ISIS And Franklin Graham

[shazeep]

So, if you cannot answer charges except with rhetoric, and insisting upon some legal definition of the Cross, while simultaneously arguing with direct quotes from Christ, and essentially being offended by Him--which i'm sure you might try to object to, but i have several quotes now--what does this say about your doctrines? How do you examine them? Or, since that seems to be verboten, how do you justify this? To yourself, i mean, since it has become pretty obvious that no rational defense is forthcoming?

i am trying to allow for the irrational here, which might be more aligned with Christ, even if it makes less sense in print. I am not interested in some "win" by sophistry here, but your definition of the Cross,

"It applies to those who think good works of the good Samaritan save without the cross. It applies to those who think doing good to others as they would have done to them saves without the cross."

is demonstrably at odds with Christ, and honestly i don't even know what you mean by "the Cross," so it seems we are back to your explanation of "read some Paul, and voila" for your best explanation of how to manifest the Cross more fully in our lives? I might at least get to ask why not "read some Christ, and voila?"