December 2007 Screwballs

[Truth be Told]

Now that's just whacked.

[Chaotic Void]

:hehe: OEC

Well, that opens up a whole number of possibilities for Mossy's age...



----------------------------------------------------

*Edit*

That's it, I blasted give up! I've tried three accounts with two different e-mail addresses, I've requested time and again for confirmation e-mails to be sent to the accounts... I GIVE UP!!!!!!

:argh: :rant: :argh: :argh: :rant: :argh: :argh: :rant: :argh:

Patience is a Virtue, eh?:lol:

Then again, this is a Dawkins Run site we're talking about here...

[JB]

Patience is a Virtue, eh?:lol:

Then again, this is a Dawkins Run site we're talking about here...

:hehe: Patience is not one of my virtues, that's for sure. And I still haven't gotten a single blasted confirmation e-mail.

[Alucard]

I'd like to nominate a Jehovah's Witness on the GameFAQs Religion board who goes by the username "OrangeWizard". He and I started a "debate" recently on whether or not the Trinity existed. He got his panties in a knot about John 1:1. Editing out the other stuff not regarding John 1:1, this is pretty much how it went:


OrangeWizard: Jesus never said he was the savior, those verses are other people saying he's the savior, because HE was the one on earth, SAVING them. God sent Jesus to save them, clearly. So, in the grand scheme of things, God is the one saving them.

Me: But the fact remains that the title of Saviour is one given almost exclusively to Jesus, by the writers of what you agree with me to be divinely-inspired Scripture. And you're right, God is the one saving them, because God didn't use a creature to do his saving work for him. John 1:1-14 shows the Incarnation of the Word of God becoming flesh (and where the Word is identified as being part of the substance of God).

OW: Sorry, In my bible it says the word was A god, not God.

Me: Your bible goes against a significant scholarly consensus. Yours is the only bible that translates ho theos as "a god". Literally, the translation is as follows:

en arche [I]en ho logos [was the word] kai ho logos [and the word] en pros ton theon [was with the god] kai theos en ho logos [and god was the word]

I see absolutely no reason to insert an "a" in between "was" and "God". To do so would promote polytheism, and we don't want that, do we?

OW: Too bad. that's what my religion tells me to read and that's what I read.

Me: XD. Religious indoctrination at it's finest. I provide an analysis of a verse, and you say "but my relgon tells me 2 believe dis, so LOL @ u!"

OW: Do you have a problem with it?

Me: Okay, that's it. I'm no longer interested. If you're not actually going to argue coherently (and I didn't have much hope for that), I'm not even going to bother discussing this with you. Either you step up your game, or we can call this quits.

Note that by this point, he's made a lot of other dumb comments, plus he has a long record of being a troll. At this point, he decides to paste three posts of propaganda from the Watchtower website, making the original amount of material in his argument amount to about three lines. When I told him that he had proved nothing other than that he was unable to formulate his own arguments, this is what he said.


OW: I'm sorry, chaos, I'm not an expert on biblical translations, I'm a Jehovah's Witness.

It's now my new signature on GameFAQs, and in a moment, TWeb.

Source: http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=263&topic=40252906

On non-members viewing of the boards, I'm fairly sure it's 10 posts per page, making any actual argument not start until about page 6.

[jpholding]

Email from someone who wrote me with an odd view about there being no immortality in the Bible, and who I connected to my various articles:



First of all :forget about so called scholars. Holy Spirit is your
teacher.Jesus said the He would not leave us without a comforter "who
would guide you into all truth".

Then, use the rule of Martin Luther "sola scriptura" - only scripture
meaning the Bible explains itself.As Isaiah said everything is written " a
little here and a little there".

Knowing that Jesus Christ is the Creator and Saviour and He said that the
scripture can not be mistaken" , we can cmpletely trust what is written knowing also that
whatever is written "it was written for us".

Forget about so called semitic thoughts ,ideas and so forth. There wer no
Semites when the universe was created.Semites starts with Noah'son Shem.

You gotta be careful too , as ap Peter says that some people twist and
turn the scripture to their own desctruction".

There was more rambling crap after this but for some reason I decided not to read it. :lolo:

[jpholding]

Good grief, another Baloney Filter candidate this morning:


Your page on Mithra is quite vitriolic and not very scientific in its rantings...
Trust me, I'm not going to go scientific here either. Just conversational observations, that's all.

The fact is, like it or not, the Mithric Cult did influence early Christianity.

Get used to it.

It's quaint that you wrote a web page for all to see your emotional outpouring of fear about this issue.

Even a bit humourous too, as you instruct so much on Mithric Cult practices in order to prove no connection what so ever with Christianity,
but you end up proving the opposite. Reread your page, and note where you do this.

Also... In Rome, a 15 minute walk from the Trevi fountain... there is a catacombe... it is somewhat difficult to find... ask a local, or get a book...
In any case, there is a catacombe and after you decend into it, leaving the modern world behind, and you enter ancient rome... there is a Mithrichristian Temple.
Yes, I said it. A Mithric/Christian Temple... When both cults (Christian and Mithric) were "underground" in Rome, they were actually underground in the catacombes, and
they shared that same place of worship. Kind of like the Sheraton or Hyatt Hotels do for Christians today, they let out the room for a couple of hours to one cult sect of
Christians, then a little while later, they let it out to another cult sect of Christianity.
Then take a walk up to Vatican city, and tour the place and witness all the collected artifacts of pagan religions including Mithric Cult Statues. They are facinating.
These people hanging out together, and sharing worship places... must have had one or two conversations... ya think?

The fact is Christianity has borrowed quite heavily from many pagan religions, and even assimilated clearly pagan practices when they couldn't stamp it out of the people's habits. Christians tore down Temples... only to build churches and cathederals upon those sites, because the pagans wouldn't stop going there. Christians knocked down Tannenbaum Trees on the Solstice... When the pagans brought their Tannenbaum inside to protect them from Christian vandals... the Tannenbaum became a Christmastree complete with a manger down below. Elves were to come down the chimney to get their gifts... Now it's Saint Nicholas delivering them... yet, he still has elves as his helpers...
Here's a big one. Easter... still named for the Goddess of the day. We decorate, hide and collect coloured eggs... honor hens, and rabbits in chocolate sacrifices... a celebration of Fertility, Sex, Reproduction, Eggs, Rabbits, Flowers! OH MY! ... Oh wait... this is the most significant day in Christianity... and yet it doesn’t even have a Christian name... more BORROWING from the available pagan sea of religions... The early Christians did the same to appeal to the Greek and Roman populace that was killing them... after enough borrowing, they began to resemble pagan cults too thus, less killing... and Constantine did the rest.

Look, that Christianity borrowed from pagan religions is not a bad thing, nor does it harm your faith. Do kids collecting coloured eggs make you love Jesus less? Hell no.
Does the smell of a pine Christmas tree in your living room make you want to stop going to church? Hell no. Who cares if it is a borrowed pagan custom! It's been stolen
from the pagans for a long time... so long now that most people don't even recognize that it ain't Christian at all. So who cares?!
Jesus hasn't threatened to stop coming down to turn into a cracker on Sunday because of it!
Who cares if Christianity completely ignores their own Savior's birthday every year... only to pretend to celebrate it on the pagan god's birthday Solstice! No one really knows!
If Jesus didn't like it, I'm sure he would have sent down some brimstone or other mass murder curse upon mankind, as his Father is so fond of doing.
Besides, the pagans do all the fun stuff any way. Easter, Tannenbaum, presents, Bachanalia, Drinking, Dancing, Sex-magic!
Christians... sheesh... without some pagan influence... Christianity just wouldn't be any fun at all.

Celebrate Christianity's ability to assimilate other religions, and make them part of it's self. If Christianity would continue to do this then we would be one world religion.
Chrislamabudhijewiccans - with one book (intstead of 12) written by the creator of the entire universe for our tiny planet and it's people - and maybe no more wars.



:twitch:

[jpholding]

For any who wonder, this is indeed a happily married couple and I saw nothing to make me think otherwise the time I spent at their home. JPH even took me one evening at the advice of his wife through the wedding album and other pictures related to their marriage. It was indeed a beautiful gesture and one I remember most of all.

:blush: To Mrs H's credit indeed. I'm afraid it would not occur to me to think of that first.

We also kept our first grocery receipt ever as a couple -- from the Winn Dixie in Tallahassee. :hehe:



By the way guys, JPH's wife is awesome. I've told him that if I marry a girl with just half of her qualities, I'll consider myself eternally blessed.

Be on the lookout for an ISFP. :thumb:


On a side note JPH, Rayado and I are still looking and can't find those two guys from Charlotte who asked you to review Zeitgeist, but we will not rest for a moment until we find the real askers!

I did note that there were a distinct lack of mirrors in that apartment. :tongue:

[AngelDragon]

I'd like to nominate a Jehovah's Witness on the GameFAQs Religion board who goes by the username "OrangeWizard". He and I started a "debate" recently on whether or not the Trinity existed. He got his panties in a knot about John 1:1. Editing out the other stuff not regarding John 1:1, this is pretty much how it went:



Note that by this point, he's made a lot of other dumb comments, plus he has a long record of being a troll. At this point, he decides to paste three posts of propaganda from the Watchtower website, making the original amount of material in his argument amount to about three lines. When I told him that he had proved nothing other than that he was unable to formulate his own arguments, this is what he said.



It's now my new signature on GameFAQs, and in a moment, TWeb.

Source: http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=263&topic=40252906

On non-members viewing of the boards, I'm fairly sure it's 10 posts per page, making any actual argument not start until about page 6.

I've been to GF religon boards. Talking about religion there is like trying to teach a retarded monkey to speak Latin.

What's your account there?

[Alucard]

I've been to GF religon boards. Talking about religion there is like trying to teach a retarded monkey to speak Latin.

What's your account there?

Chaos Scade :p

What are you on there? Come and join in that... "discussion".

[AngelDragon]

Chaos Scade :p

What are you on there? Come and join in that... "discussion".

How creative!:tongue:

I'm Silver_Dragon17. Maybe you saw one of my topics?

Well, I'm actually Dracargen over there now. . .my Silver account got messed up somehow.

[Alucard]

How creative!:tongue:

I'm Silver_Dragon17. Maybe you saw one of my topics?

Would it still be there?

[Alucard]

Yeah, you have nothing on there right now. What did you post about when you were there? I've been there for almost a year now...

[AngelDragon]

Would it still be there?

Could you give me a link to the religion board? I can't find it to save my life.

[AngelDragon]

Yeah, you have nothing on there right now. What did you post about when you were there? I've been there for almost a year now...

I posted small essays about Christianity. One of them was a general topic titled "Defending Christianity," and I can't remember the others (it was a long time ago).

[Alucard]

Oh yes, I think I remember that one. You employed great use of Tekton, Christian Thinktank, and God and Science, right?

I'm pretty sure I saw some holes in your argument, but I defended you to the death in that topic.

Here's the board.

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/gentopic.php?board=263

[AngelDragon]

Oh yes, I think I remember that one. You employed great use of Tekton, Christian Thinktank, and God and Science, right?

Yes! That's the one.


I'm pretty sure I saw some holes in your argument, but I defended you to the death in that topic.

There probably were holes in it. I'm still an ameteur.:blush:


Here's the board.

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/gentopic.php?board=263
Thanks.

[Alucard]

Have a look at the idiocy that is OrangeWizard. We're not quite sure what to make of him.

[AngelDragon]

ARRRGHGH!!

I can't post anything. It says my account was made in the last 48 hours (I've had this account for two months) and it won't let me post anything!!:argh::argh::argh::argh:

[AngelDragon]

Have a look at the idiocy that is OrangeWizard. We're not quite sure what to make of him.

I saw him. Weird little fellow, isn't he?

"Get your science out of my religion!" :lol:

[Alucard]

ARRRGHGH!!

I can't post anything. It says my account was made in the last 48 hours (I've had this account for two months) and it won't let me post anything!!:argh::argh::argh::argh:

Just wait it out. I'm going to bed now, anyway.


I saw him. Weird little fellow, isn't he?

"Get your science out of my religion!"

It gets even weirder and more irrational in that topic as it goes on.

Night.

[JB]

ARRRGHGH!!

I can't post anything. It says my account was made in the last 48 hours (I've had this account for two months) and it won't let me post anything!!:argh::argh::argh::argh:

I know how that feels. :hug:

[AngelDragon]

Just wait it out. I'm going to bed now, anyway.



It gets even weirder and more irrational in that topic as it goes on.

Night.

What time is it in Australia? It's only 11:49 AM over here.

[Chaotic Void]

They have Religious Discussions at GameFAQs?!

[AngelDragon]

They have Religious Discussions at GameFAQs?!

Yes. But if you want semi-intelligent religious discussions, go to GameSpot. Their off-topic board has some decent discussions.

I was called the best Christian defender on that website. :blush:

Sadly, that isn't saying very much. At all.

[Chaotic Void]

Yes. But if you want semi-intelligent religious discussions, go to GameSpot. Their off-topic board has some decent discussions.

Gamespot eh? I might try that, if I feel like it...



I was called the best Christian defender on that website. :blush:

Sadly, that isn't saying very much. At all.

indeed... considering that it's a gaming site, not a Theology site...

But considering the tools on here... there's probably not much difference.

[AngelDragon]

Gamespot eh? I might try that, if I feel like it...

One warning: Their moderators are insanely strict.




indeed... considering that it's a gaming site, not a Theology site...

But considering the tools on here... there's probably not much difference.

The only huge differences are

1. The debates here are longer, and more formal, and

2. Most of the people here are more intelligent, and know what they're talking about.

Other than that, there isn't much difference.

[Chaotic Void]

One warning: Their moderators are insanely strict.

:hehe: Strict can mean a Number of things... What specifically are they strict aboot?



The only huge differences are

1. The debates here are longer, and more formal, and

2. Most of the people here are more intelligent, and know what they're talking about.

Other than that, there isn't much difference.
True, The debates here are longer and most of us know what we are talking aboot.

[AngelDragon]

:hehe: Strict can mean a Number of things... What specifically are they strict aboot?

Everything. If any syllable in your post goes against their Terms of Use, you will be moderated, and you will lose points, levels, be suspended, and banned. I was literally suspended from that site for one day for the following comment:

"Planned parenthood is a pro-death website that not only views abortion as a ho-hum for of birth control, but also forcibly pushes women into such acts. They are going through several lawsuits for such crimes."

It was marked under "Trolling."

It's the reason why I left, in fact. I was being suspended again and again for longer periods of time, for the most ridiculous of reasons (I told a guy who ate a guitar pick not to procreate and was suspended for two weeks). So, I left. It's a fun site, but the moderators are like Fascists.

[Alucard]

It was actually 2:30am when I went to sleep.

Haha, but the GF moderation staff, though strict, is nowhere near as strict as GS. Not on the more obscure boards anyway, like Religion.

But absolutely nothing beats teens-4-christ.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Chaos. You know my AIM name. I'll be glad to discuss Trinitarianism with you any time.

[Chaotic Void]

Everything. If any syllable in your post goes against their Terms of Use, you will be moderated, and you will lose points, levels, be suspended, and banned. I was literally suspended from that site for one day for the following comment:

"Planned parenthood is a pro-death website that not only views abortion as a ho-hum for of birth control, but also forcibly pushes women into such acts. They are going through several lawsuits for such crimes."

It was marked under "Trolling."
Trolling? Weird...



It's the reason why I left, in fact. I was being suspended again and again for longer periods of time, for the most ridiculous of reasons (I told a guy who ate a guitar pick not to procreate and was suspended for two weeks). So, I left. It's a fun site, but the moderators are like Fascists.
:lmbo:
Reminds me of when I was a member of this one Theology Forum, and I got banned for calling the Chief Administrator on Agism. I was supposedly banned for 'attitudinal reasons'.
And you won't be able to see that incident either. He deleted the Thread to cover his butt.

[AngelDragon]

:lmbo:
Reminds me of when I was a member of this one Theology Forum, and I got banned for calling the Chief Administrator on Agism. I was supposedly banned for 'attitudinal reasons'.
And you won't be able to see that incident either. He deleted the Thread to cover his butt.

That sucks. People are idiots.

Proof. (http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26126130&page=14) I'm in this one.:wink:

[Chaotic Void]

That sucks. People are idiots.

Proof. (http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26126130&page=14) I'm in this one.:wink:
Yeah... Just nominate them all for Screwballs.

:hehe: that thread about Electric Lettuce in the Garden of Eden looks interesting, but probably isn't all it's toked up to be. I'm YEC so I might check it out...

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Nominating Matthew Green:
http://tektonontrial.blogspot.com/2007/12/tekton-on-trilemma.html



In addition to some of the odd beliefs that Christians have these days (I.e. creationism, the resurrection, biblical inerrancy, atonement) are a number of silly arguments that I am actually surprised that anyone would find so compelling. One of them is the infamous “Trilemma” argument. This was developed by a convert to Christianity, the famous author C.S. Lewis ,and many Christians act as though it’s the most brilliant invention of the human mind since Isaac Newton discovered his universal laws of motion and gravitation. I genuinely feel sorry for folks who are impressed by this silly argument. The folks at Tekton, particularly J.P. Holding, seem impressed by it as well. This probably should surprise me but I have to admit that it doesn’t. I have noticed that Mr. Holding believes a lot of odd things and has come up with some pretty silly arguments from time to time. I have known for some time that he is a proponent of the Trilemma argument. However, the other day, I was reading through a rebuttal of Holding’s “Impossible Faith” essay by Brian Holtz when I remembered that he also wrote a rebuttal of the Trilemma argument.

I clicked on a link to the Tekton website, and, interesting enough, Holding still has an essay defending the Trilemma argument and still finds it intellectually compelling.

Ignoring the funnies in the first paragraph, I've got to ask: Is Holding defending or rebutting the Trilemma, Matthew? :lmbo:

[Spheniscine]

Though the first paragraph definitely deserves a screwy, I think the "he" refers to Holtz, not Holding.

[LilPunkishOfTerror]

Whoops, good point. OK, I nominate myself for a screwball.

Though it doesn't help when Matthew fails to interact with 3/4 of Holding's essay...(which includes responses TO Holtz!)

[Meta Knight]

This in from my boss Darth Executor:


Nomination for fundy atheist high school kid who rips up bible in front of class:
http://www.channel3000.com​/news/14917600/detail.html

Obvious Solution: Set up skateboarding classes in the church parking lot."

Classroom Incident Sparks First Amendment Debate - News Story - WISC Madison
A classroom incident at a Janesville high school two weeks ago is raising some concerns about freedom of speech and school safety.

[jpholding]

Email series I got from someone who insisted that my explanation at http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/demoniactale.html about the Gerasenes/Gergasenes was wrong, and referred me to a book. Their first message quoted me:


Where did this incident take place? Matthew says in the land of the "Gergesenes"; Mark says (though not in the KJV) "the country of the Gerasenes"; Luke says "country of the Gadarenes." What's the location, and is there a contradiction? We can elimiate "Gergesenes" right away -- that is a textual error found only in later mss.; better mss. say "Gadara" as Luke does (though a good case has been made by Gundry that it was the original reading). And Luke may have said "Gerasa" -- the textual tradition is not clear on that either {Archer, Bible Difficulties, 323]. So if there is any dispute, it is between Gadara and Gerasa -- maybe


They wrote:


Hi there...

You need to pick up a copy of Kursi by Mendel Nun who gives a much better reconciliation than you have provided on the names variances of Mark 5.... and he does it without losing credibitlity in the inerrancy of the Bible.


I asked:


Why does my explanation (Archer's) "lose credibility in the inerrancy of the Bible"? And why is Nun's view better?

They replied:




On your site, you leave the reader in suspense with the idea that there is no reconciliation.

Both Mendel Nun (who found ancient Kursi) and Vassilios Tzaferis (who excavated Kursi) give much better reconciliations of the names differences. For example, Vassilios cites in the archaeology record concerning the 1980 excavations at Kursi which were on the tower at the tombs... "The early Christians chose to build the monastery here, directly at the foot of the 'steep' hill, on which the tower was also located. This tower, named "Kerza" or "Gursa", was perhaps a monument to the Christian meaning of this place and constructed for pilgrims...." Neither Mendel Nun nor Vassilios Tzaferis "eliminate Gergesenes right away."


Vassilios Tzaferis reconciles the statements from Eusebius and Origen concerning the name variances; and both Vassilios Tzaferis and Mendel Nun are aware of every occasion when the location is identified in the Old Testament, the New Testament, talmudic literature, the early church fathers, pilgrims, and local tradition. That's why their view is better.

Mendel Nun, Gergesa (Kursi), Site of a Miracle Church and Fishing Village, 1989 Kibbutz Ein Gev. Vassilios Tzaferis, 'Atiqot, Volume XVI, The Excavations of Kursi--Gergesa, 1983 Jerusalem.


Do whatever you wish, but just know that what you have published is lacking.

I was starting to smell a nutcase, so I said:


You didn't answer my other question. How does mine (Archer's) "lose credibility in the inerrancy of the Bible"?

As for why his is better, you didn't answer that either; you just explained his view and made no comparison. You also did not offer in that any explanation for why "Gergasenes" is viable. You just said that didn't eliminate it right away, which is not an answer and gives no positive reason to accept the reading as reflecting an original location name as opposed to the others.

I leave no one in suspense. You are the only person in 10 years of that article being up to say such a thing, and it has been read by thousands of people. The problem is more likely with you.

Pony up with a real explanation or stop wasting my time.

Finally, Whine-O replied:



My apologies for wasting your time. I did a DVD last year on the history of the excavations at Kursi, but apparently your knowledge is far above my hundreds of hours spent in reseach and development of that DVD with Dr. Tzaferis.

One reason I don't post on Theology Web any longer is because of the superior knowledge of people such as yourself who are so determined that their way is better than anyone else that their minds are closed to correction. My apologies... you're perfect in apologetics.

And again, my apologies that I am one in 200 billion people who actually have a clue about Kursi. Keep your lousy explanation...

If you had asked nicely for help, I would have gladly scanned the information to you. Your condescending attitute isn't becoming... and I have no desire to help you. Dig out the truth for yourself--I gave you the resources. One book is available for about $10 plus shipping from the IAA, the other is available for about $10 plus shipping from Kibbutz Ein Gev.

I would say, "Have a good day!"... but instead... I'll say... "Get off your high horse, and find the truth"


Anyone ever have run-ins with this loony? She goes under "serapha" and seems to have posted for a while here but stopped in 2006. :lolo:

[jpholding]

Whoops, good point. OK, I nominate myself for a screwball.

Though it doesn't help when Matthew fails to interact with 3/4 of Holding's essay...(which includes responses TO Holtz!)

Did he actually SAY anything at all? :twitch: I just scanned it and I couldn't find an actual argument.

I think I'll post a response on Debunking Crap instead.

[jpholding]

Reader sends:


Philos 2006-

And what credentials do you have have to reject off hand the writings[The Pagan Christ] of a scholar [Harper] who devoted his whole life to this subject . He might be wrong or right !! You must be afraid that your LITTLE faith will crumble, if you read his book. Peace !!

[One Bad Pig]

Email series I got from someone who insisted that my explanation at http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/demoniactale.html about the Gerasenes/Gergasenes was wrong, and referred me to a book. Their first message quoted me:

Eh, the quoted material does seem to leave plenty of room for doubt (though the following material resolves the issue fairly well IMO).


Anyone ever have run-ins with this loony? She goes under "serapha" and seems to have posted for a while here but stopped in 2006. :lolo:
What you have here is a passionate amateur archeologist who saw a chance to promote a theory that she's invested a lot of time in, and who went off in a huff when you rebuffed her. IIRC you rubbed each other the wrong way back when she was actively posting. IMO her problem is that she's lost objectivity concerning this theory, and consequently has trouble arguing for it coherently.

[jpholding]

IIRC you rubbed each other the wrong way back when she was actively posting.

Really? I don't recall ever crossing paths with her before...I'll check.

I'm also puzzled about the comments about inerrancy. It smells....KJV Onlyist.

Add:

I checked the listed messages for serapha -- spent more time on spamming for a pet than discussing anything serious on the latest 200 messages. :lolo:

[Gideon Brown]

Whatever happened to pets, anyway? I want my froggie princess back. :bawl:

[Jon_Day]

It would make Bronze or Silver under the old system. :thumb:

Care to explain why this is a screwball concept?

In reference to your signature...there at the bottom...personally I will not only deal with you being in one section, but I will take supreme pleasure in this fact.

Good day.

[jpholding]

Care to explain why this is a screwball concept?


New Age nuttiness.

Feeling masochistic, are you? Try evolving into an energy being and see if that helps. :lolo:

[lilpixieofterror]

New Age nuttiness.

Feeling masochistic, are you? Try evolving into an energy being and see if that helps. :lolo:

Star Trek references JPH? Wow I know you were a dork too.

:woot:

[jpholding]

Star Trek references JPH? Wow I know you were a dork too.

:woot:

Well, Jon_Away was the one who referred to them first...but I did have the Organians in mind when I replied.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, Jon_Away was the one who referred to them first...but I did have the Organians in mind when I replied.

Don't forget V'ger.

[Jon_Day]

New Age nuttiness.

Feeling masochistic, are you? Try evolving into an energy being and see if that helps. :lolo:

What would be nice would be to hear you actually give an explanation. However, I'm sure that would take too much time out of your schedule of being a pretentious blowhard.

It would also be interesting to hear how it is any less a screwball idea to believe that there is a non-material, non-tangible, "spirit" world which we will all ascend to when we die. Of course...not having read the actual discussion...which I'm sure you haven't...you wouldn't know the dynamics of the conversation...nor the context in which the concept was originally conveyed. Not only did I not say specifically that this would happen, but I utilized the concept in a metaphoric...non-literal sense. However, upon attack of the idea...I felt it necessary to explain the proposal of said concept is not at all screwball. Objects of mass can be converted into pure energy, much like the way in which pure energy can be converted into mass.

Unfortunately, none of this will be taken seriously...as I'm just a screwball...and this is really just a thread for you guys to have your little fraternal outsider bashing sessions, and feel all better about how ignorant you actually are. I mean...obviously I'm the screwball...even though you are the ones who believe in some eternal man-like, personified creator of all.

In addition, I would like to point out the ridiculous irony of this thread's existence. As Christians, you should know better than to play the screwball blame-game. Christ himself was considered a complete screwball...but I'm sure you'd argue to the death that he was not. How very un-Christianlike of all of you to be involved in this name-calling childish nonsense. I'm sure Jesus would be very proud...NOT. Jesus would probably be ashamed if he knew that the likes of you were promoting his word, and completely miscontruing it at every possible opportunity. Self-righteousness is a dangerous double-edged sword. JPH mon frere...you could use a little lessen in humility. That masochist statement shows just how high your level of esteem is for yourself. Unjustified at that. So far, in reading your posts...I have seen nothing but you toting yourself as about to lay down a beating on someone...and yet somehow...miraculously...it never comes. Perhaps you believe that the more you promote yourself as some sort of intellectual Christian guru...the more you are right. Unfortunately things don't work that way, and you will soon be exposed for the fraud you are.

[jpholding]

What would be nice would be to hear you actually give an explanation.

It's stupid and contrived.

That's about it. :thumb:



It would also be interesting to hear how it is any less a screwball idea to believe that there is a non-material, non-tangible, "spirit" world which we will all ascend to when we die.

Unfortunately, that's not an apt description of any position I'd defend....sorry you're so ignorant.


Of course...not having read the actual discussion...which I'm sure you haven't...you wouldn't know the dynamics of the conversation...nor the context in which the concept was originally conveyed.

There's not really any context that would de-stupefy it....sorry. :shrug: It's just New Age mumbo-jumbo is all it is.


Objects of mass can be converted into pure energy, much like the way in which pure energy can be converted into mass.

Uh HUH.

So we all go through particle accelerators when we die or what?


Unfortunately, none of this will be taken seriously...as I'm just a screwball... I mean...obviously I'm the screwball...

Quite true. It WOULD help if you actually got something we believe right.



In addition, I would like to point out the ridiculous irony of this thread's existence. As Christians, you should know better than to play the screwball blame-game. Christ himself was considered a complete screwball...but I'm sure you'd argue to the death that he was not. How very un-Christianlike of all of you to be involved in this name-calling childish nonsense.

Take it to the whine and rant thread for Screwballs and whine all you want there.

[Jon_Day]

It's stupid and contrived.

That's about it. :thumb:



Unfortunately, that's not an apt description of any position I'd defend....sorry you're so ignorant.



There's not really any context that would de-stupefy it....sorry. :shrug: It's just New Age mumbo-jumbo is all it is.



Uh HUH.

So we all go through particle accelerators when we die or what?



Quite true. It WOULD help if you actually got something we believe right.



Take it to the whine and rant thread for Screwballs and whine all you want there.

Again...nothing of weight. Couldn't have expected anything more however. Think I'll stay out of the rant and rave or whatever thread it is. You obviously don't know anything about conceptuality. You are obviously completely incapable of abstract thought. Besides...you believe in God...how much can you really expect me to think of you as anything other than a screwball yourself? Talking snakes, seas being parted, rivers into blood, weird angel beings that come down and smite, weird horsemen who ride through the sky. Yeah...you're REAL sane. Certainly, you wouldn't be able to accept anything other than your creepy faith. The concept of a being evolving into a form of pure energy isn't even new age. That would have to involve consciousness. Perhaps you could actually learn a little bit more about differnt ethos before attempting to construe yourself as someone who actually has knowledge on the subject. The idea was proposed by Einstein, and has nothing to do with metaphysics, religion, nor anything new age. Besides that...I never said that I believe it would actually happen. It is not a belief that I hold. That is where I have one up on you...my screwball idea was simply presented as a possible scenario. You actually BELIEVE your weird mumbo jumbo about a God. Pathetic. Done, and done.

[AngelDragon]

Talking snakes,

Story.


seas being parted,

Scientifically possible.


rivers into blood,

Rivers can and often do turn red because of an algae.


weird angel beings that come down and smite,

Scriptural evidence?


weird horsemen who ride through the sky.

Metaphor.

Care to blow some more smoke out of your ass?
No vulgarity please.

[historic salve]

I have to say, Jon, I'm surprised. I know that we haven't talked, but I've read a few of your posts, and I haven't seen you say anything like this before.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

What would be nice would be to hear you actually give an explanation. However, I'm sure that would take too much time out of your schedule of being a pretentious blowhard.

I think I'll step in and address this one....

The original line was about becoming pure energy. My question though at this point would simply be, why should I believe that will happen. Now you can say we can turn mass into energy. Fine and dandy. My question is, why should I believe that that will happen to persons? Also, would we be persons at that point? (Keep in mind I am an anthropological dualist. I don't believe I am purely material.)


It would also be interesting to hear how it is any less a screwball idea to believe that there is a non-material, non-tangible, "spirit" world which we will all ascend to when we die.

First off, it seems odd to say non-material and non-tangible and then say "spirit." Those all seem to be variations of the same thing. I also wonder if you literally mean we ascend to it when we die. That would seem to give it a place.

I, as a Christian, do believe that the final world will be a material reality as well rather one is in Heaven or in Hell. I believe Heaven will be filled with the manifest presence of God in that we will experience his love and grace, but that Hell will have that experience interpreted as wrath and judgment.


Of course...not having read the actual discussion...which I'm sure you haven't...you wouldn't know the dynamics of the conversation...nor the context in which the concept was originally conveyed. Not only did I not say specifically that this would happen, but I utilized the concept in a metaphoric...non-literal sense. However, upon attack of the idea...I felt it necessary to explain the proposal of said concept is not at all screwball. Objects of mass can be converted into pure energy, much like the way in which pure energy can be converted into mass.

Yes. They can be. So I could ask why should I think that we will evolve into pure energy. It seems to imply that being energy is better than being mass right off. Also, what is to keep us from turning back into pure mass?


Unfortunately, none of this will be taken seriously...as I'm just a screwball...and this is really just a thread for you guys to have your little fraternal outsider bashing sessions, and feel all better about how ignorant you actually are. I mean...obviously I'm the screwball...even though you are the ones who believe in some eternal man-like, personified creator of all.

You have it backwards. I do believe in an eternal creator, but I do not believe he is man-like. Instead, we are like him. He is the ultimate reference point. He does not correspond to us. We correspond to him. He does not reflect our qualities. We reflect some of his qualities.

Now you say this as if it is a nonsense idea on its face. You have yet to demonstrate that.


In addition, I would like to point out the ridiculous irony of this thread's existence. As Christians, you should know better than to play the screwball blame-game. Christ himself was considered a complete screwball...but I'm sure you'd argue to the death that he was not.

Not in the context of what JPH considers a screwball. The screwball is for statements where one ought to know better and if I am right on the history, it was not an idea thought of by a Christian. JPH can confirm that for me if need be.

Christ was thought to be insane by his own family. He was thought to be mad and demon-possessed by his opponents. The question is, "Was he?" His resurrection shows he was not. It's not about what people are thought to be but what they are. Now if you can give your idea validity, great. If not, then on well. I do note though that you have already spoken of my ideas as if they were "screwballs" as well in this thread, so I do intend on defending them to show they are not.


How very un-Christianlike of all of you to be involved in this name-calling childish nonsense. I'm sure Jesus would be very proud...NOT. Jesus would probably be ashamed if he knew that the likes of you were promoting his word, and completely miscontruing it at every possible opportunity. Self-righteousness is a dangerous double-edged sword. JPH mon frere...you could use a little lessen in humility. That masochist statement shows just how high your level of esteem is for yourself. Unjustified at that. So far, in reading your posts...I have seen nothing but you toting yourself as about to lay down a beating on someone...and yet somehow...miraculously...it never comes. Perhaps you believe that the more you promote yourself as some sort of intellectual Christian guru...the more you are right. Unfortunately things don't work that way, and you will soon be exposed for the fraud you are.

The beating never comes because the facts are on his side. I will gladly defer to him also where I know he has studied more than I. Now I would ask what you define as self-righteousness. Thinking you are right and others wrong? If so, then you are self-righteous as well. I would also say as one who knows JPH that he is really indeed quite humble. Now let me take what you said from a later post.


Again...nothing of weight. Couldn't have expected anything more however. Think I'll stay out of the rant and rave or whatever thread it is. You obviously don't know anything about conceptuality. You are obviously completely incapable of abstract thought. Besides...you believe in God...how much can you really expect me to think of you as anything other than a screwball yourself?

Jon. Really. Is it convincing to tell someone that they believe in God therefore they're a screwball? God apparently isn't too hard a concept to believe. Majority of people past and present have believed in some sort of theistic concept. I find it amazing that the atheistic side wants to come along and tell all of them that they just didn't know what they were talking about. I'm not an atheist simply because I find the position untenable and without God, I find that nothing makes sense anymore.


Talking snakes, seas being parted, rivers into blood, weird angel beings that come down and smite, weird horsemen who ride through the sky. Yeah...you're REAL sane.

Jon. If I can accept Genesis 1:1, which I can, then all of this is child's play. The danger with the atheistic worldview is that it crumbles if one supernatural event takes place. If something happens outside of the laws of nature, it falls to the ground. You disprove some miracles and my faith will not be shattered. I show one miracle and atheism can't accept it.


Certainly, you wouldn't be able to accept anything other than your creepy faith.

First, why is it creepy?

Secondly, is it better to accept multiple beliefs? I would think I should only accept something because it's true. If it's creepy, then so be it.


The concept of a being evolving into a form of pure energy isn't even new age. That would have to involve consciousness. Perhaps you could actually learn a little bit more about differnt ethos before attempting to construe yourself as someone who actually has knowledge on the subject. The idea was proposed by Einstein, and has nothing to do with metaphysics, religion, nor anything new age.

Many of Einstein's ideas were taken out of science and applied to other areas as well. Einstein was not a Christian by any means and accepted Spinoza's god instead. However, I do agree that there is new age thought involved in this.


Besides that...I never said that I believe it would actually happen. It is not a belief that I hold. That is where I have one up on you...my screwball idea was simply presented as a possible scenario. You actually BELIEVE your weird mumbo jumbo about a God. Pathetic. Done, and done.

Why yes. I believe what I believe about God. I'm not ashamed of it. You want to broadcast it. Please do. Go and tell everyone that I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who revealed himself in Jesus Christ. I'd be quite pleased actually.

[Jon_Day]

I have to say, Jon, I'm surprised. I know that we haven't talked, but I've read a few of your posts, and I haven't seen you say anything like this before.

Of course not...I am merely utilizing the same tactic as the person with whom I'm speaking. You will see in my response to ApologiaPhoenix that the tone is much different. It's all about sophistication...and the ability to relate to everyone on the level on which they choose to communicate. JPH has chosen the childish, bickering, name-calling method...and therefore that is the method that will be used in any post between himself and I. That is, until he chooses to change the tone. I don't even feel that it's a matter of...well he's talking like that so I'm gonna talk like that too...it's more a matter of: this is obviously how this person relates to the world, and therefore it is out of courtesy to relate to him in the same way.

I appreciate your noticing of my demeanor in the general sense, as it is generally not noticed by those who choose to take this particular type of stance with me.

[Jon_Day]

I think I'll step in and address this one....


The original line was about becoming pure energy. My question though at this point would simply be, why should I believe that will happen. Now you can say we can turn mass into energy. Fine and dandy. My question is, why should I believe that that will happen to persons? Also, would we be persons at that point? (Keep in mind I am an anthropological dualist. I don't believe I am purely material.).

I understand your question, and why you would ask this question. It makes perfect sense, and is a question that I myself have asked many times over. It is difficult for me to answer, because I don't actually believe that this will happen. I actually never did say that I believe that this will happen. Can it happen...yes. Will it happen...who knows. I don't think it will. Even were it a possibility, I believe that the sun and earth will die long before we have the oppurtunity to find out. In fact, I'm pretty sure that our species as a whole will be gone before we have even a remote chance at making such an evolutionary leap.


First off, it seems odd to say non-material and non-tangible and then say "spirit." Those all seem to be variations of the same thing. I also wonder if you literally mean we ascend to it when we die. That would seem to give it a place..

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question.


I, as a Christian, do believe that the final world will be a material reality as well rather one is in Heaven or in Hell. I believe Heaven will be filled with the manifest presence of God in that we will experience his love and grace, but that Hell will have that experience interpreted as wrath and judgment..

Where does this take place?


Yes. They can be. So I could ask why should I think that we will evolve into pure energy. It seems to imply that being energy is better than being mass right off. Also, what is to keep us from turning back into pure mass?.

Neither is better nor worse...except that...and if all of you would actually read the discussion where this came from you would see what this was in reference to...we will have eliminated our senses, and therefore attained a closer and purer relationship to the actuality of reality, as opposed to the conceived or contrived reality with which we are currently presented.


You have it backwards. I do believe in an eternal creator, but I do not believe he is man-like. Instead, we are like him. He is the ultimate reference point. He does not correspond to us. We correspond to him. He does not reflect our qualities. We reflect some of his qualities..

Now you say this as if it is a nonsense idea on its face. You have yet to demonstrate that.

The idea of a being which is eternal, and yet shares qualities with us...i.e., he gave us his qualities, and yet have us not be eternal...in itself is nonsense. In addition, how can a being be non-biological...and this be considered a rational idea...and yet a being existing as pure energy is not. The thing you are failing to realize in my statements, is that I am suggesting that both are equally nonsensical. You say it is possible for there to be a being which is not only eternal, but has the ability to be responsible for all creation. This of course is only substantiated by writings. You then go forward to say that it is nonsense to think that a being could exist as pure energy. You say the reason is because this is unsubstantiated. However, it has been written about. I ask...what is the difference? What makes one idea any more screwball than the other? The fact that you don't accept it?


Not in the context of what JPH considers a screwball. The screwball is for statements where one ought to know better and if I am right on the history, it was not an idea thought of by a Christian. JPH can confirm that for me if need be..

At any rate...this particular person, and the concept presented as this thread...is completely ridiculous. I have lost all respect for this particular person, before I even had any to begin with. On this fact, I will not budge. If you wish to dispute that, then I suggest you enroll in the nearest charm school immediately.


Christ was thought to be insane by his own family. He was thought to be mad and demon-possessed by his opponents. The question is, "Was he?" His resurrection shows he was not. It's not about what people are thought to be but what they are. Now if you can give your idea validity, great. If not, then on well. I do note though that you have already spoken of my ideas as if they were "screwballs" as well in this thread, so I do intend on defending them to show they are not..

Certainly you should. My point in stating the claim of "your ideas" (they aren't your ideas) as screwball, is to show just how easy it is to call someone a screwball, simply for stating an idea. It is a tool of the weak. A way of making oneself feel better about the fact, they are perhaps not as able to defend as they think. Suppose we were to take this discussion further, and you were to "defend" "your ideas"...I could easily do what JPH does, and just say this:

They are screwball.

Thats just metaphysics.

You're an idiot.

If I did this, according to the JPH method, I would apparently somehow be right. Regardless of the intellectual weight of these statements. In essence, this is the problem with discussing the majority of theological and metaphysical concepts. There is no actual tangible evidence for the majority of claims, and therefore one how is inclined to do so merely has to say that they are wrong. You can make the claim that it is required of them to show some reasoning of how they are wrong...but if they did...would you accept it? If you did not accept it...and proceeded with some form of counterargument...would you be right? Or would you simply be stating speculative theories and conceptual notions?.


The beating never comes because the facts are on his side. I will gladly defer to him also where I know he has studied more than I. Now I would ask what you define as self-righteousness. Thinking you are right and others wrong? If so, then you are self-righteous as well. I would also say as one who knows JPH that he is really indeed quite humble. Now let me take what you said from a later post..

The beating never comes, because he takes advantage of the fact that there are no facts to be on his side. He knows that he is dealing with something that cannot be proven one way or another, and he therefore has "already won". It would be interesting for me to see where you get the impression that JPH is humble (other than the fact that you are obviously friendly with him). I could easily point out several (actually the majority of) posts in which he is nothing but the opposite of humble. My case in point...the only reason I even came to this thread, was because of my utter disgust at the way in which he has been interacting with people. In fact, it was the overall concept of this thread, and the fact that you guys continue it which made me come here. Now you see what you cause. Nothing. Just a bunch of childish griping. I will admit that I am included. However, my intention was more of a ...see what happens kind of approach. Now you see, when you choose to speak this way to people, or about people...this is the type of reaction you get. If you don't like it...then you should not do these things. One should not have a thread going on where one and one's cronies sit around and bash people and call them screwballs behind there back. Whoever started it...you should be the one's to finish it. Since you're so Christian and all. .


Jon. Really. Is it convincing to tell someone that they believe in God therefore they're a screwball? God apparently isn't too hard a concept to believe. Majority of people past and present have believed in some sort of theistic concept. I find it amazing that the atheistic side wants to come along and tell all of them that they just didn't know what they were talking about. I'm not an atheist simply because I find the position untenable and without God, I find that nothing makes sense anymore..

Really...is it convincing to tell someone that they believe that beings can evolve into pure energy and therefore they are a screwball? This also is apparently not too hard a concept to believe. I know of several people who believe this concept to be legitimate. It could even be used in a theistic conceptual setting. So...pot calling a kettle black....hmmmmm? Come on Nick...I expect more from you.


Jon. If I can accept Genesis 1:1, which I can, then all of this is child's play. The danger with the atheistic worldview is that it crumbles if one supernatural event takes place. If something happens outside of the laws of nature, it falls to the ground. You disprove some miracles and my faith will not be shattered. I show one miracle and atheism can't accept it..

I can accept that beings can evolve into pure energy. Can you disprove it? You have shown me no miracle. I have seen no miracle, and no miracle has been witnessed. You have only a book written long, long ago. Where is the defeat of atheism?


First, why is it creepy?

Secondly, is it better to accept multiple beliefs? I would think I should only accept something because it's true. If it's creepy, then so be it..

It's creepy because of various reasons. Mostly the grotesque stories presented in the bible. I would use the idea of accepting something as being true...if you could show me that it is true. You cannot, so I don't. Show me that it is true that "God" exists...and I'd be more than happy to accept it. You will not be able to do so, but I welcome you to try.


Many of Einstein's ideas were taken out of science and applied to other areas as well. Einstein was not a Christian by any means and accepted Spinoza's god instead. However, I do agree that there is new age thought involved in this. .

True. However, the concept he was describing (and I was referring to) is not the same as the new-age concept that you are referring to. The ony that you are referring to is one in which we not only transgress into beings of energy, but have some sort of shared consciousness...which is ludicrous at best.


Why yes. I believe what I believe about God. I'm not ashamed of it. You want to broadcast it. Please do. Go and tell everyone that I believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who revealed himself in Jesus Christ. I'd be quite pleased actually.

That's great. Personally, I don't care what you believe. I just don't like being called a screwball just because I have the screwballs to have a little abstract thought creep into my brain here and there. I guess I could just sit around and pretend like I already know everything...cause I found God.

[lilpixieofterror]

That's great. Personally, I don't care what you believe. I just don't like being called a screwball just because I have the screwballs to have a little abstract thought creep into my brain here and there. I guess I could just sit around and pretend like I already know everything...cause I found God.

Statements like these make you look like a screwball. Where has anyone here claimed that they know everything because they found God? :shrug:

[Jon_Day]

Statements like these make you look like a screwball. Where has anyone here claimed that they know everything because they found God? :shrug:


The claim doesn't need to be made...the insinuation is enough.

[lilpixieofterror]

The claim doesn't need to be made...the insinuation is enough.

In other words... you're making things up as you go along.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I understand your question, and why you would ask this question. It makes perfect sense, and is a question that I myself have asked many times over. It is difficult for me to answer, because I don't actually believe that this will happen. I actually never did say that I believe that this will happen. Can it happen...yes. Will it happen...who knows. I don't think it will. Even were it a possibility, I believe that the sun and earth will die long before we have the oppurtunity to find out. In fact, I'm pretty sure that our species as a whole will be gone before we have even a remote chance at making such an evolutionary leap.

That seems to assume an evolutionary timetable. i wasn't aware of one. Now I don't believe it will happen at all simply because I already don't see man as a purely material being and because I believe in the biblical claim that we will have physical bodies.




I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question.

Ascension refers to going up to something. Are we going up to a place, or is it just metaphorical language?




Where does this take place?

I see it happening in the New Heavens and the New Earth. I believe the cosmos will be restored and made beyond what it ever was. It will surpass Eden. Now I'm still working out some of my ideas on the fine details. I think C.S. Lewis made an interesting theory in "The Great Divorce" in that they could be the same place, but just different interpretations on how God is experienced by each person.




Neither is better nor worse...except that...and if all of you would actually read the discussion where this came from you would see what this was in reference to...we will have eliminated our senses, and therefore attained a closer and purer relationship to the actuality of reality, as opposed to the conceived or contrived reality with which we are currently presented.

But I don't see us as having a contrived reality. Indeed, I see the physical world as much a reality as the spiritual one. It makes no sense to speak of something as more or less real. My body is not a hindrance to knowing truth. It is an aid.




The idea of a being which is eternal, and yet shares qualities with us...i.e., he gave us his qualities, and yet have us not be eternal...in itself is nonsense. In addition, how can a being be non-biological...and this be considered a rational idea...and yet a being existing as pure energy is not. The thing you are failing to realize in my statements, is that I am suggesting that both are equally nonsensical. You say it is possible for there to be a being which is not only eternal, but has the ability to be responsible for all creation. This of course is only substantiated by writings. You then go forward to say that it is nonsense to think that a being could exist as pure energy. You say the reason is because this is unsubstantiated. However, it has been written about. I ask...what is the difference? What makes one idea any more screwball than the other? The fact that you don't accept it?

No actually. I have no problem with pure energy. I have a problem with us becoming pure energy. I have no problem for instance with an infinite being in God. I have a problem with us becoming infinite though.

Now why can't we be eternal? It's simple. Eternal beings have no beginning. We do. We are only finite. I believe we will step into what is called aeveternity when we die. How this works? I'm not sure yet.




At any rate...this particular person, and the concept presented as this thread...is completely ridiculous. I have lost all respect for this particular person, before I even had any to begin with. On this fact, I will not budge. If you wish to dispute that, then I suggest you enroll in the nearest charm school immediately.

And I will say it is irrelevant to the greater truth. JPH is not here to win friends, though he has several, and I would consider him a friend of mine and he'd say the same about me. I'll tell you the secret with dealing with JPH. You get from him what you give. If you dialogue, you get dialogue.



Certainly you should. My point in stating the claim of "your ideas" (they aren't your ideas) as screwball, is to show just how easy it is to call someone a screwball, simply for stating an idea. It is a tool of the weak. A way of making oneself feel better about the fact, they are perhaps not as able to defend as they think. Suppose we were to take this discussion further, and you were to "defend" "your ideas"...I could easily do what JPH does, and just say this:

I'll tell you what someone at work once said to me when they said "Someone from another belief would say you're wrong." I just said "Bring them here then. I'll be glad to challenge them as well."


They are screwball.

Thats just metaphysics.

You're an idiot.

And I think that would be a ridiculous answer. They're just metaphysics? What does it mean? It is either a truth claim or it isn't.


If I did this, according to the JPH method, I would apparently somehow be right. Regardless of the intellectual weight of these statements. In essence, this is the problem with discussing the majority of theological and metaphysical concepts. There is no actual tangible evidence for the majority of claims, and therefore one how is inclined to do so merely has to say that they are wrong. You can make the claim that it is required of them to show some reasoning of how they are wrong...but if they did...would you accept it? If you did not accept it...and proceeded with some form of counterargument...would you be right? Or would you simply be stating speculative theories and conceptual notions?.

There's no tangible evidence? There's plenty. I see the existence of logic, of beauty, of truth, of goodness, of the findings that back-up Scripture, of the evidence of the resurrection, of the human experience of worship, of the application of the teachings of Christ to one's life, of the internal cohesion of the Christian worldview, etc.

Now you may not be able to hold such things in your hand, but I guarantee you this. I would be more inclined to believe that the material world is an illusion than to believe that my friends are not my friends.




The beating never comes, because he takes advantage of the fact that there are no facts to be on his side. He knows that he is dealing with something that cannot be proven one way or another, and he therefore has "already won". It would be interesting for me to see where you get the impression that JPH is humble (other than the fact that you are obviously friendly with him).

Then go see what the debates in the wrestling ring are over. They're over facts. Did this happen or not? Christianity can be disproven. Just tell us where the body is or what happened to it.

Now how do I know JPH is humble? Simple. I know him personally. I stayed at his house and he and I have visited since then even. JPH opened his home to me and the only questions were how he could make me more comfortable.


I could easily point out several (actually the majority of) posts in which he is nothing but the opposite of humble. My case in point...the only reason I even came to this thread, was because of my utter disgust at the way in which he has been interacting with people. In fact, it was the overall concept of this thread, and the fact that you guys continue it which made me come here. Now you see what you cause. Nothing. Just a bunch of childish griping. I will admit that I am included. However, my intention was more of a ...see what happens kind of approach. Now you see, when you choose to speak this way to people, or about people...this is the type of reaction you get. If you don't like it...then you should not do these things. One should not have a thread going on where one and one's cronies sit around and bash people and call them screwballs behind there back. Whoever started it...you should be the one's to finish it. Since you're so Christian and all. .

No. I believe in calling a spade a spade. If something is nonsense, I go on and call it nonsense. Now you say it doesn't accomplish anything? It accomplishes much. I think it jolts a lot of people into reality and they need a tough cop like JPH.

btw, I assume you'll be giving the same complaint to the people who have "Fundies say the darndest things." Right?


Really...is it convincing to tell someone that they believe that beings can evolve into pure energy and therefore they are a screwball? This also is apparently not too hard a concept to believe. I know of several people who believe this concept to be legitimate. It could even be used in a theistic conceptual setting. So...pot calling a kettle black....hmmmmm? Come on Nick...I expect more from you.

Sure. There are several who believe it to be legitimate. There are several people who believe the Christ-myth is legitimate. There are Muslims that believe so strongly that the claims of Islam are legitimate that they're willing to fly planes into buildings and strap bombs to themselves. That doesn't matter a bit.

Here's the real question. Is there any reason to believe it? I see it as an idea that really doesn't have a basis. It's not about believing something could happen. God can turn matter into energy no problem. It's simply, "Why should I believe this will happen?"




I can accept that beings can evolve into pure energy. Can you disprove it? You have shown me no miracle. I have seen no miracle, and no miracle has been witnessed. You have only a book written long, long ago. Where is the defeat of atheism?

A number of questions here. Now I think things can turn into energy but seeing this as evolution seems like a stretch to me. Now can I disprove it? No. It's not my burden to do so either. I'm the skeptic.

As for miracles, you're right there. I haven't given you a miracle simply because I am not a miracle worker. You have seen no miracle. That makes two of us. However, you cannot say no miracle has been witnessed. That would assume there have been no miracles. That's just begging the question.

Now you say I have a book written a long long time ago. I wasn't aware the date had anything to do with its truth. If it's true, it doesn't matter whether it was written 2,000 years ago, 10,000 years ago, or 10 hours ago.

And where is the defeat of atheism? Not here yet for sure. I just believe that we are uncovering more and more that is leading most people to think that atheism is just not tenable. Maybe the naturalists can explain how atheism somehow evolved to show me wrong.




It's creepy because of various reasons. Mostly the grotesque stories presented in the bible. I would use the idea of accepting something as being true...if you could show me that it is true. You cannot, so I don't. Show me that it is true that "God" exists...and I'd be more than happy to accept it. You will not be able to do so, but I welcome you to try.

First off, am I under obligation to show that God exists before I have epistemological warrant to believe that he does?

Secondly, what grotesque stories are you talking about?




True. However, the concept he was describing (and I was referring to) is not the same as the new-age concept that you are referring to. The ony that you are referring to is one in which we not only transgress into beings of energy, but have some sort of shared consciousness...which is ludicrous at best.

Actually, many of them have us losing our own identity. I wrote a TWeb Article on this about being the reflection of God in which the Christian idea is that you keep your identity and reflect him. If you tell me what the idea you think is possible even really is, I'd be glad to dialogue about it.




That's great. Personally, I don't care what you believe. I just don't like being called a screwball just because I have the screwballs to have a little abstract thought creep into my brain here and there. I guess I could just sit around and pretend like I already know everything...cause I found God.

No one says that. We claim to know some absolute truth but not all absolute truth. Only God could know all truth because since God is infinite only God could know himself entirely. We're not against abstract ideas. It's abstract nonsense that is the problem.

[One Bad Pig]

Really? I don't recall ever crossing paths with her before...I'll check.

I'm also puzzled about the comments about inerrancy. It smells....KJV Onlyist.

Add:

I checked the listed messages for serapha -- spent more time on spamming for a pet than discussing anything serious on the latest 200 messages. :lolo:

:whistle: What's wrong with that?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I'm closing this one since it's officially a new month and a new year. Take all screwballs to the new thread.