AJ Ferrari to 197

[wrestle87]

3 hours ago, jackwebster said:

The problem with the strong Kuhnian reading is that the "fantastically incomplete" parts of "our current body of science" are liminal. It's a baby bathwater situation, and Kuhn himself was disturbed by the post-structuralists who read SSR this way. I mean science didn't stop sciencing just because Heisenberg said the better you know the position of an object the less you know about its momentum. 

Yeah, the "new atheists" and their kind are insufferable. But...

I’m deeeefinitely not advocating “less science less investigation” approach.  NFW.  Just that we ought air on the side of kindness towards others, and awareness of the limitations of our own opinions/beliefs

Also, liminal, great word.

[flyingcement]

11 minutes ago, wrestle87 said:

I’m deeeefinitely not advocating “less science less investigation” approach.  NFW.  Just that we ought air on the side of kindness towards others, and awareness of the limitations of our own opinions/beliefs

Also, liminal, great word.

As for the word liminal - I had to look it up and even still not quite sure 

[jackwebster]

8 hours ago, Gus said:

 I am not sure how you got that out of the verse I shared. God did forgive all sins on the cross. He reconciled himself to mankind through the blood of Jesus Christ. However, reconciliation is a two party process and man must reconcile himself to God. This is done through believing that Jesus died for our sins on the cross, was buried and rose again for our justification. 

Youre gonna have to walk me through this: according to the verse, we need(ed) to be "reconciled" to God. I assume this means that we are in His debt vis a vis sin (Original or otherwise). So re debt, the debtor has two paths towards recolliation: forgiveness or atonement. If God wants to forgive us--  being the omnipotent being that He is -- He just clears the debts, no questions asked ... you know like we do when our children f*@&% up. I.e. there ain't no need for a mediator. Atonement, on the other hand, requires a repayment of a debt. In the passages you quote, this repayment, the atonement is taken care of by Jesus. And the atonement is made "through blood on the cross." So, your exegesis is in a bind: you claim both that God forgives our sin (I.e. rents the veil in the Temple before Jesus expires on the cross as in Luke, if I remember correctly), and at the same time that God accepts atonement for our sins with Christ's blood as tender (i.e. rents the veil in the Temple after Jesus expires on the cross as in Mark). Forgiveness and atonement are mutually exclusive ideas, and this is made explicit in this context by the discrepancy about when the Temple veil was torn.

So, again, walk me through it. I just can't understand why an omnipotent diety would demand atonement, a blood sacrifice of his own son, when both Jesus and lowly sinners like myself can forgive "for they no no what they do," etc.

Edited December 25, 2023 by jackwebster

[jackwebster]

5 hours ago, wrestle87 said:

we ought air on the side of kindness towards others, and awareness of the limitations of our own opinions/beliefs

Word.

[jackwebster]

43 minutes ago, jackwebster said:

In the passages you quote, this repayment, the atonement is taken care of by Jesus. And the atonement is made "through blood on the cross." 

My bad. This summary of the loan agreement is missing a clause: In addition to Christ's payment in blood, each individual is required to pay in the trifecta a beliefs you stipulate. Again, it's hard for me to understand why an omnipotent and benevolent diety would require such payments when we forgive our children as a matter of course. Certainly, Jesus teaches something radically different. 

Edited December 25, 2023 by jackwebster

[D3 for LU]

21 hours ago, Gus said:

Haha maybe if you are a Calvinist

... does Hobbes also have a say in this? 

D3

Edited December 25, 2023 by D3 for LU

[Gus]

2 hours ago, jackwebster said:

Youre gonna have to walk me through this: according to the verse, we need(ed) to be "reconciled" to God. I assume this means that we are in His debt vis a vis sin (Original or otherwise). So re debt, the debtor has two paths towards recolliation: forgiveness or atonement. If God wants to forgive us--  being the omnipotent being that He is -- He just clears the debts, no questions asked ... you know like we do when our children f*@&% up. I.e. there ain't no need for a mediator. Atonement, on the other hand, requires a repayment of a debt. In the passages you quote, this repayment, the atonement is taken care of by Jesus. And the atonement is made "through blood on the cross." So, your exegesis is in a bind: you claim both that God forgives our sin (I.e. rents the veil in the Temple before Jesus expires on the cross as in Luke, if I remember correctly), and at the same time that God accepts atonement for our sins with Christ's blood as tender (i.e. rents the veil in the Temple after Jesus expires on the cross as in Mark). Forgiveness and atonement are mutually exclusive ideas, and this is made explicit in this context by the discrepancy about when the Temple veil was torn.

So, again, walk me through it. I just can't understand why an omnipotent diety would demand atonement, a blood sacrifice of his own son, when both Jesus and lowly sinners like myself can forgive "for they no no what they do," etc.

I’ll try to give this a shot while being concise. God is holy, sinless and righteous. His demands for mankind to enter into heaven is for them to be holy, sinless and righteous. Because of the fall of man, sin entered the world. Man is unable to live to the standard that God requires. God gave the law (10 commandments) and had man attempt to follow the law from Exodus til Romans. The result? No one could follow the law and obtain righteousness on their own. The law was given as an act of God’s grace so that sinners could see that they were sinners. From the law is the knowledge of sin. Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross is a payment for the sin debt of mankind. By believing in Christ’s finished work on the cross, each individual is made the righteousness of Christ. His righteousness is put on the believer. A person has to accept the free gift of salvation and does so by simply believing. As Paul puts it to the Philippian jailor in Acts 16 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. 

[jackwebster]

9 minutes ago, Gus said:

I’ll try to give this a shot while being concise. God is holy, sinless and righteous. His demands for mankind to enter into heaven is for them to be holy, sinless and righteous. Because of the fall of man, sin entered the world. Man is unable to live to the standard that God requires. God gave the law (10 commandments) and had man attempt to follow the law from Exodus til Romans. The result? No one could follow the law and obtain righteousness on their own. The law was given as an act of God’s grace so that sinners could see that they were sinners. From the law is the knowledge of sin. Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross is a payment for the sin debt of mankind. By believing in Christ’s finished work on the cross, each individual is made the righteousness of Christ. His righteousness is put on the believer. A person has to accept the free gift of salvation and does so by simply believing. As Paul puts it to the Philippian jailor in Acts 16 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. 

"Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross is a payment for the sin debt of mankind."  Gotcha. This is certainly the message in Mark. I just don't have much respect for this kind of god. You do. Fair enough. In any event, safe travels.

Edited December 25, 2023 by jackwebster

[VakAttack]

On 12/24/2023 at 5:58 AM, nhs67 said:

If you believe he is an actual PSU fan them he got you good.

Also, this JC we have here is some sort od bot.

A fundamental misunderstanding of the bit.  I've said it a million times.  He's a PSU fan pretending to be an Iowa fan who's pretending to be a PSU fan.

[Hammerlock3]

2 hours ago, VakAttack said:

A fundamental misunderstanding of the bit.  I've said it a million times.  He's a PSU fan pretending to be an Iowa fan who's pretending to be a PSU fan.

it reminds me of norm macdonald talking about Alec Baldwins trump imitation. He said it wasn't good because people tend to like themsevles, so if you have naked contempt for the person you're imitiating it pulls you out of the bit.

[wrestlingest2010]

On 12/24/2023 at 9:50 AM, killdozer said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Brooks & AJ are 2 & 3 seed. Say AJ beats Brooks in the dual and Brooks beats AJ at Big 10. Then someone likes Buchanan or Elam goes undefeated and wins Big XII or Hidlay goes undefeated.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
 

If AJ doesn't win Big Tens he is going to drop a bit in the seeding since I doubt he'll have enough matches to get a RPI, won't have H2H with any of the other top 197s. 

[LIV4GOD]

9 hours ago, jackwebster said:

"Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross is a payment for the sin debt of mankind."  Gotcha. This is certainly the message in Mark. I just don't have much respect for this kind of god. 

Why?  It's His universe.  An infinite mind with every possible fact came to the ultimate conclusion.  He deemed the need for justification so important He made no exception for Himself.   He created us, and then deemed it right to make our redemption possible that it necessitated the sacrifice of Himself in order to make payment for that justification.   Seems pretty noble.  

[Hammerlock3]

starting to think ferrari is toxic...

[MPhillips]

Christ, we need some wrestling and quick...

[ionel]

1 hour ago, MPhillips said:

Christ, we need some wrestling and quick...

I am aware of no biblical evidence that Jesus ever wrestled.  Now could we get back on topic.  

[ionel]

4 hours ago, wrestlingest2010 said:

If AJ doesn't win Big Tens he is going to drop a bit in the seeding since I doubt he'll have enough matches to get a RPI, won't have H2H with any of the other top 197s. 

If no H2H i propose a virtual deadlift and flex off completion to settle seed positions.  

[MPhillips]

56 minutes ago, ionel said:

I am aware of no biblical evidence that Jesus ever wrestled.  Now could we get back on topic.  

Number seven overall...

[ionel]

1 minute ago, MPhillips said:

Number seven overall...

Me thinks MPoke doesn't like to recieve the poke. 

[1032004]

I love that this discussion was happening on Christmas lol

[Pipewrench]

The logical and simple solution would be for ESPN to finally fire Quint K so he can't do those ridiculous ambulance-chasing-esque post-match interviews.  Problem solved.

 

[ionel]

13 hours ago, MPhillips said:

Number seven overall...

Glad you are confirming I'm not top 5. 

[jackwebster]

17 hours ago, LIV4GOD said:

Why?  It's His universe.  An infinite mind with every possible fact came to the ultimate conclusion.  He deemed the need for justification so important He made no exception for Himself.   He created us, and then deemed it right to make our redemption possible that it necessitated the sacrifice of Himself in order to make payment for that justification.   Seems pretty noble.  

If he's omnipotent, maybe he could have just forgiven us? 

[1032004]

So are we expecting to see AJ wrestling at Soldier Salute?

[ionel]

35 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

So are we expecting to see AJ wrestling at Soldier Salute?

Jimmy?

[jackwebster]

18 hours ago, LIV4GOD said:

  It's His universe. 

Your reply was a little aggressive, so here's a snarkier go: the fact that this omnipotent, immortal God wants to be worshipped for a self-sacrifice through which he sacrifices nothing -- he comes out immortal, omnipotent, perfect on the other end -- is an affront to all the mortals who sacrifice themselves in service to and honor of their families, friends, nations, and traditions.