[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
God’s message to man should speak for itself. [/quote]
Who says? [/quote]
I’ll play along.
The almighty wants to deliver his message to his children who are in need of his law. Although there is scriptural evidence for such clarity, such as the ten commandments - thou shalt not kill - can it be any clearer than that - but when it comes time for the message of the divine Jesus, God is suddenly confusing, contradictory and needs man (the Church) to later clarify the confusing, contradictory messages, in order to make a coherent consistent message.
In one place, the doctrine is very clear, and unambiguous. In another, it is not and requires alleged “inspiration” upon the Church to create doctrine.
Do you not find that the least bit curious?
Will the standard response be something along the lines of “God is mysterious, it is not for us to know his ways, only to obey” or some permutation thereof?
God: Thou shalt not kill!
Is it unreasonable to expect that the scriptures concerning the life and times of Jesus be similarly clear?[/quote]
They are abundantly clear. Clear enough that a billion people living today and countless others before them have had no problem accepting the unequivocal message of the Gospels, that Jesus Christ is at once the flesh and blood Son of God and the eternal Father. The fallacy of widespread acceptance? Give me a break. We’re talking about the interpretation of a faith-based doctrine that has remained consistent for 2000 years. It’s not a scientific object. You can’t search abstracts on Pub-God. This isn’t testable. You can’t put God in a petri dish. You can’t peer-review him with Muslim scholars.
Is it paradoxical? Of course it is. The role of the Holy Spirit makes it even harder to wrap one’s brain around. Confusing, even? Sure. But to insinuate that the Gospels provide us with any other message than that of the divinity of Christ the man is either willful ignorance or outright disingenuousness. There are no edges to nibble at here. The doctrine speaks quite unambiguously.
As has already been stated, almost every example cited in your link is open for (mis-)interpretation. Your call for “references” or examples from scripture doesn’t really make sense to me. What are you going to be satisfied with? You’ve already asserted that the Church that gave us the Bible in the first place is not fit to interpret it. The passages pretty clearly demonstrating the divinity of Christ have been posted, but unsurprisingly, nothing is ever quite able to meet your standards of scrutiny. You always have one more angle that negates the defense, one more shift of the goalposts that always assures that the debate is set up in your favor. Hence your hauty demands for “references,” as if we were discussing the role of exogenous hormones in nutrient partitioning.
The link is dumb. Why don’t YOU come up with something original, instead of pompously demanding that others follow your rules? Where are YOUR references to your outlandish assertions? Those links? Is that it? What is YOUR argument?
[/quote]
Is this yet another one of your “valuable contributions” to threads in PWI.
The above is not argument. It’s fallacious argument. Either you and ZEB are on in the same, or you subscribe to the same theory of meaningless arguments. Your entire first paragraph is an appeal to widespread belief, and on that basis alone, the Jews and Islam have as much claim to the “truth” as Christians. You’re saying because x number of people believe, that that is evidence of “truth”. Well sir, Islam and the Jews can make the exact same claim. See the problem there?
Your third paragraph is a lie. I have not “moved the goalpost” as you allude to and I’m surprised you raised this because it’s a fallacious argument type and not something I’m engaging in. I provided a reference that interested me. It contained discrete scripture. If it’s out of context, incorrect, etc., the rebuttal should be based on that - rebut the scripture. Tell us why when Jesus continually draws a distinction between himself and the Father that he is not in fact claiming a distinction. If you’re not up to the task, and it appears you are not, why then the need for attacks? Is this some weird stalking thing?
The “link is dumb”. Well that was an intelligent and “valuable” reply! It is estimated that 23% of the world’s population is Muslim. So, by association, they, and their beliefs are “dumb” because they do not comport with your own. Brilliant! There are about 13 million Jews in the world (excluding those that believe in and practice the faith). They also do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. By your logic, they are similarly stupid. Brilliant!
Pompously demanding others follow my rules? It was my post, and it was made in earnest. I reviewed the argument, found it to be logical and the quoted scripture to be compelling. I think the quoted scripture should be accepted or debunked. I don’t think a good debate follows “because we think so” or, “because we believe”. Believe it or not Cortes, there are learned men that do nothing but study and interpret scripture and they do not necessarily reside within your Church. They reside in Universities and such. There is plenty of authority to appeal to that would not result in a circular argument back to the authority of the Church that invented the doctrine in the first place!
As for references, I provided the reference. A plain reading of the scripture appears to illustrate Jesus CONTINUALLY distinguishing between him and the Father. Res Ipsa Loquitur. Why would I need a reference when the basis for the argument has not yet been addressed. There is not yet any counter-point to the thesis.
What is my argument? I’m not sure I’m making an “argument”. Arguing and bickering is what you guys do on PWI. I argue and bicker on GAL and SAMA. I thought this was a serious forum. If you wish to call it “argument” fine. I read the referenced link and found it compelling based upon a plain reading of the cited scripture. I was interested in hearing rebuttals to the plain reading of the cited scripture. It’s really not that complicated is it? But you can continue to attempt to “complicate”, more like obfuscate, the topic with your fallacious arguments and personal attacks…and “valuable contributions”.
I await your next attack. If anything, you’re predictable. Will ZEB be along shortly?[/quote]
TLDR
I didn’t say the widespread belief of people indicated any “truth.” Your whole premise is a fallacy. Whatever follows, in defense or support, is going to be bullshit.
Boo hoo hoo, I “attacked” you again. For somebody who so desperately wants to be the Alpha Male, you certainly do whine and complain a lot.
[/quote]
LOL you’re a curious man. So Alpha Male status is determined on the internet? You got it my man. You’re the boar hog here. More like boring pig.
Your entire first paragraphs was an appeal to widespread belief. Do you need it quoted back to you or would you like to retract it? “Clear enough that a billion people living today and countless others before them have had no problem accepting the unequivocal message of the Gospels”. That sir, is an appeal to widespread belief. It’s a fallacious argument type and I’ll repeat again, based on that argument, Muslims and Jews can make the same claim for truth. See how that works?
My “whole premise is a fallacy”? Well, since you could not manage a coherent, cogent thought there, we can only guess at what you’re saying. Since my “premise” was the referenced link, are you again arguing the “widespread belief” fallacy to support your position. If it’s a fallacy, what is your rebuttal? By now it’s clear you do not have a rebuttal. So, why are you here, if not to “stalk” me? Is that what “alpha males” do? Perhaps I am not alpha. [/quote]
You’re not. You whine and complain too much for that.
Now, to the issue of fallacy, let me try and understand: Do you require a direct quote from Scripture? Or do you want a reference from a scholar of some sort interpreting a scriptural passage? Or will you only accept quotes and references from other Muslim writers? Are references from Christians okay? Not okay? What if one of the references was from someone who was a Christian, but no longer is? How about the other way around? Do you consider Christians “man,” but not Muslims?
