Submit Your Candidates for April Screwballs of the Month

[jpholding]

Same rules, but April 1-30.

[Slayer-2004]

An islamic fundamentalist trying to convince other muslims that it is ungodly for them to celebrate april fools day because they lost a war .

http://gawaher.com/forum/Dont_Be_An_April_Fool-t10995.html

Read the OP .

[Cynic Sage]

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50955

(emphasis mine)

Cu Mhorrigan, first on theocratic dictators.

Gee, Contempt for people that are more interested in acting liek theocratic dictators is seen as bigotry. Tell me is hatred of Hitler Bigotry? Or Stalin?
What you fail to realise is these monsters are simply waiting to take over the government and thus take over our lives. But I guess you wont realise it until they come for you for "Not beliving in the same kind of Jesus" they do.

Hitler and Stalin like Theocratic dictators?:lol:

Then how on deep down in their hearts, us religiously conservative people want to kill everyone who disagrees with us.

Well was I not speaking the truth?
Do you view the dominionists like falwell robertson and dobson to be "Men of god?"
If so then yes you would view any criticism of them as Bigotry because you agree that we unbelievers should be treated as second class citizens at best, or at worst, a group requiring a "Final Solution" like Hitler proscribed for the jews.
What really bothers people like yourselves, is that when it's YOUR rights you fight for them tooth and claw, but when it is OUR religious liberties you laugh and work that much harder to take them away from us.
How is that Demonization?
It is a simple statement of the Dominionist agenda.
Conquer the Unbelievers,
Subjugate the Unbelievers,
and if need be Kill the unbelievers.


However, she probably finds another other kind of bloodbath more "tolerable".


Religious Right forces used Mrs. Schiavo as a symbol in their drive to make government apply their fundamentalist beliefs to everyone.

Yeah because executing people for the crime of being intellectually disabled is just so humane and reasonable.

Why do they have a problem with this ?

Jason

Jason, as we keep telling you Terri was already DEAD. as in gone, vacant, Gone to be with jesus, budha, zeus what have you. the only thing that was left is an empty shell where the woman used to be.
If we wanted to kill people for being intellectually disabled we would have started with George bush, and worked our way down through all the red states and most of the blue.

Wow, even the blue states. Wow.:twitch:

[Arnold]

Yeah, I remember that second quote of Cu Mhorrigan :lolo: - that was addressed to me. :shifty:

[Sparko]

I kinda miss Johnny Skeptic. These screwball threads are not the same without him providing fodder.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

I not onlyaccept the nomination I also THIRD it.
Oh and for future reference I am a Man..Would you like to see?

[Cynic Sage]

I not onlyaccept the nomination I also THIRD it.
Oh and for future reference I am a Man..Would you like to see?

:blush:My Bad, It's just I've seen the name Mhorrigan used a a womans name, but not as a man's name before.

The same thing happened between me and Heathen Dawn and Minnesota. We need better gender-icons. perhaps those "Mars/Venus" symbols.



From now on I'm checking for adam's apples.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

So what do I get If I win the screw ball of the month?

[jpholding]

I not onlyaccept the nomination I also THIRD it.
Oh and for future reference I am a Man..Would you like to see?

Winners get posted on Tekton.

See? Where can we borrow a microscope? :twitch:

[technomage]

See? Where can we borrow a microscope? :twitch:

BAD JP! BA-A-AD! :whaps JP across the nose with newspaper:

Justin

[jpholding]

BAD JP! BA-A-AD! :whaps JP across the nose with newspaper:


*snap* huh? *spit*

:JP eats newspaper, then realizing it is the New York Times, spits it out:

[technomage]

Dear heavens, JP, I'm so sorry about that! I never intended to hit you with the Times ... all that liberal press could poison a body. :hehe:

Heck, I could hit you with the National Enquirer .... or the Washington Post! Same difference ... they both make it up as they go along....

Justin

[Xavier]

HA! I knew he was an operative of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy... :hehe:

[technomage]

HA! I knew he was an operative of the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy... :hehe:

I've hit people with sticks for lesser insults, you twerp!

Xavier --> :zap:

Justin

[Xavier]

Darn.. Turned into a toad again... That's, what?, two for two now... :hehe:

[technomage]

Nah, that's a frog-skin you're wearing now. Turning you into a toad would be redundant. :tongue:

Justin

[jpholding]

Heck, I could hit you with the National Enquirer .... or the Washington Post! Same difference ... they both make it up as they go along....


Bleah! Now Toby just got up and ran to the door to ask to be let out. Please don't do that. Other than brooms, the liberal press and gossip magazines are his worst nightmares...unless they are flat on the floor, but he's been past that stage for a while....

[Jaltus]

In response to the question "Are you that stupid?" Lazy Agnostic replied:

Maybe. What do you mean?

[Arnold]

In response to the question "Are you that stupid?" Lazy Agnostic replied:

Maybe. What do you mean?

When in doubt - waffle.

[technomage]

When in doubt - waffle.

I nominate Arnold.

Arnold --> :pie:

See? He's talking through his lemon meringue.

Justin

...Love ya, Arnold. Mean it. ...Hey, I know it was lame, but I didn't have a waffle smilie....

[jpholding]

In response to the question "Are you that stupid?" Lazy Agnostic replied:

Maybe. What do you mean?

I'd hate to give LA an award for what has been his most intelligent comment to date, but so be it.

Meanwhile, Jimbo has won another for this one, about the picture of Orpheus on the cross used by Freke and Gandy, and others:

I think you are referring to this picture, shown below. According to the caption on the image, it is Dionysus, not Orpheus:

Beautiful. Dimbo reads captions, while the item itself says "Orpheus Bacchus" on it. :glare:

By the way, it's also a forgery. :lmbo:

[technomage]

I'd hate to give LA an award for what has been his most intelligent comment to date, but so be it.

Meanwhile, Jimbo has won another for this one, about the picture of Orpheus on the cross used by Freke and Gandy, and others:



Beautiful. Dimbo reads captions, while the item itself says "Orpheus Bacchus" on it. :glare:

By the way, it's also a forgery. :lmbo:
Neat image, but it looks like something from an eighth-grade art project. I've never read Freke and Gandy ... got any web-accessable info on the plaque (especially the forgery info)?

Justin

[Arnold]

I nominate Arnold.

Arnold --> :pie:

See? He's talking through his lemon meringue.

Justin

...Love ya, Arnold. Mean it. ...Hey, I know it was lame, but I didn't have a waffle smilie....

Ymmm... :yummy:

[Xavier]

Neat image, but it looks like something from an eighth-grade art project. I've never read Freke and Gandy ... got any web-accessable info on the plaque (especially the forgery info)?

Justin

Tekton's Book Review:
http://www.tektonics.org/books/jesmystrvw.html
(Second Half for information on the Plaque)

[Cynic Sage]

This is a hillarious one from Steamer.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51277&page=1

Dead men do not come back to life. This is a historical fact. The only way the resurrection is possible is to pre-suppose the existence of god, otherwise it is impossible.

The bible states this logical inconsistancy which is the fallacy of begging the question. In order for the ressurection to be possible it first must prove that a god exists and then prove that this god is Yahweh. Here the bible fails miserably in terms of either proving a god exists or in describing the beginning of the universe.

Now then, since the resurrection itself demonstrates the fallacy of begging the question (petitio principii), what reason would you have to base a good chunk of your life and probably a good percentage of your income on a fallacy?

:lol: "Cart before the Horse", eh?

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Okay People back on topic What do I have to do to get nominated for screwball of the month..Come on work with me here...How do I get your vote?

[jpholding]

Neat image, but it looks like something from an eighth-grade art project. I've never read Freke and Gandy ... got any web-accessable info on the plaque (especially the forgery info)?

Justin

Aw heck, Justin -- this thing is bandied around so much by atheists and christ-mythers I'm astonished you've never seen it yet. But yeah, X linked to the review, and you can follow the Amazon link to see the book cover on Amazon.

[jpholding]

Okay People back on topic What do I have to do to get nominated for screwball of the month..Come on work with me here...How do I get your vote?

You've already been nominated and have won one of the awards. Results will be published on May 1.

[Cynic Sage]

Okay People back on topic What do I have to do to get nominated for screwball of the month..Come on work with me here...How do I get your vote?

Make sure your posts are riddled with historical innacuracies, logical falacies, and just plain say stupid stuff.:lol:

[Arnold]

Make sure your posts are riddled with historical innacuracies, logical falacies, and just plain say stupid stuff.:lol:

In other words don't change a thing... :teeth:

[Cu Mhorrigan]

No, seriously, I mean it....I need your vote...Come on...

[Cynic Sage]

No, seriously, I mean it....I need your vote...Come on...

:stupid:

:hi: OOH! OOH! I nominate him again for that one!

[Cynic Sage]

I also nominate him again for the thread he started.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51718 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51718)

Please please Please make me screwball of the month of April!!!! I promise to be funny and entertaining and I promise to make you laugh...I will even flash My boobs..oh wait I dont have any boobs...Never mind I just want to be your screwball of the month!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!

I've never seen anybody want a "Screwie" so badly.

<Cu Mhorrigan grabs Screwball award, clutches it to his chest, eyes well up with tears> You Love me, You REALLY Love me!

[The Laughing Man]

I nominate jimbo for his elephant-hurling thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51691&page=1&pp=15). Standard fundy skeptic tactic. Unload a slew of questions and statements upon your opponents in one go, then declare victory when no one feels up to typing out a 20-page response.

[jpholding]

I nominate jimbo for his elephant-hurling thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51691&page=1&pp=15). Standard fundy skeptic tactic. Unload a slew of questions and statements upon your opponents in one go, then declare victory when no one feels up to typing out a 20-page response.

What makes it even more deserving is that he knows darned well that I have all that material (with the ThinkTank) that DOES respond. :teeth:

[technomage]

Aw heck, Justin -- this thing is bandied around so much by atheists and christ-mythers I'm astonished you've never seen it yet. But yeah, X linked to the review, and you can follow the Amazon link to see the book cover on Amazon.
Are you kidding? I wouldn't touch most of the "Christ Myth" crowd with a ten-foot grain of salt (to really mix my metaphors. :lol:)

Thanks ... I'll check it out.

Justin

[Spinyn00bman]

No, seriously, I mean it....I need your vote...Come on...

Don't you just love it when someone confirms your opinion of them?

:rofl:

[Richbee]

Same rules, but April 1-30.


I am feeling screwy ever since I started conversing with Wiccan Witches.



Do I qualify?

[Cynic Sage]

I am feeling screwy ever since I started conversing with Wiccan Witches.



Do I qualify?

Richbee, do you ever not think of Wiccans, or ever have a conversation where the subject of Wicca is not brought up?

<Richbee in a KFC>
Richbee: Those Wiccans must sure love the taste of fried chicken to use the bones in their rituals.

<Richbee on the loo>
Richbee: Do Wiccans wash their hands after they use the can, or do they just zap their hands clean?

<Richbee in a cat food commercial>
Richbee: Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow Meow Wiccan...

[Cynic Sage]

I nominate jimbo for his elephant-hurling thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51691&page=1&pp=15). Standard fundy skeptic tactic. Unload a slew of questions and statements upon your opponents in one go, then declare victory when no one feels up to typing out a 20-page response.

I second that nomination.:thumb:

I enjoyed his argue-till-the-other-guy-falls-down-dead strategy he himself so adequately describes here.

Please explain why anyone in his or her right mind should think that a collection of ancient books which contain all of the absurdities, cruelties, violence and contradictions that are listed above should be considered the perfect work of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god. If you succeed in explaining away all of the above cruelties, violence, absurdities and contradictions, I will provide you with several more pages of verses to work on. If you successfully explain all of those away, you will then have to spell out why the Bible, supposedly a perfect instruction manual for life, needs so much interpretation and rationalization and explication and cannot just be counted on to mean what it says. Then you will have to explain to me why the various Bibles that are available today differ so significantly from one another, and why the tens of thousands of Christian sects have such conflicting doctrines and dogma. Which sect is right? How do you know which sect is right? What is this knowledge based on?

He bikes alot, he has endurance, and pretty good cardiovascular health as well, and if you can argue via endurance, I guess you don't have to worry about less important things such as context and facts.:lol:

[jpholding]

He bikes alot, he has endurance, and pretty good cardiovascular health as well, and if you can argue via endurance, I guess you don't have to worry about less important things such as context and facts.:lol:

There'll be an extra special surprise for "Biker Jimbo" in the Screwball feature coming up. Shhhhh......

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Gr...Do I have to do somethign really off the wall again?

[Sparko]

I dont think doing it on purpose counts.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Well why Not? It takes creativity to pretend to be that stupid.

[Sparko]

Well why Not? It takes creativity to pretend to be that stupid.

But this isn't for honoring creativity, it is for pointing out idiocy. If you are smart enough to fake idiocy, then you don't deserve it.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Darn...Figures you would find a loophole to kick me out of the competition.

[Arnold]

Gr...Do I have to do somethign really off the wall again?

Quit trying so hard - just be yourself. It'll be a slam dunk...

[jpholding]

Though written in 2004 or so, this one is going in because I was recently alerted to it...this is by a guy named Stuart Dinenno, who is so dumb he makes Jack Chick look like a scholar. Here's a sample of pearls of his wisdom:
*********

The Children's Church - The practice of separating children from their parents and whisking them off to a dumbed-down version of the congregational meeting (which is really little more than a day care center), is also an anti-scriptural abomination.

The Choir - If we were living in the biblical nation of Israel before the resurrection of Christ, and if we were worshipping in the Temple at Jerusalem, and if the choir were composed of the descendants of Levi, then having a choir would be biblical. But we live in modern America, the Temple was destroyed many centuries ago, and the local choir does not consist of Levites. Singing, under the New Testament, is to be performed for the church by the church; not for the church by a select group on a stage wearing robes.

Ya'll goin' straight to hay-ull. Stu sez so. So there. :tongue:

[Sparko]

If'n I wuz to wear Levi's to church, then kin I sing?

[The Laughing Man]

Please explain why anyone in his or her right mind should think that a collection of ancient books which contain all of the absurdities, cruelties, violence and contradictions that are listed above should be considered the perfect work of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good god. If you succeed in explaining away all of the above cruelties, violence, absurdities and contradictions, I will provide you with several more pages of verses to work on. If you successfully explain all of those away, you will then have to spell out why the Bible, supposedly a perfect instruction manual for life, needs so much interpretation and rationalization and explication and cannot just be counted on to mean what it says. Then you will have to explain to me why the various Bibles that are available today differ so significantly from one another, and why the tens of thousands of Christian sects have such conflicting doctrines and dogma. Which sect is right? How do you know which sect is right? What is this knowledge based on?

:lmbo: Oh, I missed that gem. Man, talk about a self-perpetuating denial. I'm sure that even if someone explained all that to him, he'll come up with something else. Probably more elephant hurling.

[The Laughing Man]

What makes it even more deserving is that he knows darned well that I have all that material (with the ThinkTank) that DOES respond. :teeth:

Yeah, I was going to say that all of that had probably been answered before, but I thought it better that people who did all the work say that it's all been answered before.

[Raptor]

Though written in 2004 or so, this one is going in because I was recently alerted to it...this is by a guy named Stuart Dinenno, who is so dumb he makes Jack Chick look like a scholar. Here's a sample of pearls of his wisdom:
*********

The Children's Church - The practice of separating children from their parents and whisking them off to a dumbed-down version of the congregational meeting (which is really little more than a day care center), is also an anti-scriptural abomination.

The Choir - If we were living in the biblical nation of Israel before the resurrection of Christ, and if we were worshipping in the Temple at Jerusalem, and if the choir were composed of the descendants of Levi, then having a choir would be biblical. But we live in modern America, the Temple was destroyed many centuries ago, and the local choir does not consist of Levites. Singing, under the New Testament, is to be performed for the church by the church; not for the church by a select group on a stage wearing robes.

Ya'll goin' straight to hay-ull. Stu sez so. So there. :tongue:

:twitch:

[Cynic Sage]

A little too much Champagne.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51691&page=7

Oh, and sex didn't just happen in marriage. There was also the Yahweh-sanctioned practice of concubinage.

And for example, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Not exactly monogamous now, was he? Sex couldn't really be special, could it, when shared with 1000 women?

But Yahweh blessed men in the OT by giving them more and more wives and concubines. It was a sign of blessing if you had a lot of wives. It was not a bad thing.

And prostitution also occurred in the OT and is recorded, and yet never condemned under Hebrew law.

Women had to be virgins when they married or else they'd be in big trouble, but men didn't. And, women who were prostitutes were not breaking any Hebrew law. They weren't virgins but they weren't getting married so it didn't matter. Virginity only mattered if you were getting married- and only mattered b/c you had to be pure and undefiled property for the man. If you weren't, there was a chance that any kids you had with her may not be your own but maybe someone else's bastard.

It was quite phenomenal when Yahweh ordered Hosea to marry Gomer, the prostitute. He could hardly believe it, b/c prostitutes were not marriage material.



Oh, and sex didn't just happen in marriage. There was also the Yahweh-sanctioned practice of concubinage.

I don't think it was sanctioned by Yahweh, but for whatever reason, he permitted it.


And for example, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Not exactly monogamous now, was he? Sex couldn't really be special, could it, when shared with 1000 women?


You may not know that god rebuked him for this. Many of his wives deceived him into dishonoring God.


But Yahweh blessed men in the OT by giving them more and more wives and concubines. It was a sign of blessing if you had a lot of wives. It was not a bad thing.


Your representation doesn't seem to correspond with my memory. Where does it say that it is a sign of blessing to have a lot of wives? Was it permitted? Yes. Encouraged? I'm unaware.


And prostitution also occurred in the OT and is recorded, and yet never condemned under Hebrew law.


Really? I don't think that is true. Where is there an instance where prostitution is permitted? On what basis did the Pharisees want to stone the prostitute in John's Gospel? It was based on the Hebrew law.

Women had to be virgins when they married or else they'd be in big trouble, but men didn't.

That may be technically true, but let it be clear that men weren't permitted to have sex with whoever they well please (as you have implied).


And, women who were prostitutes were not breaking any Hebrew law.


The Scriptures say that such women are defiled. Thus what you say is wrong.

They weren't virgins but they weren't getting married so it didn't matter.

Where do you come up with this stuff?


Virginity only mattered if you were getting married- and only mattered b/c you had to be pure and undefiled property for the man. If you weren't, there was a chance that any kids you had with her may not be your own but maybe someone else's bastard.


Honestly, I don't know where you came up with this stuff, but it's not true.


It was quite phenomenal when Yahweh ordered Hosea to marry Gomer, the prostitute. He could hardly believe it, b/c prostitutes were not marriage material.


Whoa whoa whoa! If you think the book of Hosea encourages prostitution you are very mistaken. God was demonstrating to his people what he thought of them. God felt that his people were like prostitutes in their relationship to God, and communicated that point through Hosea's marriage to a prostitute. Perhaps not my personal choice for making a point, but in no way can such a Scripture be twisted as you have to suggest that prostitution is fine and dandy. I'm sorry.


I'm not saying prostitution was cool, I'm saying it was not illegal. Scour the OT and you will not find a law against prostitution per se. You'll see this: Leviticus 19:29
" 'Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness."
Also, priests' daughters were to be burned if they became prostitutes.

Of course prostitution was shameful and no one "wanted" to be one, but the fact remains it was not unlawful in and of itself to be a prostitute. You'll find many examples of men going to prostitutes in the OT, such as Samson, and finding no recrimination or condemnation of that specific behavior.

As far as wives, again in 2 Sam, we see God saying:

7 Then Nathan said to David, "You are the man! This is what the LORD , the God of Israel, says: 'I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes?

God tells David that he had blessed him by giving him, among other things, his masters' wives (King Saul's).

You yourself have said that you have to look at the culture and take everything in context. When you look at the cultures (not just Hebrew culture) of the time, you will see how women were treated. You will see how virginity was important for women, but not for men. You will see how men could have hundreds of wives and scores of concubines without condemnation. Yes, God did condemn Solomon for having taken FOREIGN wives and starting to worship their gods. For someone who was supposedly the wisest man who ever lived, he didn't see anything wrong with polygamy - and strangely enough started worshiping other gods even AFTER Yahweh had done all this stuff for him. Doesn't that seem odd to you? Doesn't it seem pretty incongruous?

And read up on why virginity was important before getting married for women. What was the purpose behind that? It's not just random. And it's not because sex was to be reserved between one man and one woman. If that was the case, polygamy and concubinage would not have been sanctioned, prostitution would have been illegal, and it would have been a requirement for men to be virgins as well as women when marrying.

[Sparko]

You know how Arnold keeps complaining about people insulting him? I recently had this exchange with him:

I think the problem you are having is with the word 'unsolicited'

I think you just don't realize you are indeed soliciting insult...

...Like a freaking magnet!!! :teeth:

Yes you are absolutely correct - if one defines soliciting as the typical response of those who cannot argue substance with substance and must resort to insults.

Hmm. you do realize that you just insulted yourself, right?

If you are soliciting insults, and by your post above we define solicting as the response of those ('of' meaning the solicitors) who cannot argue substance with substance and must resort to insults, then that technically means YOU.

And you are absolutely right. Lets define it like that.

I guess you now need to add yourself to that list in your signature.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=999025&postcount=119

[Arnold]

You know how Arnold keeps complaining about people insulting him? I recently had this exchange with him:





Hmm. you do realize that you just insulted yourself, right?

If you are soliciting insults, and by your post above we define solicting as the response of those ('of' meaning the solicitors) who cannot argue substance with substance and must resort to insults, then that technically means YOU.

And you are absolutely right. Lets define it like that.

I guess you now need to add yourself to that list in your signature.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=999025&postcount=119

Please post quotes of me that support this statement:

"You know how Arnold keeps complaining about people insulting him?"

[dizzle]

:fight:

[Iktovian]

Please post quotes of me that support this statement:

"You know how Arnold keeps complaining about people insulting him?"


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Arnold]

You know how Arnold keeps complaining about people insulting him?

I have never complained about people insulting me - just about people falsely accusing me (see JohnSparks quote for a case in point).

Here I gathered some quotes of mine for you:


"Actually I don't even care if Duder thinks he has some sort of noble purpose to convert the savages - I can handle his insults without concern. I just wanted to clear up these accusations that I instigate all or most of these confrontations. I do not - and the evidence in my first post proves this."

===

"Duder I have never had a problem with you except for your assertions that I start many/most confrontations, which I don't, and is evidenced in my first post. Your insults are of no consequence to me."

===

"Why do I have to keep repeating this? The insults I receive whether solicited or not do not bother me."

===

"Well that is mildly humorous, but does not quite make it up to the level of a lol, but I stated in post #67 that I mostly just laugh off most insults and have even laughed at Duder's derogatory humor aimed at me (even on this thread)."

===

"Seeing what you want to see again. The apology I want from Rahab is for falsly accusing me of initiating a disruption of a thread, which I did not do. It had nothing to do with her insults toward me."

===

"I am glad to hear you have "let go any animosity toward you that I may have nursed" (time will tell). What do you want from me? I have already told you that your animosity is irrelevant to me.

This thread is not about your animosity toward me. You know what it is about, and you still do not seem to have come to grips with it based on this comment; "If you still have something to prove to others, i.e. that you will not derail threads, initiate insults, etc,"

The issue is not that I "will not derail threads, initiate insults, etc,". It is that I have not as I have been accused. Defend that - I need no help defending myself from others' insults..."

===

Look who's the Screwball now...

[Arnold]

Hey jpholding, here's a novel idea: Have you ever awarded the Screwball award to a nominator instead of one of the nominees? Anyways, if you want to try something different, I nominate JohnSparks for his false accusation and nonsensical post against me in post #54.

Oh, and I found another one of my quotes that's illustrates the shear idiocy of JohnSparks false accusation. In a discussion about my signature, answering a question as to why I receive so many unsolicited insults, I responded:

"It's what happens when your are right all of the time. :lol: The insults don't bother me - I mostly just respond in kind, if at all."

---

Hey JohnSparks, I am sure you will be proud to see that I have added you to the signature of shame - and you are the new record-holder! Congratulations! Take a bow... :bravo:

[Hint - I'll remove it if you apologize in this thread for your false accusations against me. You would be the first.]

[Sparko]

Hey jpholding, here's a novel idea: Have you ever awarded the Screwball award to a nominator instead of one of the nominees? Anyways, if you want to try something different, I nominate JohnSparks for his false accusation and nonsensical post against me in post #54.

Oh, and I found another one of my quotes that's illustrates the shear idiocy of JohnSparks false accusation. In a discussion about my signature, answering a question as to why I receive so many unsolicited insults, I responded:

"It's what happens when your are right all of the time. :lol: The insults don't bother me - I mostly just respond in kind, if at all."

---

Hey JohnSparks, I am sure you will be proud to see that I have added you to the signature of shame - and you are the new record-holder! Congratulations! Take a bow... :bravo:

[Hint - I'll remove it if you apologize in this thread for your false accusations against me. You would be the first.]

Well, So far you are really proving me right Arnold. You have posted several posts in here complaining about me insulting you, thus proving my claim that "you know how Arnold is always complaining about people insulting him" --- saving me a lot of work to go look up your other posts doing it.

and again, Go back and read the actual thread where you say I insulted you. I never did. I only said YOUR insult to GB was the pot calling the kettle black. You are the one who called ME a name. All I did was piont out the irony of your whining and how YOU insulted YOURSELF.

Which you did again in this thread by proving exactly what I claimed and giving even more examples of it. You really ARE earning screwball of the month, aren't you. :thumb:


PS, if you want to continue hashing this out, I am sure JP has more than enough evidence to put you up for screwball of the month, so take this to a new locker room thread so you don't tie up this thread any more.

If you want to keep me in your signature, then that is fine. But dont forget to add yourself.

:flowers:

[Arnold]

You have posted several posts in here complaining about me insulting you

Go back and read the actual thread where you say I insulted you.

:lol: false accusations numbers 6 and 7

[Sparko]

:lol: false accusations numbers 6 and 7

Whine number 10^98

-- oops I guess that makes this number 8 for me?

How come when you insult others that is OK but whenever someone 'insults' you, it is always unsolicited and false accusations? No one can say anything even slightly negative to you without you crying what a victim you are to unjustice. :lmbo:

Oh no, that makes what, 9, 10, 11? Might was well put me down for at least a few hundred in your sig then and save yourself some typing. :thumb:

(PS If I am gonna be in your signature I have decided to go all out and become the top dog there, including number of insults in one day. To that end I left a sort of easter egg insult hunt for you around tweb today. Have fun counting!)

[Cynic Sage]

Arnold, Johnsparks, stop fighting like little children.

[Sparko]

Yes, daddy. I bet Arnold will take that 'little children' reference as an insult though.

[Cynic Sage]

Now, I had previously expected this to be below Minnesota.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51224&page=2

image link here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=22842)

That's not much of a Chick-parody, that's more of a Chick-Tract with whining pasted onto it.

Hey, whose OP thread is this, yours or mine? Obviously it wasn't meant to be a parody. The fact that Chick saw an inconsistency in the character of god, and I brought it to your attention, is hardly whining, is it! Come to think of it, why don't YOU address this odd behavior of god's? Just why did god (according Chick) go back on his word and not honor his deal? Or did Chick get it wrong?


You do realize that you are using Jack Chick as source material don't you? Are you really this desperate to score a point?

Yes Minnie, I think Jack Chick actually DID get it wrong.:lol:



And then there's another one of his gems here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52027

According to Matthew 5:48 we are to be "perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

So, like god, we should try to be

Loving,
Compassionate,
Kind,
Righteous
Just,
Truthful,

and also,

vengeful,(Jeremiah)
wrathful, (Jeremiah)
jealous, (Genesis)
to be feared (Exodus)

and when we get the chance,

kill innocent men and women (Job)
kill babies (Exodus)

Everybody done their fair share of wrathfulness and wreaking vengeance this week? How about killing that old poop down the street whom you can't stand? It all counts toward that ticket into heaven, ya know.

[Cynic Sage]

And here's Pythagoras, showing us that a physicist truly is a jack of all trades.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52054


In the 1670's, Sir Issac Newton quietly studied the Trinity and came to the conclusion that the doctrine was foisted on the Church by Athanasius in order to swell the numbers and fill the coffers. He concluded Arius was right and he claimed that the Bible had prophesied the Rise of Trinitarianism("this strange religion of the west", "the cult of 3 equal gods") as the abomination of desolation. After Newton, others such as Matthew Tindal, John Toland, Gottfried Arnold, Goerg Walch, Giovanni too came to the fore.

It was 325 A.D. at Nicaea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through by Athanasius(using Mafia tactics) in a Council that was overseen by Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough,thought of himself as God-incarnate.(Constantine was a Sun Worshipper, who killed his own son and wife and converted to "Christianity" on his deathbead.) Many of those present at the Council of Nicaea were opposed the doctrine of Trinity, siding with Arius. Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries."

Ingersoll studied the matter in the last century and explained how it works-- this Trinity business:

"So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God,and that these three Gods make one God. According to the celestial multiplication table,once one is three, and three times one is one, and according to heavenly subtraction if we take two from three, three are left. The addition is equally peculiar,if we add two to one we have but one. Each one is equal to himself and the other two. Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity. How is it possible to prove the existence of the Trinity? Is it possible for a human being,who has been born but once, to comprehend, or to imagine the existence of three beings, each of whom is equal to the three ? Think of one of these beings as the father of one, and think of that one as half human and all God,and think of the third as having proceeded from the other two, and then think of the three as one.Think that after the father begot the son, the father was still alone,and after the Holy Ghost proceeded from the father and the son, the father was still alone- because there never was and never will be but one God. At this point, absurdity having reached its limit, nothing more can be said except "Let us pray." "

Amen to that. Let us pray that God is one.






Loads of nonsense.


True to from, all talk no action.


I think the quote by Ingersoll (the bible-hating Agnostic with no credentials) is the plastic bride and groom on this trivial little wedding cake you've cooked up.



Why not say the same about Sir Issac Newton, he too hated the Trinity nonsense with a passion. And talk of credentials -- the devout Christian and single greatest influence on theoretical physics until Einstein.





You don't seriously think that because Newton was good at physics that qualifies him to look at the Bible do you ?

Yes I do...

I suppose because I have a bachelors degree in computer science with honours I am qualified to perform open heart surgery. :ahem:


You're no Newton.


:lol: Wow, Physics, Theology, and Surgical medicine as well. Man, there's nothing that Newton can't do.

[The Laughing Man]

This is probably better suited as an entry for the "You might be a fundy atheist" list, but AtheistMoron had this to say about Jesus (compared to Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK):

"Neither Oswald nor Kennedy are held up as resurrected zombies"

[Cynic Sage]

This is probably better suited as an entry for the "You might be a fundy atheist" list, but AtheistMoron had this to say about Jesus (compared to Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK):

"Neither Oswald nor Kennedy are held up as resurrected zombies"

Remember to post a link to the original, Laffy.

[The Laughing Man]

Remember to post a link to the original, Laffy.

No! I refuse! I will not give in to your facist rules! :rant:



...




Okay, just this once.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1000935&postcount=13

[FreeBrightMind]

Hands down the screwball of the month is..........drum roll please.
End of the Church Age by johnbill !
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=989919#post989919
Are you aware of patterns of lines or spots that float in your field of vision? Bring your eye focus in close to your nose to carefully observe this. Using a light colored surface, a lighted wall or ceiling as a backdrop can make this discovery quite easy. Go slowly. It is not that difficult to see them.

Once you are aware of them, try moving your eyes slowly to the left and then, to the right. Then try moving your eyes slowly up and down. See how these radiant energy impressions move with you.

In time, you will realize and understand that these floating impressions are actually, physically and truthfully spirit entities that are with you. You will discover that many spirit entities continually attempt to contact you and to physically connect to various places on your body....... Twightlight Zone, X-Files fodder.
After you read that post you'll vote it for screwball of the year! :lol:

[{Tim}]

Here's one by a neo-hymenaean: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=939352&postcount=23

There is no such thing as a partial preterist. This is a new made up name for futurist. They try to save face by using the title partial preterist as if they really believe what the Bible is saying but will not go against the man made creeds. In fact they are truly Hyper-futurist with their wrong interpretations.
:rofl:
I can't believe he can't tell the difference between preterists and futurists. I mean, come on...! :ahem:

[{Tim}]

Oops, I just realised that my entry was posted last month. :blush:

I still think it deserves a prize, though.

[Cynic Sage]

I strongly reccomend checking out the Unorthodox Theology department for screwy stuff.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52169

:haha: Dear Earthlings,


It's been more than a couple thousand years, and you still don't get
it, do you?


You've been told that there's a divine Reality, a "Kingdom of God"
that you should "seek first." But you continue to seek pleasure in
this world, in money, in love, in comfort and in power. Those of you
who claim to be seeking God and His Kingdom actually want God to be
your slave and servant, who will provide you with whatever goods and
services, sport and military victories that you wish for. But God is
no slave of man, nor is that Kingdom of God a free gift to you just
because you say a few pretty words or believe your favorite teaching.


You've been told that the "Kingdom of God is within you." But you
still look to the outer world for all your benefits. You look to
books, temples, churches, synagogues, and mosques, and not the divine
Source of Wisdom in your own heart. You are lost in your theories and
dogma when the divine and Universal Truth is already present, could
you but listen. Or you may have fastened upon some teacher or Master
that caught your fancy and you decided that happiness lay in
following him or her. But the only true teachers never point to
themselves, but always point to God.


Or if you are not religiously inclined, you may imagine that science
has some kind of monopoly on truth. But examining the outer form of
the universe tells us nothing of the Life within. Or perhaps you have
determined that seeking the inner Truth is just a foolish dream of
the irrational and the insane. Thus you condemn yourself to a life of
perpetual ignorance. Precious few look to the Heart for Truth,
precious few look to their own higher nature for their only guidance.
Precious few would really agree with the statement "Christ in you,
the hope of Glory." No, you ignore Christ, you ignore God, and you
ignore Reality because the world has captured your attention. The
outer "you" has triumphed over the inner divinity. The self has
declared victory over God. The world's books and teachers are your
only guideposts. But we are told "My Kingdom is not of this world."


No, the news has more credibility than any message from your Heart.
For the evening news and the daily paper are read regularly and
believed by you, even though you have been told they are filled with
the propaganda of the Powers of this world. But they have more
credibility than your Heart, more credibility than God. So of course,
because of ignorant acts like this you live in confusion, and don't
even know it.


And the authorities of this world happily drum their messages into
you, and you listen with open ears. The scientific authorities tell
you that nothing exists but matter, and you believe, rather than
listen to the Spirt within. They tell you that Love is only an
emotion, that Truth is a matter of logic, that progress consists of
obtaining wealth, and that power consists of your ability to control
nature. What utter insanity!

The part below REALLY cracks me up.:lol:

The religious authorities are equally happy to tell you that God can
only be found through their particular theology, their particular
religion, and their particular sacred book.


And she's doing the exact same thing.:lol:

They tell you that there
are rituals to perform, and you perform them. That there are
meditations to practice, and you practice them. That there are
meetings to attend and you attend them. That there are prayers to be
said, and you say them. That there are books to be studied and you
study them. That there are offerings to be made and you open your
pocketbooks. But listen to the Spirit in your heart? Abandon all
outer teachings to listen that way? Sacrifice your own preconceived
notions of Truth to follow God unconditionally? Precious few would
even think of doing those things. For the outer world has you by the
throat and you are choking on your own selfishness.


You are a slave. If you are not a slave to some authority, you are a
slave to money, a slave to human love and pleasure, or a slave to
some ideal. You do not think so? Tell me how much of your time you
spend acting and living in this world seeking money, and tell me how
much of your time you spend looking for God. You can easily see that
money is more important than God, that money has the power and that
God is a relative weakling - so it would seem - to these temporal
powers. Perhaps you inherited great wealth, so lets think about how
much time you take in spending all the money that you have, in
shopping, and in making life pleasurable for your self, as opposed to
following your very own Heart. Or if it is not money that preoccupies
your life, it is human love, or temporal power, or some human purpose
and principle, or some outer teaching; is that not so? Again you can
see that in truth you are a slave to your self and the self's
innumerable, insatiable desires.


No, the world rules you, lock, stock, and barrel. God has been lost
and forgotten in your life. How much do you express the Spirit in
your heart, and the Truth, Love, Power, Joy and Wisdom that lies
within that Heart? Not much I bet. And if you have a friend and you
stop talking to him, and you don't call him, and you don't send any
letters to him, and you don't ever do what he asks you to, it is
reasonable to suppose that he will likewise forget about you. Well,
God was your friend, but you stopped talking to Him, neglected to
listen to Him, and abandoned Him. Do you not suppose that God will
also abandon you?


But you say, "God is Love," and he does not abandon his children. How
sweet of you to think that. But a parent (to use this analogy) also
disciplines his children. You have abandoned God - can you deny it?
If you are going to be brought back to the Love of God, you must be
disciplined not to forget him and abandon him again. God can do
"tough love" too. Therefore humanity will be brought through the
Fire. Those who can follow the God of their Heart will be purified.
Those who cannot will find their way to another, stricter planet, so
that they cannot continue to destroy this one any more.


In your forgetting the "Kingdom of God" in your heart, in your
following the desires of this world, you are indeed destroying this
planet. Or rather, you are attempting to destroy it, in order to
fulfill your personal greed, your personal needs, and your personal
goals. This can be proven by your very own actions. Are there fish on
this planet? They are here for you to eat. Are there plants on this
planet? They are eaten also, or cut down to build your structures.
Are their birds that fly through the air? They are to be eaten too.
Are there pretty rocks in the ground? They are to be dug up and sold
for your pleasure.

Phew! For a minute there I thought I had to eat the rocks as well.:lol:

Are there minerals to burn? You will pump them out
of the ground and burn them in your cars. The very purpose of the
oxygen in the air, it would seem, is for you to be able to breathe.

Yup, that's what It's good for.:lol:

You you you! It all is for you. The whole planet is your toy. The
earth is your garbage dump. But not for much longer! You have laid
waste to every part of this planet, and this cannot be allowed to
continue. But no act of humanity will keep your selfishness in check,
so God will intervene. Nature will exact its revenge on your
foolishness. Then you will know that the planet is not here for you,
it is here for God. The gifts of this planet are likewise not here
for you, but for the work of the Spirit in your Heart. That likewise,
you are not here for your self or its pleasure and happiness, nor are
you here for your own development and personal growth, but are here
for God alone.


But oh, you say, you are better than this. You do all sorts of good
things. You serve. You love. You do this and that. But your hopes of
being good are empty lies. For you feed the hungry, but you do not
follow God. You teach high philosophy, but you do not follow God. You
play magnificent music, but you do not follow God. You conserve
natural resources, but you do not follow God. You give millions to
charity, but you do not follow God. You meditate and pray to raise
your consciousness out of this realm of illusion, but you do not
follow God. You seek to establish peace on earth, but you do not
follow God. How do I know that you do not follow God? Because if you
followed God, you would not be looking to the world for your service
and your good works; you would be looking only to the divine Reality
alone, to Truth alone, and to God alone. Thus in doing your "works,"
you are forgetting the essential thing. You are feeding people -
doing good works - when God's divine and unlimited manna is already
available to all, here and now.

Darn it, I knew I shouldn't of fed those starving orphans, I should have listened to my heart and spent the money buying Starfox Assault.


Therefore, you are a fool, are deceived, and are insane. You have
chosen to follow self rather than God, imagining that your self is
wiser than God, smarter than God, and better than God. Such arrogance
is megalomania. Selves are not only not smarter than God or wiser
than God, in the divine Universe they don't even exist at all.
Therefore illusion rules you, falsehood rules you, and your life is a
continuous lie.


It is true that there are exceptions to the rule. There are the
"precious few" who unconditionally follow the Spirit in the Heart, no
matter what. But, you probably imagine that such people number in the
millions on this planet when in fact their numbers are immeasurably
smaller. And further, you probably imagine that you yourself are
among those few, that these words don't apply to you, and that you do
indeed follow God. But ask yourself, could you be writing this letter
to the earthlings? If you can stand where I stand and write something
like this letter, then you are likely indeed one of the precious few,
for you see the Truth, and that Truth has "set you free" of the
illusions of this world, and you share these sentiments
wholeheartedly, for you know whereof I speak. Otherwise, these words
do indeed apply to you, as much as your self would like to wiggle out
of them, and modify them, and make conditions out of them.


And of course, you will consider this message "arrogance," "pride,"
"negativity," or other various condemnatory words, because the world
has deceived you, and you are indeed trapped, and cannot think for
yourself even if you tried to. The world has insinuated itself into
your very being, and you are not even aware of your own divine nature
anymore, but only of a fiction of self, a fiction of divinity, a
fiction of truth, and a fiction of God.


So, slave to this world, what are you going to do? There is always a
way out of your slave-hood. That Way has been clearly stated in this
message - can you see it or are your eyes blinded? And if you see it,
have you the will to choose it? I really doubt it. Thus you and the
rest of the slaves will soon depart to another realm, where you and
the other slaves may continue your experiment in self-centeredness
without infecting the rest of the universe with your poisonous
schemes. Christ will reclaim this planet for Spirit, Truth, and God.
Christ will "come again in Power" and the world will be transformed.
For if this were not done, you would destroy this planet, and it
would die. And you would be dead too, as the result of your
unmitigated selfishness - dead not only in body, but also in Spirit.
The earth would become as lifeless as the moon, and the enslaved
souls here would enter a still more painful existence than the one
they are now destined for. But by Grace, the earth will be redeemed,
purified, and transformed. The planet will be initiated into a new
vibration and realm, and nothing will ever be the same again.

Highlights mine.

Everybody say "Hello Clarice.:grin: "

:lol:

[Cynic Sage]

Dangit, my highlighter exploded.

[Cynic Sage]

It seems that Cognos doesn't understand the JFK Myth Parody.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52101&page=7

The point was that we should be skeptical of all claims regardless of any evidence of the truth of those claims.

The fact that it is only about 40 years ago since the alleged assassination of John Kennedy, and that some of the supposed eye-witnesses are still alive means that this parody is exactly like claiming that Jesus resurrected 2,000 years ago, when most people were illiterate but they were experts in evaluating evidence; the printing presses were slower than they are today; and the technology to edit film had not yet been perfected.

So, if we were duped into believing that Kennedy was actually assassinated, then we definitely should believe that Jesus resurrected. Logical, right?

:lol:

[Sparko]

Printing presses two thousand years ago? :hrm:

[Truthdigger]

On christian radio this morning, they said that Abe Lincoln may have been the first person to use a xerox.

[Cynic Sage]

More on Cu Mhorrigan and sex in the Bible. (as always, highlights mine).

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52214

Of course what the book worshippers fail to realise is that Even according to their book the idea of Marraige did not exist until the story of the tower of babel. Back then people just naturally Hooked up an remained together without some old man teling them it was okay.
I think what the problem is, imo, is that people want boundries defined for them, however they dont want to do the work in figuring out what would work and what doesnt. I know people who like being in a permanent monogamous pairing (Gay or Straight) while others are more interested in the act of sex without all the drama and mind games that come with marraige. Personally, I kind of like neo-paganism's take on the marraige ceremony, that marraige is not till death, but rather "until as long as love shall last"; It really takes the sting away if One partner has to leave in cases of abuse or infidelity, or in the case where two people grow apart and eventually develop seperate lives.
Also people should keep in mind that the chulture of when the books they worship were written, there was no concept of Homosexuals being in monogamous pairs...that many were simply homosexual for "Stress Relief" during long sea voyages..(Of course some remained at sea for Long periods of time, by choice). That I personally believe the problems the hebrew Shamans had was that people werent making babies more than anything else. It wasnt a matter of "Moral" "Immoral" but rather, "WE NEED PEOPLE TO BREED SO WE COULD SEND THEIR CHILDREN OFF TO DIE IN WAR!"

Perhaps you should read it [the Bible] some time. Start at the beginning.


I dont count adam and eve because there was no old man officiating a ceremony, essentially YHWH said "Here have fun" (I am paraphrasing).
The Idea of marriage is essentially a man made construct which is trying to read itsef into even the simplest of stories. You have to look at the sories in theri context rather than just using ONE story to justify your position...Even the part of "Man Shall leave Father and Mother" was written in by the hebrew shaman moses as kind of a "Moral Lesson" Adam never said that to her, but rather "you are flesh of my flesh bone of my bone" taken to mean "Wow you look just like me..but with boobies."

Genesis 2:23-24 23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

Laid out in Genesis 2.

Cu, from the scripture Jaltus quoted it's clear that your interpretation of what Adam meant is incorrect. It seems to me that Adam meant that he had found someone with whom he could be in communion with as a person, a communion which is complementary and fulfilling, to the praise of God.

Nope I prefer the "You look Just like Me but with Boobies" verision better, it conveys the innocene you are reading far too much into it to honestly thing that adam cared about conversing...he wanted someone to give him "Companionship"

Seriously JP, Curly Moe thinks he knows about context, someone needs to be skooled.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

You have to admit My part about eve looking like adam but with boobies was funny..

[jpholding]

On christian radio this morning, they said that Abe Lincoln may have been the first person to use a xerox.

They also had televsion sets in Columbus' day, but no one used them because there were no TV stations.

Reminder to self: Pythagoras wins Screwball award for performance in Unorthodox Theology section.

[Cynic Sage]

You have to admit My part about eve looking like adam but with boobies was funny..

Eve was a SHEMALE!?:stunned:

[Cynic Sage]

A nugget from Shunyadragon

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50924

Historically all the abrahamic religions have been a pretty violent agressive bunch. Selective nice quotes say little about the context of the whole Bible and history.

For example there are some other interesting lines in the NT, beginning with the parable of the ten minas where Christ concludes the lesson of the day with Luke 19:26-27. 26“He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me."

In debates Christians will follow up with but, but, but . . . this is God's judgement not man's. Pretty harsh judgement and does not give much if God's or human's.

In the following famous 'Woe to the Pharisees this judgement is then given over to falliable people.

Luke 11:49 - Therefore also said the wisedom of God, I will send prophets and apostles, and some of them shall slay and prosecute.


:lol: The actual passage reads: Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

:argh: No John, Eve was similar to adam in the fact that She had two arms two legs smoothe skin, and different in the fact She had boobies and other female parts compared to his male parts. That she looked like him but she had breasts...Plus I would have gotten moderated If I got more descriptive.

[Cynic Sage]

:argh: No John, Eve was similar to adam in the fact that She had two arms two legs smoothe skin, and different in the fact She had boobies and other female parts compared to his male parts. That she looked like him but she had breasts...Plus I would have gotten moderated If I got more descriptive.

Relax dude, I was just having a larf.:lol:

[Cynic Sage]

This is a HILLARIOUS one from Lazy Agnostic.:lol:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52408&page=2&pp=16

Bush didn't lower flags to honor the pope, he did it to make easy points with Hispanics.

BTW, If Jesus was a Jew, why the Hispanic name?

[Sheepdog]

This is a HILLARIOUS one from Lazy Agnostic.:lol:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52408&page=2&pp=16

dang, i was thinking of picking that one too. :lol:

[Iktovian]

cue morning,

your galloping sausage is the funniest thing on tweb by a long way

[Cynic Sage]

I think Cognos got into Johnny Skeptic's hidden stash.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52477

This thread is about the color blue.

And this thread is about something called "God".

What is this thread about?

Is it about blue or is about God? It must be about one thing or the other, right?
There can be only right religion. There can be only God, right?
There can be only color, right? Blue. All other colors are not true. Blue is true. True blue, right?
God is true, blue is true, God is blue.

The sky is blue.
The sky is also grey.
The sky is also red.
The sky is also orange.

But God is only blue. True blue.

And this thread is only about the color blue. But it's also about something called "God".

Only my God is blue. Your God is not.
The color blue. Or the colour blue. What's the difference? "u". ("u" is not blue, so you are not true.)

Some people say that God has no color, that God looks like this:



But I can see otherwise. I not "u". Eye see. "U" don't. ICU. IC God. God is blue. Kind of an icy blue. That's what I see. Not an IPU. This is what an IPU looks like:




If you squink, you can see it too. UC the IPU? You too?

This thread is not about the color blue. It is about something called "God".

[Sparko]

this has been a very interesting month.

[Raptor]

This is a HILLARIOUS one from Lazy Agnostic.:lol:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52408&page=2&pp=16

:twitch:

[Sheepdog]

wow. that is one impressive bunch fo cognative dissonance.

[jpholding]

Time to close this thread; I'll open one for May (since I won't be online for the weekend).

[Virgil]

Our buddies at answering-christianity.com deserve a good many screwballs but their latest article (http://www.answering-christianity.com/pauls_blasphemy_against_god.htm) deserves a trophy
Apparently Paul is a blasphemer
http://www.answering-christianity.com/pauls_blasphemy_against_god.htm