Gargamel:

You are the one who is confused. Of course you punish crimes but how?

Backtracking now and admitting you made an error in trying to make an issue of this? Good for you. It's about darned time.

He made the dichotomy right there in that sentence, did he not?

Not the one you tried with such straining effort to force on him, obviously, since he clearly related that they went after persons who were in turn to go after others. Just admit I caught you trying to foist confusion. You've been tagged for these childish fundy-reindeer games several times now.

You made the dichotomy yourself in the above statement

I made no "dichotomy"; I stressed priority and you purposely, with malicious smear intent, read a dichotomy into it. Your own integrity busted ages ago. Now why don't you explain why you are the only one who read what I wrote like this?

As far as the link you gave it is totally irrelevant.

You'd no doubt like to think so, but what it did was bust your malicious, childish attempt to create a problem. Clearly the phrase "punish crimes" is not used to the exclusion of penal interaction with persons. You're busted for causing false issues. As usual.

You have backtracked and my quotes from your article and yourself in post #53 prove it beyond a shadow of doubt.

I have done no such thing, and this is obviously a dodge for my having pinned you for irresponsible mangling of language.

What you have failed to prove is that anyone besides the muhktar, who was an autocratic ruler, thought the justice was fair.

I have to "prove" no such thing; you have to be the one to get off your ample posterior, do some real research like Gordon and Rendsberg did, and show that they were incompetent fools. You are the ignorant one in this context; no one is here to kiss your rear end and do research YOU are responsible for doing. Unlike you, I don't just sit on my rear: I do RESEARCH. I read the relevant lit. I don't cower in the corner scared of scholarship like an abjectly miserable fundy, which is why I clearly frighten you so much.

I also wrote to Rendsburg and asked what his opinion as an expert was. It was his view in that light that the family would have taken the matter in stride. So feel free to write him and call him an idiot. I want a CC of the message when you do.

Oh and BTW, YOUR scholar spells his name with a "u" not an "e".

As if he were not anyone else's and not a true expert. As if YOU were competent to make an evaluation having done nothing but clean the restrooms at BJU for 34 years. Spare us. I'll continue to spell it that way just to bother you.

You have provided no positive evidence and just throwing out Rendsburg's name as if that settles the matter does not fly.

For a complete ingrate with no real education, like Jed Clampett, I would suspect not. The mukhtar's comment, and Gordon's/Rendsberg's experience, IS positive evidence, which you can't answer, whether you like it or not.

The muhktar's rule was not autocratic? Prove it.

That's your burden, Gargamel. You're no expert.

You are the one who cited the Iraqi Kurds as your prime example of divine justice.

Irrelevant. They are cited as exemplary of the ENTIRE ANE and successors, and you are clearly trying to pull a racist stunt by using them in isolation, for otherwise you would have spoken of "Eastern" or "Ancient Near Eastern" justice. Just admit you're caught; it'll go much easier.

You know your personal insults are getting really boring and tiresome.

You mean because they so accurately capture your very essence? I have cited my example; you have done zero in reply but whine and offer non-answers rooted in your non-expertise.


Not when the REASON for the subbing in the first place was BECAUSE the true culprit was not known.

Why not? You cannot explain why not, never will, because there is absolutely no reason to think so. It's like saying a sweater cannot keep you warm if it is red instead of blue. Thanks for the comedy relief!


Your sentence is ambiguous and unclear.

My sentence is 100% clear; you are simply dodging for lack of an answer. Butt kicked.

No, I simply ask for one who claims to be an evangelical to cite some Scriptural support for his position.

In other words, I was completely right about you as an ostrich. Thank you. To this point your ability to comprehend scholarship is NONE, ZERO, NADA.

Why don't you accept that you're being outclassed in every department?

What texts of Scripture does "scholarship" define for you?

Every single one of them.

BTW, its not scholarship that is held to be infallible in evangelicalism, it is Scripture.

An obvious dodge for your patently obvious failure and inability to prove scholarship "fallible" on any single point.

not only on "created" but on Pelagianism as well.

Both smears of your own making, of course.

Why don't you write him and see if he can bail you out of your abyss?

Just did. What's your plan B? Shoveling yourself under a pile of your own bulldada?

I hope so; otherwise they should change the name of this forum from Theology Web to Scholarship Web.

Isn't that sad. Gargy forgot to spell "scholarship" with a K.

No, I am not conceeding I am pointing out that there is still a separation regardless of the time involved.

Of course you are conceding, by your usual method: Dodgeball and non-answers. Look up clients and patrons to start.

It is not what you plainly said. Your statement indicated one debt not two. The one debt is the payment for sin; the second debt is the payment of gratitude to the one who paid the first debt.

Exactly what I said. You would do well to drop this point before you embarrass yourself even further. Why does no one else have these comprehension problems with my material?

Not at all and you offer no refutation of my point whatsoever.

There is absolutely no point to refute. You merely said "nuh uh" and gave no evidence.

not a matter of adhering blindly from the start; its a matter of not falling into the pitfalls that others have in the history of doctrine.

Usually caused by blind adherence to a preconceived paradigm. Thank you.


Spirit is never said to be generated; he is said to "proceed" from the Son and the Father or from the Father alone (Filoque controversy). The concept has little or no Scriptural support.

Other than in the hypostatic background you refuse to stop sucking your pacifier over. As if there were any real difference between "proceed" and "generated" semantically, either. Now that you have admitted this, however, do you admit that this is exactly the sort of relationship I described? (No one hold your breath....) Is not an entity from which another "proceeds" accurately described as a "core" entity for the one proceeding?

Try to get out of it, go ahead. I can't wait for the next excuse.

The authority's argument still has to stand or fall on its own merits. Otherwise how do you adjudicate between two authorities who take differing views?

Uh, by critical comparison of arguments, which you absolutely refuse to do with a mule-headed stubbornness that would make Old MacDonald have a cow?

This is done every day in courtrooms across the country.

So is critical comparison. Except by the Simpson jury.

Not it is extremely relevant because if the muhktar had known who the culprit was he would not have punished an innocent party.

It is not in the least relevant for the purpose of illustrating penal substitition as an acceptable principle. Get over yourself and your error.

Still no answer.

Butt still kicked. Denials notwithstanding.

Butt still kicked. Denials notwithstanding.

Butt still kicked. Denials notwithstanding.

Butt still kicked. Denials notwithstanding.

Butt still kicked. Denials notwithstanding.

Butt still kicked. Denials notwithstanding.

See how easy it is to argue like Gargamel does?

The client patron relationship still does not answer why the death of the broker satisfies the righteous demands of the client much less of the broker himself.

Because of the value of the broker in this case as an ontological equal of deity. I cited my example; get with the program.

So this is it.

It is all that is needed. Take your defeat and cut your losses.

Alien:

Yes. I appreciate it.

Good. I shall continue the trend....

How then would you view, say, a Presidential pardon? As inappropriate?

Depends what the crime was. In some cases I have seen from the last admin it surely was inappropos. I'm too young to comment on Ford pardoning Nixon.

I'm starting to see God's so-called "wrath" as a need* to fix things. Do you agree?

Actually, yes, with that comulsion change. Which is another way of saying that holiness is part of God's nature, and He can't change it, and MUST react with it. In many ways God is not as free as we are.

There are few secrets in a small town. I imagine this is part of the justification for the Muktah's action in your original example.

That is so. Some people have spoken of how "it takes a village" to raise a child. You can see then how community responsibility would fit in with the mukhtar's actions.

What puzzles me a little is the insistence on personal freedom on the one hand and the avoidance of personal accountability on the other.

Join the CLUB!

He suggests that it follows from this role that He is not in a position to "just forgive" us in same way that He could if He was in fact a victim.

Yes, that is so. One thing that may help:

Though the analogy is clear, I'm not totally convinced that God must be incapable of withholding punishment without demanding some form of punishment, though I am (now) convinced that the Bible authors would have seen it that way, in the light of their cultural assumptions.

Yes, but one other thing: I would say that God does not so much send people to punishment, as much as they are repelled from God (because of His nature) as metal is propelled from a magnet with opposing polarity. That may also be a point to relate to infinite punishment...another topic, as you say.

JPH cites one article in which a Kurdish Iraqi chieftain demolishes an innocent person's house to stop a crime spree. The autocratic chieftain does this because he does not know who the guilty party is and it is faster for him to pick someone at random and punish them with the hope that the punished family will track down the true culprit and put an end to the crime spree.

Somehow this is supposed to represent the divine justice in substitutionary atonement. I have shown over and over that this analogy fails and he refuses to explain how it does other than just to say well Rendsburg says it does so therefore it must.

I said to JPH: What you have failed to prove is that anyone besides the muhktar, who was an autocratic ruler, thought the justice was fair.

He replied:

I have to "prove" no such thing; you have to be the one to get off your ample posterior, do some real research like Gordon and Rendsberg did, and show that they were incompetent fools. You are the ignorant one in this context; no one is here to kiss your rear end and do research YOU are responsible for doing. Unlike you, I don't just sit on my rear: I do RESEARCH. I read the relevant lit. I don't cower in the corner scared of scholarship like an abjectly miserable fundy, which is why I clearly frighten you so much.

Notice there are no counter arguments here--just more name calling. I have begged for some substantive arguments but instead this is what I get.

JPH further said:

I also wrote to Rendsburg and asked what his opinion as an expert was. It was his view in that light that the family would have taken the matter in stride. So feel free to write him and call him an idiot. I want a CC of the message when you do.

1. We need to see the actual correspondence from Rendsburg.

2. "Taking it in stride" does not sound like they thought it was fair and just. It sounds more like, they did not have a recourse for justice. Keep in mind it was an autocratic society. Complaints of injustice from those being ruled over are usually not well accepted.

3. I would like to correspond with him. Do you have an email address for him? BTW, I will not call him an idiot; I will leave all the name calling to you. Mature scholars do not resort to that kind of juvenile behavior.

jpholding:

Yes, but one other thing: I would say that God does not so much send people to punishment, as much as they are repelled from God (because of His nature) as metal is propelled from a magnet with opposing polarity. That may also be a point to relate to infinite punishment...another topic, as you say.

Ah, the "separation from God" concept of hell. Yes, I agree that this idea jibes much better with the loving nature of God than the "hellfire and pitchforks" picture, and answers the "infinite punishment" objection too.

OK, I think that wraps up our discussion. Thanks again for your patience.

[quote]12-01-2003 @ 05:57 AM post located here
FormerFundy:



The fact that the innocent volunteers does not change anything. No one is disputing that Jesus volunteered to die in our place. The question is how could the Father accept that as constituting justice? If your son is convicted of a capital offense and you volunteer to die in his place, will the judge accept this? Of course not. Why? Because the only way justice is served is if the person who committed the crime is punished.

Why do you say that? Can you show me ANY court that will NOT accept anybody's money to pay the fine of your offence? Which does not change the fact of your offence, but DOES pay the penalty of that offence. Which then allows you to live as if you had not committed that offence.


No, that is logically another question. It is a good question and one that needs to be addressed but it is not my particular point here. My point is how can the punishment of the innocent be seen as constituting justice?

[i]again, it would be good to see what is the question.

No, not a single event, rather an accumulation of various things.




I cannot edit anything after it has been posted for 24 hours.

My point was that to say: "God's ways are not our ways" is a cop-out. [/QUOTE
cop-out is not a real answer or real answer to wrong answer?

Yesterday @ 11:04 PM post located here
cbro:

12-01-2003 @ 05:57 AM post located here
FormerFundy:



The fact that the innocent volunteers does not change anything. No one is disputing that Jesus volunteered to die in our place. The question is how could the Father accept that as constituting justice? If your son is convicted of a capital offense and you volunteer to die in his place, will the judge accept this? Of course not. Why? Because the only way justice is served is if the person who committed the crime is punished.

Why do you say that? Can you show me ANY court that will NOT accept anybody's money to pay the fine of your offence? Which does not change the fact of your offence, but DOES pay the penalty of that offence. Which then allows you to live as if you had not committed that offence.

This point has already been addressed as well. A monetary debt can be transferred but not a moral debt. It it could then criminals with lots of money would just pay someone else to serve their time.

No, that is logically another question. It is a good question and one that needs to be addressed but it is not my particular point here. My point is how can the punishment of the innocent be seen as constituting justice?

[i]again, it would be good to see what is the question.

No, not a single event, rather an accumulation of various things.




I cannot edit anything after it has been posted for 24 hours.

My point was that to say: "God's ways are not our ways" is a cop-out. [/QUOTE
cop-out is not a real answer or real answer to wrong answer?

Mr. FF
After reading all of this, I have a question for you. What would it take for you to become a Christain?
Thanks

JPH I posted a reply to you two days ago but still has not been put up by the moderator. Maybe one of these days we can get back to our discussion

Gargamel:

JPH cites one article in which a Kurdish Iraqi chieftain demolishes an innocent person's house to stop a crime spree.

And in which it is noted that this reflects ANE and Eastern practice as a whole. Oops, Gargy just keeps trying to bigotedly narrow it down to that one Kurdish Iraqi guy, begs the question of autocracy, does no more than whine, "It is not, it is not, it is NOT!" when his attempts to subvert it are refuted.



Notice there are no counter arguments here--just more name calling.

Yep. You slopped out the rest, and pretended that this was not an accurate description of your methodology. Typical.

1. We need to see the actual correspondence from Rendsburg.

Why? Wouldn't that be an "argument from authority"? I don't post private messages. If you think you can twist him into saying something different, write him yourself and report the results here.

2. "Taking it in stride" does not sound like they thought it was fair and just. It sounds more like, they did not have a recourse for justice

There goes Gargy with his silly, childish little word games yet again. "Taking it in stride" means, he said, that they would have understood the lesson. Why don't you make up a survey of the various uses of "taking it in stride" and shpow us how that phrase is used to mean, "I thought it was unfair and unjust, but I had no recourse for justice"? Here's an example to start:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/20/shark.surfer.cnna/

I guess this shark bite victim was having a hard time with the fact that he couldn't take the shark to court.

http://www.dispatch.com/news/newsfea...lvillenws.html

Huh. Guess these people are thinking it unfair that someone they think should be executed, and wants to be executed, will be.

Boy, English sure is a funny language is FundyLand.

I would like to correspond with him. Do you have an email address for him?

Yeah. I'll give it to you when you give me the information you've been promising but reneging on for the past few weeks.

Mature scholars do not resort to that kind of juvenile behavior.

Especially when they figure no one will see it.

Today @ 07:43 AM post located here
jpholding:

Gargamel:

JPH cites one article in which a Kurdish Iraqi chieftain demolishes an innocent person's house to stop a crime spree.

And in which it is noted that this reflects ANE and Eastern practice as a whole. Oops, Gargy just keeps trying to bigotedly narrow it down to that one Kurdish Iraqi guy, begs the question of autocracy, does no more than whine, "It is not, it is not, it is NOT!" when his attempts to subvert it are refuted.

If this is so common-place in ANE, you should have no trouble citing multiple examples. Why only one? And why one with numerous holes that I have exposed repeatedly but you refuse to see? And now you are finally admitting that he was an "autocratic" ruler?

Once again as I stated and you have NOT COUNTERED, your example only proves that the Muhktar, who was an autocratic ruler, thought his justice was fair. I am sure Castro thinks his justice is fair. I imagine that the North Korean leader thinks his justice is fair. Why don't the people there speak out against it? Why do they take it in stride? Probably for the same reason the people the muhktar ruled over did.

Produce some more examples and better examples or just admit you were wrong and go home.

Notice there are no counter arguments here--just more name calling.

Yep. You slopped out the rest, and pretended that this was not an accurate description of your methodology. Typical.

Go back and take a look. Post # 81. Who is telling the truth here? I did not remove any of your arguments because you never gave any. If I did, then produce them right here.

[/quote]
1. We need to see the actual correspondence from Rendsburg.

Why? Wouldn't that be an "argument from authority"? I don't post private messages. If you think you can twist him into saying something different, write him yourself and report the results here.
[/quote]

No, you still do not understand the argument from authority. The argument from authority is when someone believes an argument SIMPLY BECAUSE it comes from an authority without EXAMINING THE ARGUMENT. The argument ultimately has to stand or fall on its own merit not just simply due to who stated it. You do not state Rendsburg's argument at all (from your correspondence) you simply say he agrees with me, so there.

2. "Taking it in stride" does not sound like they thought it was fair and just. It sounds more like, they did not have a recourse for justice

There goes Gargy with his silly, childish little word games yet again. "Taking it in stride" means, he said, that they would have understood the lesson. Why don't you make up a survey of the various uses of "taking it in stride" and shpow us how that phrase is used to mean, "I thought it was unfair and unjust, but I had no recourse for justice"? Here's an example to start:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/08/20/shark.surfer.cnna/

I guess this shark bite victim was having a hard time with the fact that he couldn't take the shark to court.

http://www.dispatch.com/news/newsfea...lvillenws.html

Huh. Guess these people are thinking it unfair that someone they think should be executed, and wants to be executed, will be.

Boy, English sure is a funny language is FundyLand.

Talk about childish games. You are getting pretty desperate now. These examples have nothing to do with the CONTEXT (remember your favorite word) in which Rendsburg is supposed to have said "they took it in stride." Please.

I would like to correspond with him. Do you have an email address for him?

Yeah. I'll give it to you when you give me the information you've been promising but reneging on for the past few weeks.

Never mind. I found it myself. It will be interesting to see what he says when he finds out that someone is using his article to try to defend penal substitution as "justice."

As far as the other thing. It was sent yesterday so quit complaining and just send me my $15 you promised and the $35 to the American Lung Association.

Come on JPH, don't you have any more arguments for PST than this one example of an autocratice Kurdish chieftain? Is this it? How pitiful.

Kenny, please come back so I can have a worthy debate partner.

If this is so common-place in ANE, you should have no trouble citing multiple examples. Why only one?

Why not three, you'll say next. Then four, five -- this is the desperate dash of someone losing his shirt in debate, possessing no negating information. The one is portrayed as exemplary by one versed in the field; that is enough, and if you have no testimony of direct refutation, nothing but speculations of hidden autocracy and incompetent research, then simply stop embarrassing yourself and peddle your conspiracies elsewhere.

And why one with numerous holes that I have exposed repeatedly but you refuse to see?

There is nothing to see; your "holes" are nonsensical objections, thoroughly decontextualized, illicit, and have been pounded into the ground repeatedly despite your fervent and hollow denials.

And now you are finally admitting that he was an "autocratic" ruler?

No, that's your fairy godmother taking to you again about your wish to become a scholar on Gordon's level.

Once again as I stated and you have NOT COUNTERED,

I have totally and completely countered. You have never negated other than by suspicion and insult to scholarship.

your example only proves that the Muhktar, who was an autocratic ruler, thought his justice was fair.

Your "response" is no response at all, and casts insulting aspersions on Gordon's capabilities as a scholar. Why not just admit that you find it galling that such a simple, contextual solution to your big "problem" was immediately and easily solved by this concept, and that you are merely clawing and scratching for any thin straw you can to turn it into something that will not lay a burden on your conscience?

Produce negating evidence or just admit you were wrong and go home.

Go back and take a look. Post # 81. Who is telling the truth here?

I am. You are not. Typical. Go to post 81.

No, you still do not understand the argument from authority.

I absolutely do understand it, and I understand that you are absuing it and trying to manipulatively mash, hammer, slap, or punch this instance into it by any means possible, even if it involves denying that data which has been plainly given, is not given. The word of an expert here is enough, directed to specific examples. You obviously have neither knowledge nor means to reply, hence your constant crybaby "prove it, prove it" method while refusing to shoulder any burden of your own.

Talk about childish games. You are getting pretty desperate now. These examples have nothing to do with the CONTEXT (remember your favorite word) in which Rendsburg is supposed to have said "they took it in stride." Please.

Please, yes. The example show that the phrase has NOTHING contextually to do with "fairness" and "justice" and that you only read it into the phrase by your usual method of grossly begging the question.

It will be interesting to see what he says when he finds out that someone is using his article to try to defend penal substitution as "justice."

It would be more interesting to have you send him your exact words above about how his mentor failed in his scholarly duty. Bear in mind that I WILL call you on even the slightest misrepresentation of my position (your forte' in the extreme) and even the slightest attempt to manipulate.

Come on JPH, don't you have any more arguments for PST than this one example of an autocratice Kurdish chieftain? Is this it?

It's all that is needed, your pitiful attempts to sidestep by dodging and posturing and bigotedly limiting it to "Kurds" notwithstanding. And while you're at it, be sure and ask about the scapegoat ceremony. You've been dodging that arrow for a while, too, and the "wahs" are running out.

Kenny, please come back so I can have a worthy debate partner.

Kenny, it's your time to waste.

Yesterday @ 09:12 PM post located here
jpholding:

If this is so common-place in ANE, you should have no trouble citing multiple examples. Why only one?

Why not three, you'll say next.

LOL--you don't have any more do you? Three examples will be fine. Go ahead and produce them Mr. Librarian.

[/quote]
And why one with numerous holes that I have exposed repeatedly but you refuse to see?

There is nothing to see; your "holes" are nonsensical objections, thoroughly decontextualized, illicit, and have been pounded into the ground repeatedly despite your fervent and hollow denials.
[/quote]

Absolutely its full of holes as I enumerated above. Your brand of justice of the muhktar punishing someone at random because he does not know who the real culprit is TOTALLY destroyed by the fact that God always knows who the culprit is. The muhktar only did this because he did not know; if he had known he would have punished the guilty party. You don't even deny this point but you say well if it was valid in this case, then logically it must be valid in other cases. Pitiful. Not even a specific argument.

BTW, the muhktar's "justice" here is not much different than "mafia justice" where the godfather decides to make an example out of someone so that the "real culprit" will be scared away. Is that the kind of justice that your God employs?

And now you are finally admitting that he was an "autocratic" ruler?

No, that's your fairy godmother taking to you again about your wish to become a scholar on Gordon's level.

Okay Mr. Jello, was he or was he not an autocratic ruler? A simple Yes or No would be nice.

your example only proves that the Muhktar, who was an autocratic ruler, thought his justice was fair.

Your "response" is no response at all, and casts insulting aspersions on Gordon's capabilities as a scholar.

I am not casting aspersions on Cyrus Gordon. He was a great archeologist but HE is NOT arguing that this example represents the divine justice involved in Penal Substutionary Atonement and by the way, neither is Rendsburg as his email back to me shows. All of this is YOUR invention. It is your INFERENCE from the one article. As Rendsburg noted that was not his point in the article AT ALL.

BUSTED.

Come on JPH, don't you have any more arguments for PST than this one example of an autocratic Kurdish chieftain? Is this it?

It's all that is needed,

That is really pathetic. Your only argument which was demolished in less than 5 minutes? Thats it? Nothing else? Wow what an easy debate.

And while you're at it, be sure and ask about the scapegoat ceremony. You've been dodging that arrow for a while, too, and the "wahs" are running out.

Scapegoat? Are you referring to Deut. 21 the case of the heifer being offered because they did not know who committed the murder? That was answered in the first reply. THEY DID NOT KNOW WHO THE MURDERER WAS, if they had, they would have punished him. This does not apply to God who is omniscient.

Please--don't you have anyting else? BTW, the scapegoat is a different ceremony altogether spoken of in Lev. 16.

[quote]12-04-2003 @ 05:51 AM post located here
FormerFundy:

This point has already been addressed as well. A monetary debt can be transferred but not a moral debt.
The CAUSE of the penalty, which is the monetary debt, was the moral debt, which I agree can not be transferred, which is what I meant by the fact of the offence and which I doubt you have any doubt about. Which shows you would become a fundy again if you would forgive God what you think is His unjust treatment of us. Which can only have an emotional reason as a cause as to why you believe He is unjust.

[/QUOTE [/QUOTE

Gargamel:

LOL--you don't have any more do you?

ROFLFOF. I NEED no more to put you in your Bob Jones place. The example Rendsberg gave illustrates my point (for what I have always said, that it is an illustration NOT on penal sub, but of a social situation in which it would be a natrual extension). Since it is said to cover the whole ANE, the example is sufficient. Your case: Lost in space.

Absolutely its full of holes as I enumerated above.

Not one single hole as I reported in return.

Your brand of justice of the muhktar punishing someone at random because he does not know who the real culprit is TOTALLY destroyed by the fact that God always knows who the culprit is.

You have been told 6574 times that knowing or not knowing the culprit is NOT the issue; the issue is that where the orientation is to punish crimes rather than criminals, substitutionary punishment -- here, involuntary; in Christianity, voluntary -- is an acceptable and natural result. You can not, have not, and will not refute this, which is why you continue to devolve to the same irrelevant distractions.

But feel free to keep embarrassing yourself. It's sort of like a trip to the mental ward in the 1800s.

Pitiful. Not even a specific argument.

It is a 100% specific arguments, your vague and empty denias notwithstanding.

BTW, the muhktar's "justice" here is not much different than "mafia justice" where the godfather decides to make an example out of someone so that the "real culprit" will be scared away.

Oh goody. You just gave me a second example! Way to go to undermine your case. Want to try for the third yourself? (Hint: Siciiy is ALSO more collectivist in nature.)

Is that the kind of justice that your God employs?

The kind associated with collectivist societies in the ANE and in the ancient Mediterranean? You bet. Too bad playing the bigot card and associating it with "Iraqi Kurds" (as opposed to ANE) and "mafia" (as opposed to the Sicilians) makes you look like such a racist.

But of course, "my" God did one better. He took all the justice on His own Son.

Now isn't THAT "unfair"? I guess you are right. And out of the other side of your mouth, do you whine about eternal punishment, too?

Okay Mr. Jello, was he or was he not an autocratic ruler?

No idea. But whether he was or not is not in the least germane to the issue.

I am not casting aspersions on Cyrus Gordon.

Yes, you are. You implied that he was blinking stupid for not doing thorough research. Don't retreat from that position; you've been stomping and hollering and spitting as you claim that Gordon goofed big time by just quizzing the mukhtar and no one else, and was also blind foaming ignorant of the social world he did his work in. That's casting aspersions, the Fundy way. It's your current substitute for saying the Devil possesses Gordon to lie about the culture.

but HE is NOT arguing that this example represents the divine justice involved in Penal Substutionary Atonement and by the way, neither is Rendsburg as his email back to me shows.

And as I would have predicted he would say. Because I KNEW -- how did I know? -- that you would lie and misrepresent my position. TYPICAL. I never said it was an example of "the divine justice involved in Penal Substitutionary Atonement". I have said, ALL THROUGH THIS, that it illustrates substitutionary justice that conceptually supports Penal Substitution.

So, then, he didn't back you up on your complaint that Gordon was an idiot and the mukhtar was a lying autocrat?

BUSTED.


Your only argument which was demolished in less than 5 minutes?

My only opponent's brains slipped out when he tried to shift in reverse too many times.

Scapegoat? Are you referring to Deut. 21 the case of the heifer being offered because they did not know who committed the murder? That was answered in the first reply. THEY DID NOT KNOW WHO THE MURDERER WAS,

And you have been told, for only the 10 billionth time, that that makes no difference whatsoever. But no, not Deut. 21, Mr. Bob Jones Graduate with the Ph. D. You really are embarrassing yourself big time. Come on -- a heifer isn't a goat, for pete's sake! What are you, agriculturally challenged? Yes, Lev. 16 -- and I know full well it is a different ceremony; that's not what I asked you for.

Think it through, now. I know you can if you just get the bju out of your ears.

Today @ 02:53 PM post located here
jpholding:

Gargamel:

LOL--you don't have any more do you?

ROFLFOF. I NEED no more to put you in your Bob Jones place. The example Rendsberg gave illustrates my point (for what I have always said, that it is an illustration NOT on penal sub, but of a social situation in which it would be a natrual extension). Since it is said to cover the whole ANE, the example is sufficient. Your case: Lost in space.

Lets go back and recap what it is we are discussing here. We are discussing whether or not penal substitution can constitute justice. Your one argument, which is an article written by someone who would never defend penal substitution, you now say is is an "illustration NOT on penal sub., but of a social situation in which it would be a natural extension." Excuse me, but this is an argument. It is at best an illustration of what one Iraqi Kurd thought was justice but can in no way, shape, or form constitute an argument for penal substitution. You even admit this. Once again I ask, is this all you got? If so, it is about the most flimsy evidence I have ever seen for anything.

Your brand of justice of the muhktar punishing someone at random because he does not know who the real culprit is TOTALLY destroyed by the fact that God always knows who the culprit is.

You have been told 6574 times that knowing or not knowing the culprit is NOT the issue;

You can say it 1,006,574 times and it will not change the facts. Your saying does not change it. It is the issue as the muhktar would never have done this had he known the true culprit. Unless you can show that he would have done it even though he knew the true culprit, your argument crumbles.

the issue is that where the orientation is to punish crimes rather than criminals,

We have been over this a million times too. You cannot punish crimes without punishing a person and if you punish the person who did not commit the crime you are guilty of an injustice.

substitutionary punishment -- here, involuntary; in Christianity, voluntary -- is an acceptable and natural result.

It is acceptable only to the autocratic ruler who institutes it. You have not and apparently cannot show that it is acceptable to the innocent person who has the punishment inflicted upon him. Rendsburg could not show that either and admitted that in an email to you and to me. So the only one who thinks this is justice is the Iraqi muhktar. (hardly a worthy example of God).

BTW, the muhktar's "justice" here is not much different than "mafia justice" where the godfather decides to make an example out of someone so that the "real culprit" will be scared away.

Oh goody. You just gave me a second example! Way to go to undermine your case. Want to try for the third yourself? (Hint: Siciiy is ALSO more collectivist in nature.)

I can hardly believe what I am reading. So the divine justice of Christ's atonement is best represented by:

1. An Iraqi Kurdish chieftain

2. A mafia boss

Is that the kind of justice that your God employs?

The kind associated with collectivist societies in the ANE and in the ancient Mediterranean? You bet. Too bad playing the bigot card and associating it with "Iraqi Kurds" (as opposed to ANE) and "mafia" (as opposed to the Sicilians) makes you look like such a racist.

They are your examples. I could care less what the race of the people are but the fact remains that they are hardly the kinds of examples one would expect to have given to represent the thrice holy God of Christianity.

I am not casting aspersions on Cyrus Gordon.

Yes, you are. You implied that he was blinking stupid for not doing thorough research. Don't retreat from that position; you've been stomping and hollering and spitting as you claim that Gordon goofed big time by just quizzing the mukhtar and no one else, and was also blind foaming ignorant of the social world he did his work in. That's casting aspersions, the Fundy way. It's your current substitute for saying the Devil possesses Gordon to lie about the culture.

Talk about foaming at the mouth--just go back and reread your paragraph. Gordon was not making an argument for penal substitution as Rendsburg clearly indicated. Gordon was not in a position to interview the family. The muhktar did not offer him that opportunity. This was not a free society. Even if he had interviewed him there is no assurance he would have heard the truth anymore than you heard the truth from Iraqi's before Saddam was removed. People are afraid to speak in autocratic societies. Freedom of speech is not something that is granted to them. Rendsburg acknowledged to me that we will never know what the family thought because no one interviewed them.

but HE is NOT arguing that this example represents the divine justice involved in Penal Substutionary Atonement and by the way, neither is Rendsburg as his email back to me shows.

And as I would have predicted he would say. Because I KNEW -- how did I know? -- that you would lie and misrepresent my position. TYPICAL. I never said it was an example of "the divine justice involved in Penal Substitutionary Atonement". I have said, ALL THROUGH THIS, that it illustrates substitutionary justice that conceptually supports Penal Substitution.

So, then, he didn't back you up on your complaint that Gordon was an idiot and the mukhtar was a lying autocrat?

I did not lie and I do not appreciate being called a liar again. I was hoping that we could rise above such insults in our debates. I simply asked him if his example could be used as an EXAMPLE to represent divine justice in penal substitution. He said that was not his aim.

Of course I did not call him nor Gordon an idiot as I have also never done here in our discussion. You are the one who keeps telling me to call them that.

Scapegoat? Are you referring to Deut. 21 the case of the heifer being offered because they did not know who committed the murder? That was answered in the first reply. THEY DID NOT KNOW WHO THE MURDERER WAS,

And you have been told, for only the 10 billionth time, that that makes no difference whatsoever. But no, not Deut. 21, Mr. Bob Jones Graduate with the Ph. D. You really are embarrassing yourself big time. Come on -- a heifer isn't a goat, for pete's sake! What are you, agriculturally challenged? Yes, Lev. 16 -- and I know full well it is a different ceremony; that's not what I asked you for.

Well forgive me for not reading your mind. In the example given in the article, Dt. 21 and the heifer was referred to. If you are going to make an argument based on the scapegoat of Lev 16 then do it and I will respond to it.

Lets go back and recap what it is we are discussing here. We are discussing whether or not penal substitution can constitute justice. Your one argument, which is an article written by someone who would never defend penal substitution, you now say is is an "illustration NOT on penal sub., but of a social situation in which it would be a natural extension."

Now say? I have said that all along.

Excuse me, but this is an argument. It is at best an illustration of what one Iraqi Kurd thought was justice but can in no way, shape, or form constitute an argument for penal substitution

Nevertheless it CAN and DOES constitute an argument for substitutive justice, UNDER WHICH CONDITIONS it is obvious that an idea of penal substitution would be acceptable. To explain why one is just and the other not, you must explain why the "voluntary" aspect of penal sub is "unjust" while the ANE example (NOT Iraqi Kurd alone, I remind you again, and again...) of involuntary substitution IS just within the Eastern paradigm.

If so, it is about the most flimsy evidence I have ever seen for anything.

Fair's fair. I doubt if you have the clarity of vision to know when you've been thoroughly trumped to begin with. Polemic aside, you have no answer for this and it obviously leaves you with no way out for your original complaint that penal sub wasn't fair. Beyond that, you have recently IGNORED the "debt of gratitude" aspect of the issue and the client-patron aspect which shows that it is not just a "free ride". And no, "it's not in the Bible" is not an answer.

You can say it 1,006,574 times and it will not change the facts.

You can repeat it back 384043854584282053 times and it won't make the claim any more relevant that knowledge of whodunnit is not the issue. Keep doing it, though, it makes you look funny.

We have been over this a million times too. You cannot punish crimes without punishing a person and if you punish the person

Yes, I know. Your obtuse word games. Did you manage to ask Rendsberg how he was so stupid as to believe this could be possible?

It is acceptable only to the autocratic ruler who institutes it.

You have yet to show that the ruler was an autocrat, that the people did not accept it, and have been notoriously quiet about Rendsberg backing me up and not you on this point. All you can do is accuse Gordon of rank incompetence, which shows you have no answer at all. Now this is the end of the matter: Unless you have some REAL knowledge of how an agonistic, collectivist society works, your "arguments" are nothing but ostrich-type dismissals.

It is obvious that at BJU they assumed that everyone was just like modern Americans, in Bible times!

I can hardly believe what I am reading. So the divine justice of Christ's atonement is best represented by:

1. An Ancient Near Eastern chieftain
2. A Sicilian custom

Don't pull that jive of pulling in "Iraq" and "Mafia". You obviously DO care to use their nationality/race and social place as a bigot's bludgeon.

the fact remains that they are hardly the kinds of examples one would expect to have given to represent the thrice holy God of Christianity.

Then maybe your definition of "holiness" needs to be scrubbed of its Western anachronistic encrustations. Maybe you need to get some idea what a collectivist society is LIKE. For example:

Cultural behavior is based on mutual interdependencies that create both power and weakness. This is a key source of stress in Japanese society, because there is no closure of interpersonal and social obligations. Independence is never attained. The Japanese kaisha ("guy-shah") is held together by networks of hierarchical relationships from which individual employees receive their identity and status. To lose ones standing and legitimacy in the kaisha is to lose one’s identity. Permanent employment is therefore the expectation and tradition. Japan’s news media often report that well over half of all Japanese are so seriously afflicted by stress that it is a problem of epidemic proportions. Part of this affliction results from the intense pressure on people to work harder and produce more than other people. Stress also results from crowded living conditions, and from worry about financial security during old age. Much of the stress experienced by the Japanese derives from conforming to the demands of their traditional social system—part of which is a tendency to be compulsive about things.

In a society like this, is it not obvious that "peer pressue" inevitably leads to situations like the mukhtar's, and the Sicilians, in which "substitutionary justice" are live options?

If you don't think so, explain why and use expert sociologist/anthropologist testimony to explain it. None of this "it's not in the Bible" or "I don't think it's fair and I'll bet they wouldn't either" jazz. Either pony up with evidence or get off the pot.

Talk about foaming at the mouth--just go back and reread your paragraph.

I did. It is 100% accurate. That it was not an argument for penal sub is not relevant to this particular. There is no evidence that Gordon could not have interviewed the family; there was no magical barrier stopping him, and even if by some wild reason he could not, he had access to countless natives whom he could have asked similar questions: "If the mukhtar did this to you, what would you think?"

Even if he had interviewed him there is no assurance he would have heard the truth anymore than you heard the truth from Iraqi's before Saddam was removed. People are afraid to speak in autocratic societies.

PLEASE! You do nothing more than beg the question of autocracy and silence to cover your inability to provide a direct answer. Simply admit you have none. This is worse that Dan Brown's conspiracy theories in The DaVinci Code. Maybe it never occurs to you that Gordon could ask Iraqi emigrants to free nations. Oh, wait, maybe they would have been too scared of roving terror squads in their new home country. Whatever excuse works, obviously!

I did not lie and I do not appreciate being called a liar again.

You did lie, if you said what you said you did, and if you don't want to be called one, don't misrepresent my position. Showing an example of penal sub directly from Rendsberg was not my aim, never was my aim, and was never stated to be my aim. If you claimed this, you either lied, or had a tremendous slip of memory that gives a different reason not to trust you instead.

Of course I did not call him nor Gordon an idiot as I have also never done here in our discussion. You are the one who keeps telling me to call them that.

Exactly. I am asking you to be forthright rather than subtle about it. It will not do to say "Gordon couldn't help it"; he obviously could, and he obviously had other means of investigation, even if every one of your excuses about "autocrats" with their terror squads pans out.

If you are going to make an argument based on the scapegoat of Lev 16 then do it and I will respond to it.

Someone already has pointed to the animal sacrifies as substitutionary. I brought it up to, and I saw no response, unless it was lost in moderation.