Submit Your Candidates for May Screwballs of the Month [Archive]

Cynic Sage

April 30th 2005, 03:22 PM

An interesting topic was brought up in a conversation with Minnesota in the same thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1013657#post1013657). He posted a link to a rather interesting interview (http://www.opiummagazine.com/interviewdouglaschristian.html).

Editor's Note: the Christian porn star in question has asked to remain nameless, and thus, does.

Douglas: I'm confused at the term. To say you're a "Christian Porn Star"-isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

Christian Porn star (CP): There are Christian rock stars, Christian actors, and Christian athletes. Why should being a Christian porn star be any different?

Douglas: Well the very nature of your profession is-well, not very Christian.

CP: (nodding) I've thought about that quite a bit in the past.

Douglas: And?

CP: Well, the films my production company makes aren't targeted towards Christians. They're targeted to men who have, by and large, not thought much of religion. I think their needs to be a Christian in the industry helping to promote the name of Christ.

Douglas: And how exactly do you go about doing this?

CP: Well the movies I do are what industry experts call "Art House Porno."

Douglas: Art house porno?

CP: (nodding) It's an experimental form of pornography. What we do in the films is really push the boundaries of what porno is. They're films that combine sex with morals.

Douglas: Sex and morals?

CP: Right.

Douglas: So are you trying to say that godless sex is wrong in your films?

CP: By all means, no.

Douglas: Then what are you trying to do?

CP: The films are moral tales of sorts. They have themes like 'don't steal' or 'don't do drugs' or 'don't lie.' Very moral things. But to get the men to come see the moral message, we throw in all kinds of sex-raunchier and more experimental then what you would see in most porn. Like we're doing one right now about the poet Jane West. It's about West and her desire to be a female poet at any cost.

Douglas: Was West a sex addict, then?

CP: In this movie she is. It's just your typical pornographic period piece.

Douglas: Interesting. But, back to the question at hand-you don't see any of this as disregarding one immoral act as a way of condemning another one?

CP: Not at all.

Douglas: And where does Christ come in?

CP: Christ?

Douglas: Christ. You are a Christian porn star, after all. Aren't you supposed to be promoting Christ?

CP: We live in a godless world. I believe people need to see that they are doing immoral acts before they are able to see why they need Jesus Christ.

Douglas: And what about you? What about the acts you perform in the movies? Isn't having sex with multiple partners, and sometimes men, a little immoral?

CP: It's done in the name of art.

Douglas: And this makes it right?

CP: If I got pleasure out of having sex with several women at the same time, then I would say it was wrong. But I don't. I merely do it to promote morals.

Douglas: But the audience doesn't know your acting. They see a man on screen whose having sex with several women. Aren't you afraid they'll walk away believing that this kind of thing in society is okay?

CP: They're just movies. If they can't see the difference between fiction and reality, then they have other problems.

Douglas: Like addiction to porn, low self-esteem, inability to commit they're love to one person?

CP: Exactly.

Douglas: And you don't feel like you contribute to they're feelings and addictions?

CP: Absolutely not. I'm just here to entertain.

Douglas: Fair enough. Then onto other questions. Why don't you want your name to be identified?

CP: If people knew I was a Christian and a porn star, then they wouldn't see my movies.

Douglas: Doesn't the gospel say you should not be ashamed to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ?

CP: I'm not ashamed.

Douglas: You just don't want people to know you're a Christian.

CP: Exactly. Maybe one I'll write a tell-all autobiography of my life, but not until I feel my calling is finished.

Douglas: Speaking of autobiographies, can you tell me your testimony-how you came to Christ.

CP: That's a really great story. We were filming a love scene in a church, and I overheard the pastor telling the director all about Jesus. The director blew him off, but I wanted to hear more. So after the love scene was over, I found the pastor and asked to hear more. He told me how Jesus died for my sins and that accepting him would let me have a personal, one on one, relationship with God.

Douglas: Did the minister tell you, after you accepted Christ, that you needed to stop living your current life and start living for Christ?

CP: He's the one who encouraged me to be a Christian porn star.

Douglas: What kind of minister was this?

CP: Methodist.

Douglas: I see. So how did your life change after you accepted Christ? Is this when you started doing the moral porno?

CP: My life didn't change. I was already doing moral porno. Ever since I entered the industry, I felt a very passionate need to change the system and put in moral films.

Douglas: So nothing changed?

CP: Well I was a Christian porn star after that. I had only been a porn star before.

Douglas: Then what would you say the difference is between a Christian porn star and a regular porn star?

CP: I'm asked that a lot, although I'm not sure why. It's pretty obvious. A Christian porn star believes in Christ. A regular porn star does not.

Douglas: But they're attitudes and lifestyles are the same?

CP: In many cases, yes.

Douglas: Then why would you tell someone they need to be a Christian if everything can be identical when you believe in nothing?

CP: On Earth, they're really is no point in being a Christian. It's in heaven where not being a Christian can be tricky.

Douglas: So one day you'll die and meet God. What do you think he'll say about your life?

CP: Well, seeing is how I haven't did anything to make me ungodly, I think he'll be well pleased.

Douglas: You have no concerns that he won't see you doing porno as ungodly.

CP: No I don't-not compared to what other people have did.

Douglas: And what about the rest of your life. Your life outside the industry. Do you go to church? Read the Bible? Pray?

CP: Some days I'm more spiritual then others, but yeah I try and do all of those things.

Douglas: Does anyone in your church know?

CP: No one. I think people would judge me if they knew.

Douglas: Even though you don't think your job is wrong?

CP: Look at you. You seem to have a bias towards me.

I don't know which deserves the Screwball more, CP or that Methodist Minister tha encouraged him to stay in the industry?

Piebald

April 30th 2005, 03:44 PM

That is so bizarre it almost reads like a LarkNews or Onion article.

Tfbandie

April 30th 2005, 04:21 PM

That is so bizarre it almost reads like a LarkNews or Onion article.

I agree, that has got to be the weirdest thing I've read in a while. :huh:

BronzeArcher

April 30th 2005, 11:01 PM

If this isn't TWeb exclusive (I can't seem to find the first topic for January)...I can submit LOTS of stuff from christianforums (I'm a former mod). I hope I don't break any rules; if so I will be ashamed... Now then, from here (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15168651&postcount=1), and I don't even need to emphasize anything:

Begging the question is when you assume what you want to prove in your argument. And what happens, again and again and again is that the contents of the bible are used to justify the contents of the bible. Nevermind the contradictory statements therein.

There are any number of variations, but the fundamental problem is that from the point of view of validity of an argument, justifying the bible with the bible is fallacious.

In no other realm of historical investigation is it adequate to rely on a single document, such as the bible. And the last thing any competent historian would do is rely on a group with a vested interest for further evidence, doh!

Actually, given the political sensitivity of giving it the thrashing it deserves it is no surprise that there is so little quality academic critique of the bible and the surrounding dogma. An academic with a view to having a future would not be so naive as to assume this would not be detrimental to their career. The shame is that some find supporting it financially rewarding. But the taint this gives their scholarly work, is it worth it?

Got to love it.

spl_cadet

May 1st 2005, 12:06 PM

http://www.wiolawapress.com/black.htm

Darth Executor

May 1st 2005, 05:23 PM

Not as good as SPL's but...

http://www.jahtruth.net/starwar.htm

Oh, and can we expect a Farrell Till comic anytime soon?

Cynic Sage

May 1st 2005, 05:51 PM

http://www.wiolawapress.com/black.htm

And I thought Jack Chick was an extreme anti-catholic.

Xavier

May 2nd 2005, 11:00 AM

Take your pick from this mess... :hehe:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/02/1059247&from=rss

Darth Executor

May 2nd 2005, 11:11 AM

Take your pick from this mess... :hehe:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/02/1059247&from=rss

Hold on a moment there. I've been thinking about this for a bit, and....

1. We don't know how much time elapsed between God's command to Adam not to eat the fruit and its actual consumption.

2. Adam and Eve were immortal until the fruit was eaten.

Immortal means: infinite length of life. There could have been thousands of millions of billions of years between the command and the act. But it *would* have happened eventually, because in infinity, all possible things happen. It was *inevitable* that they eat the fruit, it was only a matter of time.

Now, that doesn't sound like a test of free will to me. And in fact, it seems that free will is not actually mentioned in the Bible. That's just something that arose during the centuries of obsessive meditation and re-meditation over the Bible there's been in the Western world. Think about anything that much, and you'll end up seeing all kinds of things implied by it as well, which is why some of the English papers I've been reading lately strike me as the products of a sprained mind.

No, I don't think he was thinking at all. Then again, those comments remind me why I always have a smile on my face when 12 year old "aranchists" claim they're smart because they don't believe in God.

jpholding

May 2nd 2005, 12:22 PM

Oh, and can we expect a Farrell Till comic anytime soon?

It's done and on my counter waiting for me to take it to be scanned. :thumb:

Dan Barker, too, and another Brooks Trubee.

Darth Executor

May 2nd 2005, 10:51 PM

Excellent. :smug:

Cynic Sage

May 3rd 2005, 03:48 PM

Redwolf, on the "Fruit of the Vine".

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1018857#post1018857

Hey I was just wondering why many churches use grape juice instead of wine. And since this is the history thread...

1)what is the history of using grape juice instead of wine
2)what did the people in the era of Jesus use for their communion
:wink:

As one who goes to a church that uses grape juice, the story I have heard is, that alchoholics, have a problem with wine, so even a taste of it, could set them on a bender again. So, the church uses grape juice to help alchoholics not be tempted.

You do not know for certain why your church uses grape juice rather than wine? That seems odd.

Alcohol is forbidden in the Bible. Do a google on why 'Christians should not drink wine'.

Fermented grape juice is a corruption of a healthful drink, and Christ had nothing to do with corruption.

Let it not occur to you that Christ made fermented wine at the wedding feast, unless you can see him contribute to getting the guests schnockered.

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." Proverbs 20:1

The God of the Old Testament is the same God we have today. He wants his creatures to be healthy and happy and not indulge in mind-altering drugs.

The word 'wine' is a collective, the same as the word 'meat'.

I hope that helps.

What crazy version of the bible do you use?

I use the crazy King James Version, but any other crazy version will do.

So, you didn't bother to look it up, rather suggesting the Bible contradicts itself from one book to the next and rather suggesting that Christ would make a harmful thing for the wedding party.

That's par!

Fortunately Pilgrim was there to school him.:teeth:

Sparko

May 4th 2005, 01:24 PM

Da Blonde must have her picture next to the word Irony in the dictionary.

If you want to start to present arguments for your point of view beyond calling people bigots and homophobes then I am more than willing to engage with you.

I will elaborate when such is called for, but calling bigotry and homophobia what it is is merely acknowledgement there is an elephant in the room. It is not particularly an argument per se so much as a label and an entirely valid one.

So when I call you a bible hating liberal pseudo-christian it is not an attack but just an acknowledgement that there is an elephant in the room. It is not an argument but just an entirely appropriate label.

No that is a lie. Your bigotry is obvious.

:lmbo:

from posts in this thread http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51827&page=1&pp=16

Xavier

May 4th 2005, 01:26 PM

Wow... I actually laughed out loud at that... Does that make me a bad person?

Sparko

May 4th 2005, 01:32 PM

Wow... I actually laughed out loud at that... Does that make me a bad person?

No. I think even Da Blonde would laugh at it if she took her blinders off and could see how ironic it is that SHE thinks others are hateful and bigoted if they disagree with her set-in-stone ideas and makes sure they know it in no uncertain terms.

...and it is a LAUGHING cabbage. I designed it.

Arnold

May 4th 2005, 01:35 PM

Oh that is too funny! :rofl:

Darth Executor

May 4th 2005, 09:58 PM

Some guy named Ashnod on a gaming forum said the following:

How can god be all loving when he turned Lot and his wife into a pillar of salt?

How can god have given man free-will if he is omnipotent?

Kind of amusing since he is usually a bright fellow.

Cynic Sage

May 5th 2005, 04:07 PM

Darth Executor

May 5th 2005, 04:17 PM

Remember the source:bonk:

You need an account to see the messages, but ok.

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=2000024&topic=20513089&page=1

Cynic Sage

May 5th 2005, 04:55 PM

AH-NUHLD, THE DECONTEXTUALANATOR!

on the subject of Communion.

They do not say what the Church has taught you to believe. Christ was not instituting a religious ritual but demonstrating how the disciples should live - in an attitude of thanksgiving, whether for food or drink or whatever. It is the same thing with the washing of feet. Jesus was not instituting a ritual for church goers to wash each other's feet. He was simply illustrating that each person should act as a servant to others.

The Lord's Supper in the early Church was a community meal for the purpose of fellowship. In the Corinthian letter Paul was addressing the depravity in Corinthian church where they were getting drunk, and some would gorge themselves on the community meal before others had arrived, and had no qualms about eating food that had come from sacrifices to demons. If you read all of the passages about the Lord's Supper in the Gospels, Acts and Corinthians you will see there is no such thing as the Church definition of "Communion" in the Scriptures.

So they're eating a communal meal, but it's not "Communion"

I would have to disagree with you, albeit slightly. The ritual of communion is a ritual of rememberance, and Christ instructed this at Passover, a religious ritual-meal.

23For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." 25In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Christ did not institue a ritual. He was saying that as long as you eat and drink (live) do it as a disciple of Him - in other words, do not forget who's disciple you are even in the simple act of eating and drinking. The Corinthians forgot or did not know this admonition and Paul readmonished them in the Corinthian letter.

Christ was not about instituting rituals, but abolishing them. Faith in Christ is our communion, not external works of law (ritual).

I would have to disagree with you again. I do not view communion as a salvic ritual, but a ritual of rememberance. Christian's celebrate the Eucharist for the same reason that Jews celebrate the Passover: To come together as a group and remember how God has saved them.

I'm not sure why you thought I was referring to salvation, but I wasn't. Nonetheless, there is no example or admonishment of such a ritual in Scripture. The ritual is based on an erroneous interpretation of Scripture. Relating to God through ritual (law) was abolished on the cross - indeed it was nailed to the cross.

Law doesn't save us, faith does.
However, fath manifests itself through action.

It is through Christ's sacrifice we are reconciled to God, not through rituals of our own doing. However, the ritual of communion is performed as a ritual of remembrance. It is to be performed out of gratitude, not fear that "if I don't eat this stuff I'm-a-goin-to-hay-ull."

Saying we shouldn't come together to perform Eucharist is like saying we shouldn't come together to celebrate Easter, or meet on Sundays.

Again - I have never talked about this as a salvation issue. Why do you keep bringing this up?

"Because you place Communion on the level of relating to God through law and ritual, which are not always the same thing."

The problem with accepting what Jesus did in the upper room as an institution of a ritual is that there is no other corroborating Scripture to support this interpretation. There is no example of this ritual done by the Church, and the Lord's Supper portrayed in Corinthians does not resemble this ritual at all. The Church has taken one piece of Scripture and extrapolated out of it a ritual that goes way beyond the importance Scripture places on it.

...

I will give you another example of where the Church has placed its own hierarchy of doctrine over that of Scripture. Much of the Church insists we must obey Christ's commandments. But I can show you a doctrine that is completely ignored even though there is a multitude of scriptural evidence to support it:

Mt.19.21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.

Lk.12.32-34 "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Lk.16.9 I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

So here we have the same doctrine explicitly taught on three separate occasions, and yet the Church ignores this doctrine as if it does not exist. But there is more. It is not just Jesus' commandments that they ignore - they also ignore James admonitions on the same subject as well:

Ja.1.10-11 But the one who is rich should take pride in his low position, because he will pass away like a wild flower. For the sun rises with scorching heat and withers the plant; its blossom falls and its beauty is destroyed. In the same way, the rich man will fade away even while he goes about his business.

Ja.2.6b-7 Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

Ja.5.1-6 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.

So here we have a doctrine (riches lead to condemnation) with six separate pieces of Scriptural evidence, and yet the Church ignores it completely. And yet the Church takes a single Scriptural incident and blows its importance up to the point of a ritual, that in fact contradicts the fact that relating to God through rituals (law) was done away with on the cross.

So with all of this scriptural evidence for the doctrine on riches, how can you ignore it while at the same time enacting a ritual based on a nebulous interpretation of one piece of Scriptural evidence?

Yes, that was Arnold was just interpreting scripture int the SAB-style.

Nonsense. Instead of performing a ritual that does no good for anyone that a personal prayer could not do, why not do what the early Church did instead - have a Lord's Supper? Corinthians illustrates that it was a community meal for the purpose of fellowship, not a ritual of a bite of bread and a sip of wine or grape juice, while reciting rote, meaningless words.

And he can't wrap his brain around what a ritual of remembrance is. I guess leaving a wreath of poppies on a Canadian Soldier's tombstone every November 11th while reciting the rote-meaningless words of the poem "In Flander's Fields" is just something no Bible-believing Christian should ever do.

If the communion is universal in institution why would John not include it in his Gospel? Why would he omit what is supposed to be important to every Christian?

And why was it not included in the two requirements of the council of Acts 15? This was where the young Church made a final decision on keeping the law and what rules should be kept. But not even a mention of communion.

Communion as a ritual just cannot be supported through Scripture. It is simply an invention of the Church.

Oh look at that - I hadn't noticed this before; Luke is the only Gospel that actually records that Jesus said, "do this in remembrance of me." I guess the authors of the other Gospels didn't think it was important to inform their readers of the importance of this so-called ritual that the Church seems to think everyone should practice.

Hey Arnold, SAB called, they want you to be their chief editor.:lol:

Darth Executor

May 5th 2005, 06:03 PM

AH-NUHLD, THE DECONTEXTUALANATOR!

on the subject of Communion.

So they're eating a communal meal, but it's not "Communion"

[/color]

"Because you place Communion on the level of relating to God through law and ritual, which are not always the same thing."

Yes, that was Arnold was just interpreting scripture int the SAB-style.

And he can't wrap his brain around what a ritual of remembrance is. I guess leaving a wreath of poppies on a Canadian Soldier's tombstone every November 11th while reciting the rote-meaningless words of the poem "In Flander's Fields" is just something no Bible-believing Christian should ever do.

Hey Arnold, SAB called, they want you to be their chief editor.:lol:

Remember the source :bonk:

Cynic Sage

May 5th 2005, 06:28 PM

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52844&page=3

It's in the "Fruit of the Vine" thread.

Cynic Sage

May 5th 2005, 06:30 PM

I also nominate Rob Liefield, a comics guy, who did this:
Page 1 (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/050327/godysseypage1.jpg)
Page 2 (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/050327/godysseypage2.jpg)
Page 3 (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/050327/godysseypage3.jpg)
Page 4 and 5 (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/050327/godysseypages4and5.jpg)
Page 6 (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/050327/godysseypage6.jpg)
Page 7 (http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/images/050327/godysseypage7.jpg)

Darth Executor

May 5th 2005, 07:30 PM

Darth Executor

May 5th 2005, 08:04 PM

Fundy Atheist galore:

http://forum.cooljohng.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=37

Sparko

May 5th 2005, 11:07 PM

Those are awesome.

Awesome? The artwork is nicely drawn, but having Jesus come down off the cross to do battle with Zeus? What kind of cockeyed idea of Christianity does this guy have?

Cynic Sage

May 5th 2005, 11:57 PM

Fundy Atheist galore:

http://forum.cooljohng.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=37

:lol: I found this one there.

As we all have been told by all those who have been told, jesus is the son of God. At this stage i am not going to debate over whether jesus was really the son of God. This is mainly going to concentrate on something which has become abit of a how shud i put it, i wild topic.

The Da Vanci Code

this book has caused many questions, and i have as yet not read it. but from what iv been told it covers an area which i actual know quite alot about anyway.

So for all you out there who cant be arsed to read it il ive u my version of main bits.

It all starts off with the church and the bible. the bible is collection of ''religious'' texts. However, before the new testement was officially put togeather there was a sort of book quiz of the church. basically the church asked for people to send in ''Gods'' words (basically there own waffle) and the church then went through all these books and choose which ones they wanted. They basically chose all the ones that went with there views on 'God' and jesus and so on. And some of the other books that didnt cohear with there ideas they basically re-wrote some bits so it fits in nicely with the rest. Some books were not even put in becuase they went so much agaisnt the churches beleif that there was sod all they could do except write the book themsele (which i wouldnt have been suprised if they had).

Anyway there is one book in particular that the church took out of the bible. The book of Mary magdolin (probly got the last name wrong). Mary magdolin was supposedly the wife of jesus. And put it this way jews usually got married at 15 years old or something like that and here we are reading about jesus when he was crusified at 33. I doubt even the son of the almighty coud have gone tht long without some nooky.

Anywho.....in the book of mary it talks about jesus having children, and so we come to the question well who can proove that this wasnt just a random women writting about coblers. well it could have been. But imagine a jewish person. they have big hair and a promenant beard.

Take a look at Leonardo Da Vinci's Picture of the Last Supper mainly the ''deciple'' on the left of jesus. Notice a certain feminicity about him? Or Her?
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/l/leonardo/lastsupp.jpg

i rest my case

Wow, It's like watching Dan Brown getting drunk at a party and throwing up.:eww:

And then there's also this:

:haha:
I would suggest you read the bible because it was the best selling book in the world,

well................and this will tickle you........

...........untill Harry Potter http://forum.cooljohng.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif.............

Honest, Harry Potter has solled more copies than the bible.

Maybe christians should be reading about little harrys worries and troubles of witchcraft and wizardry.

You may be a Fundamentalist Athiest if...

201. You can't understand why people can't see the logic in your question,"The Lord of the Rings is a book. The Bible is a book. What makes one fiction,and the other true?"
202. And if they say they don't see the logic in that question, they MUST be lying!

203. You think that "Lord of the Rings" and "Harry Potter" are more believable than the Bible.

Wow, it's like he's secretly a Xtian going over JP's "You might be a Fundy Athiest if..." (http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html) list and trying togive Athiests a bad name by pretending to be one. Speaking of which...

Christian missionaries *cough*jaques*cough*... NO! you do not go and destory perfectly good cultures, in order to make them "better people for following the good book" NO! don't do it! you bloody idiots! Why should everyone follow your beliefs?!

101. Missionaries who give up their personal comfort to aid starving, impoverished and persecuted third-world people are actually "corrupting ancient tribal cultures with western religious dogma", while you sit at home and complain about the price of KFC.

And if you think that's all, there's more.:lol:

:haha:
If we have to have religions, we should be allowed to make up our OWN minds! freewill remember! you do not force your own beliefs onto others, you just dont do it! How would you like it, if i came to your doorstep and said...
"Hello, I am a follower of lesbianism, and I would like to force you to partake in mass on sundays, in our temple. By mass, i mean mass orgies. You shall be guarenteed a seat by our Mistress in Heaven, and all you need to do, is convert as many people to our good ways as possible. No i hear you say? Well you must! For it is writtin in the Holy Pornobook that we must convert all young, fit, sexy women to become Lesbianist High Priests, or else you shall be sacrificed! HA! don't try and shut the door on me! I have a door wedge in it now! You are my wife now! HAHAHAHAHA!..."
*ahem* It's not right.
I do not see why God would make us worship him. Does he need his ego boosting that badly?! Also, I just plain don't believe in God. Evolution, Genetic Sciences, Astronomy... it all proves it wrong. I can't see how a God can exist. Preachers of religions have been proved wrong for eternity, and soon, they are just going to be proved wrong about everything. It's inevitable. I do not like the fact that we are not completely in control of our lives. We are free, we can do what we like. the only thing stopping us is ourselves. How can ghosts exist, if there is a heaven? Too full? what are you?! a jehovah's witness?!

TONIGHT ON FOX: WHEN FUNDY ATHIESTS HAVE FREUDIAN SLIPS!:metro:

:lmbo:

Piebald

May 6th 2005, 12:26 AM

If you think that's bad, check:

http://www.christianburner.com/

Cynic Sage

May 6th 2005, 02:15 AM

Awesome? The artwork is nicely drawn, but having Jesus come down off the cross to do battle with Zeus? What kind of cockeyed idea of Christianity does this guy have?

"Let he who is without Sin, kick the first @$$":lol:

Yeah, I remember reading once in Wizard Magazine (it was a special on comics stories that never made it) there was this one story that was going to be in the series "The Authority" where Jesus comes back to earth, thinks the Authority (it's like a dark version of the Justice League) is the Antichrist, fight's the Authority, and gets killed.

:rant: First Jack Chick, then crud like this, Why is it that whenever a comic is made with a Xtian theology theme it turns to Crap (both comic and theology displayed in comic). I mean, Buddhist comics have Osamu Tezuka's Pheonix and Life of Buddha.

Cynic Sage

May 6th 2005, 02:25 AM

If you think that's bad, check:

http://www.christianburner.com/

It's like a bunch of fundy athiests highjacked a computer software company's website.

Heathen Packard :lol:

Darth Executor

May 6th 2005, 09:39 AM

Awesome? The artwork is nicely drawn, but having Jesus come down off the cross to do battle with Zeus? What kind of cockeyed idea of Christianity does this guy have?

Jesus beating the crap out of heathen gods IS the awesome part.

jpholding

May 6th 2005, 10:20 AM

Awesome? The artwork is nicely drawn, but having Jesus come down off the cross to do battle with Zeus? What kind of cockeyed idea of Christianity does this guy have?

I've seen some comic books like this, maybe by the same guy. There's one where the "Holy Spirit" descends looking for all the world like the genie from Disney's Aladdin, with a big frown and on steroids...

On one hand, I'm not sure there's much difference between this and depicting Jesus as a lion (Aslan)...and if it is what Christian teens are reading, well, it's better than Twisted Sister....

....on the other hand, that this IS typical entertainment doesn't speak well for the church as a teacher of the flock....

Cynic Sage

May 6th 2005, 12:34 PM

....on the other hand, that this IS typical entertainment doesn't speak well for the church as a teacher of the flock....

I've been re-reading Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud (I have a Media Studies assignment due soon), the medium of comics can definately be used to serve the kingdom in other ways.

I SOLEMNLY SWEAR, BY MY TROUSERS, THAT I, JOHNNY EC, WILL ONE DAY MAKE A COMIC DISPLAYING XTIAN THEOLOGY THAT DOESN'T SUCK!

Cynic Sage

May 6th 2005, 01:01 PM

TLM showed me this one, it's off the Planned-Parenthood website.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/askdrcullins/adc-030808-egg-sperm.xml

Ask Dr. Cullins

Dr. Vanessa Cullins (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/webzine/askdrcullins/adc-biography.xml) is a board-certified obstetrician/gynecologist and vice president for medical affairs at Planned Parenthood® Federation of America.

Q: My friend says that life begins when the egg and sperm join together. I say that it begins when a baby takes its first breath. Which of us is right?

All kinds of people — theologians, philosophers, scientists, lawyers, legislators, and many others — hold very different views about when life begins. In fact, both the egg and the sperm are living things before they meet and join. There's no real argument there.

The really hot question is, "When does being a person begin?" Most medical authorities and Planned Parenthood agree that it starts when a baby takes its first breath.

Some of our oldest religions have changed their views about this question many times over the centuries. Today, some people sincerely believe that being a person begins when the egg is fertilized. Some, just as sincerely, believe that it begins with birth. And lots of others believe it begins somewhere in between.

What we are all sure about is that a pregnant woman is a person. We know for sure that she has morals, feelings, human needs, and a conscience. Because of this, we know that she is the only one able to make a decision about her pregnancy options. She does it based on her own needs, ethics, and religious belief about when being a person begins. It would be wrong to force her to observe someone else's religious belief.

Personhood begins when the baby takes it's first breath? Usually what I hear from Pro-Choicers is that personhood doesn't really occur until the child is capable of thought, that it is merely a potential person in the womb, and that it is wrong to kill the child outside the womb because it's personic potential is "set in stone" at that time. It's like PP is automatically agreeing with whoever sent in the question because he/she was pro-choice.

"Most Medical Authorities"? strangely, none are mentioned and yes "Planned Parrenthood" is set up to be an authority on when personhood begins alongside these invisible "medical authorities".

jpholding

May 6th 2005, 01:08 PM

I SOLEMNLY SWEAR, BY MY TROUSERS, THAT I, JOHNNY EC, WILL ONE DAY MAKE A COMIC DISPLAYING XTIAN THEOLOGY THAT DOESN'T SUCK!

So much for doing any "Last Days" stuff then. :wink:

Cynic Sage

May 6th 2005, 01:12 PM

So much for doing any "Last Days" stuff then. :wink:

I thinking something along the lines of Yu-Gi-Oh, but instead of playing a card game they discuss/debate theology/apologetics online.

I SUMMON THE SCHOLARSHIP OF RICHARD RHORBACH!

:teeth:

jpholding

May 6th 2005, 01:14 PM

Careful....I'm getting ideas for a toon....

But I'd need to watch some Yu Gi Oh first.

Just what I need....an excuse to watch anime. :tongue:

Darth Executor

May 6th 2005, 06:53 PM

When can we expect the next toon update?

Cynic Sage

May 6th 2005, 07:06 PM

I think JP's doing it monthly, like the screwball feature.

jason

May 6th 2005, 07:29 PM

Fundy Atheist galore:

http://forum.cooljohng.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=37

I just read the first post

Firstly i would like everyone to know that this section is me basically showing off all the stuff iv learnt in philosophy in the past year. And also to bloody hock line and sinker any religious view that you may have (without meaning to offend you that is).

To start off i might aswell crush the basis of every religion known to man:
'God'

This should finally get all u believers to question your beliefs:

Hypathetically (for all you unbelivers in God).

if there was a God would he be all powerfull?

also if there was a God would he be able to do anything?

the answer to these two questions will be yes.

therefore, if both of the premises (statements) are true then would it be possible for God to create a boulder so heavy that even he could not pick it up?

Gods last word to his creation: Sorry for the inconvienience
(how true Douglas Adams was)

That is a special kind of stupid. You have to work to offer an argument this dumb.

Who is this guy kidding ?

Although then I scrolled down and found this

Classic examples of bible contradictions. The Bible isnt the word of God, its the word of man. There are the dead sea scrolls which are mostly different gospels missed out from the modern bible, but also many other things religious based. The Bible is just the word of man. Anyway, I have pasted my original religion post in here, and deleted its own topic, just to keep it all neat
So it seems that special kind of stupid is contagious.

Jason :jason:

technomage

May 6th 2005, 07:51 PM

:sigh: I'm miffed. I'll never be a screwball.

Justin :lol:

jpholding

May 7th 2005, 08:24 AM

I think JP's doing it monthly, like the screwball feature.

Yes, more or less, since I can only get to use an efficient scanner once a month.

Cynic Sage

May 7th 2005, 02:43 PM

Yes, more or less, since I can only get to use an efficient scanner once a month.

Hey JP, have you ever seen any of those scanner/printer/photocopier combos put out by Hewlett-Packard? Real space savers.:wink: I got mine free when I bought my PC (Boxing day and all).

Cynic Sage

May 7th 2005, 02:54 PM

When you see someone attacking Holy Blood, Holy Grail improperly, it's like watching two ninety-pound weaklings having a slap-fight.

The Bible is Not Silent on this issue, and tells Us that Jesus was made a Eunuch for the Kingdoms sake" In other words his Scitzophrenia, affected his Sex drive and He was Interest in Man or a Woman for that matter.

Further the bible is Not Silent about when it says eventually the Voice of the Bride (a real wife) and the Bridegroom (Jesus Christ) would be Heard No More! Nor is it silent about His Bride, Wife, Angel and Spirit of Truth he would send in the Last days to Collect His RENT or Final Judgement. So when the Spirit of Truth is come; S/He will go to the Supreme Court asking for at least 1/3 credit for every penny that has "In God We Trust" depicted on it. S/He probably will as for 2/3 credit for all her Pain and Suffering; not to mention Alienation of Affection due to Christians blaming all their sins of Her, when she didnt do half of the things they said She did.

Peace out

I don't know whether I should :lol: or:bawl:.

Darth Executor

May 7th 2005, 03:18 PM

When you see someone attacking Holy Blood, Holy Grail improperly, it's like watching two ninety-pound weaklings having a slap-fight.

I don't know whether I should :lol: or:bawl:.

Ha ha, that's one of the stupidest things I've read all day.

Darth Executor

May 7th 2005, 03:44 PM

more from cooljohng:

I hear it is possible to hear God, maybe audibly, maybe through the heart, or something completely different. How exactly do you hear and enable God to speak to you? Also, why do you have to silence yourself and tune all noises out to hear God? It seems more like tuning into your self-concious or sub-concious rather than hearing God, but I could be wrong. So how do you hear Him? I'm just wondering so I can know how to hear Him.

Who's to say that it is God people hear? and not just their sub-consious? Sounds alot like self-hypnosis crossed with mediation to me

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=719

How can i attack your faith? Your faith is what you believe, i cannot attack that

Well, since my previous topic was DELETED, i thought i will re-post it. Why was it deleted? isnt this a board for discussion about christianity? I made sure i was not at all offensive in what i put, so you have no reason to delete it...

Most religions can be used for uses we believe as wrong, but to them it is not wrong, because they have interpretted their holy scriptures/rules in a certain way. Who is to say they are wrong? How do we know that the original creaters of these religions didn't mean for their teachings to be used in this way? Just because something is seen as good, doesnt mean it is right. Religion, in particular christianity is too vague, and is open to indivdual beliefs... to a certain extent. What is the difference between The Catholic Church, and the Nazi Party from 1930/40 germany? There is little difference. They both follow christian teachings, they are both governed by a single person, and they both have a vision. The actual teachings are different of course, but they both stem from the same basic set of rules and beliefs. Who is to say hitler was wrong, and the catholic church is right? Just because what the nazis did is considered wrong by society, why is the catholic church right? No doubt, someone will have interpretted this as me supporting nazism. It all depends on what attributions you have. Even what I am writing now, is open to individual interpretation to some extent.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=709

Man, this guy has to be the very incarnation of fundy atheism.

Cynic Sage

May 9th 2005, 01:28 AM

I nominate Dave Silverman of Athiests.org

I was at the family/youth section of the Athiests.org page, and under the "bad guys" (http://www.atheists.org/family/html/bad_guys.html) section (a section devoted to exposing us evil lying Xtians who try to steal their little Athiest bebbies away) I found an interesting image labeled as:

Check out this cartoon! (http://www.atheists.org/family/bigotedchristiantract2.bmp)I could write a Doctoral Thesis on the psychological messages this sends -- about the author!

A doctoral thesis on the author eh...:teeth:

So I check out the cartoon and I instantly recognized it. It was a Mr Gruff from the "Lambuel" page of Objective Christian Ministries (http://objective.jesussave.us/kidz.html) which isn't a real Christian organization but a parody of xtain websites that was created by Athiests a-la Landover-Baptist style.

So either:

a) He made a colossal blunder.:lol:

b) He is intentionally propogating a smear campaign.:whack:

Piebald

May 9th 2005, 04:20 AM

http://www.Factology.com

[attachment=1]

Dyslexia means to go against the law. “Dys” a Greek word meaning “hard, difficult or against” and “lexia” or lex a latin word meaning “law.” Here an English word dyslexia made from a combination of two distinctive languages combined to form one word! Do you follow? So in actuality, when a person is said to have dyslexia, it is because they say the child reads and spells English backwards. That’s not the problem. What it is, is the person’s brain refuses to go against the original law, meaning the first languages, the ancient Aramic (Hebrew) and Ashuric/Syriac (Arabic). Both of which existed almost simultaneously because Aram and Asshur son of Shem, who the languages came from, lived at the same time. Aramic and Ashuric/Syraic were, and still are written and read form right to left. English, a language that came about much later is read and written from left to right. From the the word dog comes the dog “god” Anubis (the jackal), the Egyptian Diety of the Dead.

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

When you’re sitting around the table on Christmas day feasting on the flesh of swine or holiday ham, remember: Christ (still an unproven being), ate fish, he did not eat pork!!! You Christians know it says right in your Bible not to eat of the animals with the clovefoot (Deut. 14:7) and even during Yashuas (Jesus) time he cast demons into swine (Matthew 8:29-32). No where will you find mention of Yashua eating pork. The pig and its variants are grafted creatures from three animals (dog, cat, and rat), by fusing the nucleus of these cells, created to clean up the cadavers that were claimed by the curse of leprosy during the time of Abraham.

Iktovian

May 9th 2005, 04:34 AM

i submit my post here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53187

jason

May 9th 2005, 04:42 AM

Man, this guy has to be the very incarnation of fundy atheism.
No check my sig, he is just that special type of stupid.

This quote sums him up perfectly.

Though it always comes as a surprise to intellectuals, there are some forms of stupidity that one must be highly intelligent and educated to commit. - J.Budziszewski

Jason

Cynic Sage

May 9th 2005, 01:37 PM

i submit my post here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53187

For some strange reason the link doesn't work.

jpholding

May 10th 2005, 10:17 AM

Cynic Sage

May 10th 2005, 01:12 PM

Sparko

May 10th 2005, 01:24 PM

Memo to self -- Screwball Award Winner:

http://www.caesarsmessiah.com/

I'll post a review Friday, but here's a hint -- Randel Helms, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark, and the Roman Piso theory -- all rolled into one, and with all the same weaknesses...

woah, I got through a whole two paragraphs of his huge 'summary' before my mind went numb. I could feel his stupidity seeping into my brain and it just shut down as a preventative measure. Then the laughing started. Good thing I wasn't drinking at the moment or I would have destroyed my keyboard.

Darth Executor

May 10th 2005, 01:36 PM

Hey, better than a Quetzalcoatl copycat.

Cynic Sage

May 10th 2005, 01:49 PM

Hey, better than a Quetzalcoatl copycat.

It is my theory that Quetzacoatl-copycat essays only get written when Christ-Mythers get really drunk at parties.

:lol:

Darth Executor

May 10th 2005, 02:00 PM

It is my theory that Quetzacoatl-copycat essays only get written when Christ-Mythers get really drunk at parties.

:lol:
I don't think Christ-Mythers are sober at any time, party or not.

jpholding

May 10th 2005, 04:06 PM

Didn't you do a guy like that for last month's screwball?

Similar, but not the same.

Darth Executor

May 10th 2005, 07:07 PM

This guy's(TruthBeTold) a troll but this is still hilarious:

wait are we talking pacific standard space time, or central?

cause i am on the west coast, so my spacetime might be a few hours behind.

Cause pior to the big bang happening, apparently there was just space time, and you can't think in terms of space time because that would be ridiculous, or scientifically incorrect. But not as ridiculous as thinking the universe was created iin 6 days, oh but wait, was that 6 spacetime days?

you're right, this is making my feeble brain hurt

Spacetime = 3 dimensions of space + 1 dimension of time. Read about Albert Einstein if you want more info.

Albert Einstein....was he in the bible, cause i don't like religious fiction.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=739

spl_cadet

May 10th 2005, 08:40 PM

Darth Executor

May 10th 2005, 08:49 PM

Wait, the Lizard Jesuits lost? :huh:

There is more than one winner...

Darth Executor

May 10th 2005, 08:56 PM

How about this guy. The topic is too big to post here but he basically makes 2 accounts to support himself and gets confused as to which one he is using.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=293&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Cynic Sage

May 10th 2005, 09:45 PM

Darth Executor

May 10th 2005, 09:46 PM

Yep. Bassman and johnnyb.

Darth Executor

May 10th 2005, 09:47 PM

You can tell there's something wrong before johnnyb even comes into play because bassman is already talking to bassman.

Cynic Sage

May 10th 2005, 09:51 PM

Wait, the Lizard Jesuits lost? :huh:

I'm still praying over the poor lost souls of Dave Silverman and his good buddy, Mr Gruff.

:lol:

Cynic Sage

May 10th 2005, 09:54 PM

You can tell there's something wrong before johnnyb even comes into play because bassman is already talking to bassman.

:jinroh: How dishonorable, he brings much shame to the name of "Johnny".

Cynic Sage

May 10th 2005, 10:12 PM

I nominate Pythagoras, on trying to perform an excorcism over the internet.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1026932#post1026932

Keep quiet spirit. In the name of Christ I rebuke you.

Didn't work. Maybe if you stuck out your tongue, put your fingers in your ears, curtsied, and shouted LAAAAALAAALAAA it would help.

Stop freaking out spirit.

"Stop freaking out spirit."

Words I would never expect to hear during an excorcism.

:lol:

Darth Executor

May 10th 2005, 10:15 PM

:lmbo:

Cynic Sage

May 11th 2005, 01:45 PM

CuMhorrigan's back. Started up a thread titled "A family Shows Christian Love to a wayward Daughter involved in witchcraft".

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53335

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4529274

12:30pm (UK)
Girl, 8, Tortured over Witchcraft Claims, Court Told

By Shenai Raif, PA News

An eight-year-old girl was tortured and was about to be killed after being accused of being a witch, the Old Bailey heard today.

The child had been placed in a laundry bag and was about to be thrown into a river to drown when one of her tormentors managed to stop the others, said Patricia May, prosecuting.

Her months of ill-treatment had started when another child told his mother that the girl had been using witchcraft against the family.

...

And another article here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/4530197.stm

Did you read both articles fully? Now comes the good part.

Christians? How did you arrive at that conclusion?

Most times Children able to practice witchcraft are taken in by nieghbor hood witches and witch doctors and taught. The Witch Huning craze is primarily a christian phenomina that carries over violently in third world countries. Look up your own history and see what christians have been doing to witches over the centuries.

The Articles CuMho cites state nothing about the perps being Xtians, but a witch was being beaten so it has to be Xtians.:lol:

Wait, there's more.

Cu, in Africa.. witchcraft has more to do with what we think of as Shaminc magic. Its a general belief there that such Shaman use their powers for personal advantage not for the benefit of others. There is a very real cultural fear of those tribal Shaman/Witchs. That fear predates Christianity but Christianity adds a layer ontop of that fear but its a "thin" fear. The actions and reactions to a "witch" in the village were the same under preChristianity. Blame this on culture, not religion.

Brighid Bless, Dur

to which CuMho replied:

Shhhhhhh, THEY DON'T Know that!!!!!!

(aren't you supposed to PM to send a message you don't want others to be aware of?)

And this is the pick of the litter.

Salem may have been blown out of porportions, but the witch burnings and other atrocities of the christian church are well documented. and guess what the burning times are (On some level) Our holocausts In Europe and the US. Do you honestly thinks that it was just "Stupid zealous christians" alone? there was a big money making machine within the church to profit from the Witch hunts and inquisitions. Both Catholic and protestans made out like bandits from all the money, property, and resources confiscted from the accused. The fact you folks keep trying to deny it is only proof that on some level you folks feel some level of guilt, just not enough to admit that your church screwed up.

Our denial counts as proof?
Yup, CuMhorrigan, a Wiccan, was using Witch-hunter's logic.:lol:

Cynic Sage

May 12th 2005, 12:56 AM

Sometimes I find flamewars somewhat interesting. Like car accidents, I can't take my eyes off them. This is LGM to Jason in a thread where Jason offers a challenge to Athiest Archon.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53189&page=1&pp=16

Jason M.O. is transparent. He has googled a smattering of right wing Christian theology and politics and now thinks by mimicking some clichés in them, he is producing an original "argument", or that his usual spewing of ignorant sweeping generalizations constitutes “evidence” and “proof” that support his clichés. He is a frustrated, arrogant young man seemingly obsessed with the idea that other people are having and enjoying sex, while he I’m guessing is not, except perhaps with himself.

Yes, LGM just made a crack about masturbation. And I thought "used to be a prision librarian" was low.

But wait, it gets better.

Well shows you are a rather ignorant moron then. But that is not really a surprise and why I generally ignore you.

Jason

How old are you Jason?
Are your married?
If not, have you ever had a sexual relationship with a woman?

If I’ve misjudged my impression of you as a rather inexperienced young man with regards to life experience, sex and relationships with women, here is your chance to set the record straight.

I’m guessing you’ll dodge these questions and run away again.

The thread was about Jason issuing a challenge to AA. Why the heck is LGM inquiring about Jason's sex life!? Aren't you allowed to Dodge questions when a stranger over the internet asks them about your sex life?

You've just hit a new low. Is sex all you have on your brain? Did atheism drive you to a more primal man-beast form?

Old enough ... 30 to be exact.

<LGM:Are you married?>
Yes.

No, I don't run from you. Your sort of like a small yappy puppy. It is simpler to just ignore you.

And if you are not interested in having a formal debate without the insults, then I am going back to ignoring you. I likely wont bother with further discussion in this thread unless you are actually interested in a debate of some sort, seeing as it looks like AA may be hiding out after all.

Jason

After more absence of AA.

He <AA> is aware of this thread though, I did send him a PM.

Hopefully he is just busy and not hiding out waiting for it to go away.

Jason

There goes Jason the dork...he actually think people are scared of him and his shallow little genepool. Get a grip sparky, AA's got a life, and you and your Tweb tripe ain't on the top of his, or anybody's list, but your own. Maybe he's on vacation, having sex with his wife somewhere. You should try it with your wife...it might relieve some of your pent-up frustration with the world that you don't control...twit.

LGM's making the sex-cracks, and he calls Jason the teen-ager. I thought Steamer left awhile ago.:lol:

jason

May 12th 2005, 03:46 AM

Our denial counts as proof?
Yup, CuMhorrigan, a Wiccan, was using Witch-hunter's logic.:lol:
:lmbo:

True, I missed that originally, but that is so very very funny.

Jason

jason

May 12th 2005, 03:52 AM

LGM's making the sex-cracks, and he calls Jason the teen-ager. I thought Steamer left awhile ago.:lol:
He keeps dodging around as well and goes quiet when you challenge him.

May AA & LGM are the same person ?

Jason

Xavier

May 12th 2005, 03:57 AM

AA and LGM are NOT the same person... :no:

Darth Executor

May 12th 2005, 08:45 AM

AA and LGM are NOT the same person... :no:

I agree. AA actually acts like an adult.

Cu Mhorrigan

May 12th 2005, 08:54 AM

Did I win Yet?

jason

May 12th 2005, 09:25 AM

I agree. AA actually acts like an adult.
True enough.

Although it was in jest that I suggested both were the same.

Jason

jpholding

May 12th 2005, 01:18 PM

Did I win Yet?

Yes, I gave you a bronnze award last month.

Cynic Sage

May 12th 2005, 02:33 PM

Yes, I gave you a bronnze award last month.

Go for the Gold, Cu Mho!:thumb:

Sheepdog

May 12th 2005, 08:33 PM

oh we have a whopper from someone who is a Christian as far as I can tell. refering to a Hal Lindsey website:

I agree that "Oracle" is a VERY poor choice for the Lindsey website, but (I am serious about this): Hal Linsey is the real deal:: a wise, led, man of God. I cannot believe how he is being blasted here...so far, anyway. Unbelievable, really; I'm shocked. He is overly sensational at times -at TIMES, but he is right on track almost always on the big issues, and usually the littler ones as well. Did you all check-out on his ministry 20 -no, even just 15 years ago ? Come on ! Who knows end-time prophecy better than he does ? No one. Please watch his weekly television show, at least, before passing total judgement on him...here in 2005. He is as smart as a whip and, I believe, led by the Holy Spirit. What a drag to hear this rubbish about him.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1029358&postcount=7

I also nominate the Website itself for Screwball of the Year, if you are planning on such a reward :hehe:

http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/

Cynic Sage

May 13th 2005, 04:01 AM

I nominate Recognitiones for this one.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1030058#post1030058

John 8: 6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have [something] of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with [His] finger, as though He did not hear. 7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." 10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

Good point, but that whole predicament doesn't appear in the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta. If Jesus was without sin, it would be nothing but hypocrisy for him not to take up the first stone himself. Some such people need to be put to death and you can't be perfect before the Law without it.

:lol:

Cu Mhorrigan

May 13th 2005, 08:28 AM

Must have been before the site went down.

Cynic Sage

May 13th 2005, 05:33 PM

Congrat CuMho, another nomination.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53335&page=7

:yes: Absolutely. It pays to remember that with the possible exception of Tituba, every single person killed in the Salem Witch Panic was Christian.

Well Dyuh Justin that still does not justify a few other incidents in church history... plus doesnt it show that if Fanatics are willing to turn on their own, what makes us think that they will show us any more respect?

And now we take it in light of an earlier post.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53335&page=3&pp=16

Most times Children able to practice witchcraft are taken in by nieghbor hood witches and witch doctors and taught.

Strike one. This assertion is a result not of any actual study, but of the post-Romantic idealistic portrayal of witches as the village "wise people."

The Witch Huning craze is primarily a christian phenomina that carries over violently in third world countries.

Strike two. This assertion is based on an abysmal ignorance of pre-Christian and non-Christian history.

Look up your own history and see what christians have been doing to witches over the centuries.

Strike three. This assertion is based on an abysmal lack of the actual history of the "Witch Craze" of Europe.

Now, if you would like to get some real facts, rather than the ill-informed hogwash that you're currently spouting, you're more than welcome to accept my challenge to you (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51344). And if not, I'll leave you to be an idiot on your own time. We all have to have a hobby, and idiocy seems to suit you so well.... :teeth:

Justin

Justin You made it abundantly clear to me that you want Nothing to do with Me and yet here you are acting like a concieted arrogant Jerk trying to make a fellow pagan look like an idiot.
NO I do not accept your challenge justin because quite frankly you are nothing more than a Poser IMHO. As far as I am concerned you are nothing More than a christian trying to pretend to be a witch. Have a nice day and welcome to the iggy bin.

To quote Jimbo, "the irony meter just blew up".

:lol:

Sheepdog

May 13th 2005, 06:40 PM

:lmbo:!!!! nice avatar, Johnny

Darth Executor

May 13th 2005, 11:49 PM

Another moron:

see htat is the thing i am not an atheist i just hate where religion is taking the world...

i mean if you really want to know the truth about where a soul goes after you die then i will tell you...

your soul goes to where you truly in your heart believe you should go...

like if you are a bad person and believe you are bad then you go where you think you are going...

and if you are good and think you are a good person then you go to where you are eternaly happy...

and if you don't believe in the after life then you dissapear...

religion does not matter because when you die you die just like every one else...
the heart stops brain function stops...
and you are just like every other corpse in the world....

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=400&topic=20951998

gharfish

May 14th 2005, 12:45 AM

oh we have a whopper from someone who is a Christian as far as I can tell. refering to a Hal Lindsey website:

I also nominate the Website itself for Screwball of the Year, if you are planning on such a reward :hehe:

http://www.hallindseyoracle.com/

I beg of you, Sheepdog; don't make no. 2 here.

Strength in numbers; that's all.

Sheepdog

May 14th 2005, 12:55 AM

I beg of you, Sheepdog; don't make no. 2 here.

Strength in numbers; that's all.

:huh:

it's not my decision at any rate. it was tongue in cheeck anyways, and i don't know if Holding is planning a Screwball of the Year award.

gharfish

May 14th 2005, 01:11 AM

:huh:

it's not my decision at any rate. it was tongue in cheeck anyways, and i don't know if Holding is planning a Screwball of the Year award.

Of the year, huh ? Yes, y'all have had alot of innocent fun at my expense. Congrats on the win !

Some dogs just don't know when to stop licking themselves.

Xavier

May 14th 2005, 01:20 AM

Maybe... One day... You'll figure out why...

:lmbo:

Sheepdog

May 14th 2005, 03:02 AM

Of the year, huh ? Yes, y'all have had alot of innocent fun at my expense. Congrats on the win !

i know had a lot of fun.

Some dogs just don't know when to stop licking themselves.

well someone here is licking his wounds, and it's not me.

Cynic Sage

May 14th 2005, 04:53 AM

well someone here is licking his wounds, and it's not me.

For someone to actually obtain wounds, they have to first put up a fight, not just run away.:lol:

Sheepdog

May 14th 2005, 05:17 AM

:lol: true enough

gharfish

May 14th 2005, 04:18 PM

For someone to actually obtain wounds, they have to first put up a fight, not just run away.:lol:

I'm still here...not a scratch.

So dish it.

Cynic Sage

May 15th 2005, 03:52 AM

I'm still here...not a scratch.

So dish it.

This ain't the proper thred. You and the Dog can go duke it out back in the "Hal Oracle" thread or perhaps even have a debate in basketball or tennis court.

Sheepdog

May 15th 2005, 03:54 AM

Locker Room would be more appropriate. unless Vance wants to return the the Hal Lindsey thread for another bush whacking.

Cynic Sage

May 15th 2005, 03:57 AM

A nomination for Anthrogirl.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53294&page=6&pp=16

Let me clear it up for you. The first word in the "Gay Games" refers to the kind of sexual conduct in which they engage. Thus, the first and foremost important thing is "Gay", the kind of sexual conduct in which they engage.

And I find it interesting that your sentence here is somewhat self-defeating when you "live in one of the "gay capitals" of the U.S.." The identity you refer to is denoting first and foremost the kind of sexual conduct in which they engage.

sounds like you just can't get this gay sex thing off your mind. I am not particularly impressed by gay sex (and I also realize that sex is but a part of being "gay")--so I don't tend to reduce an individual to the kind of sex they have. Being gay isn't all about sex. Perhaps you have trouble discerning between sex, sexuality, and sexual activities...?

Sometimes it's no just what you say, it's how you say it. :lol:

jpholding

May 15th 2005, 07:12 AM

:huh:

it's not my decision at any rate. it was tongue in cheeck anyways, and i don't know if Holding is planning a Screwball of the Year award.

If I do I'll make three categories at least, for atheist, non-Christian theist/supernaturalist, and Christian.

Right now Vance could give a run for the money to the guy who said John 8 supports capital punishment....

gharfish

May 15th 2005, 03:23 PM

If I do I'll make three categories at least, for atheist, non-Christian theist/supernaturalist, and Christian.

Right now Vance could give a run for the money to the guy who said John 8 supports capital punishment....

Dude ! Uncool; talking about me like that when I'd been stuffed into some locker room all night. A couple guys hit the lights and sucker punched me in the hall.

JP: The real issue here is not categories; it's the whole, unwholesome, idea of nominating "screwballs" to begin with ! How can it be justified by you, "a christian as best I can tell" - ? - (as Sheepdog had I.D.ed me). How is this -even just conceptually, much less put into practice, (really) appropriate for a web site like this ? It's childish bullying ground. Nominate the stupid IDEA and pronounce IT the winner, and not do these anymore.

And everybody knows that John 8 supports bush-whackers who travel in numbers -anonymously n' safely...You know: mob mentality:: "stoners."

Darth Executor

May 15th 2005, 04:31 PM

Wanna see huge packs of fundy atheists?

Watch them review the bible on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0834003465/ref=cm_cr_dp_2_1/103-4226471-4454267?%5Fencoding=UTF8&customer-reviews.sort%5Fby=-SubmissionDate&n=507846

Piebald

May 15th 2005, 04:48 PM

Oh Dear:

"The second half of the book introduces some new characters, most importantly Jesus Christ who seems to be based on Buddha. Here's a confusing part that is never really clarified. Jesus is the son of Mary and Joseph, but he is also referred to as the son of God. Which is it? It seems like the author couldn't decide"

Sheepdog

May 15th 2005, 05:05 PM

"Pretty Cool Stuff, but Where are the pictures?!"

:lmbo: sounds like someone who needs a comic book version of the Bible

gharfish

May 16th 2005, 01:40 AM

Dear Sheepdog, JohnnyEC, ... JPHolding,

I am here to repent of...sins. I have been a fool and I am sorry that I so cruelly mistreated you all. I have strayed-away from the Shepherd and followed the Devil instead. I am tired. The weight of my guilt has brought me to the ground, where I belong. I ask that you all will / might forgive me. I have sinned against you out of pride -my great and horrible pride. My anger has saddened the Lord, I know. My sins against God are apparent. Black is my heart. I have tried to hurt you all, and no doubt many many others have been badly effected by my wickedness. I am ashamed of myself and wish that I could undo what I have wrought in these last few days here on TWeb.

I am not worthy to claim Christianity as my faith. I am a disgrace to Jesus' cause...which is people -people; He loved them, boundlessly. That is certain.

I have made another, larger post on the ReThread. Perhaps you will go there. Will you ? I hope so.

Perhaps it really would be best to scrap these Screwball threads. I can not see them serving any good purpose.

Again, I contritely, humbly apologize for the evils I have started.
Vance.

Sheepdog

May 16th 2005, 02:52 AM

Cynic Sage

May 16th 2005, 04:07 AM

I appreciate that, Vance. :smile: i accept your apology, and likewise i apologize if my beligerence made the situation worse.

likewise, if Holding doesn't mind, i'd like to withdraw my nomination of you. (I'll let Holding explain the concept of the Screwball award if he chooses. he'd explain it better than I.)

http://www.tektonics.org/parody/screwball.html

It's supposed to be a bit of a retort of "Fundies say the darndest things." Basically you nominate anyone who has said/done something silly in a theology discussion/debate-type enviroment (Anybody here remember Jim Eisle and the "Athiesm god (http://www.tektonics.org/parody/feb05scr.html)"? :lol: (scroll down a bit after clicking the link)) and then post the quote here along with a link to the source.

Some actually try to get nominated (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51718).

Glad we got all this negativity behind us.:wink:

Cynic Sage

May 16th 2005, 04:09 AM

I would also like to remove my nomination of Anthrogirl, she's not a screwball, I just bet she just messed up on the words she used to state her opinion.

jpholding

May 16th 2005, 06:55 AM

Perhaps it really would be best to scrap these Screwball threads. I can not see them serving any good purpose.

Live my eight and more years of experience with screwballs and the harm they cause, and you might understand...

But your apology is accepted (tho' I was offended not) and I will make Lindsey himself and his site the recipient of the award instead.

Dee Dee Warren

May 16th 2005, 07:15 AM

I am sure over the years I have said screwball-worthy stuff. It is being a consistent screwball that is the problem.

Hey Vance, hope to discuss things further with you in eschatology.

Darth Executor

May 16th 2005, 09:16 AM

Oh man gaming forums are gold mines for fundy atheists:

Then for the ones who believe in God there is "If God created the universe then who created God?" People usually say he created himself but I personally think they don't totally believe that themselves but they like to because it keeps that part of the problem solved in their mind and keeps the question away just like the people who follow more scientific beliefs just follow the belief of the big bang and whatever was before that is blocked out by common believers not looking for an answer because it causes too much confusion in the mind.
http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=400&topic=20962294

jason

May 16th 2005, 09:26 AM

Oh man gaming forums are gold mines for fundy atheists:

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=400&topic=20962294
What is it with so many discussion board skeptics and that special kind of stupid ? I mean you would have to work to be that ignorant.

Jason

Sparko

May 16th 2005, 09:34 AM

What is it with so many discussion board skeptics and that special kind of stupid ? I mean you would have to work to be that ignorant.

Jason

Well think about it. Most of the people on these gaming forums are probably 12-16 years old.

jason

May 16th 2005, 09:42 AM

Well think about it. Most of the people on these gaming forums are probably 12-16 years old.
I suppose, but how do 12-16 year old get that stupid ?

I mean they had to pick up these sorts of brain damaged ideas from somewhere. They don't normally come up with this sort of stuff themselves.

Jason

Darth Executor

May 16th 2005, 09:48 AM

Probably sites like evilbible.com

jason

May 16th 2005, 09:59 AM

Probably sites like evilbible.com
Wow yet more of that special sort of stupid. I never realised how prevelant it was.

It is to the lasting shame of the church that sites like that can exist and not instantly be seen for the moronic drivel it is.

You have to wonder how people who write this sort of stuff manage to live to an age where they are able to write.

I read the "god is impossible" article (ok I skimmed it) and this guy is a total know nothing. Just unbelieveable.

Can we vote that website for a bonze screwball award ?

Jason

Darth Executor

May 16th 2005, 10:11 AM

Holding is already aware of it.

You may be a fundamentalist atheist if...

186. You create a web site: http://www.EvilBible.com and post an Evil Bible Quote of the Day on usenet. The quotes always end with: "What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?"

Sparko

May 16th 2005, 10:37 AM

Darth Executor

May 16th 2005, 10:53 AM

Cynic Sage

May 16th 2005, 01:56 PM

wow that website is what I would expect if Steamer and LakeGeorgeMan got together to create a website.

PS - I especailly get a kick out of the bottom of the right hand column where it says "Copyright 2005 American Atheists" and then right below that it says 'EvilBible.com is not affiliated with American Atheists.'

Wow, first there was American Athiest's Dave Silverman with "Mr Gruff", and then American Athiests and their "copyright of/non-affiliation with" EvilBible.com.

Maybe we should just nominate the organization.:lol:

gharfish

May 17th 2005, 12:41 AM

JohhnyEC,

I want to apologize, contritely so, for the insult I hurled your way. I was nasty to you all around, and without excuse. I am ashamed that I said that to you.

Please see the second of the two posts directed to you and Sheepdog. I am sorry for the harm I have done, to my fellow Christians...and especially to the cause Of Jesus. He must be sad, looking on at what became of battling arrogant insults and the like. How much harm have I done (?) Alot, I fear. (I know).

I have driven people away from our loving holy Saviour. I cannot forgive myself for that. What a fool I was acting like !

JPH: Being perhaps too unfamiliar with what you are trying to accomplish here, I will forgo making any more judgements about the "Screwball of..." idea. I am worn-out from the burden I brought upon myself -grieved that I harmed others, believers and non...and those unknown ones out there, visiting this thread, perhaps presently considering moving towards the wholly true One.

Dee Dee: I must confess my rudeness and ??! I can't even desribe what all I've done anymore. I am sorry, D-Dizzle. I think I should (must) leave prophecy to others, but thank you for your invitation.

Sincerely,
Vance.

May God bless you & guide you all in your walk with Him.

Darth Executor

May 17th 2005, 11:57 AM

this far I haven't seen any proof that Christianity would even be based on facts, and secondly be better than any other religion. Mastermind Prime has been very entertaining though, almost like child with not enough experience to see world in any complicated way, so he simples it to fit his own religious views, like his parents maybe told him to, I guess. He ignores the fact that the NT it self was written over hundred years after Jesus might have lived, and it has been edited several times by church. Final editions were made during 19th century when it was added for an example that Jesus was a joiner. Also there have been numerous mistakes when bible was translated into Latin and later on to English. Bible is not very historical in this way. Romans didn't write anything about magics of Jesus, and most jews ignored him as well. If he really had these super powers wouldn't it have been widely noticed? but no, Jesus wasn't noticed, and it is possible that he never even existed. NT itself has many contraventions containing Jesus.

Bible is not a historical book. Most things which it claims to have happened cannot be proved and some things may be proved to never have happened.

I don't think that I have been ignorant here, if someone could show me that his religion is the only truth etc. of course I would join it, but religions are just a very poor way to explain world, based on traditions and ancient stories as far as I have noticed.

And that's the difference between a logical and rational person and a religious person. First one cares only about the truth, but the religious only wants to see world though his religion, maybe he doesn't or doesn't want to understand that his religion might not be the only absolute guideline to life and truth. any information which would be in contravention with his religious views is ignored.

It's like somebody made a fundy atheist template and gave it away for free in kindergartens throughout the nation.

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=400&topic=20962294&page=1

Cynic Sage

May 18th 2005, 04:15 PM

I nominate Jayrok.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25850

God created Evil, he created everything, good and evil. Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

What caused Lucifer to turn on God? I thought everything around God was perfect in his presence. Apparently not.

Did God give him free choice or was that reserved for man? If God gave Satan free Choice to worship him or not.. or free choice to choose Good or Evil, why would Satan choose to not worship God, and to choose Evil? I mean, Satan is living with God, he walks and talks with him. And he chose to give all that up? He’s seen heaven, we haven’t. He chose to turn his back on God for whatever reason, while here we are as men, who haven’t seen or walked face to face with God… we have his words to guide us. But we are choosing to worship God. Satan, on the other hand knows God personally, but chose to turn his back on God.

What did Satan know that we don’t? Satan knows the bible and he knows about Jesus. He knows that in the end he is destined for the lake of fire. Or does he?

Why did he do what he did? Is it so the story of good and evil would be, well... a story?
Evil had to exist for it to be in Satan’s heart, free choice or not. If God didn’t create evil, then what is the purpose of free choice? That makes no sense. The choice would have been between good and good. Evil had to be created, there is no other explanation.

Why did God create evil? and What caused Lucifer to reject God and choose evil?

TIA

Then this:

I'm aware of the later translations "changing" the word "evil". I don't see it necessarily as a better translation, but a means of softening the word "evil" from earlier translations. These newer bibles take several controversial words or passages from the earlier text, and change them according to the translator of the day. Does that make them right? no.

This is the first time I have ever seen a KJV-onlyist Agnostic.:twitch:

Nomad then responded, then Jayrok apparently responded back after reading Nomad's posts with his eyes closed.:lol:

My understanding first is that Augustine (admittedly not scripture, but a powerful mind in the early church) showed that Evil is not a thing in itself but a negation. Asking "Did God create evil?" is like asking "Did God create holes in dirt?" God did not not directly create a hole, but instead created soil of which one characteristic is the ability to gather it into one place - leaving a lack of it in another place. Likewise, God did not create Evil, but by allowing us to know Good He allowed us to know un-Good i.e. Evil. Evil is the lack of Goodness, and not a thing in itself.

So God didn't create good then either, right?

One understanding of the fall of Satan/Lucifer is that he was in the highest level of angels, along with Michael the Archangel. (Of course, we do not have a highly developed understanding of angelic ranks, etc.) He walked with God and knew God, but after a time began to mistake the glory of God which reflected off of himself for his own glory. He took the natural good of self-love, and elevated it above the love of God by decieving himself into believing that the glory he reflected what glory that he deserved. And thus, he rejected God as the greatest in all creation and thus was cast out of heaven.

So he deceived himself by mistakingly seeing the glory of God which reflected off himself as his own glory? He didn't realize he was sinning against God, but God banished him not only from Heaven, but eventually to eternal fire? Did he then choose to reject God purposely, or was it a brief error in judgement?

and I thought sin was incapable of being in God's presence? Thus the question... Why did God allow sin to occur in heaven? Lucifer clearly sinned. And did he throw him out of heaven before or after he created adam/eve?

The thingthat makes this even funnier is that they were both referring to pre-fall Lucifer and Jayrok still brings this old canard up.:lol:

And my understanding of the sin-effects of Angels is that they are given Free Will, but a different Free Will than our own. Humans may live our lives and thru our lives make many choices for good or evil, and the ultimate choice to accept Christ as our Savior (or in the past to look ahead to the coming Messiah.) Angels, on the other hand, having known God directly, have only a single choice and once that choice is made, are immediately sentenced to Hell or retained in heaven.

is that how it worked? Jesus said that if we think in our heads of adultery, we've committed adultery. So therefore, if the angels "thought" about being better than God, then they committed that sin. Therefore, it's safe to assume that the angels had perfect thoughts.. otherwise, one stray thought and they are banished from heaven (yes?). So then why did God allow Lucifer to even think that he was better? oh, i forgot... free will. Well, free will would eliminate any reasonable idea that someone wouldn't have at least one impure thought. Jealousy or what have you. Speaking of jealousy, God said he was a jealous God... does that mean that jealosy isn't a sin? just a thought.

Stay tuned for even more Already Answered Questions about the Bible, and now, a word from our sponsors.

Darth Executor

May 18th 2005, 09:07 PM

I nominate LakeGeorgeMan(I'm too lazy to fill it up with quote tags so you can go to the original topic and read it if you want although the context is not necessary to spot the fundy stupidity):

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53688&page=7

I have just presented you my method of validating my faith. If the entire population would strictly adhere to it I guarantee to you the vast majority would become Christian.

Exactly. If YHWH or Jesus were real omniscient gods, they could have explained any number of things about the reality of our cosmology, simple physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, agriculture, etc. to the people of that era in simple ways they could understand. They had all the time and ability to educate mankind on ANY number of useful things, they did not. There is not one example of scientific knowledge in the bible that is beyond the knowledge of the day in which it was written. The creation stories are laughably ignorant, as was the people’s ignorance of the geography of their world and vast undiscovered human cultures that were in it. YHWH or Jesus could have cleared this up in an hour, and still had time to show off the water into wine and cursing fig tree magic spells.

The bible offers nothing in this regard, in fact quite the opposite. People in ancient times thought those inflicted with neuorological diseases or disorders were “demon possessed”. Jesus is said to be healing these demon possessed people and the demons called him by name. Puhleeezeee...

Imagine instead this passage:

“And Jesus said onto them, "Inside each man’s head is the brain. The brain is responsible for all your thoughts, your memories, and all your emotions. Sometimes this brain becomes sick and people will have seizures, and not seem themselves, it has nothing to do with demons, their brains are just sick. Some unfortunately will never get better from these sicknesses."

Ah yes…nothing like that found in the bible, just the superstitious ignorance of its day. Magic, myth, delusion, ignorance and superstition, with a handful of useful moral parables, that sums up the NT.

...

The bible says that the faithful can ask for anything in prayer and it will be granted.
That’s a blatant lie. Ask Teri Schaivo or a million other cases just like her.
Darth Executor has no apparent enlightenment, no special knowledge, and no ability to have his “wishes” granted by any spirits of god any more than the rest of us.
We can test this anytime if he likes. He won't even try.

This is a ridiculous claim with regards to a religion as broad and historical as Christianity. In the 16th century the religion’s "smartest advocates" claimed the bible clearly stated that the earth was stationary and the center of the universe. They were wrong, and they persecuted those that were right. They were the educated theologians and “experts” in their faith.

Today we have Popes, Bishops, clergy, theologians, from every brand of Christianity, and now secular scholars as well, who have dedicated their lives to biblical studies and classical languages and studies. They don’t agree on anything, including Biblical authorship, the divine nature of Jesus, and the doctrine of substionary atonement.

When it comes to "god" there is no "expert" to ask, they are all posers.

Cynic Sage

May 19th 2005, 02:22 PM

I nominate Wayne Holland. Who recently started a thread here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53802) but hasn't yet said anything screrwball-worthy there yet.

Fortunately, in his sig he links to his website (http://www.wayneholland.org/).

http://www.wayneholland.org/

First essential truth:

If God truly made everything, then everything is okay.

Christianity is centered in the lie that would have us believe that we are not okay as we are, but have to accept Christ as personal savior in order to become okay, which brings us to another truth:

Jesus never preached Christianity, or said anything about accepting him as a personal savior.

Jesus did not come to this world to start a religion about himself. His life goal was to re-establish the kingdom of God on the earth, starting in Israel.

The lie of Christianity is insulting to the great God Who made everything, and made it okay just as it is.

Biggest Lie:

The premise of Christianity.

It is maintains that we are separated from God, which is impossible.

Second essential truth:

There is nothing but God (or the Universe, if you prefer).

Nothing could possibly be separate from the universe, but only a manifestation, or face, of It.

Jesus (we are led to believe) always referred to himself as the son of Man, never the son of God. The church conceived and propagated this lie (that Jesus called himself the son of Man, thereby implying that there is something different between God and Man). If we are all manifestations of God, each and every one of us simply wearing one of Its infinite faces, then the church is out of business. If we are already one with God, the church has no reason for being.

I talk so much about the Bible because I grew up in a family that went to church every Sunday, a fundamentalist, Pentecostal church at that, and actually believed the crap I heard there for many years. When I finally unloaded the bag of rocks that had been heaped upon me by the Church of God, I was a little miffed that I had allowed myself to be duped by it for so long. Basically, I’ve got an attitude about the whole thing, and it shows in my writing. But, on balance, I talk about a lot of other stuff too, as the books displayed on this page clearly indicate.

Major turnoff: Identification and characterization. To be categorized is to be placed in a static niche and literally removed from the dynamic of Life. If everything and everyone were identified, then all the mystery would disappear from the world. Whenever I mention to anyone that I write, they invariably wax into classificatin mode and ask me what exactly it is that I write about, very strongly suggesting by their question that it might be a particular genre, and try to identify me as a science fiction or mystery or non-fiction writer, or as a poet. The question always seems to catch me off guard, because I basically go with the flow and write whatever I feel like writing. I instinctively resist classification and refuse to be pigeonholed as one particular type of writer, like novelist or poet, or whatever. I have written a couple of fairly short novels, but I certainly don’t think of myself as a "novelist." I have also written two books of poetry, but don’t go around calling myself a poet either. For that matter, I don't even think of myself as a writer. I'm just a guy who likes to put words on paper. Sometimes the muse is upon me. What can I say? The bottom line is that I enjoy writing. I've had a lot of fun with every book I've written, and if you have an eye for it, you can sense it.

In a nutshell:

I preach against preaching; I'm religious about not being religious and I truly believe that Christianity is an insult to God.

Primary Goal: To sow as many seeds of doubt about religions, especially Christianity, as I possibly can, and thereby empower as many former believers as possible by helping them to unburden themselves of the total load of crap they're carrying around inside their heads.

Third essential truth:

We absolutely must travel light in order to become enlightened.

Anyone who is carrying a heavy load around is not enlightened. And there is no load heavier than a belief system based on false premises. Beliefs have great power, but it's the power of a two-edged sword. It may free you or enslave you. Most Christians are enslaved by their beliefs. They carry them around like a big bag of rocks on their shoulder. This is a very strange thing indeed, because I seem to recall that Jesus once said that his yoke was easy and his burden was light.

There's more.:teeth: He also wrote a book (http://www.wayneholland.org/scripture.htm)you may be interested in reviewing JP.

http://www.wayneholland.org/scripturepages.htm

It is the churches, you see, that are guilty of spreading false information about the Bible. What they do with the first chapter of the book of Isaiah is a classic example. Instead of accepting it for what it says, and trying to understand it in the context of the time in which it first appeared, they feel compelled for some reason to interpret it - which is the same as forcing it - to fit some theological scheme they’ve contrived. But, to give them the benefit of the doubt, I don’t think they’ve done it (and continue to do it) with any evil intentions. I believe that they believe, truly believe, what they’re teaching. I’m not suggesting in any way that the churches have set out to deliberately deceive anyone.
But they do it nonetheless. Why? Only because of something that I’ll call inertia. There seems to subsist in our culture, indeed all cultures, an inclination to indulge in sensationalism and melodrama. When you think about it, life, just basic natural life, completely devoid of technology or any other human intrusion, can be a little boring.
Have you ever noticed what so often happens on a beautiful day, one with few clouds, perfect temperature and gentle winds? Do we just sit and enjoy the moment? Not usually. It would be far too boring to do that. I mean, what is Mother Nature actually doing at such moments? Not much of anything it appears. And there is something about the human soul that can’t stand it. So we find ourselves getting into our cars and going for a drive, maybe to the beach or some other water hole. Or maybe we go to a park and enjoy a picnic, or just get out in our yard and pull some weeds or plant a garden. Whatever it is, it seems to indicate that we’re not content to let Nature just be...well, nature. It’s just too boring like it is. It’s so much more fun and exciting to try to change it somehow. Don’t let those weeds grow there like that, so wild and naturally; it feels much better to pull them up and plant something of our own choosing in their place. Or go to the ocean and watch Mother Nature actually do something, watch her crash wave after wave against the shore, even jump on some of those waves and try to ride them. And if we stay long enough we can watch her doing something really spectacular. We can watch her take that big hot ball of fire up in the sky and apparently sink it into the ocean. Now there’s a sight!
...

You know those guys who write those emotianal-sentimental-cheesy devotional booklets which are given out in church every Sunday and the only time you ever read them is when you're bored out of your skull pinching biscuits on the loo. Well, it's like the guy who wrote those apostasized and then wrote that book.:lol:

There' more...
http://www.wayneholland.org/preachers.htm

I haven't been to church in a long time. One of the main reasons has to do with preachers. The very idea of someone aspiring to such a position seems ludicrous. I mean, who do these guys think they are? They stand in front of a congregation, usually at an elevated height forcing the members to look up at them, and posture as if anointed by God's spirit, as if they are privy to some information that the lowly sheep they are addressing aren't.

As if that weren't bad enough.

The whole situation is made even more egregious by the fact that they actually get paid to prance around like a pompous used car salesman. Jesus sent his apostles out to preach and gave them some interesting instructions.

"And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give."

(Matthew 10:7,8)

Jesus clearly instructed his apostles not only about the content of their message (the kingdom of heaven), but about taking any kind of payment:

"...freely ye have received, freely give..."

They were not to accept payment for their ministry, only a part of which was their preaching, their deliverance of the good news about God's kingdom..

If you have any doubts that this is what Jesus actually meant by these words, consider the very next verse in this passage:

"Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat."

(Matthew 10:9,10)

Did you notice the very last part?

"...for the workman is worthy of his meat..."

Jesus is actually suggesting that they work for their supper, and the preaching itself is not the work that they are to perform in order to eat. They must perform some form of genuinely useful labor.

Do you know any preachers today who do this? I don't. Every preacher I've ever known has been provided a house to live in, called a parsonage, and a decent salary. Somehow, I don't think Jesus would approve of such an arrangement.

Especially when you consider what modern preachers preach. All the preachers I've ever heard preach Jesus himself. Jesus never said to do this. He didn't come to this world to start a religion about himself. He clearly told his apostles to preach the kingdom of God.

And as far as the rest of the stuff he told them to do, forget about it:

"Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils."

When I consider this, then think about the preachers I've known, I can't help but shake my head in amusement. Raise the dead? Give me a break. I couldn't tell you how many preachers I've known (or known about) who couldn't even raise their own families properly, let alone raise the dead.

As someone related to a Minister, I can tell that this guy does not know anything about the challenges of work. For the amount of education they recieve, it is surprising how little our church's pastor recieves on his paycheck.

http://www.wayneholland.org/was%20jesus%20married.htm

I recently finished Dan Brown's best-selling book, The Da Vinci Code. I have to admit, it was nigh impossible to put it down once I started. And of course it was especially good for a Bible buff like myself. It was so engrossing that it actually prompted me to read another book on the subject, Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Also fascinating. And I thought I was a bit radical.

I mentioned in the essay titled "Christianity" (posted 11/7/04) that a driving force behind this site is the complete discreditation of christianity (I don't even like to capitalize the word any more). Believe me, I discovered some grist for my mill.

In all the criticism I've hurled at the ill-informed christians I never once mentioned Jesus' marital status. To be honest, I had never really thought about it. Thanks to the influence of the church, I had pretty much accepted the fact that he was a bachelor. I've changed my mind.

Now, the idea that Jesus was not married seems downright absurd. If you notice nothing else when you read the gospels, you can't help but pick up on the fact that Jesus was somewhat hounded by his detractors. They were forever more trying to catch him at something, to trip him up. I had always been impressed by the utterly clever way he handled them. But there was one particular issue they never questioned him about, and that was his marital status. And trust me, as a Jewish male (not to mention a thirty-year-old Jewish male), he would have been more or less expected to be married, even have children. If Jesus - two-thousand years ago - was walking around Galilee with a bunch of (male) disciples and no wife, do you honestly believe that no one would have approached him about it? I can assure you, a man of his standing, with his rather public profile, would have been utterly villified over it. They would have raked him over the proverbial coals.

At the time, there was no expectation of a divine messiah; a messiah, to be sure, but not a divine one. There wasn't even such an idea milling about. Messiahs were simply "anointed" human beings who were in line to be king. The idea of Jesus' divinity did not develop till after his death (an idea propagated, by the way, entirely by the church). While he was still walking around in the flesh no one thought he was a god. Consequently, no one expected him to act like one. On the contrary, they would have expected him to act like a man - and have a wife!

On one occasion, Jesus even quoted the Old Testament about the perfect naturalness of being married:

"The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"
(Matthew 19:3-5)

I find it inconceivable that he would say something like this to the Pharisees (who were testing him, remember) and not have a wife himself.

And speaking of the Pharisees, I can't help but feel that the way they postured with Jesus is a telling thing. It's easy to see that they did not for a moment act as if they thought that Jesus was presenting himself as anything but a (purely human) candidate, if you will, for a public office. Their behavior takes on the character of our present-day journalists during an election. They were more or less interviewing him, and trying to catch him at something, some faux pas, something worthy of reporting, and of course disparaging. And being thirty-years old and unmarried would have been something they would have jumped on, in a New York minute. Or should I say Jerusalem minute?

JP, this guy needs schoolin', BAD.

http://www.wayneholland.org/christiansandrepublicans.htm

If Jesus were here today, he most definitely would have nothing whatsoever to do with Republicans. He would surely revile and scoff at them in much the same way he did the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Democratic Party is much more closely aligned with the principles espoused by the kingdom of God, which seems always concerned with the needs of the poor and underprivileged and socially outcast. In fact, a modern-day Jesus would very likely use the word "Republican" as a synonym for "the rich" so that another of his famous sayings might be;

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a Republican to enter the kingdom of God.

The Decontextualization hurts! MAKE IT STOP!:eek:

Cynic Sage

May 19th 2005, 06:32 PM

I nominate Ray Fletcher for his OP on this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52930

If Jehovah is eternal and self-existent, then is his throne (a physical object) also eternal and self-existent? How about his kingdom?

If not, then at some point there must have been nothing else (in the most absolute sense) that existed but the being of Jehovah himself. I wonder at what point in the aeons of infinity did he get bored an decide to create something that was separate from him?

I wonder how long he spent looking at a scenery of nothingness before he took the initiative to create a beatiful kingdom to reside in? When did he create a chair to sit his butt in?

You may be a fundy Athiest if:

*People with Asperger's Syndrome are better at recognizing figures-of-speech in the Bible than you are.

:lol:

jpholding

May 19th 2005, 07:40 PM

Lifetime achievement award --

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com

From appallingly ignorant Christian to appallingly ignorant atheist. :eek:

I'll be posting an article on him, hopefully tomorrow. Maybe we should invite him here to get a whoopin'?

PS JohnSparks -- please check Apol 301 for update to TIF thread and new grist from Carrier.

Darth Executor

May 19th 2005, 08:00 PM

Sparko

May 19th 2005, 08:02 PM

OK will check it out. I kinda miss Johnny Skeptic. LOL.

Cynic Sage

May 20th 2005, 12:03 AM

Lifetime achievement award --

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com (http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/)

From appallingly ignorant Christian to appallingly ignorant atheist. :eek:

I'll be posting an article on him, hopefully tomorrow. Maybe we should invite him here to get a whoopin'?

Oh, let's do. :grin:

I was reading his FAQ section and found this:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/faq.html

6. Haven’t you read anything by Author X? He/she explains all of the so-called “problems” you mention.

Whomever Author X happens to be at the moment, a few things almost always remain true:

1. X began with the conclusion that the Bible is true and worked backwards to find only supportive evidence.

2. X is not interested in the most likely conclusion, only the most likely conclusion that doesn’t invalidate the Bible.

3. If X was born with religion Y instead of Christianity, X would be just as confident that religion Y was correct.

4. There are countless Xs in every religion who claim to be able to prove that each of their belief systems is true.

5. X is skillful at making an argument seem valid but eventually looks foolish if you just do some unbiased research.

I never cease to be amazed at how certain Athiest find belief in the Supernatural to be rediculous, yet have amazing faith in their own Psychic abilities. I guess this is how Charles Xavier counter-refutes his opponents.:lol:

Wait, there's more:

People who study a concept in which they have no emotional investment are going to offer more reliable conclusions than those who want the concept to turn out a certain way. If you wanted safety information on a used car, would it be wiser to trust the used car salesman or a consumer report? Similarly, if you wanted information on the historicity and veracity of Islam, would you ask an Islamic scholar who was born into Islam – or would you ask an agnostic scholar with no emotional investment in Islam? If you choose the unbiased scholar, why make an exception only for your religion? You may want to begin your quest for enlightenment here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/apologetics.shtml).

Ah yes, the Freethinker's excuse not to think.

Jim: Your Mom's a prostitute.

Bob: No she isn't.

Jim: Yes she is, you just have an emotional investment so your conclusions are unreliable because you WANT your Mom not to be a prostitute. I, on the other hand, don't care about your Mom at all, therefore I am more reliable than you are on the subject of your mother's whoredom.

Bob: Isn't that fallacious reasoning?

Jim: You're just saying it's fallacious because you don't want your Mom to be a prostitute.

Sparko

May 20th 2005, 11:24 AM

:rofl: Poor Bob!

Uh doesn't the fact that this Dr. Long has a web site, books and seems to have dedicated his career to denouncing the bible count as an emotional investment? Oops! shot himself in the foot again. Durn.

jpholding

May 20th 2005, 12:31 PM

I was reading his FAQ section and found this:

Hey, HEY! I'm using that in my conclusion to the article, you plagiarist! :lmbo:

I'm done with all but that conclusion. Not much to the article workwise; mainly a lot of links, since all he has is old news. He ends up endorsing the Christ-myth with a mix of ideas from Doherty, Acharya, and Remsberg (though he names none of them). It'll be up in a few hours.

Cynic Sage

May 20th 2005, 12:43 PM

The Lazy Agnostic running gag continues.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52177&page=4

I think you just answered Jaltus' question of some days ago as to whether you are stupid.

Maybe.

Is he intentionally doing this?:lol:

jpholding

May 20th 2005, 02:24 PM

Is he intentionally doing this?:lol:

I used to think so, but I don't any more.

And I plagiarized you for the Long item. :teeth:

Sheepdog

May 20th 2005, 03:44 PM

"3. If X was born with religion Y instead of Christianity, X would be just as confident that religion Y was correct."

I always love that kind of reasoning. by this standard, atheists and agnostics don't exist :teeth:

jpholding

May 20th 2005, 04:41 PM

Memo to self -- Lazy A's thread in the Locker Room asking if I think people here are misfits and losers.

The man digs himself deeper every day. Just wait till I get that toon of him scanned in...

Sparko

May 20th 2005, 06:00 PM

Hey JP, how do you argue with someone who is so off the wall that they make no sense at all? I am trying to knock some sense in to Smaller in this thread

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53626

He claims that a people don't sin. It is demons within us that sin, and so everyone gets to go to heaven. :argh:

I would submit his stuff to this thread but it it too convoluted to pick and choose which parts to submit.

I submit the whole thread along with every other thread Smaller has started.

Mark_S

May 20th 2005, 06:17 PM

Sparko

May 20th 2005, 06:19 PM

iwayne,

who claims he knows nothing about God then tries to tell us ALL about God. Here is my reply to him with some of his quotes inside

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1038233&postcount=37

The problem is, Wayne that you said

The bottom line is that no one knows what they're talking about when it comes to God. Not me, not you, not anybody.

Which is fine to believe that if you want. But then you have a web site and this thread dedicated to telling us all about this God you claim you know nothing about.

It's the stuff of comedy. A REAL God would never do such a thing. A Real God is perfectly complete, fully confident of His/Her abilities, with no need whatsoever for anyone to publish a book about Him and all His great works. If God (the God of the Bible) is so great, so all-wise and powerful, why can't....

Now I never made the claim that I or no one can know nothing about God, so it is perfectly fine for me to make claims about what God is like since I beleive that God revealed himself to mankind.

But you, who claim to know nothing about God, are here trying to tell us ALL about God.

Paradox. Self Defeating. Boat won't float.

JohnSparks

Cynic Sage

May 20th 2005, 07:00 PM

Darth Executor

May 20th 2005, 10:20 PM

I just got back from the ER and if I read more skeptical posts I'll be back there in no time.

jpholding

May 21st 2005, 08:00 AM

Hey JP, how do you argue with someone who is so off the wall that they make no sense at all?

I don't. I just mock them to shame them so that they'll be less likely to spread their infection in the future. :teeth:

Carrier is going to a Screwball for not being able to read. I just found these instances that are a :rofl: if I ever saw one:

I say:

"But here Carrier does appeal to evidence; although it is evidence that is directed at the wrong argument. As I expected, Carrier tries to circumvent my point about prejudices against Jews by saying, "we already know that many Gentiles flocked to Judaism even before Christians came along, either converting to it, supporting it, or holding it in high esteem." But that is not the point. Carrier confuses Judaism as a religion with being a Judean in an ethnic sense. The latter is the point I am also after, not merely the former! It does not matter how many converted to the Jewish religion. The issue would also have been, How many would have wanted to become ethnic Jews? How many would have worshipped a man who was an ethnic Jew? Thus indeed Carrier's entire retort on this point is misunderstandably misdirected, and no doubt caused by his confusion of thinking that ancient Judaism, like modern Judaism, was not particularly associated with an ethnic group."

And he says:

"Holding tries to change his argument now by claiming he meant the Romans and Greeks were prejudiced against people from Judaea, rather than against members of the Jewish religion. This is absurd, and of course he presents no evidence to support his new claim. All the evidence is of prejudice against the Jewish religion and culture, not against their land of origin. Countless Romans and Greeks were born and lived in Judaea, and hailing from there was no issue for them or anyone else."

:twitch:

So he 1) blames ME for his error and 2) misreads what I say about ETHNIC prejudice as a matter of it being the accident of being born, geographically, in Judaea.

I think Johnny's stupidity must have rubbed off on him.

And then this. He says:

"Respecting Tradesmen: In my first draft I demonstrated conclusively that Jews had great respect for tradesmen and thus would not have looked down on Jesus for being a carpenter as Holding falsely claimed. In response to that, Holding desparately resorted to the bizarre argument that only Jews respected tradesmen--apparently assuming that Greco-Roman tradesmen all despised themselves and each other, which is obviously ridiculous. As usual he inserted his foot into his mouth yet again by not actually checking the facts before making a claim. Indeed, he betrayed his utter ignorance of ancient culture by saying "the only evidence [one] can find is within Judaism." Only someone who knew nothing about the ancient world, and made no effort to learn, would make so foolish a claim."

Huh??? What I said was:

"Next up from Carrier is my point about Jesus being a working-class carpenter; once again, Carrier appeals to the notion of variety of opinion ("other groups did not share this low opinion") though he is compelled to admit that the only evidence he can find is within Judaism (where at any rate, as I note, Jesus as a member of the Jewish "ingroup" would overcome the stigma among Jews; nevertheless, let us imagine it being said that Shammai the carpenter would undertake such a profession as the hypostatic incarnation of the Jewish God, and Messiah, as opposed to just a teacher; and that, after receiving training that would give him the prestige he lacked as a carpenter -- education Jesus did NOT have)."

Last of three. He says:

"One thing to add here is against Holding's now more adamant claim that no one in antiquity had notions of improving their condition. That is outrageous. It is not what any of the scholars he quotes have ever argued--to the contrary, they would all be appalled by what he claims they said. I ask all readers to stop trusting Holding, and actually buy or borrow those books that Holding quotes out of context and read them. Then you will see how those scholars actually discuss the total situation very differently than Holding lets on."

This seems to be in reply to what I say:

"Just as anachronistic is Carrier's idea that "Christian missionaries were meeting a new market demand, of a growing mass of the discontented." He is yet again importing modernist, individualist ideas into the social world of the NT; the reality however is that "discontent" such as he imagines, though it would exist, would not be seen as solved by Christianity (even if a "solution" would have been desired, which, as our example of Iraq in point 1 shows, would have been far from the case). As Pilch and Malina report in The Handbook of Biblical Social Values [79ff], this was a world of "limited good" within which all resources were considered at a fixed value (as practically, they were). The "discontented" who wished to rise in the ranks, would perceive that they did so at the expense of others, including their fellow poor, who would have the same perception and would resent any attempt to "rise above" others. Thus in fact the ancient person regarded their lot as decided by fate; however dissatisfied they may have been, there was nothing that they could do about it, and any discontented person seeking resolution of the sort Carrier envisages would incur the envy and probation of their fellow ingroup members. If anything, Christianity as a newcomer would be rejected as a religion trying to cut from the pie that was already distributed. Carrier's retort comes from the mouth of one who lives in a world that perceives goods as limitless, with "resources that are endlessly available to the individual" and one's life is made of what one chooses."

So where do I say, "no one in antiquity had notions of improving their condition"? I don't -- Carrier has read this into what I say, which is no more than that anyone having such notions had obstacles to overcome and that it wasn't a matter of cut and dried, "hey, all we have to do is accept Christianity" as he tries to make it out to be. Maybe I need to ask readers to stop trusting what Carrier says, and actually read what I say.

This, and his backpedal on Inanna being crucified, earn Carrier a golden Screwball. I'm sure I'll find more but these will be enough.

gharfish

May 21st 2005, 05:09 PM

I just got back from the ER and if I read more skeptical posts I'll be back there in no time.

Mr. D.E.,

You went to the emergency room yesterday evening ? How are you doing today, I wonder (!) I'm sorry to hear about this. Did your illness worsen ? I hope not.

V.

Darth Executor

May 21st 2005, 05:28 PM

Mr. D.E.,

You went to the emergency room yesterday evening ? How are you doing today, I wonder (!) I'm sorry to hear about this. Did your illness worsen ? I hope not.

V.

Well it did worsen but I'm ok now. They made me smoke some fumes for about 2 hours and it cleared up my lungs.

Cynic Sage

May 21st 2005, 07:52 PM

Well it did worsen but I'm ok now. They made me smoke some fumes for about 2 hours and it cleared up my lungs.

I thought they only used that stuff to treat Glaucoma (well, legally at least).

:lol:

BronzeArcher

May 21st 2005, 11:51 PM

Some of the reviews on amazon.com are JUST SO FUNNY.

Cynic Sage

May 22nd 2005, 01:33 AM

I nominate Da Blonde, for her post here, on the subject of this pamphlet (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1036687&postcount=6) (edited for content by Hamster) being handed out to minors by Educators.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53804&page=6&pp=16

But still, we were talking about something definately not meant for minors, being handed out to minors by educators.

...

This was not a "Homosexuals are people too, so lets all try to get along and not kill each other" pamphlet being handed to a minor, this was a pamphlet containing pornographic content.

Da Blonde, are you aware of the effects pornography can have on a minor, especially that of which is contained within the pamphlet?

Pornography drives some people crazy, just like religion drives other people crazy. But for most of them it's a short trip.

Make sure your kids don't find that Bible that you keep hidden.:lol:

Cynic Sage

May 22nd 2005, 01:50 AM

Avraham, possibly a poser trying to make Muslims look like the BIGGEST HOSERS IN THE WORLD...

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52686&page=1&pp=16

One - The allah = moon good argument is bullhonkey. It's simply the arabic equivalent of eloah or elohim. It is a generic term, just like the previously mentioned hebrew words. It is not uncommon for words that generally end in ים in Hebrew to drop the ending in Arabic. Besides, elohim has been translated into arabic as allah as long as arabic has been around.

Saying "allah" means a pagan moon god is no more correct than saying "el" is a caananite deity. Yes - both may have been refferred to by that title. No - the title is not specific to that diety.

First Hebrew Is Not A Language Duhhhhhhhhh

..and can can't even spell.

Christian = Back-wards mean Anti-christ = His Son Jesus

:lol:

Darth Executor

May 22nd 2005, 11:52 AM

I thought they only used that stuff to treat Glaucoma (well, legally at least).

:lol:

No, the best way to clear the crap in somebody's lungs is to fumigate them. They don't have any particular smell and the only side effect was that one of them raised my heartbeat by about 300%(estimate). So if you think you can get some free good stuff from a hospital, think again.

Cynic Sage

May 22nd 2005, 03:42 PM

I was just kidding man.

So you got 'em fumigated eh? Good thing, those termites can be a problem in there. :lol:

The Laughing Man

May 22nd 2005, 08:21 PM

This one's good if it hasn't been mentioned yet. Duder sez, "Messy = no designer (probably):"

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1038640&postcount=1

wfahber had the best response:

Yeah? Then try explaining my daughter's bedroom!

:lol:

jpholding

May 23rd 2005, 11:24 AM

I don't know if there's room in Carrier's house for all the awards he's winning today. Check this one out, as he says it is MY fault because I didn't detect HIS error:

Holding then steps into a bear trap. He says that "line 390" in the Life of Josephus contains "nothing" about what I argue, that in line 228 "nothing is said about the governorship of Galilee," and that JW 2.590 refers "only" to "the repairing of a wall." From all of this, Holding mistakenly claims that "Carrier clearly hopes that no one will check these references." Yet in saying this, Holding proves he is not a skilled researcher and has no competent knowledge of the sources he is working with. The fact is, I made a small mistake in writing down the numbers of my source citations in that one footnote (which I have since corrected). But the error was so small that had Holding actually read the paragraph, not the line, in each case he would have seen that the material I referred to is there. The fact that he didn't do so simple a check as this proves that Holding is just mining his sources and doing the absolute minumum to prove his case instead of honestly and seriously studying the sources and making sure his claims are correct. Holding doesn't read Josephus. He just jumps to single sentences that help his case--not even caring if there are any other sentences that hurt his case. And instead of knowing the facts--which I did, and only then took the trouble of tracking down the exact references--Holding is completely ignorant of the facts, and therefore incapable of tracking them down. Instead, he just uses what he wants and ignores the rest--the truth be damned.

Cynic Sage

May 23rd 2005, 04:18 PM

TheOneAndOnly, only defeating God and through talking yogurt.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54030

Since the dawn of time man has yearned to destroy god, our oppressor and slave master. Soon the Age of God will be over, and the Age of Man will begin:

2050 - and immortality is within our grasp

Britain's leading thinker on the future offers an extraordinary vision of life in the next 45 years

David Smith, technology correspondent
Sunday May 22, 2005
The Observer

Aeroplanes will be too afraid to crash, yoghurts will wish you good morning before being eaten and human consciousness will be stored on supercomputers, promising immortality for all - though it will help to be rich.

These fantastic claims are not made by a science fiction writer or a crystal ball-gazing lunatic. They are the deadly earnest predictions of Ian Pearson, head of the futurology unit at BT.

'If you draw the timelines, realistically by 2050 we would expect to be able to download your mind into a machine, so when you die it's not a major career problem,' Pearson told The Observer. 'If you're rich enough then by 2050 it's feasible. If you're poor you'll probably have to wait until 2075 or 2080 when it's routine. We are very serious about it. That's how fast this technology is moving: 45 years is a hell of a long time in IT.'

Pearson, 44, has formed his mind-boggling vision of the future after graduating in applied mathematics and theoretical physics, spending four years working in missile design and the past 20 years working in optical networks, broadband network evolution and cybernetics in BT's laboratories. He admits his prophecies are both 'very exciting' and 'very scary'.

He believes that today's youngsters may never have to die, and points to the rapid advances in computing power demonstrated last week, when Sony released the first details of its PlayStation 3. It is 35 times more powerful than previous games consoles. 'The new PlayStation is 1 per cent as powerful as a human brain,' he said. 'It is into supercomputer status compared to 10 years ago. PlayStation 5 will probably be as powerful as the human brain.'

The world's fastest computer, IBM's BlueGene, can perform 70.72 trillion calculations per second (teraflops) and is accelerating all the time. But anyone who believes in the uniqueness of consciousness or the soul will find Pearson's next suggestion hard to swallow. 'We're already looking at how you might structure a computer that could possibly become conscious. There are quite a lot of us now who believe it's entirely feasible.

'We don't know how to do it yet but we've begun looking in the same directions, for example at the techniques we think that consciousness is based on: information comes in from the outside world but also from other parts of your brain and each part processes it on an internal sensing basis. Consciousness is just another sense, effectively, and that's what we're trying to design in a computer. Not everyone agrees, but it's my conclusion that it is possible to make a conscious computer with superhuman levels of intelligence before 2020.'

He continued: 'It would definitely have emotions - that's one of the primary reasons for doing it. If I'm on an aeroplane I want the computer to be more terrified of crashing than I am so it does everything to stay in the air until it's supposed to be on the ground.

'You can also start automating an awful lots of jobs. Instead of phoning up a call centre and getting a machine that says, "Type 1 for this and 2 for that and 3 for the other," if you had machine personalities you could have any number of call staff, so you can be dealt with without ever waiting in a queue at a call centre again.'

Pearson, from Whitehaven in Cumbria, collaborates on technology with some developers and keeps a watching brief on advances around the world. He concedes the need to debate the implications of progress. 'You need a completely global debate. Whether we should be building machines as smart as people is a really big one. Whether we should be allowed to modify bacteria to assemble electronic circuitry and make themselves smart is already being researched.

'We can already use DNA, for example, to make electronic circuits so it's possible to think of a smart yoghurt some time after 2020 or 2025, where the yoghurt has got a whole stack of electronics in every single bacterium. You could have a conversation with your strawberry yogurt before you eat it.'

In the shorter term, Pearson identifies the next phase of progress as 'ambient intelligence': chips with everything. He explained: 'For example, if you have a pollen count sensor in your car you take some antihistamine before you get out. Chips will come small enough that you can start impregnating them into the skin. We're talking about video tattoos as very, very thin sheets of polymer that you just literally stick on to the skin and they stay there for several days. You could even build in cellphones and connect it to the network, use it as a video phone and download videos or receive emails.'

Philips, the electronics giant, is developing the world's first rollable display which is just a millimetre thick and has a 12.5cm screen which can be wrapped around the arm. It expects to start production within two years.

The next age, he predicts, will be that of 'simplicity' in around 2013-2015. 'This is where the IT has actually become mature enough that people will be able to drive it without having to go on a training course.

'Forget this notion that you have to have one single chip in the computer which does everything. Why not just get a stack of little self-organising chips in a box and they'll hook up and do it themselves. It won't be able to get any viruses because most of the operating system will be stored in hardware which the hackers can't write to. If your machine starts going wrong, you just push a button and it's reset to the factory setting.'

Pearson's third age is 'virtual worlds' in around 2020. 'We will spend a lot of time in virtual space, using high quality, 3D, immersive, computer generated environments to socialise and do business in. When technology gives you a life-size 3D image and the links to your nervous system allow you to shake hands, it's like being in the other person's office. It's impossible to believe that won't be the normal way of communicating.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1489635,00.html

So soon you wont have to waste your Sundays praying to the megalomaniac in the sky, because we will become our own gods...

OAO: HA HA! We invented talking Yogurt and can stick or minds in computers so we can never die, unless there's a power surge or something. Take THAT, Biblegod.

Yogurt: What a Moron.

Darth Executor

May 23rd 2005, 11:33 PM

TheOneAndOnly, only defeating God and through talking yogurt.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54030

OAO: HA HA! We invented talking Yogurt and can stick or minds in computers so we can never die, unless there's a power surge or something. Take THAT, Biblegod.

Yogurt: What a Moron.

:lmbo:

Hey JP do you need any translators for languages not on your list?

Cynic Sage

May 24th 2005, 02:52 AM

Two folks this time, from Exchristian.net.

First there appeared a mysterious thread that consisted entirely of quoted conversasion from Tweb (http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=826) posted by SillyGeezer10 (first nomination).

But that's not all. Apparently alot of us from this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53906) have been SillyGeezer's quote list wondering about the purpose of it.

So let's see that includes NSM, CuMho, DeeDee, Jinx, Tizzidale, Arnold, Xavier, SpinyNorman, and myself.

CuMho (a member of Ex-X) post on SillyGeezer's thread and asks him to post a link instead of entire copy&paste conversations.

Are you ready for what happens next...?

Look right below CuMho's post (http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=826):

Tweb is full of idiots who think they actually understand philoophy and logic . I tried debating over their but it seems they are more interested in consistantly playing TAG and similar crap .

Self brainwashing at its finest .

Now Slayer, when you post about a the folks at another discussion board you post at behind their backs. Make sure you do it in a thread that hasn't had the group's attention drawn to it in advance. It's just less embarrassing for you that way. That's why they call it "talking behind one's back", you have to be "behind one's back" not "directly in front at eye-level within earshot".:ahem:

jason

May 24th 2005, 03:33 AM

Is anyone else bothered that people at TWeb don't know anything about
philoophy ? What is that anyway ? Philosophy for the terminally loopy ?

Jason

jpholding

May 24th 2005, 07:03 AM

:lmbo:

Hey JP do you need any translators for languages not on your list?

Maybe. What language?

Darth Executor

May 24th 2005, 09:13 AM

Romanian

And Johnny, you stole my nomination. >.<

jpholding

May 24th 2005, 09:30 AM

Romanian

I don't have any Romanian readers that I know of....but if you want, go ahead and work up TIF in that.

Darth Executor

May 24th 2005, 04:26 PM

Ok, should be done by mid June at the latest, depending on whether I get a job or not.

The Laughing Man

May 24th 2005, 06:57 PM

Yogurt: What a Moron.

:rofl: Well played! Have some pearls for making me audibly laugh. :smile:

Stevo

May 24th 2005, 07:16 PM

http://www.evilbible.com/wforum/viewtopic.php?t=419&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=75
The whole sites a gold mine but its funny when the fundys fight.

In a thread about morality Chris Baba Site Admin gets a little trigger happy

Razakel wrote:
And as for banning DannyBoy, that was somewhat childish, you are too eager to pull the trigger when it comes to banning, his only "crime" was not agreeing with you, and that's one Im also "guilty" of.

DannyBoy was being irrational and so are you. I'm banning you too. Bye.

Cynic Sage

May 24th 2005, 08:57 PM

Darth Executor

May 24th 2005, 09:27 PM

That guy's amazing. He's even more masochistic than JP. I go through his forum cussing him off, destroying any pathetic argument he makes, literally putting all his fanboys on the run (all the lesser fundies were gone for the two days or so in which I wrecked havoc until I got bored and left) and he doesn't ban me. His ego must bigger than mine and LGM's combined.

Cynic Sage

May 24th 2005, 09:29 PM

Darth Executor

May 25th 2005, 12:37 AM

I thought JP was sadistic. Oh well.

No, he's masochistic. Why else would he constantly deal with huge ammounts of utter idiocy all the time? At any rate, he admitted it so...

Cynic Sage

May 25th 2005, 01:05 AM

No, he's masochistic. Why else would he constantly deal with huge ammounts of utter idiocy all the time? At any rate, he admitted it so...

I thought he was sadistic because of how he deals with them.:lol:

Sparko

May 25th 2005, 09:54 AM

Hey if you guys are looking for more lunacy to post in this thread before the end of the month, I am dealing with Smaller in this thread http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53626

and I am getting tired of doing it alone. I could use some help with this nutcase.

Think of it as a mining expedition.

Cu Mhorrigan

May 25th 2005, 09:56 AM

Did I win yet?

Mark_S

May 25th 2005, 10:00 AM

Did I win yet?

Sorry Cu, you're a fresh breath of reason and common sense when compared to Smaller.

Cu Mhorrigan

May 25th 2005, 10:07 AM

Man that is bad...

jpholding

May 25th 2005, 11:50 AM

Did I win yet?

Not yet this month.

Darth Executor

May 25th 2005, 05:40 PM

bar Jonah

May 25th 2005, 05:55 PM

You don't know that. Maybe he's happily mistaken...

Sparko

May 25th 2005, 06:34 PM

If you think that I'm going to induce myself a coma by reading the OP in that thread then you're sadly mistaken.

chicken!!! :chicken:

Just skip the OP and head right to the last page. He has been pretty much repeating himself since page 3 anyway.

Come on!!!

Darth Executor

May 25th 2005, 06:49 PM

chicken!!! :chicken:

Just skip the OP and head right to the last page. He has been pretty much repeating himself since page 3 anyway.

Come on!!!

Chicken? I'm not the one begging for help in the face of imminent onlsaught. :lol:

I hate discussions where I have to respond to huge posts. I'm easily distracted.

wfaber

May 26th 2005, 12:45 PM

RigthtIdea:
I'm glad you changed that avitar. I as about to suggest changing it to a small furry animal. But I can live with the elephant.

bar Jonah

May 26th 2005, 01:31 PM

Gee, uhh... thanks. :rihrm:

Cynic Sage

May 26th 2005, 01:42 PM

I nominate Clarice for his odd usage of Synonymous terms.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53802&page=6&pp=16

I would not rely too much on your emotions! They are merely egoic responses to what we perceive with our mundane senses and are not reliable. Feelings, on the other hand are intuitional perceptions derived from more reliable sensing of what is true and trustworthy.

So we can't trust our "emotions", but we can trust our "feelings"?:lol:

Cynic Sage

May 26th 2005, 01:55 PM

iwayne and his ego.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53802&page=5&pp=16

Most people embrace the religious convictions handed to them by their family. (Is it any coincidence that the Pope is Catholic?) It's one of the reasons I like to ask the question, "Where did you first hear about God?" Chances are, it was from your family, and at a very young and impressionable age. I will never forget hearing, when I was a kid, someone say that Catholics claimed that if they could just have a child till he/she was seven years old, they'd have him/her for the rest of their life. I believe it. I've seen it. I still see it. I would be willing to bet that most of the participants at Tweb who are believers have been brainwashed by their families. I am actually proud of myself from breaking free from the absurd belief system that was dumped on me. I don't know how I did it. Maybe I was lucky enough to be born with a gene package conducive to that sort of risk.

"Is it any coincidence the Pope is Catholic?":lol:
I've said it once and I'll say it again, JP, this guy need schoolin'

Cynic Sage

May 26th 2005, 02:25 PM

Hey JP, Babaloo thinks Walton might be you.:lol:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53062&page=2

I notice that J. P. Holding of Tekton apologetics web ministries has defended Frank Walton of AtheismSucks.com to the max, and Frank shows every sign of being heavily influenced by Holding. Frank has even repeated insulting words and phrases that Holding has used about me, verbatim. Frank seems to know everything Holding has said about me. Furthermore, Frank, just like Holding, doesn't show a photo or share his personal testimony of how he became a Christian. Frank also personally insults the same people Holding holds in lowest regard, almost like a mirror of Holding's site. Frank even defends Holding in detail, putting up detailed information about Holding's prison librarian career, and photos of the prisoners that may have been in the same prison where Holding worked. If I didn't know better, it would appear that Frank and Holding are either of incredibly one mind, or possibly one and the same person. I say this because of the above degree of "in synchness" between them. And also because "J. P. Holding" is itself an alias. And a man who makes up one alias might find enjoyment in making up more. Also, Frank says he's concerned about people finding out who he is, though Frank never claims to have worked at a prison, and instead says he's a college student. But both Frank and Holding appear equally concerned in maintaining their anonymity. Just some thoughts.

To which I repiled:

I'm not sure this is the best method. *A* method, sure, but I think a forceful and well-reasoned argument is enough. Patience is required.
Definitely NOT the voice of experience here... :wink:

This is defending Walton "to the Max"?

...

Why should Holding post photos of Himself and his personal testimony on his site?

...
As for posting photos at websites, I only asked if anyone had seen a photo of Holding and Frank together. I'd like to know if they are one or two people, or even whether they live near each other? The evidence is clear that Frank is a profound Holding wanna be, defering to him in terms of both having the same major targets they taunt, and in terms of plaigarizing Holding's put downs that Holding had used on me.

If one existed, He'd probably say it was photoshopped.:lol:

Sparko

May 26th 2005, 02:27 PM

Oh Man! I missed the pope is catholic comment in that thread completely (I am in the thread)

This guy seems to be completely relativistic. He argues we can't know anything, and yet somehow he 'knows' that. :lmbo:

But that pope comment is right up there with Jim Eisele's comment: "who's to say that there isn't an atheist God?"

Cynic Sage

May 26th 2005, 02:41 PM

Oh, and JP, could you remove my nomination of Arnold?

Thanks.:smile:

jpholding

May 26th 2005, 02:56 PM

Hey JP, Babaloo thinks Walton might be you.:lol:

Babaloo is one of the biggest fundy atheist idiots on the block (you know who he is).

I'll ignore the Arnold nom, sure. Can't remove it, unless mods can?

Cynic Sage

May 27th 2005, 02:47 PM

Welcome to IWayne's World.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=53802&page=8&pp=16

If you want the short answer, it is because I investigated the claims made by the witnesses in the bible and the historical accuracy of the bible and found it to be reliable. Being reliable in the parts that I could check out, I trust it in the other claims it makes, such as it is the written word of God as written down by inspired men.

If you want a detailed and long answer, I can't explain each and every reason and evidence in one post. sorry.

Have you ever read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel?

"I investigated the claims made by the witnesses in the bible..."

What claims? Name just one (in the interest of brevity).

:ahem:
This guy is still wet behing the ears and needs schoolin'.

Cynic Sage

May 27th 2005, 05:42 PM

More Wayne Holland-

-on women wearing makeup as slowing down human evolution.

http://www.wayneholland.org/women%20and%20makeup.htm

For some time now I've had this hangup about women wearing makeup. It's not a religious thing. Far from it. I just don't get it. I keep having flashbacks to scenes from Western movies, especially the part where the Indians are putting on their war paint; and then there are images of African natives all painted up, for some kind of confrontation, or maybe a mating ceremony, whatever. I can't remember the precise details. The point I guess is that I somehow associate body and face painting with something that I can only call "primitive." But then I pan to the 21st century and see lipstick advertising everywhere, and never see a starlet without her lips painted. So why is it a problem? Well, it's like this: on the one hand, it's easy to get the impression that we're trying very hard to keep advancing along the road of civilization, but, at the same time, we retain these face-painting habits that are virtually tribal. What's with it?

After reading Desmond Morris' famous (and wonderful) book, The Naked Ape, I think I might have an idea about what's going on. Apparently human primates engage in a lot of sexual signaling... Lips are heavily involved in reproductive posturing. It's natural to want to draw attention to them... Looking at it this way, we can easily understand why mothers don't allow their young (pre-pubescent) daughters to wear it, often telling them they're too young, which of course means they're too young to engage in reproductive copulation...

But, be that as it may, it still seems primitive. I can't help but wonder if women's insistence on using such primitive signaling devices will somehow hold us back, actually slow down our evolutionary progress by keeping us at a certain level of primitiveness? Will we (as a species) ever be able to move ahead, to truly evolve, as long as our females are painting their faces?

Wow, and I thought Ingersoll and Paine were bad.
Oh well, at least he'll raise his daughter right.:lol:

-on Ebony&Ivory:

http://www.wayneholland.org/black&white.htm

I've never quite understood why a racially mixed person is always referred to as "black." What's with that? Does it reflect a strong (and long-held) belief on the part of white people that they are tainted if they have the least bit of color in them? Is it a way of suggesting the possibility of "diluting" a bloodline?
...

Instead, blacks seem quite proud to hear that Halle Berry is the first "black" actress to win an Academy Award, and Vanessa Williams the first black woman to be crowned Miss America.

I feel this is insulting to both of these beautiful women. It's like we're telling them that they're not good enough to be called white because they have black blood in them.

-0n women and prostitution:

http://www.wayneholland.org/prostitution.htm

The only thing that is relevant is that this is supposed to be a free country. It should be a woman's right to sell her body if she chooses. Isn't this what the abortion rights activists are always going around spouting off about, that it's the woman's body and that she should therefore have the choice to do pretty much what she pleases with it? Why should prostituting it be an exception?
It should also be a man's right to purchase her services if he chooses.

I agree one-hundred percent with Bukowski on this issue. The main reason that women hate the prostitution business so much is because they feel threatened by it. It's all connected to the fact that women essentially control the mating game. If prostitution were made legal, the women who are not prostitutes would lose considerable leverage in the matrimonial marketplace.

-on dirty words:

http://www.wayneholland.org/offensivewords.htm

It got me to thinking about something that's been stirring in the back of my mind for years now. It's the fact that all "classes" of people are offended by specific words, with but one exception: the class of white males. For the life of me, I can't think of a single word that offends me as a white male. It's possible to offend me personally, but not as a member of that class. By contrast, I could meet a black person, one I've never met before, and horrendously insult them by calling them a nigger. But they couldn't do the same to me. There is nothing a black person (excuse me, an African American) could say to me that I would find insulting in the same way, and to the same extent, that they would find the word "nigger" insulting. In that sense, there is an inequality which still exists between us. I have a power they don't have. I have the power to insult them. But they don't have the power to insult me. (Remember, I'm not talking about me personally, but as a white male.) And of course I could have the same kind of experience with a woman. I could meet one (again, one I don't know), call her a whore and greatly offend her. And just as in the scenario with the black person, she could not reciprocate. There is nothing she could say to me that would offend me in the same way, and to the degree, that I offended her.
The fact that one class of people may be insulted by a word thrown at them by another, and be completely unable to reciprocate, is a tacit acceptance on the part of the offended class that a certain inequality persists between them. The class of white males is not offended by any words.

There is only one thing we may conclude from this: white males are clearly superior to all other classes, at least in terms of their ability to be unaffected by words, and will remain in that position of superiority until the other classes can think of words that are just as offensive to white males as are the words that they are offended by. Lest anyone object to this by asserting that other classes have no interest in creating such words, it's important to emphasize that such disinterest is not the issue. The point is that it's impossible to create them. Whether you want to or not is irrelevant. The class of white males is not offended by words, and cannot be so offended..

But there is yet hope.

The other classes could learn to not be offended by the words, which is something they should do if they want to be truly equal with the class of white males. If they want the real deal, bona fide equality with us, there is only one way they're going to have it. They absolutely positively must stop being offended by words, any words, but especially class words. Women must make it unequivocally clear to men that they don't give a solitary damn what they're called, or how they're spoken to. And they must mean it. Simply mouthing the words won't work.

African Americans must call for a repeal of the prohibition on using the so-called "N" word. They must make it absolutely clear that it's ok for anyone to use it, regardless of their color. In fact, they should probably invite white people (especially males) to call them niggers whenever they feel like it. Otherwise the word is going to continue lingering and festering in the deepest regions of their souls like some sort of bogeyman waiting to pounce on them some day.

-on the transmission of AIDS:

http://www.wayneholland.org/aids.htm

Do you believe in AIDS? I don't.

I believe that AIDS exists, to be sure, but I don't believe it exists for the reasons that everyone keeps telling us. That's what I mean when I say I don't believe in "AIDS."

AIDS, per se, is an immune deficiency syndrome, which of course is very possible. The "boy in the bubble" in the Seinfeld episode had an immune deficiency, most likely a congenital one. But if you're not born with one, you can still acquire it, and then it's called an Acquired Immune Deficiency.

And I believe in those too. What I don't believe, however, is what the media keeps spreading around about the way it's acquired. The mainstream thinking would have us believe there's a majorly bad dude out there called the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV. Based upon the reading I've done, no one has yet to actually isolate this virus. (And by the way, in case you're wondering about my sources, check out www.virusmyth.com (http://www.virusmyth.com/).)

As I said, I do believe that AIDS cases are out there, but in every circumstance I've read about, those who are suffering with it have virtually given themselves the disease. They haven't acquired it as the result of doing something as simple as having some casual contact with someone else who has it. AIDS is not a contagious disease. You can't catch it from someone else. The only person you can catch it from is yourself.

Drugs, recreational and medicinal, are the true culprits in acquired immune deficiencies. Addicts are at risk of getting AIDS not because they might happen to share a needle, but simply because they take the drugs, period. Drugs compromise the immune system, the kind you get in the street and the doctor's office, especially antibiotics. And AZT? Forget about it. It's downright poisonous. It's what killed Arthur Ashe and Kimberly Bergalis.

If you engage in unprotected (and indiscriminate) sex with multiple partners, you put yourself at risk of contracting one of the more ordinary sexually transmitted diseases; you know, gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes and so on. And when you do come down with them you go to a doctor and get an antibiotic, which weakens your immune system even further. And chances are, if you are indeed indulging in such indiscriminate sexual activities, you're very likely also not taking very good care of yourself in other ways. In addition to the recreational drugs you're no doubt into, you're probably also smoking, drinking, not eating properly or getting enough sleep or exercise. To anyone who's not behaving like this (most of us) it looks as if you had a death wish or something, like you're trying to kill yourself. And indeed you would be. Anyone who behaves like this doesn't need to go on some kind of witch hunt, looking for a cause outside of themselves, to account for the sickness that eventually comes calling.

Of course the pharmaceutical industry doesn't like to hear this kind of stuff. They need the witch hunt, and the external pathogen it (hopefully) discovers. How else could they come up with a good excuse for manufacturing an outrageously expensive drug, which is nothing more than a poison, and convince you that you need it to stay alive?

JP, I think Tweb has it's new Johnny Skeptic.:lol:

Sparko

May 27th 2005, 06:16 PM

you know, I was thinking the same thing, Johnny. iwayne seems an awful lot like Johnny Skeptic. same thinking skills. He thinks everything is unknowable, but he knows everything about everything, and he doesn't believe in time. TIME! :lolo:

eudyptes

May 27th 2005, 06:29 PM

AIDS, per se, is an immune deficiency syndrome, which of course is very possible. The "boy in the bubble" in the Seinfeld episode had an immune deficiency, most likely a congenital one. But if you're not born with one, you can still acquire it, and then it's called an Acquired Immune Deficiency.

Basing an arguement on a fictional character?

most likely a congenital one.

Try most likely a scripted one.

Is this guy for real?

Sparko

May 27th 2005, 06:37 PM

Is this guy for real?

Apparently so.

You should ask him if he believes in penguins.

Cynic Sage

May 29th 2005, 07:03 PM

Let's take another trip to WAYNE'S WORLD!

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=54277&page=1&pp=16

There is no such thing as being a Christian. There is only the claim to be one.

If Jesus were here to day, he would not support Christianity. He would revile it in much the same way he did the Pharisees.

Jesus was probably first the anti-Christ.

Jesus is the strongest argument against the Christ and Christianity.

Dear Troll Candidate,

Thank you for your troll. Your troll has been evaluated by our panel
of experts. Here are the results of our tests.

We found that your troll was . . .
[ ] Incomprehensible.
[ ] Offensive.
[ ] Just plain stupid.
[X] Without merit.
[ ] Grammatically incorrect.
[ ] Laced with speling and punctuation, errors/
[ ] Laden with circular reasoning.
[ ] Laced with misunderstandings of basic scientific principles.
[ ] Laced with misunderstandings of basic ethical principles.
[ ] Too obviously hateful and malicious.
[X] Somewhat too revealing of your trolling intention.
[X] Too similar to other trolls submitted by candidates in the past.

You could improve your troll considerably by . . .
[X] Including a few actual facts.
[ ] Taking remedial English lessons
[X] Mentioning that you are a professional.
[ ] Stating more falsehoods as facts than you already have.
[ ] Swearing more.
[X] Including more colorful personal insults.
[ ] Using the phrases "you people" or "those people" more.
[ ] Modifying your insults to cover larger groups of people at once.
[ ] Ranting incoherently.
[ ] Using religious or racial slurs.
[X] Using the words "junk", "crap", "garbage", "toy", "flimsy" and
"Professional" more frequently.
[ ] Using childish taunts.
[X] Including fake laughter such as "ha ha ha" or "har de har de har".
[ ] Focusing on just one outrageous topic will give your troll more
punch.
[ ] Ignoring any facts, and using more absolutes in your troll.
[X] Using all capital letters.

Please get a . . .
[X] Life.
[X] Grip.
[ ] Job.
[X] Clue.
[ ] Note from your mom.

You should . . .
[ ] Have someone who can read review your postings.
[ ] Save your postings for a while before deciding whether to send them.
[X] Take your meds.
[ ] Not have "one for the road" next time.
[ ] Stay in school.
[ ] Think about other people's feelings before you post.
[X] Get your ego boost some other way.
[ ] Not stoop so low as to post stuff like this.
[ ] Realise that by trolling a group you hurt everyone, not just the
people you are mad at.

Suggested other activities besides trolling . . .
[ ] Post something constructive.
[ ] Help someone else.
[ ] Work off that big pot belly.
[X] Get your ego boost instead by helping out at a local hospital.
[X] Consider another hobby that does not require contact with other
humans such as wood burning, breeding flowers, painting or mortuary
science.

Thanks for your submission.

You have . . .
[ ] Failed.
[ ] Passed.
[X] Passed with dishonors.
[ ] Passed with lowest dishonors.

I consider this response to be absolutely, even incredibly, irrelevant. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted. It is so irrelevant that I'm not even going to respond to it, except to say that I'm not responding.

His reply to MarkS sounds just like something you'd hear off of Mony Python.:lol: