Submit Your Candidates for August Screwballs of the Month

[jpholding]

I know it's July 29, but that's the way the calendar crumbles. :lol:

[Sparko]

July has 31 days.

[jpholding]

July has 31 days.

A Saturday and a Sunday. I try to take most of those off. We'd like to see Stealth this weekend.

[Sparko]

We'd like to see Stealth this weekend.

Ummm! I am gonna tell Malcolm on you. Going to watch a movie that isn't a Christian film... Shame on you! You will surely burn for that. :yes:

[Darth Executor]

Wasn't there supposed to be a DJ cartoon?

[Darth Executor]

i found it.

http://www.tektonics.org/toons/djtoon01.html

For some reason it doesn't appear on the toons page.

[technomage]

I'm miffed. I haven't been smurfed yet. :bawl:

[technomage]

[Deleted]

[jpholding]

For some reason it doesn't appear on the toons page.

I forgot to add it. :brood:


I'm miffed. I haven't been smurfed yet

You haven't done anything stupid enough yet. :teeth:

However as a public service, and if you desire, if you send me a photo and tell me what kind of animal you want to be, I'll make up a portrait for you. I've been thinking of offering to draw people avatars here in exchange for a minimal donation to Tekton; so call it an experiment (so you can have it free).

[jpholding]

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17314210&postcount=26

Gladiatrix could win gold for any of several comments, but this one takes the biscuit:


7 ) LUCIAN , (175 CE), refers to "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world."

REBUTTAL:
Yet another hearsay account, ~140 years after the alleged event. Note that Lucian does not name the "man" (could have been anyone). Here from JP Holding is what Lucien said (again to show just how VAGUE these alleged "references" are):

Quote:

4) LUCIAN , (175 CE), refers to "the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world."

Notice that Holding must admit that Jesus is NOT mentioned by Lucian. We are just supposed to assume (AGAIN) that Jesus existed because Christians existed. That is a really bad argument because what someone believes to be true is not evidence of anything except their belief. I can believe that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) exists, gain adherents, and found a religious institution, but that would in no way make the IPU a reality.

Again there is NO counter to be made against the fact that Lucian wrote this statement over 140 years after the alleged Jesus lived and died and there is no reference given for where Lucian got his information or to just what cult he is referring. Are we to assume that the only "cult" in Palestine was that of Christians? Remember that there was at least one other false Messiah executed (Theudas in 44 CE) and Lucian could just as easily have been referring to his "cult". There are no specifics given (name of cult, it's leader).

:lolo: in spades.

[BronzeArcher]

Heh. More from CF. I asked a guy "Can you give us your hermeneutical philosophy in a nutshell?" and he says (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17327712&postcount=3)

I am largely taking an agnostic perspective, which means that I have no particular doctrine to present, other than the source of my personal experiences, which cannot easily be proven or disproven either way.

Though uh, when I stated the question in a simpler way he gave his answer:

I filter my personal interpretations of scripture through the lense of my personal life experiences. This means that I believe that each individual's interpretation of scripture is particularly unique.

Oh dear. I'm going to ask him about socio-historical context use and see what he says.

[technomage]

You haven't done anything stupid enough yet. :teeth:

:hehe:

However as a public service, and if you desire, if you send me a photo and tell me what kind of animal you want to be, I'll make up a portrait for you. I've been thinking of offering to draw people avatars here in exchange for a minimal donation to Tekton; so call it an experiment (so you can have it free).

That's quite kind of you, JP--and quite brave, considering that the only picture I have available (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=20423) is enough to scare the rats out of Hamlin. :hehe: However, if you're feeling brave, you might put me in a medieval helmet ... that way I could be "a nut in shining armor." :lol: (I'd have more pictures to work from, but my computer died while I was on vaca--I'm using our room-mates.)

[BronzeArcher]

You know what, we should all do our harvesting over at CF. See (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17335874&postcount=13)

Dude, the claim that Gospels as historical references should have been shot down by now. The people who wrote them did not state this was a historical text and did not date them. If you want to use one religous scripture why not another? Say the Hindu Vedic scriptures written 2000 years before Genesis?

I had just mentioned the encomium. The irony!

[Darth Executor]

Hey JP you linked the Doubting John comic all right... to the wrong url.

You have

http://www.tektonics.org/toons/djtoon1.html

It should be

http://www.tektonics.org/toons/djtoon01.html

[Tux314]

TalkOrigins has to win one for their discussion of inerrancy in the Index to Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc). Mark Isaak is the author of the Index.

Inerrancy cannot be trusted. Errors can only be corrected if they are first recognized and admitted. Inerrancy makes that impossible. Therefore, errors in an inerrant interpretation of the Bible can never be fixed.

Here he begs the question, of course.

Inerrancy is a contempt that breeds hate. Inerrantists take it as divinely certain that other people's religious views are inferior to their own.

Is he advocating relativism here?

One reaps what one sows, so when inerrantists show their contempt, contempt for their own religious views is returned. History is bloodied by the consequences. Jews, Muslems, heathens, and other Christians have been subjugated, tortured, and slaughtered in the name of the "true" god.

So we shouldn't believe in inerrancy since we might get tortured?

And nothing like stereotyping your opponent instead of answering arguments.

The contempt also shows up as intolerance -- against women's roles, in attitudes about sex, and through a variety of other different views. Even those who do not commit atrocities, when they display such intolerance, are guilty of fomenting the atmosphere that makes the atrocities possible.

Kind of a weird red herring designed to avoid the point, if you ask me. Not to mention the question begging about sin and such.

Inerrancy rejects much study of the Bible (not infrequently to the point of persecuting the studier).

Not folks like Holding!

ignores textual criticism. Most inerrantists accept the King James version as authoritative, but analysis of the earliest biblical manuscripts shows that the King James version includes numerous errors.

Ahh, that straw man again.

For example, the story of Jesus chiding those who would stone an adulteress (John 8:1-11) does not appear until about 300 years after the Gospel of John was written.

Just curious, is this actually the case?

ignores source criticism. Many stories in the Bible are repeated, but with different emphasis, different details, and different language. These differences show that the Bible was written by different people at different times for different purposes, and their accounts were redacted by people with still different motives (Friedman 1987).

I'm not sure what the point is. This disproves inerrancy how?

ignores the reality of syncretism, the process by which rituals, concepts, etc. from one religion are adapted by another. Many biblical stories show Sumerian and Canaanite influence, for example.

I think this one has been answered quite well by Holding.

ignores the values of the writers of the Bible, who likely did not distinguish literalism or consider it important. The Bible was not written to record accurate histories, but to convey and persuade spiritual ideas. Those ideas may not even be the same to all people.

Nothing like adding a little relativism to the mix.

It is ironic that people who purport to hold the Bible in such high esteem reject serious, objective study of it.

Again, not Holding et. al.

Jesus himself said that religious laws are not absolute. In Matthew 5:38, he rejects the "eye for an eye" law (Exod. 21:23-25, Lev. 24:19-20, Deut. 19:21). Jesus rejected all dietary law (Mark 7:19; cf. Lev. 11). He rejected the commandment about working on the Sabbath (Mark 2:27). If Jesus considered that even the laws of Moses were not inerrant, why should we consider any part of the Bible inerrant?

Need I say more? This quote certainly deserves to be on the Screwball page.

The church cannot be an authority for inerrancy because there is no one church. There are over 10,000 different Christian denominations, all with different ideas about the Bible. In fact, there are at least three significantly different Bibles (the Catholic, Protestant, and Ethiopian Orthodox versions).

Fundy atheists use this one a lot. How does this actually discredit inerrancy?

Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one's interpretation of it.

:ahem:

Probably just the easiest straw man to burn, so Isaak insists on it being true.

Claiming that the Flood account is a true literal account is an error if it was written as an allegory; claiming that it is a true allegory is an error if it was a literal account.

Duh.

To claim that a particular interpretation of any part of the Bible is inerrant is to claim that you yourself are inerrant.

Not really. It's called scholarship. Isaak doesn't seem to recognize that any inerrantist would actually use it.

There are several aspects of the Bible that show it is not inerrant. These include factual errors, for example:

(Stuff that got refuted a long time ago)

and contradictions:

(More of the same)

Inerrantists are familiar with these and find rationalizations for these and other errors and contradictions, but they are unconvincing.

Nothing like a little well-poisoning assertion.

The rationalizations merely make the point that what the Bible seems to say is not what it means, which defeats the whole concept of scriptural inerrancy.

Again, there's something called scholarship.

There was a warning on the main page, though:

This collection is intended primarily as a guidepost and introduction. The explanations are not in depth (with a few exceptions), but most responses include links, references, and sources for more information. These are not just added for show. Readers are strongly encouraged to pursue additional reliable sources.

Isaak's idea of "reliable sources" when it comes to inerrancy include those as scholarly as Dan Barker and Dennis McKinsey!

Oh, and a few from another page:

The Bible was not intended to teach matters of science and history. Therefore, those areas should not be held to standards of literal accuracy.

Hmm, saying that the Bible doesn't actually say anything about history. What serious study Isaak must have done!

This was actually an attempt to refute the claim:

If the Bible cannot be trusted on scientific and historical matters, then it cannot be trusted on matters of salvation and spirituality.

Another of Isaak's claims was:

Creationists themselves sometimes make claims that contradict the Bible.

My, what a devastating argument! :ahem:

He also shows off his amazing logic skills with:

The claim is a non sequitur. That something is wrong in one area does not prevent it from being perfectly accurate in another.

when the question was whether its trustworthiness would be affected.

[Cynic Sage]

I just checked out some responses to an article by Doubting John on his blog (the one where he makes a response himself to ask for help and "athiest testimonies"):

http://exchristian.net/doubter/2005/07/passion-of-christ-why-did-jesus-suffer.php?show_id=112040963686624927#a333a3231706d

Winston why do you smoke cigarettes? You know that those things will kill you, yet you still insist on killing yourself, you really should quit smoking because you will be punished in a burning Hell that does not exist.

Winston you really have mental issues.
Winston you really need psychological help.
Winston did you know that cigarettes is a mind warping drug?


Causes lung-cancer, yes. But mind-warping...

Winston did you know that the people that wrote the bible were on Opiates and Marijuana?

Winston did you know that the people that wrote the bible
suffered from Frontal Lobe Trauma?

Winston do not ask me to proove that you are an idiot, because you already have.


How exactly to you perform a drug test on over 2000 year-old bones. And what are the odds of them all having the same head injury. Now that would make an interesting episode of CSI.

Science has proven that hell is not in the core of the earth as christains claimed for centuries. They switched to call it a spiritual place.


Those people over at Theologyweb argue a lot over correct interpretation of scripture-typically christian of them...

Isn't that is what you are supposed to do when you believe correct interpretation is important when discussing a text?

Hey Guys, well I pasted a few comments, they don't seem to like to respond, I don't typcially allow much wiggle room in a debate, they just bounce to another post it appears, they see rational debate, and skip to another posting where someone else will validate their belief...

Also, not that I analyzed the web interface and setup, uh, okay you caught me :-) But, the interface is set up to debate in differing areas, i.e., philosophy, each religion has its own area, or you can create your own thread...


Don't most Internet-Discussion groups already have that option?

The interface and logical configuration of that site is set up to target as many different fields in order to bring in as many people as possible, its even sectioned off in specific areas, i.e., philosophy, judaism, christianity, mormonism, etc., etc... Now, that seems to offer more people the ability to learn more in depth in each area, but it also creates a problem for those who are more 'whole' picture oriented...

Reading more of his post, we find out that "Whole-picture oriented" translates into "Doesn't like specifics".

For instance, get in a post with a Christian, and cross check their post with a Jewish post, and they typically bow out, and don't return,... Truth can't be learned in a vacuum, and sectioning off those areas creates vacuums and pockets where some don't have to leave their 'comfort' zone...


What does he mean by "cross check their post with a Jewish post"? Does he expect A Jew and a Xtian to always agree on certain subjects?

The site is set up not for serious debate, but more to accomodate as many people as possible of different perspectives within their own little clicks... More like, a web site that provides fellowship for each major religious organization... Also, in their forum area, they seem to not have an 'Atheist' section for debate, I could understand 'Atheism' as not being seen as a religion, however, it could be seen as a belief system based on sound philosophy...

I take it he hasn't stumbled across Theistic Metaphysics Dept. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=97) yet.

And, there are taboo areas, where you must be a Christian, etc., to enter, and if sniffed out as being a doubter, or playing 'stump' the 'chump', you get sidelined...

Does this guy really want to post in the " (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=65)Chapel" (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=65) section THAT badly. Is he the kind of guy that pees in the kitchen sink and makes soup in the bathroom toilet. Besides, the Athiests have there own one too (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=90).

I didn't find any truly compelling and Reasonable comments, like bookSLANG said, can't debate with those who hold irrational beliefs... I agree, its the core philosophy that they stand on that is rotten, as many from what I say, danced around Rationalizing metaphysically, and creating answers out of thin air as they interpret in their own little world...

I perceive that many are young also, but, not that I discount the validity of their beliefs, but, there is much experiential knowledge they do not yet have to piece together information from many different areas to argue in a 'whole' picture manner, this site at least allows us to throw anything at each other, virtually, I think I have been hit by a few chairs myself :-) take it easy...

You know what, he's right. We should get rid of all these meaningless "specific" forums and use up the leftover space for "Secular Nude Art":ahem:

[BronzeArcher]

This is great. I mentioned these guys:

- Bruce Malina & Richard Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Synoptics, and Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel on John.
- See also John Pilch, Jerome Neyrey, and David deSilva. The Context Group publications are listed here.
- Ben Witherington also has several socio-rhetorical commentaries which I'm sure have plenty of insight; that man is gigantic and I'm only holding off from reading him because of his size.
- For literary interest, see Richard Longenecker's Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period. I recommend hitting the social sciences first though.

---

And dear ol' Vinnie says (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17344344&postcount=25),

This is all poor scholarship and wishful thinking.

[Cynic Sage]

Check out the N00b troll:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1134778#post1134778

There are loads of contradictions in the Bible so why do you say it's the word of God?


Bible is no different than Stephen King's "The Shining"..or Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings"...or Herbert's "Dune" series! I can derive as much "truth" from any of these because both cannot be demonstrated in reality. Your god is as unknown to you as The God Emperor of Dune is to me. Even worse because at least I get a description of The God Emperor when I read Dune. So why do you beleive that the bible is true?

Why do you believe in Magic?

[Cynic Sage]

DaBlonde, on how she defines Xtianity:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1134669&postcount=49

The best way to advance Christianity is to advance liberalism since they are virtually the same thing.

So does this make Conservatives Satanists?

[jpholding]

That's quite kind of you, JP--and quite brave, considering that the only picture I have available (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=20423) is enough to scare the rats out of Hamlin.

Well, it didn't scare me (or Toby, for that matter) but it looks kind of, what? Like snow on TV? I need something clearer, so I guess get back to me when you have that. :sad:

[Darth Executor]

A fundy atheist gets pissed off at the mention of Dracula having made a pact with the devil. It's funny how they get pissed off over the stupidest things.


So your argument for all vampires everywhere is based on Dracula?

Keep in mind that the dude he is talking to is an atheist and did not even bring up anybody else other than dracula.

Who says Dracula din't have a creator?

Is Raziel and Kain from Dracula?(videogame characters)
Lestat and Louis?
Oh wait, that story of vampires started with a pagan god entering the blood of a person.
I guess pagan gods are the devil now?
Are they from that myth?
Is Dracula even the first vampire myth?
What about Chinese vampires? Are they based on christian myth?

What about "Demons"? They're ussually just "pagan" gods turned evil to covert the people, scare tactics.
Who says the Devil isn't just a super "demon"?

[Teallaura]

And the award for total inability to follow the gist of a conversation goes to:





Here we have a specific question with a given assumption brought to us by a friendly rodent:

(Assuming that the saga of Noah's Ark occured exactly, literally, as described in Genesis)

... why would Noah just abandon the boat when its lumber could be used to create housing for him and his family?
*emphasis mine

Here we have the probably less than brilliant response - but notice that it accepts the given premise:

'Cause the mountain was too high. Most sightings on Ararat are at 15,000 feet - and the Ark would have been as big as a modern ship. It's a whole lot easier to climb down the mountain and use the wood found down there (lots of drift wood, in theory at least) than haul what must have been very heavy beams down 15,000 feet.

(<- For Hamster: note the spacing! )

It's the same problem with the 'they'd have used it by now' theory - it's not worth the effort it would take to haul it down. Other than as artifacts (amulets et al) the wood (if there) is so inaccessible that it would never be cost effective to bring it all down, even in smaller chunks. The one reported attempt at bringing down a small piece (probably the size of maybe 3 ft of a 2x6 or 2x8) the climbers ended up having to cut it into smaller pieces because it was too hard to climb with (at those elevations and climbing conditions, that is a fully plausible story).

Also, it wouldn't have to freeze through within a short time to be preserved - bacteria aren't going to be as active at those heights (It gets cold at 15,000 feet!). What reports there are about the wood all agree that it is unusually heavy (again, consistent with expectations of an actual Ark). Thick heavy old wood does not decay anywhere near that rapidly. The Mayflower's beams still exist under much less favorable conditions for preservation (it was recycled into a barn - yes, really).

If a ship that served as long as the Mayflower (a lot more that the few months the Ark would have been in service) can survive more than four hundred years in New England where it does get warm enough to let bacteria do their thing well (not to mention termites which would not be on Ararat - or any other mountain that high) then it is not beyond the realm of possibility that heavy old growth (still the most desirable wood for building) beams could survive four thousand years intact in such rarefied heights. Don't know that it did, but I haven't heard a good theory as to why it would be otherwise impossible.


And here we have the totally off the wall, has nothing to do with the thesis response to the response:

Lawdy, Laura -- how fast did those waters retreat? Does a historico-grammatical rendering of the Genesis text yield a particular time figure and indicate where all those Mabbul waters went? And how did that dove find that olive branch so fast? I mean it was only a week after the other dove came back with nothing (Ge 8:8-11).

Things must've been mighty interesting in those days. Maybe there were big holes in the crust where all those Flood waters drained. But, why then don't we find evidence of this volume of water in the outer reaches of Earth today?

Oooh, I know -- it's a miracle!

Who cares if scientists are fooled today? The Good Lord don't care 'bout them anyway. What matters most is that Bible-believin' folks like you understand the true meaning of these Bible passages and issues.

R

P.S.

I read in the Locker Room that you are fond of Horhay's posts. That's scary. lol" alt="" src="images/smilies/lol.gif" border=0


Can anyone one say 'stay on topic'? :teeth:

[Bill the Cat]

This one HAS to take the cake!! And you thought JPHOCD was the only disease out there...

http://www.preteristlist.org/index.html

[Cynic Sage]

This one HAS to take the cake!! And you thought JPHOCD was the only disease out there...

http://www.preteristlist.org/index.html

Wow, DDWOCD. :stunned:

Does it really count as a "Preterist list" if it's only about one preterist?

[Cynic Sage]

A fundy atheist gets pissed off at the mention of Dracula having made a pact with the devil. It's funny how they get pissed off over the stupidest things.



Keep in mind that the dude he is talking to is an atheist and did not even bring up anybody else other than dracula.
Remember the link. <wags finger>

[Cynic Sage]

Minnesota:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=58341&page=1&pp=16

Is there any place in a Christian's life for eroticism?

:lol: Doc Minn's questions keep getting stupider and stupider. Perhaps he was expecting someone to provide that little known Bible passage: "Sex is dirty, dirty, dirty! It should only be used by a married man and woman for procreation and the participants must remain passionless and touch each other as little as possible. Thou shalt not have fun while having sex!"

Actually Jinxy, I happened to come across the following instructions for the young bride, and knowing how uptight, conservative, and provincial some fundies are, I figured they would have some insight as to how Ruth Smythers, Beloved wife of The Reverend L.D. Smythers, could come to believe that eroticism is wrong.



The article was originally printed in The Madison Institute Newsletter, Fall Issue, 1894:





Instruction and advice


for the young bride


On the Conduct and Procedure
Of the Intimate and Personal Relationships
Of the Marriage State
For the Greater Spiritual Sanctity
Of this Blessed Sacrament
And the Glory of God

by Ruth Smythers
Beloved wife of The Reverend L.D. Smythers,
Pastor of the Arcadian Methodist Church
of the Eastern Regional Conference
Published in the year of our Lord 1894
Spiritual Guidance Press, New York City







At this point, dear reader, let me concede one shocking truth.Some young women actually anticipate the wedding night ordeal with curiosity and pleasure! Beware such an attitude! A selfish and sensual husband can easily take advantage of such a bride. One cardinal rule of marriage should never be forgotten: GIVE LITTLE, GIVE SELDOM, AND ABOVE ALL, GIVE GRUDGINGLY. Otherwise what could have been a proper marriage could become an orgy of sexual lust.

Nudity, talking about sex, reading stories about sex, viewing photographs and drawings depicting or suggesting sex are the obnoxious habits the male is likely to acquire if permitted.

A wise bride will make it the goal never to allow her husband to see her unclothed body, and never allow him to display his unclothed body to her. Sex, when it cannot be prevented, should be practiced only in total darkness. Many women have found it useful to have thick cotton nightgowns for themselves and pajamas for their husbands. These should be donned in separate rooms. They need not be removed during the sex act. Thus, a minimum of flesh is exposed.


source and more (http://www.squaredancecd.com/Bride/brides.htm)


So, Jinx, as one of the "selfish and sensual husbands" she talks about, your input wouldn't be much help. I'm looking for responses from "good" fundie Christians.

It is highly questionable that "Ruth Smythers, Beloved wife of the Reverend L.D. Smythers" came to believe anything of the sort.

While we're at it, a brief search for Mrs. Smythers and her Reverend husband reveal no mention of them in any context other than this spurious article. The "Arcadian Methodist Church" is likewise entirely unknown to all the vast reaches of the Internet except as it is found within reprintings of this article. The "Spiritual Guidance Press," that venerable company devoted to all things holy, is similarly unremembered except as mentioned in the article's header.

A search on inquiries into the veracity of the story revealed this site (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:4ftvq94IFzkJ:listserv.dom.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe%3FA2%3Dind9707%26L%3Dstumpers-l%26D%3D0%26O%3DD%26P%3D49280+%22arcadian+methodist+church%22&hl=en), and the following information from Dale Patterson of the United Methodist Church Archives:

1. No record of a Rev. L.D. Smythers exists.
2. There was no Eastern Regional Conference in the 1890's or earlier, and no church named the Arcadian Methodist Church.
3. The Methodist Church didn't call itself the "Methodist Church" at the time. Churches would identify themselves as, say, a "Methodist Protestant Church" or a "Methodist Episcopal Church" or what have you.
4. Finally, no copy of this pamphlet exists within the Archive's collections.

But yes, you're right. Let's all hash over just how this clearly real woman from 1894 who obviously represents mainstream Christianity could have come to the conclusion that sexual pleasure is deplorable. Let's exegete the scriptural references she provides, and mull over her reasoning.

OH WAI-

Now it gets good. :grin:

Furor,

Wow, you evidently spent a decent amount of time establishing the article's authenticity. Didn't think anyone would care that much, but it's always interesting to see an evident hoax exposed. Thanks. Of course, such "hoaxes" only succeed because they have a degree of plausibility. The prudery of days past is well known, and it isn't much of a stretch to buy into the idea that some nut would actually come out with such drivel. And who knows, even though it's probably a put-on it may well reflect the actual beliefs of some Christians of the day...at least in part.

Wow, Minn one would think you would have done so before posting it. If you actual had thought it was genuine with a straight face..... well then I invented the Internet.

I know you're feeling kinda feisty, not having been around that much and looking to get a cheap shot off, so I assume this has kind of relieved some of that pent up aggression. :wink:

As far as we can tell from Furor's post, the article's authenticity has not been disproved, and unless you have evidence that it has, your presumption that it is not genuine is just that, a presumption. If you don't think fruitcakes exist that might write such dreck then you've been living in a closet, Dee Dee. So maybe you also believe you did invented the internet. (You didn't, you know!)

As to your implication here (I am explaining it for those who don't know you that well):

Believe it or not there are a lot of things that just aren't worth checking out, this being one of them--its plausibility was all too strong. As I explained, considering the anal, uptight , prudish thinking that some Christians were (still are) mired in at the time, the article's authenticity was quite plausible. And, of course, if people here took the time to check out everything based on outside sources to the degree you imply this would be one dull, boring forum--nothing but preterist/"last poster wins"/spam thread/stupid liberals/etc. etc. threads. And who wants that?

:lmbo: Wow, Minn might as well refute articles from Landover Baptist Church.

[Dave G]

:lol: It's all you Christians fault I fell for it...

[Sparko]

The 'give away' to the article being fake was the jargon used. 'give little, give seldom, etc' is not how they spoke about sex in the 19th century. That is modern slang.

[jpholding]

Ed Babinski (here, under Babaloo) gets gold for cowardice, as well as the usual decontexualizations. Unable to face me here, he resorts to skulking around at http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/tektonics/exodus.html Since he seems to want to avoid me, why not answer here?

At "Theology Web" forums, JP Holding continues to defend ancient tales of Biblical massacres as sociologically and psychologically consistent (or at least not commonly unexpected) for their day. Perhaps he forgets that relying on such an argument only makes the Bible appear as soaked in questions of "situation ethics" as the secular philosophies he rejects.

Perhaps Edski has never heard of "graded absolutism". :lol: He sure doesn't have the beans to address the actual morality of the situations, as mainly Miller (but I as well) have laid them out.

Such a "defense" of the Bible certainly reveals no innate superiority of Biblical ethics if he admits it was common for certain ancient cultures to practice genocide.

So when will he prove it was actually "genocide" as properly defined? Miller destroyed those canards -- there's not one case that matches.


In fact, Holding shouldn't stop with justifying genocide as a common practice, since neither does the Bible condemn slavery, polygamy, or concubinage, nor refer to any of them as "sins."

See the elephant flying through the air? Of course Miller and I have extensive material on each of these subjects, but Edski prefers to just wave his soundbites in the air rather than confront them directly. :lmbo:


Speaking of the non-sin of godly genocide it's interesting to reflect on the case of Puritan colonists in America who arrived at the Biblical conclusion that God had led them to their new home in America which was to them, typologically speaking, a new land of Canaan, and the native Americans were like the Canaanites of old, worshippers of false gods and hence, if the natives refused to convert they were worthy of extermination. Or consider these further examples of "situation ethics" in the Bible: The same Moses who taught “Do not kill” also commanded the Israelites to “kill every [Midianite] male among the little ones.” (Num. 31:17) Even the littlest male child had to die? Hadn't Moses or Yahweh ever heard of adoption?

Hasn't Edski ever heard of limited good? The analogy to the Puritans is a false one -- the Puritans were wrong to use it, and Edski is wrong to appeal to it. To say nothing of that I have an article that explains why "do not kill" has nothing to do with warfare, and Miller has a huge item on the Midianite scenario.

The word “Blessed/Happy” is used to describe two very different sentiments in Matthew 5:9 and Psalm 137:9, respectively: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God." Fair enough, but what about this other use of the word, "blessed?" "Blessed will be the one who dashes your little ones against the rock.” Is enjoying revenge and listening to the craniums of babies smash on rocks anywhere near as "blessed" as promoting peace? Let's hope not. Not by a mile.

I have an article on Ps. 137:9 also. Do you think Edski will ever read and refute it? Not a chance. :lmbo:

Other verses likewise depict both man and even God's enjoyment over revenge: “The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance, he will bathe his feet in the blood of the wicked” (Ps. 58:10) “The Lord will rejoice over you to destroy you” (Deut. 28:63)

Ditto. I guess Edski gets his kicks reading ancient war monuments and overliteralizing them.

What's really weird about such verses is that another verse in the same Bible tells you NOT to "rejoice" when your enemy falls in battle: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles... If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink... He who rejoices at calamity shall not go unpunished.” (Proverbs 17:5; 24:17 & 25:21--Of course the "Proverbs" in the Bible consist of collected wise sayings, many of which might not be original to Israel, since scholars agree that parallels to such wise sayings have been found in collections of wisdom from neighboring cultures in Egypt or Babylonia.)

Ditto. Edski is still a fundamentalist who has no conception of reading ancient war talk or proverbs as anything but literal instructions. And he's still plugging that idiotic "pagan parallel" argument as though it has any meaning (and which I have, again, addressed in articles, but don't tell him that). There's much more of the same, with several standard "Bible contradiction" canards I have touched on time and time again. Then:

BUT ASIDE FROM HOLDING'S "SOCIOLOGICAL DEFENSE" there is no archeological evidence that a massive army of Hebrew invaders marched from Egypt to take over Cana, exterminating Canaanite city after city. No evidence exists of a massive Hebrew Exodus followed by the violent conquest of a multitude of Canaanite cities. Even those who do not deny an Exodus took place admit that the numbers of the Hebrews who left Egypt could not possibly have been as high as those given in the Bible.

Typical changing of the subject, but maybe Edski can take my "Scythian challenge" and provide "archaeolgical evidence" for the "massive" numbers of Scythians who roamed the plains. He's also out of order anyway, for as Kitchen notes in The Reliability of the OT, the idea of a "violent conquest" of Canaan is an overstatement of what the Bible actually says. I've also addressed Exodus numbers and logistics on Tekton, but he doesn't know that either. Here's a final dumb comment in close:

In fact the Hebrew language is not filled with Egyptian loan words at all, just as one might expect if their ancestors ALL came over from Egypt after having remained there for four and a half centuries. Instead, the Hebrew language is merely a dialect of the same root language that the Canaanites spoke, Akkadian. (The Catholic Encyclopedia understates the obvious when it admits, "Notwithstanding the long sojourn in Egypt [sic], the number of Egyptian words that have found a place in the Hebrew vocabulary is exceedingly small.")

That wins gold by itself. Loanwords would come to exist in a language mainly because a culture has no word for a certain thing that another culture has. Egypt had little that the Hebrews would not have had a word for already. "Filled with" is a vague and unsubstantiated comment and shows that Edski is just running his mouth with no real grasp on what, quantitatively, we would expect in terms of loanwords.

Solid gold, baby. :thumb:

[Cynic Sage]

Minnesota, to Mountain Man, on the subject of whether or not Christian married couples should enter Adult Bookstores to purchase "Martial Aids".



{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.}

Now if you can walk into a store peddling pornography and do not succumb to lust then you're made of sterner stuff than I.


Well, to be honest, yes I can. I can actually look at sex aids without lusting for them or lusting for some stranger because I'm looking at them. And I can look at the covers of pornographic magazines without lusting after the models or for some stranger because I'm looking at them. And from what I've observed of others there, they didn't seem to be lusting either.


And just what points did you think you made?

1st comment: A. but I have trouble believing that you could look at a photo of a nude woman ............. B. Quite honestly, most normal men would find it impossible to walk into an adult bookstore and keep their thoughts pure.

I take these as nothing more than an expression of your troubles (A),and a unsubstantiated conclusion (B). Therefore neither are worth commenting on, nor are they any kind of valid point.

Wow, Minnesota must season his breakfast eggs with a heaping dose of Saltpeter every morning. :yummy:

w2g winning everyman's battle, Minn.:lol:

[Anthem]

stevencarr on "geographical" errors in Acts. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1135862&postcount=5

Some examples of geographical errors in Acts, contrary to Layman's claim that Luke gets geography correct.

Acts 1
9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

10 They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky?

Heaven is not in the sky.

Acts 7
55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 "Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Where was Stephen looking when he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God? Was he looking up to Heaven, as the Bible claims? How exactly do you look up to Heaven?


Did he die for an hallucination?

[jpholding]

Classic Stevie Weevie. If I ever do a toon on him, he'll be depicted as Andy Capp...

[Darth Executor]

By request


As for children being a survival tool I'm sure pregnancy threatened the survival of prostitutes and we all know prostitution is the oldest profession. Do you think a pregnant prostitute did good business? Concerning a prostitute, carrying a fetus would be like hitting oneself on the head. Apparently Mr. Holding skipped right over that one.


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57580&page=5

[BronzeArcher]

:bawl: CF again (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17409906&postcount=1):


I think it's an insult to God to say that the Bible is "his Word".
Is that really the best He could do?
Does He care so little about us that all He gives us is a collection of old texts that are often quite difficult to understand and were very poorly distributed to the people of the world?

My thinking has always been, if God is "all That", why didnt he make the bible, or a different media so dang CLEAR no one would ever question it. If God is really the maker of EVERYTHING, why did he need man to write down his words for him? Couldnt he do it himself? I know if i want something done right, i had better do it myself, you would think he would know that too.

There's also 'Biblical atrocities (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17383116&postcount=1)'

Wierd... (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17393401&postcount=8)

I am not suggesting that anyone's interpretation of a bible text is any more accurate or inaccurate than another's.

He doesn't seem to be a bad guy but that was just screwy.

[jpholding]

apple again:


If child sacrifice was being practiced do you think abortion wasn't?

Golly -- how are they GOING TO perform child sacrifice if they're performing abortions? :duh: Not to mention that there was religious reason for child sacrifice and none for abortion.

Might as well give apple the Lifetime Achievement Award right now!

[Doubting John]

I did a search and found myself here, so I skimmed through this thread. I know there are screwballs on both sides of this religious debate, and we all do some screwballish kinds of things, too.

So here's a simple question for Christians: If people like me are screwballs for thinking the way we do, then why is Christianity losing the debate in the marketplace of ideas? Oh, it may not look that way to you here on TWEB, because you can answer a man's arguments with sound bites, toons and ridicule. Here at TWEB you feel like you're winning the debate.

But you know that you're not winning, because world-wide opinion polls are solidly against you. Even if the polls say Christianity is growing in some parts of the world, Christianity is losing miserably over-all, and you know it. Moreover, you would be laughed at for saying most of the things you are saying here by most all of the world!

I guess most of the world is just stupid, and the stupidity of the world is growing and growing and growing, while the numbers of Christians who have the superior knowledge of the truth is shrinking and shrinking by every comparison.

Most of the world just cannot seem to grasp the truths that you offer, can they?

So TWEB is a respite where Christians can belittle the rest of the world, and you like having a few people like me here to belittle. It makes you feel superior, doesn't it? It makes you feel like you're more intelligent, too.

Well, I guess everyone needs a place of rest. So rest my children. But know that you are losing, and you will lose, eventually, even if there will forever be pockets of every major religion to the end human history.

[technomage]

So here's a simple question for Christians: If people like me are screwballs for thinking the way we do, then why is Christianity losing the debate in the marketplace of ideas?

John, Christianity may or may not be "losing the debate in the marketplace of ideas," but that's not the point: the point is which is true. Frankly, as a non-Christian Theist, I have areas that I agree with you, but I also have areas where I agree with the Christians in this debate--and it seems to me that appealing to the "marketplace of ideas" is a demonstration of the ad populum fallacy.

So TWEB is a respite where Christians can belittle the rest of the world, and you like having a few people like me here to belittle. It makes you feel superior, doesn't it? It makes you feel like you're more intelligent, too.

Is it a bad thing to mock those whose views you oppose? And if it is bad, why do you also engage in it?

That's part of the problem, John--you strike me as one who is not an atheist for its own sake, but because atheism is opposed to Christianity. I've frequently noticed that those who attatch to a position simply to oppose another position cannot build on their own position--they spend far too much time tearing down the work of others to build on their own foundation.

Which also partially answers one of the first questions you asked here on TWeb--"Is there such a thing as honest doubt?" John, I sumbit to you that there may or may not be something that can be described as "honest doubt"--but I also submit to you that your behavior does not demonstrate it.

[jpholding]

So here's a simple question for Christians: If people like me are screwballs for thinking the way we do, then why is Christianity losing the debate in the marketplace of ideas?

It isn't, you screwball. Go read Philip Jenkins' book on the rise of global Christianity. Looks like you forgot to do homework again, this time on "world-wide opinion polls" which show the opposite of what you say. Or maybe you're just a typical snot-nosed provincialist who thinks the world ends in the West.


So TWEB is a respite where Christians can belittle the rest of the world, and you like having a few people like me here to belittle.

You could help us out a bit by at least making it challenging. Anyway, gold for you -- and for Farrell "Obsession" Till for a couple of items recently done --

http://theskepticalreview.com/jftill/bobby/guilt.html -- Till continues to insist that credentialed scholarship is wrong about guilt/shame and cites English translations to prove it

http://theskepticalreview.com/jftill/bobby/restroom.html -- Till harps on a certain minor point about Bible restroom usage in which he makes a hugely embarrassing mistake. Any guesses as to what it is? (Well, there is more than one, as usual, but there's a very big one in particular.)

[Darth Executor]

apple again:



Golly -- how are they GOING TO perform child sacrifice if they're performing abortions? :duh: Not to mention that there was religious reason for child sacrifice and none for abortion.

Might as well give apple the Lifetime Achievement Award right now!

Now you know why I gave up on that thread.

[Tophet]

I know there are screwballs on both sides of this religious debate, and we all do some screwballish kinds of things, too.

John, Christianity may or may not be "losing the debate in the marketplace of ideas," but that's not the point: the point is which is true. Frankly, as a non-Christian Theist, I have areas that I agree with you, but I also have areas where I agree with the Christians in this debate--and it seems to me that appealing to the "marketplace of ideas" is a demonstration of the ad populum fallacy.

I've frequently noticed that those who attatch to a position simply to oppose another position cannot build on their own position--they spend far too much time tearing down the work of others to build on their own foundation.

Proof that A Cup of Mystery is not a screwball!

[Tux314]

Now you know why I gave up on that thread.

Do you want to go through and find more screwball material in apple's posts? I don't have nearly enough time to find all the screwball material. I'm too busy writing the refutations that should be obvious. It does get tiresome.

[Darth Executor]

No that thread makes me want to :argh:

I have other nominations.

sickufu from gamefaqs, who has to be, hands down, the dumbest skeptic I've ever met bar none. He makes Johnny Skeptic look like a Nobel Prize Nominee...

Comparing God to Santa Clause is both a non-sequitur

Yep, he cuts me off in mid sentence then writes a reply as if I made a mistake.


DE is imitating theologyweb mentors of his. This is evident in "Comparing God to Santa Clause is both a non-sequitur" as he is clearly using that new word of his where it just doesn't fit.


Don't expect any explanations from sickufu. Him saying it does not fit is enough because his opinion is law.

Non sequitur, Argumentum ad hominem.

Apparently, me asking him to justify his argument instead of throwing words he cuts and pastes off a logic table is too much for him...

THEN he accuses me of circular logic because he can't read...


(saying I said this)Others don't feel his presense because they don't believe in god.[/quote[

[quote=Darth Executor]That's BS you made up, I never said that.


He then quotes a section of a conversation I had with somebody else:

If he does express himself to people, why don't non-christians feel him?

"because you don't deserve it. ant it's not all non-christians. its mostly atheists, agnostics and the like."

Apparently the statement in quotation marks = atheists can't feel God. :ahem:

Last but not least, comparing ancient writings with R. L. Stine books:

There are thousands of recorded pages of gods existing throughout history.

There are thousands of recorded pages of R.L. Stine books. You know, the ones you said you enjoyed into your high school years in the topic where you talked about writing a book.


What about R.L. Stine books? Was rlstine recording history? Or are you trying to divert attention to avoid answering any questions like usual?

If they were old enough, you'd have all you need to tout them as fact.

:argh:

[Cynic Sage]

Hey JP, check out this John D. Brey fella. :lol: :

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=58696

Winged Testesmony

Wings are phallic emblems. The word “penne” is given to the long wing and tail feather of birds. From that etymology come the words “pen,” and “penis.” ---- Long feathers were plucked from birds, filled with ink, and then the feather were used to make a virgin page pregnant; when the “penne” (pen or pen-is) scribed the white veil of the page, the page’s virginity was ruptured, and the author’s meaning was born out of the intercourse between pen and page.

Seminal ink has been spilled on pages innumerable as the race of words expand keeping pace with biological inflation.

The Ark is called “the Ark of the Testimony.” The Hebrew word for “testimony” (eduwth) means “witnesses” or "testifiers." Etymologically the word’s root is always plural. The two “testimonial” stones are synonymous with the two testes of God: His seminal thoughts toward mankind.

Ergo the golden chest is the holy scrotum of God containing His two testes, or testimonial stones. The wings of the cherubs on either side of the throne represent the penne, or pen-is, that will take the testimony in the stones and scribe them on the hearts of man:

". . . it is not the phallus in itself which is revered but that for which it is the sign – the progenitor, the cosmic individual Shiva for whom it is the symbol" (Shiva Purāna, 1.16.106-7).

Shiva was represented as the axis of the world, a pillar of light that traversed the universe “from one side to the other and is visible to those who have attained a transcendental level of perception” (Alain Daniélou, The Phallus). The Cosmic Individual (Shiva) is represented as a phallic beam of light that traverses the universe.

When the Jewish high priest entered behind the hymenal veil in the Holy of Holies he sprinkled blood between the feathers of the cherub’s wings signifying the emasculation of God’s Deliverer. Once the holy circumcision took place, the transcendental phallus lit up the entire tabernacle so that a beam of light escaped into the heavens.

In type, the transcendental phallus, the Light of the world, is invisible until the male-member most intimately associated with God’s own testicles is “cut-off” (Dan. 9:26).--- Accordingly, until the Messiah, who is the mediator of the Law (the Testimony in God’s stones), is “cut-off” the Light of the world is veiled from the world. Only after the crucifixion of the Messiah is the Light of the world visible to those who are transcendentally born-again by means of the Light of the world.

I feel somewhat safe acceding to Martin Buber’s Hebrew since he and Rosenzweig produced the only German translation of the Hebrew Bible that can even be mentioned in the same breath with Luther’s. --- Buber says: “Moses himself brought forth the bones of Joseph, namely the mummy-coffin which is designated in the Hebrew text [Gen. 50:26], assuredly not without intention, by a word [“awrone”] bearing the meaning of a coffin nowhere else, but used for that Holy Ark which was the symbol of the covenant established between YHVH and Israel by the words of Moses.”

OK . . . Buber dares us to think of the Ark bearing the testesmonial stones of the broken covenant between YHVH and Israel as a “coffin of the testimony.” Now just as the Hebrew speaks of Abraham’s testes as the quarry, or stones from whence the people of Israel are hewn, we surely cannot be remiss in thinking of God’s testesmony stones as the quarry, or stones from whence the “nation” of Israel is hewn??

It would be fair to say that since Abraham’s testes were dead, or broken, prior to the birth of Isaac, it can’t be too outrageous to think of Abraham’s scrotum as a sort of “coffin of the covenant”?? --- I mean if the covenant between God and Abraham (that he will birth a son through his own broken testes) is still intact after Abraham’s testes aren’t . . . then the covenant could rightly be called the covenant of Abraham’s broken testes and his scrotum could be called the “coffin of the covenant.”

Why would the same principal not apply to the Ark of the Covenant? --- Why could we not think of the Ark of the Covenant as the “coffin of the covenant,” ala Buber, or the “scrotum of God’s broken testes”?

If God’s Promise to Abraham is required to arise from broken stones, from a scrotum of broken testes, then why would it be so outlandish to think that God’s covenant to Israel would arise from broken stones in a coffin of broken testimony?

A Pulitzer Prize winning theologian (Jack Miles) sides with renowned Bible scholar (Marvin H. Pope) in suggesting that the word “kabod” can be translated phallus, or male-member! --- Thus, when God refuses to show Moses His face, but agrees to show Him his “kabod” or his “hindquarters” God is inverting the biological gravity of that “one encounter, which lives behind all the rest . . .the meeting of the bridegroom with the bride” (Erich Neumann).

The Jewish groom lifts the veil covering his brides face before he tears the veil covering his bride’s reproductive organs. But God inverts that process! --- He shows Moses His naked male-member but refuses to unveil His face. God saves His face for another prophet in the likeness of Moses. God seems to think that the veil hanging over the face or Holy of Holies is more sacred than the veil over the male or female genitalia.

In the temple rituals in Jerusalem the veil over the male-member of the Cosmic Temple Man (the brazen altar as a bloody stump where there should be a phallus) is severed from the get-go. But the veil hanging over the face of the Cosmic Temple Man (like the one Moses hung to hide his glory from Israel) is not torn until the crucifixion.



Dan

And if this somehow doesn't convince you that Weed, Pr0n, and the Bible don't mix, there's more.

Hi Amazing Rando,

Can you give us a three sentence summary that highlights the main points of your OP? It was a bit hard to follow.

Using knowledge gleened from reputable theological sources we can show that the Ark of the Covenant was symbolical for God's testicles (broken by Moses as Abraham's testicles were broken by senesence). In the case of Abraham's covenant establishing the Jewish race the stones from whence the Jews were hewn were broken through agedness:

The word zur (rock) is a homonym. First it denotes “rock,” . . . It is next employed to signify the quarry from which the stones are hewn . . . From this latter meaning of the term another figurative notion was subsequently derived, viz., “the root and origin” of all things. It is on this account that after the words “Look unto Abraham your father,” from which we evidently may infer the words “Look to the rock whence you are hewn,” The Prophet continues, “Look unto Abraham your father,” from which we evidently may infer that the words “Abraham your father” serve to explain “the rock whence ye are hewn.”

I am trying to show a correlation between the Ark of the Covenant as a symbol of the stones from whence "spiritual Israel" (rather than the Jewish race) are hewn, and Abraham's testicles. The Ark of the Covenant contains God's testesmonial stones (His seminal response to mankind) so that the Ark becomes a sort of scrotum and the wings of the cherubs represent the phallic power to "scribe" the Law of God on the hearts of spiritual Israel.

The veil in the temple becomes the hymen that is torn when God's masculine will finally has it's way with His Bride the Church. The Holy of Holies is Heaven whence God resides, and the veil is the "hymen of the morgue" (Artaud). God's masculine desire reaches into a morgue and give life to corpses.


:eek: BADMENTALPICTURESTAYOUTTAMYHEAD!!!:eek:

He also has another thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57502

[Cynic Sage]

Doubting John, pretending not to be a cultural provincialist while acting like one, in his thread titled:

Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Superstitious! (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=58650)

It gets funny when it gets to the part about how not all modern people are true modern people. :lol:

[Darth Executor]

Selective reading from Dumbesota.

I can only assume you feel that an unqualified subject is not a universal. Here's how it works in the English language, Darth. Please pay attention, I sure don't want to have to repeat it later in the year. And, PAY ATTENTION IN ENGLISH CLASS FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!

In your sentence, "Why are lay atheist apologists so $*%&%^^# stupid" the subject of the sentence is "atheist apologists." Note that there is no adjective modifying the subject, like, "most," "almost all, "several," or "a few." We use words like "most" etc. in our sentences to show that not all cases of the subject are included in our statement. "Dogs can bark" is an unqualified statement indicating that there are no exceptions to the assertion, (note that the assertion, as in this case, does not have to be true) just like "dogs are mammals" does not leave any room to consider that some dogs are not mammals. (If one wanted to make the assertion about barking dogs true, it would be necessary to say "almost all dogs can bark"). So, without a modifier to qualify the number of "atheist apologists," the statement stands as indicating all atheists. And, what are all "atheist apologists"? They are stupid. Not just some "atheist apologists" mind you, because if just some was the intended meaning it would have to be appended as a modifier to the subject. So your, "Why are lay atheist apologists so $*%&%^^# stupid" can only be read as indicating all atheist apologists are stupid.

I know this is really very basic English grammar, but you obviously need to be brought up to speed on it. In any event there are three conclusions that can be drawn from your stament about me.

1. You are ignorant
2. You are stupid
3. you are both

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1139301#post1139301

[Cynic Sage]

Another provincialistic blunder of DJ's from that thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1139022&postcount=35



19 Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? 20 You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.” 21 (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)


By the way, verse 21 has to be such an exaggeration that it's quite simply false, and hence a lie. "All the Athenians"...."spent their time doing nothing but talking..." What? They didn't work, or wash clothes, or cook? So we already know this report is a gross exaggeration by verse 21 alone. So we have to start asking what would the people in Athens and the men in the Areopagus say in response to this account.


The funny thing is the kind of Hyperbole used in the passage he cites is even used today in the west, but "it has to be a lie" because it's in the Bible. :lol:

[Darth Executor]

I just found a gold mine!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/25/pg1/srtpages

[Cynic Sage]

I just found a gold mine!

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/25/pg1/srtpages (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/25/pg1/srtpages)

I peed my pants laughing.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread126284/pg1


Actually if you want to get technical in the Orginal Hebrew Bibles it never said Jesus was hung on a Cross. It said he was Hung on a TORTURE STEAK or in other words a lim from a TREE. Never Cross, that never came in existence untill the Catholic religion added it in their own words basically they made the whole Cross thing up, and that right their misguided many people. Also it is known even in Encyclopedias (correct my spelling) even stated that the Catholic Religion took out many words of the Bible and added their own.

For one the Torture Steak was turned into CROSS. Second Gods Name in Hebrew and even Jewish bibles was JEHOVAH. Once again the Catholics turned that name into Lord or exchanged it with God. Gods name was really Yeh Weh(cant spell) but translated in english Jehovah. To me the people that made those books were just people to throw people off once again in religion. Anyways good topic!


"TORTURE STEAK" :yummy:


okay, lets just say Jesus was crucified on the cross and placed in the tomb. I do not see how he would have survived for 3 days. The rest of this post I really can not comment on, however I do believe that he died and rose again. But back to my statement. I do not see how Jesus would have survived for 3 days w/o food or water locked in a tomb bleeding to death. That is the point that I think is rather moot.


there are several "what ifs" to add to this. What if, he was drugged to appear
dead to hasten his removal from the cross (granted that was nt a regular practice but Pilate seems tohave been open to monetary persuasion).

What if arrangements had been made for a healer to be waiting inside for him?

What if as do many holes in the groun this particular one (maybe selected for this reason) had a "back door."

what if the events talkied of took place not outside Jerusalem but outside
Qumran? There was a "tomb" located adjcent to a burial ground (place of the skull) that fits this scenerio


"What if a healer was waiting inside for him?" Someone's been playing too much Final Fantasy. Well, w/his spear-pierced vitals, I don't think that pheonix downs would do Jesus much good anyways if that Centurion happened to be named Sephiroth. :lol:

[Darth Executor]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread159793/pg1


Check out that pic...

[Darth Executor]

Heck, I'm nominating this movie even though its not even out yet:

http://www.thebeastmovie.com/

[Darth Executor]

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1140144

From Eliyosef:


Are you sure about that somehow I doubt it is only partially forged but rather its entire mention of a certain somebody is a complete forgery.

^ About the Josephus reference to Jesus.



Here he is setting the standard for historical evidence. I ask why he wants contemporary sources for Jesus:

Basically yes because I said so.

If you mean to prove anything please prove it with stuff from that Time period Anything else is subject to christain influence and would be adjusted to fit the christian picture. The DSS are close if not from that time period do they mention anything Christological... I dont think so!

We do have something that exposes the lie of jesus from the Synagogue it is called the Tanakh(Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim) it says he isnt what he claims to be so there you go.

So Jesus didn't exist but the Tanakh somehow exposed him.

We do have records that would seem to say that jesus did not exist.

Apparently the Tanakh lied.

He is never mentioned in any Rabbinical writings that come from that period of time nor any writing from the DSS so they must have never heard of this jesus guy ever living or if you want to take the flip side and say he existed and since no mention of him is ever recorded in any Jewish writings of the time he must not have been important enough to talk about so there is that side.

Man talk about cookie cutter crap. He couldn't even stick to one theory, he had to mix them all up and make a strew out of the Christ myth.

Of course, his logic here is far superior to everything else:

Darth we can go around and around all day with this I dont mind. As for your last statement you are completely incorrect and your accusation is therefore false.

[Darth Executor]

:rofl: This is getting better and better:


The problem is the Tanakh doesnt mention jesus...You presume to think it does but it really doesnt so the tanakh didnt lie the GNT lied.

First he tells me the Tanakh exposes Jesus, now he tells me it doesn't mention him...

[Darth Executor]

Now Eliyosef writes a rebuttal to JP's article:


And JP HOlding is credible because???? You lost credibility as soon as you said who it was from.

[jpholding]

Memo to self: At least a silver to Lazy Agnostic for still trying to resuscitate his "live debate" thesis with skilled rationalizations, even after a sound beating in a poll showing the far majority of people prefer that I stick with written debate.

[SillyGeezer10]

I nominate Blueeyeliner, enough said.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=11895&highlight=

I'd like to alert all christians to be aware of some of the ways
that demons get into the home. One way is through worldly music,
especially music the degrades women and is degrading in general.
All forms of porn,and sexual perversion. Horoscopes,and fortune
telling,superstitions,and drug abuse. Bad movies,foul language,and
authorities of the home who may be friends with individuals who do
such things,or authorities of the home who do them.
The authority of the home is usually the male who pays the bills,but it
can be the woman who is paying the bills and taking care of the home
if she is single,ect.....
If the Authority figure is a true christian then most likely the demons and
spirits will be easier to rid your home of by casting them out. And you may
call them by name,like the spirit of mocking,rage,filthy language,hate,and
so forth.
Sometimes the authority in the home doesn't even realize that he or she
has given these demons their authority as in the cases where their own
children are doing things in the home that they are not aware of,yet they
are not investigating suspicious behaviors in their children,ect....
Also,do your best not to fear demons and evil spirits. The first time one
yells at you can be a fright at first,but you will gain more power through
prayer and determination in your walk with Christ Jesus. God has given
us authority to trample on them,amen & amen.

[Cynic Sage]

The return of Troy (now operating under the username of lvdyou):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1140974&posted=1#post1140974

First Troy opens up with an article on the rapture.



Rapture


...

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Partial_rapture.htm (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Partial_rapture.htm)

Then Studyhound and DeeDee recognize him from the article.

Troy are you back again??:ahem:

Hey there Troy back again so soon? Didn't you already condemn us and wipe the dust from your feet under a few other usernames?

Then it gets fun when Troy tries to dance around the fact that he started multiple accounts. :teeth:

Here is a few quotes that seem like true statements,

"Words alone cannot be considered as God’s word. There must be the reality behind them" (p. 209 pdf).

"Let us understand that the coming forth of words alone is not enough; the spirit must also come out, and when it does it will do so together with feeling (p. 221 pdf).

Normally when I see people speak God's word, just going through motions, mouthing, but does not convey the Spirit, this is a good indication there is no reality behind the word or the letter in their hearts.

I think Deedee's conscience has convicted herself on something that was shown to her, but she does not care to listen to her heart, so instead, she blames others for condemning her, when they did not. Only God can condemn her. I think her issue was she could not let go of the false teaching of historicalism, denying a millennial peace, and calling that time now of atrocities, as well as denying the rewards of the millennial kingdom and accountability.

John 3.18, "but he that believeth not is condemned already".

Are you Troy?

Isn't it amazing people would rather talk about anything else rather than the subject matter? The reason for this is because they have to look at themselves, and it is too unbearable in their beliefs they hold to do so.

Yes. Are you Troy? If so, you promised never to darken our doorstep again, and signing up under many accounts is against the rules. So since you refuse to answer, I am pretty positive this account will be banned to, and if you wish to negotiate a fresh and HONEST start with the forum you may email the administrators at admin@theologyweb.com (admin@theologyweb.com)

Make note that this thread is not about what everyone else wants to yap about, but the topic is very specifically PARTIAL RAPTURE (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/Partial_rapture.htm).

Can we please discuss the topic rather than give into peoples' flesh?

Isn't it amazing how the flesh tries to exert itself in a heartbeat.

This is how Satan tries to deflect and misdirect the word of God, and words that agree with God's word.

Looking forward to when someone is interested in discussing the topic itself.

"Satan wants you to enforce Tweb forum rules". :rofl:

[Cynic Sage]

Now Eliyosef writes a rebuttal to JP's article:

What article are you referring too?

[Bill the Cat]

The return of Troy (now operating under the username of lvdyou):

Don't forget, he Amen's my quotes from Watchman Nee then denies him when I list the heresies he just Amen'ed.

[Darth Executor]

What article are you referring too?

The one on the Christ Myth (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html).

[Cynic Sage]

The one on the Christ Myth (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html).

Oh, ok. Thanks.

[Darth Executor]

Anti-Catholic wingnut whines about the inquisition.

Its not talked about very much any more. They don't teach about it in the Public School systems and certainly Parochial schools won't say much about it, but there was a time when Roman Catholicism used terrorism and acted just like modern day Islamic terrorists.

THAT TIME IS KNOWN AS THE INQUISITION!

Romanism would hold a Council and decide what acts of terrorism to use:

1184 - Synod of Verona: Burn heretics at the stake.

1215 - 4th Lateran Council: Burn heretics and take their property. The "Inquisition" is formed.

1220 - Inquisition is handed to the newly formed "Dominican" order.

1229 - Synod of Toulouse makes the Inquisition a systematic process. Guilty until proven innocent!

1252 - Pope "Innocent" IV: Torture is doctrinally acceptable to make an accused heretic "confess."

1484 - Pope Innocent VIII publishes "Malleus Maleficorum" (Witch-Hammer), the systematic guide to detect, torture and execute a suspected "witch." But the deck was stacked against one who was suspected:
1. Almost never see your accuser.
2. Never know why or of what you are accused.
3. No lawyer. You have to prove your innocence.
4. You're presumed guilty - period.
5. They promise anything, but kill you anyway!

There was no place to hide.

The Roman Catholic leaders included Bible-believers in the group labeled as "Witches" and "Heretics."

1487 - Pope Innocent VIII promises to forgive the sins of anyone who kills Vaudos "heretics." He hands over their property, too.

For centuries, Vaudois and other Bible-believers were hunted down and systematically exterminated by the Roman Catholic terroristic leaders who were scared of the true Gospel of Christ. Roman Catholic terrorists would be rewared with Complete forgiveness and free property.

After the Council of Trent, Inquisitions spread worldwide. The deaths numbered in the millions. To the Roman Catholic terrorists, torturing and killing "heretics" was no worse than removing a cancer from a body.

Do you see the similarity between Romanism and its Inquistions compared to the Islamic extremists and there fatwas and jihads (holy wars) against infidels?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1141513

[BronzeArcher]

I'm not sure what to make of this guy. He regularly confuses the meaning of a text with whether we believe it or not. Here (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17479975&postcount=15),

I suggest that your hermeneutical philosophy is fine when addressing historical accuracies, but it falls short when investigating such metaphysical concepts as the fundamentalists stress. Only individual experience may become valid here (if even that), and historical book learning largely falls by the wayside, when discussing concepts of metaphysical doctrine.

I suggest that historical methods of interpretation are great when ascertaining the historical accuracies of a text. However, they are well nigh useless when it comes to deriving the basis of metaphysical doctrines as fundamentalists do. In other words, I'm less concerned about when King David lived, and more concerned about the existence of heaven and hell.

:eh: Here's something (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17432526&postcount=1) hilarious though:

Willing and wanting to argue with anyone on the fallicies of genisis and most of the old testament.

Genisis. Fallicies.

[Darth Executor]

This guy takes the cake. An atheist who claims humans evolved from monkeys. His proof?


Here look.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ape-man-line-up.jpg

The common ancestor of humans and was an ape.

:argh:

[Cynic Sage]

This guy takes the cake. An atheist who claims humans evolved from monkeys. His proof?

:argh:

What's even funnier is that Evolutionist scientists beleive that humans descended from "Ape-like creatures" so even from a Evolutionist's standpoint, it deserves a screwball.:lol:

[Darth Executor]

What's even funnier is that Evolutionist scientists beleive that humans descended from "Ape-like creatures" so even from a Evolutionist's standpoint, it deserves a screwball.:lol:

That's the point of view I was submitting it from. :tongue:

Not that it matters though. He IS a screwball no matter how you look at it.

[Darth Executor]

jude3b again, same thread as above:


Ok A Cup of Mystery: All your demonstrating here is that you no very little about church history and the apostolic church of God - the body of Christ.

I am not a Religionist. I am not a Roman Catholic, nor am I an Eastern Orthodox Catholic, nor am I a Protestant.

You do not find any Christians in the Bible called Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, or Protestant.

[Cynic Sage]

Danusha Goska, on Ben Witherington's refutation of the Gospel code:


Like millions of other readers, I was delighted by Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code." I've never read a book quicker. It was a roller coaster ride: jolting, fast, fun - and no more nor less than that. I'm Catholic, and it never occurred to me that Brown's readers might conclude that Catholics are a bunch of self-flagellating albino hitmen, like one of the novel's main characters.

From what we read later in the review, methinks she's as Catholic as Jack Chick.

Apparently, though, some fear that "The Da Vinci Code" is part of a vast conspiracy to wrest priestly power and prestige from whence it so rightly belongs - in the hands of heterosexual males. Ben Witherington III - could his name - as in "withering glance," multiplied by three - be more perfect? - is one of those very frightened heterosexual men.

I picked up Mr. Witherington-Three's "The Gospel Code" hoping for what the cover of the book seems to promise: a fun, pop theological investigation of "The Da Vinci Code"'s more outrageous plot points, including, perhaps, the loopy claim that Harvard has faculty devoted to "symbology." (Poor Harvard - yet another potential victim of the vast conspiracy by Da Vinci Code fans imagined by Mr. Witherington-Three - no doubt Harvard has been inundated by freshmen hoping to major in "symbology" as a way to meet cute French chicks.)


"Fun, pop theological investigation"? Now those are words I never expected to see right next to each other, ever.

What I found between the covers of "The Gospel Code" was *not* fun. It wasn't theology, except in the scariest sense of that word, a sense best reserved for discussions of the Dark Ages and bloody religious strife. What "The Gospel Code" offers is a mean, misogynist, and inaccurate ride through one man's paranoia, arrogance and anger.


DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNNN!:eek:

Mr. Witherington-Three opens, not with Christian virtues like compassion or love, but with scorn. On his first page, in his first paragraph, he makes contemptuous, arrogant mockery of a ditsy California woman (page 11); he goes on to finger homosexuals (12).


How can the "first page" be page 11?

That's right; gay men are somehow part of the vast, world-destroying conspiracy that includes "The Da Vinci Code" and its fans. And women are so ditsy that they don't know the right way to Christ; Mr. Witherington-Three, whose bona fides, listed on the back of the book, include his appearances on "The O'Reilly Factor," must manfully guide this woman for whom he shows no compassion, patience, or respect whatsoever. Jesus wept.

Who else is on Mr. Witherington-Three's "Da Vinci Code" Enemies List? Americans who oppose having the Ten Commandments monument erected in an Alabama court; Episcopalians who voted Gene Robinson their bishop; and Mayberry's own Opie Taylor, aka Ron Howard.


:attn:
Hey JP, I've never read Ben Witherington's The Gospel Code. So could you tell me if BW3 says anything about conspiracies or an "enemies list" in there?

Mr. Witherington-Three's problems with women start on the first page of his book, but they don't stop there, as you might expect from a man who establishes his authority to speak on the savior of humanity by citing his relationship to Bill O'Reilly, who was recently involved in a scandal involving charges of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Wow, not only cheap psycho-analysis, but argumentation-by association as well. Two fallacies for the price of one.

And doesn't BW3's authority have something to do with, oh I don't know, Him being a New-Testament Scholar.

Witherington-Three devotes a chapter to Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene supported Jesus' ministry out of her own pocket (Luke 8:1-3). Mary is celebrated as the "Apostle to the apostles," since it was she who was the very first person in history to perform the task that all Christians feel honored to perform - she was the first to announce the "Good News," or gospel, of the crucified Christ's resurrection from the dead. Finally, Mary Magdalene's encounter with Jesus after his resurrection is one of the most exquisitely intimate, and yet breathtakingly magnificent, passages in the Bible - or all of world literature, for that matter. I can't imagine anyone reading this and not being moved (John:20).

No wonder the sixth-century Pope Gregory, with zero biblical evidence, introduced the fiction that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute; misogynists needed to discredit her, and they did, the way that misogynists usually discredit women - by aiming at their gender.

What does Witherington-Three title his chapter on Mary Magdalene, the Apostle to the apostles? "Something About Mary." That's right - the title of a cheap, gross-out comedy best known for a scene where a woman named Mary is tricked into dressing her hair with an unmentionable male body fluid. How low can you go?


Well, you could write a book that says that Jesus participated in a pagan sex ritual called Hieros Gamos, wait, didn't someone do that already. :ahem:


Skipping ahead a bit..

Finally, Witherington-Three's book is rife with the kind of simple errors that a copy editor should have picked up. I normally don't nitpick like this, but, c'mon, how do you get away with publishing a book that purports to correct others' errors while promulgating so many of your own? Gee - wasn't there a guy who once talked about the speck in your brother's eye v. the beam in your own?

Anyway, on page 16 there is an incorrect use of "who;" it should be "whom;" on page 21 there is an incorrect use of "less" where "fewer" is the required word; on page 24 Witherington-Three uses the almost unbelievably infelicitous "for he," which should be, of course, "for him." I could go on, but you get the point.


OH NO! The Errors, they are too much! Ben Witherington is now discredited as an NT scholar due to poor English grammar.

[Cynic Sage]

Danusha Goska, on Ben Witherington's refutation of the Gospel code:



Oh, here's the link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/083083267X/qid=1123367894/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-3346852-3488622

[Cynic Sage]

A nomination for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, and the Pro-Choice SuperHeroine: Dionysus:

http://www.ppgg.org/ (On the left, where it says "Meet PPGG's Superhero for choice, click "Click here to watch the Quicktime film).

Apparently, She drowns a midget promoting abstinence in a trash can, and kills Pro-Life activists by using a gun that shoots exploding condoms. AND NONE OF THOSE GUYS WERE EVEN BREAKING THE LAW!

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a Super-Powered individual who attacks people who aren't breaking the law, isn't that called a Supervillian?

[Darth Executor]

A nomination for Planned Parenthood Golden Gate, and the Pro-Choice SuperHeroine: Dionysus:

http://www.ppgg.org/ (On the left, where it says "Meet PPGG's Superhero for choice, click "Click here to watch the Quicktime film).

Apparently, She drowns a midget promoting abstinence in a trash can, and kills Pro-Life activists by using a gun that shoots exploding condoms. AND NONE OF THOSE GUYS WERE EVEN BREAKING THE LAW!

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a Super-Powered individual who attacks people who aren't breaking the law, isn't that called a Supervillian?

You stole my nomination. At least I get to laugh at the grammar in your last sentence. :haha:

[spl_cadet]

I nominate everything said by Jude3b and those who agree with him in the Ecclesiology forum. Especially the Roman Catholic terrorism thread.

[Cynic Sage]

I nominate everything said by Jude3b and those who agree with him in the Ecclesiology forum. Especially the Roman Catholic terrorism thread.

It is preferable if you site specific instances and use quotes.

[Darth Executor]

It is preferable if you site specific instances and use quotes.

I nominated jude already above.

[Cynic Sage]

Danusha Goska, on Ben Witherington's refutation of the Gospel code:



A nomination for myself. :blush:

I should have typed "Ben Witherington's refutation of The DaVinci Code, which is titled: 'The Gospel Code'".

[Cynic Sage]

You stole my nomination. At least I get to laugh at the grammar in your last sentence. :haha:

Oh, and another thing. Apparently Dionysus drowns the Abstience-promoting midget in the trash can using sex-lube.

I know, at first I thought it was water coming out of that hose.

[Darth Executor]

Oh, and another thing. Apparently Dionysus drowns the Abstience-promoting midget in the trash can using sex-lube.

I know, at first I thought it was water coming out of that hose.

So did I...

Also I'm fairly sure you spelled her name wrong. Dionysus was a male greek god (god of wine to be more specific, whose main preoccupation was getting drunk and organising orgies). It seems that planned parenthood turned him from a white male to a black female to appeal to minorities in true idiot liberal fashion. I nearly tripped when I saw that and that's major considering that I'm sitting in a chair...

[Darth Executor]

Jewish dumbbell and christ myther extraordinaire Goose has asserted that manuscripts are not considered evidence:

Manuscripts are not accepted as fact, because, like your previous post, they are assertions until proven correct. Just because something is written about something, doesn't make it true. This is a rule of thumb in archaeology.

Still a notch above Eliyosef in my book though. At least he didn't write a rebuttal to Holding's article that states "Holding wrote it therefore it's wrong".

[Cynic Sage]

So did I...

Also I'm fairly sure you spelled her name wrong. Dionysus was a male greek god (god of wine to be more specific, whose main preoccupation was getting drunk and organising orgies). It seems that planned parenthood turned him from a white male to a black female to appeal to minorities in true idiot liberal fashion. I nearly tripped when I saw that and that's major considering that I'm sitting in a chair...

Plus they ripped off the early "Huntress" Mask.

[jpholding]

Got some screwy mail this weekend that deserves to be shared.

One:

If you want atheist, Christian man, get this:

www.bobthefrog.gingernet.co.uk

It deals with right-wing politics too, so yeah, Christianity is well
covered, in particular covering the Christian bush administration.



Told him (among other things) he needed to take his meds, and got this back:


If you are keeping a score, I wouldn't advise it, the whole 'I believe
in an all powerful deity' is quite unconvincing. I just loved the
'medication' bit. I'm not the one believing in a 'god.' I don't need
to make an argument against religion. Every time a Christian
minister/Catholic priest/member of the KKK opens his (it usually is
'his' for you don't really believe in equality between men and women)
slightly podgy mouth, religion, once again tightens the noose around its
neck. In my opinion, you should try and start young. Get Christianity
into schools, it takes children to believe that sort of nonsense. Oh
wait, you already do. Shouldn't that be classed as some sort of abuse,
setting up schools that intend to create a new generation of young
Christian children?

Oh, and I shouldn't try to degrade atheists -
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html - by pretending that they
have the sort of ignorance in their arguments that your average (no
wait, make that 'all') Christians seem to behold.

There is no such thing as a 'fundamentalist atheist' and the arguments
that are contained are utter bollocks, and are, almost ironically,
similar to examples of Christian ignorance, i.e - Evolution couldn't
have happened, because God made the world in 6 days, and rested on the
7th. A slightly polarised example, but all the necessary elements for a
good example are there,lol. Your entire belief structure is based upon
the belief in a god, why do you think you have any right to even attempt
to display any signs of logical thought.

The vast majority of intelligent people are atheists, by default. Your
site angers me because it misrepresents atheists as some sort of 'weird'
idea, when actually it is the very lack of a 'weird' idea.

For example:
'You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief
in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a
meaningful distinction in real life.'

Considering that your entire belief is based upon words, this is
suprising. I think atheists get a little annoyed at Christian attempts
to attempt to turn atheism into another religion, when it is the lack of
a religion.

Thank **** that I live in Britain, where Christians are usually laughed
at. At least our government, as shit as they are, aren't full of
bible-bashers, especially bible-bashers who actually attempt to attack
secularism.
That's the U.S for you.


Two: A response to my article on Kenneth Humprheys contained many screwy statements, but this one takes the biscuit:

Observational selection - looking at one side of the coin. One example from the prodigious pile (weak reference to "A word to the wise is often enough") should suffice. You offer an inscription found in Caesarea Maritima as the sole reliable source of documentation that the Nazareth of "Jesus" was a real place. Unless I am mistaken, even if the inscription actually documents what you claim, is doesn't prove allegorically that when one finds oneself in Paris one must therefore be in France or that one is in the city of birth of Bridgette Bardot.

Three:

http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html
Don't you have something more important to do? Doesn't god, in all his
perfection need you to pray some more to it?

You must feel awfully special, you go to heaven, atheists go to hell,
you make fun of them, they burn. What a wonderfully loving religious
person.

Four:


You cannot teach what you do not know, regardless of what any book says including the bible! Has anyone died and come back to say if there is a hell or heaven! There is no proof of any belief! All we can do is gain as much knowledge as possible and draw the best guest! Nothing is guaranteed! Thank you for your time.

:lolo:

On the positive side, here's a cute new toon character I worked up:

[BronzeArcher]

I never knew that the 'Savior Myth' was taken from so many figures! (http://www.christianforums.com/t1956559)

The Jesus story incorporated elements from the tales of other deities recorded in this widespread area, such as many of the following world saviors and "sons of God," most or all of whom predate the Christian myth, and a number of whom were crucified or executed.

* Adad of Assyria
* Adonis, Apollo, Heracles ("Hercules") and Zeus of Greece
* Alcides of Thebes
* Attis of Phrygia
* Baal of Phoenicia
* Bali of Afghanistan
* Beddru of Japan
* Buddha of India
* Crite of Chaldea
* Deva Tat of Siam
* Hesus of the Druids
* Horus, Osiris, and Serapis of Egypt, whose long-haired, bearded appearance was adopted for the Christ character
* Indra of Tibet/India
* Jao of Nepal
* Krishna of India
* Mikado of the Sintoos
* Mithra of Persia
* Odin of the Scandinavians
* Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece
* Quetzalcoatl of Mexico
* Salivahana of Bermuda
* Tammuz of Syria (who was, in a typical mythmaking move, later turned into the disciple Thomas)
* Thor of the Gauls
* Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
* Wittoba of the Bilingonese
* Xamolxis of Thrace
* Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia
* Zoar of the Bonzes

There's more than 30 people there, btw.

[Anthem]

that guy is a potential gold mine. i like this comment:
... usually the 'recognized' academic authoritys are some of the most biased and ignorant people around... and this has been written about by many people... higgens.. massey and kuhn did some fascinating and very relevant work.. which is just now begining to be seriously looked at.. as we emerge from the religious and scientific bias that has plagued modern research for some time
i wonder what he would say if asked how Aztecs managed to influence Christianity from across the Atlantic.

[Darth Executor]

I'm fairly certain Alcides of Thebes IS Hercules...

[jpholding]

I never knew that the 'Savior Myth' was taken from so many figures! (http://www.christianforums.com/t1956559)

It's the standard Kersey Graves list. I have articles on nearly all of them. Some like Beddru don't even exist as far as I can find.

[jpholding]

Lazy Agnostic wins a Poor Sportsmanship Award for the following:


Mad_gerbil: This comic killed me:
http://www.tektonics.org/toons/barktoon01.htmlFUH-NNY stuff --

Lazy Agnostic: I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised by some real clever stuff. Can anyone explain why it's funny? Is it a wry parody, or what? It seems to be just lame insults and mischaracterization.

I'm sure it's heartening to know what he does with his time while his wife is out earning the bacon.

Oh well...also an obsession award for loitering on threads about me.

[Cynic Sage]

Lazy Agnostic wins a Poor Sportsmanship Award for the following:



Oh well...also an obsession award for loitering on threads about me.

That LA cartoon you did recently, w/ him and the monster, did he get into an argument w/himself or something, or argued w/ himself on via different account?

[spl_cadet]

i wonder what he would say if asked how Aztecs managed to influence Christianity from across the Atlantic.


And a thousand years after the fact.

[Cynic Sage]

Apparently Planned Parenthood Golden Gate removed the cartoon link from their site. The cartoon can now be viewed here (http://www.ppgg.org/redirect.asp?url=easylink.playstream.com/ctsg/progressive/PPGG/PPGG2.mp4) as well as at the soundtrack creator's site (http://www.nickvasallo.com/video.htm).

Oh yeah, and a Pro-Life activist gets decapitated by a condom (http://www.saintkansas.com/images/decap.jpg) in the ending credits.

[jpholding]

That LA cartoon you did recently, w/ him and the monster, did he get into an argument w/himself or something, or argued w/ himself on via different account?

Shh! You have to write me with your guesses by email. :smile:

[Cynic Sage]

Shh! You have to write me with your guesses by email. :smile:
You can PM me and tell me whether or not I got it right.

[Cynic Sage]

Apparently Planned Parenthood Golden Gate removed the cartoon link from their site. The cartoon can now be viewed here (http://www.ppgg.org/redirect.asp?url=easylink.playstream.com/ctsg/progressive/PPGG/PPGG2.mp4) as well as at the soundtrack creator's site (http://www.nickvasallo.com/video.htm).

Oh yeah, and a Pro-Life activist gets decapitated by a condom (http://www.saintkansas.com/images/decap.jpg) in the ending credits.

Wait, the cartoon is back on their site, nevermind.

[Cynic Sage]

Unpastorized, also uneducated, challenges Studyhound in the Eschatology Forum w/out even knowing what a futurist is:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59001&page=1

Hi Double D
Whats a futurist?

Hi unpastorized,

it would be benifical for some one who enters a debate forum, to know the terminology being used. Rather than running in like a bull in a china shop. Also it would not hurt to know the arguments that your opponents use (heck even their theological choice like to you know what preterism is??)

:sh:

Hello StudyHound
What do you study? Yeah, i dont know labels. Im sorry. What would ya like to talk about? Ive heard ya cant teach OLD DODS new tricks. You old studyhound? Ya ready to learn what the bible really says fido? Wanna play old boy?

Well, seems everyone wants to get on me cause i dont know what futurism is. But....Ill focos on the hound dog.

Then he aims at DeeDee.

Nah..
Maybe ill go after the big dog.

:rofl:

[Cynic Sage]

Wait, the cartoon is back on their site, nevermind.

Now it's off again. But here are some links to other sites who have it recorded on their servers for means of preserving it. (http://www.dawneden.com/2005/08/where-to-find-planned-parenthoods.html)

[Cynic Sage]

Crusader, on how 1st Corinthians 5 applies to Cup of Mystery:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59070&page=2&pp=16


By the way, I do not consider A Cup of Mystery a "prodigal son," for he has not returned to the Lord, but remains committed to a belief system that is condemned in Scripture. Scripturally, therefore, the best a Christian can do for him is to follow the Apostle Paul's advice, and leave him alone. (1st Cor. 5)

...

As far as I'm concerned, I have attempted to treat Justin in a civil manner, and although I pray that he will repent and return to the Lord, I am commanded by Scripture to have nothing to do with him.

So I looked up the passage cire on BibleGateway, and lo and behold (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205&version=31):


1 Corinthians 5

Expel the Immoral Brother!

1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. 2And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? 3Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. 4When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205&version=31#fen-NIV-28444a)] may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
6Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? 7Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.

9I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205&version=31#fen-NIV-28452b)]

Footnotes:

1 Corinthians 5:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205&version=31#en-NIV-28444) Or that his body; or that the flesh
1 Corinthians 5:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%205&version=31#en-NIV-28452) Deut. 17:7; 19:19; 21:21; 22:21,24; 24:7


So I guess until Justin converts back and becomes a drunk, greedy, lying, pervert, Ol' Cru-Cut will have to be nice to him: :teeth:

[BronzeArcher]

Er... this was wierd. A guy posts a letter (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17618441&postcount=1) from a friend, and I quote the first two paragraphs of it:

When I read the bible I can't help but see the handprint of man all over

it. Read the sections of Romans that talk about government and leaders.

It basically says in so many words don't ever question your leaders

because they wouldn't be leaders if God didn't want them to be. That

was obviously written by men in power who wanted the rest of the

population to stay in line. If it was written by God how does the

American revolution, or the French revolution, or even getting rid of

Hussein fit into that plan?



My main issue is not with people who believe that the overall messages

in the bible are God's word or plan. My problem is with those who

believe that every word in the bible is the literal word of God. As if

they are so afraid of going to hell that they refuse to even make the

slightest decision on their own. For one thing there are about what 20

or 30 different versions of the bible out there right now, how do you

know which one is the literal word of God. Give a passage written in

Hebrew to 10 different biblical scholars, and you will probably get 10

different translations, and 10 different interpretations of what those

translations mean.

Well, the letter is screwy in most places, but that's not what's wierd... the first person to respond says,

He sounds like a smart guy.

:lolo:

[BronzeArcher]

That lucas kid again (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17624645&postcount=1)...

.. here is some interesting reading with some very valuable insight...now dont go throwin it in the trash simply because it claims to be the channeled words of Christ himself...you shall know them by their fruits... at least have a gander before you go yelling blasphemy

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

This is a course in miracles. It is a required course. Only the time you take it is voluntary. Free will does not mean that you can establish the curriculum. It means only that you can elect what you want to take at a given time. The course does not aim at teaching the meaning of love, for that is beyond what can be taught. It does aim, however, at removing the blocks to the awareness of love's presence, which is your natural inheritance. The opposite of love is fear, but what is all-encompassing can have no opposite.

This course can therefore be summed up very simply in this way:



Nothing real can be threatened.

Nothing unreal exists.


Herein lies the peace of God.


http://acim.home.att.net/ACIM-text-contents.html


What's also :lolo: is

The Bible, despite so many discrepancies and contradictions in it, is a work of humans who have witnessed extraordinary events and who tried their best to leave a record for later generations. We must believe those people, unless we can prove them wrong, and the best way to understand the Bible is by reading and understanding "The Urantia Book". The Urantia Book is the Bible enhanced 1000 times' and by combining the two anyone can tell, fairly soon, wheather or not any other "religious or spiritual" book is true or false. While I haven't read "The Course in Miracles", I can tell you that "Conversations with God " books are a fraud.

:lolo:

[BronzeArcher]

Another Jesus-did-not-exist guy (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17642251&postcount=1)

There is NO EVIDENCE at all for a historical Jesus. The following posts will be a combination of works I've collected to prove my point. Whether Jesus existed is hotly debated, and unfortunately for you, your side lacks evidence where my side has evidence contrary to popular belief. I am going to use the work of a good friend of mine.

[Darth Executor]

Another Jesus-did-not-exist guy (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17642251&postcount=1)

My God that guy is stupid...

[spl_cadet]

My God that guy is stupid...



I think He already knew that :tongue:

[Cynic Sage]

Zipperhead:
[/url]
First Ol' Zippy starts a thread titled [url="http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59169&page=1&pp=16"]"Athiests Spread Aids" (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59169&page=1&pp=16)

Now wait 'til you find out who he uses as a source of information.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59169&page=2&pp=16
I've never even met this zipper bloke- who is this clown? I looked at his post count, thinking he was some idiot newbie come to annoy me specifically- but he's got over 300 posts under his belt! Where's he been hiding, or is this merely the first time I've noticed him?

He's a hypercalvinist. Which means he has waged war on 90% of the Christians on this board already.

Translation: He's a Christian, which means he's already waged war on the free willer heretics that run and fill this web site, including that "God loves everyone and Jesus payed the punishment for the sins of those who pay the punishment for their sins in hell" sissy who types under "Darth Executor."

"Execute" judgment on this:

Scriptures on God's hate:

Leviticus 20:23 - And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Leviticus 26:30 - And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images, and cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you.

Deuteronomy 32:19 - And when the LORD saw it, he abhorred them, because of the provoking of his sons, and of his daughters.

Psalm 5:5 - The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalm 5:6 - Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

Psalm 10:3 - For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the LORD abhorreth.

Psalm 11:5 - The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Psalm 53:5 - There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them.

Psalm 73:20 - As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.

Psalm 78:59 - When God heard this, he was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel:

Psalm 106:40 - Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.

Proverbs 6:16-19 - These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Proverbs 22:14 - The mouth of strange women is a deep pit: he that is abhorred of the LORD shall fall therein.

Lamentations 2:6 - And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden: he hath destroyed his places of the assembly: the LORD hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest.

Hosea 9:15 - All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.

Zechariah 11:8 - Three shepherds also I cut off in one month; and my soul lothed them, and their soul also abhorred me.

Malachi 1:3 - And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9:13 - As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

And yes I did get that collection from Fred Phelps.

FRED PHELPS! :lmbo:

[jpholding]

"Grammer is something man put in. And apparently the devil had something to do with it."

Just saw this in your sig line, JEC, from Squeakybro. Maybe it's not from this month but I've got to put it in anyway because it's too funny to not use. :lol:

[Sparko]

"Grammer is something man put in. And apparently the devil had something to do with it."

Just saw this in your sig line, JEC, from Squeakybro. Maybe it's not from this month but I've got to put it in anyway because it's too funny to not use. :lol:

Yeah and misspelling "Grammar" is just the icing on the cake. You really need to go read the actual thread. It's hilarious.

[Darth Executor]

Not really a screwball but I found an awesome pic that shows what I want to do to some of the screwballs I interact with.

[Cynic Sage]

Not really a screwball but I found an awesome pic that shows what I want to do to some of the screwballs I interact with.
That is my new avatar.

EDIT:

Dang, didn't work.

[Darth Executor]

JP obsession's got a hold on me...

Hey, I'm not like JPseudonym(sotheycan'ttellwhatI'mupto)Holding who sits in front of a computer all day cutting&pasting, composing snottygirl insults, and drawing cartoons while his wife is out earning the bacon. I'll get to answering when I have time off work.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59209

[jpholding]

Email I got that's too good to keep.


Breaking News

Be advised that the awaited Messiah and Divine Saviour and Just Leader of the whole of humanity has returned into the flesh of this world to restore the purity of faith, being the doctrine of PEACE of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and all of the heavenly revelations. Please advise all that his message from the Creator to humanity to prepare all for the coming TRIBULATIONS & utter destruction is now on line at:

< http://www.the-testament-of-truth.co.uk >
< http://www.the-testament-of-truth.com >


I thanked him for contributing to my Screwball feature. This was the reply:


every man has the right to find a REASON to 'ridicule' others, seeing not that they in fact ridicule themselves, for they (you) are no better than any 'prisoner' to this land. Yes son, every person on earth that has any sin within (negative emotions through which the dark operates) is such a 'slave,' and you are as much a 'knave' as any other.

My brother, why not try and 'better' yourself by doing a little reading of my web site. For I am the ONE with inner sight and it may not be as 'deep' or clear as that of God, but I do know when another such as you NEEDS help. Please do what you feel you need to in order to 'criticise or condemn' ME as a 'screwball' - - - but just remember, I have spent 12 years of my life sitting in the hills with my wife writing day and night to help you to SEE - - - before our God brings down the ULTIMATE and eternal CALAMITY upon those that find ANY reason to NOT go their way in peace and extend goodwill upon ALL -


Make that a double. :thumb:

[Sparko]

Yup! :thumb: You can tell he is a screwball because like other screwballs he suffers from the "lets use a lot of different colors and text styles to show what I am writing is really important" syndrome.

[Darth Executor]

Email I got that's too good to keep.



I thanked him for contributing to my Screwball feature. This was the reply:



Make that a double. :thumb:

THAT'S a screwball? It sounds like a regular televangelist to me.

[spl_cadet]

Provoker

In my opinion you are heading in the right direction, but you still have some Roman doctrine you need to scrape off...LOL
It is also my opinion that what we know as "the church" today, is not the apostolic church, but is a "paganized" religion, which was strategicly designed, for political purposes, by bishops of the universal religion of the Roman empire.
The true Christian church(messianic assembly) began in the 6th century BC when a Jewish prophet in Babylon, proclaimed the gospel of the kingdom...that a messiah would come and receive the kingdom of his father David.
That Christian church almost died out after the Babylonian captivity when the Jews returned to Judea. It enjoyed a short resurgence because of the teaching of John the baptist and Jesus, before it went underground. Constantine, the emperor of Rome, revived the name "Christianity", and applied it to a new religion called "The Universal Assembly", because it contained doctrines from every religion of the empire, and was legislated to be taught by all religious leaders in the empire. The universal religion is still alive and well today, in the doctrines of the RCC and her Protestant daughters but, if a remnant of the "true" church still survives today, I have no idea where to find it...LOL
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1152130&postcount=3

[Sparko]

sonofyah says that the letter "J" is of the devil.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1153015&postcount=29

Get a copy and read it. There is NO Jesus there. The "j" was not invented yet. The "J" was a mistake on the printing press. If you look at the Alphabet closely you will see it clearly that the "I,i" and the "J,j" look alike.....there is no other language besides the English that have a J sound within it. Satans best trick was not convincing the world he didn't exist it was changing the names of the father and the son. How can you rebuke him in the name of jesus. He will laugh at you. Recognize that Satan is the master of confusion not of mind control. The word says let this mind be in you that is also in Messiah. If you give ear to satan he will tell to tell me there is a differnt name in the Greek, Latin and Hebrew.

This is an imporant point:

Its funny how Satans name never changes from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. Its also funny how Adam is still Adam in the Hebrew and the Greek. Yerushalayim is still Yerushalayim. Moshe is still Moshe. Abraham is still Abraham.

THE ONLY NAMES THAT WERE TRANSLITERATED ARE THE NAMES WE NEED THE MOST.

THINK ABOUT IT

:lolo:

[spl_cadet]

Simple solution. Iesus.

[Sparko]

Simple solution. Iesus.

Don't be a Ierk, NO english letters existed when the bible was written. Well I guess there were some similar Greek and Roman letters, but they don't count.

why? because I say so!

[Darth Executor]

The letter J... I remember a while ago some Christ myther told me Jesus didn't exist because the letter j didn't exist at the time...

[Darth Executor]

Check out this nut:

http://www.afromerica.com/knowledge/religion/doctrine/blkjesus.php

[BronzeArcher]

The letter J... I remember a while ago some Christ myther told me Jesus didn't exist because the letter j didn't exist at the time...

ohmygoshI'mdeconverting

[Sparko]

Check out this nut:

http://www.afromerica.com/knowledge/religion/doctrine/blkjesus.php

Uh,
Jesus was semetic. Hebrew. Middle Eastern. How hard was that to figure out? He was not white, and he was not black.

[Darth Executor]

Uh,
Jesus was semetic. Hebrew. Middle Eastern. How hard was that to figure out? He was not white, and he was not black.

That part is more believable than some of the other stuff...

[Cynic Sage]

I nominate "Sailor" Sharon Moon, for her Avatar Hypocrisy and JPHOCD:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=53062&page=11&pp=16

To start things off, here is Moon's avatar (in case she changes it in the future.)

[attachment]

Is confrontational politics okay? Sharon you all upset about JP being confrontational in defending the faith, yet you have an avatar that disrespects the highest office in our land?

Dee Dee Honey, I'm celebrating. You got that right when you said "defending faith". Faith is all JP is left with when Dictionary.com amply proves JP hasn't been defending "cud chewing", he's been defending confusion.

In case you missed it Dee Dee, scientists have repeatedly stated the rabbit does not "chew" on that pellet. That's all a cud is, is a wad of something chewed on --like chewing tobacco. The pellet is swallowed whole. Caecal pellets have nothing in common with "cud chewing". They're not chewed. If the rabbit set there and chewed and chewed and chewed on the pellet, it would be called cud chewing. But it does not do that.

...

She rants some more on cud-chewing but doesn't answer DeeDee's question.

Sharon, sweetie pie sugar plum, you didn't answer my question. Now be a dear and do so okay?

" Sharon you all upset about JP being confrontational in defending the faith, yet you have an avatar that disrespects the highest office in our land?"


Dee Dee, I know you're upset that dictionary.com has put the Christian Apologist on the defense. That's not my problem. One way or another, JP and his faith is irrelevant and totally indifferent at this point. *smile* I hope that answers your question.

How the heck does that answer anyone's questions?

In reference to the avatar. That's hardly disrespect. That is a statement of my beliefs:

"A preacher thundering from his pulpit about the uniqueness of human beings with their God-given souls would not like to realize that his very gestures, the hairs that rose on his neck, the deepened tones of his outraged voice, and the perspiration that probably ran down his skin under clerical vestments are all manifestations of anger in mammals. If he was sneering at Darwin a bit (one does not need a mirror to know that one sneers), did he remember uncomfortably that a sneer is derived from an animal's lifting its lip to remind an enemy of its fangs? Even while he was denying the principle of evolution, how could a vehement man doubt such intimate evidence?"
SALLY CARRIGHAR, WILD HERITAGE

"1996 presidential contender, Pat Buchanan, said something along the lines of `You may believe that you're descended from monkeys, but I believe you're a creature of God.' I guess that Buchanan hadn't considered that one of the basic tenets of Christianity is that God is the Creator of everything, including `monkeys.' It seems to me that one of the basic reasons behind the so-called `creationism' is the feeling that somehow parts of God's creation are not worthy of being our ancestors."
TOM SCHARLE (scharle.1@nd.edu)

...

Followed by even more off topic ranting from Moon.

Then it is okay to be offensive and disrespectful of others and even of this country for the office represents the country, but it is only okay for you. Oh I see. Thanks for explaining that to me. Wait a minute, hold on, a word is coming to mind..... hmmmm it begins with H, and ends in E, and has YPOCRIT in the middle. Thank you honey bunches. Nice talking with you.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[Cynic Sage]

More Micheel Cadry:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1153512#post1153512

Hidden Manna: In my heyday (my initial 1,260 days) of speaking my testimony, I did pray to God for miracles and they happened. You just don't know of them or know the details about them. God told me that He would send 7 inches of snow upon the New York Daily News Building within 48 hours of a reporter receiving my letter on ABC Stationery (I was working at ABC-TV at the time) so that the reporter would know that the things that I'd said in God's name were true. Well, the reporter was scared to death once the 7 inches of snow fell and gave me a 3-hour interview. Still afterwards, he would not help and said I might be a false prophet, no matter what signs happened. So go figure. This generation is too wicked to be given any signs except these two witnesses being in the belly of the earth for 3 and 1/2 days. Then, when they rise again to life, that will be the sign God gives to men. So no more sign requests, please. Man is evil as well as good, and often listens to the evil instead of the good. I have copies and the originals of the letter I sent to the reporter and the New York Post's report of the seven inches of snow. That is not the only thing God has upheld me on, but many, many signs of rain and snow and earthquakes. You just don't know about them. I have told you about one and that is enough for now.


He probably recieved the vision while watching the weather channel. :lol:

[BronzeArcher]

After reading Tekton's article on faith, I found the use of modern dictionaries to define ancient concepts funny. Now that I've done my own reading (finished deSilva's HPKP today :teeth:, though that's not all), the humor is amplified. :hehe:

What we all need to grapple with is that Taco Bell in Nazareth. Jesus was named the Employee of the Harvest in 16 CE.

[Cynic Sage]

What we all need to grapple with is that Taco Bell in Nazareth. Jesus was named the Employee of the Harvest in 16 CE.

I don't get it. :huh:

[Darth Executor]

I don't get it. :huh:

That's cuz you're slow. :whack:

[Cynic Sage]

I nominate Goliath, for slander and attacking strawmen:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59070&page=2&pp=16

Cru, I don't respond to Justin the Witch, whatever his name is. He is an evil person and full of vitriol for anything and anyone Christian.


I'd have no problem if you took the Lord seriously. I have grave issues with the grotesque charicature of Him that you worship in your ignorance. And yes--calling Mary Magdalen a "prostitute" is nothing but ignorance.

You might be interested to know that the "Mary Magdalen was a prostitute" allegation comes from 7th century Catholic tradition.

cup of whatever: I am going to address your comments because you are so hateful and because everything you have stated is absurd. Please tell me, chapter and verse, where the bible states that MM was married to Christ. You stated this as fact, now back it up. Again, why the hateful tone with me? I never even respond to you. Do you feel threatened by the Christians on this thread or could it be that you suffer from a little narcissism? No one else is as well educated; no one else is as smart; no one else is as savvy...
You need Jesus Christ in your life. Goliath

Keep in mind that COM never stated that he believed Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

I defend Justin, so then ol' Goliath of Gath turns his sights on me.

John; Apparently you view Wicca as something less offensive than outright Satanism. Frankly, i see no difference. I know what Wiccans believe. I know what Satanists believe. I know what Mormons believe. They are all pagans in my view and most of orthodox Christianity as well. And don't accuse me of slander. If you are really a devout practicing Christian as you claim, you would try to lead Justin to Christ and share the truth of the bible with him rather than shooting down your brothers or in this case, sisters in Christ. All I see from of you is the slamming of Christians who are attempting to refute what the guy's inaccurate statements.

He sees no difference between Wicca and Satanism, and yet he claims to know what Wiccans and Satanist believe. :lol:

I responded to the latter part of his post with this:

Do you use that line when a xtian cop pulls you over for speeding?

"Don't accuse me of speeding. If you really are a devout practicing Christian police officer as you claim, you would try to lead your unbeleiving partner, Gordie, to Christ and share the truth of the Bible with him rather than pulling over your brothers and sisters in Christ."

And then he explains how he reached the conclusion that Justin believed the DVC.


Oh, for your reading pleasure, here is the quote by Justin. I asked him to substantiate the interpretation of Christ's "marriage" to Mary biblically. I made the assumption that since he know so much about it, he must have bought into the lie.


Goliath: Cru, it is so hard for many to think of Christ as living a sinless life. He couldn't possibly have kept his hands off a former prostitute, whom he lead to chastity.


Justin: Dear heavens, will you please try to learn that Bible you keep thumping? Mary Magdalen was not a prostitute.



Goliath: There just had to be hanky panky going on there, just as there had to have been with his own mother (a/k/a the virgin birth).


Justin: The usual interpretation of this theory is that Jesus was married to Mary. No hanky-panky required, unless you're one of those folks who thinks that sex is sinful even within marriage.


Goliath: I believe that the bible is a far more interesting piece of literature to read than some of these goofy conspiracy theories that are out there-and-imagine this-it is actually true! Goliath


Justin: Maybe you should try actually reading it this time .. I'm sure we can find some help with the longer words.


Finally, John, who cares what you think of me? YOu will have to one day stand before the judgment seat of Christ and you need to be concerned about that. Goliath

Knowing alot about the DVC Conspiracy theories means you are a Conspiracy theorist? Wow, I guess that makes the FBI a bunch of Criminals. :lol:

There's also this one adressed to Sparko.

Sparko: With all due respect, have you people actually READ Cup of Mystery's postings to us? The man is vicious. i even had him on ignore for over a month-or two-i have lost track, it's been so long, and hadnt' even posted on TWEB for weeks and weeks. I come back, make a statement, and there he is again, with his hate and vitriol.


Honestly, Does Justin (Cup of Mystery) strike anyone here as "vicious"?

johnny c appears to be a religious relativist and I am tired of talking to him. He needs to get a grip and realize there is a way-one way-through our lord and savior Jesus Christ.

I find this odd, considering how in an earlier post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1151987&postcount=45)I said I believed that Justin would go to hell unless he repented.

I am tired of the agape bless me club routine you all seem to be so fond of around here. And, by the way, there are a couple of guys who are the kinds of Christians I previously mentioned: Jude3B and Deren. They know their scripture, they love the Lord and are not afraid to stand for Christ.
Incidentally, Justin has been a poster for how long now? And he is no closer now to repenting of his paganism and turning to Christ than he was in the beginning.

I wonder how Goliath can know this. Does he have the ability to look into the souls of others?

And as far as how "personable" he is, of course, you never challenge him! Only Crusader and I have done that. Nor does anyone ever seem to challenge the mormons except for-again-Crusader and me-and the aforementioned Jude3b and Deren and Confuzzled. So, yeah, if you want everyone to "get along" then of course, don't bring up the fact that they believe false religions and are going to hell because they don't know the Lord, just have nice chats on line with them-and be sure to use lots of big words. It's uncomfortable to really defend our faith, isn't it? People might not like us. Further, I was under the obviously mistaken impression that this was a Christian website, but it now appears to me that this site is slowly being taken over by Satan to use as a tool for leading people astray. If you want to kick me off the site for being blunt, then do so. I no longer care. Goliath

Wow, the second "Theologyweb is Satan" this month. :lmbo:

[Goliath]

I nominate Goliath, for slander and attacking strawmen:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59070&page=2&pp=16





Keep in mind that COM never stated that he believed Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

I defend Justin, so then ol' Goliath of Gath turns his sights on me.



He sees no difference between Wicca and Satanism, and yet he claims to know what Wiccans and Satanist believe. :lol:

I responded to the latter part of his post with this:



And then he explains how he reached the conclusion that Justin believed the DVC.



Knowing alot about the DVC Conspiracy theories means you are a Conspiracy theorist? Wow, I guess that makes the FBI a bunch of Criminals. :lol:

There's also this one adressed to Sparko.



Honestly, Does Justin (Cup of Mystery) strike anyone here as "vicious"?



I find this odd, considering how in an earlier post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1151987&postcount=45)I said I believed that Justin would go to hell unless he repented.



I wonder how Goliath can know this. Does he have the ability to look into the souls of others?



Wow, the second "Theologyweb is Satan" this month. :lmbo:

JOhn: It's easy. JUST READ WHAT JUSTIN HAS TO SAY. YOU DO HAVE A BRAIN AND EYES, DON'T YOU?

NOW, MODERATORS, LISTEN UP BECAUSE YOU WILL MOST LIKELY KICK ME OFF TWEB, AND IF SO, FINE. I AM READY TO GO. Things wouldn't have ever gotten to this point if you had done your jobs in the first place. I NOMINATE JOHNNY EC FOR BEARING FALSE WITNESS AGAINST ME. Great witness for Christ, John. Goliath

[Cynic Sage]

JOhn: It's easy. JUST READ WHAT JUSTIN HAS TO SAY. YOU DO HAVE A BRAIN AND EYES, DON'T YOU?

NOW, MODERATORS, LISTEN UP BECAUSE YOU WILL MOST LIKELY KICK ME OFF TWEB, AND IF SO, FINE. I AM READY TO GO. Things wouldn't have ever gotten to this point if you had done your jobs in the first place. I NOMINATE JOHNNY EC FOR BEARING FALSE WITNESS AGAINST ME. Great witness for Christ, John. Goliath

How could it have been false witness? I presented your own material before everyone while making my case, as opposed to screaming "HATE HATE VIRITOL HATE! SO-AND-SO BELIEVES THIS EVEN THOUGH HE SAID HE DIDN'T BELIEVE IT! JUST READ IT!"

[Darth Executor]

Let loose the dogs of war.

[OfficialPro]

I'd like to nominate a dude called "Morcova" from www.protestwarrior.com . This person is so n00b about Christianity that you can probably supply power to the entire state of California burning all the straw men set up.

Here's a gem from the dude:

Jesus was considered a human sacrifice was he not? Sacrificing himself for the sins of man? Why would a Gos [sic] who abhors human sacrifice do such a thing?

As n00bie skeptics go, he's up there.

[Goliath]

I nominate Goliath, for slander and attacking strawmen:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59070&page=2&pp=16





Keep in mind that COM never stated that he believed Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene.

I defend Justin, so then ol' Goliath of Gath turns his sights on me.



He sees no difference between Wicca and Satanism, and yet he claims to know what Wiccans and Satanist believe. :lol:

I responded to the latter part of his post with this:



And then he explains how he reached the conclusion that Justin believed the DVC.



Knowing alot about the DVC Conspiracy theories means you are a Conspiracy theorist? Wow, I guess that makes the FBI a bunch of Criminals. :lol:

There's also this one adressed to Sparko.



Honestly, Does Justin (Cup of Mystery) strike anyone here as "vicious"?



I find this odd, considering how in an earlier post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1151987&postcount=45)I said I believed that Justin would go to hell unless he repented.



I wonder how Goliath can know this. Does he have the ability to look into the souls of others?



Wow, the second "Theologyweb is Satan" this month. :lmbo:

Johnny pseudo Christian:

YOu have proven nothing. YOu have cut snippets of my postings and pasted them. Very clever. You have taken my comments out of context and consolidated them into your own little spin. Did you work for the Clinton administration perhaps? Further, the points you highlighted did nothing to prove your point. Justin WAS vicious to me and he is a pagan. What's the problem pal? Anyway, the readers,may, if they are so inclined, go back and read Justin's, John's, and my postings in their entirety to read the truth. I hope they will not rely on the word of a dishonest man. Again, I nominate Johnny boy here for provaricator of the month.

Moderators, you know this guy is bearing false witness. Only God knows what is in this guy's heart, but genuine Christians do not treat their brothers and sisters in the manner John has treated me. Goliath

[Cynic Sage]

Goliath is a she, not a he.

Again?

Aw, first Minnesota, then CuMhorrigan. :blush:

It's hard to tell with a name like Goliath.

[Cynic Sage]

Johnny pseudo Christian:

The EC stands for "Eccentric".

YOu have proven nothing. YOu have cut snippets of my postings and pasted them. Very clever. You have taken my comments out of context and consolidated them into your own little spin.

If I have, could you then show us how I have taken them out of context.

Did you work for the Clinton administration perhaps?

:lol: Clever, you're getting the hang of this.

Further, the points you highlighted did nothing to prove your point. Justin WAS vicious to me and he is a pagan.

Then copy the "vicious" exchange you two had, and paste it in the other thread.

What's the problem pal? Anyway, the readers,may, if they are so inclined, go back and read Justin's, John's, and my postings in their entirety to read the truth.

That's why I posted a link to the original thread.

I hope they will not rely on the word of a dishonest man.

Neither do I.

Moderators, you know this guy is bearing false witness.

Moderators, if I am mistaken, please show me my error.

Only God knows what is in this guy's heart,

No disagreement here.

but genuine Christians do not treat their brothers and sisters in the manner John has treated me. Goliath

It is because you are a sister in Christ that I had to come down on you. If you were an unbeliever, I simply would have brought it up in the original thread and left it at that. But you are a sister in Christ, you should know better.

[Cynic Sage]

Pythagoras brings up the whole "Trimurti-Trinity" canard, and uses that fancy word you taught him, JP. :teeth:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=57125



This is a study of the concept of avatara (incarnation) and of the hypostatic union of Deity as found in Hinduism and Trinitarian Christianity.



Ava (down) and ti (to cross), an avatara is generally a "descent" of a deity, or part of a deity, in a manifest form. Although earlier Hindu texts mention deities taking on various forms, the first cohesive formulation of the doctrine of avataras is found in the Bhagavad-gita, which was probably composed around the second century B.C.E. In the frequently quoted verses 4.5-9 of the Gita, it is said that even though Krsna[God] is unborn and changeless, he freely, and by his own power (i.e., unlike those who are born because of their past karman), comes into being in different ages (just as the trinitarian God--Man comes to earth in different ages, "first-coming", "second-coming", "rapture" etc.). He does so in order to protect the good, destroy the wicked, re-establish righteousness (dharma), and free his devotees from rebirth.

From the text of the Gita we can conclude, first, that the form of the avatara is real, and not merely an appearance. Even though Krsna is himself unborn and changeless, he nonetheless comes into being (sambhavami) (4.6, 8), emanates himself (srjami) (4.7), and resorts to or assumes (asrita) a human (manusi) form or body (tanu) (9.11). In other words, even though Krsna is eternal and changeless as God and is of one substance with God and is God, a person of the Hindu trimurti[Vishnu=Krishna], he avatars in the form of a human being-- he comes as God in human flesh.




Both the avatara and the incarnation are immanent, yet transcendent and free. They are both bound by the laws of nature as human beings are. They reveal God's personal love and concern , and emphasize loving devotion (bhakti) rather than knowledge (jnana).In both cases, the descent of God enables human beings to ascend to God. In both cases, the incarnation is a mystery beyond human comprehension and is not to be critically(or logically) questioned, but to be accepted by the faithful on the basis of faith alone.





To be sure there are differences between the Hindu and Trinitarian conceptions, but even the differences are not sharp; rather they are nuanced.




best wishes,...

[Cynic Sage]

Sailor Mooney utterly demolishes an argument Nobody made:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1155224#post1155224




Then it is indeed a very good thing that there is no word corresponding to "chewing" in the Hebrew.


That was an utterly stupid, oblivious question JP.

It seems odd, considering JP wasn't asking a question.

Are Apologists born with a Lower IQ than the average person, or is it a result of brain damage during the Born Again Process?


William J. Stewart, Kingston, Ontario wrote:
You mentioned that the rabbit does not chew at all, but rather swallows the pellet whole. This argument is based upon the assumption that "chew the cud" is an adequate rendering of "'alah gerah". The fact is, neither word literally means to chew. "'Alah" has a variety of uses, but generally means to raise up or bring up. But in addition, it can mean to recover or restore. The rabbit surely is recovering or restoring it's food in the coprophagia process. It would seem that translators considered "chew the cud" to best accommodate Moses' meaning, though it seems to fall short in fully expressing what "'alah gerah" means.

Note the highlighted comments of William J Stewart.

And now for Sharon's reply to Mr Stewart:

SHARON: MR. STEWART, IS IT CUD OR NOT? YEA OR NAY?
As soon as you've admitted it is cud spoken of in scripture (unless you know more than Biblical translators) -- if you admit it is "cud" you have admitted it means chewing. If you say that it does not mean cud --then you guys are given the ultimatum of telling Christians, "Erm, the rabbit does not chew a cud, because we're oblivious what the word Gerah means. It doesn't mean cud anymore. We Christians are not sure what the mystery wad was that cows bring up."

He already answered her question, I don't see the point her trying to threaten him with this.


Christians are now attempting to deny the word "chew" is found in Hebrew scripture. It doesn't have to be. "Chew" is found within the word cud itself.

Please do choose another word for Gerah, but "cud" is not permitted if you guys are going to say "Gerah" is "cud". Explain to the world, Biblical Translators were too ignorant about Hebrew language to understand the definition of Gerah.

CUD --MEANING LITERALLY "A WAD THAT IS CHEWED" -- Digestion has nothing to do with the definition of cud. Okay, let's play that word game -- give the English equivalent of "Gerah".

The guy just said "chew" and "cud" are the closest things in English to "alah" and "gerah", not perfect equivelents, but the closest things.

The only question is "What is Gerah"? Is it `cud', yea or nay, Christian brethren? Do you deny Gerah is "cud"? If you do, then please, please! Tell us what Gerah is? Please keep the word "cud" out of your articles in the future, because the rabbit does not chew a "cud". You can redefine "Gerah" to your heart's desire, but you cannot redefine cud.

Sailor Mooney needs to read herself a copy of the Chicago Inerrancy statement. Errant translations don't threaten the doctrine of inerrancy.


I ask all these Christians, what is Gerah? Some mystery dropping from heaven, like manna --or the lump a cow brings up and re-chews, which we all know in this day and age is none other than "cud", good old fashioned "cud". Again, read "dictionary.com" for the definition of "cud".

Ah, "dictionary.com". Surely an English Dictionary-website can help us better understand the definitions of HEBREW words.:ahem:

Instead of saying "chew" is not found in the Bible, give the alternate word which was intended for "Gerah". Some mystery in the Bible now, eh, after centuries of calling it "cud" what is Gerah (noun): Bangaloo, yahoogaloo, fhinashio, (some thing we've never heard of? Did Hebrew cows spew up something unfamiliar to Farmers across the world in the year 2005? or was Gerah "CUD" and Biblical translators put it? Biblical translators used the word "cud", and by doing so, the word "cud" itself indicates verbal "chewing". The whole word "cud" is defined as "a wad that is chewed".

If the Gerah is not "cud", please inform the world what this "mystery stuff is that cows bring up".

Cud is the word translators chose, and have always used. Cud is no other than a "wad that is chewed". Chew does not need to be in the Bible. Cud defines itself, it means "chewed wad". The rabbit does not chew that pellet, by that alone, we know the pellet is not a "cud".

She types the way MojoJojo (the evil green monkey from Powerpuff Girls) talks.:eek:

As soon as you guys choose that other word, Christians are going to know your true blasphemous nature... changing the King James Bible?? GO RIGHT AHEAD JP HOLDING. ARE YOU JP HOLDING, SAYING THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE?

Wasn't she talking to William J. Stewart?

I can't wait to see the expression on her face when she finds out that JP isn't a KJV-Onlyist. :hehe:

The whole argument about refection hangs upon "cud". And the definition of cud hangs upon a wad "which is Chewed", like Chewing Gum, Chewing Tobacco.

Now deny Gerah is "cud" if you will.

The whole scripture is meaningless without "cud" for Gerah. The whole meaning of cud, is rendered useless, --and renders your cud chewing arguments equally useles if you take the chewing out of it. Cud is "chewed" ... it's all it does, it's all it ever was, it's all it will ever be. "A chewable(verb) wad (noun)."

NOW GO RIGHT AHEAD AND DENY THE BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

You guys are simply proving how incapable you are of dealing with an error.

I see! I see! You have time and time again, swervedand weaved all around the word "alah" trying to claim it doesn't mean "bring up". But when it comes to the word "cud", you claim now, it doesn't mean "cud" --therefore, it doesn't mean "chew". Chewing is all "cud" is. A wad that is chewed. SIMPLE: If it is not chewed, it is not cud. READ THE DEFINITION OF CUD. Cud is defined as "a chewable (verb) wad (noun)", or "a wad that chewed".

MR. STEWART -- For people who do not believe "Gerah" meant "Cud"... you guys sure have used the word "cud" a lot.

Is Gerah Cud or not?

If you say it is cud, you have already admitted it means chewing. Chewing is ALL cud is about.

Thank you for trying your best to swerve and dart around the issues.
Sharon Mooney

[attachment]

"Chewing is all cud is about. Because when cows chew the cud, it is the cud they are chewing. And chewing is all cud is about. Because when cows chew the cud, it is the cud they are chewing. And chewing is all cud is about. Because when cows chew the cud, it is the cud they are chewing..."

[Krusader]

The EC stands for "Eccentric".



If I have, could you then show us how I have taken them out of context.



:lol: Clever, you're getting the hang of this.



Then copy the "vicious" exchange you two had, and paste it in the other thread.



That's why I posted a link to the original thread.



Neither do I.



Moderators, if I am mistaken, please show me my error.



No disagreement here.



It is because you are a sister in Christ that I had to come down on you. If you were an unbeliever, I simply would have brought it up in the original thread and left it at that. But you are a sister in Christ, you should know better.

Johnny, are people to identify you as a "Christian" by your logo "evil genius?" Does that glorify Christ? You're pretty quick on TWEB to attack Christians - Goliath, me and others. Perhaps it's that giant log in your eye that keeps you from seeing truth when it's right in front of your nose.

Remember, by every word you post you will be judged - Mr. Evil Genius!

[Cynic Sage]

Johnny Skeptic will pay JP Holding $1000 to debate him at IIDB.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=133469

All leading Christian apologists place great emphasis upon the 500 eyewitnesses, Gary Habermas and J. P. Moreland being among the most noteworthy. It is suspicious that the Gospels do not mention the 500 eyewitnesses, even though they frequently mention things of much less importance. The Gospel writers were trying to convince people that Jesus rose from the dead as best they could. All four Gospels mention Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, the women at the tomb and Jesus’ appearances to the disciples, so any rational minded person knows that if there actually were 500 eyewitnesses, which if true is a very impressive and quite useful claim, the Gospel writers would definitely have heard a good deal of their testimonies first hand, or at the very least they would have learned about the presence of a large number of eyewitnesses through the resulting hearsay testimonies other people and would have written about it.

Second Corinthians 13:1 says “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” Well, where are the two or three witnesses regarding the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses?

How can we best solve this issue? I think that a good way is to ask two questions? First of all, what would we expect to find in external historical records if there were 500 eyewitnesses? Probably evidence of second hand interviews of a substantial number of eyewitnesses that would be favorable to the Christian position. I am not aware that any such evidence exists.

Second of all, what would we expect to find in external historical records if there were not 500 eyewitnesses? Probably few or no records of second interviews that indicate a substantial number of eyewitnesses. As far as I know, that is the case.

It is important to note that Paul conveniently said that Jesus appeared to 500 of the "brothers" in an unspecified location, not to a disparate group of people in a specific location. If the point of Jesus' appearances was to prove that he rose from the dead, thereby greatly diminishing the need for faith, wouldn't an appearance to a disparate group of eyewitnesses in a specific location have been much better proof than an appearance to 500 "brothers" in an unspecified location? Well of course it would have been much better proof.

The book of Acts says that the disciples went about confirming the word with signs and wonders. I find that to be quite strange since 1) there were supposedly 500 eyewitnesses, 2) Jesus had supposedly healed many people, and 3) the Holy Spirit had supposedly come to the Church on the day of Pentecost. If anything, people back then would have had "much better reasons" for becoming Christians than people today. There aren't any surviving eyewitnesses around today who supposedly saw Jesus after he rose from the dead. In addition, there aren't any surviving eyewitnesses around today who supposedly saw Jesus heal a lot of people.

The further removed one gets from supposed events, the more difficult it becomes to reliably evaluate historical claims. Today, in court trials it is often difficult to reliably evaluate what happened just weeks before, sometimes even with the testimonies of supposed eyewitnesses, let alone reliably evaluate what happened thousands of years ago.

Today, if 500 Christians claimed that Jesus had returned to earth, would most Christians believe the claim? I doubt it.
I believe that most Christians would prefer to check out the claim for themselves.


As if the apostles weren't making things hard enough for themselves by making extraordinary and testable claims in a social environment where it was difficult to keep secrets, they increased the odds significantly by actively encouraging people to check out their claims. Encouraging people to verify claims and seek proof is a guaranteed way of ensuring that your fledgling cult is a flop - unless, of course, those claims hold up under the scrutiny that your encouragement will undoubtedly generate.

In James Holding's TIF, Factor #17 is titled "Encouraging people to check out the facts for themselves." Holding says "As if the apostles weren't making things hard enough for themselves by making extraordinary and testable claims in a social environment where it was difficult to keep secrets, they increased the odds significantly by actively encouraging people to check out their claims. Encouraging people to verify claims and seek proof is a guaranteed way of ensuring that your fledgling cult is a flop - unless, of course, those claims hold up under the scrutiny that your encouragement will undoubtedly generate."

Holding's problem is that there is no evidence at all that the claims were not a flop during the first twenty-five years following the supposed resurrection of Jesus. At the Theology web I debated the size of the first century Christian Church with Holding et al for over a year. Holding said that Rodney Stark picked his numbers out of a hat (7,530 Christians in 100 A.D.) and that Stark massaged the numbers. He also said that his "model" indicates from 100,000 - 250,000 Christians by 70 A.D., and that there had to be that many Christians in order to get the Romans' attention. Although I repeatedly asked him to give proof that Christians got the Romans' attention in a significant way, he refused to provide any evidence at all. He admitted that there is no evidence that Nero persecuted over a few hundred Christians. When I asked him to prove that Christians got Titus' attention, he became evasive because he knew that isn't any proof at all that Titus persecuted Christians to any substantial degree.

The proof that I demolished Holding is after contesting Rodney Stark by tooth and claw for well over a year he basically said "So what if I agree with Stark? It doesn't affect my position one bit." Now readers, that is after Holding said in Factor #17 in TIF "the thousands at Pentecost and the 500 eyewitnesses, making it harder not to believe that to believe." More proof of Holding's embarrassing defeat is that when he wrote a chapter by chapter rebuttal of Richard Carrier's rebuttal of ITF, regarding the issue of the size of the 1st century Christian Church, instead of writing a rebuttal he told readers to visit the Theology Web and read the debates there, many of which he did not participate in, and without giving and pertinent links and post numbers. Such shabby "scholarship" is unheard of among competent debators. Holding would immediately criticize Richard Carrier if Richard were to do something like that.

I hereby offer James Holding $1,000 to debate the Tyre prophecy with me in a formal debate at this forum. I am sure that someone will tell him about my offer, and I am also sure that he will decline my offer because I have already embarrassed him on that topic at the Theology Web.

James Holding wouldn't be caught dead at this forum. He wouldn't be able to call anyone any names, he would have less help from his buddies from the Theology Web, and most of all there are a good number of scholarly skeptics here who he is afraid of.

I used to think that Holding was a tough debater. Now I know that that assessment was incorrect.

With moolah like that, he could finance his own reality show: Pimp my Argument.

[jpholding]

Heck Johnny, I'm just going to use your answer to Moonbeam because she's just a waste of my time anyway. :hehe: I'll let my toon Sheila answer, too.

[Cynic Sage]

Heck Johnny, I'm just going to use your answer to Moonbeam because she's just a waste of my time anyway. :hehe: I'll let my toon Sheila answer, too.
She probably won't get the joke and think you're a schizo. But what the heck. :lol:

[Cynic Sage]

Johnny, are people to identify you as a "Christian" by your logo "evil genius?" Does that glorify Christ?

You're right. People might mistake me for a mad Scientist w/ four mechanical tentacles fused to my spine.

Or when I had that Batman avatar, people could've mistaken me for a masked vigilante/billionaire playboy.:ahem:

You're pretty quick on TWEB to attack Christians - Goliath, me and others. Perhaps it's that giant log in your eye that keeps you from seeing truth when it's right in front of your nose.

Perhaps it's the carrot that materializes in your ear whenever Justin says "I am not a Christian."

Remember, by every word you post you will be judged - Mr. Evil Genius!

You say this as if I were unaware of it.

[Krusader]

You're right. People might mistake me for a mad Scientist w/ four mechanical tentacles fused to my spine.

Or when I had that Batman avatar, people could've mistaken me for a masked vigilante/billionaire playboy.:ahem:



Perhaps it's the carrot that materializes in your ear whenever Justin says "I am not a Christian."



You say this as if I were unaware of it.

And, perhaps you are unaware that your constant attacks on Christians makes that first part of your logo, "evil," fairly descriptive.

[spl_cadet]

And, perhaps you are unaware that your constant attacks on Christians makes that first part of your logo, "evil," fairly descriptive.

And if they deserve it? I've certainly flambeyed my share of idiot Christians.

[Krusader]

And if they deserve it? I've certainly flambeyed my share of idiot Christians.

Yes, I'm sure you have.

[Cynic Sage]

And, perhaps you are unaware that your constant attacks on Christians makes that first part of your logo, "evil," fairly descriptive.

I'm gonna tell you something Cru.

Xtains need to fight (not literal violence fight, challenge-riposte and argue with) other xtians. It is for the same reason I do this that the Military plays war games among itself.

When I "play the devil's advocate" in our exchanges is not because I am a secret Muslim-Wiccan-Satanist who is performing a curse-Jihad on Theologyweb (oops, how did that slip out? :hehe:) But because I want to see stronger arguments for Christianity against Wicca, Islam, and such made.

Do you understand?

[jpholding]

You're right. People might mistake me for a mad Scientist w/ four mechanical tentacles fused to my spine.


Oh boy. :glare: I shudder to think what I'm in for right now then. Guess I'd better start practicing my 'rang throws.

[Goliath]

I'm gonna tell you something Cru.

Xtains need to fight (not literal violence fight, challenge-riposte and argue with) other xtians. It is for the same reason I do this that the Military plays war games among itself.

When I "play the devil's advocate" in our exchanges is not because I am a secret Muslim-Wiccan-Satanist who is performing a curse-Jihad on Theologyweb (oops, how did that slip out? :hehe:) But because I want to see stronger arguments for Christianity against Wicca, Islam, and such made.

Do you understand?

John: First of all we are NOT XTIANS. WE, AND I DO NOT INCLUDE YOU IN THIS STATEMENT, ARE CHRISTIANS. Get it? You do not play devil's advocate. YOu play the devil and you do it a little too well. I believe you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, a narcissistic wolf in sheeps clothing. And I am not going to discuss the aforesaid interaction with Justin with you again. The conversation is there for all to see. You aren't interested in the truth but rather, in promoting your own agenda, whatever that may be. Goliath.

[Krusader]

I'm gonna tell you something Cru.

Xtains need to fight (not literal violence fight, challenge-riposte and argue with) other xtians. It is for the same reason I do this that the Military plays war games among itself.

When I "play the devil's advocate" in our exchanges is not because I am a secret Muslim-Wiccan-Satanist who is performing a curse-Jihad on Theologyweb (oops, how did that slip out? :hehe:) But because I want to see stronger arguments for Christianity against Wicca, Islam, and such made.

Do you understand?

I've been a Christian many years. I generally have found that those who like playing "devil's advocate," actually advocate for the devil.

[jpholding]

I've been a Christian many years. I generally have found that those who like playing "devil's advocate," actually advocate for the devil.

How many years have you been paranoid?

[Krusader]

Are you a doctor? Why don't you spend your time, Holding, advancing the Gospel and stop attacking Christians along with your buddy, Johnny. What a pity that TWEB seems infested with so many pseudo-believers.

And, I've worked with Christian apologists for many years, including Martin. Trust me, you ain't one.

[Cynic Sage]

Who's Martin?

[spl_cadet]

Are you a doctor? Why don't you spend your time, Holding, advancing the Gospel and stop attacking Christians along with your buddy, Johnny. What a pity that TWEB seems infested with so many pseudo-believers.

And of course it couldn't be possible that by getting them and their followers to improve, Holding is helping advance the Gospel better :ahem: To be honest, I do believe that JPH has advanced the Gospel far more than you have, as his debates attract a good deal of attention.

And quite frankly, how are you supposed to learn how to effectively preach/defend the Gospel if no one plays Devil's Advocate? People's souls aren't the best medium for on the job training.

[Krusader]

And of course it couldn't be possible that by getting them and their followers to improve, Holding is helping advance the Gospel better :ahem: To be honest, I do believe that JPH has advanced the Gospel far more than you have, as his debates attract a good deal of attention.

And quite frankly, how are you supposed to learn how to effectively preach/defend the Gospel if no one plays Devil's Advocate? People's souls aren't the best medium for on the job training.

Are you a Catholic?

[Krusader]

Who's Martin?

Walter Martin, the late author of many books, including "The Kingdom of the Cults." He founded Christian Research Institute.

[Cynic Sage]

Are you a Catholic?

What does that have to do with anything he's saying?

[Cynic Sage]

Walter Martin, the late author of many books, including "The Kingdom of the Cults." He founded Christian Research Institute.

I read that, pretty good index. :thumb:

[Krusader]

What does that have to do with anything he's saying?

Doesn't Holding present himself as an apologist?

[Cynic Sage]

Doesn't Holding present himself as an apologist?

You were talking to spl_cadet.

[Krusader]

Johnny, the posting regarding Dr. Martin and apologists was directed to Holding. Look back and see.

[Cynic Sage]

Johnny, the posting regarding Dr. Martin and apologists was directed to Holding. Look back and see.
You asked "Are you a Catholic?" to spl_cadet, not JP Holding.

[Cynic Sage]

Bagger Vance, for his unique choice in "Lexicons":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59431

Definition of Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.


Show me one lexicon that defines faith that way.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=12&oi=define&q=http://www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=12&oi=define&q=http://www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm)

http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=14&oi=define&q=http://home.att.net/~tangents/data/rlgdef.htm (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=14&oi=define&q=http://home.att.net/~tangents/data/rlgdef.htm)

:rofl:

[spl_cadet]

Are you a Catholic?

No, I just titled my apologetics website "Catholic Cadet Apologetics and Evangelization" for the heck of it actually :ahem:

Can I put that question up for a Screwball?

[Goliath]

Who's Martin?

John: YOu are so smart, you figure it out. Goliath

[Goliath]

And, perhaps you are unaware that your constant attacks on Christians makes that first part of your logo, "evil," fairly descriptive.
Cru: or they might just mistake John EC as the pathetic depraved man that he is. Evil genius indeed. No Christian would identify himself with a moniker like that. I only wish Luther and Calvin were here to do a little rope a dope with him. Goliath

[Cynic Sage]

Cru: or they might just mistake John EC as the pathetic depraved man that he is. Evil genius indeed. No Christian would identify himself with a moniker like that. I only wish Luther and Calvin were here to do a little rope a dope with him. Goliath

That would make a pretty sweet movie.

Two Theologians of are summoned from the afterlife by a Legendary, Powerful TrueXtianTM Goliath, to do battle with an Evil Genius with 4 mechanical tentacles. Friday at 8:00, you don't want to miss:

:badger: LUTHER AND CALVIN'S EXCELLENT ADVENTURE!:badger:
<Air Guitar solo:b_woot:>

[Cynic Sage]

John: YOu are so smart, you figure it out. Goliath

It's fun watching you react. You are the highlight of my day. :smile:

[Rayado]

Came across this while reading a thread on morals at a local forum I frequent (Xavier knows who)...

I'm withholding the name of the poster to protect the guilty.

Would we have sex with our children as Abraham did?

:eek:

[jpholding]

Are you a doctor?

An astute observer of the human condition.

Why don't you spend your time, Holding, advancing the Gospel and stop attacking Christians along with your buddy, Johnny.

I've done more to that effect than you ever will, Chuck E. Cheese. :lol: Walter Martin of CRI, eh? I've written about a dozen articles for the CRI Journal, you demon-chaser. :lmbo: Spare me your paranoid diatribes.

But you do win a Screwball Award, that's for sure. :thumb:

So anyway, what's my avatar tell you about me? That I have fantasies about anthropomorphic bestality, perhaps?

And, I've worked with Christian apologists for many years, including Martin. Trust me, you ain't one.

True, I'm probably a great deal more informed on the scholarship than Martin ever was (not that he did badly otherwise). However, just because you were his shoe shiner doesn't mean much.

[Krusader]

No, I just titled my apologetics website "Catholic Cadet Apologetics and Evangelization" for the heck of it actually :ahem:

Can I put that question up for a Screwball?

Do what you want. I could see from some of your postings that you are not an evangelical Christian. Of course, there are many that call themselves "Catholic," such as Anglo-Catholics that are not part of Rome. Also, Eastern churches consider themselves to be "catholic" as well.

I did not see that you had a website. Would you care to provide the link, I'd be interested in seeing it?

[Krusader]

An astute observer of the human condition.



I've done more to that effect than you ever will, Chuck E. Cheese. :lol: Walter Martin of CRI, eh? I've written about a dozen articles for the CRI Journal, you demon-chaser. :lmbo: Spare me your paranoid diatribes.

But you do win a Screwball Award, that's for sure. :thumb:

So anyway, what's my avatar tell you about me? That I have fantasies about anthropomorphic bestality, perhaps?



True, I'm probably a great deal more informed on the scholarship than Martin ever was (not that he did badly otherwise). However, just because you were his shoe shiner doesn't mean much.

Oh, really Holding. Please list the articles you've written so that I can check them out. And, did you know Walter Bjorck who was on the staff of CRI under Martin and not the current management?

By the way, you come across very nasty in your posts, so I think I'll forward them to CRI so that they can consider whether or not the way you approach people is what they want to be associated with. And since you're so more informed than Martin, remember that pride goeth before destruction.

Furthermore, your sexual references are vulgar, and have no place on a Christian website. I shall report them forthwith.

[spl_cadet]

Do what you want. I could see from some of your postings that you are not an evangelical Christian. Of course, there are many that call themselves "Catholic," such as Anglo-Catholics that are not part of Rome. Also, Eastern churches consider themselves to be "catholic" as well.

I did not see that you had a website. Would you care to provide the link, I'd be interested in seeing it?



It's in my sig. www.catholic-cadet.com

[jpholding]

Oh, really Holding. Please list the articles you've written so that I can check them out. And, did you know Walter Bjorck who was on the staff of CRI under Martin and not the current management?

Go to my site (tektonics.org) and click on the link atop for speaking engagements. One of the first links in that file is to a Word document that is my resume'. You will find a list of the articles within.

No Bjorcks around here, sorry. I think we cleaned those out before I was born.

By the way, you come across very nasty in your posts, so I think I'll forward them to CRI so that they consider whether or not the way you approach people is what they want to be associated with.

Have fun. An atheist here did that already. :thumb: And be careful, you may actually be doing me a favor. I'm sure your own rude comments would be of interest as well....especially coated as they are with a discernibly thin veneer of smugly pompous self-righteousness.

I'm still waiting for your certified psychoanalysis of my avatar.

[Krusader]

It's fun watching you react. You are the highlight of my day. :smile:

Johnny, God will not be mocked. If you want to associate yourself with evil, God will be happy to oblige.

[Krusader]

Go to my site (tektonics.org) and click on the link atop for speaking engagements. One of the first links in that file is to a Word document that is my resume'. You will find a list of the articles within.

No Bjorcks around here, sorry. I think we cleaned those out before I was born.



Have fun. An atheist here did that already. :thumb: And be careful, you may actually be doing me a favor. I'm sure your own rude comments would be of interest as well....especially coated as they are with a discernibly thin veneer of smugly pompous self-righteousness.

I'm still waiting for your certified psychoanalysis of my avatar.

Actually, I do work with mental-health professionals. I'll pass your avatar and postings along to them - perhaps they can provide the help you seek.

[Krusader]

It's in my sig. www.catholic-cadet.com (http://www.catholic-cadet.com)

Actually, spl. cadet, I really like your site. There are many Catholics who are sucked into cultic groups due to a lack of Biblical knowledge and poor teachings in the Church. For instance, on the mission field in Mexico we are constantly having trouble with the Luz del Mundo cult, as well as the usual Testigos. Keep up the good work, and thanks for the link.

[jpholding]

Actually, I do work with mental-health professionals. I'll pass your avatar and postings along to them - perhaps they can provide the help you seek.

Be sure and let them know I'm an INTJ on the Meyers-Briggs scales. So you're janitor at the psychologist's office these days?

By the way, your thread on Ron Howard being a Mormon illsutrates exactly why your (apparent) generation of apologetics practitioners needs to move aside and let more competent people do the work. It's people like you and my uncle who drive others away from Christianity with pointless drivel like that.

Noticed you added this:


Furthermore, your sexual references are vulgar, and have no place on a Christian website. I shall report them forthwith.

Make sure you report the Song of Solomon and Ezekiel 23:20 while you're at it. :lmbo:

[Krusader]

Be sure and let them know I'm an INTJ on the Meyers-Briggs scales. So you're janitor at the psychologist's office these days?

By the way, your thread on Ron Howard being a Mormon illsutrates exactly why your (apparent) generation of apologetics practitioners needs to move aside and let more competent people do the work. It's people like you and my uncle who drive others away from Christianity with pointless drivel like that.

Noticed you added this:



Make sure you report the Song of Solomon and Ezekiel 23:20 while you're at it. :lmbo:

No, actually I'm the senior social worker here - and I'm really shocked that you don't know who the late Walter Bjorck was - makes me wonder about the other things you've said. Well, don't bother responding, you're a very rude person, and I doubt you have ever drawn anybody to faith in Christ with your pompous and arrogant attitude. Examine yourself, to see whether you are in the faith, Holding. Crusader

[Piebald]

Johnny, are people to identify you as a "Christian" by your logo "evil genius?" Does that glorify Christ?


Does using the term "Crusader," a term synonymous with the bloody, evil conquests of Christendom glorify Christ?

[jpholding]

No, actually I'm the senior social worker here - and I'm really shocked that you don't know who the late Walter Bjorck was

From the sound of it I ought to be proud that I don't.

Well, don't bother responding, you're a very rude person, and I doubt you have ever drawn anybody to faith in Christ with your pompous and arrogant attitude. Examine yourself, to see whether you are in the faith, Holding.

That's the third pot to call the kettle black here this month. :squidw: Coming up next: Crusader tells us we're all going to burn except him, and is excommunicated by Darwin Fish and Rick Miesel SIMULTANEOUSLY. :rofl:

[Piebald]

Julia Sweeney in a recent interview to promote her new book on Atheism:

San Francisco Chronicle
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/08/15/findrelig.DTL


To me, the Iliad offers more insight into human character and lessons than the Bible. You know, like Jesus was angry a lot. When he turned all those people into pigs and made them run off a mountain, it was so hateful, not just to people but to pigs. I felt upset for the pigs!


Err..

[Krusader]

From the sound of it I ought to be proud that I don't.



That's the third pot to call the kettle black here this month. :squidw: Coming up next: Crusader tells us we're all going to burn except him, and is excommunicated by Darwin Fish and Rick Miesel SIMULTANEOUSLY. :rofl:

Goodness, Holding, where's that gift of discernment gone. I'm a "her" not a "him." And, Bjorck wrote many CRI published booklets and tracts back in the 80's. He was especially noted for his comparison of the Jesus Only doctrines and orthodox beliefs. He was my first Bible teacher, and a close friend of Martin. Just thought you might have heard of him - but then, you're in Canada, aren't you?

PS: Also, Bjorck had a show on Family Radio, but you probably didn't get it up there in snowland.

[jpholding]

Goodness, Holding, where's that gift of discernment gone. I'm a "her" not a "him."

That makes it worse. I've always considered women more intelligent as a whole than men.

And, Bjorck wrote many CRI published booklets and tracts back in the 80's. He was especially noted for his comparison of the Jesus Only doctrines and orthodox beliefs. He was my first Bible teacher, and a close friend of Martin. Just thought you might have heard of him - but then, you're in Canada, aren't you?

I guess your discernment must have blown up too. I'm in Florida, not 50 miles from ground zero. Don't worry, you can borrow my spirit of geography while I use your spirit of gender discernment.

PS: Also, Bjorck had a show on Family Radio, but you probably didn't get it up there in snowland.

We didn't get it here either, thank heavens, and especially not after Camping pulled that Ruptured Rapture garbage.

I'd like to see you answer Hamster's question. Right now you're too closely resembling someone here I call "Moonbeam".

[Piebald]

Also note that the other guy was called "Goliath," the uncircumcised, villanous Giant that was killed by David.

[Krusader]

That makes it worse. I've always considered women more intelligent as a whole than men.



I guess your discernment must have blown up too. I'm in Florida, not 50 miles from ground zero. Don't worry, you can borrow my spirit of geography while I use your spirit of gender discernment.



We didn't get it here either, thank heavens, and especially not after Camping pulled that Ruptured Rapture garbage.

I'd like to see you answer Hamster's question. Right now you're too closely resembling someone here I call "Moonbeam".

Actually, Bjorck disagreed totally with Camping and they had a parting of the ways. Bjorck was a Calvinist, and I learned my Calvinism from him....but not my geography. I saw something about Toronto on your profile, but I'm sure you are a lot more happy to be in Florida.

[Sparko]

Julia Sweeney in a recent interview to promote her new book on Atheism:

San Francisco Chronicle
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/08/15/findrelig.DTL


To me, the Iliad offers more insight into human character and lessons than the Bible. You know, like Jesus was angry a lot. When he turned all those people into pigs and made them run off a mountain, it was so hateful, not just to people but to pigs. I felt upset for the pigs!


Err..


:lmbo: apparently she became an atheist because she can't read.

[jpholding]

I saw something about Toronto on your profile, but I'm sure you are a lot more happy to be in Florida.

No one LIVES in the Canadian National Tower. :doh: Good grief.

Keep dodging then.

[OfficialPro]

:lmbo: apparently she became an atheist because she can't read.

No kidding eh? *coughcoughconfusingJesuswithCircecoughcough*

:lmbo: :lmbo: :lmbo:

[Krusader]

No one LIVES in the Canadian National Tower. :doh: Good grief.

Keep dodging then.

Gee, thanks for the geography lesson. Of course, I'm pretty familiar with Florida, home to a lot of off-the-wall Anglo Catholics attempting to drag ECUSA to the Vatican. Know any?

[Cynic Sage]

No one LIVES in the Canadian National Tower. :doh: Good grief.


Yeah, that's where we keep our top secret Nuclear Missle Silo-er I mean Snowshoes. Yes. Snowshoes. :shifty:

[Cynic Sage]

Nevermind, already answered my question.

[Cynic Sage]

That's the third pot to call the kettle black here this month. :squidw: Coming up next: Crusader tells us we're all going to burn except him, and is excommunicated by Darwin Fish and Rick Miesel SIMULTANEOUSLY. :rofl:

Perhaps a reality show. TrueChistianTM Survivor.

[jpholding]

Gee, thanks for the geography lesson. Of course, I'm pretty familiar with Florida, home to a lot of off-the-wall Anglo Catholics attempting to drag ECUSA to the Vatican. Know any?

No, but I think I now know a Grand Dragoness of the KKK. :glare: :wink:

[Krusader]

No, but I think I now know a Grand Dragoness of the KKK. :glare: :wink:

No, actually I'm from old Yankee stock - great, great etc. grandfathers in the Civil War on the Union side and all that. So, actually your debating with a Connecticut Yankee, so you might as well pack it in, JP.

[Goliath]

Yes, holding, another liberal Canadian-that great Christian bastion to our north! Goliath

[Goliath]

Gee, thanks for the geography lesson. Of course, I'm pretty familiar with Florida, home to a lot of off-the-wall Anglo Catholics attempting to drag ECUSA to the Vatican. Know any?
Cru: and there are apparently a lot of purvurts down there as well. More child molesters per square mile than mosquitos...Goliath

[Krusader]

Cru: and there are apparently a lot of purvurts down there as well. More child molesters per square mile than mosquitos...Goliath

Yes, and a lot of prisons as well.

[Cynic Sage]

Cru: and there are apparently a lot of purvurts down there as well. More child molesters per square mile than mosquitos...Goliath

I get the logic.

1) There are many sexual deviants that live in Florida.

2) JP Holding lives in Florida.

3) Therefore, JP Holding is a sexual deviant.

Wow, isn't it nice that you don't let things like honesty and truth get in your way while you "serve" the Kingdom. :ahem:

[Cynic Sage]

Yes, holding, another liberal Canadian-that great Christian bastion to our north! Goliath

:twitch: Secular Crap! Don't you read any of the previous posts before you post? He put "lives in CN tower" in his profile as a gag. It's like saying you live in the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel tower, or Mt Rushmore.

[spl_cadet]

I get the logic.

1) There are many sexual deviants that live in Florida.

2) JP Holding lives in Florida.

3) Therefore, JP Holding is a sexual deviant.

Wow, isn't it nice that you don't let things like honesty and truth get in your way while you "serve" the Kingdom.



But you're just evil and serving the Devil :tongue:

[BronzeArcher]

Well, NT Wright once claimed that sceptics had never found an error in the NT.

As a professional researcher, it was his job to look for possible errors, of course, but I doubt if he had the time to do that level of research.

:eh: Here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2631788&postcount=8).

[Rayado]

I'm going to go ahead and nominate everything that the poster DMC has written in this thread (http://forum.semo.net/viewtopic.php?t=36086). There's so much to choose from that I might as well link to the thread in question.

[{Tim}]

By the way, you come across very nasty in your posts, so I think I'll forward them to CRI so that they can consider whether or not the way you approach people is what they want to be associated with. And since you're so more informed than Martin, remember that pride goeth before destruction.

Furthermore, your sexual references are vulgar, and have no place on a Christian website. I shall report them forthwith.:lol: Oooh, are we bringing that up again? :hehe: I'm pretty sure I recall some disgruntled opponents trying to stir up a fuss over that, some time back...

Oh, and I rather doubt that JP's post violated decorum. Did it honestly offend you? I'm surprised; it doesn't really bother me...

[Goliath]

SPL: Why pick the CN Tower then if he is not from that area? Sounds like I touched a nerve Buddy. Goliath

[Goliath]

Johnny: how exactly are you serving the kingdom? Oh yeah, that's right-by shooting down brothers and sisters in Christ! Goliath

[Goliath]

No, but I think I now know a Grand Dragoness of the KKK. :glare: :wink:
Holding: I don't care who you are, that comment was uncalled for. Crusader is no bigot and I would like you to point out which of her postings gave you that impression. Oh, and aren't you a librarian? Goliath

[Goliath]

Holding: I don't care who you are, that comment was uncalled for. Crusader is no bigot and I would like you to point out which of her postings gave you that impression. Oh, and aren't you a librarian? Goliath

PS Do you think the subject of evil is a joke? Do you beleive in the real presence/person of Satan? Goliath

[spl_cadet]

SPL: Why pick the CN Tower then if he is not from that area? Sounds like I touched a nerve Buddy. Goliath



Dude, could you at least try to respond to the right people? I said absolutely nothing about the CN Tower.

[Sparko]

I'm going to go ahead and nominate everything that the poster DMC has written in this thread (http://forum.semo.net/viewtopic.php?t=36086). There's so much to choose from that I might as well link to the thread in question.

when I read your post I first thought "Rayado was just being lazy and not quoting this guy" - but, no, you are right. This guy is is such a wacky-woo-woo that you did need to post the whole thread link.

:lolo:

[Rayado]

:lol: :yes:

[jpholding]

No, actually I'm from old Yankee stock - great, great etc. grandfathers in the Civil War on the Union side and all that.

Like the Krispy Kreme Kids don't have chapters in the north these days? :ahem: Doesn't matter. Bigots come in many shapes and sizes, and those that misread the Bible for their own purposes are both atheist and Christian.

Why pick the CN Tower then if he is not from that area?

I like the place.

Crusader is no bigot and I would like you to point out which of her postings gave you that impression. Oh, and aren't you a librarian?

Yeah. So be quiet. :lol:

Archie Bunker didn't think he was a bigot either...however, primitive ties of geography to religion and clear anti-Catholic musings and biases speak pretty well for themselves. That kind of "apologetics" deserves to die a slow and painful death.

[Goliath]

Like the Krispy Kreme Kids don't have chapters in the north these days? :ahem: Doesn't matter. Bigots come in many shapes and sizes, and those that misread the Bible for their own purposes are both atheist and Christian.



I like the place.



Yeah. So be quiet. :lol:

Archie Bunker didn't think he was a bigot either...however, primitive ties of geography to religion and clear anti-Catholic musings and biases speak pretty well for themselves. That kind of "apologetics" deserves to die a slow and painful death.

Holding: FIrst of all, do not tell me what to do. I will be quiet when i get kicked off of TWEB. Secondly, who are you to make a judgment about who is a bigot, particularly when you cannot back up your assertions with facts, Mr. Masters Degree? Thirdly, you are a librarian, not a bible scholar, so you certainly do not have the inside scoop on understanding scripture. Again, I ask you to point out where Crusader or I have missread or missquoted the bible. Finally, perhaps you and your friends here should take the beams out of your own eyes and look at yourselves. Goliath

PS Are you sure you aren't really an Episcopal priest?

[jpholding]

Holding: FIrst of all, do not tell me what to do.

You're telling me to do something by not telling you what to do? :huh:

Have you been raiding the blue light specials at Hypocrisy Mart? :lol:

Secondly, who are you to make a judgment about who is a bigot,

Someone informed enough to make such judgments with accuracy. Who are you to say I can't make them accurately?

Catching your own tail has been a dream of yours for some time now, I take it.

Thirdly, you are a librarian, not a bible scholar, so you certainly do not have the inside scoop on understanding scripture.

Yes I do. Because I USE Bible scholars for my understanding. You don't. All you two is read the text in English and announce your opinion. You wouldn't know what Greco-Roman rhetoric is if it bit you on the behind. You likely think most Bible scholarship is "of the devil" and blame the devil for everything bad that happens to you.

Finally, perhaps you and your friends here should take the beams out of your own eyes and look at yourselves.

Give your initial statement, that's ironically funny. :lol: At any rate it's people like you that are why Western Christianity is in such a pitiable state.

PS Are you sure you aren't really an Episcopal priest?

I've wringed more sponges ina few years than you'll ever hope to in a lifetime of trying. :thumb: Go share your Bump on a Log Gospel with someone.

[Krusader]

Holding: FIrst of all, do not tell me what to do. I will be quiet when i get kicked off of TWEB. Secondly, who are you to make a judgment about who is a bigot, particularly when you cannot back up your assertions with facts, Mr. Masters Degree? Thirdly, you are a librarian, not a bible scholar, so you certainly do not have the inside scoop on understanding scripture. Again, I ask you to point out where Crusader or I have missread or missquoted the bible. Finally, perhaps you and your friends here should take the beams out of your own eyes and look at yourselves. Goliath

PS Are you sure you aren't really an Episcopal priest?

Goliath, I have no idea why this fellow is claiming I'm a bigot. If he knew who I was, he'd have to retract that statement, I'm sure. It's almost laughable! But, don't even bother responding to him - why waste time and energy?

He accuses you of thinking most bible scholarship is of the devil - hmmmmm sounds like somebody I knew over at VO! Anyway, I for one don't hope that you get kicked off of TWEB - it's wonderful to have somebody around that's not afraid of confronting error! You've been areal help over on the Mormonism site - someplace you haven't seen these so-called apologists!

[Goliath]

You're telling me to do something by not telling you what to do? :huh:

Have you been raiding the blue light specials at Hypocrisy Mart? :lol:



Someone informed enough to make such judgments with accuracy. Who are you to say I can't make them accurately?

Catching your own tail has been a dream of yours for some time now, I take it.



Yes I do. Because I USE Bible scholars for my understanding. You don't. All you two is read the text in English and announce your opinion. You wouldn't know what Greco-Roman rhetoric is if it bit you on the behind. You likely think most Bible scholarship is "of the devil" and blame the devil for everything bad that happens to you.



Give your initial statement, that's ironically funny. :lol: At any rate it's people like you that are why Western Christianity is in such a pitiable state.



I've wringed more sponges ina few years than you'll ever hope to in a lifetime of trying. :thumb: Go share your Bump on a Log Gospel with someone.

Holding: So, you know so much about me that you KNOW for a fact that I only read the bible, and don't read the opinions of bible scholars. Then you haven't been in my library pal. It is because of people like me that Western Christianity is in the state it is in? Well, well well. Here it is folks. Moral/religious relativism rears its ugly head! There, now that I have gotten that off my chest, I will answer your question. No, I do not think you are capable to make an informed decision accurately-not when you make hysterical broad generalizations and ad hom attacks on a person who dares to disagree with you. What i think is of Satan are those who purvurt the word of God, whether it is through a cult, through the watering down of Christianity or through so called "religious leaders" with hidden agendas. By the way, there have been more than a few bible scholars, for instance, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, etcetra, who believed in the literal interpreetation of the bible. Do you think yourself more "enlightened" then they? And finally, I may be mistaken, but I think it was to you that I posed this question: do you believe in the real presence/person of Satan? Why don't you answer this question? Goliath

PS. "People like me" didn't destroy Western Christianity, it was the people who watered it down and stopped holding up the Word of God as the standard to which all Christians and Christian churches should be held. It is people who refer to it as xtianity-removing the deity of Christ and the inerrancy of the bible who destroyed it. ECUSA is a perfect example of the wishy washy Christianity now being practiced-or, a better example, the state of the church in England and continental Europe. There are more people attending mosque each week than Christians in their churches in Europe. This didn't happen because of the devout believers. It was the moral relativists who have destroyed Christianity and seriously harmed western society in the process. Of which camp are you, Holding?

[Goliath]

Goliath, I have no idea why this fellow is claiming I'm a bigot. If he knew who I was, he'd have to retract that statement, I'm sure. It's almost laughable! But, don't even bother responding to him - why waste time and energy?

He accuses you of thinking most bible scholarship is of the devil - hmmmmm sounds like somebody I knew over at VO! Anyway, I for one don't hope that you get kicked off of TWEB - it's wonderful to have somebody around that's not afraid of confronting error! You've been areal help over on the Mormonism site - someplace you haven't seen these so-called apologists!

Cru: Thanks. the mormons, although not Christian, are far better caliber of people than the moral relativists. At least they stand for SOMETHING. Goliath

[BronzeArcher]

w00t! Luther/Calvin/Zwingli vs. 20th-20st century scholars! I wonder how that'll be maintained...

[Goliath]

SPL Dude: I am not a "dude." Goliath

[Sparko]

No, I do not think you are capable to make an informed decision accurately-not when you make hysterical broad generalizations and ad hom attacks on a person who dares to disagree with you.

Dang! I am really going through those irony meters lately.

:irony:

[TuckEverlasting]

SPL Dude: I am not a "dude." Goliath

:lol: '/4 6075 70 (|-|111, d00d! :no:

:lollerskater:

[Cynic Sage]

Holding: So, you know so much about me that you KNOW for a fact that I only read the bible, and don't read the opinions of bible scholars. Then you haven't been in my library pal. It is because of people like me that Western Christianity is in the state it is in? Well, well well. Here it is folks. Moral/religious relativism rears its ugly head! There, now that I have gotten that off my chest, I will answer your question. No, I do not think you are capable to make an informed decision accurately-not when you make hysterical broad generalizations and ad hom attacks on a person who dares to disagree with you.

I find this rather ironic coming from you, considering:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1156874&postcount=159
Cru: or they might just mistake John EC as the pathetic depraved man that he is. Evil genius indeed. No Christian would identify himself with a moniker like that. I only wish Luther and Calvin were here to do a little rope a dope with him. Goliath


You assumed I am not a TrueChristianTM because I used a Doctor Octopus Avatar and had the text next to it say: "Evil Genius".


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1158070&postcount=189
Yes, holding, another liberal Canadian-that great Christian bastion to our north! Goliath


Okay, first off, You actually believed that Holding lived in the CN Tower (if you believe that, I can rent you out a flat in the Statue of Liberty). Then, believing he was Canadian, you went right off and assumed he was Liberal.


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1158074&postcount=190
Cru: and there are apparently a lot of purvurts down there [in Florida] as well. More child molesters per square mile than mosquitos...Goliath

Liberals to the North, Pervs to the South. You're surrounded Goliath.:eek:

I can also document more. Such as calling a certain Wiccan a Satanist and a certain "Evil Genius" a religious relativist.


What i think is of Satan are those who purvurt the word of God, whether it is through a cult, through the watering down of Christianity or through so called "religious leaders" with hidden agendas.

Yeah, that's bad, although I don't see what it has to do with Holding.

By the way, there have been more than a few bible scholars, for instance, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, etcetra, who believed in the literal interpreetation of the bible.

And there have been more than a few bible scholars, for instance, Bruce Malina, N.T. Wright, John Pilch, etcetra, who believed in the contextual interpretation of the bible.

Do you think yourself more enlightened than they?

[/QUOTE]

[Darth Executor]

Sweet Mao Zedong, I leave for 3 days and Tweb is in ruins...

[{Tim}]

OK, will anyone be offended if I make an on-topic post here? :egad:


Umm, I nominate "sonofyah", a weird kind of guy who sooms to think that salvation is dependant on using words transliterated directly from Hebrew (no, Greek is not good enough!).

First, for the following weird opinion of the catholic church (based on the name, no less...):
To qoute me something out of a book used by the Catholic church is a little close minded when you know Catholic meaning "universal" embraces most religions and beliefs. With that being said they have to first find out which god they want serve today.
Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59140), post 6.

And for his stunning grasp of logic: (Post 7)According to the word it is a contradiction to call Him by a name that he didnt call himself...

And numerous more...

It is totally disrepectful to call your ruler "Lord" rather than use their name: Know that the Heavenly Fathers Name YHWH known in some circles as the Tetragrammaton has been replaced with that of Lord, God, and Adonai. These titles are given but are a total disrespect to the Holy Scriptures.

Post 28: Knowing Greek is not necessary to understand the new testament, because he is "spiritual": I want you to come from a spiritual stand point and get out of the language box.

Post 29: After Justin slapped him down on "the name that is above all names": If you believe that his name was not presented until after his death you are not hearing from the Holy Spirit. You probably believe he born on christmas and he died on easter too....lol...you are propabably under the same spell the Samarians were under by Simon Magnus Acts 8...the first Pope. ... Just a joke....lol

And this is also totally disrespectful: The Messiahs name should not be transfered letter for letter from one language to the next. To transliterate the Name is a total disrepect and I hope a lot of people view this posting because Christianity needs to go to another level in the right Name. Its time out for what the King James version said. Recognize what YHWH is saying. If you like to study check out the year the King James bible first came into exisitence.
I guess he would say that someone called "smith" should be insulted if a Japanese person referred to them as スミス さん, "Sumisu-san"... :hehe:

Well, I'm sure that that is more than enough examples to indict him... :wink:

[Cynic Sage]

I think that guy was nominated earlier in this thread. That guy really is a Screwball. :hehe:

[{Tim}]

Oooh ooh I'm sorry, I had to add this.... asking if English is not his first language, is in fact to be a tool of Satan...! :lmbo:

The english language is the chosen language for America. This type of speaking is only five hundred years old. A hybrid language that embraces other languages such as, arabic, latin, greek and the list goes on and on. The english or anglosized way of speaking lacks originality. Yet you feel that its "normal" to speak and spell correctly. I'm sorry for misspelling words when I am typing. The fact remains that the word was getting across to people. Don't allow yourself to be used by Satan.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59140&page=4&pp=15, post 48.

[jpholding]

Holding: So, you know so much about me that you KNOW for a fact that I only read the bible, and don't read the opinions of bible scholars. Then you haven't been in my library pal.

People like you think Rick Warren and Warren Wiersbe are actually "scholars". :lol: Chances are the most scholarly tome in your library is Samson and Goliath Go to the Peanut Butter Factory.

No, I do not think you are capable to make an informed decision accurately

Too bad. You can't even spell "pervert" right or answer my points so your credibility is less than zero just now.

By the way, there have been more than a few bible scholars, for instance, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, etcetra, who believed in the literal interpreetation of the bible. Do you think yourself more "enlightened" then they?


*cough cough* 500yearsoutofdate *cough cough*

Find me anything about Semitic Totality or GR rhetorical forms in their work, then get back to me.

And finally, I may be mistaken, but I think it was to you that I posed this question: do you believe in the real presence/person of Satan? Why don't you answer this question?

Because it wasn't me. :doh: Better place an ad in the paper:

LOST. BEHIND. CAN'T FIND. REWARD.

"People like me" didn't destroy Western Christianity, it was the people who watered it down and stopped holding up the Word of God as the standard to which all Christians and Christian churches should be held.

That's you to a T -- a mind-numbed individualist who thinks Paul used the KJV. :thumb:


Goliath, I have no idea why this fellow is claiming I'm a bigot.

Hi, Archie. I'm Lionel, the Jeffersons' son. :lol:

You've been areal help over on the Mormonism site - someplace you haven't seen these so-called apologists!

Please. I wrote a whole book on Mormonism which has done far more to correct their errors than you ever did in your lifetime. :rofl:

[Goliath]

I find this rather ironic coming from you, considering:


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1156874&postcount=159



You assumed I am not a TrueChristianTM because I used a Doctor Octopus Avatar and had the text next to it say: "Evil Genius".


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1158070&postcount=189



Okay, first off, You actually believed that Holding lived in the CN Tower (if you believe that, I can rent you out a flat in the Statue of Liberty). Then, believing he was Canadian, you went right off and assumed he was Liberal.


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1158074&postcount=190


Liberals to the North, Pervs to the South. You're surrounded Goliath.:eek:

I can also document more. Such as calling a certain Wiccan a Satanist and a certain "Evil Genius" a religious relativist.




Yeah, that's bad, although I don't see what it has to do with Holding.



And there have been more than a few bible scholars, for instance, Bruce Malina, N.T. Wright, John Pilch, etcetra, who believed in the contextual interpretation of the bible.

Do you think yourself more enlightened than they?

[/QUOTE]

John:

You are as bad as Holding. Just go off making broad generalizations. First of all, I NEVER stated I believed JP Holding LIVED in the CN tower. It is called sarcasm and it appears that you can't grasp the concept of it. Secondly, I discerned from YOUR POSTS, not from your avatar, where your heart is. However, since you brought it up, I know of no devout Christian of any denomination who would be associated with a name like "evil genius." But that's an aside. You reveal yourself through your posts. Finally, there are many bible scholars who share differing views from those I cited. Fine. There are also a lot of misguided Christians out there too. But whatever. You believe what you want. You claim to be a Christian, you have been exposed to the gospel and you know what you need to do to have eternal life. If you are a Christian, we should be able to detect that in your behavior. So....Goliath

[Goliath]

People like you think Rick Warren and Warren Wiersbe are actually "scholars". :lol: Chances are the most scholarly tome in your library is Samson and Goliath Go to the Peanut Butter Factory.



Too bad. You can't even spell "pervert" right or answer my points so your credibility is less than zero just now.




*cough cough* 500yearsoutofdate *cough cough*

Find me anything about Semitic Totality or GR rhetorical forms in their work, then get back to me.



Because it wasn't me. :doh: Better place an ad in the paper:

LOST. BEHIND. CAN'T FIND. REWARD.



That's you to a T -- a mind-numbed individualist who thinks Paul used the KJV. :thumb:




Hi, Archie. I'm Lionel, the Jeffersons' son. :lol:



Please. I wrote a whole book on Mormonism which has done far more to correct their errors than you ever did in your lifetime. :rofl:

JP or should I say Mr. Turkel:

You prove my point. Can't answer a question. Can't have an intellectual conversation. Moves right to ad hom attacks. By the way, I have been researching your credentials on the net. I believe you are not the man you want the world to believe you are. WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING FOLKS. BEWARE! Why the shroud of secrecy JP? Goliath

Goliath, JP has asked the leadership of this forum to respect his privacy, and that means not using his real name. We ask that you also respect that request.

[Darth Executor]

By the way, I have been researching your credentials on the net. I believe you are not the man you want the world to believe you are. WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING FOLKS. BEWARE! Why the shroud of secrecy JP? Goliath



:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


And what kind of man does JP want the world to believe he is?

[spl_cadet]

SPL Dude: I am not a "dude." Goliath

I'm from California. Dude and guy are neuter words.

[BronzeArcher]

Speaking of the epistles, Bagger says,

Who knows when they were written. We certainly don't know with any degree of certainty. I am not saying concretely either way when the epistles were written but it it seems to me that they would have come after the Edict of Milan only because there wasn't any pesky persecution to dodge.

[jpholding]

JP or should I say * edited by a moderator * :

Just join the shamelessness of the atheists, huh. :thumb: Point.

By the way, I have been researching your credentials on the net

With whom? I suspect atheists, which means you're welcome to hop in bed with them. Why not? You already think like one and interpret the Bible like one. :rofl:

Like I said, it's people like you who are the problem today in Western Christianity.

[Shadow Phoenix]

I nominate BaggerVance in the thread "The Disciples Did Not Have Faith, Why Should I?" I start with a piece on our dating the Pauline epistles with what he said.

Actually that is hardly the case unless you believe that paul actually wrote all of the epistles and the apostle John wrote Revelations. History would hardly bear this out. I think it is far more likely that the many of the epistles were written at a later date and stamped with Paul's name as a way of lending credibility and weight to what was being said. I think it is very accurate to say that Christianity won over Rome in the end and was free to write history as they saw it.

My reply of:

Um. Do you date them to 313 A.D. or beyond? That's when the persecution in the church ended with the Edict of Milan. (Assuming we dare say history can be objective!) Now you've made some claims. Can you back them? Anyway, if they were written before 313, they were still written by the persecuted church.

To which I get the reply that was utterly shocking.

Who knows when they were written. We certainly don't know with any degree of certainty. I am not saying concretely either way when the epistles were written but it it seems to me that they would have come after the Edict of Milan only because there wasn't any pesky persecution to dodge.

Unbelievable! I don't even know a liberal scholar who would say the Pauline epistles were written after 313 AD. I also nominate Bagger for other gems like this.

You shouldn't place any stock in any belief.

One has to scream out, "Does that include that belief?!" Just checking his thread you can see several self-refuting statements like that.

At any rate, here's the whole thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59431

[Piebald]

Umm, I nominate "sonofyah", a weird kind of guy who sooms to think that salvation is dependant on using words transliterated directly from Hebrew (no, Greek is not good enough!).


I have run across those types as well. So whenever I see one, I tell them they are not saved because they are using Roman characters, and not Hebrew ones.

BTW, does anyone find it ironic (which is a polite way of saying hypocritical) that Goliath saw "evil Genius" in someone's changeable subtitle, and yet Goliath chose to sign up with one of the villanous pagan warriors that had to be killed by a man of God?


[attachment=1]
Use your powers of discernment to tell you what kind of person Goliath is! Praise!

[jpholding]

I nominate BaggerVance in the thread "The Disciples Did Not Have Faith, Why Should I?" I start with a piece on our dating the Pauline epistles with what he said.


I took a look at Bagger's efforts in the thread in Phil. about hell. I had a mind to step in with material about hell as a place of shame, but looking at the way he works it'd be like trying to save the Titanic with gumdrops. I take it "bagger" relates to the best job he could get with his level of intelligence.

[BronzeArcher]

I'm going to take a week off after tomorrow to start a research project. So I get a break from this. :lol: I'll grab a few screwballs from CF when I'm done though. :thumb:

[Goliath]

In your opinion they are. I have never heard a young "hip" individual refer to a female as "dude." But whatever. Like, I'm totally stoked, dude. Goliath

[Goliath]

Just join the shamelessness of the atheists, huh. :thumb: Point.



With whom? I suspect atheists, which means you're welcome to hop in bed with them. Why not? You already think like one and interpret the Bible like one. :rofl:

Like I said, it's people like you who are the problem today in Western Christianity.

Holding: Again with the assumptions. Actually, the sites I researched were CHRISTIAN, sir, although I did read something from an atheist whom you apparently totally destroyed. You make a great witness for Christ, I must say. I also read some of your responses to Christians which, like the comment you made above, have sexual overtones and were disrespectful to those who challenged you. As I said earlier, readers: beware of wolves in sheeps' clothing. Oh, that makes two questions now you refuse to answer. I wonder what in the world you are afraid of. G.

[BronzeArcher]

I'll stick in a few:

Thread (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=17725628&postcount=1) title: Was the Bible intended as a literal, historical account?

I was just thinking about this last night. To be honest, I can't see how the books of the bible can be thought of as anything but literal, what would be the point in the geneologies otherwise?

Next (http://www.christianforums.com/t1981292)
Would you believe me if I told you I was perfect? Would you believe me if I told you I created the universe? Would you believe me if I told you that you can never attain perfection as I am? If your answer is "no" to any or all of these questions, then why should I trust you when you tell me about God?

Er (http://www.christianforums.com/t1983452)

Christianity states that man is but a sinner, who can't do anything to please God. Nothing whatsoever. Paul left little to the imagination as far as that idea is concerned.

Along come the Christians, who go on to try to first of all claim that there is no spiritual side to human beings. Then they go on to try to get themselves 'saved' by trying to 'change' themselves in a way that they think pleases God.. that is their carnal selves, which Paul explicitly claims to be of no value to God at all.

This... (http://www.christianforums.com/t1988353)

I believe in the Bible and in God because I like Him. I like the Bible. It is fun. I don't see how any other "religion" or antireligion could be as much fun as faith in the God of the Bible and in His Son Jesus Christ. I mean, my religion is a relationship. There is nothing to lose in becoming a Christian, only things to gain. it's not about being a Christian or being religious or moral, it is about KNOWING GOD. It is about knowing my Heavenly Father and my Creator and Him knowing me. It is about intimacy on a completely spiritual level that exhilarates my whole being and fills me with live and God himself. It is an incredible thing to fall in love with God and learn to trust Him and open up to Him about everything and give up to Him and let Him shape me through His word. He is incredible and makes me SO happy.

Another wierd one... (http://www.christianforums.com/t1990677)

The bible tells us that Jesus suffered, quite extensively, and died so our sins could be forgiven. It also says that Jesus was the son of God etc...

Question:

If God is omnipotent why must he doom his only son to such a horrid fate?
Doesn't the necessity of Jesus' sacrifice imply that there is a law above God, forcing him to put up his son for the rest of us?

Why can't God just forgive us and leave it at that?

Why the theatrics?

This is also ... http://friendsofreality.org/ESSAYS/The_Environment/Being_Time/Religious_People/The_virgin_birth/Forsale_fingernails_/THE_DEVIL/the_devil.html

It is amazing that in the 21st century that there are still billions of people who believe in the devil. It makes one wonder if there is any hope that humankind can awaken and see reality. Most religions are still teaching such nonsense to their children. What child-abuse that is!

By the way, that link was posted by Sol Invitcus, who "thought that it deserved a place" in some thread.

[jpholding]

Holding: Again with the assumptions. Actually, the sites I researched were CHRISTIAN, sir,

Send me a PM with the links, Braveheart.

I also read some of your responses to Christians which, like the comment you made above, have sexual overtones and were disrespectful to

You'd better watch where you go with that one. The reference sounds like to that of a certain "Christian" pervert whose hobby is harrassing women online and skirting or breaking laws and being proud of it. You may even be next on his list.

Oh, that makes two questions now you refuse to answer.

It makes two you missed the answer to. Try eating fish, it's brain food.

[jpholding]

Bagger Vance looks to be the new Johnny Skeptic in town.


For objective morality to exist time frame, legality, popularlity of an action is irrelevant. That is to say that the morality of any action is independent of what the current law says or popular opinion. It is upon that basis that the Pro-Life movement can say that abortion is wrong even if it is legal. To argue that stoning a child is morally right because it is in a certain society is either true or false. It matters not at all that this was said in the 15th Century BC or that the theocracy in power said it was right. If morals exist objective of those things then the action is either right or wrong.

What would you say?

Stoning a child to death for disrespecting their parents is right
Stoning a child to death for disrespecting their parents is wrong

What happens is that Christians twist it so that morality is whatever God says at the given moment. God can say thou shalt not kill and then slaughter the first born of egypt or tell Moses that he and the israelites should kill all the men and enslave the women of another society. How can he do this? Because morality isn't objective to the Christian it is subjective to God's commandment at any given time. Morality is what God says it is. If God says kill or enslave then those things are right because God is morality. Whatever he says goes. It is just a different twist on moral relativism.


Graded absolutism? What's that?

I decree Bagger Vance "too stupid to reply to".

[Cynic Sage]

JP or should I say * edited by a moderator'd * :

You prove my point. Can't answer a question. Can't have an intellectual conversation. Moves right to ad hom attacks. By the way, I have been researching your credentials on the net. I believe you are not the man you want the world to believe you are. WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING FOLKS. BEWARE! Why the shroud of secrecy JP? Goliath


You didn't perchance get your information from a certain Cyberstalker mod of Central Truth Ministries (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mcbryde01.htm)(his e-handle sounds like "Plaque"), was it Farrrel "Only Athiests can ask for donations" Till?

Perhaps it was Brooks "JP said 'doody'" Trubee, or maybe even Abnoxio, whose website contains a flash game where you get to stab Mother Teresa in the face with a crucifix, eh?

BTW: The reason JP uses a pseudonym is because he once worked in a prision. He uses the fake name because he is concerned for the welfare of his family, but it's funny how people who bring up the whole fake-name thing don't really care about that. He could call himself Captain Whoop-Hiney for all I care.

[Cynic Sage]

Bagger Vance looks to be the new Johnny Skeptic in town.



Graded absolutism? What's that?

I decree Bagger Vance "too stupid to reply to".

I thought Buddhists were supposed to be wise? :shrug:

[Shadow Phoenix]

Bagger Vance looks to be the new Johnny Skeptic in town.



Graded absolutism? What's that?

I decree Bagger Vance "too stupid to reply to".

He's got a new thread on how the OT teaches moral relativism. Apparently, BaggerVance needs to stick to golf.

[TuckEverlasting]

I believe in the Bible and in God because I like Him. I like the Bible. It is fun. I don't see how any other "religion" or antireligion could be as much fun as faith in the God of the Bible and in His Son Jesus Christ. I mean, my religion is a relationship. There is nothing to lose in becoming a Christian, only things to gain. it's not about being a Christian or being religious or moral, it is about KNOWING GOD. It is about knowing my Heavenly Father and my Creator and Him knowing me. It is about intimacy on a completely spiritual level that exhilarates my whole being and fills me with live and God himself. It is an incredible thing to fall in love with God and learn to trust Him and open up to Him about everything and give up to Him and let Him shape me through His word. He is incredible and makes me SO happy.

Must be nice... :sigh:

[BronzeArcher]

I'm glad you're having fun. :smile:

[Cynic Sage]

Rationalist attacks a strawman with regards to graded absolutism (hierarchy of morals) and the stoning of disobediant children in the OT:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1160542&postcount=13


But it appears that you, in your ignorance, think that treating such a law, removed from it social context, and reading the bible as if it was a newspaper, is wrong. But if you understood what the results of disobedience could be, then you might be slower to judge.

Right now abortion is objectively moral. The context of this time demands that women not bear children who - because they are unwanted - could fall and become lucifer's tools, or even the anti-christ himself.

Also, murder of muslim women and children is presently moral. The triumph of Christianity is threatened by the increase in population amongst muslims. Therefore it is moral to exterminate them.

You have to understand the social context at the time, and what is at stake. Anything at all is moral as long as you can imagine a contextual justification for it which involves furthering the cause of God.

We poor atheist moral relativists have to stick to our conscience and empathy for the pain and suffering of our fellow human beings. We don't have the luxury of putting words in God's mouth.

[Goliath]

Send me a PM with the links, Braveheart.



You'd better watch where you go with that one. The reference sounds like to that of a certain "Christian" pervert whose hobby is harrassing women online and skirting or breaking laws and being proud of it. You may even be next on his list.



It makes two you missed the answer to. Try eating fish, it's brain food.
Mr Holding: ARE YOU THREATENING ME? Because this post sounds like a threat to me. I think i will print this post out and show it to the attorneys for whom I work for and see what they think. Goliath

[Sparko]

Mr Holding: ARE YOU THREATENING ME? Because this post sounds like a threat to me. I think i will print this post out and show it to the attorneys for whom I work for and see what they think. Goliath

sheesh Goliath, stop being so paranoid about JP. He was telling you that one of the people who you might have been reading when you were "researching" JP holding claims to be a Christian but has a reputation as a nutcase harrasser and stalker (I think I know who he is talking about and I agree). JP was warning you to be careful of who you talk to online and to take things said about him by others with a grain of salt.

He was actually trying to help you.

[Piebald]

I think i will print this post out and show it to the attorneys for whom I work for and see what they think.


You will be very popular after the gigantic burst of laughter roars through the office. Enjoyment will be had by all and 10 years from now everyone will still be talking about it.

[Rayado]

And yet more gems from DMC at that forum:

DMC: Was slavery fair or unfair? What about in the days of Jesus?

Me: Do you assume that it did not change any since then?

DMC: Irrelevent. Fair or unfair?

and,

DMC: The only think I call Christians wrong about in this discussion is their contention that morality is absolute.

Me: Again: saying that there are no absolutes is an absolute statement in and of itself. It is a self-contradiction.

DMC: Strawman. I did not say there are no absolutes, only that morality isn't an absolute.

and lastly:

I think it's been settled too.

Me: All people have two ethical options: one, which says that there are no binding moral absolutes--which is itself bound on all peoples and times, therefore making it a self-contradiction, and....one that requires belief in God.

DMC: It amounts to a play on words.

:ahem:

He must be like Julia Sweeney; atheist because he can't read.

EDIT: Found another. I'm throwing it in as a bonus.

Me: No, I mean that. Get caught using an argument from outrage, and this is what happens.

DMC: I did not use an argument from outrage. You need to close your "100 Logical Fallacies and Secrets to Debating" book and concentrate on the discussion at hand, so that, instead of grading my response according to your book, you can actually respond.

[Cynic Sage]

Mr Holding: ARE YOU THREATENING ME? Because this post sounds like a threat to me. I think i will print this post out and show it to the attorneys for whom I work for and see what they think. Goliath

Goliath, I know we've had our differences, but this is serious. Hugh McBryde is dangerous (http://www.tektonics.org/lp/mcbryde01.htm), especially to women (PM DeeDee Warren if you don't believe me). JP was not threatening you, he was warning you!

Let's keep private matters private, OK Johnny?

[Rayado]

And a very late entry, because he's the gift that keeps on giving:

DMC: I didn't say "Christianity" and you aren't funneling me there. I said "bible".

:sigh:

[Cynic Sage]

Constantine:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=59603&page=2


I'd like you all to realize who read this that you should not take stock in Bagger's belief. No. That's not my advice. That's his advice. Go to his thread and you will find that he says "You should not place stock in any belief." Having said that, let's look at the point.


Relevance?


Bagger. The question is "Why the stoning?" Here's why. The crime is blasphemy and blasphemy is a crime against the highest good, God. If you neglect proper treatment of the highest good, then how will you ever have good treatment of human beings? It was a theocracy.


How will you ever have good treatment of human beings if you are too busy bashing their skulls in? I think stoning a child is WAY over the top for disrespecting God or his/her parents. If someone did that today we would put them in jail for the rest of their lives.

The thing is, we weren't talking about it being done today. But in an ancient group-oriented society with a thin line between order and survival and chaos and starvation on the other.

I am reminded of story in the New Testament

Jesus told us that the first person to throw a stone at Mary Magdelan should be the one without sin. That day He saved a guilty women from being stoned to death because He thought that it was much better for her to change her life than for the ravenous and hypocritical crowd to end her life. Would it not be better to show the child why disrespect is wrong rather than showing the town his insides?

Note the highlighted.

The thing is that that "execution" was prepared simply to trap him, considering how the Roman empire did not let the Jews perform executions. If he did, he would've gotten into trouble with the empire.


And why stone them? Because the future of Israel could depend on it. You let one attitude rise up that defies the moral standards and soon everything else will go away. It's the same reason we have prisons in our country. You leave evil unchecked and it spreads like a cancer.

I think we call this the slippery slope. Putting away criminals who are a danger to society is alot different then murdering an unruly child.

Lets rephrase Bagger's question from do you think its right to....if you were there would you throw a stone at the child? Would you stone your own child to death for blasphemy or for disrespecting you?

Better yet, would Jesus be there to throw a stone or would He instead be there to forgive the child and correct him through example and love?


Bagger. You're simply uninformed on the way of life for the ancient. I wonder if you would complain about the other law codes of the time as well.

I don't know about Bagger but I think there are ALOT of other codes of law of the time I would object to. Slavery. Women being treated like property. ect.


The guy doesn't know his context. Now watch Darth catch him on the "Mary Magdalen" thing.



Jesus told us that the first person to throw a stone at Mary Magdelan should be the one without sin.

I stopped reading right here. I see no reason to expect the rest of your post to be of any use to anybody.

Ok, ok you're right. I misspelt her name.

Magdalen*

Now will you read the rest of my post or is it easier to just brush it aside rather than respond?

:lol:

But seriously JP, I think since you are fammiliar with Crenshaw's work you should pay the thread a visit. Perhaps give Bagger Vance a few lessons of "golf in the ANE" :hehe:. I haven't read Crenshaw's Education in Ancient Israel yet (although Malina and Pilch's Handbook will be arriving at my place soon). It would helps us out.

Thanks.
Johnny Eccentric.

[Cynic Sage]

Bagger Vance:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1159555&postcount=70



Um. Exactly how long have you not understood the social context of the OT? Do you know what a theocracy is for instance?


The context of stoning children? I asked you if you would want to live in the world set up by the perfect law giver. I guess context is all you can provide for a book that has some very disturbing aspects especially in the Old Testament. Would you want to live in the theocracy system presented in the Old Testament? It makes the Taliban seem reasonable.


"I guess context is all you can provide."

:lmbo:

And who really chooses what time period they are born in?

[Cynic Sage]

I found this, although I don't know who did it, I felt it deseved a mention:

[attachment]