Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Friday, April 2, 2010

Eloi Eloi Lama Sabachthani?

I brought this up in another forum one time and since it's Good Friday, I thought I would revisit it. As Jesus hung upon the cross, he called out Elio eloi lama sabachthani! (in Aramaic) which translates to "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". This was not a defeatist statement on the part of Jesus Christ, but rather the fulfillment of a Messianic prophecy from Psalms 22:1.

A.G. Fruchtenbaum's, Messianic Christology : A study of Old Testament prophecy concerning the first coming of the Messiah (1998) may be of interest: Messiah’s Cry for Help—22:1–2


These verses find Messiah crying out in deepest anguish. It is no accident that these are the very words that Jesus cried out while hanging on the cross. He quoted these words after a period of three hours of intense darkness. During those three hours the entire wrath of God, due to the sins of Israel and the world, was poured out upon Him. This is the one and only place in the Gospel accounts that Jesus addresses God as “my God.” On every other occasion, and there are over 170 references, Jesus says “Father” or “my Father.” It is made very clear that Jesus enjoyed a very special, unique relationship with God. On the cross, however, Jesus was dying for the sins of the world, and was experiencing a judicial relationship with God, not a paternal one; hence His cry of “my God, my God” instead of “my Father, my Father.”


Fruchtenbaum observes: Psalm 22 teaches that:




  • "In extreme agony, Messiah would cry out for God’s help.
    *Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual.
    *In the agony of death, Messiah would be stared at and mocked.
    *The Messiah’s bones would all be pulled out of joint.
    *The Messiah’s heart would rupture.
    *The Messiah would suffer an extreme degree of thirst.
    *Messiah’s hands and feet would be pierced.
    *Messiah’s clothing would be divided by the casting of lots.
    *At the point of death, Messiah’s trust would be in God the Father.
    *Messiah would be resurrected."



Some Messianic prophecies that were fulfilled.


  • "•Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
    •A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
    •Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
    •Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
    •Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
    •Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
    •Herod´s killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
    •Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
    •Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
    •Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
    •Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
    •Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16) Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
    •Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
    •Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
    •Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
    •Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
    1.rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
    2.betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
    3.sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
    4.silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
    5.being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
    6.beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
    7.spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
    8.piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
    9.being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
    10.praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
    11.piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
    12.given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
    13.no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
    14.buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
    15.casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
    •Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
    •Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
    •Good link http://www.allabouttruth.org/messianic-prophecy.htm

Happy Easter to all! If you do only one thing this weekend, take 2 minutes of your time and check out this two minute video from William Lane Craig that touches upon the Easter theme and the reliability of the gospels in portraying it. You can post your thought on the video in the comments box. Christ Is Risen! Indeed He Is!
















39 comments:

The Catholic Apologist said...

Happy Easter JC

feeno said...

Happy Easter JD and or JC

photogr said...

Have a good Easter JD.

ATVLC said...

...most of those verses aren't prophecies at all.

The Maryland Crustacean said...

Happy Easter to all.
He is risen... He is risen indeed.

Tristan D. Vick said...

Not "He is risen" but "He has risen." I would also point out he is still missing.

I might have to do a future blog on NT prophecy fulfillment since it seems to be a common thing among fundies and evangelicals to bring up as if it bolsters Christ's authority.

The irony may be that the fulfillment of ALL the prophecies may not even matter, except for the last one that is... of actually returning... since this would be the most crucial of all. If not, if Jesus doesn't return upon the appointed time, then perhaps a bit detrimental to Christian faith, I think.

Enjoy your Lent, Maundy Thursdays, Good Fridays, Via Crusis, oh, and Easter too. Have fun with your sacred sacraments and consecrated customs.

He's not yet returned from rising for nothing... better remember his not being here before he comes here so you can better remember why he's not here again next year! Enjoy.

feeno said...

T-Vick

The Easter story doesn't have a Scrooge. Or the grammar police.

First I'd like to ask, does the Bible teach us that Christ is coming back soon, or to live a life like he is coming back soon? Secondly, I'm sure you've heard me use this verse before, but we Christians trust God's word, and it tells us "....But do not forget this one thing , dear friends: with the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some understyand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance".

And finally I do hope you and your lovely family have a great Easter Holiday. Do the Japanese celebrate anything around this time of year?

Peace in Mississippi, feeno

The Catholic Apologist said...

Hi Real JC,

I did reply to your question. You can read it on my site.

Let me reply to something I had forgotten to comment on, namely the idea that Jesus switches from "My Father" to "My God."

Frutchenbaum links the lanquage switch to the fact that the relationship is going from Filial to Juridical. Jesus goes from being "Son" to being "Sinner" and thus experiences God as judge rather then "Father."

First, "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me" is a reference to Psalm 22. If we can agree that Jesus is quoting from the Psalm, that explains the shift in lanquage. However Jesus in his being never ceases to be "Son" and he never ceases to relate to his Father as that of "Son." As I explained on my blog, the cross is the fullest expression of what it means to be "Son" of the Father. The Son loves the Father so much that he gives everything he has in service of the Father, even at the cost of his very life.

The Cross shows us how to live our lives. We also are called to live this way as "Son's in the Son" for that is what it means to be "Son's in the Son." We are called to give our very being in service of the Father. We are called to love till the end, for in doing do we find our lives. God created us to share the life of the Son, consequently we must LIVE as the Son in order to recieve His life. When we die to self and recieve the life of the Son, the power of Salvation is within us, the merits of the Son are within us, hence, our lives become redemptive. (In other words our human works possess saving value before God.)

I can certainly agree that Jesus is feeling the abandonment of the Father due to Sin, which causes him to quote from Psalm 22. As a Catholic, I just don't feel comfortable with this "Cross as God's Wrath redirected away from us and placed on the Son" kind of model. God is Love, God can do nothing but love. The Cross, far from being God's wrath, is an expression of God's love. The Cross reveals to us WHAT the nature of love is, and HOW we should love.

JD Curtis said...

most of those verses aren't prophecies at all.

better remember his not being here before he comes here so you can better remember why he's not here again next year! Enjoy.

Isnt it pleasant to know that, with the reliablity of Big Ben's chimes or the rising sun in the east that social autism on the behalf of the atheist, rarely, if ever takes a holiday?

Holy Week is still my favorite time of the year. More so than Christmas. Happy Easter to all. To all of the atheists especially. There has to be something better than nihilism folks.

"if Christianity is not true then it is a massive fraud and hoax perpetrated by evil men bent on making the world a place where Christ's commandment to 'Love thy neighbor' reigns supreme, which is the antithesis of the criminal
mind, and hence the theory that Christianity is a fraud is entirely incompatible with logic and human nature." D. James Kennedy




"

JD Curtis said...

No, actually it is "He is Risen!". apparently you are unfamiliar with one of the basic greetings around the world in the Christian community, at this time of year. In fact this link teaches how to say this expression in 250 languages.

Froggie said...

Us usual, the gospels contradict each other in quoting the last words of Jesus.

Mark and Mat quote:
"Eli Eli lama sabachthani."

Luke quotes:
"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

And John quotes:
"It is finished."

Thus no one actually nows what his last words were. It is impossible to determine.

Froggie said...

"Isnt it pleasant to know that, with the reliablity of Big Ben's chimes or the rising sun in the east that social autism on the behalf of the atheist, rarely, if ever takes a holiday?"

"Isnt it pleasant to know that, with the reliablity of Big Ben's chimes or the rising sun in the east that logic and reason on the behalf of the atheist, rarely, if ever takes a holiday?"

Fixed that for ya.

feeno said...

Hello Froggie

Because of the harmony of the Gospels and because of all the accurately fulfilled prophecies in the Bible and underlying theme of the Gospel message that Christ came, died and rose again many skeptics say that all the writers of the Bible just copied off of each other. Then we have other skeptics that claim "as usual, the gospels contradict each other..." My point is these are not contradictions, but different accounts, by different writers for a different audience. I believe we can use the bible and come up with the 7 last "phrases" Christ uttered upon the cross. (but, you may be right about the order(?)) Otherwise, they could have just copied everything word for word and only needed one Gospel?

Dueces frog man, feeno

The Catholic Apologist said...

Hey JC,

Upon further reflection, while I still hesitate to speak of God the Son relating to God the Father juridically, and the cross as God's wrath, I think there is some merit to what Fruchenbaum observed.

If we are more specific we might speak this way: The Divine Person of Christ by operation of his humanity took sin upon himself and experienced the curse of Sin. Through his humanity, the Divine Person of Christ was able to experience the loss of God's friendship becasue of Sin. Consequently he could say "My God My God..." and perhaps relate to the Father juridically. That is to say experience the condemnation due to Sin. However, The Divine Person in virtue of his Divinity was never for a moment not in relation to the Father as Son, and it was in virtue of his Divinity that Christ was able to turn Sin in on itself.

The Biblical citation "My God.... your God, My Father... Your Father" is precisely becasue now that Jesus has the victory, now that Sin is broken and conquered, we no longer relate to God in the juridic sense- as slaves, but as Father to a Son. This is why Jesus shifts the lanquage "My God... Your God.... My Father, your Father...." He is revealing that the Sonship He has by Nature is now ours through Grace becasue of the Paschal Mystery.

JD Curtis said...

"Matthew and Mark are readily harmonized with Luke and John by reading a little further: both Matthew 27:46-50 and Mark 15:34-37 report that Jesus drank wine vinegar and then cried out again before dying. Therefore Luke and John record Jesus' actual last words, which could have been any combination of the two phrases recorded, e.g. "It is finished, Father; into your hands I commit my spirit." Link

JD Curtis said...

Thank you for your reply Catholic Apologist. Would you, (or anyone else) care to share your thoughts on the brief (2 minute) William Lane Craig video I provide a link to above on this fine Easter?

tinkbell13 said...

To all of the atheists especially. There has to be something better than nihilism folks.

Sigh.

JD- You are not a Muslim. You do not believe that Muhammed is God. You do not promote the Koran as the word of God. The way that you view Muslims is the same way that I view Christianity. You are atheist in regards to them, just as you are towards Hindus, Jews, and fricking Hare Krishnas. To follow your logic, you are nihilist toward their beliefs.

I know that you will never understand this. May be too cerebral.

Ginx said...

tink, are you seriously still spitting into the wind over here?

tinkbell13 said...

Yeah, I know. Shame on me... I like to watch him huff and puff though.

Guy with an Eye said...

JD - You wanted to know what we thought of your 2 minute video. I would like to say he chooses to side step your Christian God.

The Christian God is supposed to be Omnipotent, Omniscient and inerrant. Your God inspired/wrote the bible. He would know what happened. He did not inspire divinely for authors to corroborate their stories. Showing if he knew, was not omnipotent, as he was able to make his bible without errors. Showing he is not inerrant. There are many errors. The number of women, angels, no angels, see Jesus no Jesus are major flaws. Try and spin it, it still comes up as amateur story telling hour, or yet another test of faith. LMAO!

So Craig ignoring the facts, shows he is not interested in the truth. Oh please apologize for a perfect beings errors. That is laughable.

JD Curtis said...

You are not a Muslim. You do not believe that Muhammed is God

And neither do Muslims who believe that God is called Allah and Muhammed is his prophet.

The way that you view Muslims is the same way that I view Christianity. You are atheist in regards to them

No, to them I am an infidel, not an atheist. I would still be a theist.

I once heard of Islam being described as a sort of "Christian heresy" with an overemphasis on a certain extra-Biblical prophet. I cant say that I disagree.

JD Curtis said...

He did not inspire divinely for authors to corroborate their stories

The gospels are more like accounts of four different people. If they matched on every single detail there would be an accusation of copying.

There are many errors. The number of women, angels, no angels, see Jesus no Jesus are major flaws

Craig said in the video that there are explanations for all of them. Which one really troubles you?

One thing that skeptics pounce on is a philosopher's view of scripture in that if they see what they perceive as an error, they throw out the whole lot. Historians look at such ancient documents differently and try to comb through them to see if they can be harmonized.

Insofar as the Old Testament prophets, I recently came across this...

"to lump all these writing prophets together into one broad category is misleading, for there is a great variety of people and styles among them.

As to people, the variety is astounding. The prophets range from uneducated farmers like Amos to sophisticated poets like Isaiah, from cowards like Jonah to men of great courage like Daniel, from the little known like Joel to the famous like King David.

There is an equal variety in the styles of writing. Some, like Ezekiel, Daniel, Haggai, and the New Testament prophets, primarily used a prose style. Others, like David, Isaiah, Joel, and Micah, expressed their ideas in poetic form. And then there are the preachers whose books are mainly collections of sermons - prophets like Jeremiah, Amos, and Zechariah.

Most were given direct revelations - "Thus says the Lord." Others received their insight through dreams and visions. Some, like Hosea and Jonah, mainly recorded their experiences." Link

deemo said...

Guys!
You gotta check out the site JD just linked to!
It's called Rapture Ready and it's freaking MENTAL!

Chris B said...

JD Curtis: I once heard of Islam being described as a sort of "Christian heresy" with an overemphasis on a certain extra-Biblical prophet. I cant say that I disagree.


I believe the Jews regard Christianity similarly.


Isnt it pleasant to know that, with the reliablity of Big Ben's chimes or the rising sun in the east that social autism on the behalf of the atheist, rarely, if ever takes a holiday?

Hey, I didn't post here Easter weekend because I was busy visiting my family for the Holiday. Why is it that you make sweeping prejudicial statements about "the atheist" based on their comments but not on my lack of comment? Why aren't I evidence that "the atheist" often takes a time out from "social autism" (whatever that means) on major holidays?

Or, better yet, why don't you judge individuals based on their own actions, rather than judging entire minority groups based on the actions of a select few?


There has to be something better than nihilism folks.

Yeah, it's called Humanism. Look it up.

tinkbell13 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tinkbell13 said...

I told you that it would way too cerebral for your propaganda laced brain. No shock. Humanism..... I wonder how BING.COM defines that. Hold tight, we will soon find out.

JD Curtis said...

Why is it that you make sweeping prejudicial statements about "the atheist" based on their comments but not on my lack of comment?

I notice that no Christians crash atheist websites on Bertram Russell's birthday for laughs.

Furthermore, I notice that Christians till this day still have to answer for the trial of Galileo, the Crusades and the Inquisitions, the most recent example of which occurred over 350 years aqo.

Utilizing your same standard, will you try to halt debate on the above subjects should they come up due to the fact that no Christian alive has ever involved in any of them?

You gotta check out the site JD just linked to!
It's called Rapture Ready and it's freaking MENTAL!


Name one thing that is "mental" about the site. Just one.

ATVLC said...

Name one thing that is "mental" about the site. Just one.

Why limit him to just one?

Chris B said...

JD Curtis: I notice that no Christians crash atheist websites on Bertram Russell's birthday for laughs.


Well, first of all, the comparison is kind of ridiculous, since ol' What-'s-His-Name's birthday isn't an atheist holiday (is there even such a thing?).

But, more importantly, that's completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

My point was not that atheists in general are better behaved than Christians in general, but rather that neither atheists nor Christians should be collectively judged by the actions of a few individuals. That is: if Christians HAD crashed an atheist website on whoever's birthday, it would be unfair to judge Christians collectively as being "socially autistic" (still don't understand what that means...sounds pretty insulting to autistic people though; what did they ever do to you?).

I thought I was quite clear about this. You know, several of your personality defects have become apparent during our conversations, but I never suspected that lack of reading comprehension was one of them (I generally attribute your tendency to ignore "inconvenient" points in debates to cowardice or dishonesty rather than a failure to notice or understand them). Did you honestly not understand the point I was making? Did you seriously think that this response was in any way legitimate or meaningful?

Furthermore, I notice that Christians till this day still have to answer for the trial of Galileo, the Crusades and the Inquisitions, the most recent example of which occurred over 350 years aqo.

Well, I know of plenty of Christians who just brush it off with "Those weren't Christians, those were Catholics"...which actually kinda seems just as bad.

But I understand what you're saying; I'm awfully tired of being blamed for Stalin. Although, really, if you want to be taken seriously when you object to historical horrors being blamed on contemporary groups, you might want to cut back on the "Gays & Democrats = Nazis" shtick. Just sayin'.

Chris B said...

JD Curtis: Utilizing your same standard, will you try to halt debate on the above subjects should they come up due to the fact that no Christian alive has ever involved in any of them?

Well, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "halt debate". We should definitely remember lessons of history so we can try to avoid repeating them.

And it can sometimes be relevant to a debate; I've heard several Christians argue that the longevity of Christianity is evidence of it's veracity. In this context, it doesn't seem unfair to note that its longevity was at least partially caused by the decidedly un-Christlike tactic of violence.

But, yes, any argument that claims "Christianity has historically been bad, therefore you are bad because you are a Christian" is unfair. I don't make those arguments, and I don't like when other atheists make them. And, yes, if it will make you feel better, I'll call them on it in the future.


Y'know, JD, I have no reason to expect honesty or humility or maturity from you. But, for a second there, I kinda thought you might acknowledge and apologize for your bigotry. Even if used in conjunction with your other arguments, a quick "Yeah, that was unfair, my bad," would have gone a long ways towards making you seem like a semi-decent human being. Instead, you point fingers and make excuses. Typical. But still sad.

Now, you might notice that I didn't judge you based on the actions or words of other Christians, or judge Christians in general based on your words or actions. I judged you based on what you said. See? Simple. Fair.

Now, by all means, point out rude or insulting or bigoted behavior on the part of atheists. But please don't act like atheists everywhere are guilty of, or responsible for, the actions of a few individual atheists. Don't talk about atheists as if they're interchangeable members of some cult (i.e., don't refer to us as "The Atheist").

And, if you get caught making a thoughtless and offensive comment, don't try to weasel out of it by saying, in essence, "They started it!!" That's just childish.

JD Curtis said...

Now, you might notice that I didn't judge you based on the actions or words of other Christians, or judge Christians in general based on your words or actions. I judged you based on what you said. See? Simple. Fair.

Now, by all means, point out rude or insulting or bigoted behavior on the part of atheists. But please don't act like atheists everywhere are guilty of, or responsible for, the actions of a few individual atheists. Don't talk about atheists as if they're interchangeable members of some cult (i.e., don't refer to us as "The Atheist").

And, if you get caught making a thoughtless and offensive comment, don't try to weasel out of it by saying, in essence, "They started it!!" That's just childish.


Thank for the lesson in ethics Brother Chris. After careful consideration, you must have determined that the generalization that I made after a couple of party-pooping comments from the socially autistic atheist set on what was (arguably) THE holiest day of the Christian calender outwieghed the comments made by the fellow practicioners of your non-theistic religion.

By what formula did you arrive at the conclusion that 1 generalization on my part was worthy of 3 paragraphs of consternation from you and yet the comments made by your brethren merited nary a single word?

Take for example the following...

"better remember his not being here before he comes here so you can better remember why he's not here again next year! Enjoy".

I was addressing this Scrooge like statement that followed this particular commenters incorrect attempt at playing grammer Nazi along with a piss-pot statement from another that lacked any supporting statements, links or evidence whatsoever. I guess it was expecting too much to consider enjoying the holiday without snide remarks and sarcasm.

If you can point out where you addressed the initial remarks I was addressing thus giving you the appearance of attempting to be fair in your criticisms, please point it out to me. If not, then might you please explain this complete absence of parity on your behalf and why you are critical of one side's remarks and not the other?

JD Curtis said...

I'm awfully tired of being blamed for Stalin. Although, really, if you want to be taken seriously when you object to historical horrors being blamed on contemporary groups, you might want to cut back on the "Gays & Democrats = Nazis" shtick. Just sayin'

Where did I ever state that "Gays & Democrats =
Nazis"?

I pointed out that Nazi leadership, especially early on in the early 1930's, skewed disproportionately homosexual. An opinion shared by others including the author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

I also pointed out that the policies of the democrat party are much closer on the political spectrum to the Nazi party than the platforms held by the republican party which you never disproved in any meaningful way.

You werent doing something silly like making a generalization were you? By stating that I think that gays and democrats are equal to Nazi's? Where you? We both know that "half-decent" human beings don't do that.

I generally attribute your tendency to ignore "inconvenient" points in debates to cowardice or dishonesty rather than a failure to notice or understand them

I'm at a loss here. Pleas cite an example of my so-called 'cowardice". If something was left unanswered on a previous thread, then go ahead and ask it here and I'll answer it.

I comment on numerous threads on a variety of blogs. I sometimes don't get the opportunity to follow up on every one of them.

Chris B said...

JD Curtis: After careful consideration, you must have determined that the generalization that I made after a couple of party-pooping comments from the socially autistic atheist set


Am I talking to myself here? The whole point is that atheists aren't a "set".

And do you know any autistic people? Do you think they like that you use their condition as an insult?

By what formula did you arrive at the conclusion that 1 generalization on my part was worthy of 3 paragraphs of consternation from you and yet the comments made by your brethren merited nary a single word?

Dude, seriously?!

Again with the excuses and finger-pointing! I was talking about your sloppy generalizations, what does that have to do with whether or not I cam along to defend you from the evil hordes of atheism?

Are you 12 years old? What the heck is wrong with you that you have to keep making stupid excuses like this rather than just admit that you screwed up and let it go?

If not, then might you please explain this complete absence of parity on your behalf and why you are critical of one side's remarks and not the other?

So, in other words, I'm not allowed to point out your bigotry unless I play bodyguard for you against the entire blogosphere? Dude, be a grown-up. Whether I do or don't defend you is no excuse for being a bigot. It has nothing to do with it. You're just trying to shift blame because you're not man enough to just admit you were wrong.

And, for what it's worth, failing to defend you has nothing to do with siding with atheism over Christianity. It's just that I dislike you personally, so I don't care what people say to you or about you. Trying to argue with you is enough of a waste of time. I'm certainly not going to waste time defending you.

Chris B said...

JD Curtis: Where did I ever state that "Gays & Democrats =
Nazis"?

I pointed out that Nazi leadership, especially early on in the early 1930's, skewed disproportionately homosexual. An opinion shared by others including the author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

I also pointed out that the policies of the democrat party are much closer on the political spectrum to the Nazi party than the platforms held by the republican party which you never disproved in any meaningful way.



Well, excuse me for omitting important details from your stupid arguments for brevity's sake. I should have written: "SOME gays = Nazis" and "Democrats = Nazis MORE THAN REPUBLICANS".

But seriously, if your point wasn't to demonize gays and democrats by comparing them to Nazis, why bother even making the comparison? The gay thing, especially, seems to have no other point, unless you're researching a historical gay Nazi erotic short story you're writing.

I'm at a loss here. Pleas cite an example of my so-called 'cowardice". If something was left unanswered on a previous thread, then go ahead and ask it here and I'll answer it.

Well, in this thread alone, you've evaded the issue of making generalizations about groups, instead choosing to make noise about how I didn't say anything to the rude atheists, or how some atheists blame Christians for historical atrocities, or any number of other things.

During previous conversations on Ray Comfort's blog, you've disappeared whenever I've pointed out the dishonesty in defending Uganda's gay-murdering bill as anti-pedophilia legislation (and the sheer ghoulishness of accusing the bill's opponents of defending child rapists).

In the Nazi Democrat thread, you didn't really respond to my thought that a two-dimensional chart is a better indicator of politics than a one-dimensional line, except to vaguely mention that you disagreed that the Right limited personal freedom.

When I offered counter-examples, you did not acknowledge them.

When I pointed out that Vox Day's arbitrarily chosen criteria were arbitrarily graded based on arbitrary reasoning he only occasionally explained, and that the whole thing seemed, well, arbitrary, and therefore biased and unobjective, you had no response other than to ask what I'd do differently, which completely missed the point I was making, and to say something about how Day's arbitrary score-keeping was ostensibly based on research, which again missed the point.

The Vox Day math mistake I pointed out, and your misquoting of the medicare statistics from the article you linked to: ignored.


See? It seems like you ignore anything you can't defend, and change the subject. Not that I'd expect anything different from someone who thinks I can't call him on his bigotry because I didn't defend him when people made fun of his imaginary friend.

JD Curtis said...

Am I talking to myself here? The whole point is that atheists aren't a "set".

No, they are not. The only one's making party-pooping comments and could not wait 24 hrs and let Christians enjoy their holiday were certain, argumentative, internet atheists. Not any other group or subset of a group.

And do you know any autistic people? Do you think they like that you use their condition as an insult?

In a complete and utterly failed to attempt to garner some semblance of moral high ground, you change the topic from "social autism" to actual autism. Bravo. Next I would imagine that you would have the audacity to commit two glaring errors by both..

A. Accusing me of making generalizations, and..

B. Then go on and make a generalization yourself to the point of taking me out of context and misquoting me concerning something that I wrote.

Wait a minute...

I was talking about your sloppy generalizations, what does that have to do with whether or not I cam along to defend you from the evil hordes of atheism?

TRANSLATION: I am selective in my criticisms. Also, generalizations are only bad when other people do them.

What the heck is wrong with you that you have to keep making stupid excuses like this rather than just admit that you screwed up and let it go?

Would you agree with the statement:

"Generalizations are not especially helpful, whether thay are referring to a group of people or the written words of another to the point of mischaracterizing them"?




Which of the following two critical attacks would have at least temporarily given you the appearance of an non-prejudiced commenter?

1) Something along the lines of you actually reading the entire online conversation and pointing out that Easter is the holiest day on the Christian calender and it's probably best that non-Christians do not resort to negativity and sarcasm on such a day and then adding something along the lines of..

"JD, wouldnt you agree that making generalizations is a bad idea generally speaking"? Or similar? (To which I would have replied "yes") Or of course option #2?

2) Focusing on exactly 2 words that I wrote and completely ignoring that which was written by those that share your worldview?

Given that you have now had two attempts to criticize the comments made by certain individuals that share your worldview and yet you still have not, even after I raised the topic, your silent yet tacit approval of such low-brow commentary speaks volumes concerning where your priorities lie.

in other words, I'm not allowed to point out your bigotry unless I play bodyguard for you against the entire blogosphere?

Drama Queen much? I think that I do allright insofar as the blogosphere is concerned. I was referring to your comments on this particular thread.

Whether I do or don't defend you is no excuse for being a bigot

This entire statement is presumptive. It assumes that I am a, quote "bigot". How do you define the word bigot and please point out how I am one.

failing to defend you has nothing to do with siding with atheism over Christianity. It's just that I dislike you personally, so I don't care what people say to you or about you

Might this be the answer as to why you only criticize me and not the social autism as exhibited by the fellow practicioners of your non-theistic religion?

"I dislike you, therefore, my criticism is one-sided, come Hell or High Water".

Well, at least you're quite honest in this regard.

I should have written: "SOME gays = Nazis" and "Democrats = Nazis MORE THAN REPUBLICANS".

Well! Come the Dawn! I should have written "certain atheists". Can I expect to get away as scott-free as you do right now?

JD Curtis said...

if your point wasn't to demonize gays and democrats by comparing them to Nazis, why bother even making the comparison?

Absolutely not. If you comb through all of the comments, you would notice a couple of things.

1)I think that most families have a certain member or two that probably are gay, (present company included)

Insofar as "demonizing" anyone, I'll leave that up to the reader. My entire archive is yours. If you can point out that I was specifically trying to demonize gays, then PLEASE show me where.

JD Curtis said...

in this thread alone, you've evaded the issue of making generalizations about groups

You mean ... Like when you chose to make a generalization of a specific person?

During previous conversations on Ray Comfort's blog, you've disappeared whenever I've pointed out the dishonesty in defending Uganda's gay-murdering bill as anti-pedophilia legislation (and the sheer ghoulishness of accusing the bill's opponents of defending child rapists)

I think you are confusing "cowardice" and "disappearing" with "actually having a life". Ask me ANYTHING you want re: a certain bill in Uganda.

When I offered counter-examples, you did not acknowledge them

Do you know what this sounds like? A crappy date! Don't let my wife find out about this. She'll think I'm hitting on someone or something.

My email addr. is available simply by clicking my profile. If you have a specific question after a thread has outlived it's usefulness, then send me an email. This goes toward anybody who wants to discuss any type of subject. That's why I do not "hide" my profile.

Chris B said...

JD Curtis: No, they are not. The only one's making party-pooping comments and could not wait 24 hrs and let Christians enjoy their holiday were certain, argumentative, internet atheists. Not any other group or subset of a group...I should have written "certain atheists".


Thank you, JD. Apology accepted.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? :)

JD Curtis said...

Whatever.

I find it suprising that you state that you "dislike" me.

If I disliked someone, I'd show them a thing or two and just not comment on their blog and hope it becomes a cyber- no man's land. You don't. Odd.