Hi LittleToe,
: It seems I've got your buttons good and pushed...
I'm glad to give that impression during a boring workday.
It's also fun to watch a couple of old guys shaking their dicks at each other.
: So now I'm "thick" and "mentally challenged", huh?
I didn't realize the condition was recent.
: Feel free to liberally sprinkle the ad-hominems.
Done.
: They usually come at the end of an argument someone's lost...
But I like to use them in the middle, too, when appropriate.
Of course, ad hominems alone are not particularly productive, but when used in conjunction with solid argumentation can be most entertaining.
: I'll wait for the "punches" next....
: ~shakes head~
You just make it too easy.
Come on man, put up yer dukes!
: Frankly I find argumentation, for the sake of it, boring.
As with scotch, it's an acquired taste.
: Hence I chose which parts of your reply (e.g. the "challenge") to respond to.
Oh, dear me. I thought it was because you couldn't.
: I apologise for not taking the time to explain that.
Apology accepted.
: I wonder which part of my comment "Above and beyond that you are generally dismissive in tone, which doesn't really make for enjoyable conversation." you also didn't understand.
Not a bit.
: I gave up doing thing in my spare time, that I don't enjoy, when I left the borg.
Well I'm glad you enjoy shaking your dick at me.
Now for a bit of seriosity.
: Regarding the scripture about the "mind of Christ", which I also refered Six to (1Cor.2:16, and there are others), you might want to re-read it, and maybe the context, to see what Paul is actually declaring. Your argument is erroneous.
I re-read it, and I still find that my argument is correct. Perhaps you missed my comment that I stated my argument in a trinitarian context since it was for Deputy Dog's benefit. But as usual, you fail to actually argue anything specific, and resort to a meaningless generality, "your argument is erroneous". That my argument is correct is strengthened by another scripture, John 17:3: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ." (NIV) How can a Christian know God unless they know something of God's mind? They can't. And since Deputy Dog said he doesn't know God's mind (obviously not fully, since no man could know fully such a stupendous mind), he must not be a very good Christian.
Now if you want to disagree without explanation, you're free to do so. But don't claim that you answered anything.
: But maybe I'll leave DDog to take that up with you.
That might be an interesting exchange.
: The only reason I took it up (not that the reason is anyone's business but my own) is because it's a personal bugbear of mine that folks have extraordinary claims as to what a "Christian" is supposed to be (including omniscient, it would now appear).
Well if it's such a bugbear, then I think it's cowardly of you to leave it to someone else to deal with.
: And so, if you still want to continue:
::: The bible-viewpoint is one of contracts/covenants.
::: Adam was effectively offered a contract whereby if he ate, he died
::: That should be the end of the story, period, from a biblical perspective
:: No major problemo, justice-wise, for Adam, I think. But Eve was extremely naive. I would never subject my daughter to temptation by a being 1000 times more intelligent than she. What kind of father would I be?
: You are assuming two things in your reply. First that God subjected her to temptation,
Well he did -- by allowing it. He knew perfectly well what was going on while the serpent was tempting Eve. He could have stopped it, but didn't. If you don't like my use of the word "subjected", then I'll just change my statement to "I would never allow my daughter to be tempted..."
: and secondly that the serpent/devil was 1000 times more intelligent.
Um, it should be obvious that the phrase "1000 times" simply means "a lot more". I trust that I don't need to quote scriptures at you.
: Where do you get those ideas from?
How is it that you can't understand simple figures of speech?
: Besides, when Paul later argues about this topic, isn't it Adam that he lays the blame with?
So? It's Bible writers such as Paul that wrote the nonsense that I'm taking issue with.
::: Noah is taken into a covenant, whereby he makes a boat and doesn't drown
:: There are insoluble problems with God's justice in this myth.
: I agree,
Whoa! Like what insoluble problems?
: but I'm still arguing this from a perspective of contracts. Something was offered, and someone took God up on His offer (as per the biblical account). Allegedly Noah extended that offer, but only his family took him up on it.
One problem with this myth is that it's kind of like a contract offered by a mafia don: "either your brains or your signature are going to be on this check in ten seconds."
: Lets not forget that at this stage everything is already supposed to be over and done with, anyhow. The only thing injust that has thusfar occurred is that man lived longer than a 24 hour day (if that's what was meant by the contract), and only then if we assume that Adam wanted to die.
I disagree. Once God changed Adam's descendants so that they were incapable of fully obeying him, and began condemning them for their lack of what he took away, injustice was occurring.
::: Abraham, also, whereby he left his land to be blessed
::: Moses and Israel are later taken into a covenant of (IMHO) futility and shadows
:: How nice of their Father to do that!
: Yadayadayada. Do you have a point for me to address, or are you still being derogatory for the sake of it?
I thought you could figure it out on your own. I guess you couldn't, so I'll explain: According to your words, God takes Moses and Israel into a covenant that merely shows what he had already made mankind to be: incapable of fully obeying him. He then kills or otherwise condemns all of those people for being unable to obey a bunch of rules he already knew they couldn't. That's not very nice. My saying "How nice ..." was sarcasm.
::: Jesus' Disciples are taken into a covenant of grace, where he pays the price for their past/present/future failure, becoming the payment and payer.
:: Aye, there's the rub! Who created mankind so as to guarantee failure? Who got the payment?
: Firstly, "guarantee failure"? Elucidate, please. My readings don't uncover this...
I've explained it a couple of times already. I'll try again: God made mankind (i.e., Adam and Eve's offspring) "in such a way that they MUST SIN", to use Undisfellowshipped's words. If "they MUST sin", then sinning -- failing to fully obey God -- is guaranteed.
: Secondly, God, but there's a question as to how this particular contract works, as it's mediatorial, not direct (see below).
But if God got the payment due to making a covenant, he could just as easily have not made a covenant and so not required payment. The point of this is that what God did was arbitrary, capricious, and entirely out of line with most peoples' sense of justice -- as long as they've not been a priori biased by hearing only a one-sided Christian perspective.
Let's put it in human terms. Suppose there's a man who has a car and a son. He tells his son, "don't drive my car or I'll kill you." The son drives the car anyway, so the man says, "ok, boy, you gone die!" But he lets the kid live for some years, the kid gets married and has a passle of kids of his own. The man gets a bright idea: "Let me offer to have one of my grandchildren die in place of my son!" So he calls all of his offspring together and tells them about his bright idea. One of the grandkids decides to take his dad's place, and so one day, grandad pulls out a shotgun and fills him full of lead.
Obviously this is a ridiculous story, but no more ridiculous than the story of Adam and Even and original sin and redemption. We judge that grandad is a nutcase at best; a monster at worst. Same thing with Grandpa God.
::: Would you like me to elaborate further on that latter point,
:: If you like. But I won't hold my breath about hearing specifics, like your dealing with my above comments.
: I like. And I'm glad you're not holding your breath, because it's taking me longer to write this than the current breath-hold record stands at. Either you'll get in the Guinness book of records, else you're wife'll get p*ssed at me.
She got pissed a number of times last month in Minnesota. Ask scootergirl.
: Incidentally, the jibes are unnecessary...
I disagree. They add a bit of spice.
: Jesus states (after the Last Supper) that he makes a [new] covenant with his disciples, just as his Father had made one with him.
Ok. But wasn't this all supposed to be according to God's plan? A plan which, if Jesus didn't follow, would have gotten him in serious trouble with Grandpa God?
: From the disciples perspective they are dealing with him, and the requirements are full of grace (do I need to define that word for you?).
No.
: As for the rest of the mechanics between him and the Father, they are his business to deal with.
Not from what I can see from the Bible. And there's that coercion thing.
: Can you accept that, and let me move onto those mechanics, or would you rather dispute that bit first?
I won't accept what I've taken exception to, without further discussion, but let's move on.
::: seeing as that seems to be the crux of what you find so ludicrous about the Christian belief system?
:: It's a big part of it, but by no means the only problem.
: I can only imagine. But given that you don't like me doing that, maybe I'll desist this time, and let you tell me...
That would complicate things unnecessarily. Let's stick with one topic at a time.
AlanF
