The Central Flaw of Christianity (another article)

[IAmZamzam]

Deeply disturbing, completely unethical intellectually wrong and again, deeply disturbing...

I didn't even caught on to that. Ya learn something new everyday.

The reason you didn't catch on to it is that there's nothing to catch onto. I will give you positive reputation points if you click on the "page eleven" link, scroll down, and see for yourself that he's the one lying. Go ahead, look. I dare you. It will take you all of five or ten seconds.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

the truth pleases god for "the truth will set you free". i do not take kindly to the fact that such a scenario has been orchestrated where my name is juxtaposed with the words of another individual. furthermore this circus continued even after i had claimed that the words weren't mine. it isn't that we are pleasing satan or anything of the kind, we are coming to the truth for my character had been called into question and i have since shown that the accusations were nothing but lies. while i sincerely harbor no ill-will towards yahya i will not pretend as if he has shown himself to be a dignified individual by the manner in which he carried on this campaign to sully my character if he could not at the least prove me wrong.

I am sure it is a misunderstanding Sol. When there are so many posters and posts with quoted posts then it is easy to attribute a post to one who did not post such a thing in the first place.

So i think we should give one the benefit of the doubt and accept it as a misunderstanding and not let this misunderstanding get in the way of a good discussion otherwise bitterness will permeate the thread and that will not result in any good discussion taking place.

So let it be known that those words were not attributed to Sol and that this was a clear misunderstanding due to the fact that so many posters are posting quotes from other posters so confusion may clearly result as it has done.

So let us all accept this as a human error and not let the misunderstanding progress into a bitter fued which will only result in enmity and bad feelings in ones heart.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Please let us not let this discussion turn into a bitter fued. We are here discussing important matters and i am sure our aim is to please God so let us post that which will please God and not that which will please Satan.

I'm trying to help him, brother. He really needs a stern warning about what will happen if he doesn't do something about the error of his ways. It's just disturbing what lengths of dishonesty an agenda will drive someone to, and as JPR has just demonstrated all it takes for them to succeed is the most momentary lapse of effort on the part of someone who doesn't bother to look for themselves, because that's what they'd rather believe. People like Sol are paradoxically as dangerous as they are incompetent, because you don't have to actually be convincing to convince someone. All you need is their own gullibility or in this case even their own laziness or carelessness. However, I am much more worried for the predator than the prey. Repeated and stubborn iniquity as he has demonstrated is not going to bode well for him in the hereafter. I would be pleasantly surprised beyond all reason if he listened to me but isn't it our sworn duty as Muslims to at least try??

 

[Sol Invictus]

The reason you didn't catch on to it is that there's nothing to catch onto. I will give you positive reputation points if you click on the "page eleven" link, scroll down, and see for yourself that he's the one lying. Go ahead, look. I dare you. It will take you all of five or ten seconds.

yes, let's go to page 11. honestly i really did try to conclude the matter but you seem so intent on holding to such lies.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I am sure it is a misunderstanding Sol. When there are so many posters and posts with quoted posts then it is easy to attribute a post to one who did not post such a thing in the first place.

So i think we should give one the benefit of the doubt and accept it as a misunderstanding and not let this misunderstanding get in the way of a good discussion otherwise bitterness will permeate the thread and that will not result in any good discussion taking place.

So let it be known that those words were not attributed to Sol and that this was a clear misunderstanding due to the fact that so many posters are posting quotes from other posters so confusion may clearly result as it has done.

So let us all accept this as a human error and not let the misunderstanding progress into a bitter fued which will only result in enmity and bad feelings in ones heart.

Oh no, not you too! JUST SCROLL DOWN AND LOOK! IT'S ON PAGE ELEVEN!!

 

[IAmZamzam]

Here, I'll save you all the trouble: It's at the bottom right here. Last post, the one beginning with the lie itself: "your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post". This being after I had already called him on it and explained what my actual claim had been, as you'll see if you look above that post too. Just take five seconds and take a look at the post, and see the name "Sol Invictus" to the left of it, plain as the nose on your face. I don't know how to do that thing where your link directs someone already to a particular part of the page but it can't take longer than two seconds to grab hold of the bar on the right and drag it down. Now will you please stop embarrassing yourself?!

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

Oh no, not you too! JUST SCROLL DOWN AND LOOK! IT'S ON PAGE ELEVEN!!

What are we actually referring to here? Is this misunderstanding related to who posted this:

"I truly feel as if Hamza moved the goalposts. He may have intended to ask that the "proof" of the concept of blood atonement came from prophets who preceeded Jesus. But in those post to which I responded what he asked for was from "ANYWHERE in the Bible." His words and his emphasis; not mine."


Or are you referring to something else?

 

[IAmZamzam]

Oh, I see. Yes, that particular quote I did misattribute but he made his post in response to an entire, LONG exposition that he cheerfully ignored the rest of so as to focus on that one, single quote instead, and that's why I thought he was talking about the previous part. This is the rest, the thing he's been trying to distract you with for all this time by harping on the misattributed Grace Seeker quote which came at the very bottom (and which I didn't even know he was talking about):

"proof please (and by this i mean my whole post). why is it that you keep bringing this up but consistently fail to quote this post where i supposedly lied?"

Every time I think you can never conceivably stoop lower and astound and appall me even more, you always prove such optimism wrong. It's like you're inhumanly good at topping yourself. Are you really so bold and overconfident as to think that anyone who has even so much as skimmed through this thread did not already see the post you just deliberately lied about existing?! Or that they would somehow forget it?! And you even act like you've asked me to quote it before, several times! I'm actually offended not only at your dishonesty but also at how insulting you're being to the people reading this thread. What do you take them for?! But just for the sake of (I admit out of spite at this point) exposing your lies yet again, here it is again, from the bottom of page 11:

"Greetings yahya, for someone who keeps mentioning his ailing hands whenever the matter of continuing with our discussion comes up, those post of yours that you have graced us with would almost beg us to differ. anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation? notice how many times i have asked individuals in this thread to simply quote my posts that actually have to do with the this thread and then start attacking them? notice how there has yet to be such a post forthcoming?"

once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case.

now, if you thought your arguments to have been that great you would join me in encouraging the participants of this thread to get back to the main topic and yet strangely you have not done so but encouraged discussion that has nothing to do with the points i had brought forth to refute your claims. if you think that your argument and post are at all salvageable, will you then join me in asking for a return to such a discussion?"

Originally Posted by Me: "As it is the whole basis for the twisted notion of redemption that you're peddling, the very foundation, it couldn't possibly be more relevant!"

Originally Posted by Him, in response: "Anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin? we should note that i have asked this before and have yet to receive a response on this question. can you begin to quote from my article and show how exactly the quoted portion only makes sense if we start with original sin as a foundation?...Once again, if you feel that my points are at all based on the doctrine of original sin, then please quote from my post and show how this is so. if however you fail to do this in your next post then i'd have to say that there you go again with making claims that you can't at all show to be the case."
Now here is my post at the bottom of page 12, read it and weep:

"Your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post. i disagreed yet gave you the option (as with any other participant in this thread) to actually quote from my post and show how my logic is predicated on the matter of original sin. so far neither you nor anyone else has done so. what i'm asking for is pretty simple. if my logic is predicated on the subject of original sin, why is it that you simply cannot quote for us the sections which only make sense when such a logic is appealed to. you keep wasting your precious health writing diatribe after diatribe when all you really need to show are the quotes from my post which are predicated on original sin. once again you're simply claiming things that you have not backed up. however, i certainly am glad that you have joined me in calling for a returned focus of my rebuttal towards you. this will certainly be entertaining."

Amazing. Your response to my exposition of your straw man attack is simply to repeat it. Wow. My claim was not that the matter of original sin was "relevant to your post" but that it was the foundation of the atonement doctrine and since that's a faulty foundation the whole thing comes tumbling down. Who do you think you're fooling? Other than yourself?
Not only did you both (a) rely on everyone reading this thread to have the memory of a dead gnat, and (b) start pretending out of nowhere that this isn't the first time you have asked me to provide the quote I just gave a page or two before, but also you immediately proceeded to go and do the whole thing all over again with brother Hamza! He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS, and then (at least at first) you tried to ignore it altogether and continue acting like you'd been asking him for his evidence of biblical prophets, period, repeatedly and he was the one dodging you! Is this the only trick you've got? The only thing worse than evil is unimaginative and stupidly redundant evil, and it seems as though you can't even be bothered to think of any new tactic beyond the solitary one of misquoting someone and then making up an imaginary repeated challenge to them that they just keep on avoiding. Honestly, if you're going to be a liar then at least don't modify it by also being a one-trick pony. You're like a magician who knows only one magic trick--say sawing a woman in half--and keeps doing it over and over and over again before the same crowd even after everyone in the crowd chimed in that the woman is obviously curled up inside and the feet sticking out of the box are fake, and when finally called upon to acknowledge them you pretend that they were offering a different explanation, and for pulling a rabbit out of your hat, which you haven't done. And then goes right back to sawing.

He's trying to divert you from that. Don't let him.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Oh no, not you too! JUST SCROLL DOWN AND LOOK! IT'S ON PAGE ELEVEN!!

alright, i'm tired of your lies. here are screenshots:

this is your initial post:

then here is my response:

and then here is where you continue with your lies:

 

[IAmZamzam]

And here is the relevant part from the section of the post in question which you deliberately avoided and which you're still trying to keep people from thinking about by going on about the one mistake at the very bottom of it. I'll even put the important words in bold:

Originally Posted by Me: "As it is the whole basis for the twisted notion of redemption that you're peddling, the very foundation, it couldn't possibly be more relevant!"

Originally Posted by Him, in response: "Anyway, you claim that i am side-stepping a relevant part of the argument and as such i would ask you how at all my posts are predicated on the concept of original sin?

Note again that this is what he continued pretending I said even after I called him on it, and when he said "those words aren't even mine", he really meant "the last few words aren't even mine", and was speaking as though they constituted the whole post because he had no other means left of making people look the other way on the pathetic straw man attack that the previous part of his post, which was not misattributed, was demonstrating, and which he continued to repeat even in response to said demonstration.

 

[Hamza Asadullah]

Clearly this is a misunderstanding then because you both thought you were referring to different posts so it is now resolved.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Oh, I see. Yes, that particular quote I did misattribute but he made his post in response to an entire, LONG exposition that he cheerfully ignored the rest of so as to focus on that one, single quote instead, and that's why I thought he was talking about the previous part. This is the rest, the thing he's been trying to distract you with for all this time by harping on the misattributed Grace Seeker quote which came at the very bottom (and which I didn't even know he was talking about):

He's trying to divert you from that. Don't let him.

umm, did you not see my response or will you casually dismiss it again. it is in fact you who only partially quoted me (when i had specifically asked for the full quote seeing as i knew that you might just try to be deceiving in such a manner). check out my refutation in my post #227 on page 16. are you going to claim now that i had never responded?

in fact, i'll even repost it here so that there won't be any confusion:

this will be a teaching moment i'm sure yahya. notice that i had asked you to quote my full post and lo and behold, you decided not to. let's see what i had actually said in full:

your claim was that the matter of original sin was relevant to my post. i disagreed yet gave you the option (as with any other participant in this thread) to actually quote from my post and show how my logic is predicated on the matter of original sin. so far neither you nor anyone else has done so. what i'm asking for is pretty simple. if my logic is predicated on the subject of original sin, why is it that you simply cannot quote for us the sections which only make sense when such a logic is appealed to. you keep wasting your precious health writing diatribe after diatribe when all you really need to show are the quotes from my post which are predicated on original sin. once again you're simply claiming things that you have not backed up. however, i certainly am glad that you have joined me in calling for a returned focus of my rebuttal towards you. this will certainly be entertaining.

(as it comes to original sin being the foundation of the doctrine for the atonement, i would disagree. you maintain that jews did not believe in original sin and yet they still went through with blood atonement so even if you now try to dodge the matter in such a manner you are still shown to be incorrect.)

notice that i refuted both ways in which one could possibly understand the question. in your post above you simply display the one which didn't have to do with your particular question and pretend that the other one didn't exist. better luck next time i suppose.

He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS, and after I pointed it out your next post ignored it altogether and continued acting like you'd been asking him for his evidence of biblical prophets period repeatedly and he was the one dodging you!

yes because isaiah is a contemporary prophet or subsequent prophet to christ:

in the same way will christ pay the final sacrifice with his own blood. hence why in isaiah 53 describes him like a lamb led to the slaughter (isaiah 53:7) and outrightly calls him a guilt offering (isaiah 53:10)---the very offering offered by the jews to gain forgiveness of sin. the above is why christ repeatedly predicts his death and resurrection and goes so far as to say that it is absolutely necessary:

so once again you have been refuted yahya.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Note again that this is what he continued pretending I said even after I called him on it, and when he said "those words aren't even mine", he really meant "the last few words aren't even mine", and was speaking as though they constituted the whole post

huh, did you not see the screenshots, i made an entire separate post to deal with your misattribution and as such i could in fact say, those words weren't mine because the entire post which i was responding to constituted of words you tried to pass off as my own.

 

[IAmZamzam]

That's not a response, it's another evasion. Even if the Isaiah passage were referring to Christ (P) (which I debunk in detail at this link), the mere fact of that doesn't change the fact that you were ignoring the real challenge hamza made at least once and making a point of responding only to a previous, less specific variation. That's what I pointed out, that's what you kept ignoring that you did (along with ignoring my exposition of your misrepresentation of what I said was predicated on original sin), and those are the lies you're still covering up now.

 

[Sol Invictus]

That's not a response, it's another evasion. Even if the Isaiah passage were referring to Christ (P) (which I debunk in detail at this link), the mere fact of that doesn't change the fact that you were ignoring the real challenge hamza made at least once and making a point of responding only to a previous, less specific variation. That's what I pointed out, that's what you kept ignoring that you did (along with ignoring my exposition of your misrepresentation of what I said was predicated on original sin), and those are the lies you're still covering up now.

this is amazing. were these not your words?: "He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS"

so when i completely disprove the above, the matter suddenly changes to that not having been the point? this is actually quite sad. the only person who has continued to misrepresent the other has been you.

 

[IAmZamzam]

huh, did you not see the screenshots, i made an entire separate post to deal with your misattribution and as such i could in fact say, those words weren't mine because the entire post which i was responding to constituted of words you tried to pass off as my own.

For a moment there you almost had one tiny, very irrelevant, point in your favor, but you just had to push your luck, didn't you? Here is the original quote from you (bottom) and here is my quoting it from you in the post that you now claim was ENTIRELY misattributions (also bottom). Care to do a screen capture of that?

 

[Woodrow]

I see more emotionalism than logic being expressed in about the last 5 pages. I do accept the fact that any debate concerning religion is going to evoke emotions among members of any faith. Quite possibly the only people who can engage in a religious debate without emotional feelings are atheists. With that said I am overlooking the past few pages and not doing a massive clean up by deleting the pages.

Now with that said let us all try to return to the topic on hand and fprget about any personal arguments that took place.

From what I see we had reached a point where a few somewhat related topics were being discussed those being:

1. The Crucifixion

2. Baptism

3. Blood atonement.

4. Original sin


In an attempt to direct this back to some sort of resemblance of order and the original topic I am tossing out this question:

If the Crucifixion redeemed mankind, of what value is baptism?

 

[YieldedOne]

Yo, Yahya Sulaiman.

Just gettin' your attention. After checking out your website, given in this thread, I saw your "The Koran's Challenge to Christians Who Believe in the Incarnation." I found it interesting and posted a response to it on the "Immortal/Mortal" thread. Give it a looksee, if you get a chance.

Later,
YO

 

[IAmZamzam]

this is amazing. were these not your words?: "He asked for examples from PREVIOUS prophets, you ignored this and provided only quotes from CONTEMPORARY AND/OR SUBSEQUENT WRITERS"

No, he didn't. He said UNEQUIVOCAL ones. Show me where the words "Jesus" or "Messiah" pops up in Isaiah 53.

when i completely disprove the above, the matter suddenly changes to that not having been the point? this is actually quite sad. the only person who has continued to misrepresent the other has been you.

My previous post shows just the opposite when it comes to who is lying about whom.

 

[Sol Invictus]

For a moment there you almost had one tiny, very irrelevant, point in your favor, but you just had to push your luck, didn't you? Here is the original quote from you (bottom) and here is my quoting it from you in the post that you now claim was ENTIRELY misattributions (also bottom). Care to do a screen capture of that?

did i not just quote this very post? did i not just show how your rebuttal towards it was to partially quote it? i showed you how you were proven wrong once the full quote is examined (with the part in brackets that you so conveniently left out). once again, i had refuted both ways of understanding the question but for some strange reason, you then only chose to quote the section which did not apply to the manner in which you posed/understood the question. so when i refute both ways that an individual could understand the question and then you isolate only the one that doesn't apply to you, i have then been deceiving? is this seriously what you're saying (let's not forget that i had explicitly told you to prove your point by using my full quote. you only used part of it and then have the audacity to imply that i have been lying)?

sigh, you know what. you know where my rebuttal to your post can be found. anytime when you wish to answer my refutation of your article we can indeed continue.