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

Cynic Sage

September 3rd 2005, 06:06 PM

Jude3b:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1182281&postcount=130

Dear santaro 75:

The Old Testament was accepted as one Book. And though the New Testament letters and Gospels were only recently written, the churches of God - the body of Christ traded and copied them. And these scrolls were all gathered together in one important city: Antioch of Syria. Antioch was 310 miles north of Jerusalem. The Bible tells us that "the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." (Acts 11:26). They were called "Christians" - not Roman Catholics! These Christians in Antioch collected the holy scriptures and made many copies of them. Soon they were all collected into a single Bible. This all took place shortly after 100 AD. This was God's preserved words in Greek.

But there was another city, 317 miles southwest of Jerusalem: Alexandria, Egypt. And in that city the "intellectuals" perverted the words of God. Here is how it happened: From loosely 300 BC to 300 AD, Greek was the "trade language" people used to communicate all over the Roman Empire.
It was also the language of philosophy. That means every person who thought he was smart would read the Greek Philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Stoicism or Epicureanism. These philosophers all wanted to be "scholars." And guess what city turned out to be a philosopher's paradise? That's right! Alexandria, Egypt! Alexandrian "scholars" were stuck up, selfish, jealous hypocrites who could never agree on anything. So guess what kind of Bible they came up with?

(Sources for further research: The Outline of History 1920, page 305. Final Authority by Dr. William Grady (1993), page 77 and pages 191-195; See also Tixeront, Handbook of Patrology, page 92.)

The so-called "Scholars" from Alexandria got hold of the pure Bible from Antioch of Syria, which was straight from the apostles and prophets. The Alexandrian Scholars argued for years, but the main source of the false Bible they would produce would be a particular "scholar" named Origen.

Origen didn't like God's Preserved Bible. Why? Because he was a "scholar," or course! During his life he wrote hundreds of books, all infected with Greek philosophy. Origen was NOT a Bible-believer. Origen didn't believe in the Old Testament miracles. Origen didn't believe many of Jesus' words or stories. Origen didn't believe the Holy Spirit was eternal. Origen didn't believe that Jesus Christ was Almighty God!

The Apocryphal books were folk tales in circulation during the time that ORIGEN, and Alexandrian "Scholars" made up his strange and perverted Greek New Testament. Origen added the Apocrpha to his counterfeit Bible. He also added New Testament passages to Old Testaement texts. He put the Old Testament and Apocrypha together and then called it the "ancient" Septuagint! Origen gave the world his Bible, not God's: It contained a Modified Old Testament, plus the folk tales called Apocrypha, plus a perverted New Testament. This is the basis of Origen's Alexandrian "Bible."

Origen lived an unusual life. At 18 he was made head teacher at the school of Alexandria. He taught from 204 - 230 AD, when he was kicked out. He moved to Caesarea and was caught in the Decian persecution of 250 AD and tortured. After he was released, in 254 AD he finally died of his wounds.

After Origen died - his counterfeit Bible was copied by other "scholars" and they wrote three more Bible perversions: Sinaiticus (about 350 AD); Vaticanus (before 400 AD) and Alexandrinus (about 450 AD). These so-called "scholarly" Bibles disagree over 3,000 times, in the 4 Gospels alone!! We can safely call them "false witnesses."

After Constantine conquered "Pagan Rome" and legalized Christianity - this led to the official establishment of Roman Caholicism. Eusebius of Caesarea (263 - 339 AD) was Constantine's lap-dog. He treated emperor Constantine like he was a god. Constantine told Eusebious to get him some Greek Bibles. So Eusebius went to the school of his favorite "scholar" - Origen - down in Alexandria, Egypt! The perverted counterfeit Bibles were sent to Rome.

By 405 AD Jerome had finished a latin perversion based on the counterfeit Bible of Origen. It was called the "Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate!!"

There were still many copies of the preserved Word of God in Old Latin and many faithful believers hid their Bibles. Counterfeit Christianity was coming into full bloom now - and starting about 413 AD - in the form of Roman Catholicism, it would control most of the known world for the next 1000 plus years, and the church of God - the body of Christ, fled into the wilderness, as is shown in the book of Revelation.

The church of God - the body of Christ would remain in the "wilderness" during most of the dark years of the "Papal reign."

"Dem Evil Scholars were messin' wit' de Bybil, strait frum de beginnin'." :duh:

Shadow Phoenix

September 4th 2005, 12:42 AM

Got it straightened out. My mistake. I'm not the best with comps. I've shortened it to the best line.

Exegesis of the text. What does the text say about being led by the Spirit as opposed to living by the flesh?

Exegesis be damned! Learn the big picture then re-examine your own journey in Him.

TuckEverlasting

September 4th 2005, 03:48 PM

TealHysterical's entire catalog deserves one... :lol:

From here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1183499&postcount=64):

If God didn't want sex to be abused, He shouldn't have made it feel so good.

From here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1183601&postcount=66):

God could've prevented a lot of suffering by making sex not feel good, or making sugar not taste sweet.

:rofl:

...God must not be a very good baby-maker.

From here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1183644&postcount=68):

There are many sins Christians could do that would incur no consequences on Earth...such as lusting after someone, for one. "Committing adultery in your head," right? Yet it seems that no negative consequences turn out from it...hmm...
I think most Protestants don't believe in engaging in sex for pleasure, either.
What was the purpose of making sex feel good and sugar taste good? What was the point, other than to tempt people to make stupid choices?

:lmbo: That God! Outrageous!

From here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1183625&postcount=81):

However, the NT writers are very biased, especially when it comes to the resurrection, since they have an obvious stake in it.

You see, we don't doubt most things written by Tacitus because he doesn't have much of a reason to lie. Why would he? Same with Josephus...

The NT writers' faith would have been shaken significantly if Jesus was not resurrected. Doesn't it make sense that I'm a little suspicious about their claims as to his resurrection?

And yet he goes on to say, in reference to JPH's TIF:

I already told you I found it unconvincing.

That thing is far too long for me to provide a sufficient rebuttal here. Let me just attack its premise, then:

The major point of it appears to be this: Christianity shouldn't have succeeded unless there was irrefuttable proof of the resurrection during those ancient days. Apparently, Mr. Hodling fails to realize a few things:
1) If the resurrection was the only thing converting people to Christianity, then why did it spread so far? It should've only spread to the people who directly experienced the risen Jesus and knew who he was. However, people converted who had never even seen Jesus!
2) I'd imagine, if this were true, we'd have some written memoirs by people who converted to Christianity because they saw the resurrected Jesus. As it is, we only have Paul--and he only saw Jesus in a vision!
3) It's patently unfair that God gives some people--the ones who saw Jesus--undeniable proof that he was the son of God, yet expects people of future generations to believe on blind faith.

:rofl: And then, after all that, he says:

...I enjoy debating...

Which translates roughly as :wart:.

Some of it's bronze, some silver. Gold for the bolded part. :lmbo:

Teallaura

September 4th 2005, 07:24 PM

The question isn't the existence of absolutes but whether or not we can know them.

Moral relativism is not simply saying that no truth exists or that absolutes don't exist. I believe that we know of absolutes that exist. However we do not know the whole of the universe and the knowledge therein so we cannot know the absolute truth.

Is it just me, or does he refute his own assertion in the second sentence?

:lolo:

Cynic Sage

September 5th 2005, 02:58 PM

TealHysterical's entire catalog deserves one... :lol:

From here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1183499&postcount=64):

From here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1183601&postcount=66):

:rofl:

From here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1183644&postcount=68):

:lmbo: That God! Outrageous!

From here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1183625&postcount=81):

And yet he goes on to say, in reference to JPH's TIF:

:rofl: And then, after all that, he says:

Which translates roughly as :wart:.

Some of it's bronze, some silver. Gold for the bolded part. :lmbo:
TealTerror needs to learn that Protestantism is all about being able to wear a condom. (Monty Python reference :hehe:).

TuckEverlasting

September 5th 2005, 03:25 PM

TealTerror needs to learn that Protestantism is all about being able to wear a condom. (Monty Python reference :hehe:).

:hehe: He also seems to think that the gratuitous addition of :twitch: smilies to his posts increases the force of his 'arguments'. Or maybe he just has Tourette's? :nsm:

More from him (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1184701&postcount=96):

The disciples didn't bother to check the tomb.

As if! :ahem:

The good reason I have that parts of what Luke wrote are fictional or untrue is because those parts are unbelievable.

:lmbo: Can you say 'begged question'? Of course you can.

The only record we have of someone converting because he saw Jesus after the crucifixion is Paul... Therefore, we have no records of people converting after seeing the risen Jesus, which puts Holding's theory that people would only convert if they saw the risen Jesus into doubt.

:eh: Pssst... that's not Holding's theory. :no:

Even if your theory was true, why would the resurrection erase the social stigma? He was still crucified, right? Why would undeniable proof of his resurrection make people say "Oh, then the crucifixion was fine, then"?

:lol:

This is the same guy who tells MM '[i]t's taking all my willpower to continue debating with you. Seriously.' :ahem: No, seriously, TealHysterical needs to be seen to be believed. :lol: He seems not to realise what a fool he's making of himself. :no: This stuff is mostly bronze or silver on its own; you have to read the entirety of the guy's writing to fully appreciate it.

And thus, I put something in my sig (taken from here (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/grahamlloyd01.html)). :sigh:

BronzeArcher

September 5th 2005, 07:22 PM

Random CF picks. From a guy who has "Professional arguer" as his custom title, referring to some Leviticus laws...

So do you think those laws were acceptable at the time then? Sounds like those are words of a lunatic to me. I guess they were "re-worked" when people realized how unacceptable that was.

Professional, eh. And, from another great professional,

no offense but it bugs me to see how hard theists will try to justify the actions of a supposedly loving God in the face of his actions which speak otherwise. He killed women and children!!! Even man has an unwritten understanding that killing women and children is a nono, but God did it. And if God did it, it must be okay! . . .

The bottom line is, God's word in Leviticus doesn't sound like God's word at all. Instead, it sounds to me like the word of man in the infancy of his moral intellect. God on the other hand is perfect and therefore his morals, which should reflect this perfection, should be perfect themselves. In other words, God shouldn't be telling man to kill whores and their children, endorse slavery, condemn homosexuality (his very own creation i might add) etc...

Ugh, I really hate it in there. But in the Christian-only forums the decontextualization is even more rampant.

OfficialPro

September 6th 2005, 01:28 AM

This prolly deserves AT LEAST a bronze:

Some guy called xavier86 @ protestwarrior.com posted a thread http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?p=9768284#9768284

where he asks the standard mundane uber-simplistic skeptic question of all time:

Let's say you have two opposing armies, both comprising Christian soldiers, and both sides pray for God's guidance.

What's God supposed to do there? The winner of the battle is the side God favored?

TuckEverlasting

September 6th 2005, 04:11 PM

Doubting John sez (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1184557&postcount=409):

I teach critical thinking classes

'nuff said. :lol: (Coming from him, it's just a bronze. Now, if Johnny Skeptic said it...)

Doubting John

September 6th 2005, 05:34 PM

I teach critical thinking classes

'nuff said. (Coming from him, it's just a bronze. Now, if Johnny Skeptic said it...)

Why is this so problematic to believe? I also teach philosophy and ethics classes. So...

Just point out something I have said that is illogical. Go ahead. Try.

I might get some facts wrong, but that's not a problem with logic, just the facts.

And I might change my mind too, but that's not a logical problem, either, nor is it lying.

Sometimes I'm just having fun, like you do here. Sometimes I just enjoy it too much.

Just because I get frustrated at the level of some people's intelligence and lash out at them doesn't prove I'm illogical. Maybe a little hot tempered, but not illogical.

And just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I've committed any logical fallacy, either. It just means we have different control beliefs and our logic stems from them. Plus, all of the great philosophers committed informal fallacies from time to time. One person's fallacy is another person's anomally, that's all.

When I took the Graduate Record Exam to get into my master's degree program I scored higher than 9 out of ten college graduates who took it that year. Which might mean that if the Twebbers I talk to aren't even college graduates, then the ratio is even higher.

I might have a problem with arrogance, too, but that isn't a matter for logic.

And I may also reveal more of myself than others do here too, who prefer to sit back and anonymously insult me. But Christians can justify doing that because I don't matter to them--after all, I'm a doubter, a skeptic and an agnostic.

I think there might be one major problem with me being here on TWEB, though. This is from my perspective, you'll note, is that I feel I am casting some of my pearls before some swine (not most, mind you, just a few). My problem is that I think I can reason with some people who cannot reason with me. And for that, you might be able to call me a screwball.

And if you'll look at the threads "Doubting John's Faith in Doubt" and "Where is God in Hurricane Katrina" you'll see how reasonable I can be with reasonable people (although I may be running into some trouble with one person there--we'll see if things will be different his time).

But one thing is fairly certain. For as much as I'm nominated a screwball here, my weak arguments, as you are so apt to call them, are getting national and international attention. Even though you continue to nominate me a screwball and call my arguments "canards" and the like. They are making a difference.

With my revised book the arguments are even better than before. And some of them were hashed out here on TWEB, so for that you are to be thanked. And anyone who has ever responded to me with an intelligent question or comment has actually made my revision a better and stronger case against Christianity.

So the screwballs are really those who have intelligently responded to me. :wink:

TuckEverlasting

September 6th 2005, 05:39 PM

You get another one for taking me seriously. :no:

BronzeArcher

September 6th 2005, 08:57 PM

A guy called 'popey', who is attempting (http://www.christianforums.com/t2070610) to 'shut down' the Bible:

Today we live and breathe in a society that is very much a result of scientific advancement, and human evolution (in the general sense). How can people still require religion to help explain our existence? This is what really frustrates me. It is an illogical explanation for existence! It is filled with contradiction! And it is completely outdated!

The problem with Christianity (and most other religions) is that it bases its belief so broadly in a text that is meant to be the (concise) word of God. **You would also think that if it is the word of God, it would be in a universally understandable form**

Most believers know very little about the history of their religion, they go to Church every week and they get spoon fed quotes from the New Testament (NT) - a revised edition of the Old Testament (OT). The famous Ten Commandments are underlying proof of both the inconstancy of the Bible and the convenient selection of the NT. For your convenience I will bring the evidence to you:

i. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
ii. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
iii. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
iv. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
v. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
vi. Thou shalt not kill.
vii. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
viii. Thou shalt not steal.
ix. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
x. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

At a simple glance, you would probably think nothing of it. But look what the word of God is actually saying. The first four commandments condemn our own religious freedom, and freedom of speech.

i. states that we must bow down to worship him
ii. condemns the creation and worship of other Gods
iii. states we can’t take his name in vein
iv. commands us to worship his Sabbath day

And apparently we disagree on "key central doctrines" (http://www.christianforums.com/t2072860).

I find it hard to comprehend that Christians disagree on key central doctrines. Don't you think this is a tad bit strange? If the bible is for all mankind, why is written in a way that it's so hard for you to figure out what it's saying?

Furthermore, you all heavily confuse and complicate things with all your different religions.

right?

Shadow Phoenix

September 6th 2005, 09:24 PM

Pythagoras gets nominated again. (Personally, this guy should get nominated for anything he dares to write about the Trinity. We usually don't refute it because we're too busy laughing or we've seen it's pointless.) Anyhow, here is a sad bit of his logic as well as confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism.

(A)Do you agree Christ's soul died?
(B) How can the soul of God(Jesus) die?
(B) How can God("the Father") forsake himself("the Son")?

Is it possible for anyone to get more clueless on the Trinity?

spl_cadet

September 6th 2005, 09:56 PM

And apparently we disagree on "key central doctrines".

Well, Scripture alone vs Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium together is a key doctrinal difference.

One Bad Pig

September 7th 2005, 12:52 AM

Here's a gem (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60831) from Steve Carr:

The silence of Christians defending the 'testimony' about God in the links I gave, speaks volumes for the fact that deep down, everybody behaves like an atheist, when it comes to the crunch.

:hrm: Silver, maybe?

Shadow Phoenix

September 7th 2005, 12:54 AM

Ah. DJ has apparently enjoyed talking to me again. Apparently, the belief is all Christians are really supposed to cower before his arguments and if we don't, well we're apparently "stupid."

Ahem. We start this discussion of Katrina here.

Natural evil? Natural evil is a misnomer. It's implying that nature makes a conscious decision to do something. I personally don't think it's evil but essential.

Which I do agree. Nature is not evil in itself. Evil is a moral category and nature does not make moral decisions.

Of course, to state out what it implies is not enough....

What? You're frustrating me again. It implies what? What again? It implies what? What?

Supposedly, this counts as a refutation in some circles....

Moving on, when one complains about too much suffering, I always ask how much is too much.

How much is too much though? What sets the standard of too much? How much evil will you allow before you then turn and say "Well God can't be true then."

I don't know. Why do you continue to demand the impossible here, as you did elsewhere, when it came to defining "superstition," and where I called you stupid.

Hmmm. Asking a question is demanding the impossible. Remember this people. Never seek to clarify your terms. Just accept vague generalities.

The next quote has his proper abbreviations.

DJ:
Let me ask you this: If I pluck one whisker from off the face of a man with a beard, how many whiskers would I have to pluck before one can say he no longer has a beard?
AN:
All of them.

And then his response to that of....

What? I'm a sliver away from putting you on ignore for that one, stupid. So, if there is one whisker left, that man has a beard? I seriously think that you should reconsider before wasting your money to become an apologist for Christianity. You haven't got a clue. You haven't got the needed smarts to be one even if you did read quite a bit more than "See Spot Run books. I cannot imagine why Jaltus said that you were pretty intelligent. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that we disagree on our control beliefs, either. You need to consider being a garbage collector. That requires few brains, and it pays well, and serves a needed function in society. And to think a critique by you of me is posted on JP Holding's website. All I can think is that you must contribute some money to him.

Of course, one hair would be a puny beard, but still would qualify. Now we get into the traditional, "I hate having an answer given so I'll just pull out insults since I've never backed with anything substantial." It's amazing DJ has such a hard time dealing with people who aren't intelligent and have no smarts. Wonderful to know that this is being taught to our university students as ethics and critical thinking as well. On another note, I don't have the resources yet to donate to JP though I will probably in the future. JP and I just share a mutual friendship based on our love of apologetics. Yeah. Probably hard for some to realize that we don't go out at night and dance naked in front of a statue of JP Holding or something.

Btw, an insult in this case shows me that I'm just the kind of person needed in this field.

The point of my question was simply the story of the straw that broke the camel's back. Load straw onto a camel and eventually, it will break the camel's back. WHich one does it? That's the straw that breaks the camel's back? So how much evil is too much?

Now I ask you the same question. Which straw is it that is too much evil for God?

I was hoping to have an insightful response here. Well it was insightful, but not as much as I thought.

Stupid.

Now we are quoted in tandem again with the proper initialin done on his part.

DJ:
I cannot say with respect to a beard, and I cannot say with respect to Katrina. But the disaster is just like the whole "beard" to me, with all of it's whiskers and destruction
AN:
Then your faith is based on something in this case that is entirely subjective. I'd personally prefer to discuss the objective evidence rather than rule out a faith based on subjectives alone. Subjectives have their place, but only after the objectives have been dealt with.

Of course, the response focuses on the nature of history....

So, history is objective? Then tell me if O.J. Simpson is a murderer, or whether Michael Jackson is a child molester. Tell me who killed President Kennedy. Tell me who build the Pyramids and why? Tell me also whether or not we needed to fight the American civil war, or whether the South could've won the battle of Gettysburg if a fence had not been there?

Biblical examples? Tell me how many times Paul visited Jerusalem. Tell me where Galatia is and it's boundaries at the time of his missionary journey's. Tell me how many hours Jesus was in the grave. Tell me what people thought about the Pharisees, not what the NT says, because it is obviously a one sided argument against them (remember the people loved them, do you know why?) Tell me who wrote II Peter, or the final chapters in Isaiah. Give me a chronology of Noah's flood. Tell me who killed Goliath. Give me a chronology of the events after Jesus supposedly arose from the grave. Tell me what the ancient people believed about the cosmos. Tell me your views on the question of creation and Genesis 1-2, biblical eschatology, church polity, baptism, sanctification, justification, the atonement, and hell. All of these things are historical questions and they are all debated by evangelical Christians.

This is not even to mention the debates between liberal Christians and conservative Christians, or between both of these groups and doubters like me. The problems are legion.

So do not tell me about what is or what is not objective about history, ever ever again, stupid.

Well folks! Apparently if disagreement exists, that means we can re-write history. I expect before too long we can re-write a story on how Doubting John left Christianity and just make it however we want. After all, his account in his book contains no objective history. It's all subjective. Let's make it whatever we want.

[QOTE=DoubtingJohn] I will not respond to you again in this thread. I shouldn't have even attempted a reasonable discussion with you. You do not have the minimum level of understanding needed to have a reasonable discussion.

There's your badge again. Put it in your signature. I do not suffer fools gladly. Period. But anyone who will be reasonable with me,I will be reasonable with them. [/QUOTE]

And thus, it ends. Sigh. I find it quite amusing.

Sparko

September 7th 2005, 02:03 AM

hey Anick, don't forget to give links back the original source. Like in the pythagoras quote.

OfficialPro

September 7th 2005, 03:18 AM

OH MAN I just found NOOBFEST in the EXTREME!

Check this out:

A guy called Diamond Rio (@ protestwarrior.com ) posted a topic (called "The Benefits of Marriage") where he said some pretty n00bish things. As seen HERE:

http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewtopic.php?t=99651&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The biggest indicator of n00b comes with this line deep in his first post:

So if one lives by the rules set down in the Bible, why only pick and choose which ones you like, such as Homosexuality being a sin? In order to be a good Christian, one has to abide by all of God's laws, not just pick and choose which ones you like., the ones which coincide with your personal interests. God is not about serving your personal interests. If you want to abide by one of God's laws, then you have to abide by all of of God's laws.

In fact, one of God's laws says you must not oppose evil:

"But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall
smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"--Matt. 5:39

Which means if you consider homosexuality evil then you must not resist it.

(bolded up for emphasis--not bold in the original)

WOW! Can I spot the n00bie crackpots or what? This blatant decontextualization deserves at least a silver, if not the gold.

FormerFundy

September 7th 2005, 04:39 AM

Shadow Phoenix

September 7th 2005, 09:38 AM

I have to submit ApologiaNick for his comments on sex in the thread : I love how the OT makes moral relativists out of Christians.

Post#194 Of course, sex won't be in Hell as it belongs to the nature of Heaven.

Post #194 The question, will there be sex in Heaven, is obviously answered "Yes." After all, there will be a continuation of what is there right now. There has always been sex in Heaven. Sexuality belongs to the nature of Heaven. It does not belong to the nature of Hell.

So what makes hell, hell, is the absence of sex and what makes heaven, heaven is the presence of sex?

Post #224
Even a nun has a sex life .

Nuns have a sex life? I knew many priests did as that has been well documented in recent years.

Post #224
The act of sex is the bodily expression of the two souls. It's the intimate indwelling of two persons. Which is what will happen in Heaven. Each person will have an intimate relationship with God in a unique way that no one else does.

So we are all going to have sex with God in heaven?

Spoken like a true modern again. You might want to check up and realize that position is highly orthodox in the Christian worldview as it should be. Peter Kreeft has written about this much in his works such as "The God Who Loves you," "Heaven: The Heart's Deepest Longing", and "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Heaven But Never Dreamed of Asking." It's also something you can realize after reading a work like Roderick Leupp's "Knowing the Name of God."

Anyhow, here's a link to Kreeft's article on the topic.

http://peterkreeft.com/topics/sex-in-heaven.htm

Doubting John

September 7th 2005, 10:35 AM

ApologiaNick for thinking he has what it takes to be an apologist for Christianity. I dare say he'll be wasting his time and money to attend further schooling to become one. He doesn't have the smarts for it. Here is what he said:

AN:
Natural evil? Natural evil is a misnomer. It's implying that nature makes a conscious decision to do something. :rofl:

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

DJ:
Let me ask you this: If I pluck one whisker from off the face of a man with a beard, how many whiskers would I have to pluck before one can say he no longer has a beard?

AN:
All of them. :lmbo:

AN:
This is the idea of "the straw that broke the camel's back." Keep putting straws on the back of a camel and eventually one will topple it, but there was one straw that did do it. Now I ask you the same question. Which straw is it that is too much evil for God? :thumb:

AN:
Then your faith is based on something in this case that is entirely subjective. I'd personally prefer to discuss the objective evidence rather than rule out a faith based on subjectives alone. Subjectives have their place, but only after the objectives have been dealt with. :lolo:

For the discussion and my hot tempered response go here, beginning with post #114:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60486&page=8&highlight=Doubting+John

If you see my hot tempered response in ApologiaNick's signature, now you know why.

Whenever you predict what someone will do, they always have the option to cause your prediction to fail, but, I'll predict anyway. ApologiaNick will still try to defend what he said. That is the absolutely stupidest thing he could do here on TWEB. :spongeb: What he said is simple not defensible.

Shadow Phoenix

September 7th 2005, 10:51 AM

ApologiaNick for thinking he has what it takes to be an apologist for Christianity. I dare say he'll be wasting his time and money to attend further schooling to become one. He doesn't have the smarts for it. Here is what he said:

AN:
Natural evil? Natural evil is a misnomer. It's implying that nature makes a conscious decision to do something. :rofl:

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

AN:
All of them. :lmbo:

AN:
This is the idea of "the straw that broke the camel's back." Keep putting straws on the back of a camel and eventually one will topple it, but there was one straw that did do it. Now I ask you the same question. Which straw is it that is too much evil for God? :thumb:

AN:
Then your faith is based on something in this case that is entirely subjective. I'd personally prefer to discuss the objective evidence rather than rule out a faith based on subjectives alone. Subjectives have their place, but only after the objectives have been dealt with. :lolo:

For the discussion and my hot tempered response go here, beginning with post #114:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60486&page=8&highlight=Doubting+John

If you see my hot tempered response in ApologiaNick's signature, now you know why.

Whenever you predict what someone will do, they always have the option to cause your prediction to fail, but, I'll predict anyway. ApologiaNick will still try to defend what he said. That is the absolutely stupidest thing he could do here on TWEB. :spongeb: What he said is simple not defensible.

DJ. You're a bit late. Anyhow natural evil is a misnomer. Nature does not make moral decisions and more than a gun that is used to shoot someone makes a moral decision. God can use natural disasters no doubt, but we have no grounds today for determining if a natural disaster is a judgment of God.

You really should have bothered to read Miller's article on the Christian think-tank on this.

http://christian-thinktank.com/natevl.html

Now DJ, if you want, I'll be more than happy to go to the gym with you and we can start a thread on the problem of "natural evil." I'm sure it will be no problem since I don't have the smarts to be an apologist.

Doubting John

September 7th 2005, 11:04 AM

Sparko

September 7th 2005, 12:33 PM

I even predicted it! :lmbo:

With apologists like ApologiaNick no wonder Christainity is losing in the marketplace of ideas.

He's nominated twice on the same page here. That should tell you something.

And as far as debating you about anything, I have better things to do than to continually beat my head up against a wall.

No doubt you'll claim victory here, which will only prove my case.

RIIIGGHHT.... You claim AN is a lousy apologist but you are too chicken er, BUSY, to debate him.

...And then you poison the well saying if he calls you on your cowardice it actually proves your case?

How about I call you on it instead? You are a blowhard chicken.

:foghorn:

:lmbo:

Doubting John

September 7th 2005, 02:16 PM

You really think so? Hmmm.

Then I nominate you, Sparky, for being a screwball of the month, and I rate both you and ApologiaNick Gold!

technomage

September 7th 2005, 02:17 PM

Kinda esoteric, don't you think?
It's only esoteric if you've never seen his mustache.

spl_cadet

September 7th 2005, 02:20 PM

Peter Kreeft's statements on sex in Heaven are actually non-orthodox and condemned by every Catholic apologist who comes across them (Kreeft being another Catholic apologist). Logical deduction of his views are that the Blessed Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ, who were perfectly chaste on Earth, become Heavenly whores. There is no sex in Heaven.

Cynic Sage

September 7th 2005, 02:23 PM

You really think so? Hmmm.

Then I nominate you, Sparky, for being a screwball of the month, and I rate both you and ApologiaNick Gold!
You sound like an girl whose just been dumped.

"You can't nominate me! I nominate you!"

Sparko

September 7th 2005, 02:44 PM

You really think so? Hmmm.

Then I nominate you, Sparky, for being a screwball of the month, and I rate both you and ApologiaNick Gold!

You're so clueless. :sigh:

Cynic Sage

September 7th 2005, 02:53 PM

BV's started a goldmine:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60893&page=1

Jesus is unchanging.
Jesus is in the heart of every christian.
Christians should therefore all have the same values since all have the same Jesus.

That seems pretty straightforward to me. If Jesus is indeed in all christians then they should have no differences about the life, nature, and teachings of Jesus. After all for the christian it isn't a matter of interpretation anymore but a matter of divine inspiration. Jesus is actually in them and the Holy Spirit is moving within them so why is he telling them all different things? Is Jesus a skitzo?

Since it isn't possible for Jesus to be a hippie socialist revolutionary, capitalist legalist, ardent pacifist, and supporter of putdowns(Hey JP!) etc the only logical answer the christian can have to the conundrum is to say that some people just are lying about their faith. In fact the christian must say that most other people that claim to be christian are lying about their salvation.

Let's say we have 10 people that read the Bible, believe it, and get saved. Now after that all 10 have different views about what the bible really says and how one should live the christian life. They all agree that Jesus is in them personally and that he is the way, truth, and life but if Jesus is the tie that binds why do they still not all through Him see the same path? Wouldn't it logically follow that if we all were looking through the same telescope pointed at the same place we'd see the same object?

Again if all 10 say that Jesus is revealing different things to them then either Jesus is really telling all of them different things, some are lying, or Jesus doesn't exist and they are all hearing what they want/need to hear.

So explain this to me. You all claiming to hear the same voice but all have drastically different claims to what the voice is. How is that possible? If the same Jesus is saving you all then there should be no disagreements no matter how small because Jesus is telling you and guiding you all the same way. Even the feud between JP and other christians on the merit of courteousness to doubters should not be happening because Jesus has to have a definite opinion and he is in the heart of both sides.

"Christians disagree on things, therefore God does not exist."

Cynic Sage

September 7th 2005, 03:00 PM

Hal Lindsey actually authored a comic book.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=26779

Teallaura

September 7th 2005, 03:19 PM

BV's started a goldmine:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60893&page=1

"Christians disagree on things, therefore God does not exist."

Well, duh! If we all agreed on everything, we'd obviously be in collusion, so there is no God....

:no: Sheesh!

technomage

September 7th 2005, 03:20 PM

Well, duh! If we all agreed on everything, we'd obviously be in collusion, so there is no God....

:no: Sheesh!

I think a lot of "Evangelical Atheism" can be summed up in the phrase "Christians exist: therefore, God does not." :ahem:

Darth Executor

September 7th 2005, 03:22 PM

Doubting John should be banned from polluting this thread.

technomage

September 7th 2005, 03:24 PM

Doubting John should be banned from polluting this thread.

:shrug: Open forum. Unless you've got a Jedi mind trick or two up your sleeve.... :teeth:

jpholding

September 7th 2005, 03:30 PM

Hal Lindsey actually authored a comic book.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/attachment.php?attachmentid=26779

The artist is Al Hartley, who in the past did some of the Archie comics. He's pretty good. But I like mine better. :teeth:

Sparko

September 7th 2005, 03:35 PM

:shrug: Open forum. Unless you've got a Jedi mind trick or two up your sleeve.... :teeth:

Actually, this is JP's forum (tektonics) and his thread. He can ban whoever he wishes just by telling us to moderate it.

TuckEverlasting

September 7th 2005, 03:37 PM

Actually, this is JP's forum (tektonics) and his thread. He can ban whoever he wishes just by telling us to moderate it.

Yes, hello, um, this is JPH (for reasons that are unimportant I am using :tuck:'s account), and I'd like to ban Sparko from this thread. Thanx, dudes.

technomage

September 7th 2005, 03:39 PM

Yes, hello, um, this is JPH (for reasons that are unimportant I am using :tuck:'s account), and I'd like to ban Sparko from this thread. Thanx, dudes.
Where's that Custom Smilie of Tuck getting struck by lightning ...?

Doubting John

September 7th 2005, 05:04 PM

BV's started a goldmine:

"Christians disagree on things, therefore God does not exist."

I could nominate so many people who make screwball comments. But I nominate JohnnyEC for not even having enough brains to fill a spoon. He can't even understand BaggerVance's point, so how can he claim to even be able to understand the Bible?, or respond to anything else? He gets the Gold for the lack of understanding. :lol:

And as far as banning me goes. I'd be honored if you did. But then the fair way (Christian way?), and the nonhypocritical way (James 2:1-13) to do that would be to also ban any comments about me here in this thread. Do that, and then do that, and I won't complain.

But remember exactly why you banned me, if you do. It's because I point out too many of your stupid ways. One way to keep me from posting here is to refrain from making stupid comments. Do that, and I'll stay away.

technomage

September 7th 2005, 05:12 PM

He can't even understand BaggerVance's point, so how can he claim to even be able to understand the Bible?

Like you, John, BV doesn't have a point ... he has an endless stream of complaints. Like you, he engages in whatever logical framework he chooses to "prove" his point--only to end up proving nothing but the existence of the vendetta.

And like you, he's amusing ... but only in small doses.

Doubting John

September 7th 2005, 05:46 PM

Cup of Stupidity:

Like you, John, BV doesn't have a point ... he has an endless stream of complaints. Like you, he engages in whatever logical framework he chooses to "prove" his point--only to end up proving nothing but the existence of the vendetta.

And like you, he's amusing ... but only in small doses.

Then you obviously cannot read above "See Spot Run." I don't care what you believe, either.

Intelligence is in short supply here. You get the Gold for not being able to read what I write, if that's the sum total of what you understand of it all.

I guess that's your excuse for not understanding me. Kinda makes you feel intelligent doesn't it? :duh:

Darth Executor

September 7th 2005, 05:59 PM

Cup of Stupidity:

Then you obviously cannot read above "See Spot Run." I don't care what you believe, either.

Intelligence is in short supply here. You get the Gold for not being able to read what I write, if that's the sum total of what you understand of it all.

I guess that's your excuse for not understanding me. Kinda makes you feel intelligent doesn't it? :duh:

.

technomage

September 7th 2005, 06:05 PM

Trout

September 7th 2005, 06:07 PM

And as far as banning me goes. I'd be honored if you did. But then the fair way (Christian way?), and the nonhypocritical way (James 2:1-13) to do that would be to also ban any comments about me here in this thread. Do that, and then do that, and I won't complain.

But remember exactly why you banned me, if you do. It's because I point out too many of your stupid ways. One way to keep me from posting here is to refrain from making stupid comments. Do that, and I'll stay away.

We can ban you for no reason at all, DJ. We don't need scriptural justification, and we reserve the right to make fun of you when you're gone.

Just a little FYI.

Please carry on.

Cynic Sage

September 7th 2005, 06:56 PM

We can ban you for no reason at all, DJ. We don't need scriptural justification, and we reserve the right to make fun of you when you're gone.

Just a little FYI.

Please carry on.
Let's not ban DJ from the "Tektonics" forum, I enjoy watching him react every time he gets nominated for a screwbie. :teeth:

Teallaura

September 7th 2005, 06:59 PM

Isn't DJ finished leaving yet? :eh: Sheesh! :no:

I've had (and will have again, no doubt) disagreements with Justin - but even when he's wrong, (:tongue:) he's not stupid. There's a reason our resident Wiccan is well respected - and that you aren't, DJ. He conducts himself as a gentleman, at least tries to understand what the other person is saying (and mostly succeeds) and doesn't (usually) go around grousing about how poorly everyone treats him (and yes, he catches his share of the nonsense). In short - he acts like a grown up. You would do well to emulate that, even if you don't agree with his positions.

Grow up, DJ! :brood:

technomage

September 7th 2005, 07:01 PM

I've had (and will have again, no doubt) disagreements with Justin - but even when he's wrong (:tongue:) he's not stupid. There's a reason our resident Wiccan is well respected - and you aren't, DJ. He conducts himself as a gentleman, at least tries to understand what the other person is saying (and mostly succeeds) and doesn't (usually) go around grousing about how poorly everyone treats him (and yes, he catches his share of the nonsense). In short - he acts like a grown up.

:flowers: Thank you, dearheart.

Doubting John

September 7th 2005, 07:41 PM

Trout:
We can ban you for no reason at all, DJ. We don't need scriptural justification, and we reserve the right to make fun of you when you're gone.

I know. Christians can justify anything they want to. Who needs the Bible when you want to do something, eh?

But what I don't understand about this, is why you are so passionate about defending the Bible as God's word and the standard for morality?

Trout gets a Gold for being hypocritical. :lol:

Teallaura:

I've had (and will have again, no doubt) disagreements with Justin - but even when he's wrong () he's not stupid. There's a reason our resident Wiccan is well respected - and you aren't, DJ. He conducts himself as a gentleman, at least tries to understand what the other person is saying (and mostly succeeds) and doesn't (usually) go around grousing about how poorly everyone treats him (and yes, he catches his share of the nonsense). In short - he acts like a grown up.

So, are you saying you can treat me unfairly and when I respond in kind that I can't? You get a Gold too. And why should I care about what you think of me or of Cup of Stupidity? Why? You hide behind fake names.

Is it right for Christians to insult others? JP Holding has just recently called me a moron. Is that funny or what? :lol: He is so full of himself that he's about ready to spill his guts all over himself. He gets a Gold too, for having no justification for his statement at all in the context in which he said it.

And tell me why I can't have some fun at your expense? Why? It's all in fun, isn't it? I don't care what you nominate me for. Why should you care if I nominate you for anything? This thread is for fun, and I'm having fun. What's wrong with that?

Earlier "The Tuckinator" invited me to this thread by nominating me. I responded and he said he was just joking. So? I'm just joking too. Just laugh a little. I am. :lol:

Trout

September 7th 2005, 07:47 PM

But what I don't understand about this, is why you are so passionate about defending the Bible as God's word and the standard for morality?

Because the "Sky Daddy" told me to.

technomage

September 7th 2005, 07:50 PM

You hide behind fake names.

Not all of us: my name is Justin Eiler. I sign my posts Justin, my identity is availably to anyone.

Like you, I'm a former Christian--but it seems that I managed to leave the grudge behind. But don't worry--it took me about four years to do that. It may take you a while, but if you want to leave that behind you can.

It's all in fun, isn't it?

For some it may be, but not for all. In my case, what you see is what you get--the real me, unvarnished, politically incorrect, and all the rough edges complete.

Deal with it. :shrug: Or don't. That's entirely up to you.

TuckEverlasting

September 7th 2005, 08:00 PM

And tell me why I can't have some fun at your expense? Why? It's all in fun, isn't it? I don't care what you nominate me for. Why should you care if I nominate you for anything? This thread is for fun, and I'm having fun. What's wrong with that?

:thumb: John.

However:

You hide behind fake names.

I think it's dangerous to put your true identity out on the net.

Doubting John

September 7th 2005, 08:20 PM

:thumb: John.
However:
I think it's dangerous to put your true identity out on the net.

Fine. But it does allow us all the chance to say things we wouldn't if we were face to face and/or living next to each other, doesn't it?

Where is your Christian behavior when no one is watching, eh? That is "the fruits of the Spirit" in Gal. 5:22-23, and I Peter 2:1 & 23 where it says: "Rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander of every kind...When they hurled insults at him, he did not retaliate..."

I just think that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you want to have fun, then invite me and I'll have fun too. But don't go on slobbering about how I am personally offended at what you say. I'm just joining in the fun. And if I have more ammunition in this thread than you do, don't invite me next time.

technomage

September 7th 2005, 08:25 PM

Fine. But it does allow us all the chance to say things we wouldn't if we were face to face and/or living next to each other, doesn't it?

Not all of us.

TuckEverlasting

September 7th 2005, 08:35 PM

Fine. But it does allow us all the chance to say things we wouldn't if we were face to face and/or living next to each other, doesn't it?

Where is your Christian behavior when no one is watching, eh?

I'll think on that, John, and if I did offend you, I apologize. :smile: It is easy to speak (or type) without thinking when you're anonymous. Please remember that I agreed with you here, though:

I'm just joining in the fun.

Please also remember that we all fail once in a while. :smile:

Doubting John

September 7th 2005, 08:44 PM

I'll think on that, John, and if I did offend you, I apologize. :smile: It is easy to speak (or type) without thinking when you're anonymous. Please remember that I agreed with you here, though:
Please also remember that we all fail once in a while. :smile:

I really didn't care to make you feel guilty, but I did want to point out an inconsistency. It's your faith that makes you feel guilty. And any time I quote the Bible people here feel guilty.

Just have fun. That's what I do. You should be able to have fun without feeling guilty. Enjoy life more, and laugh.

No apologies needed. No offense taken.

TuckEverlasting

September 7th 2005, 09:03 PM

I really didn't care to make you feel guilty, but I did want to point out an inconsistency. It's your faith that makes you feel guilty. And any time I quote the Bible people here feel guilty.

Just have fun. That's what I do. You should be able to have fun without feeling guilty. Enjoy life more, and laugh.

No apologies needed. No offense taken.

I would take issue with some of this, viz.:

1) Guilt is a modern construction; thus, the realization that one has done wrong and apologizing for it does not necessarily stem from guilt. Sometimes it does; I believe that often it doesn't (I remember, for example, one time a co-worker was trying to get me to do something I felt was wrong. I declined, and she said 'why won't you do it? You feel guilty, don't you?' I had a hard time explaining to her that, no, in fact, it wasn't that I felt guilty, because in point of fact I wouldn't have; it was simply that I knew it was wrong, and that was sufficient reason).

2) 'Your faith makes you feel guilty' - you say that as if it's a bad thing. It may be, in some cases. However, is it always wrong to feel guilty if you have, in fact, done wrong?

3) 'Point out an inconsistency' - I, of course, would again point out that inconsistencies are by no means to be unexpected. :smile:

4) 'Just have fun' - With no regard to the consequences? I'm not sure this is sage advice. :hrm:

5) I am able to have lots of fun without feeling guilty, believe me. :wink:

However, I don't enjoy internet debating (reference my :spam: point count :teeth:), and I don't want to :hijacked: this thread anymore, so I won't be back to continue the discussion. Someone else may want to pick up my slack. :hehe:

Sparko

September 7th 2005, 10:30 PM

I nominate Doubting John for this completely hypocritical and very stupid comment...

So, are you saying you can treat me unfairly and when I respond in kind that I can't? You get a Gold too. And why should I care about what you think of me or of Cup of Stupidity? Why? You hide behind fake names.

...says the dummy with a fake name.

--
I think JP lets him post in these threads just because it is less work. I mean, sheesh, instead of having to go looking for stupid quotes from Doubting John, he comes right in here and posts them for us.

:thumb:

Doubting John

September 7th 2005, 10:49 PM

I nominate Doubting John for this completely hypocritical and very stupid comment...
...says the dummy with a fake name.
--
I think JP lets him post in these threads just because it is less work. I mean, sheesh, instead of having to go looking for stupid quotes from Doubting John, he comes right in here and posts them for us.
:thumb:

If you don't know my real name you are the stupid one. Other than that I challenge you to show me what it is that is specifically stupid or hypocritical about my above comment. If you cannot justify it, then you get double Gold!

So many people like you simply cannot back up what they say. Can you?

Sparko

September 7th 2005, 11:43 PM

If you don't know my real name you are the stupid one. Other than that I challenge you to show me what it is that is specifically stupid or hypocritical about my above comment. If you cannot justify it, then you get double Gold!

So many people like you simply cannot back up what they say. Can you?

1. You assume that people here use fake names so they can hide behind them and act other than they would in public.

2. You use a fake name and act worse than those you complain about.

Conclusion: If you act like you do on this board in public, then you are a complete jackass. If you don't you are a hypocrite.

Either way your comment was stupid:

Did you ever think that people might have good reasons for using aliases that don't have to do with 'hiding behind them?'

I used my real name on this board for the last year. I only recently changed it to a nickname for two reasons: 1. I wanted to have a name that was more 'fun' and 2. I noticed that there are a lot of wackos out there and on pal talk and I would not want to invite them to look me up in the real world. I made the final decision after reading a story about a former muslim (who turned christian) who was debating muslims and they actually looked him up, found out where he lived and murdered him and his family.

If someone wants to know my real name I will give it out in PM.

Now, why do you use "doubting john" instead of YOUR real name on this board?

And DJ, you don't get to give out 'the gold' awards. You only get to receive them. :lol:

Truthdigger

September 8th 2005, 09:25 AM

jpholding

September 8th 2005, 11:23 AM

I'm not into banning DJ -- he's too funny -- but maybe he can be in Skeptic Survivor 2nd season someday.

Doubting John

September 8th 2005, 11:35 AM

Spanky:

You said: "completely hypocritical and very stupid comment..."

You assume that people here use fake names so they can hide behind them and act other than they would in public.

2. You use a fake name and act worse than those you complain about.

Conclusion: If you act like you do on this board in public, then you are a complete jackass. If you don't you are a hypocrite.

Either way your comment was stupid:

And this proves it? By making even larger claims that cannot be defended? :lol: The larger the claim is the harder it is to defend. How do you ever expect to defend Christianity? Oh, that's right, it's a very large claim, and you're into larger claims, aren't you?

And why is it that you can call me these names but if I retaliate in kind then I'm doing something worse than you? I just don't get it. Maybe you could explain that. I say whenever someone gets punched they have a right to punch back, wouldn't you?

Besides I can take it, why can't you? Have some fun. I am. Isn't this the board for fun? And now you're saying I cannot have any of it, but that you can? You are the hypocrite here. And only stupid people would think otherwise.

Darth Executor

September 8th 2005, 11:49 AM

I hide behind a fake name. If anybody has a problem with that, please give me your real name, your wife and children's real full names, phone number, cell number, home address, work address, your children's school address or shut up. Imagine that, protecting your privacy on the INTERNET. Unheard of. :brood:

Doubting John

September 8th 2005, 11:56 AM

My point wasn't about people who have fake names. I can undersatnd that. My point is what those fake usernames will allow us all to say and do here on TWEB that we wouldn't say or do in person.

I'm surprised that people are so slow here they cannot understand much of anything I say because they are so opposed to what I say elsewhere.

Oh, let's see, DJ said something. It must be wrong. Or, you simply don't want to understand it, I don't know. Context. Context. Context.

I haven't heard many people complain that I couldn't understand them, and I swear it's not because you are all such great communicators! I use what is called the "principle of charity" when trying to understand what someone here says. That is, I try to understand what they have said with the best possible interpretation I can give it. I don't always succeed, or course, but I succeed quite often.

FormerFundy

September 8th 2005, 11:56 AM

Spoken like a true modern again.

A modern who understands the culture and background of the ancient near east.

You might want to check up and realize that position is highly orthodox in the Christian worldview as it should be. Peter Kreeft has written about this much in his works such as "The God Who Loves you," "Heaven: The Heart's Deepest Longing", and "Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Heaven But Never Dreamed of Asking." It's also something you can realize after reading a work like Roderick Leupp's "Knowing the Name of God."

Anyhow, here's a link to Kreeft's article on the topic.

http://peterkreeft.com/topics/sex-in-heaven.htm

Peter Kreeft is way outside the mainstream on this subject. He writes: This spiritual intercourse with God is the ecstasy hinted at in all earthly intercourse, physical or spiritual. It is the ultimate reason why sexual passion is so strong, so different from other passions, so heavy with suggestions of profound meanings that just elude our grasp. To say that humans will have intercourse with God is blasphemy.

There is no biblical mandate for this idea at all. The little bit of information on the subject in scripture would lead one to believe that there is no sexual activity there.

1. Matthew 22:30--When the Sadduccees asked Jesus about a woman who survived seven husbands. Whose wife would she be in the life to come? Jesus replied (Matthew 22:30) that in heaven there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage.

2. Matthew 19:12--Jesus commended those who had made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.

3. Sex outside of marriage is condemned in the Bible. So who are you going to have sex with in heaven unless it is your own wife? Will polygamy be reinstuted as the Mormons believe? Will you have sex with 72 virgins as the Muslims believe?

4. The whole notion of sex in heaven is repugnant to classical Christianity. Augustine and Aquinas both taught that the sexual organs on resurrected bodies would be functionless.

jpholding

September 8th 2005, 11:59 AM

There is no biblical mandate for this idea at all. The little bit of information on the subject in scripture would lead one to believe that there is no sexual activity there.

This subject probably deserves its own thread, FF. Would you like to do that?

Doubting John

September 8th 2005, 12:02 PM

Actually DJ, I believe you already have a challenge on your hands from Nick.

Yes, seeing what he and FormerFundy are discussing makes me scared of him. Oh I'm so scared. He's too big of a challenge for me. :rofl:

You get a Gold. Apparently you've never seen us engage in a discussion. :lol:

Oh, JP, while you're interested in sex in heaven, why not also talk about animals in heaven?

Looks like you found another subject to defend that is way outside the mainstream, didn't you JP?

FormerFundy

September 8th 2005, 12:06 PM

This subject probably deserves its own thread, FF. Would you like to do that?

Just did.

Sparko

September 8th 2005, 12:29 PM

Spanky:

You said: "completely hypocritical and very stupid comment..."

And this proves it? By making even larger claims that cannot be defended? :lol: The larger the claim is the harder it is to defend. How do you ever expect to defend Christianity? Oh, that's right, it's a very large claim, and you're into larger claims, aren't you?

And why is it that you can call me these names but if I retaliate in kind then I'm doing something worse than you? I just don't get it. Maybe you could explain that. I say whenever someone gets punched they have a right to punch back, wouldn't you?

Besides I can take it, why can't you? Have some fun. I am. Isn't this the board for fun? And now you're saying I cannot have any of it, but that you can? You are the hypocrite here. And only stupid people would think otherwise.

:lmbo:

:rasberry:

jpholding

September 8th 2005, 01:28 PM

Yes, seeing what he and FormerFundy are discussing makes me scared of him. Oh I'm so scared. He's too big of a challenge for me. :rofl:

You get a Gold. Apparently you've never seen us engage in a discussion. :lol:

You just win Gold for failing to recognize that I did that because it was off topic to the thread. :thumb:

Oh, JP, while you're interested in sex in heaven,

I'm not. I can accept either view with grace (so I won't be taking part, though I may post Nick's item as a food for thought piece), whereas all you accept you do so with disgrace. Care to try again?

Truthdigger

September 8th 2005, 01:31 PM

Yes, seeing what he and FormerFundy are discussing makes me scared of him. Oh I'm so scared. He's too big of a challenge for me. :rofl:

You get a Gold. Apparently you've never seen us engage in a discussion. :lol:

I have never, beyond what is on this thread, seen you two in a discussion. As my number of posts would indicate, I dont poke in here too often.

But, beings as you are so sure that you would demolish him and his pitiful apologist position, I just think it would be interesting. So, if Nick is willing, and you are so sure of making quick work of him, why not?

Why exactly do I get a gold? I think, if I understand the "awards" thing right, one should automatically get one for nominating so many people in a single thread.

Doubting John

September 8th 2005, 08:47 PM

I have never, beyond what is on this thread, seen you two in a discussion. As my number of posts would indicate, I dont poke in here too often.

But, beings as you are so sure that you would demolish him and his pitiful apologist position, I just think it would be interesting. So, if Nick is willing, and you are so sure of making quick work of him, why not?

Why exactly do I get a gold? I think, if I understand the "awards" thing right, one should automatically get one for nominating so many people in a single thread.

Well go to "Where is God in Hurricane Katrina" or "Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Superstitious" in the Apologetics section, for starters. Do a search there for him or I and see what happens.

Anyone who thinks 1) one whisker is a beard; 2) thinks I am wrong if I cannot exactly specify which straw (of evil) will break the camel's back, who thinks 3) natural evil poses no problem for his faith, and 4) history is objective evidence for Christianity, is simply not worth my time. I'd rather have a hole in my head. I'd have to take him through several junior high, high school and college classes just to get him up to the point where he and I can have a reasonable discussion. I quit being a babysitter long ago. But with him it's not a matter of needing more knowledge. It's a matter of him not having enough smarts if he did have more knowledge. I'm doing him a favor here too, if he'll listen. Pursuing this path for his life will end in disillusionment for him. It's a dead end path.

Oh, and as far as me nominating so many here. I guess it means that intelligence is in short suppy here, that's all. :lol:

Shadow Phoenix

September 8th 2005, 09:53 PM

DJ will have a problem because if he goes to a debate, he can't call his opponent stupid over and over and can't answer everything with "Buy my book!" I'm more than willing to debate the topic of natural evil. I've cast the gauntlet down. I'm off Wednesday and Thursday next week. I'd be glad to write something then.

This should be no problem. I am stupid after all and a lousy apologist to DJ. (Which apparently everyone else is since we all lack his pinnacle of wisdom.) Of course, DJ hasn't bothered to understand what I said. (He got mad in the superstitions thread because I asked him what HIS personal definition of superstition was. Not the dictionary definition.)

Anyhow, if he's willing to, I'm ready. If he doesn't want to though, there's always the possibility he could consider garbage collecting.

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 12:54 AM

ApologiaNick,

When I first started writing my book I emailed Dr. Craig and asked him if he'd want to do a joint book with me on the issues. It would be billed as a former student/teacher discussion on the central issues of Christianity. He turned me down. Do you think he was scared of me? Do you think he was chicken?

When I turn you down like he did to me, what do you now say about him? Do I see any double standards coming here? I am to you, as he is to me.

I see that you already have a gym debate with Theonomy, which was initiated on July 25th. He's still awaiting your first post. Can I call you chicken for that? :lol: You seem to make and accept challenges hoping all along no one will actually take you up on them. And for good reason.

Besides I've already seen how you debate the issue of natural evil in the thread: "Where is God in Hurricane Katrina?" And you simply lacked common sense there. Anyone who wants to see our debate can go there. I decided not to respond to you any further because you are a dense person, not even understanding the elemenatry rules of logic. I'd have to give you my course in critical thinking before we could proceed. Come back to me after you take a course in Logic or critical thinking.

Somehow you've billed yourself as THE apologist. Your username says it all. Then you start a thread called "Ask ApologiaNick." What arrogance for such a pied piper! You even have the gall to keep on arguing a point that was thoroughly and effectively killed--in several threads I've engaged you in--probably hoping no one will notice that your legs were cut out from underneath you as you continue to try and stand tall. Or, you were too stupid to notice what had happened? But in either case I'm not wasting more time on you until you can actually show me that you can think through even a mildly complex argument. I've got better things to do right now.

Just listen to how he characterizes his debate with me in the "Ancient People Aren't Stupid, Just Superstitious" thread:

He got mad in the superstitions thread because I asked him what HIS personal definition of superstition was. Not the dictionary definition.

Is that how you'd (mis)characterize it? Playing to the crowds with no clothes on and hoping no one really goes to that thread to read it, eh?

If someone wants to read for themselves I'll make it easy for them. Go here and begin reading at post 76 where a summary is made of the previous discussions we had. Then read our posts from #76 through to post #105 and make your own judgments. Report back what you honestly think.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=58650&page=5&pp=16&highlight=Doubting+John

Now he's issued a formal challenge....he's desperate. :lol:

Shadow Phoenix

September 9th 2005, 12:58 AM

ApologiaNick,

When I first started writing my book I emailed Dr. Craig and asked him if he'd want to do a joint book with me on the issues. It would be billed as a former student/teacher discussion on the central issues of Christianity. He turned me down. Do you think he was scared of me? Do you think he was chicken?

When I turn you down like he did to me, what do you now say about him? Do I see any double standards coming here? I am to you, as he is to me.

Besides I've already seen how you debate the issue of natural evil in the thread: "Where is God in Hurricane Katrina?" And you simply lacked common sense there. Anyone who wants to see our debate can go there. I decided not to respond to you any further because you are a dense person, not even understanding the elemenatry rules of logic. I'd have to give you my course in critical thinking before we could proceed. Come back to me after you take a course in Logic or critical thinking.

Somehow you've billed yourself as THE apologist. Your username says it all. Then you start a thread called "Ask ApologiaNick." What arrogance for such a pied piper! You even have the gall to keep on arguing a point that was thoroughly and effectively killed--in several threads I've engaged you in--probably hoping no one will notice that your legs were cut out from underneath you as you continue to try and stand tall. Or, you were too stupid to notice what had happened? But in either case I'm not wasting more time on you until you can actually show me that you can think through even a mildly complex argument. I've got better things to do right now.

lol. Craig has his reasons. I won't comment. You however have gone on and on about how inadequate we are and when pushed on it, you cower. DJ. You're one of the most arrogant I've met on here if not the most arrogant.

And the ask thread? You know why that was? That was a "getting to know me" session. I did NOT want an apologetics debate there. I just wanted people who might not know me to get to know me. I decided that after seeing "Ask Ryokan" and "Ask Jin-Roh!" It's natural to happen on TWeb.

My challenge has been submitted in the Coach's Quarters.

Sparko

September 9th 2005, 12:58 AM

Doubting John: :chicken:

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 01:45 AM

So I went to the coaches quarters and found this challenge from ApologiaNick:

Yo DJ! You think Hurricane Katrina is a problem to my faith? Step into the ring with me and let's see how well you can defend that. A thread on the sole topic of natural evil in the Christian faith.

He doesn't even know how to frame the question for a debate! Another Gold for you! :lol:

What exactly are you proposing we debate about "natural evil in the Christian faith?" Any debate I've been in issues a proposition to be resolved with one side taking the affirmative and the other side taking the negative, and I have been in several. [I won a debate where I defended pacifism in seminary where no one would take that stance because no one accepted that stance, not even me. But I silenced my opponents, and this was in a master's level program! You see I start by understanding the opposing side better than they do so that I can effectively argue against them. And in my doctorate program I was the only student who made a case that the professor couldn't argue with. He cut every other student off before they were done! Are you sure you want some of this?]. Where's the proposition to be resolved? You don't even know how to begin a debate. :duh:

Are we to debate that natural evil is a problem to your faith? Of course it isn't, because you're stupid. I cannot assail such a fortress. It would be like me arguing you don't have a strong faith. Well, all you would have to do to defeat me would be to merely assert that you do have a strong faith. How could I possibly win a debate like that?

And if this is how you propose to start a debate, I know what I'll expect if we do debate. You'll have to do better than that if you even want a chance at me, in order to save your damaged reputation here.

Shadow Phoenix

September 9th 2005, 09:46 AM

So I went to the coaches quarters and found this challenge from ApologiaNick:

He doesn't even know how to frame the question for a debate! Another Gold for you! :lol:

What exactly are you proposing we debate about "natural evil in the Christian faith?" Any debate I've been in issues a proposition to be resolved with one side taking the affirmative and the other side taking the negative, and I have been in several. [I won a debate where I defended pacifism in seminary where no one would take that stance because no one accepted that stance, not even me. But I silenced my opponents, and this was in a master's level program! You see I start by understanding the opposing side better than they do so that I can effectively argue against them. And in my doctorate program I was the only student who made a case that the professor couldn't argue with. He cut every other student off before they were done! Are you sure you want some of this?]. Where's the proposition to be resolved? You don't even know how to begin a debate. :duh:

Are we to debate that natural evil is a problem to your faith? Of course it isn't, because you're stupid. I cannot assail such a fortress. It would be like me arguing you don't have a strong faith. Well, all you would have to do to defeat me would be to merely assert that you do have a strong faith. How could I possibly win a debate like that?

And if this is how you propose to start a debate, I know what I'll expect if we do debate. You'll have to do better than that if you even want a chance at me, in order to save your damaged reputation here.

Um. Yeah. That's how you start debates here on TWeb. Attention all TWebber's! DJ wants to come teach you how to properly do TWeb. Sorry DJ. My reptuation isn't damaged here. In fact, since you've acted like this, it's improved!

JP. I hope you're getting all of this. Your screwballs letter for this month is gonna be packed!

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 10:27 AM

ApologisNick:
Um. Yeah. That's how you start debates here on TWeb. Attention all TWebber's! DJ wants to come teach you how to properly do TWeb. Sorry DJ. My reptuation isn't damaged here. In fact, since you've acted like this, it's improved!

JP. I hope you're getting all of this. Your screwballs letter for this month is gonna be packed!

How the [blank] do you think that by my pointing out your own statements here that your reputation has improved? You have only meagerly tried to answer only one of my claims here (that natural evil is a "misnomer" and what it implies--yet you continue to use the phrase "natural evil" in your coaches corner challenge to me? If it's a misnomer, why use the phrase?). And yet you have the gall to claim that this enhances your reputation? Are you that dense? Is your reputation here based upon how stupid you are? Or is it based upon whether or not someone like me responds to you even in negative ways? Oh, yeah, "I got DJ to lash out at me, that makes me someone important." If that's the case, then what does that make me, according to this assumption? It makes me more important here than you. And you think people here buy that crap? You assume they are as stupid as you are, then. What I want to know is if they are, and if JP's newletter (which I don't subscribe to) thinks so.

Sparko

September 9th 2005, 10:54 AM

Truthdigger

September 9th 2005, 11:02 AM

DJ,

Put up or shut up

:chicken:

Is it possible that we can have the first followed by the second?

In any case, DJ has shown a level of pride and self-righteousness that has gone unmatched by any other I've seen. Perhaps its a defense mechanism.:noid:

Truthdigger

September 9th 2005, 11:12 AM

This makes me wonder...

Hey JP- has anyone ever taken a gold, silver and a bronze? Is that legal?

jpholding

September 9th 2005, 11:33 AM

This makes me wonder...

Hey JP- has anyone ever taken a gold, silver and a bronze? Is that legal?

I haven't tracked it, but I don't forbid people taking various ranges of award over time.

Sparko

September 9th 2005, 11:42 AM

This makes me wonder...

Hey JP- has anyone ever taken a gold, silver and a bronze? Is that legal?

I think he might need to make a Platinum award.

jpholding

September 9th 2005, 11:47 AM

I think he might need to make a Platinum award.

In January I would expect to collect some or all of the Golds and ask for nominations for some higher honor.

Cynic Sage

September 9th 2005, 02:39 PM

Soundsurfr:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1190034&postcount=59

Newsflash - communism does not equal atheist ruled state. Even if it did, you have provided no causal tie between the economic demise of a communist system and the atheistic component. Wanna give that a try?

Japan is a primarily atheist society with a totally secular government that is neither in chaos, nor "going backwards" whatever that means. I.e., it is a prime counter-example to your bogus assertion.

I find it odd that a country with two national religions (Shintoism and Buddhism), along with a few budding cults (Sokku Gakkai, Niichi-ren Buddhism) a "primarily atheist society". :lol:

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 03:34 PM

DJ,

For all of your bragging and chest thumping, it seems it would be a piece of cake to debate ApologiaNick. After all, you won a master's level debate. You should be able to defeat AN with both hands tied behind your back. Instead, you brag and back off.
Put up or shut up
:chicken:
PS, Nick is right, anyone who you denounce is automagically given extra respect points because hardly anyone respects you on this site because of your arrogant attitude and not being able to back up your brags. Not even most other atheists seem to respect you. All we see is a typical bully. Thumping your chest, making big claims on how great you are, but never actually backing that up. You just brag and run. So yeah, when someone like you attacks someone else for 'not being a real apologist' we see it as confimation of the fact that he must be a really good apologist because you are too scared to debate him and hiding behind name calling and hand waving.
Again. Put up or shut up.

Sparky, please note that the "I'm with stupid" points to your post! :stupid:

First let's see if it's even possible for him to frame a proposition in which we can debate. This ought to be fun in and of itself. :popcorn:

And as I said, sometimes I'm just having fun here, and I do not take myself that seriously, either. So I'd be honored if I win all of the awards you have, given the nature of those who hand them out. [I'd hate to be actually honored by a group of fools, wouldn't I? So a Screwball award from the same group would be an honor!] I'll prepare my acceptance speech soon :lol:

I'm not here to win friends. I'm here to challenge you. And the very fact that you nominate me so much means I'm doing quite a bit of it, and you're annoyed at it. But it's a game to me. And unlike other skeptics who try to get along when you treat them like [blank] I have more self-respect than to let you get away with that. You don't know what to do about this "in you face" kinda guy, do you? You cannot argue effectively with me and I won't take any more offense to your insults! :eek:

But I have received pearls from Christians on TWEB for having a good sense of humor when "ribbed." And I do. And I "rib" you back. Where's your sense of humor? But anyone who has dealt with me at any length should know two things about me: I will treat everyone respectfully, until they first resort to insults, or until they are simply too obtuse in a discussion to continue rationally with them. Show me any thread I've been in that disputes this. Any thread? I doubt there is one. But when joked with I joke back. So it's your [blanking] option whether to start with me. :tongue:

Sparko

September 9th 2005, 03:44 PM

First let's see if it's even possible for him to frame a proposition in which we can debate. This ought to be fun in and of itself. :baby:

And as I said, sometimes I'm just having fun here, and I do not take myself that seriously, either. So I'd be honored if I win all of the awards you have, given the nature of those who hand them out. [I'd hate to be actually honored by a group of fools, wouldn't I? So a Screwball award from the same group would be an honor!] I'll prepare my acceptance speech soon :lol:

Er, his challenge was just an opening to get you to discuss the parameters of the debate. He only gave a rough idea of the topic. I am sure if he had given you a complete formal challenge with a resolved topic you would have just balked at that and complained that he hadn't properly discussed the topic with you beforehand and how dare he assume the challenge topic.

PS - I notice that the "I am with Stupid" smiley was pointing directly at your own avatar, bypassing my quoted text in the margin. :thumb:

Cynic Sage

September 9th 2005, 04:00 PM

PS - I notice that the "I am with Stupid" smiley was pointing directly at your own avatar, bypassing my quoted text in the margin. :thumb:

He must've read your post and switched it to the other side.

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 04:03 PM

He must've read your post and switched it to the other side.

Yep, isn't that a hoot! :lol:

Sparko

September 9th 2005, 04:05 PM

Yep, isn't that a hoot! :lol:

:duh:

What a maroon.

(that means YOU DJ, just in case you are comprehensively impaired.)

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 04:41 PM

:duh:

What a maroon.

(that means YOU DJ, just in case you are comprehensively impaired.)

By the way Sparky. In my previous post I should explain my blanks.

The first one, [Blank] is what you'll find in the outhouse in your backyard.

The second one [Blanking] is what you're doing to your wife while she's making love to you!

Cynic Sage

September 9th 2005, 04:50 PM

By the way Sparky. In my previous post I should explain my blanks.

The first one, [Blank] is what you'll find in the outhouse in your backyard.

The second one [Blanking] is what you're doing to your wife while she's making love to you!

Hanging out at exchristian.com I see. :hehe:

Mark_S

September 9th 2005, 04:59 PM

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 05:03 PM

Hanging out at exchristian.com I see. :hehe:

Now why would a good Christian like you even understand what I'm talking about here? Is your mind in the gutter?

You'd have to admit they're funny! :lol:

But no, wait, I can't say anything funny, now can I? After all I'm a skeptic, and skeptics can't be right about anything, nor is their humor the least bit funny.

Sorry for having too much fun with "stick in the muds."

I remember my Homiletics professor telling us once how he had a guest preacher come to his church but he forgot to tell him that his church didn't appreciate humor from the pulpit. This guest preacher let out with some of the funniest stuff he'd ever heard, but no one would laugh. The funnier he got, the more my professor had a very difficult time keeping his double laughter to himself, first over the jokes, and second because no one would laugh. The way he told this caused us to double over in laughter.

Well, I finally found the members of his former church, it would seem. They're at TWEB!

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 05:05 PM

I'm always impressed by people who have absolutely no ability to alter their writing patterns to meet decorum.

Hmmm. It's called being creative. Can you appreciate that?

Oh, no wait, I'm a skeptic, and skeptics cannot be creative can they...... :lol:

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 05:14 PM

One last thing.

If you do not want me here on this thread/site. If you do not like me or my ideas. Then I have a simple suggestion for you:

DON"T INVITE ME HERE NEXT TIME. Okay?

Again, for the sight impaired,

DON'T INVITE ME HERE NEXT TIME. Okay?

And don't be obtuse when dealing with me, and I won't nominate you either.

Then you can go play on your swings again, and run through the sprinkler and get dirty in the sandbox, and you won't have to worry about me coming to play with you here anymore. :lol:

But then I suspect you really do enjoy it after all.....

Mark_S

September 9th 2005, 05:19 PM

Hmmm. It's called being creative. Can you appreciate that?

Oh, no wait, I'm a skeptic, and skeptics cannot be creative can they...... :lol:

Sure they can, would would think it necessary to live in your fantasy land. :wink:

and try using this you :censored:. I'd shink it up a bit first so that it doesn't screw up the line spacing

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 05:24 PM

:censored:

Hmm, it just doesn't :censored: work the same for me, you :censored:.

But okay.

Trout

September 9th 2005, 05:25 PM

DJ,

As per our decorum, profanity, even when masked with "[blank]", is not allowed, please refrain from using it.

Trout.

Sparko

September 9th 2005, 05:50 PM

Now why would a good Christian like you even understand what I'm talking about here? Is your mind in the gutter?

You'd have to admit they're funny! :lol:

But no, wait, I can't say anything funny, now can I? After all I'm a skeptic, and skeptics can't be right about anything, nor is their humor the least bit funny.

Sorry for having too much fun with "stick in the muds."

I remember my Homiletics professor telling us once how he had a guest preacher come to his church but he forgot to tell him that his church didn't appreciate humor from the pulpit. This guest preacher let out with some of the funniest stuff he'd ever heard, but no one would laugh. The funnier he got, the more my professor had a very difficult time keeping his double laughter to himself, first over the jokes, and second because no one would laugh. The way he told this caused us to double over in laughter.

Well, I finally found the members of his former church, it would seem. They're at TWEB!

You really have a way to go before you are adept at the art of insulting, DJ. Your insults boil down to "you're stoopid!!"

I guess I could just go down to your level and reply "I know you are but what am I?" or "I'm rubber and your glue!"

DJ, Have you ever noticed that whenever you sit behind a keyboard, some idiot starts typing?

Maybe you wouldn't be such a Jerk-In-The-Box if you didn't have an intellect rivaled only by the Village Idiot's stupider brother.

You wouldn't know Up from Down if you had three guesses.

Now go away, nobody invited you into this thread, we were merely mocking your idiocy. If I had wanted to hear from somebody with your IQ, I'd be at my local supermarket talking to the squash. Why is it that the people with the smallest minds always have the biggest mouths?

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 05:51 PM

As per our decorum, profanity, even when masked with "[blank]", is not allowed, please refrain from using it.

Hey Big Sky Daddy!

Fine. I'll abide.

Tell me this. Are the following cuss words to be censored here too?

hell

damn

God

We have a pure bred dog, and among other dog breeder's words like:

bitch

stud

and

sired

are regularly used. May I use them here too? :lol:

Could I speak these words in French, or German, Spanish or Greek? Would that be okay?

I wonder how many cuss words are found in the Bible but because we translate them differently we don't understand what they meant. I'm pretty sure I Kings 18:27 has one of them.

Cuss words are the standards set by society, so the Christian admonition to "let your speech be seasoned with salt" all depends upon the culture they live in, doesn't it?

Even today I find words on TV that wouldn't have been allowed ten years ago, and I have even heard preachers themselves while preaching, use them (accidentally I suppose).

Anyway, since I cannot use the word "blank" anymore (since it's now a cuss word) when referring to ApologiaNick's head, I'll have to come up with something else.

Let's see, how about "______"

Is "______" acceptable?

If not, how about *&%$#@"

Is *&%$#@" acceptable?

Just asking, and having some more fun. :smile:

Please refer to my #114 post, again. Thanks for your consideration.

DJ,

Please don't argue the moderating here.

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 05:55 PM

Spanky:

You really have a way to go before you are adept at the art of insulting, DJ. Your insults boil down to "you're stoopid!!"
I guess I could just go down to your level and reply "I know you are but what am I?" or "I'm rubber and your glue!"
DJ, Have you ever noticed that whenever you sit behind a keyboard, some idiot starts typing?
Maybe you wouldn't be such a Jerk-In-The-Box if you didn't have an intellect rivaled only by the Village Idiot's stupider brother.
You wouldn't know Up from Down if you had three guesses.
Now go away, nobody invited you into this thread, we were merely mocking your idiocy. If I had wanted to hear from somebody with your IQ, I'd be at my local supermarket talking to the squash. Why is it that the people with the smallest minds always have the biggest mouths?

:lol:

I'd have to admit those are all pretty good! :lol:

Did you get them out of a cracker jack box?

No wonder you can't argue with me, you spend all day coming up with insults, having learned them from the best insulter I've ever met, the honorable JP himself. He can't teach you how to think, but he sure can teach you how to insult others. Now that's a real talent he has. :lol:

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 05:58 PM

Sheriff Moderator Trout.

Atten...hut!

Refer to my post #114.

Thank you for your consideration. :wink:

Sparko

September 9th 2005, 06:01 PM

Spanky:

[QUOTE]
:lol:

I'd have to admit those are all pretty good! :lol:

Did you get them out of a cracker jack box?

Yup. see? even insults from Cracker Jack are better than yours are.

No wonder you can't argue with me, you spend all day coming up with insults, having learned them from the best insulter I've ever met, the honorable JP himself. He can't teach you how to think, but he sure can teach you how to insult others. Now that's a real talent he has. :lol:

argue with you? I don't see anywhere where you have actually made any points, just stoopid(tm) insults.

You are still a chicken because you won't debate ApologiaNick, no matter how much you try to change the subject with your dumb insults.

And now I see you are trying to get yourself matrixed or banned by cursing so you have an excuse not to debate ANick. :thumb:

Here is another Cracker Jack Insult(tm) as a parting shot:

All that you are you owe to your parents. Why don't you send them a penny and square the account?

One Bad Pig

September 9th 2005, 06:48 PM

And as I said, sometimes I'm just having fun here, and I do not take myself that seriously, either. So I'd be honored if I win all of the awards you have, given the nature of those who hand them out. I'll prepare my acceptance speech soon :lol:

I'm not here to win friends. I'm here to challenge you. And the very fact that you nominate me so much means I'm doing quite a bit of it, and you're annoyed at it. But it's a game to me. [i] * edited by a moderator * You don't know what to do about this "in you face" kinda guy, do you? You cannot argue effectively with me and I won't take any more offense to your insults! :eek:
:lol: DJ, you remind me of Johnny Ringo from Tombstone. You're plenty serious until it looks like you're in danger of losing, then you're all of a sudden "just playing for fun". :duh:

Doubting John

September 9th 2005, 06:59 PM

Deputy Bad Piggie:

Losing? Losing?

I never lose. :teeth:

Darth Executor

September 9th 2005, 08:08 PM

Pythagoras:

The only problem is Osama Bin Ladin has never said in any of his speeches that he is a patriotic American . Quite the contrary!

good luck,

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61035

You need to read the thread to get it.

jpholding

September 10th 2005, 10:12 AM

You'd have to admit they're funny! :lol:

They're not. You'd never survive a contest of the dozens.

Lady Gooner

September 10th 2005, 10:58 AM

My writings are highly structured, scholarly in approach, and weighty in content, and should therefore provide enough background information for you to answer your question. Each post I have made does not cover all issues, so you will have to read them all.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60294&page=7&pp=16

As miss scarlett would say.......Colossians don't. I shall faint. :shocked:

Sparko

September 10th 2005, 09:56 PM

Pythagoras for being a moron:

I gave him a list of quotes where Hitler admitted in private journals and secret meetings that he hated Christianity and Religion in general and that despite his public claims that he was Christian, anyone can tell he was not, just by reading his writings and by his actions..

Pythagoras responded:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1191607&postcount=48
You cannot conclude Hitler was not a "true Christian" just because you believe he hated "Christians and religion in private". That's your personal opinion, and a poor one. There is no way to know for certain what Hitler actually believed..

:duh: we have his record of killing both jews and christians in the concentration camps, we have his own diaries and journals where he says he hates Christianity and religion and blames Christianity on the Jews. We have a person who is the posterboy for hate and evil and Pythagoras say he thinks he really was a Christian because he claimed he was in public.

Darth Executor

September 10th 2005, 10:17 PM

Actually he thinks Hitler was Catholic because Catholics are trinitarians. It's not the first time Pythagoras has uttered this baloney.

Cynic Sage

September 15th 2005, 02:01 PM

Giver, on his "many convincing proofs":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60938&page=1&pp=16&highlight=Giver

Words said to me by Jesus: “----, Quit trying to figure me out and just follow me.”

How could we follow him without first understanding him?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60938&page=2&pp=16&highlight=Giver

Also my relationship with Jesus isn’t feelings, much physical evidence was given to me, accompanying His voice and Words. The reason I’m sharing all this is to refute the erroneous idea that Jesus doesn’t speak to His people. I know Satan does also, but believe me it doesn’t take long to know the difference.

May I play the Berean here?

I reccomend that you go visit a specialist. If it turns out you don't have schizophrenia, it would become easier for us to believe you.

BTW: What was this "physical evidence" of which you speak?

I would answer your question, but what difference would it make to you? You already have your mind made up that anyone that has heard Jesus needs to see a psychiatrist to see if their suffering from Schizophrenia. Your mind-set is exactly why I need to share my experience. As long as people feel the way you seam to feel, they are just saying NO you can’t talk to me Jesus, and you know most of the time He will respect that NO, and not talk to them.

No and yes.

No I haven't yet made up my mind on the subject of whether or not Jesus actually spoke to you at the time of my previous post. But since you refused to answer my question, I'm leaning towards the "No he didn't" position.

Yes if you have heard a voice in your head, have it checked out. If all the chemicals in your head are functioning as they should, then schizophrenia would be eliminated as the cause of the voice you heard, thereby strengthening the case that it was Jesus who spoke to you.

What if I told you I was taught by Jesus that Christians who know God don’t sin, that we are not to hurt (harm) anyone for any reason, that the Eucharist is truly Jesus body and blood, would you believe me? OK! Now believe this: Jesus told me He is God and the Bible is His Word. What greater sign could there be, to have been taught the truth, that it is Jesus who talks to me? Now maybe if you could accept what I just shared, I would share the supernatural healings, miracles, and visions, which Jesus has used to teach and guide me over the last thirty years.

Okay, so first I have to believe God spoke to him, then he'd show me proof that God spoke to him.

:lmbo:

Cynic Sage

September 15th 2005, 03:22 PM

Another gem from Giver :lol: :

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1197576#post1197576

You all seem so afraid of Satan, as if he has more power than God. Keep your eyes on Jesus and Satan can’t get near you. Satan doesn’t teach us that we don’t sin, or that we are to love our enemies, or that we are to worship God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Satan wants to be worshiped and his fruits are not love.

Cynic Sage

September 15th 2005, 04:49 PM

Who thinks for Kirk:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61489

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

"Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."
Because the Samaritans chose to worship another deity, God will dash their infants to pieces and their "women with child shall be ripped up."

to me, this is god sanctioned abortion.

i know you all will come up with verbally deft ways of defending this, but it seems pretty clear-cut and transparent to me.

Cynic Sage

September 15th 2005, 05:36 PM

Emesshalom has issues (he posted this in the "Missionary Board" section of "Chapel", although the thread may be moved to "Apologetics" or "Locker room"):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1197698#post1197698

Hi, I am a Jew and targeted missionary work at Jews is nothing more or less than a continuation of the Holocaust. It is an ongoing act of terrorism. It dehumanizes, degrades and desensitives the missionary and ultimately leads to the persecution, torture and murder of the Jews. The evangelic drive of Christianity is the single most evil part of its philosphy and has lead directly to its bloody and vicious history. Becuase of it, Christianity is its own S'tan.

What's the word I'm loking for ... hogwash? Yeah, that's it.

The Shoah was not the result of evangelism, but of concerted hatred by an evil man and his followers. Have there been Christians who persecuted the Jews? Yep ... mostly because they "forgot" that Jesus was Jewish.

For you to casually attempt to conflate the two is nothing less than ludicrous.

Note that in the following, since Emes doesn't know how to use quote tags, his replies are between the ####.

####emesshalom's comments can be found in the body of the text####

[QUOTE=A Cup of Mystery]What's the word I'm loking for ... hogwash? Yeah, that's it.

####Typical arrogant Missionary reply. To be expected. For 2000 years, Christian missionaries have persecuted, tortured and murder Jews and gotten away with it because govt and church organizations of Christendom have supported such evil behavior. The evangelic claim of Christianity and its various mutations are the basis for multiple acts of Christian terrorism.####

The Shoah was not the result of evangelism, but of concerted hatred by an evil man and his followers.

####I wasn't just talking about the Holocaust, and you know it. I was talking about all Christian missionary work directed at the Jews. Stop trying to muddy the subject. ####

Have there been Christians who persecuted the Jews? Yep ... mostly because they "forgot" that Jesus was Jewish.

####The forgetting has been on purpose, it is not an accident.#####

The last part just cracks me up. :lmbo:

'Scuse, dude--I'm not a Missionary. I'm not even Christian.

You're the one who brought up the Holocaust ... and I'm trying to muddy the subject?

2nd reply: I know I brought up the Holocaust and then you moved it to a totally unrelated subject, which is what I was commenting on. If you find it confusing, I apologise. I will be more simple in the future.

:rofl:

Oh, and JP, if you are in one of your more sadistic moods, I reccomend you take a look at, and if you desire so, eviscerate his "quick analysis of Matthew and its central theme of Jew hatred" located in the same thread.

It's like if SAB was done by a Jewish guy. Oy.:ahem:

BronzeArcher

September 15th 2005, 08:00 PM

This (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18497138&postcount=1) was pretty funny.

How frequently do you find Christians telling you that some specific word in the Bible doesn't mean what it says; the ever-frequent, translational error?

It seems to happen all of the time. I'm beginning to suspect that if one were to gather them all together and re-write the Bible using the "correct" words, it just might turn out to be a U.S. Department of Agriculture Instructional Manual for the Reforestation of Former Ranch lands.

So perhaps it's time to begin building a list and input is invited from everyone, theists and atheists alike. I'll kick it off with a few off the top of my head. In keeping with the standard debate tactics, don't worry about accuracy. But please don't make them up. They should be something presented by a believer as a portion of some debate somewhere. I'll kick it off with a few and try to keep the list up to date through edits.

This thread is primarily intended as a collection of suggested translations/mistranslations. Serious discussions concerning the translational issues is perhaps better accomodated here;
http://www.christianforums.com/t210...ml#post18499241

Have fun!

OP...."Bible".......... = Word of God (as written and corrupted by men)
OP...."Day"............ = Infinitely variable period of time
25...."Evil"........... = Chaos/Disorder
OP...."Fear"........... = Respect
23...."Feet"........... = Penis
03...."Flood".......... = Army (as in "shall be destroyed with a flood")
05...."Harlot"......... = Innkeeper
OP...."Host"........... = Suspension
OP...."Kill"........... = Murder
OP...."Light".......... = Goodness/Christians
26...."Light-Bearer"... = Satan
14...."Logos".......... = Word
26...."Lucifer"........ = Satan
13...."Never".......... = About 15 years
02...."Soon"........... = Billions of years
OP...."Soon"........... = Suddenly
22...."Virgin"......... = Young Woman

The last one I choked on. I'd wonder what age the guy thinks females got married at, but then again, I really don't care. I also kind of sympathize with the atheists at CF despite the fact that there's a lot of screwy posts.

Bill the Cat

September 15th 2005, 08:18 PM

Colossians, the new hyper Calvinist :troll2:

When discussing whether a man's faith could be place in another man or not:
Faith's object is not always Christ as Paul warned:

1 Cor 2
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Paul uses “faith” here (in the wisdom of men) in a notional sense only, for he understood quite plainly that “faith is the evidence of unseen things”. ‘Faith’ in man has no evidence of unseen things.

Paul uses the word pistis, the exact same word as Jesus used in John 3:16 for believe. There is no "notional" sense. it has a specific meaning you refuse to consider.

And the gem of the week goes to...
Of course he uses the word “pistis”, that is why we translate is as “faith”. The word is irrelevant, it is the context which determines its use.

Among the other gems in this post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1196748&postcount=184)

Bill the Cat

September 15th 2005, 08:36 PM

Satanists wondering if Jesus was perfect?? :rofl:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61360

Bill the Cat

September 16th 2005, 11:22 AM

Another award for "whoweepsforkirk" trapsing out the easy questions...

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1198474&postcount=1

anewlife

September 16th 2005, 12:44 PM

Here I am again... I nominate whoweepsforkirk once again and this time for the post made here in the Rec room area.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1198551&postcount=156

already debunked tektonics.org

smorgasbord

he is not there to debate

but to obfuscate

he's just there to preach

his 'facts' are a reach

there is no proof of god

from you or any mod

your first supposition is baseless

so all your arguments are tasteless

first you must prove his existence

despite all your other insistence

Seems Kirk is about to loose more than a toupee this time. The boy can't even rhyme in time. Fo'Shizzle

Debunked tektonics.org...? Boulderdash! Now here this... Kirk is going to be a shrimpin' boat Cap'n. He has debunked all of JP's articles? It looks like he has entered the right forum to make these claims. No?

Arrrgh shiver me timbers "This could be Gold".

:lol:

Piebald

September 16th 2005, 12:57 PM

Assuming whoweepsforkirk is the same guy who posts on these trek forums, he does demand respect and care . . . . when interpreting/creating STAR TREK episodes

http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~starmada/forum/showthread.php?t=5718

a big point is that ENT is a prequel. the other shows, that many of us love, are all dependent on it, because it is their history. when it changes history, it affects the later shows which have already established a connection to the fans. this places upon the writers a responsibility to be faithful to established plotlines and beloved characters.

they chose to disregard this responsibility and do what they wanted. this was disrespectful to those of us who have been faithful trek fans since before braga came along, many years before, a lifetime before.

this is why this show has less latitude. anyone who makes a prequel to some piece of fiction knows this. braga knew this. but it was more important for him to do HIS thing, to have braga's sci-fi, over what the majority of fans wanted.

i was looking forward to ENT at first. i was excited to see the birth of the federation. but then they started changing things arbitrarily, just because they could, never out of necessity. this has upset many trek fans, and it basically cost braga his job. unfortunately, it may also have cost ENT it's run on t.v.

jpholding

September 16th 2005, 12:59 PM

Memo to self: Gold to Stephen Van Eck for sending me more stupid junk mail. :lol:

Piebald

September 16th 2005, 01:06 PM

I really like that green guy a lot!

jpholding

September 16th 2005, 01:10 PM

I really like that green guy a lot!

Well, the irony of that is, I'm thinking I may make Beamer the only *atheist* in the group. :eek: At least for a while, to make a story out of it... :teeth: But he'd be more like a Kyle Gerkin type atheist, not an unreasonable one...

At the end of next month I'll be posting some background material on Sheila's world...including demographics stuff like religious affiliation....

Piebald

September 16th 2005, 01:14 PM

Still no anthropomorphic Toby, huh?

jpholding

September 16th 2005, 01:16 PM

Still no anthropomorphic Toby, huh?

You must have missed it. Check the second Ted Bell toon entry, bottom of page 1. Plus I had this avatar a while back for about a week:

Piebald

September 16th 2005, 01:18 PM

oh! Actually I do remember that!

Is Beamer any sort of animal in particular, or is that something only his hairdresser knows for sure? He kind of reminds me of a fraggle!

jpholding

September 16th 2005, 01:35 PM

Is Beamer any sort of animal in particular, or is that something only his hairdresser knows for sure? He kind of reminds me of a fraggle!

I never saw that show, but I do have several descriptions of the world's social groups ready, and here's one for his people:

Tilkrig. Tilkrig are a small, scampering people with a love of technology. They may even permanently alter themselves with some technological wizardry, like Beamer has done with his multi-purpose eye scope as well as certain enhancements to his ears. They are a numerous people, but more inclined to follow than lead. As a result, many have been forced into service on the Cartel's home continent, though a few brave ones from there, like Beamer, have defected. On the free continents they specialize in any service area where technology is a key, ranging from forensics to the hard sciences. They most often specialize in more than one field or as many as five.

(The Cartel is the bad guys, a terrorist group that runs one of the continental masses. Beamer's background with them will have a major role to play in the first full comic.... :teeth:)

Cynic Sage

September 16th 2005, 01:46 PM

Satanists wondering if Jesus was perfect?? :rofl:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61360

The Gold has to be BetteNoir:

I'll admit that I can't think of 1 instance that hasn't been addressed by apologetics or commentaries... What comes to mind for you?

He has stolen a Donkey and he had aproblem with honoring his mum,he also has a habit of being angry at people wich is not very loving

For what it's worth I think the Biblical testimony of Christ as perfect is fine and acceptable; it's whether or not it's literal that I still wonder about... Creating such a perfection and a dramatic / tragic story as the Christian Gospel requires a belief (faith) in the supernatural God of Scripture; or it requires that the story is part of the human legacy of mythology and mystical storytelling... The latter, IMO, is no less valid than the former but it does change the view a bit...

I don't agree with you that it's perfect,i think it's ok but not perfect.I don't see how event's that happend so long ago can be acuratly protrayed.Especilly since it was written by human's and we as a speices are flawed.

anewlife

September 16th 2005, 05:50 PM

Cynic Sage

September 16th 2005, 06:28 PM

Changed my mind, Gold for AutoMaton and Whoweepsforkirk:

http://s11.invisionfree.com/Real_Debates/index.php?showtopic=934

I just love it when losers whine about Theologyweb on other forums. :teeth:

BTW: Automaton is referring to his thread "Why Christianity is complete and total Nonsense" (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=60320&highlight=WHy+Christianity+is+complete+utter+nonsense).

I posted the same post over at TheologyWeb that I posted here...

Why Christianity is complete and total [censored]!

Although I used nonsense in place of [censored] because they're big babies about cursing there.

There were 9 pages of replies, all at the intellectual level of a three year old. Not only did they reinforce my belief that god does not exist and the whole of religion IS [censored]....but I only got 5 replies that even attempted to answer the post.

If there ever was a worst site, and a worst example of religion nutbags...TheologyWeb takes the cake!

---

Oh yeah...9 pages of smart [censored] comments in about 3 hours...

It says a lot for the quality of that website and the [censored] on it.

Honestly, the way he looks back at his one and only OP here, you expect his avatar to look like this:

[attachment]

that site is full of people who are 100% believers. they don't want debate. they want agreement. they want consensus. they want their beliefs re-inforced.

at least BAG and NHIM and hebrews like a little competition.

theolgyweb sux!

I wonder how Doubting John, Minnesota, LakeGeorgeMan would like to be referred to as "100% believers"?

Hebrews sticks up for us tho'.

If you've accepted J.P.'s challenge and it's all in the works, then ignore this. Otherwise...

Come on fellas, you go to a debate board like that one and you actually have to follow some pre-set guidelines. All you did (Auto, specifically) was more or less spam their board and insist they entertain you. It's a lot harder to push people around there like you do here.

...

That site is more like a league game. There are a heckuva lot more players there, so there needs to be more organization. So, there are specific rules in place that are not going to change because someone pitches a fit or starts insulting people. You go there and make an assertion like you did, and you have to back it up. In this case, you didn't. So why would you expect them to seriously enter into a discussion with you? J.P. offered you a chance to show off your stuff...why not take it?

It's pretty easy to run back over here where you're comfy and pat each other on the back about how stupid and [whatever generic insult you want to fill in here] they are. But what have you shown? If J.P. is the idiot you apparently take him for, by all means, debunk him and show his sources to be biased and whatever other claims you can support. What you did is the equivalent of insulting someone to their face, and then backing down when they get right back in your face.

hebrews, i gotta disagree with you. i went there, and heard alot of christian responses, but no facts, and very few points. there was alot of talking with not much being said.

And yet this guy sees no problem with Auto's OP? :hrm:

also, christians aren't really interested in debate, because they are not open to changing their minds about god or their beliefs.

To Quote Bob Villa: "You need to paint with a broader brush."

also, there was alot of twisting of the facts, and ignoring of other facts.

Yeah, there was that guy who believed that there was no historical evidence for Jesus Christ. Who was he again? :ahem:

Note that he does not back up this claim.

don't goto christian websites for your evidence. find me some from a non-christian. otherwies, it is biased.

not an anti-christian, but someone who is open and neutral. they are out there, i read papers and articles like that all the time.

Is it possible for anyone to be open and neutral on subjects as controversial as religion?

And this is the guy who believes that there were Atheist Ancient Civillizations. If I were him I'd concern myself more with peer-review scholarship than worrying about "bias".

Automaton also defends his "argument" against the non-xtian people who attacked it.

And another thing...I would expect the kind of reaction I got from tweb if I had posted, "[censored] everyone here....you all suck!"

Sure, that might be a great excuse for a flame thread, but I had no intention of going there and incurring that type of treatment.

And yes, I noticed the two or so atheists that posted against me as well. I guess they've just been brow-beaten so badly by the overwhelming population of pimple-faced, college kid bible-thumpers on that site, that they might want to rethink their whole atheist position.

Keep in mind that TOAO forund problems with his post. TOAO, the guy who said that TV Guide is a form of divination therefore xtians are disobeying the Bible when they read TV guide.

:lmbo:

anewlife

September 16th 2005, 09:12 PM

Golden... Pure golden...

Kirk is in here at least 3 times this week. Hebrews is a good fellow. I talked to him quite often.

jpholding

September 17th 2005, 06:18 AM

Y' know, Hammy, if you don't look at your current avatar too closely, the guy seems to be scratching his armpit. :glare:

Piebald

September 17th 2005, 06:48 AM

LOL

I have no idea how you're seeing that.

anewlife

September 17th 2005, 07:14 AM

Sparko

September 17th 2005, 12:16 PM

Johnny EC,

Mind you Kirk studied under the Jesuits and he is a member of the MENSA club.

:lmbo:

You sure it wasn't MENSDUH? :duh:

Cynic Sage

September 17th 2005, 01:45 PM

How the heck did that happen? :twitch:

Sparko

September 17th 2005, 04:14 PM

Pythagoras is still claiming that Hitler was a Christian while now claiming that Mother Theresa and Billy Graham are not and are going to hell.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1199976&postcount=106

Let's play this SOMETIMES game: ..... Apart from Hitler, it's "completely obvious" to me Holding, Pope Borgia/Alexander, Billy Graham and Mother Theresa are not Christians "even though there are some idiots out there(wink, wink) who still believe them. ".

Can we now say that Pythagoras is the official definition of Clueless Moron™?

Cynic Sage

September 18th 2005, 07:48 PM

More from Auto and friends at "Real" (?) Debates:

http://s11.invisionfree.com/Real_Debates/index.php?showtopic=934

Rthearle (an athiest) replies to Autobot about his performance at Tweb.

I posted the same post over at TheologyWeb that I posted here...

Why Christianity is complete and total bullshit!

Although I used nonsense in place of bullshit because they're big babies about cursing there.

There were 9 pages of replies, all at the intellectual level of a three year old.

Sure they were. There were several replies of substance (which is probably more than you deserved since your own posts were completely lacking in substance) and you simply refused to address them.

Then you ran away.

Roy

More than I deserved? LOL!!

Well thank you for gracing me with your presence and excuse me for starting a debate about the FSM without your permission.

Now, unless you have something of substance to post, promptly go back to your anal tribe of pimple-faced teenage geeks before you catch a beatin', schoolboy!

Oh yeah and I almost forgot...go [censored] yourself!

Doesn't take criticism well, no matter what the source.
The word "substance" must have a different definition in Auto's native toungue as well. :hehe:

And now for the God of Gorns:

Thank you for the link Hebrews. I made it to the second page & it was like an army of Hams with no answers, looking like fools. Seasoned debaters my ass. Spouting gibberish is not a debate skill moo-heads! HAHA! Every point Automaton made is correct. Thank the FSM we have a non-biased forum here where we can actually discuss things. Kirk & Automaton are correct. TWeb does not want debate, they want reassurance that their beliefs are true, as they themselves know deep in their minds that they believe in something without proof. A real waste of time that board.

1.) There is no proof that God exists.

Absolutely true. No reason to go into this as personal feelings do not count as proof & that's all Christians have. So, 1 point Automaton.

2.) There is no proof that Jesus ever existed...

Also true. The bible was written many years after Jesus' supposed death. Historical documents make no mention of Jesus at all. So unless you count the bible as a history book, which it isn't as it's full of supernatural nonsense, Automaton is correct again.
2 points Automaton.

3.) The whole of Christianity is based on a work of fiction, and personal recollection as its primary foundations...

Well, yes the bible is a work of fiction with some historical facts thrown in. Since the entire book is not 100% accurate, there's no logical way to defend anything in it.
3 points Automaton.

4.) Religious people are addicted to faith and belief in the supernatural.

No reason arguing this. Even Christians know this.
4 points Automaton.

I now give Automaton an award for "Most Intelligent Post Made At Tweb!" Congratulations!! Here are your pearls! LOL!

If question begging were a martial art, AutoMaton would be the Disciple and Gorny here would be the Sensei. :lol:

How the heck does a guy like this become a moderator at a site called "Real Debates" anyways?

Cynic Sage

September 18th 2005, 08:26 PM

tinfoilhatsforkirk:

http://s11.invisionfree.com/Real_Debates/index.php?showtopic=1108

at TWeb, if you post a link during a debate, you get a warning and the post gets erased. links are only allowed on the [butt]-smoochio christian boards where everyone is in agreement.

yeah, they foster debate there. NOT!

that site is about christians sitting around [censored] each other.

[BIG FREAKING CENSORED!]

:twitch:

Interesting fantasies that guy seems to have.:hrm:

here is the official notice:

You have been given a moderator notice for this post.
Your warning level is now at 0.

This notice is given for the following reason:

FYI. Argument solely by web link is not allowed.

Additional information may be given in the thread.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you for your cooperation. For your reference the campus decorum may be found by clicking here.

Faramir

it was a post that i made about noah, and i posted links in it.

here's the reply in post:

FYI. Argument by web link is not allowed. If you wish to make substantive comments based on information in these links, and then provide the links, then you may. But you can not post web links with no substantive comments in your post.

mind you, this was part of an ongoing discussion. i didn't just post links and run.

anti-christian links, btw.

christian moderator.

DUN DUN DUHHHHHHHHHH!:eek:

Seriously, we allow links to non-xtian sites. This guy coulda took up his little problem with the mods here.

BronzeArcher

September 18th 2005, 09:17 PM

"If question begging were a martial art, AutoMaton would be the Disciple and Gorny here would be the Sensei."

I was thinking international grandmasters.

Cynic Sage

September 18th 2005, 11:14 PM

MrTulip, on the Religious Right's Evil conspiracy to put homosexuals into positions of power:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61637

The Christian Right in a Nutshell

1) Bush mocking Karla Faye Tucker - "please
don't kill me!"

2) Bush smiling while declaring "Shock and Awe"

3) Bush "The War President"

4) Christian Coalitions reoccuring support of racism. Amendment 2 in Alabama for starters. Supporting a racist agenda while claiming to be just nice Christian people.

5) Bush appointing homosexual after homosexual to office.

6) Bush administrations relabeling of Torture as "aggressive interrogation".

And this is just for starters. Christian right - I double dog dare ya - take me on and be exposed.

:rofl:

{Tim}

September 19th 2005, 07:14 AM

Hmm. I know this was five pages ago, but it struck me as... well. See for yourself.

I haven't heard many people complain that I couldn't understand them, and I swear it's not because you are all such great communicators! I use what is called the "principle of charity" when trying to understand what someone here says. That is, I try to understand what they have said with the best possible interpretation I can give it. I don't always succeed, or course, but I succeed quite often.
I've had (and will have again, no doubt) disagreements with Justin - but even when he's wrong (:tongue:) he's not stupid. There's a reason our resident Wiccan is well respected - and you aren't, DJ. He conducts himself as a gentleman, at least tries to understand what the other person is saying (and mostly succeeds) and doesn't (usually) go around grousing about how poorly everyone treats him (and yes, he catches his share of the nonsense). In short - he acts like a grown up.So, are you saying you can treat me unfairly and when I respond in kind that I can't? You get a Gold too. ...

Hmm, what was that again?... There's a reason our resident Wiccan is well respected - and you aren't, DJ. He conducts himself as a gentleman, at least tries to understand what the other person is saying (and mostly succeeds) and doesn't (usually) go around grousing about how poorly everyone treats him...

:doh: I rest my case.

Doubting John

September 19th 2005, 09:15 AM

Teallaura:
I've had (and will have again, no doubt) disagreements with Justin - but even when he's wrong () he's not stupid. There's a reason our resident Wiccan is well respected - and you aren't, DJ. He conducts himself as a gentleman, at least tries to understand what the other person is saying (and mostly succeeds) and doesn't (usually) go around grousing about how poorly everyone treats him (and yes, he catches his share of the nonsense). In short - he acts like a grown up.
DJ:
So, are you saying you can treat me unfairly and when I respond in kind that I can't? You get a Gold too. ...
{Tim}:
I rest my case.

{Tim}, Please refer to post #114. Thank you for your consideration.

What case did you make here? I am completely amazed at the level of intelligence shown here. You made a case? What was it? The fact that someone made an accusation against me? Where's the evidence for the accusation?

And in my final statements (in bold) I made an argument. Can you restate that argument? What did I claim? How did you assess what I said? What reasons did you offer to dispute what I said? I see none, do you?

And what exactly does the Wiccan do that I don't do? He takes the abuse? And that's admirable in your mind? That's what it takes to be respectable here? To take abuse? What would you say about those who dish it out? Of course you'd say what you did, because you're dishing some of it out right here right now. You want your cake and eat it too, don't you? And you get upset when I respond to it, don't you? I should just take it, shouldn't I? Then you can heap more abuse on me? That'd make you respect me, wouldn't it? That's what it would take, in your mind. Really?

Well, sorry to disappoint you. And sorry that I'm not respected by you, either. But if you would like to try to deal with any of my arguments you will learn to respect them.

Well, by your own standards then, let's see if I can respect you, stupid. Let's see, idiot, whether or not you can take the abuse, because that's your own stupid standard for what it means to be respectable. See if my nominating you for a Gold for stupidity sits well with you, you screwball. You have just acted like the one you now accuse! :lol: And if you don't think that's not acting like a screwball, then you're a numbskull, you moron.

And doesn't the Bible say to "answer a fool according to his folly?" (Pr. 26:5). Well I just did, you buffoon. The only intelligent thought you probably ever had was spanked out of you just after you were born. :lol:

Next time please take me to heart when I say please refer to post #114. Thank you for your consideration. And have some fun....and some more....and some more...be an enthusiast about it....and don't take life that seriously.....or me. :ahem:

Oh, also note my new signature below:

Cynic Sage

September 19th 2005, 01:58 PM

BibleWheel, on... uh... his BibleWheel:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61530&page=2&pp=16

My site has three independent (though integrated) threads. Each can be studied in isolation of the other two. This is stated on my home page. You can't miss it.

The first thread is the Bible Wheel. It is simply a view of Scripture from a higher dimension. All I did was roll up the list of 66 Books in the Bible like a scroll on a spindle wheel of 22 Spokes corresponding to the 22 Hebrew letters, which God Himself embedded in the Alphabetic Verses, such as Psalm 119. Everything about the Bible Wheel follows from that one simple act. This generates a two-dimensional view of Scripture from the one-dimensional list and thereby reveals a host of correlations that otherwise may be unnoticed. As such, it has nothing to do with structures derived from the alphanumeric values of the Greek and Hebrew languages. That's topic is covered under the third thread, called Biblical Holographs. There is already a thread open for that discussion called BibleWheel Discussion: Thread III, Biblical Holographs found here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=41934 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=41934)

A good starting point is the first Spoke corresponding to Aleph. It consists of the three great "first books" of the Bible:

Cycle 1: Genesis, first book of the Law
Cycle 2: Isaiah, first book of the Prophets
Cycle 3: Romans, first book of the NT Epistles.

Now recall the self-description of the Bible found in the Bible - the Law and the Prophets! Furthermore, it is not for no reason that countless scholars have called Isaiah the "Romans of the Old Testament."

The first Spoke is the first sign of the Divine design of the Bible Wheel. Answer it or forever hold your peace.

Richard

"The Divine Design of the Bible Wheel"? I thought this guy made it. :huh:

And here's a link to his site about the BibleWheel:

http://www.biblewheel.com/default.asp

spl_cadet

September 19th 2005, 04:40 PM

Too bad for him that there's actually 73 books :lol:

BronzeArcher

September 19th 2005, 10:38 PM

Clearly, lol (http://www.christianforums.com/t2117085)

Christians are bad people because they condone murderous acts of their "psycho god" Jehovah, who indiscriminately kills at, what he considers it to be, slightest provocation. Not only do christians condone such murder but they actually worship such a "psycho god" !! What is even worse is that these christians would do just about anything to get to Heaven to be with their "psycho god".
Dear christians, you need saving big time, otherwise all of you are going to end up in Hell. Lucky for you, I am here to instill some MORALS into you, so that you will be saved from the clutches of your "psycho god."

Sparko

September 19th 2005, 10:43 PM

Too bad for him that there's actually 73 books :lol:

don't forget HELP and Maps.

One Bad Pig

September 20th 2005, 11:02 AM

{Tim}, Please refer to post #114. Thank you for your consideration.

What case did you make here? I am completely amazed at the level of intelligence shown here. You made a case? What was it? The fact that someone made an accusation against me? Where's the evidence for the accusation?

And in my final statements (in bold) I made an argument. Can you restate that argument? What did I claim? How did you assess what I said? What reasons did you offer to dispute what I said? I see none, do you?

And what exactly does the Wiccan do that I don't do? He takes the abuse? And that's admirable in your mind? That's what it takes to be respectable here? To take abuse? What would you say about those who dish it out? Of course you'd say what you did, because you're dishing some of it out right here right now. You want your cake and eat it too, don't you? And you get upset when I respond to it, don't you? I should just take it, shouldn't I? Then you can heap more abuse on me? That'd make you respect me, wouldn't it? That's what it would take, in your mind. Really?

Well, sorry to disappoint you. And sorry that I'm not respected by you, either. But if you would like to try to deal with any of my arguments you will learn to respect them.

Well, by your own standards then, let's see if I can respect you, stupid. Let's see, idiot, whether or not you can take the abuse, because that's your own stupid standard for what it means to be respectable. See if my nominating you for a Gold for stupidity sits well with you, you screwball. You have just acted like the one you now accuse! :lol: And if you don't think that's not acting like a screwball, then you're a numbskull, you moron.

And doesn't the Bible say to "answer a fool according to his folly?" (Pr. 26:5). Well I just did, you buffoon. The only intelligent thought you probably ever had was spanked out of you just after you were born. :lol:

Next time please take me to heart when I say please refer to post #114. Thank you for your consideration. And have some fun....and some more....and some more...be an enthusiast about it....and don't take life that seriously.....or me. :ahem:

Oh, also note my new signature below:
:ahem: Give it a rest, DJ. Here's a quote for you to ponder:

An insult should be a pointed barb that jabs home with speed and precision. Your attempts are more akin to flailing blindly with a cup of tofu. It looks ridiculous, does no harm and smells funny. -- John Dilick

jpholding

September 20th 2005, 03:31 PM

Bronze to Cognos for offering up the standard blah as a reply to the pluperfect of Gen. 2:19:

You, yourself, point out that "the NIV (but no other version that I know of)" uses the pluperfect. (BTW, before you mentioned it, I had never heard of the pluperfect ... right?)

And you say: “The insistence of the critics upon a plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible.”

What is your explanation for the use of a plain past by the Biblical scholars who translated the KJV, NKJV, ESV, ASV and NASB?

Nothing like an appeal to faceless, nameless translators who give no reasons for their translation as an argument against a detailed argument by named sources for a given translation. :lmbo:

Cynic Sage

September 21st 2005, 03:40 PM

Pythagoras, on Arnold Murray and JP Holding:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61752

I used to "study" with the Shepherd's chapel when I was first converting/reconverting to Christianity.

When I got the internet, though, I was able to do my own research, and I found most of the Shepherd's Chapel's teachings to be terribly corrupt, and in line with the Christian Identity movement.

Anyone else familliar with them?

Someone then posts a link to a CARM article on the Shepherd's chapel.

I don't think the Branhamites are into the British Isrealite thing - which I've often thought of as really strange (although, the Mormons seem to consider themselves Ephramites!).

Did Murray teach that all Jews were Kenites, or simply some?

He was always purposely vague. People have documented him more or less saying it -- that the Jews in Israel are not really Jews at all. Whenever he is questioned on anti-semitism, he will say "I would never badmouth my brother Judah." .. of course, who he considered his "brother Judah" is also unknown. I suspect that "brother Judah" is actually just a subset of White Christians that he considers descended from the tribe of Judah. So he plays a semantic shellgame in order to escape criticism of anti-semitism.

Enter Pythagoras:

Holding's followers are a peculiar bunch indeed-- hamster ,Jonnny Eccentric, alley cat, fat pig or something, crazy foxy, and other such misfits.

it must be the trinitarian fountain they drink from .

No offense,

Where the heck did that come from?

Piebald

September 21st 2005, 03:47 PM

Like I said, Lunatic Non-Sequitors

Sparko

September 21st 2005, 05:41 PM

Like I said, Lunatic Non-Sequitors

He is just trolling. He tries to send every thread into a trinitarian debate. You should post a message not to do this in your thread, and if he does we will moderate it.

Darth Executor

September 22nd 2005, 07:57 PM

Gamefaqs now has a religion forum. And a gold mine. ;)

I consider a Jew to be someone who practices Jewish culture. That means a Jew can have almost any sort of religious belief except for Christianity. To be a Christian is to denounce your Jewry, because Christianity basicly trounces on everything Jewish, because it says that Jewish culture isn't allowed.

A Jew can be Hindu, atheist, Muslim, Pastafarian,etc. and still be considered a Jew. But the moment they become a Christian is their loss of Jewish identity.

:rofl:

BronzeArcher

September 22nd 2005, 08:17 PM

Okay this was pretty screwy (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18655483&postcount=8).

Rather than explaining that Jesus existed, Tektonics.org states that there were many people like Jesus. During those times, there were indeed many people who preached other religions. That's why Jesus was considered "just a blip on the screen". Jesus was just another one of the many preachers or spiritual healers. Tektonics.org has failed to convince me or anyone else that Jesus Christ existed, therefore, it attempts to confuse us all.

Maybe the guy reads selectively; I don't know, I'll reply to him. He kind of forgot what the section he quoted was in response to. "That's not good enough. If Jesus existed and was so famous, we should have heard a lot more about him in historical sources outside the New Testament and the Church Fathers. The fact that so little was written about Jesus indicates that he was the creation of the church."

On the contrary, the fact that we have as much information as we do about Jesus from non-Christian sources is amazing in itself. Meier [Meie.MarJ, 7-9] and Harris [Harr.3Cruc, 24-27] have indicated several reasons why Jesus remained a "marginal Jew" about whom we have so little information:"

One Bad Pig

September 22nd 2005, 11:28 PM

MichaelCadry, for his post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1206241&postcount=540):

The 3 frogs that gathered the kings in the Middle East are almost accomplished. The frog in Iraq is the last one. Which draws us to the very end of the tribulation and His Second Coming. Rest in knowing that He loves us and those who know what really is going on, which I fear some of you surely don't. But pray to God that you will be taken to Him, Whom you Love, this time around. For those who disbelieve, so be it. Amen.

The whole thread's a riot, what with Michael Cadry, Hidden Manna, and Vivian all arguing amongst themselves.

Sparko

September 23rd 2005, 09:20 AM

MichaelCadry, for his post here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1206241&postcount=540):

The whole thread's a riot, what with Michael Cadry, Hidden Manna, and Vivian all arguing amongst themselves.

Hey, it keeps them busy. :hehe:

jpholding

September 23rd 2005, 01:25 PM

Okay this was pretty screwy (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=18655483&postcount=8).

Why do people even ask me why TWeb is my sole forum home? :ahem:

BronzeArcher

September 23rd 2005, 07:38 PM

I pointed out that what he quoted was in refutation of a point, not an argument for the existence of Jesus. He said, "That's right! As I have said Tektonics failed to convince us of Jesus' existence, so it beats around the bush and tries to change the subject and even attempted to confuse us."

Okay, now starting attempt two...

Cynic Sage

September 23rd 2005, 11:36 PM

Hey JP, Temporal Provincialist at twelve O'clock.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62013

jpholding

September 24th 2005, 10:37 AM

Hey JP, Temporal Provincialist at twelve O'clock.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62013

Truism: Nothing new under the sun. :rant: sambo probably thinks he's the first brilliant mind to formulate the objection.

anewlife

September 24th 2005, 07:21 PM

Oh no not again... Just when you thought Automaton was the master of hosting a dog and pony show... Jimbo revamps the "Christianity is bull" theory. :lol:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62064

Cynic Sage

September 25th 2005, 06:34 PM

Johnny Skep is back again, this time as "it-me":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62121

Even if I believed that Jesus rose from the dead, I would not become a Christian unless God first answered a lot of questions to my satisfaction.

So, even if you believed Christianity were true, you'd refuse to become Christian because you're mindblowingly egotistical?

:lol:

I like C4H's comment on Johnny Skep's obsession w/ Tweb.

Just a head's up for folks not in the know, that is Johnny Skeptic.
:haha:

*say's to self: I'm not addicted, I'm not addicted, really I'm not, I can quit anytime...no, really I can*

Cynic Sage

September 25th 2005, 07:03 PM

BibleWheel creates a poll about his BibleWheel and cancels out all votes against it just because he feels like it:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62036&page=2&pp=16

RULE VIOLATIONS

The following voters did not post any reason whatsoever for their negative votes:

1) Bill the Cat,
2) Raptor
3) studyhound

Per the rules stated in the OP, these three negative votes are deducted from the poll. If these folks want their votes to count, they are welcome to return and support their vote with REASON and LOGIC.

Unsupported claims:

4) wfaber: He posted once (#9) and stated a mere opinion about matters not directly relating to the question of the Poll. My response is given in Post #11. His vote therefore is discounted until he attempts to state and suppot an actual error.

5) Johnny EC: He posted some extraneous arguments, but has yet to actually state any error in the Bible Wheel. I demonstrate this in Post #15. His vote therefore is discounted until he finds and supports a real error.

6) wraizyr: He posted once (#13) and simply said he agreed with Johnny EC. This vote therefore is discounted.

7) Ryokan: Not worthy of further response. He himself admitted that he posted without even "reading my crap."

PENDING:

8) rthearle: I have yet to evaluate his post. It looks very interesting and intelligent. His vote is pending till then.

Therefore, subtracting the 7 negative votes that either violated the rules or went unsupported, and the one that is "pending," we have 7 votes for "No Error" and 0 (Zero) votes for "Error."

Current status of the Poll: 100% error free Bible Wheel.

If anyone disagrees with this assesment, please post your suggested correction.

Thanks!

RAM

I strongly reccomend reading the thread from the beginning (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62036&page=1&pp=16) to see BW thwomped left, right, and center.

Anthem

September 26th 2005, 06:01 PM

from: http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=1015
I'm simply stating what the Holy Spirit has reveled to me.
One of those things is that preterism is blasphemy, because it is inherently anti-semetic.
that kinda shocked me, so i asked for an explanation. the whole thing then moved into this thread: http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?t=1250
where phil generally resorts to name calling.

still in development, but in its current form, i might give it a bronze.

Anthem

September 26th 2005, 07:54 PM

well never mind what i said about bronze, this guy is solid gold.
But you two can keep up your anonymous personal attacks. This topic is part of my blog now, and my blog will eventually become part of legal action, no matter how long the corrupt civil servants of this State and County try to stonewall me.

Even if I had to get arrested again to get back into court.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?p=18065&highlight=#18065
:rofl:

Piebald

September 26th 2005, 08:03 PM

In apologetics, Jimbo has returned with "Are all Jews going to hell? Yes or no."

Yes, he is back to square one, and attempting to pretend that none of the previous discussions of Hell that he had with the apologists here ever took place.

Truthdigger

September 26th 2005, 08:39 PM

I nominate J. Skeptic for plagiarizing himself :duh: .

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62121

Taken from this here website: http://johnnyskeptic.com/short333.ivnu.

I personally think JS should be allowed back here for pure comedic purposes.

Sparko

September 27th 2005, 04:46 PM

Doubting John (and FF)

They can't come up with any good arguments against ApologiaNick on the problem of evil, so what do they do?

Why, they pat themselves on the back and claim that ApologiaNick is a lousy apologist. If he is such a bad apologist and he whooped their hiney's what does that say about them? :lmbo:

Its obvious from your posts that you have a very limited understanding of philosophy, science, church history, biblical theology and the original languages of Scripture. Now thats okay but don't put yourself forward as some type of great apologist when you have such limited resources. It only makes you look foolish and does nothing to enhance the credibility of the Christian world view.

Agreed.

The foolishness of ApologiaNick in wanting to be an apologist is that he thinks he already answered my criticisms of his God in the debate. He did not do it there, and although I have posted summaries of what I said here in this thread twice, he has not attempted it here either.

The fact that he thinks he answered me in the debate is all the proof I need to say he doesn't have the thinking skills to be an apologist, no matter how much education he gets. He doesn't have the initial intellectual capacity required, even if he becomes educated.

And unlike his friends who all encourage him, I'm trying to do him a favor. Because he will face disillusionment down the road.

All they have done is build straw men and repeat themselves over and over and no matter what anyone answers, they just repeat themselves again. And when finally people get tired of repeating their own answers, they claim victory. That must be because they are so much smarter than Nick. :lmbo:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1212436&postcount=212

Truthdigger

September 27th 2005, 07:40 PM

For whooping Nick so bad in the debate, you would have thought they would have left the debate to speak for itself a while ago. I think he (AN) really irked them something aweful.

Darth Executor

September 27th 2005, 11:42 PM

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

One Bad Pig

September 27th 2005, 11:58 PM

http://www.thebricktestament.com/
Other than the corny ratings guide, it actually looks pretty cool.

Darth Executor

September 28th 2005, 12:02 AM

Other than the corny ratings guide, it actually looks pretty cool.

The author seems awfully horny though.

One Bad Pig

September 28th 2005, 12:48 AM

Faith Defenders (http://www.faithdefenders.com/ministry/articles/apologetics/process_theology/The+Relationship+of+God+to+the+Space-Time+Universe.htm):

The question of God's relationship to His creation is once again a matter of controversy. Most of the present discussions are inane because they completely ignore the Bible, and assume that such issues are to be decided by sola ratione (reason alone). Various ancient heresies have been revived and some new twists have been invented as modern rationalists sit in the dark, spinning out endless theories on God, time and space...By avoiding sola scriptura, a truly ecumenical situation is created in which errant Evangelicals join with Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Liberals, Neo-orthodox, processians, atheists, skeptics, cultists such as Mormons, and occultists in playing the natural theology game.

Now, I don't care how people spend their free time. If they want to waste their time pooling their ignorance with a bunch of antichrists, that's their business.

From their article on Problems with Middle Knowledge (http://www.faithdefenders.com/ministry/articles/apologetics/process_theology/Problems+with+Middle+Knowledge.htm):

The Jesuits were given the task of retaking those countries that had been won over by the preaching of the Protestant Reformers. They used two methods to overcome Protestantism.

First, they tortured, murdered and made war on Protestant nations to force people to return to popery. The Jesuits during the Thirty Years War and in the Inquisition slaughtered several million Protestants. (See Foxes Book of Martyrs for the details.)

Second, they invented doctrines that would undercut the four foundational truths of the Reformation: salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to Scripture alone. According to the standard reference works, the doctrine of Middle Knowledge was invented by Molina to undercut the Reformation doctrine that we are saved by grace alone and not as a reward for anything done by us.

One Bad Pig

September 28th 2005, 12:53 AM

The author seems awfully horny though.
How so?

Darth Executor

September 28th 2005, 10:06 AM

How so?

Many unnecessary sex scenes.

jpholding

September 28th 2005, 10:40 AM

http://www.thebricktestament.com/

The author was formerly on here as Robyn Banks. He was a displaced teenager who pretended to be a lawyer of some sort. He was banned from here but in fairness he also made a jerk of himself on Till's errancy list by signing up under multiple names after being banned. He's an equal opportunity idiot. :lol:

technomage

September 28th 2005, 10:46 AM

I'm still waiting for my Golden Screwbie. Heck, I'd say something silly just to qualify for a Bronze. :hehe:

Sparko

September 28th 2005, 11:02 AM

Many unnecessary sex scenes.

yeah at first it looked like something for kids, but if you view more than a few of the pictures and verses it is clear he is mocking the bible. His photos are all about sex, or massacres, etc.

From a link on his site:
http://www.thereverend.com/

...creator Brendan Powell Smith, and lovingly describes the project as "filthier than Hustler", "more violent then The Sopranos", and "the greatest story ever told."

jpholding

September 28th 2005, 11:04 AM

I'm still waiting for my Golden Screwbie. Heck, I'd say something silly just to qualify for a Bronze. :hehe:

2 bad. You're just 2 well-informed. :tongue:

If you behave though maybe I'll make you one of Sheila's villians or something. :wink:

"Golly, Beamer, what's THAT??"

"It's the Cup of Mystery!" :lol:

Darth Executor

September 28th 2005, 11:05 AM

I'm still waiting for my Golden Screwbie. Heck, I'd say something silly just to qualify for a Bronze. :hehe:

Hmm, I see you post something stupid once in a blue moon. Had I known you were looking for a nomination I'd have given you one.

technomage

September 28th 2005, 11:05 AM

2 bad. You're just 2 well-informed. :tongue:

If you behave though maybe I'll make you one of Sheila's villians or something. :wink:

"Golly, Beamer, what's THAT??"

"It's the Cup of Mystery!" :lol:
Don't tell me Sheila's allergic to coffee! :egad:

I can suspend my disbelief enough to accept an anthropomorphic rabbit, but not enough to accept a non-coffee-drinking heroine.

Darth Executor

September 28th 2005, 11:07 AM

I can't stand coffee.

technomage

September 28th 2005, 11:09 AM

I can't stand coffee.
Perhaps so, but you'd look awfully funny as a heroine, so it's OK.

Doubting John

September 28th 2005, 11:33 AM

For whooping Nick so bad in the debate, you would have thought they would have left the debate to speak for itself a while ago. I think he (AN) really irked them something aweful.

If either you or Sparko would like to give a few specific examples of how Nick addressed my points head on, then what you said would resonate with more force. It's one thing to say the kinds of things you do. It's another thing to give specific examples where Nick treated my arguments head on. If you would do that, then what you have said would be more credible.

Can you show me in the debate some specific examples of Nick's reasoning and apologetics where he answered my points head on?

jpholding

September 28th 2005, 11:37 AM

Don't tell me Sheila's allergic to coffee! :egad:

Um, there's no coffee on Hearthstone...they have rough equivalents to some of our foods, but none that are exactly the same.

But no, she doesn't even drink what would be the equivalent there. Sorry. :sad: :teeth: (And actually, coffee wouldn't grow there anyway...there's no quite matching climate.)

jpholding

September 28th 2005, 11:39 AM

Oh yeah,

Gold also for Stephen Van Eck again. He responded to Sheila's article on him by claiming "little effort" was made to address his arguments :lol: and then repeating them again. He also acted like Sheila didn't exist. That wasn't very nice. She's so mad she's about to stuff a 'rang someplace Van Eck won't find it comfortable. :eek:

technomage

September 28th 2005, 11:42 AM

Aigh! It's the end of the world!

Well, I can read about it--fortunately I don't have to visit and suffer coffee withdrawl. :coffee:

Sparko

September 28th 2005, 01:49 PM

If either you or Sparko would like to give a few specific examples of how Nick addressed my points head on, then what you said would resonate with more force. It's one thing to say the kinds of things you do. It's another thing to give specific examples where Nick treated my arguments head on. If you would do that, then what you have said would be more credible.

Can you show me in the debate some specific examples of Nick's reasoning and apologetics where he answered my points head on?

How about you actually MAKING some points instead of emotional appeals? I haven't seen you make any specific logical points at all. You claim that suffering is gratuitous and make up some examples, but you don't show how we can KNOW it is gratuitous. You would have to have the mind of God to know all possible repercussions of any such event. Claiming it is gratuitous is not the same thing as showing it is.

Why don't you post a concise summary of your "points" in the commentary thread?
I, Doubting John,
claim that the amount of suffering in this world is incompatible with the god of the bible because:

logical reason 1
logical reason 2
logical reason 3

--

Nick's position is basically

We know of many cases where good comes from suffering,
and yet we don't know everything, because we are not God. We can't see the outcome of every action on earth and how it affects others, now and in the future.
Based on what we DO know, we know it is possible that in the cases we don't see the good, that there is still good that can come from it.
DJ has never shown that any suffering has no way of being used for good, if even in some unforeseen way.
Therefore the biblical God is compatible with the amount of suffering in this world.
Nice & simple.

Surely you can summarize your argument the same way? Why don't you post it in the commentary thread? Hmmm?

Sparko

September 28th 2005, 07:04 PM

next in the series:

I tell DJ that he hasn't given us any proof that suffering is incompatible with the biblical God, or proof that suffering is gratuitous, since he can't know all future outcomes.

And once again, just stop with the proof talk. If that's all you have to fall back on, then we do have another version of "Dumb and Dumber" called "Sparko and Nick."

So now asking for proof of assertions is dumb?

:lmbo:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1214037&postcount=243

Truthdigger

September 28th 2005, 09:02 PM

Can you show me in the debate some specific examples of Nick's reasoning and apologetics where he answered my points head on?

If your serious, I don't think your worth talking to ever again. How could you be so blatantly arrogant (as well as ambiguous) in your claims? Nicks whole reponses were dedicated to your points. No wonder you had such a hard time debating him. Next time have Till read whats actually on the screen, instead of his list of "Why Holding is a stoopid apallojist apalochist- top phor reasons". Good God man, go back to your kindergarten class and teach them how to fit the circle shaped blocks into the circle holes (maybe youll pick up some "Critical thinking tactics".

technomage

September 28th 2005, 09:10 PM

Can you show me in the debate some specific examples of Nick's reasoning and apologetics where he answered my points head on?

It is said that an honest man who is wrong, when confronted with evidence of his errors, can either remain honest, or wrong--but not both.

Take it for what you will. But do me a favor--if you ever get tired of being an Atheist, do me a favor and DON'T consider Wicca.

Darth Executor

September 28th 2005, 11:03 PM

Kenite:

I don't. Satan has those. There is only one gospel, and Prot denoms, the Romans and Orthodox don't have it. They are all inspired by Satan, whose ruses get tumbled. Romanism and Orthodoxy are his early, unsophisticated attempts to mimic the church. The Brethren under their various brand names get far closer. As I have said before, there is only one church.

Everybody is a Satanist except his underground resistance of true believers. :rofl:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=61935&page=2&pp=16

Sparko

September 28th 2005, 11:07 PM

It is said that an honest man who is wrong, when confronted with evidence of his errors, can either remain honest, or wrong--but not both.

Take it for what you will. But do me a favor--if you ever get tired of being an Atheist, do me a favor and DON'T consider Wicca.

Hey, we'll take him back. We take anyone, even you Justin. :wink:

Just say the word and I will scootch over and give you a seat next to mine on the Jesus train, you and DJ.

technomage

September 28th 2005, 11:11 PM

Hey, we'll take him back. We take anyone, even you Justin. :wink:

Just say the word and I will scootch over and give you a seat next to mine on the Jesus train, you and DJ.
Sparko, I love you like a brother ... but I was the "honest Christian" who was presented with evidence that I was wrong. At this point, the only form of Christianity that I could consider would be something you would consider either heretical, or downright antithetical to your understanding of it.

:shrug: That may change tomorrow ... and in truth, that's why I keep searching for evidence.

Cynic Sage

September 29th 2005, 05:23 PM

Iwayne on N.T. Wright:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62404&page=1&pp=16

I won't waste my time with any evangelically-based drivel titled Jesus and the Victory of God. Give me a break.

I find this ironic, especially regarding his OP:

I just finished viewing the movie, The God Who Wasn't There. Very interesting. I had already arrived at most of the conclusions on my own though. I'm amazed that he (or no one else that I know of) didn't go more into the totally bogus character of Christianity. It has become more or less a theme song with me.

As Jimbo would say: "The irony meter just blew up."

And what is he talking about a "theme song"?

Nana-nana-nana-nana-Agnostic

Nana-nana-nana-nana-Agnostic

Nana-nana-nana-nana-Agnostic

Nana-nana-nana-nana-Agnostic

Agnostic

Agnostic

Agnostic

Nana-nana-nana-nana

AGNOSTIC!

Cynic Sage

September 29th 2005, 06:09 PM

Lauren M. Vance, for his "Are you a Christian Warmonger?" quiz:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance40.html

The following test is designed for Christians of any stripe to determine to what degree, if any, that they are a Christian warmonger. These statements are based on things I have read or been told by Christians seeking to excuse or justify the war in Iraq in order to defend President Bush. The statements are not in any particular order. Each statement is designed to be answered with either "true" or "false." A "true" answer receives 1 point and a "false" answer receives no points. Add up your points and consult the scale at the bottom to obtain the results.

The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) never applies to killing in war.
We should follow President Bush’s leadership because he is a Christian.
Torturing Iraqi prisoners to obtain information is okay if it saves the life of one American.
The command to "submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake" (1 Peter 2:13) means that we should kill foreigners in their country if the government says to do so.
U.S. intervention in the Middle East is necessary to protect Israel from the Arabs.
Muslim civilians killed by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan are just collateral damage.
A preemptive war against Iraq is nothing to be concerned about because the Bible says there is "a time of war" (Ecclesiastes 3:8).
It is okay to kill Muslims in Iraq because the terrorists who kill Jews are Muslims.
Since the Bible says that "the powers that be are ordained of God" (Romans 13:1), we should always obey the government when it comes to war.
U.S. wars and interventions abroad are ultimately a good thing because they pave the way for the spread of the gospel.
The command to "obey magistrates" (Titus 3:1) means that it is not immoral to drop bombs on foreign countries if the government says it should be done.
The U.S. should take vengeance on Muslims because of the September 11th attacks.
A perpetual war against the Muslim world in order to fight terrorism is just because "The LORD is a man of war" (Exodus 15:3).
Christians can wholeheartedly participate in their government’s wars since God commanded the Jews in the Old Testament to go to war.
Christians can proudly serve in the military in any capacity.
Christians can proudly serve in the CIA in any capacity.
The command to "obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29) does not apply to refusing to kill for the state in a war.
God approves of the war in Iraq because Islam is a false religion.
Muslims in the Middle East hate Americans because of their Christianity, their freedoms, and their democratic values.
Christians in Iraq are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein. 1 _____ 2 _____ 3 _____ 4 _____ 5 _____

6 _____ 7 _____ 8 _____ 9 _____ 10 _____

11 _____ 12 _____ 13 _____ 14 _____ 15 _____

16 _____ 17 _____ 18 _____ 19 _____ 20 _____

Total _____
If you scored:

0 You are truly a man of peace.

1–4 You are not a Christian warmonger, but you may want to reevaluate some of your beliefs.

5–8 You are on your way to becoming a Christian warmonger, but there is still hope for you; repent.

9–12 You are a Christian warmonger; turn from the error of your ways.

13–16 You are a militant Christian warmonger; get right with God.

17–20 You may be a Christian but you are a crazed warmonger whose idea of Christianity is seriously defective.

I have to head out, so I'll make my commentary short.

About Q#1: So does that mean that any xtian that knows ancient Hebrew is a warmonger?

About Q#3: So it's better to let someone die than to save his life by inflicting pain on another?

About Q#20: Uh, the guy killed truckloads of his own people and his sons crashed weddings looking for brides to rape. So I would say yes, Xtians, Muslims, and pretty much anyone who doesn't either enjoy being raped or enjoy watching a loved one be raped on their wedding night are better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein.

Doubting John

September 29th 2005, 06:22 PM

DJ:
Can you show me in the debate some specific examples of Nick's reasoning and apologetics where he answered my points head on?

If your serious, I don't think your worth talking to ever again. How could you be so blatantly arrogant (as well as ambiguous) in your claims? Nicks whole reponses were dedicated to your points. No wonder you had such a hard time debating him. Next time have Till read whats actually on the screen, instead of his list of "Why Holding is a stoopid apallojist apalochist- top phor reasons". Good God man, go back to your kindergarten class and teach them how to fit the circle shaped blocks into the circle holes (maybe youll pick up some "Critical thinking tactics".

It's like Hubbard said, "If you can't answer a man's argument you can still call him names."

Denounce me all you want to. I expect it. Just remember, I've had NO takers to the challenge above. Until someone meets that challenge, call me whatever you want to. :thumb: But realize that doing so isn't answering the question. Either give it a rest or meet the challenge. It should be simple for anyone to do, too. After all, it's claimed by some that Nick met the challenge himself, so even a 14 year old should be able to show this easily by quoting from Nick.

Cup of Mystery, just continue to "Do what Thou Wilt." I see even Christians here encourage that from you too! You can have it both ways and they'll be tooting your praises. Kinda reveals how dumb some of them are.

And as far as being confronted with my errors goes....where? when? Did someone meet my challenge yet? Where? When?