The Citadel of Christ

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Phaedrus

The actual intention of Jesus is irrelevant, only the perceived intention that is relevant. No one but Jesus knows the actual intention, there is no point for us to ponder his actual intention. But his perceived intention is good. How could you perceive Jesus as kidding with me when he sacrificed his life? Are you suggesting he sacrificed his life to make a joke?

Sagesound

You seriously need to read in context. I wrote “The Crusader laughs at your feeble effort.”, you said that laugh is a “hearty laugh”. How do you have a “hearty” laugh at someone’s feeble effort. You can either laugh with contempt, or if you are reserved in your judgement, in which case you do a chuckle. You only have “hearty laugh” with friends at a good joke, not when you are defending the Citidel. Do you think the laughter of Nelson Munz in the Simpsons is a genuine “hearty” laugh? The laughter I refer to is Mr Burns laugh, which is “heheheh, excellent”, a mere chuckle.

Three criticisms

  1. you did not deny that you didn’t lead the dark hordes. The horde must have a leader.

  2. incorrect, you said “single puny warrior”. “single” implies he is alone. “puny” is before the word “warrior” so you are describing the warrior as puny. You should have said, “the power of the single crusader is puny incomparison to the horde”.

  3. I didn’t know this is a simulated combat post, which I find to be very childish. I thought I meant to write a paragraph and you write another paragraph in such a way that the 2nd paragraph logically and naturally follows the 1st but with important deviations. I can’t believe you are interested in such childish games.

None of your “combat” replies have any logical connection to my post. I already said "a battle in which they are destinied to defeat. " meaning you can’t win. Your replies are not connected to my post, so they are all logically void.

22

I’m suggesting he no more sacrificed himself for mankind than Boromir sacrificed himself for Frodo. :wink: I think he’s a fiction, a fabrication of the Bible authors. Without the central fantasy of the Christ character in the story, the whole concept of Crusaders and Citadels itself becomes the joke. :smiley:

Not that I’m saying you can’t believe it if you like.

23

The question of whether Jesus is a fictional character is irrelevant. What is important is in what he said, which is completely true.

24

In what universe does that statement make logical or even grammatical sense! :astonished: :wink: If, for instance, he didn’t exist, on the basis of what authority could you assert that what he said was completely true? :confused:

25

Already did that.

You did not originally describe the kind of laugh, thus it was left to the imagination of the reader to design it. I chose to imagine a hearty laugh, which designated his pride of his faith against the odds. Perhaps if you described it in the first place instead of later calling it a chuckle, this problem wouldn’t be an issue.

That is your opinion, and I doubt many would agree with it.

The Simpsons handles laughter on an entirely different context. Your point is irrelevant.

I did not deny, nor did I accept. There is no prior context that states denizens of the underworld must be ‘led’ in the first place. Myth has shown that anarchial demons do not waste their time with the biddings of authoritive figures; instead they go out and do damage, which is exactly what I wrote. However, since you insisted upon naming me as their leader, I had to write one in for you so you wouldn’t be confused, hence Satan. Besides…have I spoken of your name as the name of the crusader? No…I have always called him crusader because YOU have failed to name him.

It was bad enough for you making yourself the crusader…the writer has no business personifying the self into the makings of a character they’ve created. It creates problems difficult to overcome.

Your point? Of course he is alone, you have yet to write of anyone or anything else besides your crusader.

You sure have an odd way of interpretting things.

Well, congrats…you’ve made something ‘very childish’ without knowing it.

…

… I’m not interested in games, just in messing with your mind. Personlly, I can’t believe you made this thread.

… In your first post you implied ‘onslaught of infidels’ and ‘demons’…your argument is self-defeating.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and quote the good and gracious Monooq… “Pinnacle, you are a disgrace, you have fallen off the stupid tree and hit every branch, you have no business challenging anyone because you are bruised under the stupid tree.”

26

You are so funny PoR :smiley:
I’m sure jesus is rofl… after all, if jesus and god have got all these other human characteristics they must also love a good laugh.

I have to repeat something I remembered recently and posted in another thread: When I was deep into my “search for the truth” a disciple asked his guru whether they should preach to christians. The guru quickly answered back “No, let jesus have the dumb ones”

I haven’t remembered that for twenty years but twice since reading PoW’s posts, I’ve thought of it??? :smiley:

27

km2_33

If the guru is so smart, why is he still a guru and not the saviour? obviously, the guru you talk about is so stupid that he can’t distinguish good vs the bad.

Sagesound

omg, 1) there is only one crusader, 2) PoR demanded “which foul demon goes there”.

One crusader defends the citidel
PoR defends the citidel
One crusader = PoR

I have named him…

"No…I have always called him crusader because YOU have failed to name him.

It was bad enough for you making yourself the crusader…"

Are you suggesting I’ve named someone whom I failed to name?

I am messing with your mind.

I said, the reason for me being at the citidel is to defend it against the infidels. But I saw a demon, so I demanded which demon is it? how is that self-defeating, do you know what you are saying?

I have a feeling Monooq copied that from someone. he’s a bullsh*t “artist”.

28

You’re a fool PoR…you state the obvious thinking that it makes a valid counter-argument. So…I’ll try this a different way…

A wise man walks up to the crusader and asks him: “Why do you defend an empty citadel?”

29

Sagesound

I have to state the obvious because you somehow cannot see the obvious flaw in your logic.

The crusader replied, “oh wise sage of all ages, how right are you in saying that the citidel is empty, for have you forgotten that you are blind.”

30

I think everyone would appreciate it if you’d start using the quote button from now on. But anyway, you claim my logic is flawed…explain your reasoning then.

The wise man, who happens to have perfect vision, gives the crusader a quixotic look and replies: “If I were blind, how then would I know there was a citadel there, and you standing before me as you are? Again I ask, why do you defend something which no longer serves a purpose? Tell me that, what is the purpose of that citadel?”

31

I think the “Crusader” will be on holiday for a month, starting tomorrow. Might be a good time to sneak in and vanalize the Citadel. :stuck_out_tongue:

32

One could go as far as to say that the purpose of the citadel is to be vandlized…heh…use red spray paint: “Jesus likes little boys.”

33

"Because everything Jesus said is true and if we follow his teachings we will create a better world. "

“Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”

Where is he?

Can you see my difficulties?
Homo Mysticus