placate God, but to restore us in relationship. The Sacrifice restores us ad the consequences due to us because of sin.

Also, without conquering death through the Resurrection, the Sacrifice means nothing. The Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection must be take as a whole. Christ coming into this world changed all of Creation, just as humans sins affect all of Creation.

I am curious what you mean by "voodoo-style machinations".

 

Since we are in post-Kierkegardian times (Hegel we can skip for his heart was what the religion offered to the nation anyway) it should be "what is the earth of the heart?".

 

Ukr-Cdn,

I never claimed it was a "good" debunking. It's just a debunking. Actually, if your belief that the sacrifice of one man changed the world had any merit, we'd have a world full of christians now, wouldn't we. That's right, it works both ways.

I'm glad you don't think that a god required any kind of suffering or blood be paid as a ransom in order to forgive anyone. However, you're still left with this: Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. Sounds to me like God was requiring something there.

Explain how the crucifixion "restored us in relationship" with God.

Concerning voodoo-style machinations, this again: Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. Not to placate God? Explain.

 

I suppose the crucifixion makes it onto the out and out judgment being there of people accusing and devoting themselves to one another. Cain also made it available to Abel that he live unto his own death. All of us dying eventually may have it's solution to the knowledge by some other outliving each of us.

"Last man lives longest." I think that's a lot of bunk.

 

Where is the heart at home then?
The earth of the heart is iron in the blood.