Radorth

Ah, so they don't break. Well I guess I'm wrong then about them breaking. (Except Redline frames used for racing)

Wait a minute. I thought you said they are dangerous but they don't break.

Wait a minute. You said they aren't dangerous, but they do break.

How about this Fenton. Name an aluminum frame ridden for free by a top pro in 91-93 era when people were offering him $5,000 a year to ride theirs and we'll be all done- I mean, if you want to clear this up and maybe discuss the thread subject.

OK Daggah, I admit I wasn't clear in that post. Nevertheless I have never said I was free of sin, nor do I believe it. Of course everything else I have said would make it a lot more clear, but you left all that out so you could find fault with me which is your sole aim on this thread. Is that a fair statement?

Is it also fair to say you are a liar by your own definition, i.e. leaving out that which would clarify a statement? I'm sure a few people want to know what makes you so holy.

Or are you just trying to justify your own sins, which is what I assert that you are doing?

Rad

Radorth

Yes he could, apparently. I don't have a good answer for this other than that it seems unjust to just forgive all people of everything without some sort of payment. But you could argue that point I suppose. Hopefully all the skeptics who think it is unfair, and demand we each take complete responsibility for all our sins, will come forward to argue with you.

OTOH, he himself obviously feels his work is incomplete until he goes to the cross, where he says "It is finished." I gave the scriptures for what God accomplished via the cross, which includes other things. For example, does he have the authority to impute righteousness to someone before his death? Does Jesus have the authority to declare the whole world reconciled without dying on the cross? Can a Christian be called a "saint" without the shedding of Jesus' blood? I don't think so.

Rad

Daggah

No, and no. The statement attributed to you was NOT that you were "free of sin," it was that you were "incapable" of it. There's a difference. And what fault am I accusing you of unfairly here? You didn't bother to read the question posed to you. So therefore, I am accusing you of lacking reading comprehension. This is not an unfair accusation, as anyone can see.

How's that? I said I remember you making a statement along those lines. You deny it. I find said statement that I remembered. What false claim have I made?

Furthermore, it's not my fault if YOU contradict yourself.

And hands up people. Who here (besides Radorth) wants to know what makes me so "holy"?

Sin requires god. There is no god. Therefore there is no sin.

winstonjen

So the sacrifice was purely for ego purposes. Gotcha. So the Xian god is not only vengeful and petty, but insecure, and so requires sacrifice.

So a Christian does not need good deeds to be called a 'saint'? I don't think it is fair for someone to be put on the pedestal of 'saint' because of what someone else did. It should be based purely on what they did themselves.

Radorth

Nice dodge Daggah. I ask again. You called me a liar on another thread for picking out quotes to suit my argument, and leaving out qualifying quotes. Since you just did the same thing, are you a liar by your own definition or not?

It's a simple question worthy of an answer since slander is involved here. As you know, the burden is on the slanderer to prove his case. I wouldn't belabor the point except you make a habit of it.

Rad

Radorth

What are you pontificating about now? Oh wait. Here's something worth answering, not that you're in the least sincere.

The meaning of the word has been changed by the Catholic church. Paul meant one who was "blameless" and made so by Jesus' blood.. Thus he refers to the church as "the saints" or "all the saints" without distinction.

Really? What if one must be "blameless" to be saved, and certainly to be taken into the presence of God? Why do you think the veil in the temple was cut in two after Jesus died?

Winstonjen, have you had a Zen course yet, BTW? There is a small paradox here, which I don't think you are ready for.

Rad

Yellum Notnef

Can you comprehend the things people say to you or are you just trying to be difficult? Try going back and taking another shot at reading what I said about the frames.

1.)YOU first claimed that aluminum frames couldn`t even get through one race without breaking until you came along around 1992.

2.) I told you that back in the early/mid 80`s me and my friends had a variety of aluminum frames that were used for racing as well as freestyle and ramp jumping. NONE of these frames ever broke.

3.)It`s been many years since I`ve given BMX frames any thought at all,but my recent encounter with you leads me to do some quick research on the subject. What I find is that aluminum frames were more prone to breakage than those of other materials,but theres no mention about these frames (aluminum) breaking every race like you said. Frames were swapped every few months,not every single race.

So either me and my friends were extremely lucky that our frames never broke despite what we put them through,that guy who wrote the article is wrong about how often frames had to be swapped and you are 100% correct about frames breaking every race.

OR.....
You are exaggerating the frequency of aluminum failures in order to make the frame you and Jesus built seem like Gods gift to the world of BMX.
But Christians don`t like bragging or exaggerating so I suppose this can`t be the case.


I`m done here. This is beyond ridiculous and way off topic. I`ll get out of the way and let Dr. Rick play with you for a while. (unless you`re gonna tell me you invented double-butt welding. In that case we`d have a long way to go)

winstonjen

I thought my point was made clear. You said that Jesus did NOT need to die to forgive sin, but Jesus felt his duty was 'incomplete' until his sacrifice. So, my view is that he 'sacrificed' (actually, it was more like a bank loan that was repaid to him in 2 days) himself to get more people to worship him, and to make some of his disciples feel guilty that they denied/betrayed him.


So anyone else outside the church is not a saint, but a worthless, filthy sinner. This train of thought is what caused the deaths of millions under the guise of Christianity, executed by the hands of these 'saints'.



Why would someone be made 'blameless' because of what Jesus did? Oh yeah, it's another one of the rules that an unjust, petty and cruel god made up - the sacrifice of INNOCENT blood, so that the GUILTY may live. It's beyond ludicrous!

No, I haven't, but I would appreciate it if you stopped the condescending attitude.

Yellum Notnef

On more than two occasions I`ve heard Radorth suggest people here take a Zen course.

Maybe I`m missing something here as I don`t know much about Zen and how it has anything to do with Jesus,but can somebody tell me how taking a course in it will help someone make sense out of the nonsense that is Christian theology?

Daggah

It is NOT MY FAULT if you contradict yourself.

Furthermore, anyone who can go back and read my posts will see that this is true: it was NEVER about what you believe. I don't give a damn what you believe at this point. You said you never made that statement. The fact is, you did. I pointed it out. That you made statements that contradict the statement in question is irrelevant.

I am not picking quotes to suit my argument and leaving out quotes that don't, because I am not making an argument over your ability or inability to sin! The argument is PURELY over whether YOU said you were inable to sin. You did.