Submit Your Candidates for December 2005 Screwballs of the Month [Archive]

Cynic Sage

December 3rd 2005, 03:04 PM

Jimbo and Marduck:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=66421

Hi,

First of all, just to be perfectly clear, I don't believe that the Christian god exists. I think it is a make-believe being invented by primitive, superstitious, ignorant people. Regardless of what I think about the Christian god, however, I would like to know what Christians think of their god. Specifically, I want to know why Christians believe that the Christian god deserves to be worshipped. The Christian god has always been all-powerful. There is nothing that has ever been or ever could be beyond this god's power. Unlike human beings which have to set goals, suffer and work to achieve them, the Christian god only has to snap its fingers-so t speak-and its wishes come true magically and instantly.

I think the following quote from the Secular Web captures this idea pretty well:

Why does God deserve praise at all? Did he work or study hard for billions of years to achieve his abilities, overcome great obstacles, fears or stumbling blocks? It doesn't seem that way, sounds like he came with all the magic powers by fiat, like a rich child who was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, big deal that's how he was made or is or whatever. Why praise such a being at all?

Amazing how much mileage Christians get out of a book of Jewish folklore.

Sec Web discussion (http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000273&p=2)
copied 05/23/2002 02:09:43

So the God who created the Universe and everything in it shouldn't be worshipped because he isn't some kind of Eternal, Omniscient, Omnipotent Batman?

And then he parrots Underlings again:

So why does the Christian god deserve worship?

One thing to think about is this: If you were all powerful like the Christian god, couldn't you have done a better job of creating the world we live in? Why, for example, did the Christian god create influenza, malaria, childhood leukemia, the ebola virus and parasitic worms? Why is the order of nature based in large part on one creature ripping to shreds and devouring other creatures? Why does the Christian god-who has unlimited power-sit by and watch as eight thousand children die of starvation each and every day?

Why does such a god deserve our worship?

Thanks.

Jimbo

:lol:

Cynic Sage

December 3rd 2005, 05:36 PM

Kenite, after finding out that Billy Graham holds an honaray doctorate degree from a Catholic Seminary:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=66547

Graham has been disowned by Christians since he accepted Romanism as valid.

Though backing by Randolph Hearst was something like a kiss of death.

"Billy Graham disowned by Christians"? Well, you heard it here first. :hehe:

Darth Executor

December 6th 2005, 04:56 PM

I PMed OBP about moving my message but he doesn't care so I'll just post the previous one again.

Oh those silly Brits...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnist...1657942,00.html

But so far, so good. The story makes sense. The lion exchanging his life for Edmund's is the sort of thing Arthurian legends are made of. Parfait knights and heroes in prisoner-of-war camps do it all the time. But what's this? After a long, dark night of the soul and women's weeping, the lion is suddenly alive again. Why? How?, my children used to ask. Well, it is hard to say why. It does not make any more sense in CS Lewis's tale than in the gospels. Ah, Aslan explains, it is the "deep magic", where pure sacrifice alone vanquishes death.

Of all the elements of Christianity, the most repugnant is the notion of the Christ who took our sins upon himself and sacrificed his body in agony to save our souls. Did we ask him to? Poor child Edmund, to blame for everything, must bear the full weight of aguilt only Christians know how to inflict, with a twisted knife to the heart. Every one of those thorns, the nuns used to tell my mother, is hammered into Jesus's holy head every day that you don't eat your greens or say your prayers when you are told. So the resurrected Aslan gives Edmund a long, life-changing talking-to high up on the rocks out of our earshot. When the poor boy comes back down with the sacred lion's breath upon him he is transformed unrecognisably into a Stepford brother, well and truly purged.

Over the years, others have had uneasy doubts about the Narnian brand of Christianity. Christ should surely be no lion (let alone with the orotund voice of Liam Neeson). He was the lamb, representing the meek of the earth, weak, poor and refusing to fight. Philip Pullman - he of the marvellously secular trilogy His Dark Materials - has called Narnia "one of the most ugly, poisonous things I have ever read".

Why? Because here in Narnia is the perfect Republican, muscular Christianity for America - that warped, distorted neo-fascist strain that thinks might is proof of right. I once heard the famous preacher Norman Vincent Peel in New York expound a sermon that reassured his wealthy congregation that they were made rich by God because they deserved it. The godly will reap earthly reward because God is on the side of the strong. This appears to be CS Lewis's view, too. In the battle at the end of the film, visually a great epic treat, the child crusaders are crowned kings and queens for no particular reason. Intellectually, the poor do not inherit Lewis's earth.

:lmbo:

Children are supposed to fall in love with the hypnotic Aslan, though he is not a character: he is pure, raw, awesome power. He is an emblem for everything an atheist objects to in religion.

Note: I wonder if Ms. (I'm assuming nobody is stupid enough to marry her) Toynbee and other members of her broad brushed atheist groups would object to giving me all their money and power. I'd settle for North Korea.

Darth Executor

December 6th 2005, 04:58 PM

College atheist club trades porn magazines for holy texts:

http://www.atheistagenda.org/porno-for-bibles/

I wouldn't have nominated them but then I saw their favorite web site list. :lmbo:

Darth Executor

December 7th 2005, 06:20 PM

Soundsurfr is on a roll:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=66739&page=4

It means what it says. You claimed that atheism allows murder. I said, no, it doesn’t *allow* murder. Your response which amounts to “therefore it must prohibit it” is logically false. I no longer expect you to understand these things, but it is logic 101 in case you want to make an effort.

Hey, it doesn't allow it and it doesn't disallow it either. There must be a third option in there somewhere that I missed. :lmbo:

f you are raised by Ted Bundy as a parent you're more likely to become a murderer than if you are raised by Mother Theresa because Ted Bundy was a murderer and Mother Theresa was not. Mother Theresa is superior.
If you are a viking you are more likely to raid and burn down villages than you are if you're an average american because vikings burned down villages for fun while average americans probably don't have enough stamina to even get to the village, let alone the stomach to burn one. Americans are superior.
If you are born an atheist you are more likely to become a psycho dictator then if you are a Christian because atheism does not affect morals while Christianity forbids murder. Christians are superior.

Aside from the fact that this is the biggest pile of unsupported bull I’ve ever seen crammed into a single post, what criteria are you using to judge whether each thing is "superior" or "inferior" to the other? Careful, my boy. You don't want to get caught in a circular argument.

I wonder why he's arguing the superiority of morality if he's gonna backpedal into relativism?

Immortality through technological means would be my chief goal.

Not looking forward to the afterlife, I take it.

Yup, looking up to an afterlife... if I was an atheist... Maybe soundsurfr believes in a god of atheism too... :rofl:

Darth Executor

December 8th 2005, 01:32 AM

Whacko (he needs to tell us twice so we know for sure):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1293994&postcount=24

The fact is that GOD has changed his mind about soooo many things in the past. He's probably up in heaven now with a few chared pigeons and some of them virgin mindinites teaching his son "a few new tricks". God has completly forgot or changed his mind about the second coming. Since he's not the most detail oriented omnipotent god around he has never got around to updating his moral authority handbook.

Darth Executor

December 8th 2005, 04:38 PM

White Hype:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1294596

It sure is easy for you and I to sit here and discuss these things on a computer, but I'd love to see your logic out in the mission field. I can see it now.

Darth Executor enters an African village. "HEY!" he screams. "Accept Christ, or face the consequences, pagans! Either give your life to Christ or die, cause I'm here to collect the shrunken heads of God's enemies for the sake of the kingdom!"

(Executor takes a spear through the heart.)

(Villagers mumbling amongst themselves)

Villager 1: What was he trying to say?

Villager 2: I don't know, but he wanted to kill us if we didn't accept his God.

Villager 3: Where did he get that crazy idea to talk to us like that?

Villager 4: I looked through his bookbag, and there's all these papers in here by someone named "James Patrick Holding." Wow, he must have really drank this guy's stuff in! Looks like here he's got the Holding Study Bible, whatever that is. Bah! We've got better stuff to do.

Real faithful and loving there bud, real faithful.

Btw JP, me and the other sycophants want to know when we're gonna go on another plunder campaign in Africa. I'm running out of money.

Rayado

December 8th 2005, 05:22 PM

VFarris, on that other message (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1294258&postcount=31) in the Gospels:

The Gospels are not about salvation thorough Jesus... never were... never will be...

jpholding

December 8th 2005, 06:56 PM

White Hype:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1294596

Btw JP, me and the other sycophants want to know when we're gonna go on another plunder campaign in Africa. I'm running out of money.

We do need to start some classes to help people understand that Farrell Till et al is not a "mission field."

I'll send Bimf out to strongarm some people into buying WhiteHype Cookies.

Darth Executor

December 8th 2005, 07:35 PM

We do need to start some classes to help people understand that Farrell Till et al is not a "mission field."

I'll send Bimf out to strongarm some people into buying WhiteHype Cookies.

While I agree, he's actually well past that stage. He thinks I literally go out on mission fields and literally chop off heads. :lolo:

Darth Executor

December 8th 2005, 10:04 PM

Shunyadragon trips over preterism:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1294900

The preterist worldview does not account well for all the OT or NT prophecies. It isjust a conveniant side door to explain that what people expect to happen did not happen.

Darth Executor

December 9th 2005, 01:13 AM

Michael Newdow rap (I should have nominated this ages ago):

http://www.restorethepledge.com/store/establi_rap_sample.mp3

:lmbo:

jpholding

December 9th 2005, 01:38 PM

I'll be posting the newsletter shortly with an attached poll on how we should decide the Screwballs of the Year. Please vote.

Cynic Sage

December 9th 2005, 02:19 PM

Michael Newdow rap (I should have nominated this ages ago):

http://www.restorethepledge.com/store/establi_rap_sample.mp3

:lmbo:

And I thought Christian Rap music royally sucked. :twitch: :eww:

Darth Executor

December 9th 2005, 02:38 PM

And I thought Christian Rap music royally sucked. :twitch: :eww:

The only Christian rap I ever heard of was a creationist rap song somebody spammed my PM box on another song with. I must say it was much better than Newdow's.

Cynic Sage

December 9th 2005, 03:08 PM

The only Christian rap I ever heard of was a creationist rap song somebody spammed my PM box on another song with. I must say it was much better than Newdow's.

Be thankful for your ignorance of xtian rap music. :pray:

Cynic Sage

December 9th 2005, 03:58 PM

HappyPants on Dr. Ouweneel's "endorsement" of Francesco Carotta's "Jesus was Ceasar":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=66415&page=7&pp=16

We can argue all day that it's not an identical story - if it were we would have proof Jesus was earlier than we thought. The story is a match though by mythology criteria. Obviously that criteria is partially subjective but when I've shown this to others they've been sceptical until it piles up and up.

Add that to this guy spending 10 years putting together a book showing language connections that match in sequence and frequency. The book on it's own is hard to refute (though as it's the first of it's type I'm presuming he has errors or speculation within). It has however been endorsed by both an archaeologist and a Greek language specialist.

And a priest.

Yes, it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, even had a Dutch TV programme on it. From what I've read no-one has been able to criticise his method or dispute that statisically it is beyond doubt - yet most refuse to believe it anyway.

I then ask him for specifics and get this.

Does this guy have a name?

Francesco Carotta

Does his book have a title?

Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity: An Investigative Report

http://www.carotta.de/dindex.html (http://www.carotta.de/dindex.html)

Do the Greek language specialist and archaeologist have names?

I gave quotes from them earlier? Hang on.. here ya go:

Fotis Kavoukopoulos PhD

Received his doctorate in linguistics at the
Sorbonne in 1988 with a thesis on Homeric syntax.
He taught linguistics at the universities of Crete and Thessaly (1989-2002). Presently, he works at the Pedagogical Institute of Athens (Ministry of Education).
Author of articles and books on modern and ancient Greek. He is a person with reduced mobility.

Erika Simon, PhD,
Professor emeritus of Archaeology

Earned her doctorate in Heidelberg in 1952 with the archaeological-religious historical dissertation ?Opfernde Götter (Sacrificing gods)?. Habilitation in Mainz, university lecturer in Heidelberg until 1963, since 1964 Chair of Classical Archaeology in Würzburg. After she was conferred emeritus status in 1994 she was a professor at several foreign universities (Aberdeen, Vienna, Burban / South Africa, Florida State University / Tallahassee, The University of Texas At Austin, USA).

Does the peer-reviewed journal have a title?

I'd presume so, they usually do. I didn't take note, just noticed on another forum discussion someone declared it meaningless as it wasn't in a peer-reveiwed journal, someone said "Yes it is" and gave the link. I looked, it was boring and just a link with nothing new, just showing the journal.

Does the priest have a name?

Reverend Pedro García González, Catholic.

Do they even exist?

Yes.

He then adds another name to the list.

Oh and you can add another priest:

‘The book paints down to the smallest details a picture of the similarities between Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ.’
– Rev. Willem J. Ouweneel, Ph.D. D.D.

http://www.it-is-easy.org/contact/friends/ouweneel.php (http://www.it-is-easy.org/contact/friends/ouweneel.php)

Curriculum vitae Prof. dr. Willem J. Ouweneel

Born: Zaandam (Netherlands [NL]) 1944.

Married: (1969) to Gerdien Terwel, four children, eight grandchildren, all serving the Lord.

Degrees:

* Doctor in biology (Univ. Utrecht, NL 1970),
* Doctor in philosophy (Free Univ. Amsterdam, NL 1986),
* Doctor in theology (Univ. Bloemfontein, South-Africa 1993).

Academic career:

* Biology researcher 1971-1976,
* Lecturer of philosophy and theology Evangelical College, Amersfoort, NL, (1977-now) and Evangelical Theological Academy, Zwijndrecht, NL, (1988-now),
* Professor of Philosophy at the Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, South-Africa, (1990-1997),
* Professor of philosophy and theology at the State Independent Theological College Riehen, Switzerland, (1996-2001),
* Professor of philosophy and theology at the Evangelical Theological Faculty, Belgium, (1996-present).

Church career:

* Pastor and preacher among the Christian Brethren (Plymouth Brethren), with an international ministry in fifteen countries: (1976-present),
* For the last decade more and more among many other denominations as well.

Other activities:

* Freelance contributor to the Evangelical Broadcasting Corporation, Hilversum (NL, 1975-present): many radio and television programmes: theological, evangelistic, pastoral, etc.
* Chief editor of Bijbel en Wetenschap (Bible & Science, from 2002 called ELLIPS), magazine of the Evangelical College, Amersfoort, NL, (1976-1985, 1999-present).
* Co-editor of Bode van het Heil in Christus (Messenger of Salvation in Christ), Bible study magazine among Christian Brethren, (1985-present).
.................

Now HE can see the parallels but none of you Christian experts can eh?

Funny that.

I followed the link Happypants gave and was able to get an email through to the organization Ouweneel is affiliated with:

Hi, my name is Johnny Eccentric. And I have a question to ask about Prof Ouweneel.

I post on an internet discussion board called Theologyweb and I came across this guy (calls himself "Happypants") who says that Ouweneel gave an endorsement of a book (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1290103&postcount=112) that says that Jesus was a myth was based on Julius Ceasar (http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/esumma.html).

Here is the quote he used by Happypants:

‘The book paints down to the smallest details a picture of the similarities between Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ.’
– Rev. Willem J. Ouweneel, Ph.D. D.D.

Is this true? I think that this guy is either lying or has taken the quote out of context. Could you answer this for me, or better yet, have Professor Ouweneel answer this for me.

Thanks a bunch,
Johnny Eccentric.

I recieved this reply from Ouweneel himself:

Dear Johnny,

Happypants must be a deceiver, or someone who had him/herself deceived.

There was some guy called Francesco Carotta who in a book defended the
thesis that Jesus was the same as Julius Caesar.
I have debated this man in public, even on the radio, and refuted his
fancy ideas.

This is perhaps how my name became linked with this book.

Kind regards,

Prof. dr. Willem J. Ouweneel

:lmbo:

jpholding

December 9th 2005, 07:52 PM

Sylvius:

Mark is mentioned in Luke 4:20 as the one who handed over the book of the prophet Isaiah to Jesus.

He is also mentioned in Acts 13: 5 , 'hupèretes'= attendant.

There was only ONE person who worked as an attendant in the ENTIRE Roman Empire. :twitch:

Darth Executor

December 9th 2005, 08:17 PM

Sylvius:

There was only ONE person who worked as an attendant in the ENTIRE Roman Empire. :twitch:

I'm starting to wonder if Sylvius isn't a joke account. Either that or he's not a very good English speaker.

As a side note, my bible doesn't identify the attendant in Luke (to whom Jesus gave the scroll, not the other way around) and the attendant in Acts is John....

Darth Executor

December 10th 2005, 10:07 AM

I nominate this spam I got in my email:

[attachment=1]

jpholding

December 10th 2005, 01:04 PM

Oh, that was a good one. I guess around here the tradition is what? Baal worship?

Too good to keep, one of those New Age sorts of emails I get now and then...

What I find really strange about your website is that you try so hard to
refute anything that might suggest Christianity was influenced by any other
religion of the time. What you don't seem to get is that everything effects
everything else. I am not going to argue if Jesus was real to you as that
would be pointless. However, what I would argue is that Christianity was
most certainly influenced by these older religions and that does fit into
everyone's cosmology. Even that of Fundementalist Christians and of
Atheists. Of which I am neither.

What I would suggest to you is that instead of concentrating so much energy
of people like Acharya S and trying to refute her claims in her books that
you actually look a little deeper into why the people who write these books
are able to do so. Because there does exist much evidence to support their
claims, because EVERYTHING EFFECTS EVERYTHING ELSE. Why do these people
have more credibility than you do to Non-Christian readers? Because as
Christians you except the "authorized Canon" as the "inherent word of God"
and some of you (mind you I said some of) think "The real Bible was written
in 1611" (I have heard those exact words on a number of occassions
concerning the KJV) but what you ignore in this are the inconsistancies that
are in the "official canon" Things such as the fate of Judas. Also the
current taking away of the Apochrypha and also the ommission of the Book of
Enoch which is quoted in other books. This would suggest that if it is "the
inherent word of God" then your God is feeble minded not to pick up on those
things and correct them. However what I believe is that the initial truth
is pry in a lot of these books and stories cept corrupt people manipulated
them for their own political ends and left us with their
compromises......... and a whole lot of trouble and suffering and bloodshed
over the details.

Let me ask you this.......... If you found definative proof that alll of
these stories came from one common ancient source would you try to suppress
it? Try to refute it to hold onto your belief system or to up hold the
beliefs of others so that they would not feel disillusioned? Would you kill
in order to insure that the truth of that story didn't come out? Yeah that's
happened a lot throughout history.
Lastly why do you spend so much time writing things trying to refute things
that are coming from a fringe writer like Acharya S that no one takes
seriously? A small minority has their minds made up about this subject and
like to read everything on it and Christians like to refute it and the rest
of the world could care less. Really they could care less they think we are
all insane (those who follow the Christian path and those of us who read all
the conspiracy theory-myths-devinci code type stuff) Only thing I need to
refute Christianity is the way in which MOST (not all) Christians behave in
the world. :)

jpholding

December 10th 2005, 08:29 PM

I got a note from the last Screwball claiming that if I post his email on Tekton he'll take legal action against me and have the site shut down. :nails:

I think that's only the third or fourth such threat in 8 years. :zzz:

Darth Executor

December 10th 2005, 09:12 PM

Internet Infidels is a gold mine. The "Secular lifestyle" board is usually full of people who say stupid stuff like "Why couldn't God get me a girlfriend" and "God hates me, I got a B on my report card and my parents are going to kill me". Every once in a while their paranoia and herd-like behaviour takes the cake.

HELP MORMONS oh no the sky is falling:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146607

The day before yesterday me and the family are driving on our way too our annual sea side holiday. While driving through the sleepy mining town of Randfontein, guess what I see... a <censored> Mormon temple! I had always thought that my great country had escaped contamination by the LDS. Then in the next big town we go through, Kimberley, I see yet another one and then in the very town I am currently residing (George), another LDS temple. Last year this time we drove the exact same route and I didn't notice one of them. Then I found this on the LDS website:

Here I thought that only people in other countries had to deal with them, I'm thinking about going there and screwing with them a little. What are your responses to this? Got any tips or warnings? I have very little to do here and want to have a little fun.

Oh no I'm not Christian how can I like Christian music?

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146328

Something must be wrong with me because I don't believe in jebus but I am such a sucker for Christmas sacred music!!! I was listening to the Cambridge Singers and this crap just makes me cry it's so beautiful. Why can't we have amazing music for atheists, eh? Where's the Ode to the Big Bang, the opera for Critical Thinking?

I wonder if he thinks there's something wrong with him for using cash. :lolo:

Darth Executor

December 10th 2005, 09:33 PM

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1296606

I DON'T see the word Jesus in John 1:1 and John 1:14. There is NO scripture which EXPLICITLY tells us that Jesus WAS the word BEFORE he was born a MAN.

Of course not, John 1:1 and 1:14 are talking about Bozo the Clown. :lmbo:

Darth Executor

December 10th 2005, 09:48 PM

I quite literally feel like throwing up when I see the crap some of these morons post:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=146053

1: Contradictions in the Bible

First, let's deal with the contradictions that I found that are in the Bible:

God can be seen:

"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." -- Exodus 33:23

"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." -- Exodus 33:11

"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." -- Genesis 32:30

"Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness." -- Genesis 24:9-10

"And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:" -- Genesis 26:2

"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?" -- John 14:9

"I saw the LORD standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered." -- Amos 9:1

God cannot be seen:

"No man hath seen God at any time." -- John 1:18

"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." -- 1 Timothy 6:16

Should we Steal?

"Thou shalt not steal." -- Exodus 20:15; Revelation 19:13

"And ye shall spoil the Egyptians." -- Exodus 12:35-36; Luke 19:29-33

Should we tell lies?

"Thou shalt not bear false witness." -- Exodus 20:16; Proverbs 12:22; Revelation 21:8

"The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." -- 1 Kings 22:23

Should we make graven images?

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water." -- Exodus 20:4; Leviticus 26:1

"And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them." -- Exodus 25:18

Are we punished for our parents sins?

"For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations." -- Exodus 20:5,34:7

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." -- Ezekiel 18:20

Was Jesus Trustworthy?

"Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true." -- John 8:14

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." -- John 5:31

Shall we call people names?

"Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire." -- Matthew 5:22

"(Jesus said) Ye fools and blind." -- Matthew 23:17

Yes, and allow me to explain. Christianity adopted alot of the Pre-Christian elements. For instance, Hell was borrowed from the Viking Mythology Hel.

Hel, is the goddess of the dead. She dwelt beneath one of the three roots of the sacred ash tree Yggdrasil and was the daughter of Loki, the spirit of mischief or evil, and the giantess Angerbotha (Angerboda). Odin, the All-Father, hurled Hel into Niflheim, the realm of cold and darkness, itself also known as Hel, over which he gave her sovereign authority.

Hel was a goddess (or a monster), a daughter of Loki and Angrboda, who ruled over Niflheim, which was the land of the dead. There were different opinions of whether she was alive or dead. Ull, in his role as god of winter, was supposed to spend a few months each year as Hel's lover. Hel and her ghostly army were going to support the other gods at Ragnarok, after which her domain would go out in flames.

Hel, in Norse mythology, the underworld (sometimes called Niflheim) and the goddess who ruled there. In early Germanic mythology, Hel was the goddess who ruled the majestic abode for the dead. Later, particularly after the advent of Christianity, Hel became a place of punishment, similar to the Christian hell. The Trident of Poseidon and Hermes compared to Satan. The All Father Odin and the Father God of Christianity.

Mithras and Jesus:

Mithra was sent by the Father God down to Earth to confirm his contract with Man.

Mithra was born of a Virgin by Immaculate Conception - He was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother.

Mithra was born in a stable - We celebrate his birth on December 25th.

Mithra was visited by wise men bearing gifts. Mithra had 12 disciples - He was called the Messiah.

Mithra was also the god of Darius, conqueror of Babylon, He was called the Messiah, or Christos by Jews during their Captivity.

Mithra made a Contract (or Covenant) with Man confirming an older contract with God - The Persian word Mithra literally means Contract.

Mithra celebrated a last supper with his disciples before his death. Mithra died to atone for the sins of man. He was crucified.

Mithra was resurrected on a Sunday.

Mithra ascended into Heaven to rejoin his Father.

Mithra will return to pass judgment on mankind - He was known as the judger of souls. On judgment day, the dead will arise and be judged by Mithra.

Mithra will send sinners to Hell. Christianity and Mithraism both believe in fire and brimstone.

Mithra will send the faithful to Heaven.

On judgment day there will be a final conflict between evil and good. - The forces of evil will be destroyed and the saved will live in paradise forever.

Mithra is part of a holy Trinity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) that took human form.

Mithra is depicted as having a halo, (a circular band of light around his head).

Mithra followers drink wine and eat bread, which represent his blood and flesh.

Mithra followers are baptized.

Mithraism predates Christianity by about 4,000 years. It is also a well known fact that Roman Emperor Constantine began to infiltrate the Roman Catholic Church with Pagan customs in order to gain converts around fourth century AD. This appeased the Pagans that converted to Christianity, and to appease the Christians, Constantine gave the holidays Christian names.

:duh:

spl_cadet

December 11th 2005, 09:05 PM

Mithra was born of a Virgin by Immaculate Conception - He was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother.

Am I the only one who automatically ignores atheists when they make such obvious mistakes like that?

Cynic Sage

December 11th 2005, 09:37 PM

Shunyadragon, on Early Church History:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65934&page=11&pp=16

Not much is known of the first 100 years or so. the real history starts with bloody Constantine.

:lol:

Cynic Sage

December 11th 2005, 09:49 PM

Stevie still reads the Bible like a Fundy:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=66925

Suppose for some reason you momentarily lose your temper with somebody with somebody who has really behaved badly to you, and want to hit them.

You can make a free will choice to hit them, and God will hold you guilty for that.

However , there is an alternative. You can use your free will and face down your anger and choose not to hit the other person. God will hold you guilty for that too. (See Matthew 5:22)

So what is the point of giving us free will, if God will hold us guilty regardless of our free will choices?

This is what happens when one ignores the obvious context of scripture, and attempts to warp it into something that it wasn't meant to be.

Here's the heart of that verse:

21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder,[a] and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause[b] shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire. 23 Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26 Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.

An interesting verse, but clearly I cannot possibly obey the advice of Jesus, as the altar of the Temple disappeared long ago.

:lmbo:

jpholding

December 11th 2005, 09:54 PM

My prior screwball offers self-assurance for his continued erorrs in spelling:

Well as for the spelling thing. It's been said that people of higher
intellect often have poor spelling and grammer. For the reason that they
care more about the content than the particulars. You can look that up if
your education includes a proper bent on research and discovery. That is why
people have editors and computers have spell checkers. When I am publishing
things either on the web or for print I have used both for corrections.
It's really pathetic that you feel some sort of SUPEEREEORITY lol over me
because of fast typing and typos or because certain words I have continued
to mispell since grade school even though I know their proper spelling if I
choose to take more time when writing. You do so without listening to the
content and then quote out of context. Typical.

jpholding

December 13th 2005, 12:59 PM

More emails to good to keep....

One:

Sorry I clicked on the vote for the site..I was thinking it was like an option..I meant to vote NO. You poor helpless fool. How many years have you been doing this? I expect the only links to your diatribe have come from a Google search for Myths and Depections of the Bible a fine book. No wonder you reject its message: it exposes you and your kind as frauds and imposters. BTW Don't bother replying to this missive. It will be deleted.

C. Smith (real name..I don't have to hide from you or your God)

Yeah, you read right; Deceptions and Myths of the Bible is a "fine book". :bonk:

Two:

I thought your critical article on The Pagan Christ by Tom Harpur was very
untasteful. I especially take offense to your statement: "Perhaps that may
have had something to do with laws against importing foreign toxic waste"
regarding this book not being available in the USA. As a Canadian, this
offends me greatly! Since when is openness "toxic waste"? Your article must
be factual to some degree, considering your education, however it is
difficult for me to glean anything from it. It's impossible for me to get
past the fact that you are obviously threatened by Tom Harpur's book - to
the point where you lose your tact.
Can you not see any good in Harpur's book? I think you are missing out
greatly.

Good? Yeah...it makes a nice frisbee.. :rofl:

Darth Executor

December 13th 2005, 01:50 PM

My prior screwball offers self-assurance for his continued erorrs in spelling:

You misspelled errors. :tongue:

As a side note, I took an English test today and it gave me an idea for something to do after I'm done with the school stuff.

jpholding

December 13th 2005, 03:00 PM

You misspelled errors. :tongue:

Just for that, no sneak preview of the illustrations I did for a tektoonics version of http://www.tektonics.org/lp/muslyduh.html :rasberry:

...of Annabelle doing a Britney Spears impersonation.... :hehe:

As a side note, I took an English test today and it gave me an idea for something to do after I'm done with the school stuff.

Fan art, I hope!???

Darth Executor

December 13th 2005, 03:15 PM

Fan art, I hope!???

No, a mock English test answered by a fundy atheist. :wink:

Although I need the drawing practice so you can probably expect some fan art as well. I was thinking of turning Sheila into a spider queen.

Cynic Sage

December 13th 2005, 05:52 PM

No, a mock English test answered by a fundy atheist. :wink:

Although I need the drawing practice so you can probably expect some fan art as well. I was thinking of turning Sheila into a spider queen.
Nani? :twitch:

Darth Executor

December 13th 2005, 05:59 PM

'blazes you talkin' about boy?

Cynic Sage

December 13th 2005, 06:01 PM

Topherlee, on Christmas "doctrine":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=66368&page=4&pp=16

Do you tell your children that Santa Claus exists? A mythical or mystical being that lives in the North Pole. This god-like being that can be everywhere and anywhere in one night. Who like God, knows when you have been naughty or nice. That he will scorn those who are naughty by not bringing them presents.
Do you tell them that Jesus was born on Dec 25th? When the birthdate is not mentioned in the bible, but, can be tied to the celebration of the sun-god, which was celebrated on the 25th? Are you telling GOd when his Son was born?

I don't have any kids, but growing up. My parents made it clear that Santa didn't exist. In matter of fact while other children were sitting on a fat, red-suited winos knee in the mall. My parents were telling us of the Historical St Nicholas of Turkey, who cared for the poor and destitute as a servant of Christ.

We pretended the pop-culture Santa existed, just like how children pretend that Aliens, Talking animals, and Batman exist when they play.

If I have kids, I will raise them in a simmilar fashion.

No I don't believe or tell others that Christ was born of Dec 25th, we celebrate Christ's birthday on Dec 25th. Like when a birthday falls on Monday but you wait until Friday to have the party.

Why should I care if the date was used to celebrate a Sun-god's birthday. (Speaking of which, have you been dipping into the Achyra S lately?)

So how are you so different from JW's? You teach against the Christmas dogma. You show your children it's error in tradition but still continue to celebrate Christmas.
Christmas doctrine, if you will, states that the birthdate of our Lord is on December 25th - not near or about, but on. Now you are saying it is observed on the 25th of December. It teaches the existence of Santa Claus and his elves. Do you not see how tradition changes?

Darth Executor

December 13th 2005, 06:06 PM

Topherlee, on Christmas "doctrine":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=66368&page=4&pp=16

JWs kill me with their "pagan influence" blabber. :lol:

Darth Executor

December 13th 2005, 07:20 PM

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67181&page=5
All of this doesn't get around the need for us to use Holy Spirit discernment to redetermine how we act politically to save lives and, ultimately, to change hearts through the improvement of our public witness to others. Part of that discernment is judging fallibly what aspects of our fallen world we can and cannot change. It also requires that we hold true to what Scripture says and does not say.

Scripture does not say that we must treat the newly-formed zygote as a human being. Our beliefs in this regard are part of our traditions, and inasmuch as we are not RCatholic, they are beliefs that we should view as fallible, or subject to change some, and open to some legit disagreement on by committed Christians. We bear false witness to the Bible when we claim that our beliefs on right conduct in this regard are truly based on Scripture, rather than our fallible interpretations of passages that did not address the exact same question that we are faced with today.
dlw

Christians should use "Holy Spirit discernment" to tie their shoelace properly. The RCC tradition regarding zygotes is just icing. :duh:

Cynic Sage

December 13th 2005, 08:16 PM

The return of John D. Brey (He's stopped reading porn and has now moved onto Scholarly scientific texts like Marvel's X-Men and DC's New Gods):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67060

Newton, Science, Theology.

As the premier scientist of the modern era Isaac Newton did what all future scientists will eventually do. He used the Torah as the science book par excellent! He understood that all truths, scientific or otherwise, are encrypted in the Torah. ---- No doubt the decryption of the truths might be problematic! But any man who has cleansed his mind of sin and profanity can have access to the unlimited power of the Torah.

What follows is a vile simplification of how the process worked in Newton’s mind:

God said let there be light. Ergo the Torah makes “light” the lowest form of entropy in the cosmos. Every other created thing in the Torah is said to come about as a secondary phenomena (an “epiphenomenon”) of light.

What is the relationship between “light” and those things that arise from “light”? ---- Well, “light” is created first and is thus the pure “atom” or the “Adam” of all the offspring that will arise through the seminality of “light.”

To better understand the relationship between “light” and all those things that are the offspring of “light” we need only transmute the narrative describing Adam’s relationship to Eve into scientific nomenclature (transform biology into cosmology).

Modern physics teaches that matter is light in a higher entropic state. Only after the universe cooled sufficiently could the pure light give rise to matter. Matter is an epiphenomenon of light. Therefore “matter” is to “light” what Eve is to Adam.

The Bible teaches that Eve sinned first and then Adam took the fruit and ate. --- This simple narrative teaches the second law of thermodynamics. The secondary phenomenon (Eve and “matter”) will always cause the rise of the entropic state of the phenomenon through which they came to be. ---- What the Bible calls “sin,” physics calls the “second law.” And the Torah also makes it the second law of Moses: Thou shall not make any phenomenon like The Phenomena (thou shall not put the phenomenon in contact with the epiphenomenon in such a way as to give birth to an idolatrous icon of the phenomenon).

A student once asked a Rabbi whether when a sacred thing touches a profane thing the sacred thing would make the profane thing sacred? The Rabbi, understanding the truth of the second law of thermodynamics through his love of the Torah, responded that the profane thing would in fact contaminate the sacred thing. ---- A simple experiment proves the Rabbi out: If pure clean water is poured into dark and dirty water it can never make the dirty water pure. On the other hand, if dirty water is poured into pure clean water it can easily make the clean water dirty.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system entropy will inevitably rise; every time light comes in contact with that which was pulled from its rib entropy rises. Adam could not have sexual contact with Eve without causing entropy to rise, i.e. “sin.”

When persons read these things they chuckle and laugh and speak of word salads and false conclusions based on false premises based on false worldviews. ---- But the only thing needed for such persons to understand the wisdom parlayed even through such a gross and profane simplification of the science of the Torah is the ability to move back-and-forth between seemingly disparate uses of words and concepts; one needs only have the spiritual clarity to see biology in cosmology, cosmology in biology, physics in theology, theology in physics.

The fact that most persons have not yet shaken off the barnacles of the second law of thermodynamics which still cling to their minds from that first contact between a sinner and a sinless person (matter and light, Adam and Eve) makes them laugh like monkeys when someone suggests something so obvious as the principle that biology is a natural metaphor for cosmology (that as the ovum begins as a small ball of low entropy and grows till rising entropy causes thermodynamic equilibrium at death . . . so too the universe began as a small ball of low entropy which will grow until the body reaches thermodynamic equilibrium at the heat death).

Newton never offered his most important insights to mankind because it would have been like Albert Einstein handing a monkey his treatise on relativity theory! ---- But Newton knew, as all great Rabbis know, that the Torah encrypts the truth of every single scientific theory that will ever be known!

Nevertheless, Karl Marx’s eleventh thesis on Feuerbach stated: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.”

Correspondingly, one might say that the Torah has only given us a way to interpret the cosmos (showing us that the cosmos is going to someday die of sin -- scientifically called the second law); the point, however, is to change the cosmos!

If sin arises when the pure phenomenon has contact with its higher entropy epiphenomenon, then how on earth can the process of rising entropy ever be overcome? How can the second law be revoked or overturned?

“For God so loved His epiphenonmenon that He gave His uniquely born son that whosoever believeth on him shall not perish under the law of rising entropy but shall have everlasting low entropy ” (John 3:16).

Interpreting John 3:16 as Newton would have interpreted it requires that we underline the translation of monogenes (“uniquely born”). ---- If the second law arose when the first phenomena had contact with the first epiphenomenon (when Adam entered Eve) then it stands to reason that if God is going to revoke the law that came about when the first murderer (the second law, raising Cain) was given gestation through the activities of the first phenomenon, Adam, entering the first epiphenomenon, Eve . . . then God needs a second birth that doesn’t function like the first! He quite literally needs a birth that occurs without Adam coming into contact with Eve . . . He needs a “virgin” birth . . . He needs a “monogenes” birth, a unique birth, affected by one-set-of-genes (etymologically speaking).

The great Rabbis claim that in the Torah the omission of a word can have as much significance as the inclusion of a word.

The book of Genesis specifically mentions Adam “laying” with Eve to birth Cain (who was a murderer like the second law). The Bible is emphasizing Cain’s patrilineal descent from Adam’s serpent: “Adam lay with his wife Eve and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain” (Gen. 4:1). Cain is a murderer and a liar, as are all those born by the process that causes rising entropy: “You are of your father . . . and you want to do the desires of your father” (John 8:44).

But concerning Abel, the passage reads: “Later she gave birth to his brother Abel” (Gen. 4:2). --- Adam is noticeable by his absence in the text. --- Abel is a type of virgin pregnancy, secondary to offspring by means the union of Adam and Eve. The omission of Adam’s emission in the case of Abel (in the text) makes Abel a symbol of the second Adam whose patrilineal descent is not related to Adam coming into contact with Eve.

The great Rabbis would note that sin was birthed when “Adam lay with his wife Eve,” whilst the solution to sin was born when Eve “later gave birth to Abel.” ---- The wise Rabbi would note the omission of Adam’s emission in the symbolic monogenes birth of Abel . . . the type of virgin birth.

We are all awaiting a future Newtonian mind to unravel the second law of thermodynamics. The second law will be undone by “offspring” that arise through a process which doesn’t require contact between the phenomenon and the epiphenomenon.

In this light the Jewish insistence on the absence of a mediator between God and Israel is put into its scientific context. Jews rightly reject Christian theology’s dependence on a “mediator” between God and man: Jesus. Jews understand the need for a monogenes relationship with God in the context of no mediation.

Abraham symbolically crucifies the very member that would “mediate” the birth of Isaac so that symbolically Isaac represents a new creation arising from an unmediated (circumcised) pregnancy.

Isaac is Abel is Jesus. Isaac is born after Ishmael who was born of a mediated pregnancy (Abraham hadn’t yet crucified the mediator between who would stand between his two seminal tablets and Sarah’s womb/temple).

Judaism recognizes the need for no mediation (and the Korah revolt was about Moses acting as a mediator) --- and they see the nation of Israel as the product of that lack of mediation ---- but they fail to capitalize the analogy of the cutting off of the mediator.

In its lack of acknowledgement of the need for the cutting off of the mediator (to get at that necessary “mongenes” union between God and man) Judaism has no significant solution to the symbolism of Abraham’s circumcision (which is clearly the most seminal metaphor in Judaism).

If Judaism would concede to the need for the cutting off of the mediator before the unmediated union between God and man can take place, then Judaism would recognize the symbolism of Moses breaking the Lawful mediator so that the nation of Israel could enter into unmediated union with God.

If Judaism conceded to the need for the cutting off of the mediator then Jewish scientists and thinkers could begin to use the Sacrament as the paradigm for scientific inquiry.

The greatest scientific revolution in the history of the world awaits the yet future Newton who is able to take the allegory of the sacrifice of the lamb, the eating of its flesh, and the purifying properties of “blood” (Jesus said that unless you drink the blood of the mediator -- whose destruction leads to a monogenes relationship with God -- you shall not have that relationship) and transform it into a scientific revocation of the second law of thermodynamics!

Dan

:lmbo:

Cynic Sage

December 14th 2005, 03:16 AM

Rev. Leo E. Rogers Jr. for the first of his "Spirtualist's set of nine principals" ("It's not a "creed", it's "principals", and you better remember that."):

http://www.grapevineroad.org/principles.htm

Principle #1

We believe in Infinite Spirit, and that God is Infinite Spirit.

Spiritualism, unlike most of the religions of the world, does not have a dogma or a creed. We are guided, instead, by a set of nine principles, which state beliefs held by Spiritualists throughout the United States. We read them aloud at almost every service as a reminder of the Spiritualist view of the spiritual path. These principles had an unusual beginning.

...

Six different sets of principle were developed by different committees to be presented before the annual convention. They all differ slightly, but generally conformed to sentiments expressed by the California Sate Spiritualist Association in 1898, “Spiritualists believe in liberty, and will not be bound by dogmatic creeds, which enslave the mind and destroy the spiritual nature…”

As Jimbo would say "The irony meter just blew up". :lol:

jpholding

December 14th 2005, 07:45 AM

Although I need the drawing practice so you can probably expect some fan art as well. I was thinking of turning Sheila into a spider queen.

I take it that's a compliment of some sort. :eek:

Well, I had to do it myself too after you said that. I'll wait til you have yours done before I post.

Darth Executor

December 14th 2005, 10:23 AM

I take it that's a compliment of some sort. :eek:

Hmm, no, it's not. I just wanted to draw an out of place Sheila (kind of like the pirate range patrol with a different theme).

Well, I had to do it myself too after you said that. I'll wait til you have yours done before I post.

Ok but it might take a few days as I have an exam (which I should be studying for right now) and my new college crap to worry about.

EDIT: Were you talking about the English test or the spider queen Sheila?

jpholding

December 14th 2005, 12:07 PM

Hmm, no, it's not. I just wanted to draw an out of place Sheila (kind of like the pirate range patrol with a different theme).

Yes, I was talking about her. Out of place, you say? Lots of irony in that statement. More than you know. :wink:

When you're done email me and I'll send you something I promised a while back when I used one of your ideas for the plotline.

Cynic Sage

December 14th 2005, 04:10 PM

Rita Ring, who the Virgin Mary "told" that the reason she appears at Clearwater is to plug Ring's books:

http://www.sofc.org/marybank.htm

In a message received by Ms. Ring on January 23, the Virgin Mary said:

"I appear on the building to draw men to the messages given in God's Blue Book (http://www.sofc.org/BLUEBKII/bb2home.htm), Rosaries From the Hearts of Jesus and Mary (http://www.sofc.org/CATALOG/catalog.htm), and Tell My People (http://www.sofc.org/TELLMY/tellhome.htm). These books are the messages we give from our hearts to draw men to our hearts. They are the messages my Son gives to bring about the reign of His Most Sacred Heart.

"I ask you to circulate Mary's Message (http://www.sofc.org/AUDIO/mary_1.wav) [an audiotape (http://www.sofc.org/CATALOG/tapes.htm)] in Florida and the rosaries [special Marian meditations/messages] of December 13, 1996 (http://www.sofc.org/ROSARIES/dec13-1996.htm), and January 13, 1997 (http://www.sofc.org/ROSARIES/jan13-1997.htm). These messages were given to reveal insights into His Most Intimate Love. My appearance in Florida and the Shepherds of Christ Movement must be connected. Please work with great fervor to spread my messages and the message of my Son from this location. Do not be afraid. You will make great advances in helping with the completion of the Fatima Message there.

"I am Mary your Mother. Please obey me and help me spread these materials there. I love you, my little children."

The image of refracted light on the church wall resembles a space-alien more than the Virgin Mary IMHO.

Cynic Sage

December 14th 2005, 06:09 PM

This might be an oldie. But I nominate Phillip Pullman for claiming that C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia propogate sexism, racism, violence, and lovlessness (?):

http://www.crlamppost.org/darkside.htm

Why the Narnia books are popular with children is not difficult to see. In a superficial and bustling way, Lewis could tell a story, and when he cheats, as he frequently does, the momentum carries you over the bumps and the potholes. But there have always been adults who suspected what he was up to. His friend Tolkien took a dim view of The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe, particularly disliking Lewis's slapdash way with mythology: 'It really won't do, you know!' And the American critic John Goldthwaite, in his powerful and original study of children's literature The Natural History Of Make-Believe (OUP, 1996), lays bare the misogyny, the racism, the sado-masochistic relish for violence that permeates the whole cycle.

Hey JP, it's the return of the "Christian tendency towards sado-masochism" bit we first heard from Hierophant's Quiz for Christians. When will those gosh-darn enlightened freethinking athiests learn that there's nothing wrong with an occasional spanking.:ahem:

For an open-eyed reading of the books reveals some hair-raising stuff. One of the most vile moments in the whole of children's literature, to my mind, occurs at the end of The Last Battle, when Aslan reveals to the children that "The term is over: the holidays have begun" because "There was a real railway accident. Your father and mother and all of you are - as you used to call it in the Shadowlands - dead." To solve a narrative problem by killing one of your characters is something many authors have done at one time or another. To slaughter the lot of them, and then claim they're better off, is not honest storytelling: it's propaganda in the service of a life-hating ideology. But that's par for the course. Death is better than life; boys are better than girls; light-coloured people are better than dark-coloured people; and so on. There is no shortage of such nauseating drivel in Narnia, if you can face it.

There is the loathsome glee with which the children from the co-educational school are routed, in The Silver Chair: "with the strength of Aslan in them, Jill plied her crop on the girls and Caspian and Eustace plied the flats of their swords so well that in two minutes all the bullies were running away like mad, crying out, 'Murder! Fascists! Lions! It isn't fair.' And then the Head [who was, by the way, a woman] came running out to see what was happening." There is the colossal impertinence, to put it mildly, of hijacking the emotions that are evoked by the story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection in order to boost the reader's concern about Aslan in The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe.

"Loathsome glee"? Weren't the routed children bullies who were terrorizing Eustance and Jill. And yeah, Phil, Aslan is supposed to represent Jesus so he is gonna go through something along the lines of Crucifixion and Ressurection. I mean come on, it's to be expected.

And in The Last Battle, notoriously, there's the turning away of Susan from the Stable (which stands for salvation) because "She's interested in nothing nowadays except nylons and lipstick and invitations. She always was a jolly sight too keen on being grown-up." In other words, Susan, like Cinderella, is undergoing a transition from one phase of her life to another. Lewis didn't approve of that. He didn't like women in general, or sexuality at all, at least at the stage in his life when he wrote the Narnia books. He was frightened and appalled at the notion of wanting to grow up. Susan, who did want to grow up, and who might have been the most interesting character in the whole cycle if she'd been allowed to, is a Cinderella in a story where the Ugly Sisters win.

IIRC, Susan wasn't there because she wan't on the train with them (correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a while since I read the books).

But Wilson made the mistake of being fair about Lewis, not partial, and being fair about saints is doing the Devil's work. I haven't the slightest doubt that the man will be sainted in due course: the legend is too potent. However, when that happens, those of us who detest the supernaturalism, the reactionary sneering, the misogyny, the racism, and the sheer dishonesty of his narrative method will still be arguing against him

The funny thing is that this guy wrote the "His Dark Materials" Trilogy, which is basically an equivelent of Chronicles but for Athiests. This article here tears him apart:

http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=84bgxkbbzvqrch10g3kbwp5g8kv3ccbn

Certainly there is nothing remotely as tendentious in The Chronicles as Pullman's attacks in His Dark Materials against Christianity. "For all its history," a benevolent witch tells Lyra Belacqua and Will Parry, the young protagonists of the series, the Church "has tried to suppress and control every natural impulse. ... That's what the Church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." As for God, a rebellious angel later tells the children, "God, the Creator, the Lord, Yahweh, El, Adonai, the King, the Father, the Almighty ... was never the creator. He was an angel like ourselves ... [who] told those who came after him that he had created them, but it was a lie." In one of the last scenes of the trilogy, the children watch God die. "Demented and powerless," Pullman writes, "the aged being could only weep and mumble in fear and pain and misery." Every Christian character in the series is rotten to the core, and none of them bothers to pretend otherwise. "The Christian religion," one of Pullman's main characters blandly explains, "is a very powerful and convincing mistake, that's all." Oh.

"Christians want to make you sad all the time." "It's not fair that we can't vote on who will be God". And this isn't hate propoganda? Pot, Kettle, Black.

Darth Executor

December 14th 2005, 11:00 PM

This might be an oldie. But I nominate Phillip Pullman for claiming that C.S. Lewis's The Chronicles of Narnia propogate sexism, racism, violence, and lovlessness (?):

One thing I don't get is why these people keep bringing up Tolkien (the last dumb witch we nominated claimed there was no afterlife in LOTR :lol: ). Dude is probably rolling around in his grave.

Darth Executor

December 14th 2005, 11:33 PM

O Canada...

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121303.html

Nutbag owns this site:

http://www.undojesus.org/

Darth Executor

December 15th 2005, 12:31 AM

I had this pic as my msn avatar:

[attachment=1]

And my friend thought it was Donald Rumsfeld. :rofl:

Cynic Sage

December 15th 2005, 03:09 PM

O Canada...

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121303.html

Nutbag owns this site:

http://www.undojesus.org/

The CBC reported that the look-alike sites, such as http://www.reginapolice.ca (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/<a%20href=http://www.reginapolice.ca/>http://www.reginapolice.ca/</a>), http://www.saskatoonpolice.ca (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/<a%20href=http://www.saskatoonpolice.ca/>http://www.saskatoonpolice.ca/</a>), and http://www.edmontonpolice.ca (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/<a%20href=http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/>http://www.edmontonpolice.ca/</a>), are now re-routed to Bedford's own anti-Harper site, where he calls himself "Darwin" Bedford and claims to be the "atheist messiah," and a "Spiritual Reality Therapist."

Sgt. Kelly Dennison of the Winnipeg Police Service told the CBC, "Anybody looking for the Winnipeg police service would think we're endorsing the NDP." "Obviously, that's not the case," he said. A spokesman for the Regina police said an enquiry is likely but police did not specify if Bedford's anti-Christian campaign would be investigated under the hate crimes statutes.

Dude, that Scumbag!:rant:

Found another site of his:

http://www.atheists.net/

(in case the cops shut down his domain names)
http://www.domainbaron.com/Stephen_Harper_warning.html

JSDileo

December 16th 2005, 12:16 AM

jpholding

December 16th 2005, 07:49 AM

Screwball of the Month Award:

Can it refer to anyone? If so, I would give this award to a guy I know at the Passion of the Christ forums on IMDB who actually insists that any article that can't be summed up in one paragraph is inherently false. It is extremely annoying.:eww:

Yes, to anyone at all. Just quote that for us if ya would. :smile:

Welcome aboard...this is a top notch fellow here, everyone; we've corresponded for a while.

jpholding

December 16th 2005, 10:16 AM

Darth, will that be done in time for an upload today? Give me a time frame...

{Tim}

December 16th 2005, 11:05 AM

Just for that, no sneak preview of the illustrations I did for a tektoonics version of http://www.tektonics.org/lp/muslyduh.html :rasberry:

...of Annabelle doing a Britney Spears impersonation.... :hehe:
This I have to see...!!!! :lmbo:

And that spider queen doesn't sound half bad either.

Darth Executor

December 16th 2005, 11:26 AM

Darth, will that be done in time for an upload today? Give me a time frame...

Partially colored right now. I'll be done in an hour at most.

Darth Executor

December 16th 2005, 11:30 AM

Partially colored right now. I'll be done in an hour at most.

Err, scrap that. I just realised I accidentally cut off some of her hair when scanning. I might still be done in an hour anyway though. When are you updating?

jpholding

December 16th 2005, 11:48 AM

This I have to see...!!!! :lmbo:

When are you updating?

I can update any time in the next 4 1/2 hours and still be on time with everything else I need to do today.

Darth Executor

December 16th 2005, 11:51 AM

Ok, now that I went over it with a pen it shouldn't take long to color. As soon as mr. Gates decides to have my email arrive on my computer I can recolor it (shouldn't take more than a few minutes). As a side note, I just realised I made her head too big. :doh:

JSDileo

December 16th 2005, 12:07 PM

Yes, to anyone at all. Just quote that for us if ya would. :smile:

Welcome aboard...this is a top notch fellow here, everyone; we've corresponded for a while.

Thanks for the compliments JP. :smile: I would quote him, but IMDB, because of all the off-topic posting that goes on at the Passion of the Christ forums, have made it so any topic older than two days is deleted. BUT, I have a different candidate, his username is "acureforgravity", and here's a post of his:

"IF they really believe everything in their Bible they cannot, as according to God's Perfect Word the stars are just little lights hung up in the sky.

Revelation 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.

Revelation 12:4 And his [some big red dragon] tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth "

This poster is very annoying, he relies way too much on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. I would quote other people, there are definately people nuttier than him, but, as I said, IMDB deletes threads older than two days old.

Darth Executor

December 16th 2005, 12:25 PM

JSDileo

December 16th 2005, 12:53 PM

Oh! Do I have a GOOD ONE! Check this out:

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3275

This guy's username is "Rook Hawkins", and he posts some wacky stuff.

The more inane claims are in bold:

* (3) The use of the Christians as "living torches," as Tacitus describes, and all the other atrocities that were committed against them, have little title to credence, and suggest an imagination exalted by reading stories of the later Christian martyrs. Death by fire was not a punishment inflicted at Rome in the time of Nero. It is opposed to the moderate principles on which the accused were then dealt with by the State.
* (4) The Roman authorities can have had no reason to inflict special punishment on the new faith. How could the non-initiated Romans know what were the concerns of a comparatively small religious sect, which was connected with Judaism and must have seemed to the impartial observer wholly identical with it.
* (5) Suetonius says that Nero showed the utmost indifference, even contempt in regard to religious sects. Even afterwards the Christians were not persecuted for their faith, but for political reasons, for their contempt of the Roman state and emperor, and as disturbers of the unity and peace of the empire. What reason can Nero have had to proceed against the Christians, hardly distinguishable from the Jews, as a new and criminal sect?
* (6) It is inconceivable that the followers of Jesus formed a community in the city at that time of sufficient importance to attract public attention and the ill-feeling of the people. It isn't the most popular way to convert and bring people into their religion.
* (7) The victims could not have been given to the flames in the gardens of Nero, as Tacitus allegedly said. According to another account by Tacitus these gardens were the refuge of those whose homes had been burned and were full of tents and wooden sheds. Why would he risk burning these by lighting human fires amidst all these shelters?
* (8) According to Tacitus, Nero was in Antium, not Rome, when the fire occurred.(J.S. Dileo's comment: I guess George Dubya didn't invade Iraq, 'cause, after all, he was in Washington D.C. when the invasion occured.:lol:)
* (9) The blood-curdling story about the frightful orgies of Nero reads like some Christian romance of the Dark Ages and not like Tacitus. Suetonius, while mercilessly condemning the reign of Nero, says that in his public entertainments Nero took particular care that no lives should be sacrificed, "not even those of condemned criminals."
* (10) It is highly unlikely that he mingled with the crowd and feasted his eyes on the ghastly spectacle. Tacitus tells us in his life of Agricola that Nero had crimes committed, but kept his own eyes off them.
* (11) Some authorities allege that the passage in Tacitus could not have been interpolated because his style of writing could not have been copied. But this argument is without merit since there is no "inimitable" style for the clever forger, and the more unususal, distinctive, and peculiar a style is, like that of Tacitus, the easier it is to imitate. Moreover, as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned we are, perhaps, interested only in one sentence of the passage and that has nothing distinctively Tacitan about it.
* (12) Tacitus is assumed to have written this about 117 A.D., about 80 years after the death of Jesus, when Christianity was already an organized religion with a settled tradition. The gospels, or at least 3 of them, are supposed to have been in existence. Hence Tacitus might have derived his information about Jesus, if not directly from the gospels, indirectly from them by means of oral tradition. This is the view of Dupuis, who wrote: "Tacitus says what the legend said." In 117 A.D. Tacitus could only know about Christ by what reached him from Christian or intermediate circles. He merely reproduced rumors.
* (13) In no other part of his writings did Tacitus make the least allusion to "Christ" or "Christians." Christus was a very common name, as was Jesus, in fact Jospehus lists about 20 in the time Jesus was supposedly said to have existed.
* (14) Tacitus is also made to say that the Christians took their denomination from Christ which could apply to any of the so-called Christs who were put to death in Judea, including Christ Jesus.
* (15) The worshippers of the Sun-god Serapis were also called "Christians." Serapis or Osiris had a large following at Rome especially among the common people.
* (18) The expression "Christians" which Tacitus applies to the followers of Jesus, was by no means common in the time of Nero. Not a single Greek or Roman writer of the first century mentions the name. The Christians who called themselves Jessaeans, Nazoraeans, the Elect, the Saints, the Faithful, etc. were universally regarded as Jews. They observed the Mosaic law and the people could not distinguish them from the other Jews. The Greek word Christus (the anointed) for Messiah, and the derivative word, Christian, first came into use under Trajan in the time of Tacitus. Even then, however, the word Christus could not mean Jesus of Nazareth. All the Jews without exception looked forward to a Christus or Messiah. It is, therefore, not clear how the fact of being a "Christian" could, in the time of Nero or of Tacitus, distinguish the followers of Jesus from other believers in a Christus or Messiah. Not one of the gospels applies the name Christians to the followers of Jesus. It is never used in the New Testament as a description of themselves by the believers in Jesus.
* (19) Most scholars admit that the works of Tacitus have not been preserved with any degree of fidelity.
* (20) This passage which could have served Christian writers better than any other writing of Tacitus, is not quoted by any of the Christian Fathers. It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he often quoted the works of Tacitus. Tertullian's arguments called for the use of this passage with so loud a voice that his omission of it, if it had really existed, amounted to a violent improbability. (JSDileo's comment: Yes, after all, a document that says that your religion is a "pernicious superstition" is very useful, no?:lol:)
* (21) Eusebius in the 4th century cited all the evidence of Christianity obtained from Jewish and pagan sources but makes no mention of Tacitus.
* (22) This passage is not quoted by Clement of Alexandria who at the beginning of the 3rd century set himself entirely to the work of adducing and bringing together all the admissions and recognitions which pagan authors had made of the existence of Christ Jesus or Christians before his time.
* (23) Origen in his controversy with Celsus would undoubtedly have used it had it existed.
* (24) There is no vestige or trace of this passage anywhere in the world before the 15th century. Its use as part of the evidences of the Christian religion is absolutely modern. Although no reference whatever is made to it by any writer or historian, monkish or otherwise, before the 15th century (1468 A.D.), after that time it is quoted or referred to in an endless list of works including by your supposed historian.
* (25) The fidelity of the passage rests entirely upon the fidelity of one individual (first published in a copy of the annals of Tacitus in the year 1468 by Johannes de Spire of Venice who took his imprint of it from a single manuscript) who would have every opportunity and inducement to insert such an interpolation.
* (26) In all the Roman records there was to be found no evidence that Christ was put to death by Pontius Pilate. If genuine, such a sentence would be the most important evidence in pagan literature. How could it have been overlooked for 1360 years?
* (27) And lastly, the style of the passage is not consistent with the usually mild and classic language of Tacitus

:eww:

jpholding

December 16th 2005, 12:57 PM

Done. Her head is too big and one of her hands is too small. Next time I'll remember to erase the pencil lines that are all over her body to save myself the time of having to slowly and painfully cover up holes.

Uhhhhhhh. :twitch:

OK. It's time for me to go get some counseling now.

Here's my spider queen Sheila. Brrrrrrr.

I'll upload in a little bit. I just had a very nice phone interview with Dr. Darrell Bock and he's awesome. I'm still giddy.

jpholding

December 16th 2005, 12:59 PM

Oh! Do I have a GOOD ONE! Check this out:

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=3275

This guy's username is "Rook Hawkins", and he posts some wacky stuff:

It's pulled directly from John Remsberg. :glare: Did he admit this? If not, he gets a double scroogie: One for posting it, and one for being stupid enough to steal it without credit so that at least some of the shame gets deflected from him.

You're in the spirit here already! :thumb:

Darth Executor

December 16th 2005, 01:03 PM

Uhhhhhhh. :twitch:

OK. It's time for me to go get some counseling now.

Here's my spider queen Sheila. Brrrrrrr.

I'll upload in a little bit. I just had a very nice phone interview with Dr. Darrell Bock and he's awesome. I'm still giddy.

I ripped off Kargoth (http://www.infinite-interactive.com/wbc2/armies/Kargoth.gif) for mine. I'm gonna redo her when I have time, with a thinner body (i thought a thin body would look bad with the spider body but right now she looks like a somewhat fat Sheila which is no good).

jpholding

December 16th 2005, 01:16 PM

I ripped off Kargoth (http://www.infinite-interactive.com/wbc2/armies/Kargoth.gif) for mine.

Who's Kargoth playing patty-cake with? :huh:

OK, I better do the upload now and then find something to eat, maybe a nice juicy fly.

Darth Executor

December 16th 2005, 01:18 PM

Who's Kargoth playing patty-cake with? :huh:

Nobody, it's his attack animation (he shoots lightning)

OK, I better do the upload now and then find something to eat, maybe a nice juicy fly.

My potatoes got burned while I was coloring. =(

JSDileo

December 16th 2005, 01:23 PM

It's pulled directly from John Remsberg. :glare: Did he admit this? If not, he gets a double scroogie: One for posting it, and one for being stupid enough to steal it without credit so that at least some of the shame gets deflected from him.

You're in the spirit here already! :thumb:

No, he didn't. He claimed that he put together all of this material by himself. I thought it was plagiarized from C. Dennis Mckenzey myself, since many of the claims are word-for-word echoes of Mckenzey. :yes:

jpholding

December 16th 2005, 01:45 PM

LilPunkishOfTerror

December 16th 2005, 01:56 PM

No, he didn't. He claimed that he put together all of this material by himself. I thought it was plagiarized from C. Dennis Mckenzey myself, since many of the claims are word-for-word echoes of Mckenzey. :yes:
Hi JSDileo

some of it's from McKinsey, some Remsburg, some Robert Taylor (! - he wrote his nutty book when he was in prison! in 1829!) and some from French Christ mythers in the late 19th century that no one takes the slightest bit of interest in outside the Christ myth circles.

My own research into these claims shows that it is likely Johannes de Spire had died by the time Tacitus' Annals had rolled off the de Spire brothers' presses. Pinning this on him isn't reasonable.

Point 11 is interesting, it's from Arthur Drews' Witnesses of the Historicity of Jesus p25: there's three whole sentences missing between "the easier it is to imitate it" and "Moreover"! Including Drews' source from 1890.

hope this helps, Punkish

Cynic Sage

December 16th 2005, 06:54 PM

RanRan's Brainless faith:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67280

First, a dislaimer:

(This is going to seem incomprehensible to those who have not listened to Christ’s lesson – just as it should be. To them, I say, save your breath and energy for other threads, because to rant against His lesson is self-defeating.)

"If you think what I say is stupid and makes no sense you are not a TrueChristianTM."

What faith sees, logic cannot. It is from that sight that a superior logic is derived. It is not an inferior logic, but superior logic in every way. The superior causes the inferior to stumble.

Faith listens to its Shepard – when it hears His voice, those who are following Him listen without fail. So when Christ gives them a lesson in logic, they hear it and then apply it; while those who won’t listen, stumble.

When Christ says: "And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."

(and)

“Behold, all things are new!”

It is a lesson in logic, because He is telling people how to think – that is, how to put order to what, by faith, they see. The problem is that faith hears the lesson, not logic. An inferior logic will either not apply it because it never really heard it, or hearing it, ignores it. In either case it remains inferior to the logic, which by faith, takes in Christ’s lesson and applies it. The old cannot contain the new.

Let’s apply it: Inferior logic says that God cannot change. Superior logic (because it is subservient always to faith) is allowed to see the Gospel and does not force the Gospel into the old. It, this superior logic, or way of thinking, becomes it own container. It answers inferior logic that God has changed. That a God-Man sits on the throne of heaven, with His resurrected body and that He had suffered and loved and ate and drank and had gone to the bathroom and that this God-Man is Lord of the Universe.

At this point inferior logic, because it has not listened to Christ’s lesson, feels its very existence in jeopardy because it cannot contain what has been presented. It goes on the attack because it knows that to lose it must die and be replaced. So it tries to minimize the change in God by denying it altogether, or to balance change and no-change, the old and the new, but arrives at where Christ said they would – with neither.

The problem is one of preeminence. If logic is allowed to dictate to faith, then faith is destroyed. Faith, as sight, is the imputer of data, what it sees, it sees, and responds to what it sees emotionally (a response to indescribable love), and intellectually so as to communicate that sight (and now also, that love) to others. An example of a subservient ‘faith’ to its master, logic, would be one that arrives at a god to explain why there is something and not nothing. But that is not the God of faith and Lord of the Universe.

After all this, it comes down to the faith of a child who silences logic altogether and is content with love alone. Someday, when he is asked to defend the faith, he will, hopefully, be doing so out of the same inexpressible love in which he began.)

This guy doesn't know what logic is.

Cynic Sage

December 18th 2005, 10:10 PM

Joe Holman (aka "Material Miser" on Tweb) another "no longer a xtian (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67504&page=1&pp=16), still a fundy preacher (http://www.ministerturnsatheist.org/)" type:

http://www.ministerturnsatheist.org/biblecontradictions.html

THE APOLOGISTS SAY: These are called numerical
contradictions because the discrepancies exist in the form of
mistakes in the translated biblical texts. The first line of
reasoning apologists use to explain texts like these is that the
mistakes were not in the original manuscripts but simply copyist's
errors of later, uninspired copies of the holy writ.

MY REPLY: (1) Where is one shred of proof that any original
manuscripts exist at all? The honest bible student must bend on
this point. There is none, none at all - no proof that early
manuscripts exist. (2) If indeed the bible is the inspired, inerrant,
and infallible word of god as most Christians believe, then why
did not an omniscient god keep his word free from errors? An
error in transmission is as bad as an error at the source. Should
your phone have trouble with the microphone, your message will
not get to the other end, but if your phone has a working
microphone but a bad connection on the receiving end, the
message won't get there just the same! The fact is, the Christian
god did not give us a guide that is free from errors! And yet, if
his true intention was that we follow his word as the central
authority over the church, then he has left his church with a
terribly weak link to ensure that this will happen.
"There are no original manuscripts of the Bible". So did the guys at Zondervan type it upthemselves? :lmbo:
Jason brought this up and Miser responded with this (he hasn't yet figured how to use the quote function, so his reply to Jason is in blue in his post):
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1305325&postcount=40
I am amazed this doesn't bother you, sir! Let's see: God wants everyone to be saved. If you are a Bible believer, then you hold with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that the Scriptures were to provide an inspired and completeguide for the church...

"16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17. That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Your god supposedly set up a plan where he chose to give us a book for guidance. If he wants to infallibly guide us by way of a book, then it is not asking too much for that book to be flawlessly translated! Surely you can see the logic of that? That was the point I am making. God wants us to be saved and to know his will by the Bible, yet he gives us a Bible that he has not safe-guarded from error! There's a problem here and you haven't even addressed this problem I brought up. Preachers are so busy saying, "The Bible has scribal errors because we only have copies translated by flawed, human hands." Nothing would have proven more of a vindication of the Christian faith if the bible in every translation was perfect. God could have been much smarter and set up a holy hiearchy, guided by the spirit to miraculously translate and distribute Bibles, or he could have providentially guided the hands of every translator the world over when writing the Bible, but he didn't. He just left us to patch up an old book which contains unthinkable words and deeds and has a plethora of problems that cannot be fully addressed.

*** I ask you, in the name of common sense, what is wrong with demanding that a perfect god put out a perfect book??? I await your well- thought-out response.

:sad: Joe's dissapointed that his English translation of the Bible isn't a...[attachment]
http://www.ministerturnsatheist.org/whypromoteatheism.html

Another tidbit from his site:

it only seemed right to put down a religion that
was responsible for more persecution worldwide than all the
forces of Stahlin could ever have hoped to accomplish! The
more I studied atheism, this wasn't a decision to make at all. It
became obvious that I needed to make it my purpose to rid the
world of this archaic and oppressive thing known as religion.

Watch this get attacked by Angry Machines here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1305486&postcount=61).

Atheism...

1) Makes the world start relying on science, as opposed to
psuedosciences and religious inaccuracy to solve problems, and
build reliable expectations of the future.

2) Makes people realize that they are accountable for their own
actions, and that morality and moral virtues come from a big
mind, not a big church.

3) Helps people to see just how big the universe is, and how
small and insignificant we are, but how much we can do when we
set our minds to carve out our own niche in the world.

4) Helps mankind to realize that, in a very real sense, we are
becoming, somewhat like the gods we once believed in: we are
capable of "blessing" others (to speak well of, to encourage),
and of helping others accomplish tasks that they are unable to
undertake and accomplish themselves. We can also mold and
shape our destinies into what we feel they should be. It also
helps us to realize that life is ours, and not a god's. We are our
own masters. We are not slaves.

Wow! Science wasn't relied on by anyone until atheism sprung up. Not only that, but as a Xtian, I don't believe that people are responsible for their own actions, that the universe is big and I am small, that members of the human race are capable of accomplishing things, and that we can encourage and speak well of others.

BronzeArcher

December 19th 2005, 12:45 AM

some of it's from McKinsey, some Remsburg, some Robert Taylor (! - he wrote his nutty book when he was in prison! in 1829!) and some from French Christ mythers in the late 19th century that no one takes the slightest bit of interest in outside the Christ myth circles.

Did the guy also rip off this wonderful grammar? "The Roman authorities can have had no reason" My grammar isn't perfect but that hurt

jpholding

December 19th 2005, 11:12 AM

Joe Holman (aka "Material Miser" on Tweb) another "no longer a xtian (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67504&page=1&pp=16), still a fundy preacher (http://www.ministerturnsatheist.org/)" type:

I hope no one is expecting me to tear up this idiot too.

It looks like all I need to do is put, "See Jason Long".

spl_cadet

December 19th 2005, 02:40 PM

http://forums.spacebattles.com/showthread.php?t=93597

Second post, Alyeska

Bull***. There is no true meaning of Christmas. Christians don't get to dominate Christmas, so no complaining about it.

Cynic Sage

December 19th 2005, 04:33 PM

Cognos, for showing how God doesn't exist because by comparing theistic arguments to a "Santa-istic" arguments that appear in a movie (where Santa does exist):

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67602

The movie was on TV last night and I tuned into it for a few minutes.

There is a scene where the little boy is explaining Santa to an adult who doesn't believe in Santa. (I guess the adult is an a-Santaist.)

To me, the boy's explanations were similar to those presented for the existence of God. For example:
Adult: What about Santa's reindeer? Have you even seen a reindeer fly?
Boy: Yes.
Adult: Well, I haven't.
Boy: Have you ever seen a million dollars?
Adult: No.
Boy: Just because you can't see something, doesn't mean is doesn't exist.

Adult: Santa can't possibly visit all the children throughout the world on one night.
Boy: Not everyone expects Santa to deliver toys. And, anyway, it has something to do with the time continuum.

The boy believes in Santa Claus and has created a world that is logically consistent with that belief.

The main difference, though, between the belief in Santa in the movie and the belief in God in everyday life is that there was plenty of evidence for Santa.

Stange movie. Not sure why it's so important to believe that the events in Clement Clarke Moore's poem actually happened.

I guess the YECs can now refute evolutionary theory by making references to the "X-Men" movies.:ahem:

Cynic Sage

December 19th 2005, 11:03 PM

Material Miser again, for how he replies to being called "stupid":

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1307698&postcount=132

Stupid? Wow! For a Christians forum, I have never received quite as many personal attacks in this short a time of being in a forum! I can just see you fools as if you were sitting around each other and an atheist comes in your midsts. You'd roll your eyes and sit around in your spiritual fat-cat club and re-affirm each other's shaking faith, "gees, this guy is irrational and crazy!" That is sad, really sad! I feel for you guys you can't imagine. Being here is reminding of just how uncomfortable I used to feel around atheists because they intimidated me that someone could logically discard the Bible! You are pathatic. I look down on you in shame like a child with mongolism.

Okay, so he becomes offended that us Christians are so mean that we call him "stupid", then he refers to kids with Down Sydrome as an object of scorn.:lolo:

Jnthn

December 20th 2005, 02:00 PM

Snarf from a PM to me:

Joshua 10:13 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society

13 So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on [a] its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Plain reading-the sun stopped, in agreement with geocentrism

Yeah, and living in caves is in agreement with Flintstoneism.

:lol:

J

Cynic Sage

December 21st 2005, 12:13 AM

Remember Darwin Bedford (Darth Executor nominated him (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1301376&postcount=52))? I had some free time on my hands so I had some fun with a couple of images of him protesting taken from some of his sites. :hehe:

JSDileo

December 21st 2005, 12:31 AM

Darth Executor

December 21st 2005, 10:11 AM

jpholding

December 21st 2005, 10:41 AM

Funny email here. Guy asked me for proof Jesus existed....I pointed him where you'd expect....his reply:

where is the proof, where is the first hand record of
seeing jesus, i see none except josephus which we all
know is [baloney sandwiches], cut to something that is solid and
concrete all you have is heresay which should be
disregarded, where's the proof, i see none, thanks
again for your time

Really. Does anyone wonder why I get tired of educating these dolts? :lol:

Cynic Sage

December 21st 2005, 06:13 PM

Remember from a few months back there was this guy we nominated for saying that the Catholic Church was controlled by Reptillian Lizard-people from outer-space. Well it turns out they have enclosed their scaly claws around the White-house, according to the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth:

http://mujca.com/deathlizards.htm

'Conspiracy Theorist' Asserts: Bush and Cheney are
Death Lizards from Outer Space!!!

Now it can be told: Bush and Cheney are not human beings at all, but death lizards from outer space.

I realize that this is a bold assertion, and that it will probably elicit a degree of skepticism. Nonetheless I think this is a time for bold assertions. Our planet, after all, is under attack by extraterrestrial death lizards, and they have taken over the White House. So this is no time for cautious, measured statements and appeals to pure sweet reason.

This I know from hard experience. I have been championing the cautious, measured statements and appeals to pure sweet reason of the likes of David Griffin and Nafeez Ahmed for almost two years. Before I get into the alien death lizards thing, I guess I had better explain who Griffin and Ahmed are, for the benefit of those who have spent the past two years on the Planet of the Death Lizards, or on the even more distant and desolate planet of the American corporate media. David Griffin is one of America's most eminent Christian theologians, and he has recently published two books marshalling the abundant evidence that 9/11 was an inside job: The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 , and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Nafeez Ahmed is the brilliant young British scholar whose pathbreaking The War on Freedom convinced Gore Vidal that 9/11 was an inside job, and became Griffin's most important source for The New Pearl Harbor. Ahmed's new book The War on Truth goes on to show, with its formidable scholarly apparatus, that the whole specter of “Islamic Terrorism” is an illusion woven by Western intelligence agencies and their client-state proxies—the same conclusion reached by the recent BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares .

Griffin and Ahmed show, in clear, measured, scholarly fashion, that the official “19 hijackers” conspiracy theory of 9/11 is untenable, and that the alternative explanation that best fits the facts is that 9/11 was arranged by elements of the US intelligence apparatus, presumably acting at the behest of the US high command—namely George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. The presumable motive: To double the military budget overnight, increase the power of the executive branch, quash domestic dissent, and launch “the war that will not end in our lifetimes.”

After two years of promoting the books of Griffin and Ahmed, I have discovered that there is a limited audience for a rational, factual discussion of 9/11. Even those who accept the fairly obvious conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job often seem to prefer a more excited and imaginative prose style. As for those who do not accept that conclusion—in virtually all cases due to an emotionally-charged refusal to consider the evidence—they are addicted to an even more hysterical prose style driven by the paranoid delusion that a secret army of evil “Muslim extremists” is conspiring to wreak mayhem by randomly blowing things up.

The lesson here is that paranoid hysteria sells, while lucid reality-based analysis does not. Since I have a living to make, and children to feed, I have decided to leave reality-based conspiracy theory behind, and strike out boldly where no theorist has gone before: to the planet of the spacefaring death lizards.

But wait a moment, you ask. Just how do I know that Bush and Cheney are death lizards in disguise?

Because my wife says so, that's why. She has been telling me for years that George W. Bush is obviously an alien. His awkward artificial mannerisms, his peculiar mangling of the English language, his emotional insensitivity that borders on utter cluelessness—these are all signs, my wife says, that this guy does not possess a brain with the normal Chomskyan linguistic deep structure, not to mention the emotional-intelligence deep structure, common to all human beings. Instead, he seems vaguely reptilian—cruel, scaly and manipulative behind those dull, beady little eyes.

For years—I admit it—I did not listen to my wife. Indeed, I scoffed at her whenever she pointed out Bush's nonhuman characteristics. I told her that Bush was just a deeply disturbed, borderline-psychopathic rich kid in the throes of a really bad dry-drunk syndrome made worse by coke withdrawal. “No—he's an alien” was her invariable reply. For years neither one of us could convince the other. Then last year, during Bush's first debate with John Kerry, I watched in horror as the Lizard-in-Chief's left lower lip drooped halfway to the floor, twitching convulsively as the mannikin uttered clumsily alien words beamed through a highly visible remote control unit on its back. After witnessing that bizarre performance I could no longer deny it. Something was terribly the matter with the alleged humanoid in the Oval Office.

Then, while watching Cheney debate Edwards, I noticed that that the “Vice President” displayed some of the same non-human characteristics. Cheney's left lower lip corner, like Bush's, kept drooping downward and twitching spastically as cold, scaly, programmed words were emitted from the Cheney-creature's buccal orifice. Every pore of its body urged icy aggression; if it were capable of anything resembling emotion, it would be sheer contempt. Not the faintest shred of human warmth could be detected in its words, gestures, or bearing.

Suddenly it hit me: These guys were pursuing inhuman policies...because they were inhuman! My wife was right! (Not, she reminded me, for the first time.)

Only inhuman death lizards would spread death and destruction across the planet the way these guys have. Only inhuman death lizards would systematically loot and pillage the meager resources of ordinary Americans for the benefit of the super-rich. Only inhuman death lizards would dare destroy the US Constitution from within. Only inhuman death lizards would slaughter almost 3,000 Americans in a fake terrorist attack designed to trigger religious hatred and mass murder.

After doing some quick research on the intergalactic internet, I discovered that the death lizards have a long and sorry history of wreaking havoc, both on their own planet and on those of other sentient life forms. They are cold, clever, aggressive, and exceedingly manipulative. Though unable to effectively communicate with warm, emotional, empathetic/intuitive mammalian creatures like ourselves, they have learned to manipulate us by mimicking our linguistic-emotional behavior. To this end they have entered into a symbiotic relationship with the venomous slime-toads of Wartron-B, who emit a viscous verbal miasma that paralyzes, hypnotizes, and finally devours the brains of its mammalian victims. (“Karl Rove” is in fact one of these venomous slime-toads.)

So that's what we're up against. It isn't a pretty picture. But the good news is that they can be beaten.

The most beautiful love-and-gnosis-driven planets of the Intergalactic Federation have all survived the onslaught of the death lizards and slime-toads. How? By uniting as one planet under the stewardship of the local sentient species. The arrival of the death-lizards and slime-toads, like the coming of the devilish-looking aliens in Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End , signals that a new era has dawned, and the planet's final exam is at hand. It is time for human beings to unite as one sentient species, the divinely-appointed stewards of planet Earth, and drive these scaly imposters out of the White House and back to the reptile-planet from whence they came.

"Awkward artificial mannerisms, peculiar manling of the english language". GASP! QUEBEC HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY SPACE LIZARDS!

Darth Executor

December 21st 2005, 08:07 PM

Darth Executor

December 21st 2005, 11:18 PM

Richbee:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67752&page=2

No "spite" intended.

Justin preached Wiccan dogma from the high places of Baal. (The Pimp and whore of Babylon.)

History, and now gone.

"Vanity, all is vanity......" - King Solomon.

:lolo:

{Tim}

December 22nd 2005, 02:25 AM

Darth Executor

December 22nd 2005, 01:35 PM

From Trout (not the Tweb one):
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=148151

Catholics in particular seem to be obsessed with the whole Mary/virgin (crazy) birth deal. Why is this one character so important to the whole mythology over others?

She didn't do much at all as far as I can tell yet you find pictures, etc all over mainly Italian/Portugese households, there are particular prayers to her, etc, right alongside Jesus and he's suposed to be the fleshy part of the big kahoona.

What gives?

Is this perhaps a root of the weirdly repressive Catholic take on sexuality as well?

I dunno about that. Certainly Christian sexuality is overall pretty damm repressive and boring in general - a la missionary position, but Catholics......

For example, I worked with some Catholic school boards in the past and man they are nuts. Providing a well designed new school or allowing for enjoyable athletic facilities took a huge backseat to making sure the HS students didn't have anywhere to sneak off for a snuggle in. It was openly discussed at a board meeting and made the guiding principle for their efforts with two new schools.

I think that is pretty odd, not to mention sexually obsessed.

And from the Crazy Paranoid Squadron:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=148151

We have a new receptionist and she went and brought christmas gifts for everyone. I happened to get an angel. I know she doesn't know that I am an atheist, but it still bothers me that she just assumed that I am a god fearing christian just like her. I know it must be a little confusing that I have a little lighted tree in my cubby, but unlike the rest of the office, my tree has no angel or star on it and is covered in oragami birds. Oh well, I'm sure she didn't mean to make me uncomfortable, she did buy candles for the Jewish woman in the office. Though I feel kind of bad because I didn't even thank her for the gift because I'm affraid that if I thank her she will continue to assume I am a christian.

Ooo, she bought me an angel, somebody call the military, Godzilla walks the earth. :lolo:

I look at angels as mythical creatures, along the lines of trolls and such.

I have one on the top of my solstice tree, because she's pretty.

Cynic Sage

December 22nd 2005, 03:10 PM

Er. This site is a spoof, right? :huh:

I hope so. I saw nothing on the site to indicate it was a fake.

Cynic Sage

December 22nd 2005, 04:07 PM

Sigh... Crusader does a poor job defending Christianity in the Judaism forum:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65630&page=2&pp=16

P.S.
I still have not received what I had asked for on this subject. I asked for specific quotes from teh GNT that reconcile the extant teachings of Paul and jesus and the book of Hebrews. By this I mean similar verses or verses that are the same that line up their teachings.

Eli, what do you mean by GNT. Do you mean the New Testament? If so, and you do not like calling it the New Testament, you can call it the Christian Scriptures. As far as I know, Christians have no GNT.

No Greek New Testament? Wasn't the GNT the first version of the NT we ever had?

A nomination for the hyperbolically impaired Eliyosef as well:

Baloney. The laws of Niddah are set out for women only. and jesus could not have done them becasue he was a male. You are going off on kosher foods anf other things without even addressing why jesus could not do a simple law as the laws of Niddah. Males cant do this one, jesus was a male, so jesus could not do this one. So by pauls logic jesus is burning in hel right now becasue he could not do that. Paul's biggest error in judgement was thinking that all laws applied to everyone. This law does not apply to me since I am a male.

And another for Cru:

Eli, Eli, Eli, please understand this: your Tanakh is not the Word of God as far as I'm concerned, as far as Christians are concerned, and therefore whatever extra-biblical traditions and "laws" there are in the Tanakh did not have to be fulfilled by the Lord. For instance, your handwashing illustration was a good example of a tradition in the Tanakh not found in the Torah. You make void the commandments of God, Eli, by your tradition. God, Himself, instructed the Jews not to go beyond what is written, but you have.

She doesn't realize that the "Tanakh" is what Jews call the OT. :hehe:

Darth Executor

December 23rd 2005, 10:31 AM

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?p=1313541

From Master Sheepdog's web site (HERE (http://www.john15.net/misc/sof.php)) "our [sic] Bible is a carbon copy of inerrant scripture, accurate and reliable in every important aspect."

Main Entry: in·er·rant
Pronunciation: -&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin inerrant-, inerrans, from in- + errant-, errans, present participle of errare to err
: free from error

Merriam-Webster

As Religious Tolerance.org says about Biblical inerrancy:

"Inerrancy refers to text that is considered accurate, truthful, totally free of error, and without mistake."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm

Anyone else agree with the odd notion that the Bible is inerrant?

For quoting Religious tolerance. Not to mention utter lack of reading comprehension. :tongue:

I've concluded that, if someone reads Genesis and Exodus and still considers the possibility that the various books of the Bible are inerrant, then that person has a definition of inerrancy that is distinctly different from mine. Any discussion of inerrancy with that person will be like two people talking in different languages.

Well, sometimes that can be fun ...

So if two books are not inerrant, then other books written by other authors hundreds of years later are automatically errant? :duh:

Minnesota blows a gasket:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67828

Ah, isn't disingenuousness close to being one of those sins you Christians are suppose to shun? Kind of like a low-fat lie?

Hey, I just revisited your homepage, and found none of my "stories" compares to some of the silliness at http://www.john15.net/, but that's a whole other story of just one more *long sigh* personal interpretation of the "Truth" run amok, isn't it! :lol:

Anyway, thanks for giving me a chance to rate your site again, and again, and again, and again . . . . . . Nice feature there Sheepy. :wink:

And honestly now, don't you think that describing Tekton Ministries as "Probably one of the most scholarly apologetics site on the web" is a dishonesty that invites a one way ticket to hell? (Helpful grammatical note for same page: "The Preterist List is ran by a friend of mine" should read ". . .is run by . . . ." (Probably should have someone else read your prose before you send it out.)

And I must remember that you believe the Bible "is a carbon copy of inerrant scripture, accurate and reliable in every important aspect." (Minnesota rubs his hands in gleeful anticipation of future discussions on this very odd belief.) By the way, does such a belief in any way go hand-in-hand with your bent toward hypocrisy? Remember that rather embarrassing incident of yours some time back? I do. It kind of gave new life to the term "hypocritical Christian" didn't it. :teeth: But hey, nobody's perfect, are you.

Cynic Sage

December 24th 2005, 06:36 PM

Duder showed me this:

http://www.biblebelievers.com/watkins_santa/santa.html

You ever noticed how easy it is to transform "Satan" from "Santa"? Just move the "n" to the end. And presto! "Satan" appears. . . . The rearranging of letters (called anagrams) to hide secret names or words has long been practiced in the occult.
...

Is "Claus" another anagram for "Lucas"?

It’s no secret "Lucas" and "Lucis" is a new-age "code word" for "Lucifer". The Alice Bailey founded new age, occult publishing company was originally named "Lucifer Publishing Company" but in 1924 the name was cleverly changed to "Lucis Trust". By the way, the Lucifer worshipping Lucis Trust is a major player in the works of the United Nations (formerly located in the United Nations building) but now located on "prime-time" 1200 Wall Street.

And parents, don't name your kid "Nick", or else he will automatically be affilliated with Satan.

While Santa and Claus may be disguising their real meaning – there’s no disguising "ol’ St. Nick". He’s a well-known character.

Old Nick: "A well-known British name of the Devil. It seems probable that this name is derived from the Dutch Nikken, the devil..."

(Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, p.650)

Nick, the devil.
(Walter W. Sleay, Concise Dictionary of English Etymology, p. 304)
"Devil: Besides the name Satan, he is also called Beelzebub, Lucifer . . . and in popular or rustic speech by many familiar terms as Old Nick . . ."
(Oxford English Dictionary Vol III D-E)

And if you think that's bad guess what he uses as a source...

Actor Adam Sandler and New Line Studios are well aware "Nick" is an alias for Satan. Their recent movie "Little Nicky" is about the "son of Satan", hence "Little Nicky". A teaser for the film says, "If your mother was an angel and your father was the devil you'd be messed up too."
In the popular Cloud Ten Pictures "Apocalypse" film series Revelation, Tribulation, & Judgment, the Antichrist just so happens to be played by none other than the actor "Nick" Mancuso. Hmmm… The Cloud Ten Pictures are based on Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkin’s popular Left Behind "Apocalypse" book series. Oh, the name of the Antichrist in the Left Behind series? Nicolae "Nick"Carpathia, of course. In fact, one of the books in titled, Nicolae, The Rise of the Antichrist.

Left Behind Books and Adam Sandler films as info sources? Does he try to improve his golf game by watching "Happy Gilmore" or get parenting tips from "Big Daddy"? :lolo:

As we mentioned earlier, "Santa Claus" is derived from the Dutch "Sinter Klaas," which also was a form of Saint Nicholas.

It is also interesting, the book American Slang defines the slang word nick: to rob or steal. (Robert L. Chapman, American Slang, p. 297)

Reminds me of what the Lord Jesus warned us in John 10:

1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way [say a chimney?], the same is a thief and a robber. . .
9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
John 10:1,9,10

I never knew that the ancient Dutch spoke American slang.

And can you picture John 10:10 describing Santa Clause?

[attachment]

Oh, you better watch out
You better go hide!
You better run like **** , I'm tellin' you why:
Santa Claus is gunning you down.

He knows when you are sleeping.
He knows when you're on the can.
He'll hunt you down and blast your *** from here to Pakistan.

Oh, you better not breathe, you better not move.
You're better off dead, I'm telling you dude.
Santa Claus is gunning you down.

Also check out is other nut:

http://www.satansrapture.com/santabegone.htm