Submit Your Candidates for July Screwballs of the Month

[jpholding]

July 1-31. No fireworks mongers please.

[Sparko]

I nominate Johnny Skeptic on general purposes. Pick any post of his.

[jpholding]

He's an automatic gold just by virtue of being here at all.

[Piebald]

"Flag Day" was HILLLLARRRRRIOOUUSSS!!!!!

And man, you really got that Smurf to look like N.T. Wright

[Cynic Sage]

Another nomination for NTS:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56476&page=6

Here's the scoop. NTS, some others, and I are having a discussion on whether or not toungues and Baptism are requirements for Salvation, so I post a link and a section from JP's essay (http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html), which argues to the contrary of NTS' position of Baptism being required for salvation as as opposed to Baptism being a manifestation of faith and loyalty to Christ. This is how he responded to the article.

Good post, Johnny EC...heavy stuff, very clear and firm, "baptism" will saved, part of the requirement.


He thought your essay was arguing FOR his postion.:lol:

[jpholding]

"Flag Day" was HILLLLARRRRRIOOUUSSS!!!!!

And man, you really got that Smurf to look like N.T. Wright

Brent will appreciate it. :smile: As for NTW, well, the thing is -- it's not a far trip from him to Papa Smurf to begin with.... :blush:



Johnny, let us know if NTS changes his mind when he finds out I'm arguing AGAINST his position. :lol:

[Cynic Sage]

Sure thing :thumb:

[Sparko]

Another nomination for NTS:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56476&page=6

Here's the scoop. NTS, some others, and I are having a discussion on whether or not toungues and Baptism are requirements for Salvation, so I post a link and a section from JP's essay (http://www.tektonics.org/af/baptismneed.html), which argues to the contrary of NTS' position of Baptism being required for salvation as as opposed to Baptism being a manifestation of faith and loyalty to Christ. This is how he responded to the article.



He thought your essay was arguing FOR his postion.:lol:


Yeah that was hilarious,

I also got a kick out of him arguing that speaking is tongues is a sign of being saved, but you have to be baptized in Jesus' name first. Then I told him about Acts 10 where Cornelius was speaking in tongues before being baptized so he says 'well exept in that case.'

:lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

Johnny Skeptic (but of course):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56041

Hey Guys,

Thought you might find this interesting:
...

http://atheismsucks.250free.com/finleyliesaboutmorals.htm (http://atheismsucks.250free.com/finleyliesaboutmorals.htm)

Tino Huggins takes a big bite out of Runaway Fibley's (or Reginald Finley's) argument! The subject is absolute morals.

Enjoy,

Frank Walton

What gives God the right to define what is moral?

He just pops out of nowhere and blurts it out.:hehe:

[Cynic Sage]

Johnny, let us know if NTS changes his mind when he finds out I'm arguing AGAINST his position. :lol:

NTS re-read your essay, and he responds by quoting verses from the KJV.

OK, I just kind of scanned the articles.Here is my answer ...

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

[Cynic Sage]

Swami Lazy Agnostic:geebob: reads minds:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1095978#post1095978

I believe that a Ten commandments monument should be displayed in courthouses, along with a pillar representing Hammurabi's code, they both represent how societies need Order and Law to function and thrive.

No you don't. You think the TC are a display of piety which will make you brownie points with God. You're not afraid of Hammurabi.

I'm not afraid of Hammurabi! However did he know?:stunned:

[Darth Executor]

Johnny Skeptic wrote: Even if I personally saw Jesus die, get buried in J of A's tomb and rise from the dead, I would not be a Christian.

Mad Gerbil replied: This isn't suprising -- in fact, your response has a great deal of precedent. There were many people who witnessed miracles and refused to believe. It takes a brave skeptic to admit that despite empirical evidence, they still wouldn't believe.

Johnny: What miracles? Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. People living back then most certainly would not have had a better chance of discerning what constitutes a miracle healing. Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, if anything happened at all, and there aren't any good reasons at all to assume that something did happen, a tunnel might have been dug in order to transport the food up into a tent.
The simple truth is that when the claim of the feeding of the 5,000 first came out in print possibly four decades after the fact, which was a generation in those days, it might actually have largely discredited Christianity, which would in part account for Rodney Stark's estimate of only 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D.


:rofl:

[Darth Executor]

Oh and source

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56681

[BronzeArcher]

A tunnel. Niiiiice.

[Cynic Sage]

Johnny Skeptic and numbers:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56417&page=2

Message to James Holding: What indicates to you that the Tyre prophecy was inspired?

How many times do I have to shout, "I DON'T CARE."

The fact that you have 304 articles on the Tyre prophecy at your web site proves that you do care, and quite a lot.

How can somebody not stoned post the way Johnny Skeptic does, how, I ask you, how?

[Cynic Sage]

DivineOB declares war on Christianity:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56663&page=1

:ahem:
'Nuff said.

[Cynic Sage]

Dobbie fufuills his "higher than truth" calling:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56664&page=1&pp=16

During my usual rounds of outrage sites, I stumbled across this horrifying little gem:


VICTORVILLE — For using the "G" word 41 times in a term paper, Bethany Hauf was given an "F" by her Victor Valley Community College instructor.

Hauf's teacher approved her term paper topic — Religion and its Place within the Government — on one condition: Don't use the word God. Instead of complying with VVCC adjunct instructor Michael Shefchik's condition Hauf wrote a 10-page report for her English 101 class entitled "In God We Trust."


Read the rest here (http://www.vvdailypress.com/2005/111996392756993.html).

I am moved to wonder just what this teacher was thinking. I have a natural bias, of course, towards seeing God appear in most everything, but, even apart from that this steams my clams.

What do you think?

Good riddance. I support the right of [cHRIST] worshippers to gather in only one place...


Under my boot


Really though, lacking any context (since you chose not to provide a link), how should anyone comment, except to point out the utter dishonesty of your OP without providing context?

Look at the bottom of Furor's post, not only is the link there, but his post was never edited, proving the link was there from the beginning.

Oh yeah, JP, he eventually gets around to ranting about you.


You're kidding right?

There is clearly a link in the post. Here's a hint for you: look out for such visual clues as a sentence reading, "read the rest here," with the word "here" linked, via the magic of HTML, to the article in question.

It's pretty basic stuff.

And they say Christians are ignorant. :ahem:

Oh really... then perhaps we should point this to JFolding who himself missed such trivial visual cues in his condemnation of Farrell "The Christ Preincarnated" Till.


"The Christ Preincarnated"? :hrm:

And they say You have sycophants. :rofl:

[Piebald]

Meeeh.. DivineOb is "getting" kind of absurd. I think he is looking for negative attention. It's better when the screwballs are sincere :smile:

[Cynic Sage]

Pythagoras:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56214&page=4


You're wrong. The Jews would not have stoned a madman claiming to be God, nor would they have even bothered to conduct a conversation with a madman. There was something in Jesus's claim which irritated them enough to take him seriously.If Jesus had claimed to be God, they would have left him, the lunatic, alone and pitied him, not attempted a stoning.

They state: "[Y]ou .. claim to be God" John 10:33 (NIV), how much clearer can it be.
And if you don't like the translation, here are a few more:
you, though only a human being, are making yourself God. (NRSV)
thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (KJV)
You are only a man, but you are trying to make yourself God (GNB)
You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God (NASB)
you, a mere man, have made yourself God. (NLT)
You, a mere [a]Man, make Yourself [out to be] God. (Amplified bible)
because you, being a man, make yourself God. (ESV)
here you are claiming to be God! (CEV)
Do I need to go on.


John 10:33 does not say the Jews accused Jesus of being God /Yahweh( that's your false interpretation , you incorrectly reading the minds of the Jews) , only god.


Well of course the Jews didn't accuse Jesus of being God, but accused him of claiming to be God.

As opposed to Phythagoras correctly reading the minds of the Jews.

Hey JP, remember when he used the ol' "the Bible-translators use this word so it's the right one" Canard back when you tangled with him a few months ago in Unorthodox Theology, well it just got reversed on him. :grin: :lol:

[Piebald]

Pythagoras on the other hand, is a first class nutter :smile:

[{Tim}]

Pythagoras:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56214&page=4

[/font]

Well of course the Jews didn't accuse Jesus of being God, but accused him of claiming to be God.

As opposed to Phythagoras correctly reading the minds of the Jews.

Hey JP, remember when he used the ol' "the Bible-translators use this word so it's the right one" Canard back when you tangled with him a few months ago in Unorthodox Theology, well it just got reversed on him. :grin: :lol:
Oh, bu... I mean, dang. :wink: I was going to post that one.

Can I nominate him again? Same thread (some context first):
You don't know what the Jews accused Jesus of in John 10:33. You don't have a position to defend. Go back to the drawing board and return when you have one.
As was pointed out by {Tim} that's not what I said. The Jews accused Jesus of claiming to be God. That is the case. Exactly how that claim worked in their heads I don't know, and I don't think they knew either. The point was they made the accusation, whether or not they understood how it might work is irrelevant.
Exactly how that claim worked in their heads I don't know, and I don't think they knew either.
You cannot make a claim without telling us exactly what they meant.
Huh? I mean, just :huh: ...?

You're wrong. The Jews would not have stoned a madman claiming to be God, nor would they have even bothered to conduct a conversation with a madman. There was something in Jesus's claim which irritated them enough to take him seriously.If Jesus had claimed to be God, they would have left him, the lunatic, alone and pitied him, not attempted a stoning.:ahem: Wow, he sure has a grasp of ANE history...

The Jews of Jesus's time could not fathom God come to Earth in the form of a mortal man. It is akin to accusing Jesus of being a mashed potato.
Unless the Jews believed in the possibility that God could be born as a mortal man, such an accusation is nonsensical. One cannot rationally accuse somebody of something one cannot rationally conceieve.:shrug:

As I said in that thread, So, if you cannot rationally conceive of the Trinity, you cannot accuse us of believing it? :lmbo: Cool, you can just stop posting now... :whistle:
:teeth:

[BronzeArcher]

I'm really at a loss of what to make of this, maybe it's the caps that I'm not skilled enough to read or something. Source here (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16681188&postcount=9).

LET ME FIRST ASK WOULD THERE BE A BIBLE WITH OUT ACTS -JUDE AND WITH THE FINAL CHAPTER REVELATION ? WOULD THERE BE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION FOR US HERE 2000 YEARS LATER TO HAVE FOR OUR SALVATION.? WOULD THERE EVEN BE CHRISTIANITY.?

DO THE JEWS HAVE A COMPLETE EDITION OF THE BIBLE ELIMINATING THE NT. NO
WHY B/C THEY NEVER EXCEPTED THE 1ST MESSIAH, HOW WILL THE ACCEPT THE 2CD?

MY THREAD IN NO WAY IS INTENDED TO MINIMZE WHAT PAUL DID OR WROTE, FOR HE WAS HAND PICKED BY GOD TO BE THEIR SPOKESMAN.
SO WHAT DID ACTS - JUDE, PROVIDE?

IT WAS SET UP TO SHOW HOW THE BROTHERHOOD SHOULD LIVE AND CO-OPERATE IN LOVING RELATIONSHIPS , DEMONSTRATING, KINDNESS COMPASSION CARING AND SHARING , DIGNITY AND SELF DISCIPLINE, HUMILTY AND JOYOUS LIVING WITH LAUGHTER ANS CONTENTMENT WITH WHATEVER GOD PROVIDED EACH AND EVERY INDIVIDUL SEPERATELY. IT IS NO DOUBT VERY VALUABLE TO THE BIBLE.

OK, SO WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE THREAD?

MUCH OF WHAT IS BROUGHT FORTH IN THE CHURCH TODAY CREATES CONTROVERSY?

WHY, WHAT DO YOU MEAN? JUST LOOK AT ALL THE DENOMINATIONS.
VARIETY AIN'T THE SPICE OF LIFE WHEN IT COMES TO GOD'S WORD.

THE NATURE BUY WHICH PAULS LETTERS ARE PUT FORTH AND THE VARIETY OF TAMPERING THAT HAS GONE ON, GRAMMATICALLY REGARDING THE SENTENCE STRUCTURE AND WORDS. THIS ALONE HAS BROUGHT THE VERYING OPINIONS OF WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT, CHRISTIANITY DESPITE NICENE CREEDS.

THEREFORE, I SAY, LEST WE CAN AGREE, THEN WE CAN NEVER HAVE HARMONY, CO-OPERATION, BALANCE, PATIENCE, TRUST, AND FINALLY A SINGLE ACCEPTALBE TRUTH.

SO, WHO IS IT, OR WHAT IS IT? THAT CAUSES THESE DIFFICULTIES AND DIVERSE OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS SAID AND WAS INTENDED?.

______THEDEVIL______THAT'S WHO!


AND WHO SAID THAT THE DEVIL WILL ENTER TO CONFUSE EVERYTHING ? JESUS

PAUL DID AS WELL, BUT YOU CAN'T HOLD EITHER ONE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE MESS THAT CHRISTIANITY IS IN TODAY.

MESS, THERE 'S NO MESS !

"WHO SAID'"?

THE GOVERNMENT LEADERS ARE HAPPY TO PROMOTE FAITH BASED RELIGION UPHOLDING THE FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOM OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP!


WHERE DID GOD SAY ANY OF THAT WAS CORRECT?

NOWHERE.

WHO, IN THE BIBLE PROMOTES RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS

THE DEVIL _______EVIL ________UNRIGHTEOUS, UNRULY KINGS , PRESIDENTS


THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF STATUTES SPOKEN OF IN SCRIPTURE, AND THEY ARE:


GOD STATUTES ______________ AND _______ CON-MAN-STATUTES

HAVING DROPPED THAT ARE YOUR LAP, I HOPE WE CAN STILL AGREE TO CARRY ON !

PEACE AND LET'S MAKE GOOD ON GOD'S WORD AND SERVE THE COMMUNITY IN UNITY

Jews never expected a messiah? And what are 'god-statues' and 'con-man-statues'?

---

Another one (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16680369&postcount=1):

Assuming that God is indeed allmighty and just, and wants as many of his Children to follow him as possible etc.

And also assuming that the Bible is indeed 100% true, word for word inspired by God himself. (if you're going to use bible verses as proof of anything, the Bible better be fully inspired by God, and not just some puny human's impression of anything)

Why didn't God make the Bible any simpler? He (being the allknowing creature he is), would've known that the inhumanly complicated language would devide his followers, and would even turn some of his children away from christianity all together.

The first response is odd too:

Why should the bible be simple? It's the word of God which is omniscient and we are not.

Because the Bible is created for us to understand it, and thus come to belief in God, and thus be allowed to join him in heaven. The unnecesary complexity of the book stands in the way of that goal.

The Bible is unnecessarily complex. On a side note, it sounds like this atheist is also a Molinist.

Another guy says (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16667181&postcount=4)

Since when did scholastic honesty become important to a theist?

Ouch.

[Cynic Sage]

Oh, bu... I mean, dang. :wink: I was going to post that one.

Can I nominate him again?

w2g Tim. Here's some more gems from him today.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56214&page=5


And, uh, your authority for this claim is? "Because I said so"? "Because I wouldn't have"?

Because normal people do not stone madmen, especially if that particular madman claims to be God(Yahweh), because such a one is truly out to lunch.

Captain...Temporal...Provincialist...


But seriously, they weren't accusing him of being God. Of course they didn't believe that; if they had, they would have become his followers. What they accused him of was claiming to be (or be equal with) God.

John 10:33 doesw not say the Jews accused Jesus of making himself god(Yahweh).

The Jews also accused him of being Demon possessed, of being a glutton, of being a Galilean etc. etc.. Being that all their other accusations proved to be totally false, why would this particular accusation hold true? Don't you see, this only works against you!


Uh, I'm pretty sure he was Gallilean.:wink:

[Cynic Sage]

Johnny Skeptic, need I say more:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56681

Even if I personally saw Jesus die, get buried in J of A's tomb and rise from the dead, I would not be a Christian. Logically, it is impossible to worship a God who has not explained his motives and actions in great detail. No one would vote for a presidential candidate to "rule" over them unless the candidate first answered a lot of questions about his motives and past actions.


If there is a bad anology screwball award, Johnny Skep should get it.:lol:

[Cynic Sage]

I'm having some supiscons about this Michael W. Cadry character. JP, you might want to check this guy out.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=47631&page=1

I was advised by Thedon and Trout to come here instead of the Shoutbox. I am new here and don't know how this website works. But I have an awful lot to share with those who deserve to know. You all must deserve to know because of your piqued interest in Theology, so I will do my best.

Firstly, the Lord God visited me. I cannot share that with you just yet. It would be more than you could bear. But it almost took my life. Then 10 days later, the first angel visited me and his brightness was not like the sun but more of like brighter than the stars, including even Venus. And the angel said, "Fear God, and give Him glory, for the hour (time) of His judgement is come upon all of the earth, and worship Him Who made the earth and the heavens, and all that is therein." And I could not take my eyes or myself from watching the angel, because I'd never seen one before and thought I would never see one again. Then I heard a voice speak into my thoughts to hurry and call my present girlfriend at that time to ask her to come over, so I could tell her and my family and friends that the angel had visited me and what he had said. And I asked my Mom if I could have everyone over that night, but didn't tell her why. The my best friend's family came over, my girlfriend came over before them, and finally my best friend came over at 3am after he got off of work. Then I told them about the Lord visiting me and the angel visiting me 10 days later. We were all in high spirits and stayed up all night talking about it. I had fasted that day to give some kind of gift to God for visiting me earlier. I didn't know what gift to give Him because I would have to burn an offering or something, but then it came to me that others had fasted before to give Him a gift, so I did that. I learned that when I went to church when I was younger.

The second angel visited me exactly one week later and spoke loudly, "Babylon is fallen" and told me about this woman who was an actress named Betty Hutton. And the Lord told me that He had given and taken away her husbands and riches, and that she would turn to Him and called His name Ishri (husband). And the Lord told me that this was written in the book of Hosea chapter 2, that He would do this before the time of the end.

I'm sorry I'm being so brief here, but I don't know how much I can write in this forum here and also, it is easier for the reader. The third angel visited me exactly another week later and said "Do not follow after the beast and his image, nor receive his mark/power in your right hand or forehead." And the angel explained to me about this Israeli psychic named Uri Geller, and that he was doing simple miracles by using his right hand to rub on and bend silverware and using his mind to concentrate on moving watch hands and compasses, etc. And this man said in his book that he asked his teacher when he was younger if Jesus could do these miracles and move the hands of watches? And the angel explained to me that he was the antichrist and that God was allowing Satan to have someone come in the devil's name doing miracles, like God had allowed Jesus to come and do miracles. It is hard to explain, but I digress again. And the angel explained to me that the Lord said in the Bible do not believe in fortune tellers, psychics, astrologers, witches and wizards, and do not suffer a witch to live, in the Bible. And that this psychic was urging others to be able to acquire his powers by concentrating and believing that they could have them. And the angel said that God would not allow more than 666 other persons to acquire these powers in their right hand or forehead/mind, and that this was the number of this man, like the number of a captain and his army, or a leader and his followers. There is much more I know about this man, but will not include it here.

So much has happened to me that it makes the whole story sound quite credible. But I am growing tired of typing for now. Next time I come on, I will tell you of other things. Also of how the God created man and called his name Adam, and how the "Lord" God 'formed' man and called his name Adam. These were different times and the Lord God created Adam and Eve once, and 'formed' them again from the dust of the earth a number of times. That is why it says in the Bible, "And He called "THEIR" name Adam in the day "THEY" were created." God destroyed races of people in the past because of their wrongdoings. Our Bible is the book of the 'generations' of Adam. This is why we find man's and woman's bones that date back to thousands, perhaps millions, of years before our own Adam and Eve. Our Bible is about mainly our own Adam and Eve 'formed' roughly 5,000 some years ago. "And the field 'before' it was in the earth, and the field before it grew." Don't you know that that means the field before it was never destroyed and that the Lord did not recreate the fields, like when God FIRST created the plant life? Also, in Genesis chapter one it says that the birds came from the waters, and that in the second chapter of Genesis it says that the birds were formed from the dust of the ground?? Read carefully those two chapters. Chapter One refers to the original creation of all, but chapter two refers to the 're-forming' again of the beasts and Adam and Eve. In the first chapter of Genesis, it says the beasts and creatures of the earth were created BEFORE man. In the second chapter of Genesis, it says that the beasts and creatures were "formed" after man, and the Lord God formed them and brought them to the man (Adam) to see what he would call them, seeing the man was lonely.

There is SO much I could tell you all, but I have to get going for now. This is the beginning of the mystery of God being fulfilled. This is the beginning of secrets coming out. The whole world will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord soon. I haven't told you 'heavier' secrets yet because you are not yet able to bear them. LATER. There are things that I don't even include in my book. Just remember we will all see His GREAT WHITE THRONE in the end.
For now, that is all I will share. Thanks for listening.

God's Best to You and In Jesus' Name,
Michael W. Cadry
mcadry1@cox.net (mcadry1@cox.net)

There's alot more, but I can't ost it all here, check it out. :hehe:

[Tux314]

ENIGMA on debatex called you (J.P. Holding) a "paranoid little apologist" when I mentioned "The Impossible Faith". For some reason, none of your arguments were addressed... :wink:

See http://www.debatex.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=29471#29471

[jpholding]

I'm having some supiscons about this Michael W. Cadry character. JP, you might want to check this guy out.



It's Wayne Harrington in a dress. :wink:

[jpholding]

NTS re-read your essay, and he responds by quoting verses from the KJV.

And ones I already dealt with at that. :ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

Jimbo, who must have injured his mouse-finger somehow, cause he just can't click on the links to earlier posts in a thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1098458#post1098458

Mr. "Holding,"

We're seeing that Gargamel is up to his usual spin games, yep. The answer has been given numerous times and he's still got nothing new.

Anyone want a recipe for beef stroganoff?

If your "answer has been given numerous times" then surely it would be no problem for you to simply cut and paste it here so that there would be no question whatsoever that you did in fact provide it. However, I predict that you will continue to claim that have answered this question "numerous times" but that your will not actually demonstrate that you have answered it even once by cutting and pasting it here.

Cheers,

Jimbo

Jeers,
Johnny EC.:grin:

[Cynic Sage]

Michael Cadry, due to mis-interpreting scripture, has wasted his life:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=47631&page=19&pp=16

Context: Mikey is responding to a lengthy reply on the Preterist interpretation of the Ten Virgins (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1086765&postcount=294) by Hidden Manna.

Dear Hidden Manna,

Wow! You are a piece of work. You are so mentally confused by the devil and demons that it seems nothing could ever help you except a great intervention by God or our Lord Jesus Christ. You really should listen to yourself and see what you are asking others to believe of yourself.

When have we got that 'hail the weight of a talent??' When has Babylon been annihalated? When has it been so far that a the lion can lie down with the lamb??? When is it that a man can lie under a tree and fear no man or evil coming upon him, because the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord???

I'll tell you right now. I am a virgin with women and am 50 years old this October. This is because it is written, there are 144,000 redeemed from the earth. These are the firstfruits who follow the Lamb withersoever He goeth...These are they who are not defiled by women, for they are virgins...'
See Revelation 14:4.

Do you have any idea how hard it has been to remain a virgin at 50 years old?? Do you have any idea of the magnitude of which I love and follow my Lord Jesus??? You don't know diddley-squat, unless you've done it yourself.

I cannot talk anymore. It is like talking to a brick wall.

God Suffer You,

MichaelCadry
:blush:

Wouldn't it suck to live try to live your entire life in obedience to a hyper-literalist interpretation of scripture, only for a guy to come along and say "Dude, the language is symbolic".

You can just tell how upset he is.:lol:

It could be worse, he could have come across the "made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven" passage and exegeted it the same way. :blush:

[Cynic Sage]

More from Jesus-is-Savior.com, this time they take on the EVIL PAGAN XTIAN RAP MUSIC OF TOBYMAC:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/tobymac_exposed.htm

Should it be surprising that TobyMac is a featured entertainer at Christianpunks.com? Don't tell me that the end of the world is not near! When Christian young people are actually following creeps like this in Jesus' name, something is VERY WRONG! America is headed for total apostasy. We are surely living in the last days and the Lords return is imminent. Here's the lyrics to another one of TobyMac's worldly songs...Triple Skinny:
(Anyways I told the guy, 'Nice coat!
Who shot the cow?!')(laughter)
(Hey how ya doin today?)

I'm doin okay.

(Eh, that's dandy. Hey, what can I get for ya?)

I would like a triple skinny, two-thirds
decaf, half chocolate, no whip-

(Hey-uh, hold up here,
lemme break out the pen here,
we got kinda a tall order goin on)

I would like a triple skinny,
two-thirds decaf,
half chocolate no whip Grande Mocha.

Oh yeah, extra foam.
To go-o-o.

It's sickening to everything that is called holy or decent. No Christian should ever listen to such devilish music as that of TobyMac or DC Talk. These are not Christian young men, they are worldly impostors desecrating decency, the Bible and the Lord Jesus Christ (and they're getting filthy rich doing it)...

The Hillarious thing is that my sis has that CD, and that track consists of TobyMac simply going into a Starbucks and ordering a coffee, (with his voice "morphed" with computer software for humor purposes).

Does this guy think "Triple Skinny" is supposed to be overtly sexual or something?

Maybe Starbucks in in on this grand Satanic conspiracy.:lol:

[Cynic Sage]

David O, on Glenn Miller's articles and women's role in the early church:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1099047&posted=1#post1099047

Context: In a thread titled "Women should remain silent in the church", I posted a link to Glenn Miller's article dealing with the role of women in the early church. (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem08.html)

Glen Miller seeks to disobey the specific and plain commandments of the Bible, and to teach you to do the same.

"Women were obviously allowed to prophesy in church"

Women are commanded to be silent in church and to learn in all submission.

"Women were obviously allowed to pray audibly in church"

Women were commanded to stay silent in church, they may prophesy and pray audibly outside of church.

" "Prophet" was an official position and was "2nd in rank" in the church, behind apostles and before teachers (I cor 12.28-29)"

Women are commanded not to even teach in 1 Timothy 2:12.

"The issue in the passage is some obscure point about head-coverings--NOT about women speaking in the church--and about people being contentious about it (v.16)."

Read 1 Corinthians 14 carefully. It is not obscure, Paul claims that those who would not acknowledge it as being from the Lord should be allowed to remain ignorant. You are free to remain ignorant. Women's heads should be covered when they pray. Long hair was given to them for a covering. Ever notice how bossy short-haired women are. Watch for it. The shorter the hair, the bossier the woman.

"We have already noted above that v.10 says a women should have (exercise?) authority over her own head. ["Paul means that she should exercise wisely her right to decide whether to cover her head in a way that will honor her husband..." BBC:in loc.]"

[10 For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.] (KJV says 'power' on her head.)

This is a shameful reversal of the clear meaning of scripture. God is the head of Jesus, Jesus is the head of the church, the man is the head of the woman. The sign of authority goes on the one who is under authority. The power of the Holy Spirit was on the heads of the apostles in the form of a flame. This stuff is not unclear. You are just afraid to obey it. Jesus is not the head of God. The church is not the head of Jesus. The woman is not the head of the man.

:ahem: Notice how Glenn Miller nowhere states that Jesus is the head of God, The church is the head of Jesus, and that woman is the head of man.:teeth:

[Darth Executor]

A jewish replica of Cu? You decide!



after veiwing this thread I was reminded that christians often ponder murdering other people who do not agree with thier religious veiws ,after all they have been taught by jesues to murder those who do not accept jesues as their king and master ; Luke19:27: "As for those enemies of mine ,bring them here and kill them in front of me" The previous verse is the perfect example of a S&S subliminal message (saturate and suggest)the earlier parable overwelms the reader into false reasoning about meaning of information provided . Practicioners of the dark art of subliminal advertiseing all agree the text ofthe new testament was written by a genius in the genre.Christians historicaly have murdered more people in the name of their g-d than any other religion. A startleing statistic few christians are willing to face is that 1 out of every 2 jews over the past 8 centurys has been murdered by them . When we jews see the macabre symbol of christianity ,we veiw it exactly as it is -the symbol of death :the new religion of the necromancers (those who worship death)


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56742&page=1&pp=16

[Cynic Sage]

5thRebbiNpardes, the very first Fundy-Jew I've met on Tweb.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56742&page=2&pp=16

after veiwing this thread I was reminded that christians often ponder murdering other people who do not agree with thier religious veiws ,after all they have been taught by jesues to murder those who do not accept jesues as their king and master ; Luke19:27: "As for those enemies of mine ,bring them here and kill them in front of me" The previous verse is the perfect example of a S&S subliminal message (saturate and suggest)the earlier parable overwelms the reader into false reasoning about meaning of information provided . Practicioners of the dark art of subliminal advertiseing all agree the text ofthe new testament was written by a genius in the genre.Christians historicaly have murdered more people in the name of their g-d than any other religion. A startleing statistic few christians are willing to face is that 1 out of every 2 jews over the past 8 centurys has been murdered by them . When we jews see the macabre symbol of christianity ,we veiw it exactly as it is -the symbol of death :the new religion of the necromancers (those who worship death)

Come on now. The Christians have plenty of errors that we can critique, but to say that Christians think about murdering everyone that disagrees with them is just slander.

What part of christian history dont you understand ?pograms ? blood libels ? life sureity blackmail ? how many crusades ? a thousand years of inquisitions ? and if the xians were not too busy killing jews they were killing off the entirety of Incan civilization -all of the north american indian tribes(a few survivers) untold amounts of africans(they used as slaves) polyneisians and finaly each other (centurys of witch trials ) Christians continuosly are involved in countless deaths of those who disagree with them "et al" {{postscript}}~ i may have missed a billion or so murdered souls but this is just a general overveiw ~

"a thousand years of inquisitions"? And what makes him think only xtians kept slaves in those years?

Rebbi then repeat posts his earlier one, just in case we forgot what it said and were to dumb to click the link to the previous page.

after veiwing this thread I was reminded that christians often ponder murdering other people who do not agree with thier religious veiws ,after all they have been taught by jesues to murder those who do not accept jesues as their king and master ; Luke19:27: "As for those enemies of mine ,bring them here and kill them in front of me" The previous verse is the perfect example of a S&S subliminal message (saturate and suggest)the earlier parable overwelms the reader into false reasoning about meaning of information provided . Practicioners of the dark art of subliminal advertiseing all agree the text ofthe new testament was written by a genius in the genre.Christians historicaly have murdered more people in the name of their g-d than any other religion. A startleing statistic few christians are willing to face is that 1 out of every 2 jews over the past 8 centurys has been murdered by them . When we jews see the macabre symbol of christianity ,we veiw it exactly as it is -the symbol of death :the new religion of the necromancers (those who worship death)

:ahem:
I think my highlighter exploded again.

[Darth Executor]

Umm dude you just stole my nomination. Literally...

[Cynic Sage]

Umm dude you just stole my nomination. Literally...

How the crap did that happen?

Nevertheless, I second Darth's Nomination.

[{Tim}]

:ahem: I liked they Toby Mac one... ordering a triple skinny Grand Mocha is sickening to everything that is holy or decent... :rofl:

[Cynic Sage]

:ahem: I liked they Toby Mac one... ordering a triple skinny Grand Mocha is sickening to everything that is holy or decent... :rofl:

Can I use that as my siggy?

[jpholding]

Wayne Adkins http://www.tektonics.org/af/adkins01.html earns gold for his "responses" to me.

To the detailed account of Miller on the "staff/no staff" charge of contradiciton in the Gospels:

Again, Holding asserts the Bible doesn’t mean what it says or say what it means;

Yeah I guess I could see that considering the fact that words like contradiction, error, and scholarly integrity don’t mean the same thing for Holding and I.

His "answer" on how a copyist error occurred in a text:

Those dam*ed copyist are at it again.

That's it.

Pure gold with hayseed on top.

Sorry JP, even partially asterisked curse words are not allowed

[HyperHobbes]

"HyperHobbes, an ultra-Calvinist, wins the “Data the Android” Award for his sociology":'They (non-believers) are spiritually dead and never were alive, incapable of response. We mistake them understandably for being like us, but they are not. Cunning Replicas. Children of their father the devil.'Sociology is defined as "The study of human social behavior, especially the study of the origins, organization, institutions, and development of human society" so in that sense, I will address my award. But first I would like to thank all you wonderful people.....

In that my statement goes directly to origins, is the Sage Dr. Holding saying that we do not originate as dead children of the Devil? We may differ on how much input we have in how we become alive to Christ but I am getting this award I think for my study of origins and how they influence outcomes. In the end I think that those consigned to hell are mere replicas of the true state that God desires from his elect and the true form that they really become. We are in new life, as God intends humans to be, by original design.

So, JP, are the rumors true that you drove a Calvinist pastor from your church and like an Egyptian Pharoah, had all evidence of his Calvinistic tendancies stripped from the entryway of your Church? Could the resulting guilt for this act drive you to scourge all of the Calvinistic Ilk with your, um, wit?

HHobbes

[Cynic Sage]

So, JP, are the rumors true that you drove a Calvinist pastor from your church and like an Egyptian Pharoah, had all evidence of his Calvinistic tendancies stripped from the entryway of your Church? Could the resulting guilt for this act drive you to scourge all of the Calvinistic Ilk with your, um, wit?

HHobbes

"Evidence of his Calvinistic tendancies stripped from the entryway" of a church? Why couldn't the pastor use a filing cabinet like everyone else?

[HyperHobbes]

" 'Evidence of his Calvinistic tendancies stripped from the entryway' of a church? Why couldn't the pastor use a filing cabinet like everyone else?"Oh, so is it true then? Here's how I would classify the problem. I would oddly agree that there is no reason to post the Ten Commandments in a court room or in a Government building, but they are the truth and the act of removing them has consequences.

If the "5 Solas" are expressions of Biblical Truth. If they were removed and the pastor broomed for teaching such truths it does represent rebellion on the part of the church involved. So if these rumors are true, I'd like to nominate Short Round (JP) for "Screwball of the Year".

HHobbes

[jpholding]

In that my statement goes directly to origins, is the Sage Dr. Holding saying that we do not originate as dead children of the Devil?

Yep, because 1) as a preterist, I think Satan is bound anyway; 2) we're bad enough as is without the guy in the red tights and pitchfork making a move.

So, JP, are the rumors true that you drove a Calvinist pastor from your church and like an Egyptian Pharoah, had all evidence of his Calvinistic tendancies stripped from the entryway of your Church?

No, that's likely just stupid guff from a paranoid moron who got his pants tanned by me some time ago. I didn't even know there was such a controversy afoot until after the fact; I had a close relative with cancer that year, and the pastor announced his resignation the very day that relative died, and we missed it and didn't even know it had anything to do with Calvinism. As for the accoutrements being stripped, sorry, but the main accoutrement, five stones with one each of the solas on them, is still out front of the Sunday School building, just not at the entryway, because the current pastor wanted a new lighted sign with changeable messages instead.

Better get your news from more reliable sources, Hyper. :thumb: And learn to spell "tendencies".

Oh, and you just won another award, silver.

[Cynic Sage]

Oh, by "evidences", I presumed that they were articles the minister had written, not a monument.

My Bad. :blush:

[HyperHobbes]

"Yep, because 1) as a preterist, I think Satan is bound anyway."So, you are heretic of the year?"No, that's likely just stupid guff from a paranoid moron who got his pants tanned by me some time ago."So, you are short?"Better get your news from more reliable sources, Hyper. :thumb: And learn to spell 'tendencies'. Oh, and you just won another award, silver."Actually, it sounds like they were pretty dang accurate, I'm just waiting for confirmation of the "short" part. Let me measure you.

Spell check says you may have creatively spelled "accoutrements" and at least that there is a prefered spelling. I still get a giant kick out of blowing the spelling of "duh", since it is a much smaller word. What is this all about JP? You just can't be wrong? Must all your opponents be "paranoid morons"? After a while Dr. Holding, people who see all their opponents as "paranoid" are more speaking about themselves than they are about others. I can't for the life of me understand why you feel compelled to label people "morons". What if they are? Broken clocks are right twice a day they say, so even what a moron says must be dealt with on the merits.

HHobbes

[Darth Executor]

So, you are heretic of the year?

A Calvinist calling somebody a heretic. How strangely amusing.

[HyperHobbes]

I should at this point tell people why I'm posting in this thread. I feel the need, the need to say that I find it just plain evil. It's mean. It's low. I don't get it. The overall tone of the Bible does not drift towards the "Oh yeah"? I wouldn't have posted in it except for Johnny EC's invite by nominating me. There's a personal investment in this thread now, so, here I am. Heap a brother in Christ with abuse JP. God loves it."A Calvinist calling somebody a heretic. How strangely amusing."My statement was posed rhetoricly, it seems to me there is someone in this forum who gets all in a dither about Preterism. I am not strictly speaking, a Calvinist, that's why I call myself "HyperHobbes". I am comparing myself to a Calvinist and I find little to quibble with them. I use "Hobbes" instead of Calvin because Bill Waterson said he named his charactor "Calvin" because of John Calvin.

HHobbes

[FormerFundy]

What is this all about JP? You just can't be wrong? Must all your opponents be "paranoid morons"? After a while Dr. Holding, people who see all their opponents as "paranoid" are more speaking about themselves than they are about others. I can't for the life of me understand why you feel compelled to label people "morons".
HHobbes

Hyper, welcome to the world of Jimmy Pat Holding. He believe in inerrancy but not the inerrancy of the Scriptures rather his own inerrancy. He has to my knowledge never admitted one time that he was wrong about anything. This is a great sign of insecurity. I have caught him in numerous mistakes and what his answer? To call me names (just like an immature school child).

[wfaber]

Russian astrologer Marina Bai is suing NASA for crashing projectile into Comet Tempel 1, seeking three million dollars in damages. She said it "ruins the natural balance of forces in the universe." She is claiming moral suffering because the impact will deform her horoscope.

I don't think she has much of a case. If she had notified NASA ahead of time and explained how it would have caused irreparable damage to our civilization, I am sure they would have avoided the impact.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050705/D8B5CI681.html

[Cynic Sage]

Russian astrologer Marina Bai is suing NASA for crashing projectile into Comet Tempel 1, seeking three million dollars in damages. She said it "ruins the natural balance of forces in the universe." She is claiming moral suffering because the impact will deform her horoscope.

I don't think she has much of a case. If she had notified NASA ahead of time and explained how it would have caused irreparable damage to our civilization, I am sure they would have avoided the impact.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050705/D8B5CI681.html

:lol:

[HyperHobbes]

"Hyper, welcome to the world of Jimmy Pat Holding. He believe in inerrancy but not the inerrancy of the Scriptures rather his own inerrancy. He has to my knowledge never admitted one time that he was wrong about anything. This is a great sign of insecurity."You skipped to the end of the book. No fair reading the last chapter."Russian astrologer Marina Bai..."You just had to do it didn't you? You went and made a great case for the "Screwball" award. I will go and gnash my teeth. gnash gnash.

HHobbes

[jpholding]

So, you are heretic of the year?

If I am, RC Sproul won it years back. What's wrong? Are you suffering from narrow-mindedness?

The fact that you are getting comfort from a crybaby atheist like Gargamel ought to give you pause. :wink: Why look at all the things I've cauught him spin doctoring on. :lmbo: And he rousts himself out of bed for petty comments just because he has JPHOCD. Bad company you got there now.



So, you are short?

On knowledgeable, quality opponents absolutely.

Spell check says you may have creatively spelled "accoutrements"

Why not?

I still get a giant kick out of blowing the spelling of "duh", since it is a much smaller word.

What? Self-esteem so damaged you have to go after typos?

Must all your opponents be "paranoid morons"?

Just the ones that make claims like the one you repeated, actually.

After a while Dr. Holding, people who see all their opponents as "paranoid" are more speaking about themselves than they are about others.

Sounds like a very paranoid statement you're offering.

I can't for the life of me understand why you feel compelled to label people "morons". What if they are?

Oh my. You just got upgraded to gold for that one... :lol: By the way, do you plan to admit that you were posting gossip?

[HyperHobbes]

"If I am, RC Sproul won it years back."So he wins it twice like I apparently have for my "Calvinism" as he seems to be one too?"crybaby""atheist""Gargamel""Self-esteem so damaged you have to go after typos?"I'm dirt."You just got upgraded to gold for that one."Oh my."By the way, do you plan to admit that you were posting gossip?"It appears you confirmed it, gossip would be going to someone else and telling a tale, I think I came where I could find you, and asked.

HHobbes

[Sparko]

Russian astrologer Marina Bai is suing NASA for crashing projectile into Comet Tempel 1, seeking three million dollars in damages. She said it "ruins the natural balance of forces in the universe." She is claiming moral suffering because the impact will deform her horoscope.

I don't think she has much of a case. If she had notified NASA ahead of time and explained how it would have caused irreparable damage to our civilization, I am sure they would have avoided the impact.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050705/D8B5CI681.html

Hey if she wins then Nasa can sue her to give back the money because getting 300 million would be proof that Nasa did not negatively impact her horoscope but in fact made it better. Catch 22.

:hehe:

[Darth Executor]

Got my microphone today. Which means it's movie making time.

:lightning:

Hopefully I'll have a trailer for it by the end of the week.

[Sparko]

I think the 'zoom it went right over his head' award should go to this guy. The discussion is about the giants in Genesis (nephalim)

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1100483&postcount=104

tate4242 ...had children that were giants....the kids had huge appetites....they eventually ate people....

JohnSparks: Man, I hate it when that happens!

tate4242 Yes...I don't blame you one bit....and I suspect that ABBA FATHER YHWH and YAHOSHUA/Jesus don't much appreciate this sort of behavior as well.....I wonder if they regard the way we treat animals as reminiscent of how the Jews were treated during the holocaust???????????

It's like he doesn't understand the obvious sarcasm on my part.

But it gets better. Next he talks (completely out of the blue) about how courageous chickens are for being eaten by us...(same post)

This may sound kind of far fetched perhaps....but if there is a spirit or soul in a chicken that voluntarily comes into the body of a chicken previous to hatching....then this would make chickens some of the most courageous creatures in the universe......voluntarily coming into a form that is going to be treated with essentially zero respect and kindness......Wow!!

(http://www.almightywind.com/enoch/book.htm)

[Cynic Sage]

More David O, on the role of Gender in the church.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1100560#post1100560


There is also no longer male nor female, slave nor free.
Of course ther still are gender differences. I have male organs. My Christian wife has female organs. I'm sure of this. There is still a difference here on earth. Under the sun we live by the under-the-sun rules. We have under-the-sun bodies. You are spewing Feminism/Marxism without even knowing it. Salvation is still only available through Jesus Christ and his blood- equally to all of us, but we are not all suddenly unisex.

Now you're gonna have to follow the link in my post to fully understand this.

Is Jim Sinclair (http://web.syr.edu/%7Ejisincla/notice.htm)was a Xtian, would he be allowed to speak in church?


Perhaps he could just whisper in monotone.

If I were him I would play it safe and shut up in church. I personally do not speak in the sanctuary at my church. I sometimes speak in Sunday school. It's not that unbearable. Other people are in charge. What I have to say is not really that important. I'm OK with that.

[Cynic Sage]

Doubting John, for his thread titled...














wait for it...













"Jesus Was Not Born a Virgin in Bethlehem". (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56824)

[Sparko]

:rofl:

That was a hoot!

[jpholding]

So he wins it twice like I apparently have for my "Calvinism" as he seems to be one too? I'm dirt.

You have said so. :thumb: Bad company corrupts good character.

It appears you confirmed it, gossip would be going to someone else and telling a tale, I think I came where I could find you, and asked.

The subtrefuge of framing gossip in the form of a question isn't exactly new.

[HyperHobbes]

"You have said so. :thumb: Bad company corrupts good character."Got that, I won't listen to "Silver, Blue and Gold" anymore."The subtrefuge of framing gossip in the form of a question isn't exactly new."It's that "Testimony of two or more witnesses" thingie Dr. Holding. I did do you the decency of asking you about it. I did receive the information unsolicted from at least two sources. You confirmed the bare bones of the story, that your pastor was run off at least in part over his Calvinism. Do I have that right Dr? As I understand SBC's are congregational so if you go for that sort of thing your congregation was within it's rights to do what they did and I hardly know the intimate details. Please, I really don't want to either.

I'm more curious about how your "hit man" Johnny EC goes around nominating people for "Screwball" merely because they phrased a Calvinistic position creatively and you're trying to accelerate off the gravitational pull of a rather renowned one, Dr. Sproul. Does this seem curious to you?

I'm also curious about how it is that your priorties seem only to be the perception of winning verbal insult fests with your "opponents". On the basis of winning by insult, you're going to win Dr. Holding. Whether I am capable of winning a smack down with you or not, I have no intention of trying to do so and I pray to God that I do not succumb to the urge whenever it strikes me. Are you the Bill Laimbeer of apologetics or the Greg Kite?

HHobbes

[jpholding]

Got that, I won't listen to "Silver, Blue and Gold" anymore.

That's a good idea, most likely, whatever it means.

It's that "Testimony of two or more witnesses" thingie Dr. Holding.


Who?

1) The little birdie outside your window
2) the gnome under your bed, and
3) Weekly World News?

I guess it would never occur to you that "quality" is an issue when it comes to witnesses as well....

You confirmed the bare bones of the story, that your pastor was run off at least in part over his Calvinism. Do I have that right Dr?

It's not much credit to be right on 10% of a gossip-monger procedure.

Please, I really don't want to either.

No doubt why you brought it up at all -- you didn't want to know. :eww: Do you plan on achieving consistency any time soon?

I'm more curious about how your "hit man" Johnny EC goes around nominating people for "Screwball" merely because they phrased a Calvinistic position creatively and you're trying to accelerate off the gravitational pull of a rather renowned one, Dr. Sproul. Does this seem curious to you?

No, but then again, I am not subject to lapses of mental deterioration and bold decontextualization for the sake of a displaced theology, either.

I'm also curious about how it is that your priorties seem only to be the perception of winning verbal insult fests with your "opponents".

Might have something to do with how narrow your experience is. 80-90% of my writings contain no insults to anyone.

Are you the Bill Laimbeer of apologetics or the Greg Kite?

Wow. I always liked both of them, though I also would add Pete Maravich in there too. Now who are you, Dennis Rodman, perhaps?

[HyperHobbes]

"That's a good idea, most likely, whatever it means."I suppose you can't expect people to know everything."Who?

1) The little birdie outside your window
2) the gnome under your bed, and
3) Weekly World News?"Doesn't matter now, does it? But I think one of them was the Travelocity Gnome."No doubt why you brought it up at all -- you didn't want to know. :eww: Do you plan on achieving consistency any time soon?"It has to do with your strange approach avoidance problem with prominent Calvinists. At the time this whole thing started with your buddy nominating me, I didn't know you liked any Calvinists, since it seemed that was what I was being pilloried for. Now it appears you like them and don't like them, depending on how far it get's you."No, but then again, I am not subject to lapses of mental deterioration"I'd get that checked out myself. I'd want there to be lapses in my mental deterioration, if I was subject to them, as you seem to be claiming you are."... and bold decontextualization for the sake of a displaced theology, either."I'm going to translate now, are you saying that I have a daring way of taking things out of context for the sake of my "Moved Theology"? What does that mean? Is this a bombastic way of saying I take things out of context?"Might have something to do with how narrow your experience is. 80-90% of my writings contain no insults to anyone."So far about 90% of what you've said to me has been insulting. I don't know why, the only thing I did was join a thread in which I was mentioned and try to humorously object to my nomination for your award. Most readers would look at our history and see that I got enticed into this discussion by you and yours."Wow. I always liked both of them, though I also would add Pete Maravich in there too. Now who are you, Dennis Rodman, perhaps?"They were famous for fouling people. Bill was the first string artist in that area, Kite a second string hack famous for tying up L.A. center Kareem Abdul-Jabbar during those epic Celtic/Lakers NBA Championships.

HHobbes

[abnoxio]

I've got an idea, how about robert turkel in the screwballs of the month of july?

[jpholding]

I suppose you can't expect people to know everything.

That's especially true where present company is concerned. :thumb:


Doesn't matter now, does it?

To present company, it seems not.

But I think one of them was the Travelocity Gnome.

Considering his record, the result of you being slammed to the opposite wall by a shock is appropriate....


It has to do with your strange approach avoidance problem with prominent Calvinists.

Huh? I guess my direct responses to White, Hays, and "Calvino" were by someone else then....

I'm going to translate now, are you saying that I have a daring way of taking things out of context for the sake of my "Moved Theology"?

No, for it is not particulary daring, actually just the same old same old from the Fundamentalist School of It Was Written Yesterday. I dare not even ask if you know about client-patron relationships.

So far about 90% of what you've said to me has been insulting.

90% of what you have said has warranted the riposte. For example:

Most readers would look at our history and see that I got enticed into this discussion by you and yours.

Are you sure you don't want to blame the guy in the red tights for this one?


They were famous for fouling people. Bill was the first string artist in that area, Kite a second string hack famous for tying up L.A. center Kareem Abdul-Jabbar during those epic Celtic/Lakers NBA Championships.

One man's foul is another man's shot block, it seems.

[Cynic Sage]

I'm more curious about how your "hit man" Johnny EC goes around nominating people for "Screwball" merely because they phrased a Calvinistic position creatively and you're trying to accelerate off the gravitational pull of a rather renowned one, Dr. Sproul. Does this seem curious to you?


:daveg:

[abnoxio]

How about Robert Turkel as screwball of the month of july?

[abnoxio]

abnoxio.com

[Cynic Sage]

Hey, I know you, you're Abnoxio.

http://www.tektonics.org/bell/tedbellisamoron.html


Dear Mr Abnoxio,

Your site whitewashedtombs.com is truly an inspiration to those of us who have been frustrated by Holding's antics and had our self-esteem completely demolished by his website. I wish you well in your project, however, in order to be a better person using you as a role model, I would like to ask you a few questions.

1) I see at http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37728 that you were recently banned from sciforums.com for remarks such as "All sand n*ggers must die," "Jesus says f*** you!" and "Because there is no god you stupid f***." (I am sorry to have to edit these; but as you know, genius is seldom appreciated by censors like the ones that probably manage this guestbook.) What I'd like to know is, do you have a complete list of your most brilliant comments like these, so that I can have a handy reference guide?

2) I see that you have on your website, in addition to a Holding fan club, a page for beating up Mother Theresa and making blood spurt from her face. May I ask if you plan to expand this page in the future, so that visitors can also sexually assault Mother Theresa as well? (I ask this because I found a comment by you at http://www.talkaboutreligion.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/messages/630850.htmlb that says, "New evidence surronding [sic] the death of Joseph Smith suggests that he was not killed by the jailhouse mob as is normally believed. The evidence now shows that he died from having an unusually large amount of [edited for content] by over 35 black men." I thought that this showed you might have had an interest in the sexual assault of others. I also appreciated your comment, "Sloppy the daughter, as all mormon teenage girls, has sex with about every person who walks through the door. As most 15 year old mormon girls, she has a variety of venereal diseases.[edited for content] Sloppy like most mormons will try to trap a man by getting pregnant" as found at http://www.talkaboutreligion.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/messages/630741.html.)

3) I see by http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/vd/520323934785704/true/45083.html#continued that you have children. Do they help you compose your material? Do you share it with them? What do they think of your idea that "all mormon teenage girls" have sex with every person who walks through the door?

4) I enjoyed the J. P. Holding Game, but I'm having some problems refuting arguments from other Christians. Can you make me some more of these so that I can also refute the Ph. D. scholars Holding sometimes uses? Also, what do I do if someone makes an "Anthony Flew Game" or a "Brooks Trubee Game"? How do I answer that argument?

I guess that's all I want to know for right now. I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your Holding Fan Club page and hope to see you do more like it in the future.

Signed,

Abnoxio, Sr.

[jpholding]

Looks like Ted Bell is here to promote his intellectual form of discourse. :lol:

Banned in....4 hours. Bets anyone?

(Johnny, I expect some of Bell's pepper will have to be edited from that, too, but it still makes the point as is.)

Great new toon on the block for you soon, Ted. :thumb:

[abnoxio]

Cool, I was hoping to get your creative juices flowing. To be honest you do have a good sense of cartooning. (I gotta be honest for cripes sake, the dudes got some chops!)

[abnoxio]

hey and I'm really not kidding here. whoever redid this site did a tight job!

[HyperHobbes]

"Considering his record, the result of you being slammed to the opposite wall by a shock is appropriate...."Seriously Dr. Holding, why is it that you want to "slam" people into the wall? In my case it only seems to be for my allegiance to a historicly held and somewhat mainstream theological view. Do you slam people for infant Baptism or Immersion?"Huh? I guess my direct responses to White, Hays, and "Calvino" were by someone else then...."I have absolutely no idea who all of these people are. I'm not familiar with your work in response to them, much less theirs."I dare not even ask if you know about client-patron relationships."I have no idea Dr. Holding, what you are refering to."Are you sure you don't want to blame the guy in the red tights for this one?"If you or EC wear them, works for me."One man's foul is another man's shot block, it seems."Still, it is their penchant for fouling others that they are famous for.

HHobbes

[abnoxio]

owch, it seems that my earlier posts have been moderated out.
is it conventional wisdom on TWEB that you don't mention the name Robert Turkel or abnoxio.com...
doesn't seem like a very open forum.

I should just be nicer.. i will.

[HyperHobbes]

Poor Abnoxio, we hardly knew ye.

[abnoxio]

ok, listen it's pretty obvious that this is your domain and to be honest i haven't done anything outrageously mean on this site for the love of jebus i only have about 5 posts. but c'mon guys he's a bit silly don't you think?
we should call him no-link/moderaror-protected turkel ...oops i said turkel.

[jpholding]

Cool, I was hoping to get your creative juices flowing. To be honest you do have a good sense of cartooning. (I gotta be honest for cripes sake, the dudes got some chops!)

Oh, you haven't seen the best project yet....it will debut in August. :hehe:

doesn't seem like a very open forum.

It isn't -- it has "rules". Maybe you have heard of those. We have at least TWO prominent atheists here (maybe more) who use their own brand name. If I used their real names without permission (and I know them) I'd get edited too.

You? Nice? We'll see. What Rx are you on for that? In any event, "the Matrix" will ensure that you will be nice -- or you won't post here.



Seriously Dr. Holding, why is it that you want to "slam" people into the wall?

Public shame of those who spread error has been in vogue since Elisha and the prophets of Baal, and Jesus and the Pharisees, my dear boy.

In my case it only seems to be for my allegiance to a historicly held and somewhat mainstream theological view.

Not the way you expressed it, no.



I have absolutely no idea who all of these people are. I'm not familiar with your work in response to them, much less theirs.

Then I assume there will be no more comments about me not taking on Calvinists....

I have no idea Dr. Holding, what you are refering to.

Precisely. If you do wish to learn, read my series on Calvinisn, esp. on U and I; it is linked on my front page.

[HyperHobbes]

"Public shame of those who spread error has been in vogue since Elisha and the prophets of Baal, and Jesus and the Pharisees, my dear boy."That's Elijah."Not the way you expressed it, no."I'm open to that line of discussion, care to explain why, other than it was "spectacularly phrased"?"Then I assume there will be no more comments about me not taking on Calvinists...."Ok, back to the Sproul comparison Dr. Holding, why take on Calvinists and rub up against a famous one?"Precisely. If you do wish to learn, read my series on Calvinisn, esp. on U and I; it is linked on my front page."What I wish to learn is why you are taking me on in such an offensive way? Can you not discuss things with me on the merits or are you simply given to ridiculing people you take issue with in ways to which they cannot respond?

HHobbes

[Jaltus]

For the record, White is in fact a prominent Calvinist.

[jpholding]

That's Elijah.

Yep. My bad.

I'm open to that line of discussion, care to explain why, other than it was "spectacularly phrased"?

It espouses fatalism, which is absurd. And as Jaltus noted, I have taken on the famous in this area...perhaps THE most famous, popularly speaking....

Ok, back to the Sproul comparison Dr. Holding, why take on Calvinists and rub up against a famous one?

I don't "rub up" on Sproul, actually. I find him personally offensive; ask him a question and the first thing he does is look at his watch.

What I wish to learn is why you are taking me on in such an offensive way?

Because people like you are part of the problem of why Christianity is an emasculated husk of its former self. However, if you show me you are willing to learn, you will be given a different venue. That is all.

[Jaltus]

I'd think Sproul is more populist than White (yes the term was intentional).

[HyperHobbes]

"Yep. My bad."Ok then, let's play nicely. I like that a lot more."It espouses fatalism, which is absurd. And as Jaltus noted, I have taken on the famous in this area...perhaps THE most famous, popularly speaking...."That the devil gets his own and that none of us God chooses are lost? There is no fatalism in my belief JP, I affirm that God purposed me from the before the beginning, and he keeps me. There is remarkable security in that. God making someone or something for profane use is documented several times in the Bible, not the least of which are Satan himself, and Judas. If it is wrong to make one or two that are fatally predisposed, how is it wrong to make a billion for such reasons? In fact my view is far more merciful because they were never alive to be treated unfairly in the first place. The "replica" or "Skin Job" remarks are directed at letting us know that we can't know. Indeed the lost have the imprint of God's image. We have no way of knowing who he has elected this side of eternity. I calmly and obediently go about the task of doing what God has asked and Evangelize all. In the end though I can confidently shake out my skirt because I know that their salvation is in his hands, not in my effort."I don't 'rub up' on Sproul, actually. I find him personally offensive; ask him a question and the first thing he does is look at his watch."Ok, you're going back and forth again, if you find his major doctrine and his personal behavior offensive, why do you mention him? It would seem that it is only because he is a keyword that gets hit on from time to time."Because people like you are part of the problem of why Christianity is an emasculated husk of its former self. However, if you show me you are willing to learn, you will be given a different venue. That is all."I have started a thread, for which you gave me an award, come, let us reason together.

HHobbes

[jpholding]

.That the devil gets his own and that none of us God chooses are lost?

I'm afraid I start my case at a much earlier point than that. You'll just have to read my material if you want to discuss it....to do so without that would be to pass as ships in the night.

And besides, I will be gone for much of the next two days anyway, and I have atheists on my plate.

Ok, you're going back and forth again, if you find his major doctrine and his personal behavior offensive, why do you mention him?

It was noted in light of your apparent joke of preterism as heretical. Never mind.

[HyperHobbes]

"I'm afraid I start my case at a much earlier point than that. You'll just have to read my material if you want to discuss it....to do so without that would be to pass as ships in the night."There can be nothing earlier than before the foundations of the world."And besides, I will be gone for much of the next two days anyway, and I have atheists on my plate."Bon Appétit!

HHobbes

[Darth Executor]

JP, I wrote a parody of Phantom of the Opera by Nightwish (I always thought that song was perfect for those suffering of JPHOCD) and had planned on getting somebody to sing it for the movie. That proved rather difficult so I doubt it's gonna get done which means that I might as well post it here. Original lyrics included. I tried to upload the song too but I guess it was too big.

Original

[Christine (Tarja):]
In sleep he sang to me, in dreams he came,
that voice which calls to me,
and speaks my name.
And do I dream again? For now I find
the phantom of the opera is there
inside my mind.

[Phantom (Marco):]
Sing once again with me our strange duet;
my power over you grows stronger yet.
And though you turn from me to glance behind,
the phantom of the opera is there
inside your mind.

[Christine (Tarja):]
Those who have seen your face
draw back in fear.
I am the mask you wear,

[Phantom (Marco):]
it's me they hear.

[Christine (Tarja) & Phantom (Marco):]
Your spirit and my voice in one combined;
the phantom of the opera is there
inside my/your mind.

[Voices:]
He's there the phantom of the opera.
Beware the phantom of the opera.

[Phantom (Marco):]
In all your fantasies, you always knew
that man and mystery

[Christine (Tarja):]
were both in you.

[Christine (Tarja) & Phantom (Marco):]
And in this labyrinth where night is blind,
the Phantom of the opera is here
inside my/your mind.

[Phantom (Marco):]
Sing, my angel of music!

Parody

[Jimbo]

In sleep he points at me, in dreams he mocks,
The voice which laughs at me
And ridicules my face.
And do I dream again? For now I find
James Patrick Holding is there
inside my mind.

[JP Holding:]
Lose once again to me, another debate;
Your humiliation by me grows stronger yet.
And though you turn from me to glance behind,
James Patrick Holding is there
inside your mind.

[Jimbo:]
Those who have seen your site
draw back in fear.
I am the trophy you wear.

[JP Holding:]
It's me they hear.

[JP Holding & Jimbo]

Your stupidity and my butt kicking in one combined;
James Patrick Holding is there
Inside my/your mind.

[Voices:]
He's there James Patrick Holding.
Beware James Patrick Holding.

[JP Holding:]
In all your obsessions, you always knew
that mocker and refuter

[Jimbo:]
Were both in you.

[Jimbo & JP Holding:]
And in this labyrinth where fundamentalism is blind,
James Patrick Holding is here
inside my/your mind.

[JP Holding:]
Sing, my fundy atheist cannon fodder!

[Doubting John]

Thanks for the nomination for my thread, "Jesus was not born a virgin in Bethlehem."

But wait!

Maybe, Jesus was born in sin after all!

Thank You.
Thank you very much......

Do I get a trophy if I win?

Should I drum up some support.....vote for DJ.


"DJ is your man,
If he can't make you to doubt...
Then nobody one can."

I liked that.

But actually, I nominate Tophet for some of the nasty things she's been saying in two spearate threads: "Where is God in Infinite Space," and, "Is there such a thing as an honest doubter."

As Christians you should shun her. She's the kind of person whom Jascha Heifetz wrote about when he said: "No matter what side of an argument you're on, you always find some people on your side that you wish were on the other side." Heh, heh.

She simply lacks in understanding. She couldn't even convince her own mother that she had wet her pants. Nor would she be able to understand her mother when she responds, "Go to the bathroom."

By the way, I'm not a hypocrite when I rarely trash people like Tophet as a person. I never said I cared for her in the first place, and I simply don't have any commands to love my (intellectual) enemies, like she does. But she is a hypocrite--most definitely.

And so......drum roll......let's hear it for Tophet.

Screwball of the month!

But since she's on your side of the argument, you won't agree with the truth.....because.............



scroll down....












more........
















"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

(Jack Nicholson--remember the movie?

Now go out and ride your bicycles, and when you're done I'll read you a story called, "See Spot Run." Afterward I'll let you have a lollipop and you can watch cartoons for the afternoon.

[Darth Executor]

Thanks for the nomination for my thread, "Jesus was not born a virgin in Bethlehem."

But wait!

Maybe, Jesus was born in sin after all!

Thank You.
Thank you very much......

Do I get a trophy if I win?

Should I drum up some support.....vote for DJ.


"DJ is your man,
If he can't make you to doubt...
Then nobody one can."

I liked that.

But actually, I nominate Tophet for some of the nasty things she's been saying in two spearate threads: "Where is God in Infinite Space," and, "Is there such a thing as an honest doubter."

As Christians you should shun her. She's the kind of person whom Jascha Heifetz wrote about when he said: "No matter what side of an argument you're on, you always find some people on your side that you wish were on the other side." Heh, heh.

She simply lacks in understanding. She couldn't even convince her own mother that she had wet her pants. Nor would she be able to understand her mother when she responds, "Go to the bathroom."

By the way, I'm not a hypocrite when I rarely trash people like Tophet as a person. I never said I cared for her in the first place, and I simply don't have any commands to love my (intellectual) enemies, like she does. But she is a hypocrite--most definitely.

And so......drum roll......let's hear it for Tophet.

Screwball of the month!

But since she's on your side of the argument, you won't agree with the truth.....because.............



scroll down....












more........
















"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

(Jack Nicholson--remember the movie?

Now go out and ride your bicycles, and when you're done I'll read you a story called, "See Spot Run." Afterward I'll let you have a lollipop and you can watch cartoons for the afternoon.


When nominating somebody it's common courtesy to post quotes worthy of nomination.

[Higon]

Parody



Hey, this is pretty good! Why don´t you sing it yourself? It´s a parody anyway, a bit of out of tune singing would be welcome. Or instead of singing try to speak those lirics using some kind of accent.

[Piebald]

The syllables for the Phantom of the Opera parody are wrong . . however, they can be fixed easily, I think . . .

[Darth Executor]

The syllables for the Phantom of the Opera parody are wrong . . however, they can be fixed easily, I think . . .

Please elaborate.

[JB]

I might suggest changing "And in this labyrinth where fundamentalism is blind" to "And in this labyrinth where fundies are blind". IMHO, that might match the original more closely in having a similar number of syllables in the parodied line as in the original line.

[One Bad Pig]

Thanks for the nomination for my thread, "Jesus was not born a virgin in Bethlehem."

But wait!

Maybe, Jesus was born in sin after all!

Thank You.
Thank you very much......

Do I get a trophy if I win?

Should I drum up some support.....vote for DJ.


"DJ is your man,
If he can't make you to doubt...
Then nobody one can."

I liked that.

But actually, I nominate Tophet for some of the nasty things she's been saying in two spearate threads: "Where is God in Infinite Space," and, "Is there such a thing as an honest doubter."

As Christians you should shun her. She's the kind of person whom Jascha Heifetz wrote about when he said: "No matter what side of an argument you're on, you always find some people on your side that you wish were on the other side." Heh, heh.

She simply lacks in understanding. She couldn't even convince her own mother that she had wet her pants. Nor would she be able to understand her mother when she responds, "Go to the bathroom."

By the way, I'm not a hypocrite when I rarely trash people like Tophet as a person. I never said I cared for her in the first place, and I simply don't have any commands to love my (intellectual) enemies, like she does. But she is a hypocrite--most definitely.

And so......drum roll......let's hear it for Tophet.

Screwball of the month!

But since she's on your side of the argument, you won't agree with the truth.....because.............



scroll down....












more........
















"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

(Jack Nicholson--remember the movie?

Now go out and ride your bicycles, and when you're done I'll read you a story called, "See Spot Run." Afterward I'll let you have a lollipop and you can watch cartoons for the afternoon.
I nominate this post. :teeth:

[Cynic Sage]

JP, I wrote a parody of Phantom of the Opera by Nightwish (I always thought that song was perfect for those suffering of JPHOCD) and had planned on getting somebody to sing it for the movie. That proved rather difficult so I doubt it's gonna get done which means that I might as well post it here. Original lyrics included. I tried to upload the song too but I guess it was too big.


Do you have a track without lyrics (not the Overture trackform the film soundtrack, because it is too short for the song)?

[Doubting John]

Bad Piggie,

"I nominate this post."

Now that was good. I liked it!

Oh, and about Tophet. There are just so many quotes that I just don't know where to start.

How about.......most of them.

[Darth Executor]

Do you have a track without lyrics (not the Overture trackform the film soundtrack, because it is too short for the song)?

Nope, sorry. You could try googling for a MIDI of it but I couldn't find any.

[Cynic Sage]

Nope, sorry. You could try googling for a MIDI of it but I couldn't find any.

Did you try searching for Karaoke MP3s?

[Darth Executor]

Did you try searching for Karaoke MP3s?

Yep. No luck. I'll look some more tonight, I gotta go out soon.

[Doubting John]

Okay, I've searched and I figure this quote from Tophet will suffice for me to nominate him as the screwball of the month. It's located on page 8 of the thread "Is There Such a Thing As An Honest Doubter?"

To get the full levity of this you may want to trudge though the whole thread if you have the time.

Tophet's false dilemna to me:


Therefore, if you do not respond to all the questions I have asked of you in this thread and in "Where is God in INFINITE SPACE?" you concede my points.

You concede that you are a liar.
You concede that you are a hypocrite.
You concede that you are a coward.
You concede you are ignorant about Christianity.
You concede that you are mentally deficient.
You concede that you blame other people for your own failures.
You concede that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of logic.
You concede that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of history.

I await your response with wry amusement.

The funny thing is that he doesn't realize that this is a false dilemna. Either respond or you concede! Ha. That's a real hoot. If you're fair then you must think so too!

Come on, you can laugh with me about this, even though it's one of your own, can't you?

By the way, I cannot be a hypocrite, because I do not have the same Christian standards that Christians do. I live my life according to my ethical principles almost 100% of the time. My ethical demands are reasonable to live by, whereas the ethical demands of Christians are higher than anyone could ever do--and don't mention Jesus here to me, either, because that is your faith statment about something I do not believe.

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

JP Holding is my nomination for this award if Tophet cannot fulfill the responsibilities of being the screwball of the month (is he supposed to wear a dunce cap through the streets of Wheaton?).

Imagine that, the starter of this thread being one who is nominated!? Cool!

Well, then, just in case Tophet needs replaced because he's just too stupid to fulfill the responsibilities [that is, he thinks the dunce cap is something you use to urinate in, and thinks Wheaton is a place in Kansas that weighs wheat], here's a quote from JPH:

Oh, first some background info. In the thread: "Where is God in Infinite Space?" I said, "the idiots have found me" by which I was referring to Holding and his girl Tophet.

Okay, up to snuff now?

Holding accused me of using an "Ad Hominem argument" there.

But what exactly made him think I was offering an argument? He sees arguments when someone sneezes?

"Hahhhh chooooo"

Oh, excuse me.

I was venting, not making an argument at all, so to save face in the face of his TWEB peers, he responded that he thinks I am always venting, or something like that.

Nice Save JP. But the "save" as well as the initial comment are mildy funny-- a pie-in-your-face type of thing.

[Darth Executor]

I LOVE the new troll

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1103902#post1103902

they only want to learn enough to be able to convince you into beleif in their weak man/g-d idol -they seek to indoctrinate you into the horror of christianity -if you would agree with them that Edited by a moderator.is deity and messiah they will soon have you in a torquamadah like position -Never forget their minds are full of evil thaughts (worshipping their idol) until they turn for their wickedness they are no differant to us than Haman -the word rasha has special meaning in this instance -what does the wicked person do to gain acceptance ?=he makes central to his essence the letter shin (The acronym on the mezuzah for shaday ) all of the rashas actions are hipocriticaly pretences as "Holy Causes" that is why the father at the seder is told -hakeh et shinav- to unmask the rasha by removeing his "shin" his piety that they(xians) use to mask their evil now go from this place of evil and study TORAH !

I've never laughed so hard in my life. Too bad he got banned already. =(

[Darth Executor]

Gotta love gamefaqs. Ever since I started mocking the morons whenever I reply to them they start psychoanalysing me.


You know what Darth? I was going to make long post with replies. It's just not worth it. You have too many bad qualities to list that prevent me or any one else to have an educated and civilized discussion with you.

My mom told me some thing. "Don't argue with extremists because in their eyes if you're not with them you're against them, there is no middle ground for them."

That's good advice and I should follow it. One more thing though you are the Christian version of Tom Cruise. That's stretching the definition of Christian too. You're a disgrace to all those who believe in Jehovah and practice what he preached.

Freud would be proud.

[Darth Executor]

Zipperhead:


oshua to the people of Israel: "Choose ye this day whom ye will serve".
PWNED!



How do you know that choice was FREE?


:argh:

[Piebald]

Please elaborate.
For example,


Original: Sing once again with me, a strange duet (10 syllables)
Lose once again to me, another debate; (11 syllables)

If you changed it to "Lose once again to me, in a debate" it would work. Have you heard the original song before?

[Darth Executor]

For example,


Original: Sing once again with me, a strange duet (10 syllables)
Lose once again to me, another debate; (11 syllables)

If you changed it to "Lose once again to me, in a debate" it would work.

OK, I didn't actually count the syllables, I just went by instinct. :tongue:

Have you heard the original song before?

Yep. I tried uploading it but it was too big.

[jpholding]

Okay, I've searched and I figure this quote from Tophet will suffice for me to nominate him as the screwball of the month.

What for, DJ?

You won an award already for thinking Tophet was a woman. That's your epistemology in a nutshell. BTW, no trophy -- just a listing on my site at the end of the month. Sorry about that. Maybe I can spray paint some peanut shells gold for you?

To get the full levity of this you may want to trudge though the whole thread if you have the time.

Sounds like one of your excuses to me for not being able to answer/back up your arguments.



The funny thing is that he doesn't realize that this is a false dilemna. Either respond or you concede! Ha. That's a real hoot. If you're fair then you must think so too!

No, DJ, given your record of evasion, it's a quite proper thing to do. Also, why have you not learned to spell "dilemma"?

Come on, you can laugh with me about this, even though it's one of your own, can't you?

OK. Ha-ha. :eh: Oh wait -- that was Toby licking my toe....look, DJ, you're just NOT funny, I'm sorry. Your humor level rates somewhere between "dead baby jokes" and "burning hotels". You have no style or substance to your humor. Look: Try watching some Sanford and Son to see a master like Redd Foxx at work.

here's a quote from JPH:

Actually you won a double screwball now, because that wasn't me. That was Tophet again.

his TWEB peers, he responded that he thinks I am always venting, or something like that.

Or "something like that"? Hm. Typical DJ scholarship there...

Triple award, then.

I think you'll find my cartoon of you a lot funnier, though. :thumb:

[jpholding]

JP, I wrote a parody of Phantom of the Opera by Nightwish

Owie. Wish I had seen it so I could really appreciate it. :sad: So I can post it as a Toon supplement under Jimbo's area, maybe?

[Sparko]

I think you'll find my cartoon of you a lot funnier, though. :thumb:

ooh! Which one is he? give me a link.

[jpholding]

ooh! Which one is he? give me a link.

Not uploaded yet. I have it drawn but I need to get the scanning done.

[Sparko]

By the way, I emailed Rodney Stark about Johnny Skeptic and here is what he had to say about him:

Stark: Why bother with some obsessed atheist with nothing better to do than bother Christians? Yes, I did estimate the church in the 1st century as numbering about 7,500. How does this suggest failure? Who won?

[Darth Executor]

Owie. Wish I had seen it so I could really appreciate it. :sad: So I can post it as a Toon supplement under Jimbo's area, maybe?

Well, I just parodied the song, I never saw the movie. If you use AIM you can message me and I'll send you the song.

And yea, that's for Jimbo.

[BronzeArcher]

I was awed at the typical demonstrations of scholarship (http://www.christianforums.com/t1838056) over at christianforums:

First he created us to love and believe in him. (Not sure why)

When we don’t give him this praise he demands he damns us. (Seem kind of like the child not getting what he wants in the store so he throws a fit)

He then tests people to make sure they do love him. (Abraham)

And to top it all off he seems quite shy, being he doesn’t just show himself. (Everyone would believe if he made himself believable to all)

Why would god do such things if he was confident in who he is? If god had a high self image of himself he wouldn’t need others to make himself feel good or feel the need to take out his anger on others.

Does god have low self esteem issues? Or could he be just a reflection of our very own human insecurities?

As you can see, they are tip-top on their competence and breadth of reading Christian theology. Then we have... (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16162850&postcount=2)

The bible is packed full of lies. If "greatest" means most outrageous, then no, this one is no more outrageous than any other lie in the bible, they're all equally outrageous.

I love his Dan Barker sig, too. More funny stuff (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16727457&postcount=1),

And how come it had to be a son, of all possibilies thinkeable? Why not, say, a brother, or ten daughters (I concede, though, that a simple goat might not have done justice to the occasion)?

[Cynic Sage]

Dan Barker has begun to post on Theologyweb.

I have a feeling something significant is about to happen.

[dizzle]

Let's all collectively :glare: at Bronzearcher for flouncing around other forums.

[Darth Executor]

Dan Barker has begun to post on Theologyweb.

I have a feeling something significant is about to happen.

He was THIS close to making it in the first movie.

[Cynic Sage]

He was THIS close to making it in the first movie.

Your artwork... it... uh...
:uneasy:
:egad:
:ale:
:eww:
:no:
:zzz:
:eek:
:hrm:

:bomb:
:bawl:
:violin::b_rotten:

:metro:

:cucumber:
:thumbd:

I'm sorry.

Have you thought of experimenting in the use of sprites perhaps.

[BronzeArcher]

Let's all collectively :glare: at Bronzearcher for flouncing around other forums.

Hehe. :teeth: I don't think you'd do that same if I visited multiple libraries...

[Darth Executor]

Your artwork... it... uh...
:uneasy:
:egad:
:ale:
:eww:
:no:
:zzz:
:eek:
:hrm:

:bomb:
:bawl:
:violin::b_rotten:

:metro:

:cucumber:
:thumbd:

I'm sorry.

Have you thought of experimenting in the use of sprites perhaps.

I drew it in paint in a grand total of 47 seconds. What do you expect?

[Darth Executor]

I nominate Doubting John for attracting more fundy morons here. I never cry, but if I did, this would be the time.

[Cynic Sage]

I drew it in paint in a grand total of 47 seconds. What do you expect?

1st rule:

Microsoft paint is never to be used for drawing. Editing Sprites, maybe. Drawing, no.

[Darth Executor]

1st rule:

Microsoft paint is never to be used for drawing. Editing Sprites, maybe. Drawing, no.

Clearly you are not familiar with Maddox. And if I was editing sprites I'd rather do it in something like photoshop so I can zoom.

[Sparko]

I still cant figure out why so many atheists make a living on religion, like this Dan Barker guy and Doubting John. They don't believe in God, they think religion is a waste of time, and yet they spend most of their time thinking about religion, writing and selling books about it (negative to be sure, but still about it) and hanging out at web sites like this - their whole identity and lifestyle seems to revolve about religion. Kinda ironic and sad in a pathetic sort of way.

[Darth Executor]

Looks like you're gonna be pretty busy. First Dan Barker and mini voltaire come. Now Iasion has joined the game (I'm guessing it's the same one from that conspiracy board I nominated last month). I don't know why but I have the sudden urge to marry Acharya S...

[gharfish]

I still cant figure out why so many atheists make a living on religion, like this Dan Barker guy and Doubting John. They don't believe in God, they think religion is a waste of time, and yet they spend most of their time thinking about religion, writing and selling books about it (negative to be sure, but still about it) and hanging out at web sites like this - their whole identity and lifestyle seems to revolve about religion. Kinda ironic and sad in a pathetic sort of way.Yes, you put a finger on it ! It is a stumper !

I don't know who Dan Barker is, but I am familiar with the Doubting John movement currently underway - multi-thread offensive launched...and it is oddly sad; you are right.

You feel immediate repulsion (I do, that is), in seeing just the titles of these inflammatory D.J. threads.....but then I begin to have nagging, unwanted doubts (no pun intended !) -have to wonder if there is ANY way that he/they aren't, without their knowledge, in a self-defeating/backwards fashion, almost really, gnawing themselves/conflicted, at a deep level, very faintly wanting -wishing at 6% !!! ...to somehow truly believe, but...are continually tortured...unable to anymore summon the energy to even THINK about moving, for any longer than one second at a time. They think better of it, in brief flashes...but immediately slide back down to where their eyes slip below the surface, safely (but sadly, again). Then I feel some 'pathos' rise up a lttle bit. (Should I ?)

It's disconcerting, baffling and strange ! It ruffles my tail feathers !

It is pitifull, I agree, and (so) I feel a little sympathy creeping-in sometimes.

[Doubting John]

If I had been treated politely and respectfully on this website then I would've carried on a debate in the thread "Is there such a thing as an honest Doubter" and that's all. But if you'll read through that thread and see how it degenerated to ridicule and accusations you'll see.

So then I started another thread called "Where is God in Infinte SPACE," and if you'll read through that thread you will understand perfectly why there is this "doubting John movement."

I don't take it well when JP Holding and Tophet, or anyone else, disrespects me.

See for yourself, and you'll understand.

So I'm back with a vengeance.

Enjoy! Or Cry if you want to.

I have only begun.

[Sparko]

If I had been treated politely and respectfully on this website then I would've carried on a debate in the thread "Is there such a thing as an honest Doubter" and that's all. But if you'll read through that thread and see how it degenerated to ridicule and accusations you'll see.

So then I started another thread called "Where is God in Infinte SPACE," and if you'll read through that thread you will understand perfectly why there is this "doubting John movement."

I don't take it well when JP Holding and Tophet, or anyone else, disrespects me.

See for yourself, and you'll understand.

So I'm back with a vengeance.

Enjoy! Or Cry if you want to.

I have only begun.

So are you giving fair warning that you are gonna troll Theologyweb?

[One Bad Pig]

If I had been treated politely and respectfully on this website then I would've carried on a debate in the thread "Is there such a thing as an honest Doubter" and that's all. But if you'll read through that thread and see how it degenerated to ridicule and accusations you'll see.

So then I started another thread called "Where is God in Infinte SPACE," and if you'll read through that thread you will understand perfectly why there is this "doubting John movement."

I don't take it well when JP Holding and Tophet, or anyone else, disrespects me.

See for yourself, and you'll understand.

So I'm back with a vengeance.

Enjoy! Or Cry if you want to.

I have only begun.
Can we laugh in derision and place bets on how long it takes you to achieve being matrixed?

[Doubting John]

"Troll"?

"Matrixed"?

Maybe, but for the most part I'm just having fun.

Fun.

[Truthdigger]

Im afraid I must nominate a "Christian", though I think it may be somewhat satirical- http://www.tencommandments.org/heathens.shtml

The first line is probably one of the most "duh" statements Ive read in some time-

"The following articles are samplings of principles that demonstrate that atheism is pure heathenism"

Gee, what gave that away?

It gets better (or worse)-

"Atheism is the ultimate of satanism. Ask satan does God exist and he will deny it. Ask him does satan exist and he will deny his own existence even while in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in one hand, but deny its existence by denying its truth with the other."

How do you deny the Bibles existence with your free hand? Who gave this person a website????

[Darth Executor]

If I had been treated politely and respectfully on this website then I would've carried on a debate in the thread "Is there such a thing as an honest Doubter" and that's all. But if you'll read through that thread and see how it degenerated to ridicule and accusations you'll see.

So then I started another thread called "Where is God in Infinte SPACE," and if you'll read through that thread you will understand perfectly why there is this "doubting John movement."

I don't take it well when JP Holding and Tophet, or anyone else, disrespects me.

See for yourself, and you'll understand.

So I'm back with a vengeance.

Enjoy! Or Cry if you want to.

I have only begun.


Your idea of "coming back with a vengeance" is swarming the apologetics forum with hordes of fundy atheists? Bring them on :grin:

[jpholding]

If I had been treated politely and respectfully on this website then I would've carried on a debate in the thread "Is there such a thing as an honest Doubter" and that's all.

Translation:

"I hate it when people say I'm wrong."

I think I know why that guy thought you were arrogant now. :teeth:



Dan Barker has begun to post on Theologyweb.

I have a feeling something significant is about to happen.

Should I carve another headstone? :lol:

[Doubting John]

JP

"Should I carve another headstone?"

So, you're arrogant too!

But as you said, that's not a bad thing, and people think it's arrogance when it's really someone with passion and confidence.

Right?

[Tophet]

Poor, poor John:

If I had been treated politely and respectfully on this website then I would've carried on a debate in the thread "Is there such a thing as an honest Doubter" and that's all.

But John, you were given all the respect you deserved!

But if you'll read through that thread and see how it degenerated to ridicule and accusations you'll see.

You mean you disavow all your statements that I quoted?

So then I started another thread called "Where is God in Infinte SPACE," and if you'll read through that thread you will understand perfectly why there is this "doubting John movement."

The paranoids are out to get you, John.

I don't take it well when JP Holding and Tophet, or anyone else, disrespects me.

But John, by not responding to my challenge, you've already made these concessions:

You conceded that you are a liar.
You conceded that you are a hypocrite.
You conceded that you are a coward.
You conceded that you are ignorant about Christianity.
You conceded that you are mentally deficient.
You conceded that you blame other people for your own failures.
You conceded that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of logic.
You conceded that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of history.

For which you can only blame yourself.

The funny thing is that he doesn't realize that this is a false dilemna.
Even funnier is that you’re wrong. Either you are guilty of the charges or you are innocent. So tell us, John, what is a “dilemna”? Is that an alien race of some kind?
Either respond or you concede! Ha. That's a real hoot.
Yes, it is. Especially when you failed the challenge. You had the means, motive and opportunity to deny the charges and you failed to do so. Even if you didn’t concede, the charges are still true.

Come on, you can laugh with me about this.
Actually, we’re laughing at you. :lol:

By the way, I cannot be a hypocrite, because I do not have the same Christian standards that Christians do.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1093244&postcount=60
As insensitive as you've been so far, I'll suppose you'll have an argument for what I've just written.
From http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1093244&postcount=60
Edited by a moderator. Well, now, that's doing what Jesus told you to do, isn't it, Edited by a moderator.

You speak of insensitivity and yet you wish to violate J.P.’s privacy? This is not an example of hypocracy?
And then you ask us of your wife,


Will any of you pray for her complete healing?

Why are you asking that of us? You’ve admitted
your God are not worth my time anymore.

You publish a book to discredit Christianity, you libel Christians, and yet you ask them to call upon God, whom you don’t believe in??? Yes, you are a hypocrite!
I live my life according to my ethical principles almost 100% of the time.
Well, let’s see what your ethical principles are:

You conceded that you are a liar.
You conceded that you are a hypocrite.
You conceded that you are a coward.
You conceded that you are ignorant about Christianity.
You conceded that you are mentally deficient.
You conceded that you blame other people for your own failures.
You conceded that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of logic.
You conceded that you engage in a double standard in the evaluation of history.

My ethical demands are reasonable to live by, whereas the ethical demands of Christians are higher than anyone could ever do--and don't mention Jesus here to me, either, because that is your faith statment about something I do not believe.

But John, you’ve admitted your ignorance about Christianity. Therefore you don’t know what you’re talking about.


Holding accused me of using an "Ad Hominem argument" there.

No, he didn’t. Yet another example of your mental deficiency, as well as another lie.

Nice Save JP. But the "save" as well as the initial comment are mildy funny-- a pie-in-your-face type of thing.

So what’s a mildy, John? Another example of your mental deficiency?

See for yourself, and you'll understand.

Yes, please do. Your remarks testify of your own behavior.

So I'm back with a vengeance.

Enjoy! Or Cry if you want to.

I have only begun.

My, aren't you a glutton for punishment. Interesting that we're more worthy of your attention than your allegedly ailing wife.

"Troll"?

"Matrixed"?

Maybe, but for the most part I'm just having fun.

Fun.


We're having fun, too. At your expense! :lol:

[jpholding]

So, you're arrogant too!

No, I'm an INTJ. But you're not. :teeth: So that won't work for you.

Anyway, since you invited Danny Boy here, you have only yourself to blame if he gets slammed. You could at least have the sense not to invite fringe lunatics who adhere to the Christ myth and thinking debating the president of Zondervan makes them some sort of expert. :lol:

[Doubting John]

Tophet.

You're funny. Anyone who compares what you write to what I write will know that you're a joke.

But the joke's on you.



You just don't realize it.

Which makes it even funnier.


Just keep it up.



Dig your own grave, stupid little girl.

[Tophet]

Tophet.

La de da. More drivel from you.

Just keep it up.

As you wish.

Dig your own grave, stupid little girl.

Wait'll your wife finds out you're spending more time with me than with her. :wink:

[Doubting John]

Don't look now, but I think she's on to us!

[Tophet]

Don't look now, but I think she's on to us!

How nice!

[Raptor]

Here's a good one...



That's why it is significant that they only paid 30 for him. We humans short changed God. I am forcing nothing on the scripture. I am seeking to take it seriously, and obey it. It doesn't make sense to you because you don't want it to. You force things from scripture, that has been the big effect of modern theology, higher criticism. It is just a feminine sort of cynicism used against the Bible. It's an "I'm cooler because I hate more stuff than you and am disillusioned," kind of trip. It is based on erasing scripture.

I can hate my father and mother and still honor and obey them. I can love them, too-at the same time! So can you. The Bible doesn't contradict itself. When it seems to, that means we are to ask for wisdom, which is a consequence of the fear of God. The wisdom of God seems like foolishness to us until we understand it. God likes it that way. It is the glory of God to hide a thing, the glory of kings to reveal it.

Peter and Noah both were commanded to eat pork. I am not a Jew, so I get to eat pork. I have a close personal relationship with pork and pork by-products.

I do not allow untrustworthy sources like 'history' to trump the Bible. I have read reviews of performances of my band (Houston big city paper) that had little to do with reality. I was there for the performance. The newspaper lied. Our understanding of history is based on a LOT of conjecture. The Bible can validate history, but history has no effect on the Bible. The Bible is enough, put away your history books. Codes and cyphers are broken by taking just the message itself and comparing it to itself. The Bible is the same. Other documents are written in different code and will confuse you if you try to use them for understanding. ALL scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc...

:hrm:

It comes from this thread.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56662&page=1&pp=16

[Cynic Sage]

Minnesota:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57085&page=1&pp=16

SEOUL (AFP) - A local government campaign to attract more bathers to a South Korean beach resort by offering incentives to swimmers wearing bikinis has upset women's rights activists.

Ahead of the peak summer bathing season, Buan County administration southwest of Seoul renamed its Byeonsan Beach, Bikini Beach and promised wearers of skimpy swimsuits a 10-percent discount on bills for hotels, meals and beach equipment rentals.

source and more (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050708/od_afp/skoreabikinibeachoffbeat_050708040346;_ylt=AkLxGKFtRM6mmQu3EhFcMNqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3NW1oMDRpBHNlYwM3NTc-)


But some women have begun denouncing the campaign as exploitative.

My questions are: who is being exploited, and where does the exploitation come into the picture?

Women who don't expose themselves have to pay more money.
You don't see that as a problem?

Of course your unqualified "expose" is meant to color the issue, so can just disregard that. But anyway, educate me. What problem is there in offering women an incentive to dress a certain way?

Minn:

If a private organization wants to offer women money to wear less, that is their business. However, I find the practice offensive for several reasons:

1: Why do I have to subject my wife and daughters to the lurid glares of other men in order to save money at a resort?

2: Why do women who may be uncomfortable with the way they look have to pay an extra 10% because they weren't born beautiful?

3: The idea runs counter to modesty, which is the priniciple of dressing in a way that allows other people to be comfortable. While there is nothing wrong with nudity, I wanna go to a beach where I can enjoy the beach without having sex thrown in my face.

Again, if they wanna run their resort that way then that is their business. I wouldn't go there and I applaud anyone who refuses to allow such a silly business practice to prosper.

Them's the rules. But maybe your wife and daughter secretly like the lurid glares of other men, despite what they might tell you. :wink:

...

As to my question, evidently the only "problem" in offering a 10% incentive then, is that you think the females in your family would be to embarrassed by their lack of beauty to wear a bikini at the beach. So be it.

[BronzeArcher]

Here's a good one...



:hrm:

It comes from this thread.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=56662&page=1&pp=16

Is he going to come into this thread and argue that the link is unreliable, since it's history?

[BronzeArcher]

Heh heh heh...more great demonstrations (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16704374&postcount=1) of competence:

Why did God send Jesus to earth 2000 years ago? Back then it was much easier for people to believe in the particular dieties of one tribe or another. So it wouldn't really be that much of a chore to convince some Israelites that Jesus was in fact "God on earth" (I'm not saying it was easy, but it would have been easier than now). In our modern age of reasoning and science, we are growing increasingly skeptical of anythng that is (defined as) supernatural or divine. The deities of yesterday are being replaced with actual models of reality and medicines that are proven to heal. We can find ways to explain what was once "unexplainable". It seems to me, that if God is so important, we could have used Jesus more now than 2000 years ago. As we are continually driven to empirical data that consistently provides results, we find ourselves in a state of mind that we do not need to believe in the "spiritual". God would have better served his purpose by bringing the vessel of salvation to "we the skeptical" in this modern day of science, rather than bringing salvation to a small outpost of farmers and goat herders looking to fill their world with meaning.

Some other interesting thoughts in that thread,

Why not send Jesus as son of Adam and Eve and have him killed by Cain? Would have saved a lot of trouble, wouldn´t it?

:hehe:

[wfaber]

Why not send Jesus as son of Adam and Eve and have him killed by Cain?
Maybe because He wasn't Abel!
:lmbo:

[Piebald]

Maybe because He wasn't Abel!
:lmbo:
Pundamentalism isn't cool. :ham:

[Cynic Sage]

HyperHobbes (Boy, is he ever gonna get mad a me for this) :teeth: :


Note how I respond by posting both a link to and segment of JP's essay on the subject (Note the box)


"considering the typical use of extremist language by ancient writers"

By whom?

HHobbes
For a background on the use of extreme and hyperbolic language in the Bible, I direct the reader first to my foundational essay (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/hyperbole.html) on this subject. Abraham Rihbany (The Syrian Christ, 98f) points to the use of "hate" in the Bible as an example of linguistic extreme in an Eastern culture...

Source. (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesussayshate.html)


"I direct the reader first to my foundational essay on this subject."

You write "foundational essays"? I thought what you did was ridicule people for using unique language in the expression of what must be considered a credible or sound doctrinal point of view. Is your and JP's intent here to be trolls and spam artists for the promotion of the "Tektonics" website? If you have a case to make, make it plainly to me, if I find it has a basis and you have supporting work at that site, I'll go to it.

He thought I wrote your essay, JP. :hehe:

[Darth Executor]

I nominate Iasion. As far as I can tell, I was unable to find this "essay" anywhere on google so I'm assuming he took the time to write it on his own. I Googled a couple of his "quotes" (I can't find one reference anywhere) and they don't exist so I'm assuming he pretty much made most of it up.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=21485

Greetings,



Not so.

There were sceptics and refutations from the earliest times :

Early refutations of Christianity

We can see how Christianity was received in the early days by how it was described, such as :
"fables" "lie" "myths" "superstition" "empty rumour"
"alter the originals over and over" "invented"
"base and ignorant creed making fishermen"
"blasphemy" "spurious" "counterfeit" "contradicts"
"refuted because they disagree"

This is not the sign of a new truth being accepted - it is obviously the EXACT OPPOSITE - a wacky new cult, initially mostly ignored, sometimes ridiculed and rejected with dismissive comments.



Jewish responses to Christianity

The Jewish response is just what we would expect of a wacky new cult - initially they ignore it. But late in the 1st century, as more Jews leave for Christianity, the Jews formally BAN the Christians from their synagogues and curse them as "minim". And lets not forget the Gospels arose sometime after the war, the Jews had a LOT more to worry about than refuting some a new cult.

Later, of course, when Christianity is rising to power, and the Jews have recovered from the Roman destructions, they DO try to discredit Jesus with all sorts of horrible stories being told -
* Jesus is a bastard (a mamzer) born from Mary's adultery with a Roman soldier,
* Jesus is a child conceived in the "time of separation" (during menstruation),
* Jesus was a evil magician who tried to lead people astray,

This is not the sign of the Jews unable to refute Christianity - on the contrary - it's the sign of a new cult which is at first ignored, then ridiculed and attacked when it starts to become a threat.



Variant Christian views

In the formative period of Christianity, the 2nd century, we see all sorts of disagreement about specific Christian claims :

The epistles of John mention other Christians who do not believe in a son of God, and attack Christians who do not believe Jesus came in the flesh.

The epistle of Polycarp also describes those who do not accept that Jesus came in the flesh.

Consider the astonishing case of Minucius Felix - he explicitly rejected the worship of a man on a cross as a Christian belief, he explicitly denied that God could become man. That's a 2nd century church father who explicitly rejected the incarnation and the crucifixion - 2 central beliefs of Christians.

Many other disagreements are expressed in the 2nd century :
* Timothy warning against the fables of genealogies,
* Marcion denied Jesus was born of Mary,
* gnostics such as Basilides and Bardesanes claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual being,
* the docetae argue Jesus was an illusion,
* Barnabas denies Christ was "son of David",
* forged letters warning about forgeries and "other christs"

In short - the 2nd century is full of refutations and rebuttals as the varying Christian sub-sects argued about what was "really true" about Jesus.

This is not the sign of a historical event which was not refuted - its a clear sign of the exact opposite - religious mythology being argued over.



Pagan responses to Christianity

Initially, the new cult is largely ignored, but ridiculed by a few writers -
* Tacitus - "a class hated for their abominations", "a most mischievous superstition"
* Pliny - "this mad sect"
* Lucian - "misguided creatures"

This is not the sign of a grand new truth being accepted - it is the sign of a wacky new cult which barely rated a dismissive mention at first.

Later on, when Christianity and the Gospels first rose to prominence, they DID receive detailed rebuttals.

Celsus specifically attacked the Gospels as "fiction" based on myths, and he claimed the Gospels were changed over and over to deflect criticism. Hoffman's reconstruction has quotes such as these :
"Clearly the Christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the Christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Celsus' attack was so damaging to the church, that they attempted to erase it from history, we only have quotes of it because of angry Christians who answered his critique.

This is not the sign of external agreement on Christian claims - it is demonstrably the exact opposite - a specific attack that the Gospels were FICTION, an attack so damaging the church tried to burn every copy of it.


A few generations later, as the church is consolidating its power, a pagan historian Porphyry wrote another critique of Christian beliefs "Against the Christians", including such criticism such as :

"The evangelists were fiction writers-- not observers or eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. Each of the four contradicts the other in writing his account of the events of his suffering and crucifixion"

"Anyone will recognize that the [gospels] are really fairy tales if he takes the time to read further into this nonsense of a story..."

"Another section in the gospel deserves comment, for it is likewise devoid Of sense and full of implausibility; I mean that absurd story about Jesus sending his apostles across the sea ahead of him after a banquet, then walking across to them 'at the fourth watch of the night'...Those who know the region well tell us that, in fact, there is no 'sea' in the locality but only a tiny lake which springs from a river that flows through the hills of Galilee near Tiberias... Mark seems to be stretching a point to extremities when he writes that Jesus-- after nine hours had passed-- decided in the tenth to walk across to his disciples who had been floating about on the pond for the duration... It is fables like this one that we judge the gospel to be a cleverly woven curtain, each thread of which requires careful scrutiny"


Then, just as Christianity had come to be the state religion, the Roman emperor Julian rejected the faith and wrote his own refutation of Christianity, "Against the Galileans", including comments such as :
".. why do you worship this spurious son of his whom has never been recognised as his own", and "You however, I know not why, foist on him a counterfeit son".

Note this telling criticism of Julian, the educated Roman emperor :
"But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time - the events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius - then you may consider that I speak falsely on all matters"

Here we see Julian explicitly state that Jesus is UNKNOWN TO HISTORY.


There is no doubt from this that early Christianity was dismissed as a cult based on lies and myths.

Iasion

[Tux314]

Nearly everything on http://www.talkreason.org would be screwball material. They take articles from random people on the Internet, the only criteria seeming to be that they are anti-religion. In fact, it's somewhat difficult to pick a particular article to nominate. However, I think that http://www.talkreason.org/articles/FWD.cfm wins.

Theists maintain that God cannot intervene to stop the atrocities done by human beings because he values their free will to a very high degree. I presented here a new criticism of this idea: if God were to value our free will that much, he wouldn't create us so that we would be forced to abandon it for that long part of our lives in which we sleep, when he could find ways of making us, without any loses, without having to sleep. Perhaps God has a good reason for not stopping the evil done by humans, but it is hard to believe that this hypothetical reason has anything to do with his supposed respect for our free will. Moreover, I showed that my criticism, although not radically new, is useful and important because: 1- it strengthens the general case against FW and 2- it's stronger than the arguments given so far against the idea that God values our FW to a high degree. I conclude that the reader has, from the present paper, good reason to think that when used against the Argument from Moral Evil, the Free Will Defense is unconvincing.

(Emphasis mine; I love the admission.)

[BronzeArcher]

Hm...here's something from a guy who brings to bear years and years of serious study. It's impressive. (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16839100&postcount=4)

Like us in the modern age, the ancients assumed that God acted according to their standards, and wrote the so called `scripture' accordingly. This assumption runs a very real risk that the image of God presented in `scripture' differs very greatly from the way God actually is.

Christs message was badly distorted by inadequate communication (writing skills of the biblical authors, and their own extremely warped cultural understanding) right from the outset.

And actually, I've gotten one or two good replies/questions.

[{Tim}]

Can I use that as my siggy?Uh, belatedly, sure no problem. :wink:

[Sparko]

Hm...here's something from a guy who brings to bear years and years of serious study. It's impressive. (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16839100&postcount=4)





:hehe: ...his name is 'Thinker'... how ironic.

He just makes some wild assertion and 'thinks' that refutes you totally. :lmbo:

[BronzeArcher]

There was a deist a few weeks back with the title of "Researcher", and I almost flamed him for being so ignorant on some things. sigh...

[Bill the Cat]

Here's a great example of Sat Guru Sri Gary Olsen's philosophical prowess:

The yearning for pure spirituality has never been greater, and yet this deepest yearning, heard as the piercing cry in the night, is suffocating, unable to realize itself nor to quench the fires of separation and loneliness.

:lolo:

Shout out to anthrogirl for the reference.

[Mark_S]

Did I throw out Mathew Fox and his 95 theses last month?

[BronzeArcher]

More from Thinker (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16855381&postcount=14)

Among the dead sea scrolls was the `Habbakuk Commentary' - basically a copy of that biblical book, by then several centuries old, with comments written in every few lines by a more recent author, who was attempting to understand that biblical book in the context of his own time and culture because the old time and culture no longer had much meaning. CHANGE HAPPENS.

What?


Yep. Their cultural understandings very greatly constricted the way in which they could understand the world around them - including somebody as remarkable as Jesus. Certain key ideas, particularly those for which they had no concept, or ran strongly counter to their culture, would have either been immediately distorted or suppressed. This includes *ALL* the NT biblical authors. Or to put it another way, would the biblical authors really be able to make an even superficially accurate description of the computers we are using in this debate? I expect an answer here.

Really, it's quite interesting...

[Cynic Sage]

I nominate the Mysterious PMer.

Perhaps I should let BeHereNow explain it (he posted this information in the JPHOCD cases on the rise, its sad really (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57254) thread).

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1109971&postcount=54



When I saw the thread title, I assumed it was regarding a mass PM that was recently sent out. I'll copy and paste it here, but leave the username private:


Hello fellow "freethinkers" (that may not be the correct word to use, but please bare with me), just introducing myself, [private] (author of [a book about apostacism]).

I was wondering if you could share with me any interesting information, or anecdotes, or the web addresses of your favorite funny or mentally stimulating-posts at tweb, because you seem to have each spent more time on tweb than I have. I'm looking for a "best of" summary of tweb from a freethinker's or doubter's perspective, along with some specific examples or webaddresses pointing to specific examples.

Thanks!
[private]



Okay, so far so good (sorta..). But then, look what got buried down at the bottom:

P.S., Any funny or interesting info related to J. P. Holding, whom I met off-forum years ago, would also be appreciated.


Aha! P.S., eh? Just a passing curiosity, is it?

The funny thing is that this PM was also sent, among others, to C.D. Ward and Anthrogirl. Could there possibly be any three "freethinkers" less likely to spread dirt about JP Holding to some random dude? Free thinking indeed!

So I sent back a PM asking why he was so interested in JP and got this response:

I am preparing a reply to him.

Since when is funny or "interesting" information about someone necessary, or even helpful, to a sincere reply?

Ugh.. I felt dirty just being implicated in this nefarious scheme.

Any guesses to who this guy is?

[Darth Executor]

99% chance its Jimbo. Or maybe that stalker...

[Cynic Sage]

99% chance its Jimbo. Or maybe that stalker...

Jimbo wrote a book?

[One Bad Pig]

I nominate the Mysterious PMer.

Perhaps I should let BeHereNow explain it (he posted this information in the JPHOCD cases on the rise, its sad really (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57254) thread).

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1109971&postcount=54





Any guesses to who this guy is?
:hrm: I'd guess either Doubting John or Dan Barker. :lolo:

[Darth Executor]

Jimbo wrote a book?

Wouldn't put it past him.

[Cynic Sage]

Wouldn't put it past him.

Who could have met JP off forum years ago, and has a book out now?

[Darth Executor]

Lemme do an investigation. Right now I'm leaning towards Barker.

[AndyN]

Am I out of place, or time, for nominating Mad Gerbil, and his solution of genocide of the entire Arab Race as a solution to the problem of international terrorism? Or is this a theology only thread? In which case, erm, quick, erm, bishop spong for still existing?


(might have missed the point. again)

[Darth Executor]

Here are my finds.

1. DJ is out of the picture. He does not need to gather any info from JP to

"I am preparing a reply to him."

2.Dee Dee made that thread yesterday and BHN said he got the message "recently".

3. Dan Barker came on tweb roughly 4 days ago. His last activity was: Last Activity: Today 12:53 PM
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/member.php?userid=7664

Yet he has failed to respond to the questions in his thread.. He has written a book on his apostasy. The logical conclusion is that Dan Barker is indeed the misterous probe with JPHOCD gathering information before he decides to combat JP.

Any questions?

[jpholding]

Any guesses to who this guy is?

Depends what he means by "off forum". The only person here on TWeb I have ever met from "the other side" (ANY other side) in person is "Bloodnut," and he's Mormon, not Skeptic. If he means anything from email to another forum, it could be one of thousands of indistinguishable rear ends out there. :ahem:

I have never crossed paths with Barker directly....sorry, DE. Though of course Barker is a liar, too...

It's too smiley to be Jimbo.

[Darth Executor]

Am I out of place, or time, for nominating Mad Gerbil, and his solution of genocide of the entire Arab Race as a solution to the problem of international terrorism? Or is this a theology only thread? In which case, erm, quick, erm, bishop spong for still existing?


(might have missed the point. again)

You probably can although it seems to me that MG was venting rather than being serious about his proposal.

[Cynic Sage]

You probably can although it seems to me that MG was venting rather than being serious about his proposal.

I hate it when people vent, my neurological condition makes me think they are being serious and I become confused as to what their exact position is.


:rant: I WANT TO KILL THEM ALL, STICK THEM LIKE PIGS, USE THEIR BLOOD TO WAX MY CAR, AND WATCH THEIR CARCASSES BE DEVOURED RIGHT BEFORE THE EYES OF THEIR LOVED ONES!



:ahem:

[Darth Executor]

I have never crossed paths with Barker directly....sorry, DE. Though of course Barker is a liar, too...


Exactly. The crud about knowing you from before is a lie err, interpolation. :wink:

BHN was right to be suspicious and such a reply gathers even more suspicion (you yourself said nobody else fits the picture). I'm still 99% sure it's Barker.

[One Bad Pig]

:rant: I WANT TO KILL THEM ALL, STICK THEM LIKE PIGS, USE THEIR BLOOD TO WAX MY CAR, AND WATCH THEIR CARCASSES BE DEVOURED RIGHT BEFORE THE EYES OF THEIR LOVED ONES!



:ahem:
:glare:

[Cynic Sage]

:glare:

Don't worry, I don't have a car.:teeth:

[Darth Executor]

JP, you should make a new feature where you make fun of famous atheist quotes. I really liked the one where you parodied the bandoli.no site.

For those ignorant of one of JP's best works, here it is:
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/bandoli00.htm

And the atheist quotes:
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/bandoli09.htm

Original list here:
http://bandoli.no/sayings.htm

[Higon]

JP, you should make a new feature where you make fun of famous atheist quotes. I really liked the one where you parodied the bandoli.no site.

For those ignorant of one of JP's best works, here it is:
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/bandoli00.htm

And the atheist quotes:
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/bandoli09.htm

Original list here:
http://bandoli.no/sayings.htm

Ooooooh yeah! I´ve been reading this one those days. It would be interesting given the last "Soudbite weekend" here at Tweb, with well known infidels opening threads with the quotes they are most fond of.

He should also accept submissions.

[jpholding]

JP, you should make a new feature where you make fun of famous atheist quotes. I really liked the one where you parodied the bandoli.no site.

Sounds interesting. I'm on the road for two days starting tomorrow, so how about I start a new thread here for suggestions?

[One Bad Pig]

Depends what he means by "off forum". The only person here on TWeb I have ever met from "the other side" (ANY other side) in person is "Bloodnut," and he's Mormon, not Skeptic. If he means anything from email to another forum, it could be one of thousands of indistinguishable rear ends out there. :ahem:

I have never crossed paths with Barker directly....sorry, DE. Though of course Barker is a liar, too...

It's too smiley to be Jimbo.
You think it might be Edski? He's got a fairly lengthy history with you.

[Cynic Sage]

I nominate Minnesota for his thread: Why The Bible IS So Unconvincing. His argument boils down to "Different Bible Translations use different words, so you can't trust the Bible".

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57360&page=1

This topic was inspired by another thread in which it is said that the "evil" appearing in Exodus 32:14 wasn't really suppose to mean evil as we understand the term. Of course, if this is true, then because the term continues to be found in some of today's Bibles it suggests that those publishers who use it don't really care if the reader understands the passage's true meaning or not. Or, maybe they DO have it right, and those who suggest otherwise are mistaken. In any event:


Exodus 32:14 From various Bibles

14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened. NIV

14(A)So the LORD changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people. NAS

14And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.


14 And Jehovah repented of the evil which he said he would do unto his people.


14And Jehovah repented of the evil that he had said he would do to his people.


14 So the LORD changed His mind (A) about the disaster He said He would bring on His people.

14 Then the LORD relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

14And GOD did think twice. He decided not to do the evil he had threatened against his people.


14So even though the LORD had threatened to destroy the people, he changed his mind and let them live.

14and Jehovah repenteth of the evil which He hath spoken of doing to His people.

So we have a bit of a difference of opinion. God either relented, changed his mind, repented, or thought twice, about the evil, disaster, harm, or destruction he intended on doing.

Obviously the words in each of these two groups of words are not synonyms. "relent" isn't the same as "repent" isn't the same as "changed his mind" isn't the same as "thought twice. Each has its own meaning which, while perhaps similar to one of the others, is still unique in its message. Same for those in the second group. "Evil" isn't the same as "disaster" isn't the same as "harm" isn't the same as "destruction." And again, each has its own meaning which, while perhaps similar to one of the others, is still unique in its message. (I will not answer any questions as to why I think X is not exactly the same as Y. If you don't agree, fine, but I suggest you look up the terms.)

So the question is, what was god truly intending to do (evil, disaster, harm, or destruction) and what was his true reaction (relent, change his mind, repent, or think twice)? Or, doesn't it make any difference? Intending to bring disaster is no different than doing evil? And, changing ones mind is no different than repenting?

Of course, the whole object here is to show why Christianity is so difficult to take seriously when scripture is used to back up its validity. Christians themselves can't even agree on what their holy word says, much less how it should be interpreted.

[jpholding]

You think it might be Edski? He's got a fairly lengthy history with you.

It's not written in Edski's meandering style, though it is a small sample, and he would be the sort who thinks collecting anecdotes serves some rational purpose.

In the meantime, some nominations. This is a mailbag one, too good to keep.



Judging from your diatribe against Dr. LaHaye, we assume that no fundamentalist can possibly be an intellectual. http://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretice2.html

Do you assume that your hatred is the ultimate in Christianity?



The guy signed his name and I just looked him up....hoo boy...

http://www.onealclan.com/

This is him. It just has to be seen to be believed. Especially the article about Ezekiel...

Also, White Mouse Man for this commentary:


t's very nice to hear your opinion on the matter. I must say after a bit of research on the matter, I have to agree that you are quite right.

The message of Christianity was just as unpopular then as it is today. Few people then really were attracted to the idea that somebody who was already dead could, by the reciting of a few phrases and a promise to be a loyal christian (and a bit of tithe perhaps) relieve them of any and all guilt and grant them eternal life. People in that era generally had no concscience and enjoyed evil, and it is also very clear they longed for death as the ultimate finality. I was unaware that this was the prevailing attitude during that period.

Likewise the early Christian congregations were quite unfriendly as you mentioned. From early greek texts on the matter, we know that meetings began with the ritualistic trading of insults, followed by mutual cheek slapping, then a knee to the groin for new members. This was then followed by four hours of silence enforced by the senior member who kept a special mallet studded with nails just for this purpose. Likewise, when fellow christians met, they would pelt eachother with small dried fish kept in special sacks just for such eventualities.


Ancient folks would never follow a person who was crucified. Garroted maybe.. hung, beheaded, suffocated, strangled, drown, stabbed, shot, poisoned, dismembered, crushed, drawn and quartered, keel hauled.. but crucifiction is simply disgraceful. Quite unfashionable.


And Mike WC for his excellent and detailed response:

Ho boy, an entire apologetic based on keen insights into first century psychology. Veeeery impressive.

Upgraded to gold for this specific just offered in which he tells us he has the authority to say for sure while we do not:


I have no idea why you and your fellow apologists consider yourselves so omniscient, Holding. Statements like "The Romans could not envision a god dying like Jesus - period" are absurd on their face. You're just trying to turn people into little robots, acting out your script. You might as well be talking about the coming communist revolution - there is no such thing as inevitability in history.

I have a fairly good handle on modern European historiography. And you know what? Scholars that have a wealth of information to work with don't say silly things like "People of this period would never accept concept X..."

It's only apologists shoving their noses into ancient history that think they can dictate what people would or wouldn't have done. It is absurd method.

Any one individual has countless factors affecting their lives - and a likely large number of those factors are inscrutable. Especially when that person is seperated from us by 2000 years.

[Cynic Sage]

Likewise the early Christian congregations were quite unfriendly as you mentioned. From early greek texts on the matter, we know that meetings began with the ritualistic trading of insults, followed by mutual cheek slapping, then a knee to the groin for new members. This was then followed by four hours of silence enforced by the senior member who kept a special mallet studded with nails just for this purpose. Likewise, when fellow christians met, they would pelt eachother with small dried fish kept in special sacks just for such eventualities.


Reminds me of the Church services back in me old home town.

<Nostalgic Sigh>

[Cynic Sage]

Malcom, on Avatars:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=1137&page=1

1 Cor 10:31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

Some practical theology. A simple question, really: Does your avatar glorify God, or does it reflect the world?

On one "Christian" message board I have previously been a member of, one of the moderators actually had a picture of "Dr. Evil" from the Austin Powers movies as their avatar. It may seem like a small thing, but if you think God isn't interested in the small things, then you obviously haven't been reading your Bible properly.

3 John 1:11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.

1 John 2:16 For everything in the world--the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does--comes not from the Father but from the world.

James 4:4 You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

Gal 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.


So, how does your avatar glorify God?



I agree that God is interested in the apparent minutiae of our lives; otoh, I'm not sure that using a Dr. Evil avatar amounts to "imitation of the world". If somebody copied Dr. Evil's behavior, such as extorting "one million dollars" from world governments, then that would be "imitation of the world" in what I take to be the relevant sense: following a pattern of sin and rebellion against God.

So what legitimate and God-glorifying reason would a Christian have for using Dr. Evil as their avatar, other than identifying with and imitating the world? :huh:


That passage seems to agree that sinful behavior is to be avoided. I remain unconvicted that an avatar image of "Dr. Evil" is sinful behavior.


It is true that using a picture of Dr. Evil as an avatar does not necessarily imply the imitation of Dr. Evil's behaviour. That would be rather incredible. However, I'm not sure you're really seeing the point here.

Choosing to use a picture of Dr. Evil as an avatar is choosing to use a "worldly" image, which is associated with a "worldly" movie, rather than choosing to use an image which is clearly associated with God and godliness. Why would a Christian do such a thing?


Well, mine imitates &quot;the world&quot; in the sense that it portrays an image of something that is part of &quot;the world&quot;


3 John 1:11 Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good.

So I'm assuming your saying that the "world" isn't really evil then, right?

...

My opinion on the matter is this:

Your opinion on the matter is as worthless as mine. We can justify pretty much anything by human wisdom and reasoning, and we can even use Scriptures to do it and make it sound nice and plausible. But the only "opinion" that counts is God's.

Of course, God is holy and worthy of ALL glory. Jesus Christ died for us, to save us from our sin. I'm sure, in the light of all that, He totally understands you wanting to use a picture from a television show as your avatar. :doh:


I wonder when Malcolm will realize that he's using the TWeb symbol for atheism as his avatar?:teeth:

[Sparko]

I wonder when Malcolm will realize that he's using the TWeb symbol for atheism as his avatar?:teeth:

Shh!!! (Imagine I am Doctor Evil Shushing you)

[Shadow Phoenix]

I second Johnny's motion with Minnesota's thread on why the Bible is so unconvincing.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1111570#post1111570

I urge any Christian to check it out if you need a boost to your faith.

[Darth Executor]

Apologetics has been a skeptic slaughterhouse lately. I'm starting to miss Johnny Skeptic...

[Cynic Sage]

Da Blonde reads minds:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57200&page=1&pp=16


I'm no more likely to harm a homosexual than I am any other type of sinner. If you'd put your bigotry aside you'd find that there are alot of Christians out there that may oppose you at the ballot box -- but will live beside you in peace and you could still be good neighbors.

Fred Phelps is wrong.
He is cruel.
I oppose him.

Any questions?

And yet Fred Phelps is right out there calling a spade a spade, while the hatred you perpetuate is more subtle, more hurtful, and more harmful. People laugh at Fred Phelps or mutter mild oaths against him. Yet when the likes of Richard Land and so forth denigrate LGBTs in the usual subdued manner the harmful effect is real.

I don't know about Richard Land, but I do know a bit about Mad Gerbil from his posts. I must ask, since when is reasoned moral objection to a particular activity "hatred"?

It might not be, but that is not his position.

[Sparko]

Either Malcolm reads this thread or someone told him about his avatar being the atheist symbol cuz he removed it.

[Cynic Sage]

Either Malcolm reads this thread or someone told him about his avatar being the atheist symbol cuz he removed it.

I told him in his "avatar" thread.

[Sparko]

I told him in his "avatar" thread.

I knew I shouldn't have given you that link!

I bet his face turned red.:blush:

[Shadow Phoenix]

Remember though, Malcolm is not a legalist although he keeps asking legalistic questions, he's not condemning video games although he says what we do is unChristian, and he's not denying salvation by grace through faith, although he's not sure if he'll make it to Heaven.

[Higon]

I nominate the Universe People...

http://www.cosmic-people.com/default_e.htm

...including the "THE NEW REVELATION OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST"

Look at the pictures, they look sooo 70thish! :b_bow:

http://www.cosmic-people.com/obr_bar/obr006.jpg

HAHAHAHA! A LASER GUN! :rofl: (Batteries and Tin Foil Suit not included)

http://www.cosmic-people.com/obr_bar/obr008.jpg
http://www.cosmic-people.com/obr_bar/obr009.jpg

Lot´s of usefull information there. Enjoy.

[jpholding]

Note to self: "Patristic Saint" wins gold for his hapless, self-contradictory, and continued defense of David Bercot (see today's upload).

[jpholding]

Presenting -- an email SO SCREWY that I signed in to TWeb special, from this hotel lobby in Cleveland, to post it.

You seem to have glossed over the heart of the ten commandments issue which is what you call the ten commandments is not said in scripture to be the ten commandments and what is called in scripture the ten commandments is about unleavened bread and offering first born animals and not mixing the blood with the milk etc. which you refuse to call the ten commandments. This is far from a small issue.

Next week: Our friend complains about the dust mote on his desk. Stay tuned.

[Darth Executor]

Presenting -- an email SO SCREWY that I signed in to TWeb special, from this hotel lobby in Cleveland, to post it.



Next week: Our friend complains about the dust mote on his desk. Stay tuned.

I can't even make out what he's trying to say...

[BronzeArcher]

Let me try...

What you call the 10C are not, in fact, the 10C. The 10C are about unleavened bread, sacrifice laws, and the other purity laws. I'm also totally ignorant of ancient culture, and I don't even have a chance of communicating properly. But this is far from a small issue, because I think what are in fact purity laws, are universal, eternal moral commandments that we must follow. But hey? what's that...*signs off*

[Cynic Sage]

TealTerror wants a diety trick-show:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57336&page=6

Here's a list of things that would make both its writer and me believe in God/a religion:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html (http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/theistguide.html)
My favorites:
Just think: What if Jesus had said something like this?

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee that thine energy is as thine mass times the speed of light multiplied unto itself."


If cities condemned as sinful by preachers tended to explode in flames for no apparent reason, if glowing auras of holy light sometimes appeared around believers to protect them from harm, or if atheists and only atheists were regularly struck by lightning, this would be compelling proof.

[BronzeArcher]

It would be strange if Jesus spoke KJV English.

[One Bad Pig]

It would be strange if Jesus spoke KJV English.
Yeah, you'd think he'd speak in today's English so we could understand him better.

[Sparko]

Yeah, you'd think he'd speak in today's English so we could understand him better.

Yeah. Romulans do.

[themuzicman]

Yeah. Romulans do.
Can I nominate zipperhead

[Cynic Sage]

Can I nominate zipperhead

For what?

[themuzicman]

For what?
Screwball of the month?

[Cynic Sage]

Screwball of the month?

No, I mean "what did he say/do?"

[dizzle]

I can't even make out what he's trying to say...

But it is no small issue.

[themuzicman]

No, I mean "what did he say/do?"
See here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57378

(Among other things... He said that if the Coast Guard comes to where you are drowning in the middle of the Ocean, and a diver goes into the water and tosses you a rope, and you're brought to safety, that you can claim that you saved yourself... :doh:)

[Cynic Sage]

See here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57378

(Among other things... He said that if the Coast Guard comes to where you are drowning in the middle of the Ocean, and a diver goes into the water and tosses you a rope, and you're brought to safety, that you can claim that you saved yourself... :doh:)

:lmbo:

...but remember to post the quote (and some context if it will help).:stop:

[jpholding]

Yeah, Muze -- a quote would help because I go over this thread at the end of the month. But otherwise I'll just give a link to the thread zip is in and offer your summary.

[themuzicman]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1111893&postcount=46


My grabbing the rope simply enables them to complete their work of saving me from drowning.

If you don't grab the rope, will you die? YES, so you prevent yourself from dying by grabbing the rope. you save yourself from death by grabbing the rope, Your choice was what saved you, they just helped.

[Darth Executor]

But it is no small issue.

Huh?

[BronzeArcher]

Dee's right. It ain't no small issue.

[Cynic Sage]

BHN:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57563

I met some horny girls at church when I was a youngster. Most of my sexual awakening was with church girls. Churches are all about peddling sex if you're eyes are open to it, though admittedly not this flagrantly.

If that were true, I never would have apostasized in high-school.:lol:

[Cu Mhorrigan]

WHERE IS MY NOMMINATION DAD GUMMIT!!! My birthday Just passed Sunday) and I want a Nomination.

[jpholding]

WHERE IS MY NOMMINATION DAD GUMMIT!!! My birthday Just passed Sunday) and I want a Nomination.

Come on, Cu, you just can't compete with the likes of Johnny Skeptic for pure screwiness. Admit it.

[Sparko]

Clueless award:

Luffy:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1116891&postcount=30
Alright, Luffy. I am back.
I hate this objection. First of all, why does the fact that ancient people believed in God mean that belief in God is unreasonable?
In itself, it means nothing of the kind. All that I meant by that is that people in the ancient world had every reason to believe in God. We no longer have many of those reasons - things which once seemed magical are now explained by our understanding of nature.

What caused the universe?

Unknown.

:lmbo:

[Cynic Sage]

WHERE IS MY NOMMINATION DAD GUMMIT!!! My birthday Just passed Sunday) and I want a Nomination.

Sorry CuMho, I'm afraid your posts are becoming too reasonable and level-headed. :sad:

[Cynic Sage]

Wait, nevermind, found one:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57480&page=1&pp=16

Christianity Defines itself by it's actions, Incase you are too stupid to notice your religion does not have a really NICE history when it comes to it's actions towards those of other faiths. Look at It's current fight with Islam!! this is just one more struggle of the eternal Penis Measuring contest between Jesus and Mohammed.

"Eternal Penis Measuring Contest"?:ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

More CuMho:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1117304&posted=1#post1117304

take a good long hard look over church history
you are going to find that there are countelss examples of Christian Stupidity and the fruits of it. I mean Think of what our scientific and cultural development would be if Charlemagne had not sacked and destroyed the Library of Alexandria or the countless othe Pagan temples which house Scientific and Other knowledge. Oh yeah I forgot with your people Knowledge is evil.
Some how I doubt it since you had not paid attention to one thing I told you.

[Darth Executor]

More CuMho:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1117304&posted=1#post1117304


:rofl:

[Cynic Sage]

And the Wonka's Tasty Fudge award goes to mikeledo:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57646&page=3


The issue of gay/lesbian sexuality seems to come up here on TWeb quite regularly. The vehemence with which gays/lesbians are denigrated is astonishing to me.

As a dead straight, a-theistic guy, who nevertheless has great respect for Christ's teachings, can someone explain to me what Christ had to say about this issue?

In the story of Uriah, David tells Uriah to go home and "wash his feet." Jesus washes the feet of the apostles. I think that pretty well sums it up without going into any detail. ;)

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Wait, nevermind, found one:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57480&page=1&pp=16



"Eternal Penis Measuring Contest"?:ahem:
Well think about it all this nonsense between Islam and Xianity all stems from the size of your prophet's Penises. their followers are trying to prove how big their Cojones are by ever increasing acts of atrocity.
Actually I had something even MORE graphic in mind but it would have surely gotten me banned.

[themuzicman]

WHERE IS MY NOMMINATION DAD GUMMIT!!! My birthday Just passed Sunday) and I want a Nomination.
I Nominate CU for this post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1116357&postcount=205

[Cu Mhorrigan]

And the Wonka's Tasty Fudge award goes to mikeledo:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57646&page=3


Actually Sometimes "Feet" referred to another part of a persons anatomy. (Especially Men). and the term "Wash your feet" was probably another way of saying "Go and give some Lovin to Bathsheba". Yep a great hero of the faith tries to cover up his mistake.
AH HAYVE SIYINED!!!!

[Cynic Sage]

Actually Sometimes "Feet" referred to another part of a persons anatomy. (Especially Men). and the term "Wash your feet" was probably another way of saying "Go and give some Lovin to Bathsheba". Yep a great hero of the faith tries to cover up his mistake.
AH HAYVE SIYINED!!!!

I nominate this one too, JP.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

I nominate this one too, JP.
Look it up in a bible dictionary.

[Darth Executor]

I nominate EvoUK for an error that I found very funny.

Oh, and as for hamsters implications that late term abortions were the norm:

according to the CDC, in 2000 about 1.2 million abortions were performed. 55% were done in the first 8 weeks, 88% by 12 weeks, and only 1.4% after 20 weeks.

It appears that 143% of abortions were done pretty early. :rofl:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1117664

[One Bad Pig]

I nominate EvoUK for an error that I found very funny.



It appears that 143% of abortions were done pretty early. :rofl:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1117664
Um, Darth? The 88% includes the 55% AFAICT.

[Darth Executor]

Um, Darth? The 88% includes the 55% AFAICT.

He said "by 12 weeks" which makes it a bit unclear. As such I'll consider it an error. :rasberry:

[One Bad Pig]

He said "by 12 weeks" which makes it a bit unclear.
:huh: How is that unclear?

[Darth Executor]

:huh: How is that unclear?

Because it makes it look like it is dependant on the previous statement.

In the first 8 months the ant gathers food.
By 12 months the and has survived a hard winter.

You get the idea.

[One Bad Pig]

Because it makes it look like it is dependant on the previous statement.

In the first 8 months the ant gathers food.
By 12 months the and has survived a hard winter.

You get the idea.
Yeah. It just seems obvious to me that the second statement includes the time covered by the first. :shrug:

[jpholding]

Actually Sometimes "Feet" referred to another part of a persons anatomy. (Especially Men). and the term "Wash your feet" was probably another way of saying "Go and give some Lovin to Bathsheba". Yep a great hero of the faith tries to cover up his mistake.
AH HAYVE SIYINED!!!!

Good news, Cu! You just won Gold with that. Washing your feet meant nothing more than that you were going home and getting comfy -- because as the Japanese remove their shoes before entering a house, so the ancient Jews normally washed their feet before entering a house.

You and mikeledo win the Freudian Obsession Award. :thumb: Congratulations!

[jpholding]

Johnny Skeptic wins Gold for a comment in which he tries to claim it is no big deal that mainland Tyre was scraped bare (after denying that it was):


Widespread destruction of the mainland settlement during any time during millennia to come would have "fulfilled" the prophecy, including being destroyed by bombs dropped from airplanes in the 20th century. Many ancient cities ended up as ruins. The ruins of ancient Babylon in Iraq are a good example. What is usual about that?


Oh yeah! Here's a sneak preview of the DJ toon too. :teeth:

[jpholding]

My little brother is getting into the act too. Here's one he made:

[wfaber]

It's Michael Savage!

[themuzicman]

I nominate dizzyblonde:


Maybe he somehow logged in as a guest
Or he got someone who can hack for him
Anyone whose been in the computer lab knows i dont care for computers

THE POINT IS NOT DID THE MOVE MY POST!!! HE DID!!!!!!!!\
\
]


BUT IS WHAT i'M SAYING TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!\
ABJOUT SCRIPUTRE

here's some context:

start here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1118169&postcount=33)
and read the remainder of that page.

[Sparko]

I nominate dizzyblonde:



here's some context:

start here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1118169&postcount=33)
and read the remainder of that page.

Her post 13 was funny too. It was a dyslexic typo but hilarious:

I AM BEING SET UP.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HE IS A SHEEP IN WOLVES CLOTHING

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1118136&postcount=13

Those sneaky SHEEP!!! BAAAA! er, I mean, Woof!

[bar Jonah]

If this has already been suggested, then forgive me; I haven't read through every page of all the Screwball threads. LOL But this I had to make sure was included. This lunatic is truly off his rocker! Statements like:

"Christ died for the sins of the Age of Aries. His spirit rose to heaven in the Age of Pisces."

" If God created all things, then he must have created a god for every kingdom in the ancient Middle East. Afterward, he was constantly frustrated by their presence."

"Genesis 1:2 reflects an ancient belief that all things are composed of some combination of earth, fire, air and water."

http://www.usbible.com/usbible/default.htm

[Sparko]

The ultimate in wackety-woo-woo.

www.timecube.com

[Sparko]

Former Fundy..


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1118430&postcount=39
(you might have to read a few prior posts to get the whole conversation that I summarize below)

JohnSparks: ...you are being obtuse.

FF: You are resorting to the common tactic of most TWEB apologetes. When you are backed into the corner and have no answer--just call your opponent names. "Obtuse" is a synonym for "dumb".

JohnSparks: I don't think you are dumb. When I say 'obtuse' I mean acting ignorant. ACTING.

FF: I am not acting. I think that for whatever reason you are not seeing my point and thus we are talking past one another.

{emphasis mine}

:doh:

'splains a lot.

[BronzeArcher]

The ultimate in wackety-woo-woo.

www.timecube.com

That'd be quite the challenge question:

Make sense out of this...

[{Tim}]

I nominate DizzyBlonde again, this time for the "interpreting verses according to my preconceived assumptions about other verses" award:

no freewill?

29All the men and women, the people of Israel, whose heart moved them to bring anything for the work that the LORD had commanded by Moses to be done brought it as a freewill offering to the LORD.

I must admit, I am much more aquainted with the New Testament than the Old. However, I do know that when we look at the Old Testament, we should draw Jesus out...because Jesus Himself tells us to.

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is [Luke 24:25, 27; Acts 13:27] these that testify about Me;

So one, there must be something about the Cross of Christ that we can draw out of this.
Two, it can not be free will, because other Scripture suggests otherwise.
:doh:

[{Tim}]

Ooh, and another one - the "expert phsychologiser" award...
You are being arrognat and prideful and it is obvious even in your sentence structure.
:huh: "Obvious even in your sentence structure??!

Oh, by the way, I forgot the source for my last post; it is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57694&page=2&pp=15), while the source for this quote is the following page (here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57694&page=3&pp=15)).


And one more: disagreeing with her means that the Holy Spirit is not in you:[The passage says nothing whatsoever about the Holy Spirit. Instead, it explicitly states that their own hearts led them to make these offerings!]
I'm sorry but this means the Holy Spirit is not in you--the Holy Spirit delights and draws its people to the truth
Next page (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57694&page=4&pp=15), post #46.

[{Tim}]

Ohohohohoho! :lmbo: This one is just *too* rich!!! (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1118896&postcount=61)

She thinks Arnold should quote Scripture to back up his opinion of Semmie...And I think Semmie is a troooll from an all-cow planet... :lol:
At least the other two heretics TRIED to prove their points.
Where is the Scripture that advocates your view.

[Higon]

That'd be quite the challenge question:

Make sense out of this...

I am a'Cubic Thinker' and
far wiser than any god, any scientist
and any educator who preaches the
evil singularity of a single 1st corner.

I... Wow!! The lesson is: drugs are bad.

[Sparko]

The way she is going we might as well just link to her threads instead of posting pieces here. ALL of her latest stuff is way out there. I think she needs some sleep, she mentioned being up for 72 hours.

[Darth Executor]

Any chance of a Johnny Skeptic comic?

[jpholding]

Any chance of a Johnny Skeptic comic?

Yeah, but I have another project in mind first. :wink:

Meanwhile here's a preview of what's going to happen to another one of our friends...uh oh....

[jpholding]

Farrell Till wins a gold award for this "Obssession of the Century" note he placed atop a recent guest article written against one of mine:


Editor's Note: James Patrick Holding is a phony name used by ________, who began using it while he was still working as a librarian at Lake Correctional Institute near Clermont, Florida. I have long suspected that _____ had a dishonest motive for using this phony name, but I won't recount now my reasons for suspecting this. Here, I just want to inform readers that Brett Palmer used _____'s "penname" throughout the article below, because he told me, as he also said in a footnote at the end of his article, that he wanted to focus on the issue of the biblical record of Jericho's destruction and not on irrelevant matters pertaining to _____'s name. Readers will see that Palmer was very civil throughout his reply to _____, so despite my policy of using _____'s real name, I am allowing this article to be posted here. If _____ replies to it in his usual sarcastic, insulting way, I will edit the article to remove his "penname" and replace it with his real one, and I will not allow future articles that reference him to be published unless his real name is used. If ______ wants to conduct himself civilly, I will gladly reciprocate, but if he ants to give us just more of the same, I will be glad to show him that I have some talent for sarcasm too.

Oooh. Farrell is gonna "punish" me by using my real name some more. :rofl:

What in the world are these guys gonna do when I legally change it in a month or two?

[Mark_S]

Farrell Till wins a gold award for this "Obssession of the Century" note he placed atop a recent guest article written against one of mine:



Oooh. Farrell is gonna "punish" me by using my real name some more. :rofl:

What in the world are these guys gonna do when I legally change it in a month or two?

Don't forget to remind them how effective their campain has been :teeth:

[Sparko]

Farrell Till wins a gold award for this "Obssession of the Century" note he placed atop a recent guest article written against one of mine:



Oooh. Farrell is gonna "punish" me by using my real name some more. :rofl:

What in the world are these guys gonna do when I legally change it in a month or two?

You should change it to "Farrell Till Is A Dork" :rofl:

[jpholding]

This is especially funny in that chsalvia (where'd he go, anyway?) once noted here on TWeb that Till had turned down an item he had written because he refused to use the "real name".

And here's who else will make an appearance soon....

[BronzeArcher]

Don't forget to remind them how effective their campain has been :teeth:

Just about every single time I've linked to a Tekton article, someone has brought up something about Holding's name. So I guess it's a pretty effective piece of dirt, since so much is made out of it. What's perhaps the funniest part about all of it, is that everyone who I've seen saying something about that is using a screenname that is clearly not their real name.

---

And yes, what is up with Dizzy? I think DE's thread has been my first time seeing her go at it... World Taekwondo Federation!

[Cynic Sage]

CuMho again, and a site she uses as a source of info:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1122208&postcount=69

...
and Dude I would suggest you look at church History books from outside the fundementalist perspective since they are going to Completely Gloss over and IGNORE the heinous atrocities committed by the church in general.
but to whet your appetite:

http://dim.com/~randl/tinq.htm (http://dim.com/~randl/tinq.htm)

This is an article about Asatru but it mentioned some interesting tidbits:
http://www.asatru.org/asatru.html (http://www.asatru.org/asatru.html)

If you are going to Honestly do the research I would suggest googling the topic and doing some reading.

I visited the "dim" site and found a bunch of other screwball material there as well.

"The Evolution of the Icthys" (http://dim.com/~randl/icthus.htm)

"Spanish Inquisition" (http://dim.com/~randl/racking.htm)

Big list O' already answered "Bible-Contradictions" (taken directly from English translations). (http://dim.com/~randl/tcont.htm)

Christianity exists in translation - and so much gets lost in translation. The Jewish religious experience is joyously human, celebrating and sanctifying all acts of life, including eating, excreting, and mating, while contemplating God and Torah in its original language. The Christian experience, because it is a translation, and because of Paulist and other Hellenistic add-ons, is more theoretical, with conditional joy, and strained, convoluted guilt and denial. It attempts to destroy the human part of us, most obviously in its suppression of sex, and notion of "Original Sin." By splitting God into three, and having a mutilated corpse as its central icon, Christianity becomes Anti-Messiah. (Messiah brings peace...not gore) By inventing a "Devil," God's power is subverted and challenged - inconceivable in a non-pagan, one God system.

"excreting"?

There are strains of the Christian church who refer to the Bible as a 'Sword'. The metaphor becomes real when they attack the freedoms of others. These contradictions are pointed out for their sake. Many good people believe the Bible is literally God's Word ('sWord?!?), and reverence it and its teachings appropriately. But Jesus said: "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(Matt.26:52.)

The decontextualization makes my head hurt.:argh:

They also have an image of the Pope...














[attachment]
SHOOTING PINK FIREBALLS OUT OF HIS EYES!
http://dim.com/~randl/tmanc.htm

[One Bad Pig]

Here's something from a book I'm reading (The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom):

God is not creative, for God is not. But God as made by man reflects what man is, unbeknownst to himself. God is said to have made the world of concern to us out of nothing; so man makes something, God, out of nothing. (emphasis in original).

[jpholding]

"Jimbo" wins for the compact self-contradiction:

You can spew insults and act as cocky as you want, but ultimately all you are doing is wasting your life promoting idiotic ancient myths. You just don't get it.

Double Irony Screwball Award!

And the White Mouse ("Rationalist") wins a Gold Screwball Delorean Award for this performance in time travel:

Mountain Man asks: How about examples from the time of Christ? Can you show me examples of other martyrs from that time who's followers thought it honorable that they were dishonorably executed?

And the mouse answers, ONLY:

Mormonism.

Imagine that. Joseph Smith lived in 50 AD. :lol:

[Cynic Sage]

I nominate myself, for messing up on CuMho's gender again:blush: :

CuMho again, and a site she uses as a source of info:

[Cynic Sage]

I nominate Iasion, for how he starts his thread here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57896

Greetings all,

Apologists often claim Luke was an eye-witness to the Gospel events.

The actual passage reads :

"Since many have undertaken
to compile a narrative
of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
just as those who
were EYEWITNESSES from the beginning and ministers of the word
have handed them down to us,"

I too have decided,
after investigating everything accurately anew,
to write it down in an orderly sequence for you,
most excellent Theophilus,
so that you may realize the certainty
of the teachings you have received."



Does Luke actually claim to be an eye-witness?
No.


This lead to many replies, such as.


Strangely, I haven't come across any that say this. IIRC, I don't think Josh McDowell even says that Luke was an eye witness.

I was going to say much the same things. Every apologist I have spoken to about this regards Luke as a sort of Early Church historian. Not as an eye-witness. But his point is no less valid for that. Just a bit obvious really.

There has been at least one claim here that all four gospels were written by eye-witnesses.

Roy

(Can't find it - too many results when searching)

"At least on claim", how often is that?:lol: